1. A Validation Study of the School Leader Dispositions Inventory © Teri Melton, Ed.D. Barbara Mallory, Ed.D. James Green, Ph.D. Georgia Southern University

2. 2 Motivation for the Study  COE challenge  Debate in including/excluding dispositions in standards  Need for valid and reliable instrument to measure dispositions of candidates enrolled in school leadership preparation programs

3. 3 Background: History of the Project  COE SEED grant  Pilot of three instruments: Semantic differential instrument Educational Leadership Disposition Inventory Scenario-based questionnaire  Descriptive study of current assessment systems  Consultation with psychometrician

4. 4 Background: Seminal Research  Burns (1998): values inherent in transformational leadership  McGregor (1960): leadership approach grounded in “assumptions” leader makes about people  Bennis (2006): Theory Y is prevalent in 21st century leadership training literature: Active participation by all involved; Concern with individual dignity, worth, and growth; Reexamination and resolution of the conflict between individual needs and organizational goals: Influence that relies on openness, confrontation, and “working through” differences; and, Human growth is self-generated and furthered by an environment of trust, feedback, and authentic human relationships. (p. xvi)

5. 5 Validation Study: Method Phase I  Instrument 15 scenarios keyed to 14 dispositions Each scenario followed by four scripted responses; each responses aligned to contemporary leadership theories Each response scaled “0” (“Not an option”) to “4” (“I strongly agree with this course of action”) Administration averages 45 minutes

6. 6 Validation Study: Method Phase I (con’t)  Participants 48 candidates enrolled in an Ed.D. program for Educational Leadership  69% female; 29% male  69% P-12; 23% Higher Ed.; 8% did not respond

7. 7 Validation Study: Results Phase I  Test for internal consistency Total scale reliability measured with Cronbach alpha at.85 Correlation matrix revealed no issues with multicollinearity (i.e., responses that should not correlated don’t) Correlation matrix revealed (i.e., responses that should correlate do so with mid-range correlations)

8. 8 Validation Study: Results Phase I (continued)  Clustering items across the four leadership approaches. Theory X reliability is.66 Theory Y reliability is.57 Soft-X reliability is.65 Pseudo-Y reliability is.75  Item means Theory X was 1.6 Theory Y was 2.74 Soft-X was 1.95 Pseudo-Y was 1.22

9. 9 Validation Study: Next Phases  Phase II (Fall 2010) Replicate study with a similar sized sample having geographic diversity and comprised of principals Re-analyze data to confirm internal consistency Administer MLQ to test for concurrent validity  Phase III (Spring 2011) Replicate with samples from international sites to explore cross-cultural differences

10. Questions & Discussion

11. 11 Contact Information: James Green: jegreen@georgiasouthern.edu Barbara Mallory: bmallory@georgiasouthern.edu bmallory@georgiasouthern.edu Teri Melton: tamelton@georgiasouthern.edu