Teacher Involvement and Participation Scale

Abstract

The Teacher Involvement and Participation Scale (TIPS 2) is a comprehensive, 50-item psychological instrument designed to quantify the extent of teacher participation in critical school-wide shared decision making. Developed by Russell in 1992, the scale measures involvement across eight distinct dimensions of the educational decision-making process, ranging from goals and curriculum to budget and staffing. TIPS 2 is primarily utilized in educational administration research and practice to identify specific areas requiring professional development or training related to participatory governance. Furthermore, the instrument allows researchers and practitioners to compare the perceptions of teachers and administrators regarding the actual level of shared decision making within a school environment.

Keywords

Teacher Involvement, Educational Leadership, Shared Decision Making, Participatory Governance, School Administration, Scale Development, Cronbach alpha, Educational Psychology

Authors

J. J. Russell

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Teacher Involvement and Participation Scale (TIPS 2) is to systematically measure and assess the degree to which teachers are involved in key decision-making processes within their schools. This measurement is crucial for evaluating the effectiveness of participatory management models in educational settings.

A secondary but vital function of the scale is its application in identifying specific domains where teacher participation is lacking or inconsistent, thereby pinpointing areas that require targeted professional development or intervention training. By comparing the responses of different stakeholder groups, particularly teachers and administrators, the scale serves as a diagnostic tool for assessing organizational alignment concerning shared decision making practices.

Construct

The core construct measured by the TIPS 2 is Teacher Involvement and Participation in Decision Making, specifically within the framework of shared decision making (SDM). This construct is conceptualized as multi-dimensional, encompassing the various functional areas where teachers exert influence or contribute to school governance.

The scale operationalizes this construct through eight distinct dimensions, reflecting a comprehensive structure of school operations. These dimensions include strategic planning (goals/vision/mission), resource management (budget, staffing, operations), instructional quality control (curriculum and instruction, standards), and organizational support mechanisms (facilitating procedures/structures, staff development). The 50 items are distributed across these eight subscales to provide a granular assessment of participation across the entire decision-making spectrum.

Validity

The validity of the TIPS 2 was established through rigorous psychometric procedures, beginning with a thorough theoretical foundation. The initial development involved an extensive review of the literature on shared decision making, which directly informed the delineation of the eight key areas measured by the scale.

Content validity was systematically established using a panel of experts. These experts were tasked with matching individual scale statements to the corresponding subscales/dimensions. A strict inclusion criterion was enforced: for a statement to be retained in the final instrument, it required at least 80 percent agreement among the expert panel regarding its relevance and correct alignment with the intended subscale. Furthermore, evidence supporting both discriminant validity and construct validity was provided, confirming that the scale accurately measures the intended construct while differentiating it from related but distinct concepts.

Reliability

The reliability of the Teacher Involvement and Participation Scale (TIPS 2) was assessed using multiple robust statistical techniques on data collected from 109 teachers across the five pilot schools. The methods employed included Cronbach alpha, Spearman-Brown, and Guttman split-half techniques, all aimed at assessing internal consistency.

The results demonstrated exceptionally strong internal consistency for the overall instrument, with the alpha coefficient for the entire TIPS 2 reaching 0.96. Reliability estimates for the eight individual subscales also proved strong, with alpha coefficients ranging from 0.71 (for goals/vision/mission) to a high of 0.92 (for staffing), indicating that all dimensions possess acceptable to excellent levels of internal consistency.

Factor Analysis

While the source content does not explicitly detail the rotational methods (e.g., PCA or EFA) used for factor extraction, the instrument’s structure is clearly defined by eight distinct dimensions derived from the theoretical literature review on shared decision making. These eight dimensions function as empirically or theoretically derived factors that structure the 50 items.

