Three-Tiered Models of Prevention: Teacher Efficacy and

Burnout
Wendy Peia Oakes, Kathleen Lynne Lane, Abbie Jenkins, Belle B. Booker

Education and Treatment of Children, Volume 36, Number 4, November

2013, pp. 95-126 (Article)

Published by West Virginia University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2013.0037

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/524144

Access provided by University of South Dakota (27 Aug 2018 20:18 GMT)
 EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 36, No. 4, 2013

Three-Tiered Models of Prevention:

Teacher Efficacy and Burnout
Wendy Peia Oakes
Arizona State University
Kathleen Lynne Lane
University of Kansas
Abbie Jenkins
Vanderbilt University
Belle B. Booker
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Abstract
Project Persevere examined teacher efficacy and burnout within Comprehen-
sive, Integrated, Three-tiered (CI3T) models of prevention, as implemented
in two middle schools in a southern state. Participating schools completed a
year-long training series to design their CI3T plans and were in their first year
of implementation as part of regular school practices. Participating teachers
completed the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale 24-item Long Form (TSES;
Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and the Maslach Burnout Inventory
(MBI; Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996) at the end of the school year. Teacher
self-ratings were examined to describe how teachers in schools with preven-
tion models were faring. Three sets of variables were examined: (a) teacher
efficacy and burnout, (b) treatment integrity and social validity ratings of the
CI3T model of prevention, and (c) student behavioral risk. Findings indicated
both schools implemented the CI3T model with high integrity and teachers
rated their plans with high social validity. Limitations and future directions
are provided.
Keywords: Teacher Burnout, Teacher Efficacy, Three-Tiered Models Of Pre-
vention, Three-Tiered Models Of Prevention: Teacher Efficacy And Burnout

S chool systems and educators are charged with creating positive,

safe, and orderly learning environments and offering instruc-
tional experiences to enable all students to meet rigorous educational

This research was supported by in part by Project Support and Include, a technical
assistance grant from the Tennessee Department of Education (#GR-10-27642-00).
For inquiries regarding this article, please contact Wendy Peia Oakes, Ph.D., Arizona
State University; Wendy.Oakes@asu.edu or Kathleen Lynne Lane, Ph.D., University of
Kansas; e-mail: Kathleen.Lane@ku.edu

Pages 95-126
96 OAKES et al.

standards, despite students coming to school with a range of learn-

ing and behavioral skill sets (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004).
Educators accept and meet this challenge for the majority of students
through general education programming; however, the instruction
and supports of the school’s primary program (for all students) do not
meet the learning and behavioral needs of some students. To address
the multiple needs of these learners, many school systems are adopt-
ing three-tiered models of prevention within the general education
structure. Models include primary (Tier 1, for all students), secondary
(Tier 2, for some students), and tertiary (Tier 3, for a few students)
supports and instruction. Specifically, prevention models such as
Response to Intervention (RTI; D. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006), Positive Be-
havior Interventions and Supports (PBIS; Sugai & Horner, 2002), and
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-tiered (CI3T; Lane, Oakes, & Men-
zies, 2010) offer schools a systems approach for preventing learning
and behavior problems from occurring (Tier 1) and responding more
effectively to support students with existing concerns (Tiers 2 and 3;
Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 2012). Tiered prevention models
have common characteristics: (1) evidence-based universal practices
and programs for all students; (2) universal screening procedures to
detect students who may need additional supports beyond the pri-
mary prevention program; (3) secondary and tertiary interventions
and supports with increasing intensity in terms of duration and fre-
quency, specialized instruction, and smaller teacher student ratios;
(4) methods for monitoring the progress of students toward expected
outcomes and benchmarks; and (5) procedures for assessing program
implementation.
Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-tiered Models of Prevention
Within CI3T models of prevention, academic, behavior, and so-
cial skills programming are addressed within one integrated frame-
work (Lane, Oakes, Menzies, & Harris, 2013). The CI3T model offers
detailed procedures for designing, implementing, and evaluating
schoolwide systems. School-site leadership teams identify common
approaches for teaching, reinforcing, and monitoring student out-
comes and program implementation (see Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies,
2009).
Primary prevention. Primary prevention provides instructional
programming to meet the Common Core State Standards (Council
of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO] and the National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices [NGA Center], 2011) or state/
district standards for student learning as the foundational academic
school program. Primary prevention for behavior includes creating
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT 97

positive, proactive school environments through the use of school-

wide behavioral programming where expectations are established,
taught, rehearsed, and reinforced through common practices among
all adults at the school site. Social skills are taught using explicit in-
struction and validated programs linked to school-specific needs such
as bullying prevention (e.g., Bully Prevention in Positive Behavior
Support; Ross, Horner, & Stiller, 2013). Schoolwide data are used to
determine students for whom the primary prevention is insufficient
and secondary or tertiary supports are required to meet their academ-
ic and/ or behavioral needs.
Secondary prevention. Secondary prevention supports are provid-
ed for students who demonstrate needs on universal academic and
behavioral screening measures. Secondary preventions are imple-
mented in addition to continued participation in primary prevention;
and often focus on specialized skill instruction and may be offered in
a small group format. To address behavioral skill sets, a secondary in-
tervention may also incorporate a self-monitoring checklist to help a
student stay on task and complete assignments. Secondary interven-
tions (such as self-monitoring) may be low-resource and time efficient
and used alone or in tandem with other supports (Stormont, Reinke,
Herman, & Lembke, 2012). Progress toward the goal is monitored to
ensure the appropriateness of the intervention. In our example, the
self-monitoring checklist serves as a monitoring tool to measure the
percentage of on-task behavior and completion of assigned tasks. In
addition to identifying students who need additional supports, uni-
versal screening data can be used to support teachers at the second-
ary level (Lane, Menzies, Bruhn, & Crnobori, 2011). For example, if
many students are not meeting the expected benchmark on a middle
school math screening assessment, a school instructional coach or ad-
ministrator can work with the teacher to identify the source of the
low student achievement. Using data this way may result in support-
ing teacher’s use of evidence-based teaching practices, curriculum
knowledge, or management practices, to address students’ needs.
Improving such teacher practices serves to strengthen instruction for
the whole class.
Tertiary prevention. Tertiary prevention for students is reserved
for those with the greatest academic and behavioral need. Tertiary
supports are more intensive and often more individualized, and may
include functional assessment-based interventions (Umbreit, Ferro,
Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007), cognitive behavior therapy (e.g., Shirk, Kap-
linski, & Gudmundsen, 2009), First Step to Success (Walker et al.,
1998), and one-on-one reading or math interventions (e.g., Torgesen
et al., 2001).
98 OAKES et al.

In some instances, tertiary efforts can also be focused on sup-

porting teacher behavior. For example, specialists may be enlisted to
support school staff in developing and monitoring tertiary interven-
tions. Specialists may also serve as instructional coaches using strat-
egies such as Bug-in-Ear (BIE) technology (Scheeler & Lee, 2002) to
build teachers’ capacity to provide these tertiary supports when need-
ed. BIE typically involves a portable transmitter used by a coach to
provide feedback to the teacher via a wireless receiver (the bug) worn
in the teacher’s ear. By offering immediate feedback from the coach
to the teacher, teachers are given in situ opportunities to practice and
master effective teaching skills and strategies (Scheeler, McKinnon, &
Stout, 2012).
Assessing Program Implementation
Three-tiered prevention models address student learning and
behavioral performance; therefore, much of the research has focused
on student outcomes within these multi-tiered prevention models
(see review Lane, Kalberg, & Edwards, 2008). However, the teach-
er’s role in the success of prevention models cannot be understated.
Essential to examining the effects for student learning is the evalu-
ation of the implementation of these practices, that is, the teacher’s
behavior. The measurement of treatment fidelity, the degree to which
interventions are implemented as designed (Gresham, Gansle, &
Noell, 1993), determines if student outcomes may be attributed to the
students’ participation in the intervention. Treatment fidelity is an im-
portant consideration at every level of prevention. For example, PBIS
implementation can be assessed at the school level using the School-
wide Evaluation Tool (SET; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, & Horner,
2001) and new measures are being developed to assess CI3T imple-
mentation at the teacher level (see Lane, Kalberg, Bruhn et al. 2009).
Assessing the social validity of an intervention through stake-
holders’ opinions may predict—prior to implementation—the expect-
ed level of fidelity allowing for additional professional development
needs to be addressed (Lane, Kalberg, Bruhn et al. 2009). Social va-
lidity is a measure of stakeholder perceptions of the social signifi-
cance of the goals, social acceptability of the procedures, and social
importance of the intended outcomes (Lane & Bebee-Frankenberger,
2003). Lane, Kalberg, Bruhn and colleagues (2009) conducted a study
examining the relation between social validity and treatment integ-
rity at the primary level. The sample included 617 teachers who com-
pleted a social validity measure (Primary Intervention Rating Scale;
Lane, Robertson, & Wehby, 2002) before implementing their first year
of the school-developed PBIS primary plan and a teacher self-report
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT 99

