University of Iowa

Masthead Logo Iowa Research Online

Theses and Dissertations

Fall 2015

On Measuring Student-Teacher Relationships:

Sorting Out Predictors, Outcomes, And Schematic
Structure Of Students’ Internal Relationship
Representations
Jon Craig Barch
University of Iowa

Copyright 2015 Jon Craig Barch

This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1950

Recommended Citation
Barch, Jon Craig. "On Measuring Student-Teacher Relationships: Sorting Out Predictors, Outcomes, And Schematic Structure Of
Students’ Internal Relationship Representations." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.y852ur5n

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd

Part of the Educational Psychology Commons

 ON MEASURING STUDENT-TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS: SORTING OUT
PREDICTORS, OUTCOMES, AND SCHEMATIC STRUCTURE OF STUDENTS’
INTERNAL RELATIONSHIP REPRESENTATIONS

by

Jon Craig Barch

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree in Psychological and Quantitative Foundations
(Educational Psychology)
in the Graduate College of
The University of Iowa

December 2015

Thesis Supervisor: Associate Professor Kathy Schuh

 Copyright by

JON CRAIG BARCH

2015

All Rights Reserved

 Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

____________________________

PH.D. THESIS

_________________

This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of

Jon Craig Barch

has been approved by the Examining Committee for

the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree
in Psychological and Quantitative Foundations (Educational Psychology)
at the December 2015 graduation.

Thesis Committee: ____________________________________________

Kathy Schuh, Thesis Supervisor

____________________________________________
David Lohman

____________________________________________
Joyce Moore

____________________________________________
Walter Vispoel

____________________________________________
Paul Windschitl
To my mother, Joan Barch and my father, James Barch for providing me with the
autonomy I required as a child, the structure that guided my strivings, and the love
that provided me confidence for a lifetime. To Edward Neimi for allowing me to
remain a student at Northern Michigan University when many would have sent me
home. To David Bonsall and Rachel Harris for seeing the potential for socially
responsible leadership development in me, despite my conduct record. To Dr. Alan
Beauchamp for introducing psychology to me through an Advanced Personality
Theory course that I had no prerequisite knowledge for but enjoyed tremendously.
To Dr. Cynthia Prosen for showing me how interested and excited one could be
when teaching psychology to others, an experience which inspired me toward a
career in academia. To Dr. Shelia Burns who built in me a strong foundation for
understanding statistics; carpe datum. To Dr. Bradley Olson who introduced me to
Social Psychology, life as a psychological researcher, and Self-Determination
Theory. To Dr. Edward Deci and Dr. Richard Ryan, the architects of Self-
Determination Theory, as they have provided me boundless inspiration through
their prolific writings. To Dr. Johnmarshall Reeve who agreed to bring me to the
University of Iowa as one of his graduate students. To Dr. David Lohman who was
truly the academic mentor and friend that I needed at the University of Iowa to
retain hope in completing this project. To Dr. Kathy Schuh who graciously agreed
to support me across the finish line. And with more gratitude, emphasis, and import
than all previous remarks, to my wife Maggie, daughters Lenora and Fiona, and son
James for encouraging, supporting, tolerating, and providing me with a sense of
purpose over the last ten years that I have been working on this project.

ii
“It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have
not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant,
aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom. Without this it goes to
wrack and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of
seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty.”
Albert Einstein
As quoted in Einstein and the Poet
by William Hermanns in 1983

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Let’s be real, I would have never completed this dissertation if Dr. Christine

Greer, my Dean while working as a student affairs administrator at Northern

Michigan University, would have not insisted that I finish during one of her

“listening sessions” in my office. Similarly, I would have never completed this

dissertation without the friendly, but frequent and persistent requests for progress

updates from Dr. Kathy Schuh, my advisor.

I would also like to acknowledge all of the members of my committee who

provided a great deal of guidance and editorial assistance at the dissertation proposal

and defense meetings. In particular, Dr. Kathy Schuh deserves great

acknowledgement for reading and commenting on multiple drafts of this dissertation.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all!

iv
 ABSTRACT

Student-teacher relationships have been studied by numerous researchers

from a variety of perspectives. Evidence consistently suggests that the quality of

student-teacher relationships can have a profound impact on children’s social and

cognitive development. Although researchers seem to agree on this point, their

theoretical conceptualizations of the relationships and how they measure them are

often quite different. This study provides empirical insights for both measurement

integration and theory integration regarding students’ internal relationship

representations.

Items from 14 different student-teacher relationship instruments were

systematically combined and administered as a composite instrument to 628 college

students. The participants responded to all items in reference to a single, recent

relationship with a high school instructor. This allowed comparative examination

of the original 14 scales independently for internal consistency and predictive

validity. The study also examined a hypothesized multidimensional structural

model of students’ internal representation of their relationship with a teacher based

off relational schema theory. An alternative, more parsimonious model was

examined as well.

The hypothesized model was not supported by the data. The study

demonstrated that multiple measurement models of various items could produce

acceptable fit. The study provided evidence as to which of the 170 items from the

14 original scales most closely measure the core of student-teacher relationship

quality. The study exemplified the method effect dangers of negative item wording.

v
Finally, the study provided strong evidence for conceptualizing student-teacher

relationships as a single, global relationship quality construct.

vi
 PUBLIC ABSTRACT

The student-teacher relationship can have a profound impact on the social

and academic development of a child. Extensive research supports that statement;

however, descriptions of the ideal student-teacher relationship are inconsistent.

This is because there are several different theories that researchers reference when

describing the relationships. Similarly, there are many questionnaires that

researchers have used to measure the quality of student-teacher relationships and

sometimes they differ drastically in their content. This study reviews 14 of the

questionnaires from five theoretical perspectives, combines the collective 170

questionnaire items into one survey, and gathers data from 628 students. The

findings provide insights related to measurement of student-teacher relationships

and further our understanding of how students’ think about their relations with

teachers.

