Classroom Anxiety Measure

Abstract

The scale presented here is the Collective Efficacy Scale (CE-SCALE), developed primarily by Goddard, Hoy, and Woolfolk. It is designed to measure Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE), defined as the shared perceptual belief among faculty members within a school regarding their collective ability to positively influence student learning and overcome environmental obstacles. The instrument exists in two forms: a Long Form (21 items) and a Short Form (12 items). CTE is recognized in educational psychology as a powerful predictor of school organizational health and student achievement outcomes. The scale uses a 6-point Likert format to capture fine-grained differences in faculty beliefs about their instructional competence and the academic capabilities of their students.

Keywords

Collective Efficacy, Teacher Efficacy, School Climate, Student Achievement, Organizational Health, Educational Psychology, Instructional Competence, Faculty Beliefs

Authors

Roger D. Goddard, Wayne K. Hoy, Anita Woolfolk, Stephen Gibson, Marjorie Dembo

Purpose

The primary purpose of the CE-SCALE is to provide a reliable and valid measure of the aggregated sense of competence held by the teaching staff within a school. This measurement allows researchers and administrators to gauge the motivational climate of the school, specifically focusing on the faculty’s shared conviction that they possess the necessary skills and resources to achieve their educational goals, despite challenging circumstances. Measuring this collective belief is crucial for understanding organizational behavior and predicting future school performance.

Construct

The CE-SCALE measures Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE), a construct derived from Bandura’s social cognitive theory. CTE operates at the group level, distinct from individual self-efficacy. It reflects the shared belief that the group (the faculty) can successfully execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment. The construct is empirically supported to comprise two distinct, yet related, dimensions:

• Teaching Efficacy: The faculty’s belief in their collective ability to teach effectively, manage classrooms, and employ diverse instructional methods, even when dealing with difficult students.
• Student Academic Capability: The faculty’s perception of students’ inherent potential, motivation, and readiness to learn, often considering external barriers such as community challenges or home life disadvantages.

Validity

Extensive research supports the construct validity of the CE-SCALE. Studies have consistently shown that the scale scores correlate positively and significantly with key educational outcomes, notably measures of student achievement in standardized tests. Furthermore, the scale demonstrates discriminant validity by being distinct from, yet related to, other organizational constructs such as faculty trust and school organizational health. The development of the Short Form (12 items) was specifically validated against the Long Form (21 items) to ensure that the shorter version maintained the same theoretical structure and predictive power.

Reliability

The CE-SCALE exhibits high levels of internal consistency across both its forms and subscales, which is a key indicator of reliability. Academic studies utilizing the scale typically report Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between 0.90 and 0.95 for the total scale score, which is considered excellent. This strong reliability suggests that the items within the scale consistently measure the underlying latent construct of collective teacher efficacy. The robust internal consistency ensures that the instrument provides stable and dependable measurements across different school populations.

Factor Analysis

Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses conducted during the development and subsequent validation of the CE-SCALE strongly support a two-factor structure. This factor structure aligns precisely with the theoretical conceptualization of collective efficacy in schools:

1. Teaching Efficacy (Instructional Strategies): Items loading on this factor relate directly to the faculty’s shared belief in their instructional skill set, preparedness, and ability to handle disciplinary issues and motivate students.
2. Student Academic Capability (Task Analysis): Items loading on this factor address the perceived difficulty of the teaching task, focusing on student motivation, the impact of community factors (e.g., drug abuse, safety concerns), and students’ readiness to learn.

This clear bifurcation confirms that collective efficacy is assessed through both the school’s internal resources (teaching skill) and the perceived challenges presented by the student population and external environment.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-Report Organizational Assessment Scale

Format: Paper-and-Pencil (or electronic) survey using a 6-point Likert response scale.

Language Available: Primarily English (with translations used in international research).

Population Group: School Faculty (Teachers and possibly Administrators).

Age Group: Adult educators (typically K-12 setting).

Population Details: Applicable to faculty members across elementary, middle, and secondary school settings, often aggregated to the school level for analysis.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate their level of agreement with statements concerning the faculty’s collective competence and the student body’s capability. Specific items are reverse-scored before aggregation and calculation of the total CE-SCALE score. The standard score is calculated using the formula: Standard Score for CE-SCALE = [100(CE-4.1201)/.6392] + 500.