form for treatment integrity assessing implementation during the

first year. Results indicated teacher ratings of social validity predicted
implementation during the school’s first year of implementation. Sim-
ilarly, Wehby, Maggin, Johnson, and Symons (2010) found that teach-
ers’ opinions, in the form of preference, at the secondary prevention
level resulted in higher rates of sustained implementation compared
to assigned interventions. Additional information about how these
models influence teachers’ instructional decision making and class-
room management is warranted.
The Role of Teacher Efficacy and Burnout in Implementation
Self-efficacy is the belief that one has the capabilities to effect
change in his or her own environment (Bandura, 1993). Teacher effi-
cacy can be defined as teachers’ judgments of their capabilities to pro-
duce desired outcomes of student learning and engagement (Tschan-
nen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Teachers’ judgments about their
ability to plan and execute actions necessary to achieve a desired
outcome (i.e., teacher efficacy) influence their goals, effort, and per-
sistence with teaching tasks, which in turn influences their teaching
performance (i.e., instructional decision making and classroom man-
agement). Teachers with high self-efficacy set higher goals for them-
selves, persist in difficult situations (Bandura, 1993), deliver higher
rates of reinforcement, spend more class time on academic instruc-
tion, provide more support for students having difficulties (Gibson &
Dembo, 1984), and feel students can achieve despite student abilities
or home circumstances (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Teachers who con-
sider themselves to be less competent (i.e., have lower self-efficacy) in
classroom management practices also have higher levels of burnout
(Brouwers & Tomic, 2000).
A low sense of efficacy can contribute to burnout, which is char-
acterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced
personal accomplishment (Maslach et al., 1996; Maslach, Schaufeli,
& Leiter, 2001). Burnout occurs when teachers experience prolonged
feelings of ineffectiveness (e.g., emotional exhaustion) creating stress
(Brouwers & Tomic, 2000). For example, teachers with low efficacy who
have difficulty with classroom management may experience stress be-
cause they are continually faced with confirmation they do not have
the capability to improve the classroom environment (Chang, 2009).
A coping mechanism for emotional exhaustion is depersonalization
(Chang, 2009). For teachers, this may mean blaming students or fami-
lies for learning and behavioral difficulties (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990),
becoming negative or apathetic toward students and colleagues, and
giving up on maintaining order in the classroom (Brouwers & Tomic,
100 OAKES et al.

2000; Ross, Romer, & Horner, 2011). Consequently, teachers with low-
er self-efficacy may also have a reduced sense of personal accomplish-
ment. Feelings of personal accomplishment result from the conse-
quences of the teachers’ actions. For example teachers with high sense
of efficacy set high learning and behavioral expectations for students
and take actions to achieve these goals (Bandura, 1993). Teachers with
a high sense of self-efficacy believe student achievement and prosocial
student behaviors are due to the teacher’s actions resulting in feelings
of personal accomplishment. As the purposes of three-tiered models
of prevention include creating positive, proactive, safe, and orderly
school learning environments for students, an examination of teach-
ers’ sense of efficacy and indicators of professional burnout are an
important line of inquiry, and a logical next step in examining the
implications for these models.
Over the last few decades, educational researchers have made
substantial strides in exploring the complex and reciprocal relation
among teacher perceptions of self-efficacy and the influence these
perceptions have on teacher practice (e.g., Chang, 2009). However, to
date only two studies have examined these constructs within the con-
text of three-tiered models of prevention (Ross & Horner, 2007; Ross
et al., 2011). Ross and Horner (2007) conducted a pilot study with four
schools to investigate the relation among these constructs within the
context of PBIS. A significant relation was found between the level of
fidelity of PBIS implementation and level of teacher efficacy, but no
significant relation was detected between level of implementation and
teacher burnout. When Ross and colleagues (2011) expanded their
sample size to 40 elementary schools, they found a significant rela-
tion between the school’s PBIS implementation and teacher efficacy
and burnout. Teachers at PBIS schools implementing with high fidel-
ity had significantly higher levels of efficacy and significantly lower
levels of burnout compared to teachers at schools with low fidelity
of PBIS implementation. Project Persevere was designed to examine
teacher efficacy and burnout within CI3T models of prevention imple-
mented in two middle schools in a southern state.
Purpose
This study extends the work of Ross and colleagues (2011)
on teacher well-being and the benefits for teachers associated with
implementing systems of positive and proactive supports such as
those in CI3T models of prevention. The purpose of this study was
to examine levels of teachers’ sense of efficacy and burnout within
schools implementing CI3T models of prevention. Individual and
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT 101

organizational factors may contribute to self-efficacy and burnout

(Chang, 2009); therefore, our research objectives addressed salient in-
dicators of each.
The research questions addressed in this investigation were: (a)
To what extent were the CI3T models implemented with fidelity in
participating schools? Were there differences in the level of fidelity
between schools? (b) To what extent did teachers view the CI3T plans
as socially valid before implementing the plans? Were there differ-
ences in their views following one year of implementation? (c) To
what extent did teachers in schools implementing CI3T models re-
port feelings of burnout and efficacy? Were there differences in the
reported levels of burnout and efficacy in the two schools? What was
the relation between teachers’ reported levels of burnout, efficacy, so-
cial validity (pre and post), treatment integrity of their school’s CI3T
plans, and the level of student risk in their classroom as measured
by a universal behavior screening tool, Student Risk Screening Scale
(SRSS; Drummond, 1994)?
Method
Setting and Participants
Participants were 86 middle school teachers (67 [79.76%] fe-
males) teaching in one of two middle schools (see Table 1). The mid-
dle schools served 2,136 students in grades six through eight. Par-
ticipating teachers included 73 (84.88%) general educators, with nine
(10.47%) special educators. It was possible for teachers to report all
of the grades they taught; thus, the total number of teachers in this
category exceeded 86. On average, teachers had 10 years (SD = 7.46;
range: 1-34) of teaching experience, with 59 (68.60%) having earned a
master’s degrees.
Schools were located within the same school district in a south-
ern state. School A was a Title 1 school located in a mid-sized city, that
is, an urbanized area with a population between 100,000 and 250,000.
School B was located in rural fringe, an area located five or fewer miles
from an urbanized area (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Neither
of the schools met NCLB requirements the prior school year and con-
sequently were in Target status, meaning they were in their first year
of not meeting requirements for Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). At-
tendance and promotion rates were above state averages of 95.2% and
98.6%, respectively. The majority (59.3%) of School A’s student popu-
lation were economically disadvantaged, 35.9% of students in School
B met this criteria (State Department of Education, 2011).
102 OAKES et al.

