1. Psychometric properties of the Hellenic version of the Questionnaires for Teachers A&B (Grigorenko, Sternberg, & Strauss, 2006)
Evangelia Foutsitzi1, Georgia Papantoniou1, Despina Moraitou2, & Irini Dermitzaki3
1University of Ioannina (Hellas)
2 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Hellas)
3University of Thessaly (Hellas)

2. Introduction
Teacher efficacy is a simple idea with significant implications. According to Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) teacher sense of efficacy is “the teacher’s belief in his or her capability to execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific task in a particular context” (p.233).

3. Introduction
Teacher efficacy has proved to be related to many educational outcomes such as teachers’ persistence, enthusiasm, commitment and instructional behavior, as well as students’ outcomes such as achievement, motivation and self efficacy beliefs (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001).
Effective teaching requires competence in the thinking skills of teachers’ academic discipline, knowledge of pedagogical principles, but also skills deriving from teachers’ tacit knowledge, regarding how to handle challenging classroom situations.

4. Introduction
During the last decade the research literature shows a growing interest in teacher self-efficacy.
However, a problem with research on teacher efficacy is that there is no common agreement about how the construct should be conceptualized and how it should be measured.
In the attempt to capture the meaning of this apparently powerful construct, researchers have tried both long, detailed measures and short, general ones.

5. Introduction
The first measures were grounded in Rotter’s social learning theory (1966) e.g.
“The Rand Measure”,
“Responsibility for Student Achievement” (RSA ),
“Teacher Locus of Control” (TLC),
“Webb efficacy scale”.
while a second strand of research grounded in the theoretical framework of social cognitive theory of
Bandura (1977, 1997)e.g.
Bandura’s construct of self-efficacy,
“The Ashton vignettes”,
“Teacher Efficacy Scale” (TES)

6. Introduction
Investigating teacher’s tacit knowledge in two studies conducted in the USA and Israel, Grigorenko, Sternberg, and Strauss (2006) constructed two inventories, namely, the Questionnaires for Teachers, which assess teachers’ sense of self-effectiveness in handling challenging school situations and classroom management skills and productive classroom performance, respectively.
To our knowledge, the psychometric properties of both questionnaires have not been tested in Hellenic population.

7. Aim of the study
Therefore, the main objective of this study was to examine the psychometric properties (factor structure, internal consistency, and convergent validity) of the Hellenic version of Grigorenko et al.’s (2006) two inventories, namely, the Questionnaires for Teachers, in order to determine whether they could prove useful tools in investigating the sense of self-effectiveness of Hellene teachers.

8. Method Participants
The total sample consisted of 279 senior high school teachers (196 females and 89 males).
The age in the sample varied from 25 to 60 years.
Teachers were selected from different schools in Creta, Cyclades and Thessaloniki.
They varied in their amount of teaching experience (ranging from 4-15 years), and
they represented all subject areas.

9. Procedure & Instruments
Participants were asked to respond to the Questionnaires for Teachers and rate themselves on 20 separate aspects, such as their presentation of academic material in class and their maintenance of discipline in the classroom.
The Questionnaires for Teachers are self-report inventories and each of them comprises 10 items.

10. Instruments
The Questionnaire for Teachers No1 (QTNo1) taps effectiveness in connection with relationship configuration in the immediate and greater working environment.
Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which each item represented their view of themselves, on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Definitely No”, 9 = “Definitely Yes”).

11. Instruments
The Questionnaire for Teachers No2 (QTNo2) taps effectiveness in connection with teaching skills utilization to achieve educational goals.
Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which each item represented their view of themselves, on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Extremely Bad”, 9 = “Extremely Good”).

12. Instruments
In order for the convergent validity of the two Questionnaires for Teachers to be tested, two more self-report inventories were administered to the participants of our study.
In specific, the participants were also asked to respond to:
the Self-Effectiveness in the Delivery of Instruction (SEDI) (Efficacy in Instructional Strategies, Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale; Tschannen-Moran, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), and
the Teachers’ Commitment in Teaching (TCM, Employee Commitment; Survey, Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993).

