School Principals’ Perceptions of Evaluation/Compensation Factors

Abstract

The School Principals’ Perceptions of Evaluation/Compensation Factors (SPPECF) scale is a comprehensive instrument developed by R. A. Cunningham (1993) as part of an EdD dissertation at Temple University. The primary function of the SPPECF is to assess the opinions of school principals regarding factors that should be incorporated into a district’s formal evaluation/compensation program. The instrument is extensive, comprising 71 items organized across six major domains: administrator preparation, personal traits, conceptual skills, position characteristics, administrative processes, and performance/results achieved. The scale requires respondents to categorize each factor based on its suitability for evaluation, compensation, or both, and also to rank its overall importance for administrative remuneration decisions.

Keywords

School principals, administrative evaluation, compensation factors, educational leadership, performance appraisal, conceptual skills, administrative competencies, SPPECF.

Authors

R. A. Cunningham.

Purpose

The central purpose of the SPPECF scale is to systematically identify and measure the specific factors that elementary and secondary school principals deem appropriate for inclusion in formal district-level evaluation and compensation structures. This research aimed to provide empirical data reflecting the practitioners’ perspectives on what constitutes effective, measurable, and rewardable administrative performance, thereby influencing the design of fair and comprehensive administrative assessment systems.

The instrument challenges respondents to consider 71 distinct criteria—ranging from academic background to achieved results—and make a dual judgment: first, whether the factor should be used for evaluation, compensation, both, or neither; and second, the degree of importance (ranging from ‘Of No Importance’ to ‘Critical’) they recommend for its use in the district’s evaluation/compensation process.

Construct

The SPPECF measures the construct of Perceived Administrative Assessment Criteria, which is operationalized across six distinct, theoretically derived dimensions of administrative competency and context. These dimensions collectively cover the necessary inputs, processes, and outputs required for effective school administration, alongside contextual factors that influence performance expectations.

The six measured components are:

• Administrator Preparation: Items focusing on academic background, professional development, and experience (9 items).
• Personal Traits: Individual characteristics critical for leadership success, such as motivation, creativity, and self-control (14 items).
• Conceptual Skills: Cognitive and interpersonal abilities essential for management, including problem-solving, judgment, and conflict resolution (11 items).
• Position Characteristics: Contextual factors defining the scope and complexity of the role, such as fiscal responsibility, enrollment size, and span of control (17 items).
• Administrative Processes: Functional duties related to planning, organizing, coordinating, and policy implementation (11 items).
• Performance/Results Achieved: Measurable outcomes and goal attainment, including contributions to the total effort (10 items).

Validity

The development of the SPPECF scale focused heavily on establishing robust content validity through a multi-stage review process. The initial survey draft underwent a comprehensive critique by the author’s academic advisor to ensure theoretical alignment and clarity.

Following this preliminary review, the modified survey was rigorously examined by a specialized panel consisting of seven experts in the field of educational administration and performance assessment. The final, revised instrument was then pilot tested on a small, representative group of 10 elementary principals and 10 secondary principals to ensure item comprehension and applicability before being administered to the main sample.

Reliability

Reliability was assessed using the Test-retest reliability method, conducted during the pilot phase of the study. This procedure measured the stability of responses over a 10-day period.

The reliability findings were reported specifically in terms of the number of response agreements, which were summarized within percentage ranges. This method provided evidence of consistency in how principals categorized and rated the various factors over a short interval.

Factor Analysis

The provided source content indicates that the data analysis primarily relied on descriptive statistics, including frequency distributions, percentages, means, standard deviations, and standard or z scores. There is no explicit documentation within the available summary that exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to statistically validate the internal structure or the hypothesized six-factor model of the scale.

Instrument

Test Type: Perception Survey / Administrative Competency Assessment

Format: Structured Questionnaire utilizing dual response options: a categorical choice regarding inclusion (Evaluation, Compensation, Both, None) and a five-point Likert-type scale for importance ranking (1=No Importance to 5=Critical).

Language Available: English (Original research context).

