The Validity and Reliability Study of the Teacher Autonomy Scale

Year 2025, Volume: 15 Issue: 2, 194 - 209, 31.08.2025

Püren Akçay

https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.1520917

Abstract

This research aimed to develop a Teacher Autonomy Scale (TAS) to determine teachers' perception levels of autonomy. This study aimed to create a measurement tool that can measure teachers' educational and teaching duties and management duties in a single dimension. TAS was applied to teachers at different branches working in the Küçükçekmece District of Istanbul Province in the 2023-24 academic year, and the analysis phase was conducted using the collected data. The participants of the study were selected according to the convenience sampling method. The trial form of the 28-item scale was applied to 201 teachers. The item pool was examined by three measurement and evaluation experts, three teachers, three school administrators, a Turkish language expert, and a 28-item trial form of the scale was created. The trial form of the scale was created as a five-point Likert-type rating scale with response options of strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree. A preliminary application study was conducted with 40 teachers working in different branches. As a result of the trial application, the final version of the scale, consisting of 15 items, was obtained with expert opinions. The reliability and validity studies were carried out on the remaining 198 teachers. As a result of exploratory factor analysis (EFA), a single-factor structure consisting of 15 items was obtained, and the unidimensional factor explains a total variance of 57.896%. Then, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with a different sample of 348 teachers to test the structure revealed by EFA. All factor loadings in the CFA model were determined to be statistically significant (p<.05). Fit indices calculated with CFA show that the scale is valid and reliable enough to be used for different sample groups. The factor structure of the TAS was confirmed as one factor named ‘Teachers' autonomy within the classroom and school’. As a result of the reliability analysis of the final form of the scale, the alpha coefficient was found to be .89.