A new model was proposed, but the data did not support it. The study did

allow comparison about how useful each of the 14 questionnaires is. The study

reminds us that multiple models can fit the same data. The study examined which

items from each of the questionnaires most closely measure the core of student-

teacher relationship quality. The study provides an example of how switching the

wording of questions from positive to negative can influence the questionnaire

results. Finally the study provided strong evidence for thinking about student-

teacher relationships as a single, global relationship quality construct as opposed to

a multi-dimensional construct.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiv

PREFACE ...................................................................................................................... xviii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1

Student-Teacher Relationships........................................................................................ 1

Statement of Problem ...................................................................................................... 2

Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................. 4

Importance of Study ........................................................................................................ 6

CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................8

Common Conceptualizations of Student-Teacher Relationships .................................... 8

Integration of Student-Teacher Relationship Conceptualizations ................................. 36

What is Being Measured? ............................................................................................. 37

Are there Common Psychological Mechanisms?.......................................................... 44

Summary and Next Steps .............................................................................................. 48

CHAPTER III. METHODS ...............................................................................................50

Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 50

Participants .................................................................................................................... 50

Instrumentation.............................................................................................................. 52

Content Analysis of C-STRI Items ............................................................................... 62

Quasi-Independent Variables ........................................................................................ 64

Relational Schema Components.................................................................................... 66

Outcome Variables ........................................................................................................ 67

viii
 Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 68

Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 70

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 71

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS .................................................................................................73

Descriptive Statistics ..................................................................................................... 73

Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Original Fourteen Scales ......................................... 79

Regression of Scale Scores on Internalization, Engagement, and Academic

Achievement.................................................................................................................. 96

Fitting the Data to the Hypothesized Measurement Model......................................... 104

Testing the Hypothesized Structural Model ................................................................ 126

Testing the Hypothesized Structural Model across Groups ........................................ 133

Post Hoc Exploratory Factor Analysis ........................................................................ 135

CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................144

Comparing the 14 Original Scales .............................................................................. 144

Multiple Models Can Fit the Data ............................................................................... 150

Methods Effects of Negative Item Wording ............................................................... 150

The Global Relationship Quality Construct ................................................................ 152

Limitations .................................................................................................................. 154

General Conclusions and Next Steps .......................................................................... 156

APPENDIX A. ORIGINAL 14 INSTRUMENTS, SUBSCALES, AND ITEMS ..........158

APPENDIX B. REVISED 14 INSTRUMENTS, SUBSCALES, AND ITEMS .............168

APPENDIX C. C-STRI ITEMS GROUPED BY PROPOSED MODEL

FACTORS........................................................................................................................178

ix
APPENDIX D. TEXT FOR INVITATION PARTICIPATE EMAIL ............................188

APPENDIX E. ELECTRONIC INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT ......................189

APPENDIX F. INITIAL DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS ............................................190

APPENDIX G. END OF SURVEY THANK YOU NOTE ............................................191

APPENDIX H. C-STRI STATEMENTS FOR COUSE SUBJECT

ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................................................192

APPENDIX I. SAMPLE OF C-STRI QUESTIONS FORMATTED AS A

PARTICIPANT WOULD HAVE SEEN.........................................................................194

APPENDIX K. PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3-

FACTOR EXTRACTION AFTER FIRST ROUND OF C-STRI ITEM

DELETION ......................................................................................................................200

APPENDIX L. PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3-

FACTOR EXTRACTION AFTER SECOND ROUND OF C-STRI ITEM

DELETION ......................................................................................................................204

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................206

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of relationship measurement scales, associated constructs, and

outcomes ............................................................................................................................10

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for all C-STRI items ........................................................ 73

Table 3. CFA model fit statistics for the fourteen original scales .................................... 80

Table 4. SMC estimates for Classroom Life Measure ...................................................... 81

Table 5. SMC estimates for Student Classroom Environment Measure items ................ 82

Table 6. SMC estimates for Developmental Studies Center Student Questionnaire

items .................................................................................................................................. 83

Table 7. SMC estimates for Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachments items................. 85

Table 8. SMC estimates for School Utilization & Emulation items ................................. 85

Table 9. SMC estimates for Research Assessment Package for Schools items................ 87

Table 10. SMC estimates for Teacher as Social Context items ........................................ 87

Table 11. SMC estimates for Sense of Relatedness items ................................................ 88

Table 12. SMC estimates for Emotional Reliance Questionnaire items ........................... 90

Table 13. SMC estimates for Basic Need Satisfaction in relationships items .................. 90

Table 14. SMC estimates for Need for Relatedness Scale items ...................................... 91

Table 15. SMC estimates for Student-Teacher Relationship Scale items ........................ 92

Table 16. SMC estimates for Young Children's Appraisals of Teacher Support items .... 93

Table 17. SMC estimates for Psychological Sense of School Membership items ........... 96

Table 18. Regression results for each original scale with internalization as the

dependent variable .......................................................................................................... 101

xi
Table 19. Regression results for each original scale with engagement as the

dependent variable .......................................................................................................... 102

Table 20. Regression results for each original scale with academic achievement as

the dependent variable .................................................................................................... 103

Table 21. Items deleted from predictor factors in hypothesized model due to low

factor loadings ................................................................................................................. 109

Table 22. Items deleted from predictor factors in hypothesized model due to high

cross loading modification estimates .............................................................................. 110

Table 23. Five highest error covariance modification indices for items in

hypothesized predictor factor measurement model ........................................................ 111

Table 24. Items deleted from perceptions of teacher measurement model due to low

factor loadings ................................................................................................................. 114

