Developing a teacher collaboration scale based on item response theory

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a psychometrically sound Teacher Collaboration Scale based on Item Response Theory. The data obtained from 461 teachers were analyzed, and items were calibrated using Samejima’s Graded Response Model. Exploratory Factor Analysis confirmed a unidimensional structure explaining 53.51% of the variance, while local independence and item-model fit were rigorously tested. The final 18-item scale demonstrated high discrimination parameters ranging from 1.815 to 4.777. The analysis of the test information function indicated that the scale provided the highest precision and reliability for teachers with collaboration levels between -3 and +1 theta. Additionally, Differential Item Functioning analysis revealed no gender bias, confirming the scale was a valid and reliable instrument.

Keywords

• Item response theory
• Graded response model
• Scale development
• Teacher collaboration

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval for this research was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Pamukkale University (Approval No: E-93803232-622.02-297694).

References

1. Ahrari, S., Roslan, S., Zaremohzzabieh, Z., Mohd Rasdi, R., & Abu Samah, A. (2021). Relationship between teacher empowerment and job satisfaction: A Meta-Analytic path analysis. Cogent Education, 8(1), Article 1898737. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1898737
2. American Management Association. (2019, January 24). AMA critical skills survey: Workers need higher level skills to succeed in the 21st century. https://www.amanet.org/articles/ama-critical-skills-survey-workers-need-higher-levelskills-to-succeed-in-the-21st-century/
3. Arias González, V.B., Crespo Sierra, M.T., Arias Martínez, B., Martínez-Molina, A., & Ponce, F.P. (2015). An in-depth psychometric analysis of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale: Calibration with Rasch Andrich model. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0345-y
4. Aybek, E.C. (2021) Data preparation for factor analysis. URL https://shiny.eptlab.com/dp2fa/
5. Aybek, E.C. & Toraman, C. (2022). How many response categories are sufficient for Likert type scales? An empirical study based on the Item Response Theory. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(2), 534-547. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1132931
6. Barnard, C.I. (1958). Elementary conditions of business morals. California Management Review, 1(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165
7. Bertrand, L., Roberts, R.A., & Buchanan, R. (2006). Striving for success: Teacher perspectives of a vertical team initiative. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal-Electronic, 16(3), 1-10.
8. Boeschen Hospers, J.M., Smits, N., Smits, C., Stam, M., Terwee, C.B., & Kramer, S.E. (2016). Reevaluation of the Amsterdam inventory for auditory disability and handicap using Item Response Theory. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59, 373 383. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-15-0156

9. Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2000). Okul yönetiminde yeni yapı ve davranış [New construct and behavior in school administration]. Pegem.
10. Çelebi, N., Vuranok, T.T. & Turgut, I.H. (2016). Reliability and validity of Teachers’ collaboration level determination scale. Kastamonu Education Journal, 24(2), 803-820. https://izlik.org/JA94EP34MJ
11. Cerit, Y. (2009). The effects of servant leadership behaviors of school principals on teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 600 623. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432093396
12. Chalmers, R.P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
13. Child, S.F., & Shaw, S. (2016). Collaboration in the 21st century: Implications for assessment. Cambridge Assessment.
14. Coke, P.K. (2005). Practicing What We Preach: An argument for cooperative learning opportunities for elementary and secondary educators. Education, 126, 392–398. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ765674
15. de Ayala, R.J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. The Guilford Press.
16. Dumay, X., Boonen, T., & Damme, J.V. (2013). Principal leadership long-term indirect effects on learning growth in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 225 251. https://doi.org/10.1086/673198
17. Egodawatte, G., McDougall, D.E., & Stoilescu, D. (2011). The effects of teacher collaboration in Grade 9 Applied Mathematics. Educational Research in Policy and Practice, 10(3), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-011-9104-y
18. Euwema, M., & Van der Waals, J. (2007). Teams in scholen: Samen werkt het beter [Teamwork in schools: Together we're strong]. Leusden: BMC.
19. Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., & Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3). 272-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
20. Goddard, Y.L., Goddard, R.D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877-896.
21. Goddard, Y.L., Miller, R., Larson, R., Goddard, R., Madsen, J., & Schroeder, P. (2010). Connecting principal leadership, teacher collaboration, and student achievement. Paper prepared for the AERA 2010 Annual Meeting. Texas A & M University and University of Michigan.
22. Gruenert, S.W. (1998). Development of a school culture survey [Unpublished digital dissertation]. University of Missouri-Columbia Missouri. http://www.MLLC.org
23. Khasawneh, Y.J.A., Alsarayreh, R., Ajlouni, A.A.A., Eyadat, H.M., Ayasrah, M.N., & Khasawneh, M.A.S. (2023). An examination of teacher collaboration in professional learning communities and collaborative teaching practices. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 10(3), 446–452. https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v10i3.4841
24. Lench, S., Fukuda, E., & Anderson, R. (2015). Essential skills and dispositions: Developmental frameworks for collaboration, communication, creativity, and self-direction. Center for Innovation in Education at the University of Kentucky.
25. Meyer, A., Richter, D., & Hartung-Beck, V. (2020). The relationship between principal leadership and teacher collaboration: Investigating the mediating effect of teachers’ collective efficacy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220945698
26. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri [General qualifications of the teaching profession]. http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_12/11115355_YYRETMENLYK_MESLEYY_GENEL_YETERLYKLERY.pdf
27. National Research Council of the National Academies. (2012). Research universities and the future of America (pp. 1-28). Washington.
28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). The future of education and skills: OECD Learning Framework 2030. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2018/06/the-future-of-education-and-skills_5424dd26/54ac7020-en.pdf
29. Özkan Hıdıroğlu, Y., & Tanrıöğen, A. (2020). Development of Teachers’ Empowerment Scale: A validity and reliability study. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 7(4), 753-772. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.693398
30. Özkan Hıdıroğlu, Y. & Tanrıöğen, A. (2021). Examining teachers' perceptions on empowerment according to various variables. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 11(1), 127-146. https://doi.org/10.31704/IJOCIS.2021.007
31. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). A. framework for 21st century learning. Tucson: AZ: P21. www.21stcenturyskills.org
32. R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
33. Richter, E., Fütterer, T., Meyer, A., Eisenkraft, A., & Fischer, C. (2022) Teacher collaboration and professional learning. Examining professional development during a national education reform - In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 68 (6), 798-819 https://doi.org/10.25656/01:29309
34. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S.D. (1995) The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving in C O'Malley (ed) Computer supported collaborative learning. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 69–97.
35. Samejima, F. (1996). Polychotomous responses and the test score. Tennessee: The University of Tennessee.
36. Saylık, N., & Arastaman, G. (2022). Developing the school collaboration scale validity and reliability scale. Van Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Education, 19(2), 462 483. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1079626
37. Szczesiul, S., & Huizenga, J. (2014). The burden of leadership: Exploring the principal’s role in teacher collaboration. Improving Schools, 17, 176–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480214534545
38. The jamovi project (2022). Jamovi. (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. https://www.jamovi.org
39. Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998). Trust and collaboration in urban elementary schools [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State University.
40. Wigglesworth, M. (2011). The effects of teacher collaboration on students’ understanding of high school earth science concepts [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Montana University, USA.
41. Wren, D.A., & Bedeian, A.G. (2009). The evolution of management thought. John Wiley & Sons.
42. Wullschleger, A., Daly, A.J., van Halem, N., Merki, K.M., & Rechsteiner, B. (2025) Collaboration on school improvement under different educational accountability systems in two countries. Educ Asse Eval Acc 37, 303–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-025-09460-1
43. Yaşar, M. & Aybek, E.C. (2019). A resilience scale development for university students: Validity and reliability study based on Item Response Theory. Elementary Education Online, 18(4), 1687-1699. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.635031
44. Yılmaz, K. & Çelik, M. (2020). Development of Scale of Attitude towards Professional Collaboration among Teachers. MANAS Journal of Social Studies, 9(2), 731 740. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.584856