Keywords

Teacher Autonomy , Reliability , Validity

References

• Acar Güvendir, M. (2022). Ölçek geliştirme sürecinde örneklem büyüklüğü. In M. A. G. Meltem & Y. Ö. Ömer (Eds.), Tüm yönleriyle ölçek geliştirme süreci (pp. 37–50). Pegem Akademi.
• Anderson, L. W. (1987). The decline of teacher autonomy: Tears or cheers? International Review of Education, 33(3), 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00615308
• Archbald, D. A., & Porter, A. C. (1994). Curriculum control and teachers' perceptions of autonomy and satisfaction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(1), 21–39.https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/1164381
• Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 3(2), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1950.tb00285.x
• Brown, T. A., & Moore, M. T. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. H. Rick (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 361–379). Guilford Publications.
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
• Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Bustingorry, S. O. (2008). Towards teachers’ professional autonomy through action research. Educational Action Research, 16(3), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790802260398
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2013). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (18. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
• Castle, K. (2004). The meaning of autonomy in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/1090102040250101
• Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 27–29. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
• Çalışıcı Çelik, N., & Kıral, B. (2020). Öğretmen güçlendirme stratejileri: Yapılamama nedenleri ve çözüm önerileri. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 29, 179–202. https://doi.org/10.14689/enad.29.7
• Çetin, H., & Çakır, C. (2021). An investigation of Turkish high school EFL teachers’ readiness to promote learner autonomy. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 81–97.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (2. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
• Çolak, Ç. (2016). Yeni sağ’ı oluşturan bileşenlerin birbiri ile çelişen kavramları üzerine bir değerlendirme. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 9(44), 351–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.9761/JASSS3214
• Friedman, I. A. (1999). Teacher-perceived work autonomy: The concept and its measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164499591005
• Franklin, H. N. (1988). Principal consideration and its relationship to teacher sense of autonomy. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon]. Dissertation Abstracts International.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Hughes, D. J. (2018). Psychometric validity: Establishing the accuracy and appropriateness of psychometric measures. In P. Irwing, T. B. Paul, D. J. H., & P. Irwing (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing: A multidisciplinary reference on survey, scale and test development (pp. 751–779). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118489772.ch24
• Ignacio, N. G., Nieto, L. J. B., & Barona, E. G. (2006). The affective domain in mathematics learning. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 1(1), 16–32.
• Ingersol, R. M. (1997). The status of teaching as a profession: 1990–1991 (NCES 97-104). U.S. Department of Education.
• Ingersol, R. M. (2007). Short on power, long on responsibility. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 20–25.
• JASP Team. (2024). JASP (Version 0.19.2) [Computer software].
• Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400115
• Karabacak, M. S. (2014). Ankara ili genel liselerinde görev yapan öğretmenlerin özerklik algıları ile özyeterlik algıları arasındaki ilişki [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi].
• Karasar, N. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (26. baskı). Nobel Yayınları.
• Karadeniz, D., Fer, S., & Karataş, F. (2024). Öğretmen özerkliği ve öğretim duygu durumları arasındaki dinamik ilişki. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (47), 30-64. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.1477269
• Kartal, G., & Balcıkanlı, C. (2019). Tracking the culture of learning and readiness for learner autonomy in a Turkish context. TEFLIN Journal, 30(1), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v30i1/22-46
• Kılıç, A. F., & Uysal, İ. (2019). Comparison of factor retention methods on binary data: A simulation study. Turkish Journal of Education, 8(3), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.518636
• Kılıç, A. F., & Doğan, N. (2021). Comparison of confirmatory factor analysis estimation methods on mixed-format data. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.782351
• Kılıç, A. F. (2022). Değişkenlerin kategori sayısı ve dağılımın korelasyon katsayılarına etkisi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 23(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.890104
• Kılıç, A. F. (2023). Güvenirlik ve analiz yöntemleri. In İ. U. (Ed.), R programlama diliyle A’dan Z’ye ölçek uyarlama içinde (ss. 115–151). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.660353
• Kılıç, A. F., & Uysal, İ. (2023). Ölçek puanlarının geçerliği. In A. F. K. (Ed.), R programlama diliyle A’dan Z’ye ölçek geliştirme içinde (ss. 210–240). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press. Kreis, K., & Young Brockopp, D. (2001). Autonomy: A component of teacher job satisfaction. Education, 107(1), 110–115.
• Lamb, T. E. (2007). Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy: Synthesising an agenda. In T. L. Lamb & R. Hayro (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses (pp. 269–284). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.1
• Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2015). IBM SPSS for intermediate statistics (5th ed.). Routledge. Leiter, J. (1981). Perceived teacher autonomy and the meaning of organizational control. The Sociological Quarterly, 22(2), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1981.tb00657.x
• Little, J. V. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819009100403
• Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00006-6
• Liu, C.-W., & Wang, W.-C. (2016). A comparison of methods for dimensionality assessment of categorical item responses. In Pacific Rim Objective Measurement Symposium (2015) Conference Proceedings (pp. 395–410). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37592-7
• Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2020). Factor (Version 10.10.03) [Computer software]. Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
• Lorenzo-Seva, U., Timmerman, M. E., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2011). The Hull method for selecting the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(2), 340–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.564527
• Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519
• McGrath, I. (2000). Teacher autonomy. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 100–110). Pearson Education.
• Ming, T. S., & Alias, A. (2007). Investigating readiness for autonomy: A comparison of Malaysian ESL undergraduates of three public universities. Reflections on ELT, 6(1), 118.
• Moore, D. S., & Notz, W. I. (2022). Statistics: Concepts and controversies (10th ed.). Macmillan Learning.
• Mustafa, M., & Cullingford, C. (2008). Teacher autonomy and centralised control: The case of textbooks. International Journal of Educational Development, 28, 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2007.07.003
• Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Parcerisa, L., Verger, A., Pagès, M., & Browes, N. (2022). Teacher autonomy in the age of performance-based accountability: A review based on teaching profession regulatory models (2017–2020). Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30(100). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.6204
• Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Pan, H.-L. W., Chung, C.-H., & Lin, Y.-C. (2023). Exploring the predictors of teacher well-being: An analysis of teacher training preparedness, autonomy, and workload. Sustainability, 15, 5804. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075804
• Pearson, L. C., & Hall, B. W. (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172–178.
• Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 38–54.
• Porter, A. C. (1989). External standards and good teaching: The pros and cons of telling teachers what to do. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(4), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011004343
• Savalei, V., & Rhemtulla, M. (2013). The performance of robust test statistics with categorical data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66(2), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02049.x
• Smith, R. (2000). Starting with ourselves: Teacher-learner autonomy in language learning. In B. S. & I. M. & T. L. (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 89–99). Longman.
• Smith, R. C. (2001). Learner and teacher development: Connections and constraints. The Language Teacher, 25(6), 43–44.
• Steh, B., & Pozarnik, B. M. (2005). Teachers’ perception of their professional autonomy in the environment of systemic change. In D. B. (Ed.), Teacher professional development in changing conditions (pp. 349–363). Springer.
• Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Tat, O., & Kılıç, A. F. (2024). Electronic assessment anxiety scale: Development, validity and reliability. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 25(4), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1380131
• Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10694-000
• Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353.
• Tort-Moloney, D. (1997). Teacher autonomy: A Vygotskian theoretical framework. CLCS Occasional Paper, 48. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED412741.pdf
• Ulaş, J., & Aksu, M. (2015). Development of Teacher Autonomy Scale for Turkish Teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.094
• Uysal, İ., & Kılıç, A. F. (2022). Çok değişkenli normallik: Testler ne kadar doğru ne kadar güçlü? In F. N. & Ş. P. (Eds.), Eğitim bilimlerinde güncel araştırmalar (ss. 280–300). Anı Yayıncılık.
• Üzüm, P. (2014). Assessment of the structural and individual dimensions of awareness level of teacher autonomy [Doctoral dissertation, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University].
• Vangrieken, K., Grosemans, I., Dochy, F., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher autonomy and collaboration: A paradox? Conceptualizing and measuring teachers' autonomy and collaborative attitude. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.021
• Velicer, W. F. (1976). The relation between factor score estimates, image scores, and principal component scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36(1), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447603600114
• Wermke, W., & Höstfält, G. (2014). Contextualizing teacher autonomy in time and space: A model for comparing various forms of governing the teaching profession. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 58–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.812681
• White, P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under ‘ideal’ school-site autonomy. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 14(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737014001069
• Witte, R. S., & Witte, J. S. (2016). Statistics (11th ed.). Wiley.
• Worth, J., & Van den Brande, J. (2020). Teacher autonomy: How does it relate to job satisfaction and retention? Slough: NFER.
• Yan, H. (2010). A brief analysis of teacher autonomy in second language acquisition. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(2), 175–176. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.2.175-176