Table 1
Participant Characteristics
School A School B Total
Variable and Level (n = 26) (n = 60) (N = 86)

Teacher Gender

Male 4 (16.67) 13 (21.67) 17 (20.24)

Female 20 (83.33) 47 (78.33) 67 (79.76)

Grade Level Taught

Sixth 15 (57.69) 35 (59.32) 50 (58.82)

Seventh 17 (65.38) 31 (52.54) 48 (56.47)

Eight 11 (42.31) 28 (47.46) 39 (45.88)

Assignments

General Education Teacher 23 (84.46) 50 (83.33) 73 (84.88)

Special Education Teacher 2 (7.69) 7 (11.67) 9 (10.47)

Staff 1 (3.85) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.16)

Other 0 (0.00) 3 (5.00) 3 (3.49)

Years of Teaching Experience
8.78 (6.95) 10.57 (7.69) 10.00 (7.46)
M (SD)
Highest Degree Obtained

Bachelor’s Degree 6 (23.08) 12 (20.00) 18 (20.93)

Master’s Degree 19 (73.08) 40 (66.67) 59 (68.60)

Master’s Degree + 30 credits 1 (3.85) 5 (8.33) 6 (6.98)

Educational Specialist 0 (0.00) 3 (5.00) 3 (3.49)

Note. Percentages based on the number of participants who provided data.

Procedures
Prior to beginning this study, approvals were secured from the
university institutional review board and school district office. An
email invitation to participate in this study was sent to administra-
tors at three schools implementing CI3T models of prevention. Two
schools responded with interest. Once administrator approval was
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT 103

secured, an onsite meeting was scheduled. Teachers received an email

from their school-site CI3T leadership teams and a hard-copy invita-
tion to attend the onsite informational meeting.
The project director, project coordinator, and one research assis-
tant (RA) attended the onsite meetings. Teachers were given two cop-
ies of the consent form, a demographic information sheet, the Maslach
Burnout Inventory Survey (MBI; Maslach et al., 1996), and the Teach-
ers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2001). At School A, 26 of the 27 teachers attending the information
meeting elected to participate, completing both measures; as did 60 of
the 63 teachers at School B. Thus, a total of 86 teachers participated.
Teachers who completed all materials were entered into a drawing for
a $100 Visa gift card. Project staff notified and presented the gift card
to the randomly selected winner before leaving the school campus.
Once all data were collected, each participant was assigned a
unique identification number. Unique identification numbers allowed
project staff to connect the data collected to treatment integrity and
social validity data (described below) collected as part of a CI3T im-
plementation study conducted in the same school year. All data were
entered into Excel and 30% were checked by a second RA. Entry er-
rors, < 2%, were corrected prior to analysis.
Treatment integrity data were available for all participants in
the current study. Social validity data were available for 66 teach-
ers (76.74% of teacher participants; 25 [96.15%] at School A and 41
[68.33%] at School B). Eleven fewer teachers at School B completed
the social validity form in the spring, reducing the spring data avail-
able to 55 teachers. In addition, 64 teachers (74.41% of participants;
20 at School A [76.92%] and 44 [73.33%] at School B) were involved in
evaluating students’ behavioral performance by completing the SRSS
as part of regular school practices. Rather than imputing missing data
for treatment integrity and social validity measures, we analyzed each
research question using the available information.
Measures
Measures included surveys of teacher burnout and efficacy, as
well as CI3T measures (SET scores reporting implementation of the
PBIS component, teacher self-report of integrity, teacher rating of so-
cial validity) and behavioral screening data according to the SRSS.
Maslach Burnout Inventory – Educators Survey. The Maslach Burn-
out Inventory (MBI) is a teacher-completed measure of teacher burn-
out. The 22-item instrument consists of three subscales: Emotional
Exhaustion (9 items), Depersonalization (5 items), and Personal Ac-
complishment (8 items). The Emotional Exhaustion subscale describes
104 OAKES et al.

feelings of being emotionally overwhelmed or exhausted by work

(e.g., I feel emotionally drained from my work). The Depersonalization
subscale describes the lack of feelings and impersonal responses to-
ward others (e.g., I feel students blame me for some of their problems). The
Personal Accomplishment subscale describes feelings of competence
and success in the workplace (e.g., I feel very energetic). Participating
teachers rated the frequency of their feelings using a 7-point Likert-
type scale with answer choices ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (every day).
Scales are reported separately, as the relation between constructs has
not been sufficiently examined. Mean scores and categorical scores are
available in the MBI technical manual. In brief, categorical scores for
each variable are low, moderate, and high. For Emotional Exhaustion
and Depersonalization subscales, low scores are desirable (indicating
low levels of these feelings) and for Personal Accomplishment higher
scores are desirable (indicating a high level of Personal Accomplish-
ment). Iwanicki and Schwab (1981) found reliability was demonstrat-
ed with a sample of in-service teachers, producing subscale alphas of
.90 (Emotional Exhaustion), .76 (Depersonalization), and .76 (Personal
Accomplishment).
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale. The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy
Scale (Long Form, TSES) is a 24-item instrument consisting of three
moderately correlated subscales, each with eight items: Efficacy in
Student Engagement (e.g., How much can you do to foster student cre-
ativity?), Efficacy in Instructional Strategies (e.g., How much can you use
a variety of assessment strategies?), and Efficacy in Classroom Manage-
ment (e.g., How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the class-
room?). Scores range from 8 to 72, with higher scores indicating higher
levels of efficacy. Participating teachers answered questions using a
9-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (nothing) to 5 (some influence),
to 7 (quite a bit), to 9 (a great deal) with higher scores indicating higher
levels of efficacy. Fives and Buehl (2010) conducted a validation study
yielding a three-factor solution accounting for 57.09% of the vari-
ance. Reliability was demonstrated with a sample of in-service teach-
ers producing an overall coefficient alpha of .94 with subscale alphas
of .87 (Student Engagement), .91 (Instructional Strategies), and .90
(Classroom Management; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
Developers also reported mean scores for each subscale for compari-
son (Student Engagement M = 7.3, SD = 1.1; Instructional Strategies M
= 7.3, SD = 1.1; Classroom Management M = 6.7, SD = 1.1).
Schoolwide Evaluation Tool. The SET measures treatment fidelity
of the Schoolwide PBIS plan during development, implementation,
and evaluation. The SET uses interviews; a review of school documen-
tation; and a tour of the building, taking about two hours to complete
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT 105

(Todd et al., 2012). The seven features assessed are (a) expectations
defined, (b) behavioral expectations taught, (c) ongoing system for re-
warding behavioral expectations, (d) system for responding to behav-
ioral violations, (e) monitoring and decision-making, (f) management,
and (g) district level support. Adequate implementation is determined
by the overall mean score and behavioral expectations taught score,
with a criterion of ≥ 80% (Horner et al., 2004). Horner et al. (2004) re-
ported initial estimates (α = .96) with a sample of 45 schools. Further
examination revealed total scale reliability coefficients (r = .854) for
264 middle schools (Vincent, Spaulding, & Tobin, 2010).
Teacher Self-Report of Integrity. The Teacher Self-report (TSR;
Lane, 2009) is a 38-item checklist used to assess teachers’ use of foun-
dational practices of the CI3T prevention model. Three subscales as-
sess the integrity of Procedures for Teaching (16 items; e.g., Did I use
clear routines for classroom procedures?), Reinforcing (10 items; e.g., Did I
use behavior-specific praise when giving tickets to students?), and Monitor-
ing (12 items; e.g., Did I use behavior data to inform my instruction for at
risk students?) the CI3T plan. Teachers rated their own usage of each
procedure using a 4-point Likert-type scale (About how often did you
participate?; not at all = 0, some of the time = 1, part of the time = 2; all of
the time = 3). Percentages of integrity were computed by dividing the
total score by the total possible and multiplying by 100. School per-
centages were computed by calculating the grand mean score for all
completing the form. An initial evaluation of the TSR examined scores
of teachers (N = 183) in eight rural (including Town Distant Status, n
= 5) and urban (n = 3) elementary schools in a southern state (Bruhn,
2011). Cronbach’s alphas for subscales indicated adequate to desir-
able reliability (.70 and .80, respectively; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Subscale reliability estimates were: Teaching (α = .83), Reinforcing
(α = .76), and Monitoring (α = .85; Bruhn, 2011).
Primary Intervention Rating Scale. The PIRS is a 17-item scale
adapted from the Intervention Rating Profile-15 (IRP-15, Witt & El-
liott, 1985) assessing social validity of the primary prevention plan
(e.g., PBIS). This one-construct scale measures the extent to which the
stakeholder views the plan to employ socially acceptable procedures,
address socially significant goals, and will result in socially important
outcomes. Teachers rated their opinions on each item using a 6-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree),
with total scores ranging from 17 to 102 and higher scores indicating
greater acceptability. Lane, Kalberg, Bruhn et al. (2009) examined the
psychometrics of the PIRS, reporting a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
of .98 with the middle school sample of teachers (n = 86). PIRS scores
predicted treatment integrity of the schools PBIS primary plan, with
106 OAKES et al.