13. Results: Statistical Analyses
Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to investigate the factor structure of both Questionnaires for Teachers.
A principal component extraction with varimax rotation was applied to the 10 items of the QTNo1 and yielded 3 factors with eigenvalue greater than 1.00.
Eigenvalue was 3.52 for the first factor.
The scree plot suggested one factor and, due to its prominent difference from the other two factors (eigenvalue = 1.27, and 1.04, respectively), we accepted the one factor solution. All 10 items loaded on this factor with loadings > .40.

14. Results: Statistical Analyses
Confirmatory factor analysis was also conducted, and
the one-factor model in the structure of 10-item of the Hellenic version of the QTNo1 was confirmed [χ2(32, N = 279) = 51.27, p = .017, χ2/df = 1.60, CFI = .97, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .05 (CI90% )].

15. Correlations among variables-items
The best-fitting model in the structure of the 10-item Hellenic version of the Questionnaire for Teachers No1 (standardized solution)
Items
Factor 1
QTNo1 Ε R2
1. My relationships with other teachers in my school are good.
.342
.940
.117
2. My relationship with my principal is good.
.413
.911
.170
3. I am satisfied with my work.
.725
.689
.525
4. I always establish good emotional contact with my students.
.601
.799
.362
5. I present academic material well.
.532
.847
.283
6. I always maintain good discipline in my room.
7. I invest mush effort in establishing and maintaining good relationships with parents of my students.
.376
.927
.141
8. I am concerned about the school and its reputation in the community.
.455
.890
.207
9. I think that deciding to be a teacher was the right thing for me to do.
.646
.764
.417
10. I am an expert in what I do.
.390
.921
.152
Correlations among variables-items
Item 2 - Item 1
.444
Item 10 - Item 5
.408
Item 8 - Item 7
.309
NOTE: Factor 1 (QTNo1) = Effectiveness in connection with relationship configuration in the immediate and greater working environment

16. Results: Statistical Analyses
The same procedure was repeated in order for the factor structure of the QTNo2 to be tested.
The exploratory factor analysis yielded two factors with eigenvalue greater than 1.00.
Eigenvalue was 4.42 for the first factor.
The scree plot suggested one factor and, due to its prominent difference from the second factor (eigenvalue = 1.04), we accepted the one factor solution. All items loaded on this factor with loadings > .50.

17. Results: Statistical Analyses
Confirmatory factor analysis was also conducted, and
the one-factor model in the structure of 10-item of the Hellenic version of the QTNo2 was confirmed [χ2(28, N = 279) = 65.57, p = .0001, χ2/df = 2.34, CFI = .96, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .07 (CI90% )].
Cronbach’s α coefficients were acceptable and high:
.78 for the Questionnaire for Teachers No1, and
.86 for the Questionnaire for Teachers No2, respectively.

18. Correlations among variables-Items
The best-fitting model in the structure of the 10-item Hellenic version of the Questionnaire for Teachers No2 (standardized solution)
Items
Factor 1
QTNo2 Ε R2
1. How would you rate your ability to teach?
.595
.803
.354
2. How would you rate your ability to deal with children?
.540
.842
.291
3. How would you rate your academic ability?
.565
.825
.319
4. How would you rate your creative ability?
.763
.646
.582
5. How would you rate your practical ability?
.723
.691
.522
6. How good are you at working by yourself?
.519
.855
.270
7. How good are you at working with others?
.494
.870
.244
8. How good are you at motivating yourself?
.662
.749
.439
9. How good are you at managing tasks?
.619
.785
.384
10. How would you rate your sense of responsibility?
.486
.874
.236
Correlations among variables-Items
Item 2 - Item 1
.238
Item3 - Item 1
.375
Item 6 - Item2
-.144
Item7 - Item 2
.170
Item 9 - Item 7
.132
Item 9 - item 8
.314
Item10 - Item 9
.212
NOTE: Factor 1 (QTNo2) = Effectiveness in connection with teaching skills utilization to achieve educational goals

