Teacher Attitude Inventory

Abstract

The Teacher Attitude Inventory (TAI) is a 14-item psychological scale developed by C. H. Glascock in 1996. Originating from a PhD dissertation at Louisiana State University, the TAI was designed to measure teacher perceptions concerning the professional relationship between their school principal and the district superintendent, and to investigate the correlation of this relationship with the overall school climate. Although initially composed of 14 items, empirical analysis refined the instrument to an 8-item, unidimensional scale. The TAI utilizes a five-point Likert scale format to gauge observed levels of administrative independence and influence.

The scale underwent rigorous validation procedures, including expert review and two separate studies involving teachers from elementary and high schools. The resulting 8-item version demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, with Alpha coefficient values ranging from 0.77 to 0.78 across the validation samples.

Keywords

Teacher Attitude Inventory, TAI, principal-superintendent relationship, school climate, teacher perception, educational leadership, organizational dynamics, administrative independence, influence, psychometrics.

Authors

C. H. Glascock

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Teacher Attitude Inventory (TAI) is to systematically assess how teachers perceive the working dynamics and operational autonomy that exist between their building principal and the central office superintendent. This assessment is critical for understanding the organizational context of schools.

Furthermore, the TAI was developed specifically to determine if teacher perceptions regarding the strength, independence, and influence within this specific administrative relationship correlate significantly with broader measures of school climate, thus providing insight into the hierarchical factors that influence the daily educational environment.

Construct

The TAI measures the perceived nature of the relationship between the principal and the superintendent, as observed and interpreted by teaching staff. This relationship is conceptually driven by two primary dimensions: independence (the principal’s ability to act without constant oversight or permission) and influence (the principal’s ability to persuade or impact the superintendent’s decisions, particularly regarding resources, hiring, and programs).

Despite the initial conceptualization of a two-factor model encompassing independence and influence, the scale was empirically confirmed as a general, single-factor measure of the overall administrative relationship dynamic. A low score on the TAI indicates that teachers observe low levels of both independence and influence in the interactions between their principal and the superintendent.

Validity

The validity of the TAI was established through a methodical, multi-stage process. Initially, the instrument underwent rigorous content review by a panel of six experts who analyzed the inventory on at least three separate occasions to ensure item relevance and clarity.

According to the author, the first comprehensive study utilizing the TAI was explicitly designed to establish the scale’s initial construct validity and overall reliability. The subsequent second study served a confirmatory role, aiming specifically to validate the factor analytic findings derived from the initial research, thereby strengthening the empirical foundation of the instrument.

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability was assessed using the Alpha coefficient across two separate studies involving substantial teacher populations. Due to initial structural issues, the reliability was calculated based on a refined 8-item version of the scale (items 1–5 and 7 were deleted from the original 14-item inventory).

In Study One, the refined 8-item TAI yielded an Alpha coefficient of 0.77. In Study Two, which served to validate the findings, the Alpha coefficient was slightly higher at 0.78. These results demonstrate acceptable and consistent internal reliability for the reduced TAI instrument when measuring the perceived principal/superintendent relationship.

Factor Analysis

The exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis conducted across the two studies did not support the desired theoretical structure. The hypothesized two-factor solution, intended to separate the dimensions of “independence” and “influence” within the administrative relationship, was not confirmed empirically.

Instead, the analysis strongly supported a robust one-factor solution. This single factor, comprising eight specific items (6 and 8–14), functions as a general measure of the relationship between the principal and the superintendent. This one-factor model successfully accounted for approximately 31 percent of the total variance observed in the teacher perceptions across both Study One and Study Two.

Instrument

Test Type: Attitude Inventory / Psychological Scale

Format: Self-report survey utilizing a Likert-type scale.

Language Available: English (Original research context).

Population Group: Teachers (Elementary and High School).

Age Group: Adult educators.

Population Details: Data collected from two studies. Study One included 252 teachers from five elementary and three high schools. Study Two included 270 teachers from 19 elementary and seven high schools. A multistaged sampling procedure was utilized for selection.

Test Methodology: Survey administration via PhD dissertation research. Data analysis included calculation of means and standard deviations for the effective items (6 and 8–14). The scoring uses a five-point scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree), with a “No Opinion” option scored as zero. Low scores reflect low perceived independence and influence. The TAI is noted as being under further refinement.

Keywords

Teacher attitudes, school administration, educational governance, Likert scale, organizational influence, Cronbach’s Alpha, construct validation, variance explained.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Not provided in source material)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Not provided in source material)

Correspondence Address: Louisiana State University (Affiliation at time of publication: 1996)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Teacher Attitude Inventory was developed in 1996 as part of the doctoral research by C. H. Glascock. As the instrument originated within a PhD dissertation, permissions for use typically reside with the author and the granting institution (Louisiana State University). Specific fee structures are not provided in the original source material. Researchers interested in utilizing the TAI should contact the author or the university for appropriate permissions and access to the full instrument and scoring guide.

Reference’s

Glascock, C. H. (1996). Teachers’ perceptions of the principal/superintendent relationship and school climate: Do they correlate? PhD dissertation, Louisiana State University.

Hallinger, P., et al. (1990). What makes a difference in school context, principal leadership, and student achievement. NCEL Occasional Paper No.3. Nashville, TN: National Center for Educational Leadership.

Molm, L. D. (1990). Structure, action, and outcomes: The dynamics of power in social exchange. American Sociological Review 55:427–47.

Okeafor, K. R., and Frere, R. M. (1992). Administrators’ confidence in teachers, leader consideration, and coupling in schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education 25:204–12.

Smith, J. B., Maehr, M. L., and Midgley, C. (1992). Relationship between personal and contextual characteristics and principals’ administrative behaviors. Journal of Educational Research 86:111–18.

Whaley, K. W., and Hegstrom, T. G. (1992). Perceptions of school principal communication effectiveness and teacher satisfaction on the job. Journal of Research and Development in Education 24:224–31.

Items of the Teacher Attitude Inventory

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

1. When teachers in our school push for curriculum changes, principal must get the approval of the superintendent before agreeing to these changes.
2. If the principal thinks it’s better for our school, he/she will modify some district policies without consulting the superintendent.
3. The superintendent transfers teachers into and out of our school without consulting the principal.
4. When it comes to hiring teachers at our school, the principal usually gets who he/she wants.
5. The principal determines how some funds are spent at our school without consulting the superintendent; for ex- ample, funds raised by the school for staff development or supplies.
6. When parents, who have difficulty with a teacher in our school, go over the principal’s head to the superintendent, the superintendent usually intervenes and tells the principal what to do.
7. The principal must have the superintendent’s permission before raising money from businesses in the community.
8. Teachers can get needed resources, such as overhead projector and materials, because the principal has a good working relationship with the superintendent.
9. The principal’s explanations about parental concerns are disregarded by the superintendent when making decisions.
10. When teachers in our school want permission to try new instructional techniques, the principal is able to convince the superintendent to allow it.
11. When teachers ask the principal to request extra resources for our school, like new computers, the principal is able to get those resources from the superintendent.
12. The principal is able to persuade the superintendent to support new programs for our school.
13. The principal does not seem able to influence the superintendent in hiring teachers for our school.
14. The superintendent seldom supports the principal’s requests or additional funding for our school.