higher scores on the PIRS predicted higher implementation scores

(r =.71, p = .005).
Student Risk Screening Scale. The SRSS is a free-access, 7-item
universal behavior screener originally developed to detect antisocial
behavior. Teachers take about 10-15 min rating all students in their
class on each item using a 4-point Likert-type scale (never = 0, occa-
sionally = 1, sometimes = 2, frequently = 3). Items represent established
indicators of antisocial behavior: (1) steal; (2) lie, cheat, sneak; (3) behav-
ior problem; (4) peer rejection; (5) low academic achievement; (6) negative
attitude; and (7) aggressive behavior. A total score for each student is
computed by summing the seven scores. Total scores are then used to
determine a student’s level of risk: low (0-3), moderate (4-8), or high
(9-21) as established by the developer. Over the past decade, studies
have established the reliability and validity of this tool at the elemen-
tary (e.g., Ennis, Lane, & Oakes, 2012), middle (e.g., Lane, Bruhn, Eis-
ner, & Kalberg, 2010; Lane, Parks, Kalberg, & Carter, 2007), and high
(e.g., Lane, Oakes et al., 2011) school levels.
Study Design and Data Analytic Plan
This is a descriptive study. Most analyses involved mean scores
comparisons, t-tests comparing continuous variables, chi-square tests
comparing categorical variables, Pearson correlation coefficients ex-
amining relations between variables of interest, and effect-size calcu-
lations examining the magnitude of differences between mean scores
being compared. Effect sizes were computed using Hedges’ g which
uses the pooled standard deviation in the denominator accounting
for the number of participants in groups being compared. Accord-
ing to Cohen’s (1988) recommendations for interpreting effect sizes,
small, medium, and large effect sizes are 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively.
Stepwise regression procedures were employed examining the rela-
tive contribution of predictor variables’ scores in predicting burnout
and efficacy. The stepwise regression procedure involves establish-
ing regression models in which the choice of predictor variables (in
this case teacher- and student-level variables) is executed using an
automatic rather than theoretical procedure using a combination of
forward entry and backwards elimination techniques. Details of data
analytic plans for each research question are presented in the follow-
ing sections.
Results
Treatment Integrity
Analysis. To answer questions pertaining to treatment integrity,
we examined data from the SET and the TSR forms (Table 2). For the
 Table 2
Treatment Integrity

Measure Level School Total Significance Testing

A B
Schoolwide Evaluation
93.75 95.89
Tool (SET, % points earned)
Expectations Defined 100.00 100.00
Behavioral Expectations Taught 100.00 90.00
On-going System for Rewarding
100.00 100.00
Behavioral Violations
System for Responding to Behavioral
75.00 100.00
Violations
Monitoring and Decision Making 100.00 87.50
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT

Management 81.25 93.75

District Level Support 100.00 100.00

Teacher Self Report (TSR) 82.88 (8.65) 78.88 (14.82) 80.13 (18.07) t(41.39) = 2.10 p = 0.0418
TI X School,
At or above 80% 19 (73.08) 18 (30.00) 37 (43.02) χ2 (1, N = 86) = 13.73,
p = 0.0002
Below 80% 7 (26.92) 42 (70.00) 49 (56.98)

Note. At School A 26 teachers completed the Teacher Self-Report (TSR). At School B 60 teachers completed the TSR (Total N = 86).
107
108 OAKES et al.

SET, we reported the percentage for the seven subscales as well as

the overall measure. For the TSR data, we computed means and stan-
dard deviations for the overall sample and each school, conducting
an independent t-test to compare mean scores between schools to de-
termine if differences existed in the overall level of implementation
between Schools A and B. Next, we dichotomized treatment integrity
scores into two levels: (a) at or above 80% and (b) below 80%. We con-
ducted a chi-square analysis contrasting level of Treatment Integrity
X School.
Findings. Results of SET scores indicated Schools A and B im-
plemented the PBIS components with 93.75% and 95.89% integrity,
respectively. All components exceeded the 80% criterion, with the
exception of the Systems for Responding to Behavioral Violations at
School A, which was 75%.
Results of the TSR, which reports implementation of the full
CI3T model suggested School A implemented the model with an aver-
age score of 82.88% (SD = 8.65) integrity and School B at a slightly low-
er level of integrity (M = 78.88, SD = 14.82). However, the differences
in average levels of implementation for teachers was not statistically
significant (t [41.39] = 2.10, p = .0418). Chi square analyses contrasting
level of treatment integrity (at or above 80% vs. below 80%) by school
were significant (p = .0002), with more teachers at School B below the
80% criterion relative to teachers at School A.
Social Validity
Analysis. To answer questions regarding social validity, we ex-
amined mean scores from the PIRS, comparing fall and spring scores
for Schools A and B (Table 3). We computed independent t-tests to
determine if significant differences existed between groups at fall
and spring time points. Effect sizes were computed comparing the
magnitude of the changes at each school between fall and spring
assessments.
Findings. During fall, PIRS mean scores exceeded 80% at Schools
A and B, with respective mean scores of 85.29 (SD = 9.39) and 83.84
(SD = 13.50). Results of an independent t-test suggested no statisti-
cally significant differences in social validity scores between schools.
At the end of the first year of implementation, social validity scores
remained stable, again with no statistically significant differences in
spring PIRS mean scores between Schools A and B. Effect sizes com-
paring fall and spring PIRS mean scores indicated low-magnitude de-
creases in mean scores for School A and low-magnitude increases for
School B. However, it should be noted 11 teachers at School B did not
complete spring scores, a 27% attrition rate.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT 109

Table 3
Social Validity

School A School B Total

Significance
Testing
Variable and Level M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) t-test

Social Validity

85.29 (9.39) 83.84 (13.50) 84.39 (12.05) t(64) = 0.47

Fall
(n = 25) (n = 41) (n = 66) p = 0.6370

84.27 (11.69) 86.24 (15.49) 85.35 (13.81) t(53) = 0.52

Spring
(n = 25) (n = 30) (n = 55) p = 0.6035

Hedges’ g
-0.095 0.165 0.074
Post-Pre Effect Sizes

Teacher Burnout and Efficacy

Analysis. We examined mean scores for Emotional Exhaustion,
Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment to examine the ex-
tent to which teachers in schools implementing CI3T models reported
feelings of burnout. We computed an independent t-test to determine
if there were statistically significant differences in reported burnout
between (a) Schools A and B and (b) teachers implementing the CI3T
model at or above the 80% criterion according to the TSR compared
to those implementing below 80%. Using cut scores provided in the
technical manual to place teachers in categories low, moderate, and
high, we conducted a chi square analysis contrasting categorical vari-
ables for Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Ac-
complishment by school to determine if differences existed between
schools. To replicate the work of Ross et al. (2011), we compared mean
scores from the current sample with national norms provided by the
Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (Maslach & Jackson, 1986) to
determine how the teachers at these two CI3T schools compared to
teachers in the United States sample (Table 4). We also examined cor-
relation coefficients between continuous variables of each subscale
and TSR, social validity (fall and spring) scores, and SRSS (fall, winter,
and spring scores) for the overall sample (Table 5). Correlation coef-
ficients were used to determine if a relation existed between subscales
and (a) the extent to which teachers were implementing the CI3T
110 OAKES et al.