19. Results: Statistical Analyses
The correlations of the QTNo1 with SEDI (r = .52) and TCM (r = .52) were moderate.
The correlations of the QTNo2 with SEDI (r = .59) and TCM (r = .31) were moderate and low, respectively.
Finally, the correlation of the QTNo1 with the QTNo2 was also found to be moderate (r = .63).

20. Correlations among The Questionnaires for Teachers QTNo1 & QTNo2 with the Questionnaires ,Self-Effectiveness in the Delivery of Instruction (SEDI) and Teachers’ Commitment in Teaching (TCM)
AQuestTOTAL
BQuestTOTAL
CQuestTOTAL
DQuestTOTAL
1.00
.631**
.520**
.313**
.518**
.592**
.237**
NOTE:
AQuestTOTAL = Effectiveness in connection with relationship configuration in the immediate and greater working environment (QTNo1).
BQuestTOTAL = Effectiveness in connection with teaching skills utilization to achieve educational goals (QTNo2).
CQuestTOTAL = Teachers’ Commitment in Teaching (TCM).
DQuestTOTAL = Self-Effectiveness in the Delivery of Instruction (SEDI) .
**: p = .01 (2-tailed)

21. Results: Statistical Analyses
As regards the convergent validity of the two Questionnaires for Teachers, the positive aforementioned correlations indicate that both Questionnaires for Teachers consist measures of different aspects of teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in comparison to the TCM and SEDI.

22. Discussion
Furthermore, the moderate, but significant, correlations that were found among the four questionnaires, which were administered in our study (QTNo1, QTNo2, TCM & SEDI), reflect a connection between teachers’ commitment to teaching and these specific dimensions of self-efficacy, namely, handling challenging school situations, classroom management skills and teaching skills utilization to achieve educational goals, all of which, although different, aim at promoting the process of learning and improving its results, which presupposes their combined use.

23. Discussion
In specific, the moderate correlation of QTNo1 with TCM is possible to reflect the existence of a relation between teachers’ commitment to their profession and their efficacy in connection with relationship configuration in the immediate and greater working environment.
A possible explanation of this finding is that commitment to a profession creates a sense of security and personal interest among employees of the specific working environment, ensuring the integration of personal to professional life (Louis, 1998).

24. Discussion
Moreover, members of a specific working environment consist a source of external acknowledgement and acceptance of the efforts of each employee belonging to the same working environment, in other words a source of mental reward for each employee.
As a result teachers who feel emotionally committed to their profession, will probably make sure that they are configuring collaborations and positive relationships within school environment, factors which preserve a sense of community.

25. Discussion
In conclusion, although more research is needed to further validate the Hellenic version of the two Questionnaires for Teachers and to replicate our current findings, the results of our study (testing their factor structure, internal consistency, and convergent validity) show that both QTNo1 and QTNo2 -which were constructed by Grigorenko, Sternberg, and Strauss (2006)- are efficient instruments for measuring teachers’ sense of efficacy in the Hellenic cultural context.

26. References
Allen, N. J., Meyer, J. P. (2004). TCM Employee Commitment Survey. Academic Users Guide University of Western Ontario.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self–efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84,
Chazistamatiou, M., Dermitzaki, I. (2013). Teaching mathematics with self–regulation and for self-regulation: Teachers’ reports. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 10,
Grigorenko, E. L., Sternberg, R. J., & Strauss, S. (2006). Practical intelligence and elementary–school teacher effectiveness in the United States and Israel: Measuring the predictive power of tacit knowledge. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1,
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension ant test of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68,
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17,

27. Thank you for your attention!