Table 25. Five highest error covariance modification indices for items in

hypothesized perceptions of teacher portion of the measurement model ....................... 115

Table 26. Four highest error covariance modification indices for items in

hypothesized Perceptions of Self portion of the measurement model ............................ 118

Table 27. Seven remaining allowable error covariance modification indices greater

than 50 for items in the hypothesized Perceptions of Self portion of the

measurement model ........................................................................................................ 119

Table 28. Items deleted from the outcome variables’ measurement model due to low

factor loadings ................................................................................................................. 123

Table 29. Items deleted from outcome factors in hypothesized model due to high

cross loading modification estimates .............................................................................. 124

xii
Table 30. Regression weight modification indices for treating academic

achievement as a secondary outcome in the structural model ........................................ 129

Table 31. Four highest error covariance modification indices for the Full model as

displayed in Figure 33 ..................................................................................................... 130

Table 32. Parameter estimates for factor loadings and path coefficients in the final

version of the full model ................................................................................................. 131

Table 33. Bivariate correlations among subscale scores for predictor factors,

relational schema factors, and outcome factors in modified full structural model ......... 134

Table 34. Variance inflation factor statistics for all predictor factors, relational

schema factors, and outcome factors in modified full structural model when

regressed on achievement ............................................................................................... 135

Table 35. Factor loadings of items retained for the three factor solution after items

deleted for issues of cross-loading .................................................................................. 138

Table 36. Factor loadings of all items for the single-factor solution .............................. 139

Table 37. Comparison of internal reliability from original publication and this study

for all 14 original scales .................................................................................................. 146

Table 38. Predictive validity comparison of 14 original scales ...................................... 148

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Hypothesized measurement model of the C-STRI based on Baldwin’s

social cognitive theory of relational schemas .......................................................... 55

Figure 2. Hypothesized structural model of latent variables measured by the C-

STRI based on Baldwin’s social cognitive theory of relational schemas ................ 63

Figure 3. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Classroom Life Measure

items ......................................................................................................................... 81

Figure 4. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Student Classroom

Environment Measure items .................................................................................... 82

Figure 5. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Developmental Studies

Center Student Questionnaire items......................................................................... 83

Figure 6. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Inventory of Parent & Peer

Attachments items .................................................................................................... 84

Figure 7. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of School Utilization and

Teacher Emulation items ......................................................................................... 86

Figure 8. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Research Assessment

Package for Schools items ....................................................................................... 86

Figure 9. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Teacher as Social Context

items ......................................................................................................................... 88

Figure 10. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Sense of Relatedness

items ......................................................................................................................... 89

Figure 11. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Emotional Reliance

Questionnaire items ................................................................................................. 89

xiv
Figure 12. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Basic Need Satisfaction

in Relationships items .............................................................................................. 90

Figure 13. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Need for Relatedness

Scale items ............................................................................................................... 91

Figure 14. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Student-Teacher

Relationship Scale items .......................................................................................... 92

Figure 15. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Young Children’s

Appraisals of Teacher Support items ....................................................................... 94

Figure 16. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Psychological Sense of

School Membership items........................................................................................ 95

Figure 17. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of internalization items

added to the C-STRI for examining predictive validity of original scales .............. 98

Figure 18. Standardized CFA parameter estimates for revised model of

internalization items added to the C-STRI for examining predictive validity of

original scales........................................................................................................... 99

Figure 19. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of engagement items added

to the C-STRI for examining predictive validity of original scales ......................... 99

Figure 20. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of the 4-item model of

engagement items added to the C-STRI for examining predictive validity of

original scales......................................................................................................... 100

Figure 21. Latent variable covariance and factor loading parameter estimates

for the hypothesized measurement model of predictor variables .......................... 106

xv
Figure 22. Standardized parameter estimates for 3-factor model of predictors

with all items included ........................................................................................... 108

Figure 23. Standardized parameter estimates for 3-factor model of predictors

with items removed and error covariance added ................................................... 112

Figure 24. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized second-

order factor model of perceptions of teacher with all items included.................... 113

Figure 25. Standardized parameter estimates for the second-order perceptions

of teacher factor model with items removed and error covariance added ............. 116

Figure 26. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized second-order

factor model of Perceptions of Self with all items included .................................. 117

Figure 27. Standardized parameter estimates for the second-order Perceptions

of Self factor model with items removed and error covariance added .................. 120

Figure 28. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized second-order

factor model of Interpersonal Scripts with all items included ............................... 121

Figure 29. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized outcome

variables with all items included............................................................................ 122

Figure 30. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized outcome

variables after item elimination and splitting of behavioral and emotional

engagement ............................................................................................................ 126

Figure 31. Full structural equation model with the hypothesized latent variable

associations using the modified measurement model parts ................................... 127

xvi
Figure 32. Full structural equation model with unknown parameters reduced by

calculating subscale scores for several factors from the modified measurement

model specifications............................................................................................... 128

Figure 33. Full model using subscale scores and treating academic achievement

as a secondary outcome ......................................................................................... 129

Figure 34. Full model using subscale scores and treating academic achievement

as a secondary outcome and modified by the addition of error covariance

parameters .............................................................................................................. 131

Figure 35. Forward portion of the principal components analysis scree plot ........ 136

xvii
 PREFACE

There is a terrible level of discontent and disengagement with the education

experience of many youth these days, particularly those in secondary schools. Upon

reflecting on my own experiences from kindergarten through high school, and

beyond for that matter, I realize that the interest, enjoyment, and effort I personally

put into learning was consistently tied to the perceptions I had about the quality of

my relationships with classroom instructors. Accurately understanding these

relationships with enough descriptive detail that I might be able to assist future

teachers in developing relationships of the kind that facilitate interest and

engagement is the premise of my research.