plan with integrity, (b) teachers’ perceptions of the CI3T plan’s social
validity, and (c) the overall level of students’ behavioral risk experi-
enced in their classroom over the course of the school year as mea-
sured by the SRSS. Finally, we computed three stepwise regressions
to identify the extent to which teacher-and student-level factors pre-
dicted teachers’ (a) Emotional Exhaustion, (b) Depersonalization, and
(c) Personal Accomplishment scores. The following variables were
entered into each model: (a) spring social validity scores (percentage,
0-100%), (b) TSR treatment integrity scores (percentage, 0-100%), (c)
class average SRSS spring scores for teachers’ class (mean scores, pos-
sible range of 0-21), (d) teachers’ gender (male = 0, or female = 1), and
(e) teachers’ highest degree obtained (ordinal variable, with higher
scores indicated greater level of education). We employed a jackknife
procedure to detect outliers (Kleinbaum, Kupper, Muller, & Nizam,
1998). To determine the most parsimonious predictors to retain in
each model, we examined the following indices: residual sums of
squares, the multiple correlation coefficient, and Cp criterion values
(Borthwick-Duffy, Lane, & Widaman, 1997). In addition, we examined
the validity of each model by inspecting studentized residuals, lever-
age, and Cook’s D values (Kleinbaum et al., 1998). Results indicated
extreme values were not present, supporting the accuracy of the re-
gression results.
We conducted these same analyses (with the exception of the chi
square analyses and national norm comparisons) to examine teachers’
reported efficacy with Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies,
and Classroom Management. Categorical analyses were not conduct-
ed because classification scores are not a feature of this measure, nor
were national norms provided.
Findings: Burnout. Inspection of mean and frequency scores indi-
cated moderate-to-high levels of Emotional Exhaustion, with slightly
more than one-third of teachers having moderate (36.05%) and high
scores (38.37%). Far fewer teachers reported moderate (19.77%) or
high (9.30%) levels of Depersonalization. Despite feeling emotionally
exhausted, the majority of teachers indicated a high (66.28%) level of
Personal Accomplishment and more than 25 percent (27.91%) report-
ed moderate levels of Personal Accomplishment.
Results also suggested teachers in the current sample had a
slightly higher Emotional Exhaustion mean score of 22.99 (SD = 10.51)
compared to the national norms for the overall and teaching sub-
groups with respective mean scores of 20.99 (SD = 10.75) and 21.25
(SD = 11.01). However, they had a lower Depersonalization mean
score of 6.99 (SD = 5.17) and higher Personal Accomplishment mean
score of 38.16 (SD = 4.83), relative to national norms (see Table 4).
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT 111

Table 4
Burnout and Efficacy Variables
Variable and Level School A School B Total
(National Norms) (n= 26) (n= 60) (N= 86)

Emotional Exhaustion M (SD) 21.54 (10.14) 23.62 (10.69) 22.99 (10.51)

(National Norms)

Overall Sample 20.99 (10.75)

Teaching Subgroup 21.25 (11.01)

Low n (%) 6 (23.08) 16 (26.27) 22 (25.58)

Moderate n (%) 13 (50.00) 18 (30.00) 31 (36.05)

High n (%) 7 (26.92) 26 (43.33) 33 (38.37)

Depersonalization M (SD) 6.04 (4.56) 7.40 (5.40) 6.99 (5.17)

(National Norms)

Overall Sample 8.73 (5.89)

Teaching Subgroup 11.00 (6.19)

Low n (%) 20 (76.92) 41 (68.33) 61 (70.93)

Moderate n (%) 4 (15.38) 13 (21.67) 17 (19.77)

High n (%) 2 (7.69) 6 (10.00) 8 (9.30)

Personal Accomplishment M (SD) 37.96 (4.87) 38.25 (4.85) 38.16 (4.83)

(National Norms)

Overall Sample 34.58 (7.11)

Teaching Subgroup 33.54 (6.89)

Low n (%) 2 (7.69) 3 (5.00) 5 (5.81)

Moderate n (%) 9 (34.62) 15 (25.00) 24 (27.91)

High n (%) 15 (57.69) 42 (70.00) 57 (66.28)

Efficacy M (SD)
Student Engagement n (%) 6.24 (1.15) 6.51 (1.12) 6.43 (1.13)

Instructional Strategies n (%) 7.10 (1.35) 7.44 (1.00) 7.34 (1.12)

Classroom Management n (%) 7.10 (1.22) 7.60 (0.97) 7.45 (1.07)

Note. Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment are

subscales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory – Educators’ Survey (Maslach, Jackson,
& Schwab, 1996). National norms sample size: overall study (n = 11,067), teaching sub-
group (n = 4,163). Efficacy was measured with the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale
(TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 1998). Efficacy Scales range from 1 – 9, with
higher scores indicating higher levels of efficacy.
112 OAKES et al.

A series of independent t-tests comparing mean scores between

schools suggested no statistically significant differences in Emotional
Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment be-
tween schools. In comparing teachers implementing with ≥80% integ-
rity, according to the TSR, compared to teachers implementing <80%
integrity, there were no statistically significant differences among sub-
scales. Furthermore, correlation coefficients indicated there was not a
statistically significant relation between these subscales and teachers’
social validity ratings (fall and spring), treatment integrity scores, or
student risk scores.
In terms of regression outcomes, when predicting factors asso-
ciated with the extent to which teachers felt emotionally exhausted,
only one variable entered the model (see Table 6). Teachers’ highest
degree obtained accounted for 9.88% of the variance in scores. There
was a positive relation between teachers’ Emotional Exhaustion scores
and their level of education (r = .20). Specifically, the teachers with
higher levels of education were more exhausted than teachers with
lower levels of education.
When predicting teachers’ sense of depersonalization, two vari-
ables entered the model (see Table 6). TSR treatment integrity scores
accounted for 15.59% of the variance followed by highest degree ob-
tained (8.65%). There was a negative relation between Depersonaliza-
tion scores and treatment integrity scores (r = -.12) suggesting teachers
implementing the CI3T model as planned had a lower level of deper-
sonalization. Also, there was a positive relation between Deperson-
alization scores and teachers’ level of education (r = .14), indicating
teachers with more education had higher levels of Depersonalization
scores.
When predicting factors associated with the extent to which
teachers felt a sense of personal accomplishment, only gender en-
tered the model, accounting for 14.27% of the variance in scores (see
Table 6). There was a negative relation between gender and Personal
Accomplishment. Specifically, female teachers were likely to report
lower levels of personal accomplishment than male teachers (r = -.16).
Findings: Efficacy. Inspection of mean efficacy scores indicated
teachers reported slightly higher levels of efficacy with Instructional
Strategies (M = 7.34, SD = 1.12) and Classroom Management (M = 7.45,
SD = 1.07) relative to efficacy of Student Engagement (M = 6.43, SD =
1.13).
A series of independent t-tests comparing mean scores between
schools suggested no statistically significant differences in mean ef-
ficacy scores for Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, or
Classroom Management between schools. In comparing teachers
 Table 5
Intercorrelations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Emotional Exhaustion 1.00