The identified subscales (which represent the underlying factor structure) are exhaustive and cover all 50 items:

• Goals/Vision/Mission (9 items, 1–9)
• Standards (5 items, 10–14)
• Curriculum and Instruction (10 items, 15–24)
• Budget (6 items, 25–30)
• Staffing (4 items, 31–34)
• Operations (4 items, 35–38)
• Facilitating Procedures/Structures (7 items, 39–45)
• Staff Development (5 items, 46–50)

Data analysis procedures included presenting scale means and standard deviations, as well as the results of an analysis of variance (ANOVA), suggesting comparative analyses were performed across different groups or conditions, potentially confirming the distinctiveness of the factors. Specific analyses were also conducted for each of the five schools included in the sample.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychometric scale

Format: 50-item questionnaire utilizing a 5-point Likert-type response scale.

Language Available: English (Original development language)

Population Group: Educational personnel (Teachers and Administrators)

Age Group: Adult (Professionally employed educators)

Population Details: The initial reliability study sample included 109 teachers drawn from five pilot schools selected based on their pre-identified levels of shared decision making (two high, two low, one moderate SDM). This selection method ensured variance in the data related to the measured construct.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate their perceived frequency of involvement for each item using the following 5-point scale: Almost Never = 1; Seldom = 2; Sometimes = 3; Frequently = 4; and Almost Always = 5. The total score, along with subscale scores, indicates the level of participatory involvement.

Keywords

Teacher Participation, School Governance, Organizational Climate, Educational Measurement, Shared Decision Making, Psychometric Scale, ANOVA

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1992

Permissions & Fee: The scale was developed as part of an EdD dissertation by J. J. Russell at Fordham University. Permissions for use should typically be sought from the author or the degree-granting institution. The original work is documented as a dissertation, which is generally publicly accessible for academic use.

Reference’s

The primary source for the TIPS 2 development and initial validation is:

• Russell, J. J. (1992). Theory into practice: The realities of shared decision making. EdD dissertation, Fordham University.

Related references cited in the source material include:

• Conley, S. C., and Bachrach, S. B. (1990). From school-site management to participatory school-site management. Phi Delta Kappan 71:539–44.
• David, J. L. (1989). Synthesis of research on school-based management. Educational Leadership 46:45–47, 50–53.
• Knobloch, S. F. (2007). Teacher participation in decision making and collective efficacy. EdD dissertation, University of Virginia. Russell, J. J., et al. (1992). How do you measure shared decision making? Educational Leadership 50:39–40.
• Sirotnik, K., and Clark, R. (1988). School centered decision making and renewal. Phi Delta Kappan 69:660–64.

Items of the Teacher Involvement and Participation Scale

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

1. The school’s goals are consistent with my vision of this school.
2. Teachers contribute to the development of a plan to meet the school’s goals.
3. Teachers play an active role in evaluating school goals.
4. Teachers contribute to the standards set for discipline in the school.
5. Teachers set standards for their student’s work.
6. The school staff assumes responsibility for student performance.
7. Teachers participate in curricula development.
8. Teachers determine grouping for the purpose of instruction.
9. Teachers monitor the effectiveness of curricula.
10. Teachers contribute to the development of the school budget.
11. Teachers have a voice in the recruiting and selecting of teachers.
12. Teachers take part in staffing decisions including such tradeoffs as using instructional aids, or hiring vice-principals, counselors, and other special area staff.
13. Teachers have a voice in the recruiting and selecting of administrators.
14. Teachers play a part in determining how the school building is utilized.
15. Teachers are involved in the development of plans to improve building facilities.
16. Teachers play a role in establishing building maintenance priorities.
17. Teachers have access to the information they need to make school-wide decisions.
18. Teachers are represented on a council or committee that makes school-wide decisions.
19. Decisions are not made until everyone can accept the proposal to some extent.
20. Teachers have access to current research on effective programs and practices.
21. Teachers have opportunities to share their expert knowledge.
22. Teachers have access to special training when necessary.

Scoring: Almost Never = 1; Seldom = 2; Sometimes = 3; Frequently = 4; and Almost Always = 5.