I also feel compelled to state up-front that this thesis is in no way intended to

refute the validity, reliability, or general usefulness of any of the existing instruments

reviewed throughout the project. Rather, the motivation behind this project is to

build on the great wealth of knowledge and tools that exist in the literature about

student-teacher relationships and to examine them from a different angle by

integrating multiple measurement tools and theoretical approaches.

xviii
 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

Interpersonal relationships are central to the human experience. Accordingly,

they have long been at the core of a broad spectrum of psychological research. It has

even been suggested that perceived relatedness to others is a psychological need and in

order to achieve optimal physical and psychological functioning human beings must

perceive themselves as having high quality relationships within a preferred social group

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988). Even people who

report not needing close relationships with others show large increases in positive affect

when they learn that others accept them or that they will have interpersonal success in the

future (Carvallo & Gabriel, 2006). The idea that humans require strong emotional bonds

with other humans to be healthy is not new; rather, it has been a major component of

several classic personality theories (e.g., Fairbairn, 1952; Freud, 1930; Fromm, 1956;

Horney, 1945; Maslow, 1943; Rogers, 1951). The prominence of these as well as more

contemporary theories (e.g., Bowlby, 1973; Deci & Ryan, 1985) has fueled volumes of

research on interpersonal relationships.

Student-Teacher Relationships

One set of interpersonal relationships that most children experience are with the

teachers they have throughout their lives. The quality of these student-teacher

relationships can have a profound impact on a child, building a cognitive foundation from

which perceptual expectations of other non-familial relationships are construed in the

future. Indeed, researchers reviewing literature from a variety of perspectives have

concluded such relationships have significant importance for many social and cognitive

developmental outcomes (e.g., Brophy, 1998; Davis, 2001; Goodenow, 1992; McCallum

1
& Bracken, 1993; Oldfather & Dahl, 1994; Pianta, 1999; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985;

Wentzel, 1999). For example, Davis, (2001) reviewed evidence that student-teacher

relationship quality in preschool relates to students’ expression of prosocial behavior in

the classroom and social competence. Goodenow (1992) discussed evidence that

perceptions of student-teacher relationship quality was a predictor of global self-worth,

school engagement vs. emotional withdrawal, and understanding the value/importance of

mathematics in seventh grade. Pianta (2006) reviewed a voluminous body of empirical

research supporting the connections between student-teacher relationship quality and

students’ emotional regulation, attention, problem solving, and consequently academic

achievement. Again, this research and more shows us how developmentally important

these relationships can be. As with research in any field, the quality of empirical research

on student-teacher relationships directly impacts our ability to improve them and

ultimately improve the lives of children who experience them. Accordingly, this

dissertation aims to improve the quality of research on student-teacher relationships.

Statement of Problem

Although educational psychologists seem to agree on the importance of student-

teacher relationships, their theoretical conceptualizations of such relationships are

diverse. This is likely due to the researchers coming from a variety of training

backgrounds (e.g., psychosocial, humanistic, social psychological). Certainly, some

overlap does exist among them. However, the equally extant inconsistencies leave many

questions about what a high quality student-teacher relationship actually is, how many

distinct factors are appropriate to consider when describing the relationship, what

psychological mechanisms are responsible for its association with positive social and

2
cognitive outcomes, and, perhaps most importantly for good science, how the construct

and mechanisms should best be measured.

Due to their diverse theoretical perspectives, these researchers have constructed

and used a variety of instruments to measure proposed relationship constructs. Some

measures include items that seem to be inputs to the relationship, others include items

that could arguably be considered outcomes of the relationship, and others measure

various elements of the students’ internal representation, or schema, of the relationship.

The diversity of these tools creates confusion about which scores should be considered

predictor or outcome variables of the relationship and which scores should be included in

the measurement model of a latent variable representing aspects of the relationship itself.

This measurement inconsistency also clouds cross-paradigm interpretation of research

and can leave readers questioning what aspects of the relationship are important and why.

Stepping outside of the student-teacher relationship research to a broader, social-

cognitive psychology paradigm guiding relationship perception research and theory may

be of great value when working toward improving cross-perspective comparison or any

possible integration of student-teacher relationship measurement and theory development

in the educational psychology literature. Specifically, Baldwin’s (1992) work developing

relational schema theory as a social-cognitive modernization of interpersonal psychology,

guided by a century’s worth of insights from the psychological study of interpersonal

experience, would be a great place to look. Baldwin (1992) expertly synthesized a broad

multitude of person-, situation-, and self-perception theories as he formulated a theory he

elected to call relational schema theory. Accordingly, integration of the variety of

student-teacher relationship perspectives can be performed using Baldwin’s relational

3
schema theory as a guide. Likewise, a process of blending and evaluating the many

student-teacher relationship measures, again using relational schema theory as a guide,

may allow measurement integration as well.

Educational psychologists have not yet attempted such cross perspective theory

integration or measurement integration. Broad reviews of student-teacher relationship

literature often pull findings from studies across perspectives, apparently making an

assumption that various researchers are all studying the same concept and measuring the

same construct, ignoring important underlying theory and measurement differences.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to refine the conceptualization and measurement of

student-teacher relationships, which should subsequently improve efforts to enhance

teachers' relationships with their students. The many ways educational researchers define

and measure student-teacher relationships were examined to compare and contrast their

similarities and differences. Multi-perspective data from a single sample of student-

teacher relationship perceptions was gathered using instruments from all the perspectives

simultaneously. Modeling of item covariance allowed empirical consideration of the

potential for measurement integration. The measurement integration results provided

insights for synthesizing the existing perspectives into a single theoretical framework.