2. Depersonalization .62 d 1.00

3. Personal Accomplishment -.21a -.29 b 1.00

4. Student Engagement -.34 b -.54 d .27a 1.00

5. Instructional Strategies -.22 a -.40 c .19 .75 d 1.00

6. Classroom Management -.32 b -.48 d .21 .67 d .74 d 1.00

7. Treatment Integrity .06 -.12 .07 .06 .15 .07 1.00

8. PIRS Fall -.06 -.11 .16 .03 .06 -.02 .00 1.00
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT

9. PIRS Spring -.14 -.19 .19 .02 .11 .18 -.06 .18 1.00

10. SRSS Fall -.08 -.02 .14 .19 .18 .17 -.12 -.13 .08 1.00

11. SRSS Winter .01 -.01 .09 .15 .25a .17 -.09 -.08 .21 .76 d 1.00

12. SRSS Spring .04 .10 -.02 .06 .16 .10 -.25 -.14 .13 .71 d .80 d 1.00

13. Gender .23a -.06 -.16 .00 .07 .04 -.05 -.07 -.19 .05 -.01 .04 1.00

14. Highest Degree .20 .14 .02 -.12 .02 -.05 -.12 -.09 .03 -.20 -.17 -.08 .13 1.00

Note. a refers to <.05 significance level, b refers to <.01 significance level. c refers to <.001 significance levels, and d refers to <.0001.
113
114 OAKES et al.

implementing with ≥80% integrity, according to the TSR, compared

to teachers implementing <80% integrity, there were no statistically
significant differences on the subscales either. Also, correlation coeffi-
cients indicated there was not a statistically significant relation between
these subscales and teachers’ social validity ratings (fall and spring),
treatment integrity scores, or student risk scores, with the exception of
a statistically significant positive relation between winter SRSS scores
and Instructional Strategy ratings (r = .25). Teachers, whose classes had
higher behavioral risk scores, as measured by the SRSS, rated them-
selves as having higher efficacy in their instructional strategies relative
to teachers whose students had lower behavioral risk.
None of the variables entered into the Student Engagement, In-
structional Strategies, or Classroom Management models (i.e., social
validity, TSR treatment integrity, class average SRSS scores, gender,
or highest degree obtained) were significant predictors of teacher self-
efficacy (see Table 6).
Discussion
While three-tiered models of prevention are designed to sup-
port the diverse learning and behavioral needs of students, it is im-
portant to examine the effect of this school framework on teachers’
sense of efficacy and burnout. Specifically, these models may provide
teachers with the ability to support students whom they observe to be
struggling academically, socially, and behaviorally. Teachers’ sense
of efficacy is related to student behavior (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000;
Newmann, Rutter, & Smith, 1989) and student achievement (Hoy &
Woolfolk, 1993); thus, prevention models – which provide a frame-
work for responding to student needs – may also improve the effi-
cacy of teachers. Teachers who are more efficacious are more likely
to implement these new practices with higher fidelity (Guskey, 1988)
and persist in supporting students with learning and behavioral dif-
ficulties (Bandura, 1993).
To extend the current knowledge base, we examined two middle
schools in their first year of implementation in this descriptive study.
Specifically, we examined school- and teacher-level implementation
of the CI3T prevention plan (i.e., treatment integrity), teachers’ social
validity of the plan initially and toward the end of the first year of
implementation, end-of-year reported sense of efficacy and burnout,
and mean scores by teacher of student behavioral risk.
Primary Plan Evaluation
Overall, Schools A and B were implementing their respective
CI3T plans with comparable and adequate levels of integrity. TSR
 Table 6
Variables Predicting Teacher Burnout and Self-Efficacy

Parameter Partial Model

Outcome Variable Step Predictor variable estimate R2 R2 C(p) F value p value
Emotional Exhaustion 1 Highest degree obtained 2.45 0.0988 0.0988 4.08 4.39 .0426

1 TSR treatment integrity -0.16 0.1559 0.1559 13.08 7.39 .0097

Depersonalization
2 Highest degree obtained 0.97 0.0865 0.2424 9.84 4.45 .0413

Personal Accomplishment 1 Teacher Gender -6.01 0.1427 0.1427 -0.60 6.66 .0136
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT

Student Engagement 0 - - - - - - -

Instructional Strategies 0 - - - - - - -

Classroom Management 0 - - - - - - -
115
116 OAKES et al.

scores measuring the level of fidelity of the CI3T plan at the indi-
vidual teacher level and SET scores measuring PBIS at the school
level were also comparable at both schools. TSR scores indicated that
average levels of integrity for individual teachers were not signifi-
cantly different from their school averages, exceeding or nearing the
80% criteria; although the number of teachers in the high (≥80%) and
low (<80%) categories was significantly lower at School B than School
A. SET scores indicated high levels of implementation of the PBIS
practices in their plan with scores above the 80% criteria at 93.75%
and 95.89%, respectively. Similarly, teacher-level data on treatment
integrity also suggested relatively high levels of implementation.
This level of treatment integrity was expected as these schools were
receiving support from a local university funded by a state techni-
cal assistance project – Project Support and Include. Schools had ele-
ments in place as recommended by Horner, Sugai, Todd, and Lew-
is-Palmer (2005) for high-fidelity implementation: (a) a team-based
approach to implementation; (b) active participation and public
support of an administrator; (c) commitment to improving learning
outcomes for all students and school climate; (d) adequate personnel
and time to plan for, support implementation of, and evaluate out-
comes including regular team meeting times; (e) budgeted support
for training and implementation; and (f) systems for monitoring data
for decision making purposes. Schools formed teams and attended a
year-long training series to design their CI3T plans. There were mul-
tiple opportunities for faculty and staff to shape the development of
the plan during that year. Administrators were active participants in
the design and plans for implementation including allocating fund-
ing for substitute teachers for attending team members, establish-
ing regular meeting times and allotting time at faculty meetings for
feedback. Both schools had designated specific funding to support
their implementation activities and each school used data systems
for monitoring behavioral (e.g., Schoolwide Informational System
[SWIS], May et al., 2010; automated SRSS system) and academic (e.g.,
course grades, formative assessments) performance. It should, how-
ever, be noted that School B’s teacher-level implementation data fell
slightly short of the 80% goal, with a greater percentage of teachers
at School B implementing below the 80% mark relative to teachers at
School A. It would have been helpful to conduct focus groups with
teachers at School B who were and were not implementing with high
fidelity to examine barriers impeding implementation as well as the
components facilitating implementation. Focus groups were not an
approved research activity for the present study, but could be very
useful in subsequent inquiry.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT 117

Social validity at each school was high at the onset of the school
year and remained high as the first year of implementation of the
CI3T plan ended; there were low-magnitude decreases in teachers’
opinions at the end of the school year for School A. School B had a
low-magnitude increase; however, this may have been influenced by
a 27% attrition rate (n = 11) of school staff members reporting in the
spring. It may be that teachers who completed the social validity sur-
vey at the end of the year had more positive opinions about the plan
after implementation than those that did not complete the spring PIRS
survey. Again, this would be an important avenue to explore in subse-
quent inquiry, particularly given the relation between social validity
and treatment integrity. Specifically, initial evidence suggested social
validity serves as a marker for predicting treatment integrity (Lane,
Kalberg, Bruhn et al., 2009), although this relation was not established
in this study.
How Are Teachers Faring?
About three-quarters of the teachers in these high-implementing
middle schools were experiencing moderate or high levels of Emo-
tional Exhaustion at the end of the year. In contrast, less than one-third
of teachers were experiencing Depersonalization and even fewer (less
than 10%) were experiencing low Personal Accomplishment. So, while
teachers were reporting emotional exhaustion they were also report-
ing high levels of personal accomplishment. These findings are not
surprising given that teachers were in the first year of implementing
the CI3T model which included multiple new practices (e.g., shared
schoolwide expectations and reinforcement systems, new screening
practices, new procedures for determining secondary and tertiary in-
terventions and supports). These findings are also consistent with the
findings of Evers, Brouwers, and Tomic’s (2002) inquiry which found
negative teacher attitudes toward a new practice increased the rates
of Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and decreased Personal
Accomplishment. In this study, although teachers had high levels of
Emotional Exhaustion, they also reported high levels of social validity
for the schoolwide plan which may have resulted in their high levels
of Personal Accomplishment.
Mean scores on the three MBI scales were also consistent with
findings of Ross and colleagues (2011). Findings comparing Deper-
sonalization and Personal Accomplishment scores for the current
sample relative to national norms in the United States were consistent
with findings presented by Ross et al. (2011). In fact, results of our
sample showed lower Depersonalization and higher Personal Accom-
plishment than the high SET schools in the Ross et al. (2011) sample.
118 OAKES et al.