Keywords

Likert Scale, Psychometrics, School Performance, Teacher Development, Organizational Behavior, Social Learning Theory, Educational Research

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Correspondence is often directed through the academic institution of the primary authors, such as Wayne K. Hoy (Emeritus, The Ohio State University).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale is often made available for non-commercial academic research use via the authors’ professional websites. The foundational research developing and validating the scale, particularly the 21-item version, was published in 2000. The Short Form development was published in 2002. Users seeking current permissions or commercial use agreements should contact Dr. Wayne K. Hoy or Dr. Roger D. Goddard. The original PDF instruments can be downloaded here: Long Form PDF and Short Form PDF.

Reference’s

• Gibson‚ S.‚ & Dembo‚ M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology‚ 76(4)‚ 569-582.
• Goddard‚ R.D.‚ Hoy‚ W.K.‚ Woolfolk‚ A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning‚ measure‚ and effect on student achievement. American Education Research Journal‚ 37(2)‚ 479-507.
• Goddard‚ R.D. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement‚ 93‚ 467-476.
• Hoy‚ W.K.‚ and Kupersmith‚ W.J. (1985). The meaning and measure of faculty trust. Educational and psychological research‚ 5(1)‚ 1-10.
• Hoy‚ W.K. and Sabo‚ D.J. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy. Thousand Oaks‚ CA: Corwin Press‚ Inc.
• Hoy‚ W. K. & Woolfolk‚ A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal‚ 93‚ 356-372.

Items of the Classroom Anxiety Measure

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Response Scale: 1= Strongly
Disagree‚ 2= Disagree‚ 3= Somewhat
Disagree‚ 4= Somewhat Agree‚ 5= Agree‚ 6= Strongly
Agree

Short 
Form (12 Items)

1. Teachers in the school are able to get through to the most difficult students.
2. Teachers here are confident they will be able to motivate their students.
3. If a child doesn’t want to learn teachers here give up. (Reverse Score)
4. Teachers here don’t have the skills needed to produce meaningful student
learning. (Reverse Score)
5. Teachers in this school believe that every child can learn.
6. These students come to school ready to learn.
7. Home life provides so many advantages that students here are bound to learn.
8. Students here just aren’t motivated to learn. (Reverse Score)
9. Teachers in this school do not have the skills to deal with student disciplinary problems. (Reverse Score)
10. The opportunities in this community help ensure that these students will learn.
11. Learning is more difficult at this school because students are worried about their safety. (Reverse Score)
12. Drug and alcohol abuse in the community make learning difficult for students here. (Reverse Score)

Short form: Reverse score items 3‚ 4‚ 8‚ 9‚ 11‚ and 12

Long 
Form (21 Items)

1. Teachers in the school are able to get through to the most difficult students.
2. Teachers here are confident they will be able to motivate their students.
3. If a child doesn’t want to learn teachers here give up. (Reverse Score)
4. Teachers here don’t have the skills needed to produce meaningful student
learning. (Reverse Score)
5. If a child doesn’t learn something the first time teachers will try another way.
6. Teachers in this school are skilled in various methods of teaching.
7. Teachers here are well‐prepared to teach the subjects they are assigned to teach.
8. Teachers
here
fail
to
reach
some
students
because
of
poor
teaching
methods. (Reverse Score)
9. Teachers in this school have what it takes to get the children to learn.
10. The lack of instructional materials and supplies makes teaching very difficult. (Reverse Score)
11. Teachers in this school do not have the skills to deal with student disciplinary problems. (Reverse Score)
12. Teachers in this school think there are some students that no one can reach. (Reverse Score)
13. The quality of school facilities here really facilitates the teaching and learning process.
14. The students here come in with so many advantages they are bound to learn.
15. These students come to school ready to learn.
16. Drugs and alcohol abuse in the community make learning difficult for students here. (Reverse Score)
17. The opportunities in this community help ensure that these students will learn.
18. Students here just aren’t motivated to learn. (Reverse Score)
19. Learning is more difficult at this school because students are worried about their safety. (Reverse Score)
20. Teachers here need more training to know how to deal with these students. (Reverse Score)
21. Teachers in this school truly believe every child can learn.

Long form: Reverse score items 3‚ 4‚ 8‚ 10‚ 11‚ 12‚ 16‚ 18‚ 19‚ and 20

Standard Score for CE-SCALE = [100(CE-4.1201)/.6392] +500