Accordingly, several popular, contemporary tools used to measure student-teacher

relationships were collected. The process of gathering these instruments is laid out in the

literature review chapter. The items from these instruments were combined into a single

survey, which was administered to a large sample of college student respondents. When

completing the survey, respondents were prompted to reflect on a relationship they

4
experienced with a particular high school teacher, in the past tense. Instrument items

were only adjusted as required to grammatically correspond with this request. Item

adjustments are explained further in the methods chapter. The internal consistency of

items was examined as grouped by the original scale they were taken from. Baldwin’s

(1992) relational schema theory was used to formulate an alternative structural

configuration of all the student-teacher relationship instrument items taken together. To

examine the generalizability of relationship dynamics across various disciplines of study,

respondents were randomly assigned to reflect on experiences with their most recent high

school science, math, or English teacher. Exploratory factor analysis was also used to

determine if there was a simpler empirical modeling of the data.

This study addressed questions about the measurement structure of student-

teacher relationships. It provided an empirical examination of applying relational schema

theory to student-teacher relationship measurement. Specifically, the following

hypotheses were tested: 1) when examined separately from other instruments’ items, the

items from each of the original instruments will demonstrate acceptable internal

consistency and fit to their instrument’s expected structural model; 2) calculated scale

scores from each of the original measurement tools will demonstrate acceptable

predictive validity in the expected direction as related to each of the student outcomes

internalization, engagement, and academic achievement; 3) items from all the

measurement tools taken together will fit well into a new 13-factor structure; and 4) the

new factors will fit well into a relational schema theory driven structural model.

5
Importance of Study

Positive student-teacher relationships play a significant role in healthy child

development. Oversimplified, the early childhood educational process involves teachers

providing students with knowledge, skills, and attitudes deemed important for successful

socialization in a given culture. Research suggests that student-teacher relationship

quality influences student motivation and engagement in the learning process, which

ultimately impacts mastery of course content, development of skill sets, and

internalization of desired attitudes (Brophy, 1998; Davis, 2001; Pianta, 1999; Ryan et al.,

1985). As educational researchers improve our understanding of student-teacher

relationships through improved measurement and more integrated theoretical

conceptualizations, better research can be conducted on direct causes and consequences

of relationship quality. This affords educators the ability to facilitate the development of

relationships with students in desired ways and ultimately improve student learning and

development. This study is important because it provides empirical evidence for both

measurement integration and theory integration regarding students’ internal, teacher

relationship representations.

The past has demonstrated how this kind of cross paradigm integration can be

fruitful. It is usually the case that each paradigm has bits of truth to offer, yet too often

researchers work within one paradigm and fail to explore any synthesis of alternative

perspectives. An example of where this focus on a particular paradigm has gradually

been surmounted is in research on cognitive abilities where a general acceptance of the

Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory (see Cameron et al., 1997) has developed. Similar to

interpersonal relationship theorists, for nearly a century, theorists in the study of human

6
intelligence proposed and studied a multitude of models representing intelligence.

Providing a basis for the method of measurement integration utilized by this study of

student teacher-relationship conceptualizations, Woodcock’s (1990) joint factor analysis

on several intelligence tests simultaneously provided empirical support for the integrated

general-fluid, general-crystalized intelligence model proposed as an integration of other

theories by Horn and Cattell (1966) as did Carroll’s (1993) extensive factor analytic study

of multiple models and Horn’s (1994) integrative factor analytic study. Similarly, in

personality research, the work of McCrae and Costa (1987) using multiple measures of

personality taxonomies and factor analyses paved the way for eventual widespread

acceptance of the Big 5 theory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Unfortunately, contemporary

researchers in the field of student teacher relationship research remain paradigmatically

divided to a great extent. These examples of critical progress in the fields of intelligence

and personality research alike demonstrate how consideration of concepts and ideas from

a broad range of research perspectives can be helpful and the integrative process fruitful.

Taking a page from this history, the present study was carried out to explore a newly

synthesized, more comprehensive understanding of students’ perceptions of their

relationships with teachers. Guided by Baldwin’s (1992) social-cognitive, relational

schema theory, data from simultaneous administration of multiple student-teacher

relationship measurement was factor modeled to empirically explore a viable, cross-

paradigm factor structure of student-teacher relationship representations.

7
 CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Common Conceptualizations of Student-Teacher Relationships

In educational psychology research there have been many different approaches to

studying students’ relationships with their teachers. These approaches focus on a

multitude of situational and person perception variables to define the high-quality

relationship. Sometimes it is conceptualized as a relationship with the school in general.

Five prominent perspectives are reviewed in the subsequent sections of this chapter;

however, before reviewing the theoretical perspectives in detail, it is important to outline

the process used to identify them and the parameters of inclusion in this review. To

begin, because this project is focused on measurement integration, broad searches using

PsycINFO and ERIC were conducted to identify the tools used in quantitative research on

student-teacher relationships. Initial searches used one of the terms “measure,”

“questionnaire,” “instrument,” or “scale” along with all three terms “student,” “teacher,”

and “relationship.” After finding three other terms, “relatedness,” “involvement,” and

“belongingness” surfacing as descriptors associated with research found in the searches,

further searches were added substituting each of these terms for “relationship,” one at a

time. All searches were conducted with restrictions to include only journal articles or

book chapters and to exclude anything prior to 1980. The resulting studies were

manually sorted into two categories, 1) review articles and 2) original research that

included a quantitative measure of the student-teacher relationship; all other articles were

discarded. The review articles were used to further locate additional, original-research

articles that quantitatively measured the student-teacher relationship. Introductory

sections of the original-research articles were also used to reverse mine citations of