Differences could be accounted for in differing numbers of years of

implementation. Future studies should examine how teachers fare
over time in prevention models.
It was encouraging to see teacher reports of treatment integrity
(i.e., TSR) were predictive of Depersonalization score: those imple-
menting the plan with higher levels of fidelity reported lower levels of
depersonalization. Plan implementation is a malleable factor; some-
thing we can change with proper professional development including
coaching and performance feedback. It would be interesting to see
how the addition of coaching and other supports impact implementa-
tion, and subsequently Depersonalization scores.
There were no differences in measures of sense of efficacy us-
ing the TSES between teachers or between groups of high and low-
implementing teachers. Scores for the current sample were compa-
rable to the mean scores reported by the developers with Instructional
Strategies and Classroom Management subscales slightly higher than
for Student Engagement. Mean scores are also consistent with those
reported by Fives and Buehl (2010) in their psychometric study of the
TSES for practicing teachers.
Three unanticipated findings were related to individual char-
acteristics that predicted teachers’ reported burnout and sense of ef-
ficacy. First, female teachers had a lower sense of Personal Accom-
plishment than their male counterparts, accounting for 14.27% of the
variance in scores. Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) did not find gender to be
related to variables of teacher efficacy. Fives and Buehl (2010) suggest-
ed gender may have served as a confounding variable in their find-
ings that elementary teachers had higher rates of efficacy than middle
and high school teachers because there were more female elementary
school teachers. The role of gender warrants subsequent inquiry to
better understand the relation between gender and Personal Accom-
plishment, with the intent of supporting teachers via mentoring and
professional development who may be more at risk for low levels of
personal accomplishment.
Second, in the current sample, teachers with higher levels of
education (measured by highest degree obtained) had higher levels
of Depersonalization. Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) found education level
was related to teaching efficacy; however in the current study, the op-
posite direction of the relation was found. In the current sample, a
large proportion of participants held master’s degrees or higher. Fur-
ther, the magnitude of the relation was of low. It may be that a poten-
tial range restriction impacted these results, especially in a relatively
small sample, affecting the current findings. Nonetheless, further ex-
amination of this relation is warranted.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT 119

Third, we anticipated teachers who rated students with higher

levels of behavioral risk would have higher rates of Emotional Exhaus-
tion, Depersonalization, and lower levels of sense of efficacy. Chal-
lenging student behavior has been found to be related to lower teach-
er efficacy (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Newmann et al., 1989). In our
sample, there were no differences in efficacy found for teachers with
higher levels of student risk, except for the winter SRSS time point
and the Instructional Strategy construct of efficacy. It may be teach-
ers who were supporting students with higher levels of behavioral
risk were more focused in their instructional strategies to support de-
sired levels of engagement and appropriate behavior (e.g., increased
use of choice and/or increased opportunities to respond) which en-
gaged their sense of efficacy with respect to instructional strategies.
Or, this may be because of the structures for student support within
their CI3T plans. For example, classroom teachers are no longer solely
responsible for identifying and intervening with students with chal-
lenging behavior and no longer needed to rely on reactive disciplin-
ary systems such as office discipline referrals (ODRs). The schoolwide
systems in place offered support to teachers with school-site teams of
educators reviewing data and using criteria for deciding which stu-
dents required available supports (see Lane et al., 2012 for examples
of secondary and tertiary intervention grids). Further, it may be that
because middle school students have multiple teachers, teachers may
not have students with high levels of behavioral difficulties all day as
in elementary schools. Further investigation of the relation between
student behavioral risk and teacher efficacy should be examined at
the elementary level, where teachers most often teach the same group
of students all day.
Limitations and Future Directions
When interpreting the results of this investigation, limitations
must be considered, some of which are noted earlier in the discussion.
The sample size of two schools and 86 teachers limits the generaliz-
ability of these findings. Schools A and B implemented their respec-
tive CI3T models of prevention with high fidelity, which may have re-
sulted in a potential range restriction issue. The SET is a widely used
measure of PBIS implementation; however, there are limitations to its
use, particularly in terms of the range of scores earned by implement-
ing schools. Vincent et al. (2010) examined the psychometric proper-
ties of the SET, reporting total scale reliability coefficients (r = .854)
meeting the adequate range for research but falling short of the .90
set as a minimum for decision making (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Further, they did not find the SET to adequately differentiate between
120 OAKES et al.

high and low implementing schools, particularly at the elementary

and middle schools with a ceiling effect and strong negative skew in-
dicating that schools may achieve high fidelity on the SET too easily.
Bradshaw, Reinke, Brown, Bevans and Leaf (2008) found variability
in scores for schools at the initial stages but less so later once system-
level practices are put into place. We feel the TSR measuring fidelity at
the teacher level may be a good companion to schoolwide evaluation.
The TSR is a new measure and needs additional examination but it
holds potential for assessing differences in levels of implementation
(Lane, 2009). Individual teacher measures, such as the TSR, would
more clearly describe the access students have to the three-tiered pre-
vention practices.
Future studies should examine larger samples of schools and
teachers with a range of implementation scores across elementary,
middle, and high school levels. Larger samples with more variability
might reveal areas of need for teachers implementing CI3T models
and inform professional development efforts. The literature is incon-
sistent for predictor variables such as level of education and gender
on teacher efficacy, both of which need to be examined more closely
(Ross et al., 2011). Our findings are consistent with those of Ross and
colleagues (2011) in that there were no significant predictor variables
for efficacy. We did find gender and highest degree obtained to be pre-
dictors of burnout, although the relation with respect to educational
attainment was not in the expected direction. Again, this may be due
to sample size issues, warranting future inquiry. Furthermore, larger
sample sizes would allow for more conservative data analyses tech-
niques such as employing the Bonferonni correction when conducting
multiple tests of significance to avoid inflating alpha coefficients.
Summary
Teachers at two middle schools with high fidelity of CI3T plan
implementation and high social validity were found, for the most
part, to have lower levels of burnout relative to national norms. They
had higher levels of Emotional Exhaustion; however, they had lower
than expected levels of Depersonalization and higher levels of Per-
sonal Accomplishment, with treatment integrity being one of the
variables predicting Depersonalization scores. Surprisingly, efficacy
scores were not found to be related to social validity, treatment integ-
rity, or student behavioral risk, with the exception of the winter SRSS
time point assessing behavioral risk. We view these results as very
preliminary in nature and contend additional inquiry is needed to ex-
amine how teachers are faring in schools implementing CI3T models
of prevention.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT 121