Population Group: Educational Administrators (School Principals).

Age Group: Adults (Professional working age).

Population Details: The sample consisted of 265 elementary and secondary principals drawn from four counties located outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Test Methodology: Survey methodology utilizing descriptive statistics for data analysis, including frequency distributions, percentages, means, standard deviations, and standard or z scores.

Keywords

Evaluation criteria, educational management, principal performance, school administration, compensation factors, administrative assessment, doctoral dissertation.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Based on the EdD dissertation: Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The instrument was developed in 1993 as the core component of an EdD dissertation by R. A. Cunningham. As a product of academic research, it is generally accessible for non-commercial academic use. However, specific details regarding current copyrights, usage permissions, or associated fees for commercial or large-scale application are not available in the source material.

Reference’s

Cunningham, R. A. (1993). Principals’ perceptions of evaluation/compensation factors. EdD dissertation, Temple University.

Herman, J. J. (1988). Evaluating administrators—assessing the competencies. NASSP Bulletin 72:5–9.

Langlois, D. E., and McAdams, R. P. (1992). Performance appraisal of school management. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing.

Murphy, J., et al. (1986). The administrative control of principals in effective school districts: The supervision and evaluation functions. Urban Review 18:149–62.

Redfern, G. B. (1986). Techniques of evaluation of principals and assistant principals. NASSP Bulletin 70:66–74.

Items of the School Principals’ Perceptions of Evaluation/Compensation Factors

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

Part II: Administrative Competencies

Preparation:
1. Academic degrees held
2. In-service attended
3. In-service conducted
4. Professional growth
5. Certifications
6. Awards of distinction
7. Professional affiliations
8. Teaching experience
9. Administrative experience Personal Traits:
10. Creativity
11. Consistent attendance
12. Ability to use judgment
13. Sensitivity
14. Motivation
15. Personal interests
16. Health
17. Appearance
18. Enthusiasm
19. Intelligence
20. Energy level
21. Self-control
22. Initiative
23. Technical skills-methods and procedures

Conceptual Skills:
24. Ability to work with people
25. Problem solving
26. Judgment
27. Personal stress management
28. Imagination
29. Cooperativeness
30. Integrity
31. Loyalty
32. Time management
33. Ability to adopt to change
34. Ability to resolve conflict Position Characteristics:
35. Level of authority
36. Degree of responsibility
37. Span of control
38. Amount of fiscal responsibility
39. Enrollment
40. Degree of interpersonal conflicts
41. Number of assigned tasks
42. Frequency of public contracts
43. Nature and composition of student body and community
44. Position expectations
45. Consequence of errors
46. Scope and complexity of skills required for the position
47. Number of special services provided by the school
48. Adequacy of staff performances
49. Staff turnover rate
50. Length of work year
51. Amount of additional time required beyond the regular workday

Part III: Administrative Performance Indicators

Administrative Processes:
52. Develop and execute plans
53. Organize work
54. Coordinate service
55. Implement policies
56. Attends to administrative routine
57. Ability to motivate
58. Decision-making capabilities
59. Instructional leadership
60. Supervision of staff and students
61. Delegate responsibilities
62. Manage the administrative processes: finance, plant personnel, scheduling, etc.

Performance/Results Achieved:
63. Attainment of goals
64. Contributions to the total effort

65. Performance objectives set by principals
66. Observations of evidence to measure productivity
67. Duties performed
68. Behaviors executed
69. Performance in a position as compared to a set of prior achievements accomplished by other principals
70. Performance of duties that exceed responsibilities (merit or incentive plans)
71. Accomplishments as compared to average performances

Scoring

For the first part of the item (Where should these factors be included in a district’s evaluation/compensation process) A = Evaluation; B = Compensation; C = Evaluation and Compensation; and D = None of the Above. For the second part of the item (To what degree do you recommend the use of these factors in a district’s evaluation/ compensation process) A = (1) Of No Importance; B = (2) Of Little Importance; C = (3) Moderately Important; D = (4) Important; and E = (5) Critical.