8
quantitative research on student-teacher relationships not yet identified as well. Next, the

mass of original-research articles was sorted by the instrument used to measure the

student-teacher relationship. For example, all studies that measured the relationship with

the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta & Nimetz, 1991) were placed into a

group. The next step was to search PsycINFO and ERIC several more times using the

names/titles of the instruments identified in the sorting process to identify any studies that

may have used those measures but had not yet been identified. After this, studies were

discarded if they used a measure that was not also used in any other studies or if the

measure described was not based on any identified psychological theory on human

relationships. What remained were fourteen instrument groupings. Because this study is

intended to afford both measurement integration and theory integration, the instrument

groupings were organized into five higher-order groupings according to the foundational

relationship theory referenced by the researchers who first developed the instrument. In

other words, all researchers that referenced Self-Determination Theory’s concept of

relatedness need support (Deci & Ryan, 1985) when developing their instrument, were

grouped under that higher-order categorization. The five groupings include 1)

pedagogical caring, 2) caring school community, 3) relatedness, 4) closeness, conflict,

and dependency, and 5) sense of belonging. In the following five sections of the paper,

these relationship perspectives are briefly reviewed, the relationship measurement tools

associated with them are examined, details from a few major studies are shared, and a

listing of outcomes found to be significantly related to each measure are laid out. Table 1

provides a summary of fourteen student-teacher relationship measurement scales

associated with each of these perspectives.

9
 Table 1. Summary of relationship measurement scales, associated constructs, and outcomes

Reference Relationship Scale Title Relevant # of Coefficient Sample Item(s) Associated Outcomes
Construct Subscales Items Alpha
Johnson, Pedagogical Classroom Teacher social 4 .80 My teacher cares about and Academic interest, social
Johnson, caring Life Measure support likes me as a person. responsibility, academic pro-social
Buckman, & behavior, mastery orientation toward
Richards, 1985 Teacher 4 .78 My teacher cares about how learning, academic effort, engagement,
academic much I learn. self-regulation, & academic
support achievement

Feldlaufer, Pedagogical Student Teacher fairness 7 .70 - .75 The teacher cares how we Academic motivation, task valuing, &
Midgley, & caring Classroom & friendliness feel. task interest/enjoyment
Eccles, 1988 Environment
Measure

Developmental Caring Developmental Classroom 10 .82 My class is like a family. academic motivation, intrinsic
Studies Center, school Studies Center supportiveness motivation, task orientation, school
2002 community Student In my class the teacher and enjoyment, prosocial attitudes, and
Questionnaire Meaningful 10 .80 students decide together educational attainment expectations,
participation what the rules will be. less ego orientation, & work avoidance

Armsden & Relatedness Inventory of Trust 10 .91 My __ understands me. Positive coping at school, self-
Greenberg, Parent & Peer regulated learning, perceived control,
1987 Attachments Communication 9 .91 I tell my __ about my school engagement
problems and troubles.

Alienation 6 .86 I get upset easily around my

__.

Ryan, Stiller, & Relatedness School NA 3 .66 I can usually rely on my Positive coping at school, self-
Lynch, 1994 Utilization teacher when I have regulated learning, perceived control,
problems at school. school engagement

Emulation NA 4 .84 I try to model myself after

my teachers.

10
Table 1. Continued

Institute for Relatedness Research Teacher 4 .71 When I am with my teacher School emotional and behavioral
Research and Assessment Emotional I feel happy. engagement
Reform in Package for Security
Education, 1998 Schools

Belmont, Relatedness Teacher as Affection 3 .71 My teacher likes me. School engagement, internalization of
Skinner, Social Context task importance, autonomous
Wellborn, Attunement 3 .54 My teacher knows me well. motivation
Connell, 1988
Dedication of 2 My teacher spends time
Resources with me.

Dependability 6 .72 My teacher is always there

for me.

Furrer & Relatedness Sense of NA 4 .79 When I am with my teacher Emotional engagement, behavioral
Skinner, 2003 Relatedness I feel accepted. engagement, & help-seeking behavior

Butzel & Ryan, Relatedness Emotional NA 7 .91 - .97 If I were feeling alone or Well-being, mental health, & perceived
1997 Reliance depressed, I would be self-determination
Questionnaire willing to turn to my _____.

LaGuardia, Relatedness Basic Need Relatedness 3 .90 When I am with ____ I feel Fully mediates relationship between
Ryan, Satisfaction in loved and cared about. attachment security and well-being
Couchman, & Relationships
Deci, 2000

Richer & Relatedness Need for Acceptance 5 .89 In my relationship with my Increased vitality, increased
Vallerand, 1998 Relatedness _______, I feel supported. performance
Scale
Intimacy 5 .91 In my relationship with my
_______, I feel as a friend.

11
Table 1. Continued

Pianta & Closeness, Student- NA 16 .85 This student trusts me. Social competence, frustration
Nimetz, 1991 conflict, Teacher tolerance, work habits, self-discipline,
dependency Relationship classroom participation, cooperation,
Scale (STRS) academic competence, school
achievement, less behavior, conduct, &
attention problems, peer aggression,
internalizing, & school avoidance

Mantzicopoulos Closeness, Young Warmth 11 .75 My teacher is my friend. Reading ability, self-control, less
& Neuharth- conflict, Children’s emotionality, school achievement,
Pritchett, 2003 dependency Appraisals of Autonomy 6 .67 My teacher lets me do cooperation, self-control, & less
Teacher activities I want to do. behavior problems
Support
(Y-CATS) Conflict 10 .75 My teacher gets angry with
me.