References
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development
and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Lane, K. L., & Widaman, K. F. (1997). Measur-
ing problem behaviors in children with mental retardation:
Dimensions and predictors. Research in Developmental Disabili-
ties, 18, 415-433. doi: 10.1016/S0891-4222(97)00020-6
Bradshaw, C., Reinke, W., Brown, L., Bevans, K., & Leaf, P. (2008).
Implementation of school-wide positive behavioral inter-
ventions and supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Obser-
vations from a randomized trial. Education and Treatment of
Children, 31, 1-26.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher
burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom manage-
ment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 239-253.
Bruhn, A. L. (2011). Measuring primary plan treatment integrity of compre-
hensive, integrated three-tiered prevention models. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation).Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Chang, M. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Exam-
ining the emotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology
Review, 21, 193-218.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Drummond, T. (1994). The Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS). Grants
Pass, OR: Josephine County Mental Health Program.
Ennis, R. P., Lane, K. L., & Oakes, W. P. (2012). Score reliability and
validity of the Student Risk Screening Scale: A psychometri-
cally sound, feasible tool for use in urban elementary schools.
Journal of Emotional Behavioral Disorders, 20, 241-259. doi:
10.1177/1063426611400082
Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-
efficacy: A study on teachers’ beliefs when implementing an
innovative educational system in the Netherlands. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 227-243.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2010). Examining the factor structure of the
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 78, 118-134.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention:
What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly,
41, 93-99.
122 OAKES et al.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct valida-

tion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
Gresham, F. M., Gansle, K. A., & Noell, G. H. (1993). Treatment in-
tegrity in applied behavior analysis with children. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 257-263.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes to-
ward the implementation of instructional innovation.  Teach-
ing and Teacher Education, 4, 63-69.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005).
Schoolwide positive behavior support. In L. M. Bambara &
L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for students with problem
behavior: Designing positive behavior plans (pp. 359-390). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., Lewis-Palmer, T., Irvin, L. K., Sugai, G., &
Boland, J. B. (2004). The School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET):
A research instrument for assessing school-wide positive
behavior support, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6,
3-12.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and
the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School
Journal, 93, 355-372.
Iwanicki, E. F., & Schwab, R. L. (1981). A cross validation study of
the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 41, 1167-1174.
Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Muller, K. E., & Nizam, A. (1998). Ap-
plied regression analysis and other multivariate methods. (3rd ed.).
Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.
Lane, K. L. (2009). Teacher Self-Report Form. Unpublished instru-
ment. Available from author.
Lane, K. L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E. (2003). School-based interven-
tions: The tools you need to succeed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Lane, K. L., Bruhn, A. L., Eisner, S. L., & Kalberg, J. R. (2010). Score
reliability and validity of the Student Risk Screening Scale: A
psychometrically-sound, feasible tool for use in urban middle
schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18, 211-
224.
Lane, K. L., Kalberg, J. R., & Edwards, C. (2008). An examination of
school-wide interventions with primary level efforts conduct-
ed in elementary schools: Implications for school psycholo-
gists. In D. H. Molina (Ed.), School psychology: 21st century is-
sues and challenges (pp. 253-278). New York, NY: Nova Science.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT 123

Lane, K. L., Kalberg, J. R., & Menzies, H. M. (2009). Developing school-

wide programs to prevent and manage problem behaviors: A step-
by-step approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lane, K. L., Kalberg, J. R., Bruhn, A. L., Driscoll, S. A., Wehby, J. H.,
& Elliott, S. (2009). Assessing social validity of school-wide
positive behavior support plans: Evidence for the reliability
and structure of the Primary Intervention Rating Scale. School
Psychology Review, 38, 135-144.
Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M, Oakes, W. P., & Kalberg, J. R. (2012). Sys-
tematic screenings of behavior to support instruction: From pre-
school to high school. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lane, K. L., Menzies, H., Bruhn, A., & Crnobori, M. (2011). Manag-
ing challenging behaviors in schools: Research-based strategies that
work. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., & Menzies, H. M. (2010). Systematic screen-
ings to prevent the development of learning and behavior
problems: Considerations for practitioners, researchers,
and policy makers. Journal of Disabilities Policy Studies, 21,
160-172.
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Ennis, R. P., Cox, M. L., Schatschneider, C.,
& Lambert, W. (2011). Additional evidence for the reliability
and validity of the Student Risk Screening Scale at the high
school level: A replication and extension. Journal of Emotional
Behavioral Disorders, 21, 97-115. doi: 10.1177/1063426611407339
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Menzies, H. M., & Harris, P. J. (2013). Devel-
oping comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered models to pre-
vent and manage learning and behavior problems. In T. Cole,
H. Daniels, and J. Visser (Eds.), The Routledge international
companion to emotional and behavioural difficulties (pp. 177-183).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Lane, K. L., Parks, R. J., Kalberg, J. R., & Carter, E. W. (2007). System-
atic screening at the middle school level: Score reliability and
validity of the students risk screening scale. Journal of Emo-
tional and Behavioral Disorders, 15, 209-222.
Lane, K. L., Robertson, E. J., & Wehby, J. H. (2002). Primary Intervention
Rating Scale. Unpublished rating scale.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Manual
(2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout In-
ventory: Manual (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
124 OAKES et al.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, P. M. (2001). Job burnout. An-
nual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.
May, S., Ard, W., Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Glasgow, A., Sugai, G.,
& Sprague, J. (2010). School-wide Information System (SWIS ©)
V4.3. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council
of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Stan-
dards Initiative. Washington, DC: Author.
Newmann, F. M., Rutter, R. A., & Smith, M. S. (1989). Organizational
factors that affect school sense of efficacy, community, and
expectations. Sociology of Education, 62, 221-238.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.).
St. Louis, MO: McGraw-Hill.
Ross, S. W., & Horner, R. H. (2007). Teacher outcomes of school-wide
positive behavior support. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus,
3(6) Article 6. Retrieved from http://journals.cec.sped.org/tec-
plus /vol3/iss6.
Ross, S. W., Romer, N., & Horner, R. H. (2011). Teacher well-being
and the implementation of school-wide positive behavior in-
terventions and supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interven-
tions, 14, 118-128.
Ross, S., Horner, R. H., & Stiller, B. (2013). Bully prevention: In posi-
tive behavior support. Educational and Community Supports
[PDF]. Educational and Community Supports. Retrieved from
http://www.pbis.org/pbis_resource_detail_page.aspx?PBIS_
ResourceID=786
Scheeler, M. C., & Lee, D. L. (2002). Using technology to deliv-
er immediate corrective feedback to preservice teachers.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 231-241. doi:10.1023/
A:1021158805714.
Scheeler, M. C., McKinnon, K., & Stout, J. (2012). Effects of immediate
feedback delivered via webcam and bug-in-ear technology on
preservice teacher performance. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 35, 77-90.
Shirk, S. R., Kaplinski, H., & Gudmundsen, G. (2009). School-based
cognitive behavioral therapy for adolescent depression: A
benchmarking study. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Dis-
orders, 17, 106-117.
State Department of Education. (2011). Annual Report Card. Nashville,
TN: Author.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND BURNOUT 125

Stormont, M., Reinke, W., Herman, K., & Lembke, E. (2012). Tier two
interventions: Academic and behavior supports for children at risk
for failure. New York, NY: Guilford.
Sugai, G., & Horner. R. H. (2002). The evolution of discipline prac-
tices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child & Family
Behavior Therapy, 24, 25-50.
Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A., & Horner, R. H. (2001). School-
wide evaluation tool. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Todd, A. W., Lewis-Palmer, T. Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Sampson, N.
K., & Phillips, D. (2012). School-wide Evaluations Tool (SET)
Implementation Manual: Version 2.0. Eugene, OR: University of
Oregon, OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions &
Supports: Effective School Wide Intervention.
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A.,
Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial
instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Im-
mediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional ap-
proaches. Journal Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy:
Capturing elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education,
17, 783-805.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). National Center for Education
Statistics, Common Core Data. Washington, DC: Author. Re-
trieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C., & Lane, K. (2007). Functional be-
havioral assessment and function-based intervention: An effective,
practical approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Vincent, C., Spaulding, S., & Tobin, T. J. (2010). A reexamination of the
psychometric properties of the school-wide evaluation tool.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 161-179.
Walker, H. M., Kavanagh, K., Stiller, B., Golly, A., Severson, H. H., &
Feil, E. G. (1998). First Step to Success: An early intervention
approach for preventing school antisocial behavior. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6, 66-80.
Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Antisocial behavior
in school: Evidence-based practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wehby, J., Maggin, D., Johnson, L., & Symons, F. J. (2010). Improving
intervention implementation and fidelity in evidence-based
practice: Integrating teacher preference into intervention se-
lection. A paper presented at Society for Research on Educational
Effectiveness (SREE).
126 OAKES et al.

Witt, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom interven-

tion strategies. In T. R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school
psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 251-288). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of
efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 82, 81-91.