Goodenow, Sense of Psychological NA 18 .87 Most teachers at (name of task valuing, success expectancies,
1993 belonging Sense of school) are interested in me. academic motivation, positive affect,
School optimism, academic efficacy, intrinsic
Membership goal orientation, school achievement,
less risky behaviors, depression, social
rejection, & behavioral problems

12
 Pedagogical caring. Research on student-teacher relationships from this point of

view places the focus on the teacher’s relational style. High quality relationships are

those involving caring teachers who engage students in perspective-taking dialogue

aimed at mutual understanding. They know students’ ability level, have appropriately

high expectations of their students, and they model compassionate behavior toward their

students (Noddings, 1992). Put differently, students seem to thrive in a respectful, home-

like environment (Matzye, 1995); whereas, the lack of caring teachers has been

implicated as a reason for dropping out of school (Grossnickle, 1986). In an exploration

of Nodding’s (1992) view of the caring teacher, Wentzel (1997) analyzed descriptions of

teachers’ caring and non-caring behaviors provided by 375 eighth-grade students. Caring

teachers were generally described as making an effort to capture student interest, they

encouraged reciprocal communication, were fair, honest, trustworthy, concerned about

students’ lives outside of academics, and able to recognize individuals’ abilities,

successes, and difficulties (Wentzel, 1997).

In addition to this qualitative analysis of what it means to be a caring teacher,

students’ perceptions of teacher caring have also been quantitatively measured by

Wentzel (1994; 1997; 1998) using the Teacher Social Support and Teacher Academic

Support subscales of the Classroom Life Measure (Johnson & Johnson, 1983; Johnson,

Johnson, Buckman, & Richards, 1985). Johnson and Johnson (1983) report that the two

subscales formed separate factors using a varimax rotation factor analyses. Teacher

Academic Support was assessed with 4 items measuring a student’s belief that the teacher

1) cares about how much he/she learns, 2) likes to see his/her work, 3) likes to help

him/her learn, and 4) wants him/her to do his/her best in schoolwork and showed strong

13
internal consistency (α= .85). Teacher Social Support was assessed with 4 items

measuring a student’s belief that the teacher 1) really cares about him/her, 2) thinks it is

important to be his/her friend, 3) likes him/her as much as other students, and 4) cares

about his/her feelings and showed reasonable internal consistency (α= .68). As such,

many others have used the subscales separately (e.g., Patrick, Kaplan, & Ryan, 2011;

Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007; Ryzin, Gravely, & Roseth, 2009). However, it is unclear

how distinct these subscales actually are. Wentzel (1997) found the two sub-scales to be

highly correlated in both sixth (r = .67) and eighth (r = .71) grade students so the

subscales’ items were combined to form a single composite score, which showed strong

internal consistency in both sixth (α= .89) and eighth grade (α= .91). Wentzel and her

colleagues now regularly combine items from both subscales into one construct depicting

how much the student perceives that the teacher cares. Not surprisingly, their data

similarly support the assertion that students with caring or nurturing teachers have

increased academic interest (Wentzel, 1997; 1998), positive social and academic goal

striving (Wentzel, 1994; 1997; Wentzel, Baker, & Russell, 2012), mastery orientation

toward learning (Wentzel, 1997), and greater adherence to classroom norms and rules

(Wentzel, 1998).This approach assumes that teachers’ social/emotional and academic

support together influence students’ general perception that the teacher cares about them

(Wentzel 1994, 1998; Wentzel, Baker, & Russell, 2012). Support for this single construct

approach is also found in a recent repeated measures study using these same items as part

of a survey administered to 283 secondary school students by Van Ryzin, Gravely, and

Roseth (2009). These researchers modeled how academic autonomy and support in

school can predict engagement in learning, which in turn predicts children’s positive

14
psychological adjustment. As expected, student perceptions of teacher support was an

important predictor of student engagement in learning in their model (Van Ryzin,

Gravely, & Roseth, 2009). Of interest to the measurement issue, though, is that these

researchers began by assuming the subscales of teacher academic and social support were

separate constructs, but found them to be one factor after doing principal axis factor

analysis using Promax rotation. When treated as a single construct, Van Ryzin, Gravely,

and Roseth’s (2009) data produced strong internal reliability figures at both measurement

time-1 (α= .90) and measurement time-2 (α= .91).

However, in another recent study, Patrick, Ryan, and Kaplan, (2007) examined

602 fifth-grade students’ perceptions of their teachers’ social/emotional and academic

supportiveness, among other classroom social environment variables, to see if they

predicted classroom engagement and if that relationship was mediated by the students’

motivational beliefs. As with nearly all the studies on this topic, they administered a

battery of surveys to gather the data from the children. Teacher academic and

social/emotional support subscales were found be highly correlated (r = .80); however,

the researchers tested their proposed model using them as separate constructs as

compared to a model in which the items for both subscales loaded onto a single construct

for teacher support. They found that significant information was gained by keeping the

subscales separate. More importantly, their data provide more evidence that when a

teacher is perceived as more supportive, the student is more likely to use self-regulatory

strategies and engage in more on-task behaviors, which result in greater academic

achievement. Further, their results suggest that this relationship is mediated by the

effects that the teacher supportiveness has on students’ use of mastery goals and

15
perception of academic self-efficacy (Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007). Patrick, Kaplan,

and Ryan (2011) used multidimensional scaling with three samples of adolescents (Ns =

537, 537, and 736) as well as structural modeling with a fourth sample (N = 789) to

examine the dimensionality of goal structures and classroom climate including teacher

academic support and teacher social/emotional support. Although, the data suggested

strong correlation between teacher academic support ratings and teacher social/emotional

support ratings (r = .67-.77), the spatially plotted data supported the multidimensional

perspective over the single construct approach.

Taking a similar enough approach to student-teacher relationships to remain in

this section on pedagogical caring, Feldlaufer, Midgley, and Eccles (1988) developed

their own 6-item scale to measure students’ perceptions of teachers as supportive, caring,

friendly, and fair in order to examine the differences in students’ perceptions of teachers

before (α= .70) and after (α= .75) the transition from elementary school to middle school.

This subscale, titled Techer—Unfair/Unfriendly, was part of a larger measure called the

Student Classroom Environment Measure and its six items asked students if teachers

cared about how they feel, were friendly to them, treated boys and girls differently,

graded work fairly, treated some kids better than others, and criticized poor work

(Feldlaufer et al., 1988). Midgley, Feldlaufer, and Eccles (1989) used this measure again

in a more sophisticated follow-up study (N = 1,301) to examine if changes in students’

interest/enjoyment of math as well as their valuing of the importance/usefulness of math

changes from elementary school to middle school in relation to the change in perceptions

of their teachers. These data suggested main effects of perceived teacher support on math

interest/enjoyment, F(3,1300) = 36.94, p < .0001, and math usefulness/importance,

16
F(3,1300) = 35.59, p < .0001, as well as, the two-way interaction between change in

teacher support and elementary-middle school changes on math interest/enjoyment,

F(3,1300) = 21.80, p < .0001 and math usefulness/importance, F(3,1300) = 16.41, p <

.0001. Before moving on, it is important to note the similarity between this

conceptualization of caring teachers and the warmth/supportiveness dimensions of the

higher-order caring school community construct (Battistich, et al., 1997) previously

discussed. Not surprisingly, many of the positive outcomes found by researchers using

each of these perspectives concur as well.

Caring school community. Students’ sense of their school as a caring community

(Battistich, Solomon, Kim, Watson, & Schaps, 1995; Solomon, Battistich, Kim, &

Watson, 1997) is similar to the sense of belongingness, which will be reviewed in a

subsequent section. In fact, it is sometimes reviewed as a measure of belongingness

alongside other studies of belongingness (e.g., Nichols, 2008). However, it is broader in

both definition and measurement than school belongingness. Further, although both

concepts are relevant to this project, and thus both are included in this review, the two

concepts come from different research traditions. Therefore, they have been intentionally

presented as separate sections in this review. Researchers studying students’ sense of

community theorize that students who experience a sense of school community “will feel

strongly attached to the community and that this attachment will lead them to feel

personally committed to the values and goals the community promotes, particularly if

those values and goals are clear and jointly held by the community members” (Solomon,

Battistich, Watson, Schaps, & Lewis, 2000, p.5). Though its measurement has undergone

some revision, it still consists of two main elements: 1) students’ perceptions of the

17
school as supportive both emotionally and cognitively and 2) students’ beliefs that they

have an influential role in decision making. Originally, it consisted of 24 items split into

two subscales accordingly (Solomon et al., 1997). Most recently these subscales, titled

Classroom Supportiveness and Meaningful Participation each have 10 items and exist

within a larger instrument called the Student Questionnaire, which is authored and

distributed by the Developmental Studies Center (DSC, 2002).

The sense of school community as a concept is at the root of a large intervention-

based quasi-experimental research project known as the Child Development Project

(CDP) (Solomon et al., 2000; Solomon, Watson, Delucchi, Schaps, & Battistich, 1988).

As theorized, students experiencing a sense of community have been found to be more

committed to the norms and values emphasized by the school (Battistich et al., 1995;

Solomon, Watson, Battistich, Schaps, & Delucchi, 1996). Specifically, in intervention

schools as well as in comparison schools, students’ sense of community has been

associated with academic motivation (Solomon et al., 1996). Sense of community has

also been positively associated with intrinsic motivation and task orientation, but

negatively associated with ego orientation and work avoidance (Battistich et al., 1995).

School enjoyment, prosocial attitudes, and expectations of educational achievement are

also higher for students perceiving school as a community, an effect which is especially

strong for impoverished students (Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997).

Additionally, sense of community has been positively associated with students’ district

achievement test scores; however, this relationship diminished when students’ poverty

level was controlled for (Battistich et al., 1997).

18
 When discussing the importance of students’ experience of a strong sense of

community in school, this cohort of researchers often cite the satisfaction of the three

basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness that are explicated

by self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). While they claim to be extending the

theory by placing an emphasis on the importance of the social/interpersonal aspects of

satisfying the three basic needs in one’s community (Solomon et al., 1997), it is more of

an application of the theory than an extension because self-determination theorists have

always posited social/interpersonal sources of basic need satisfaction through one’s

engagement in the social world (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

As such, the most recent reports from the Child Development Project (Battistich

et al., 2000; Solomon et al., 2000), which measure students’ perceptions of school

community using the Classroom Supportiveness and Meaningful Participation subscales

of the Developmental Studies Center’s Student Questionnaire (DSC, 2002) provides a

nice link to the next higher-order classification, which covers self-determination theory

perspectives on student-teacher relationships. That is, the Classroom Supportiveness and

Meaningful Participation subscales of the Developmental Studies Center’s Student

Questionnaire (DSC, 2002) seem to be direct measures of students’ perceptions of

autonomy and relatedness need supports along with their perceptions of supportive

structure in school, which is often associated with students’ perceptions of competence

(e.g., Skinner & Belmont, 1993).

Relatedness. According to self-determination theory, relatedness is one of three

psychological needs critical for optimal human functioning and development (Deci &

Ryan, 1985). Grounded in attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973) and object relations theory

19
(Behrends & Blatt, 1985; Fairbairn, 1952; Winnicott, 1965), the need for relatedness is

described by self-determination theorists as a need to feel securely connected socially and

to experience oneself as lovable and capable of loving (Connell, 1990). Theoretically, an

individual’s perception of relatedness is represented cognitively as dynamic, organized

schemas derived from, and used on-the-fly for socializing interactions with others (Ryan,

Avery, & Grolnick, 1985). These schemas should be measurable through accessing an

individual’s cognitive representational model of self in relation to others (Bretherton,

1985; Crittenden, 1990; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1991), which contains both knowledge and

affective information (Fiske, 1982).

Unfortunately, it has been repeatedly noted that researchers interested in Self

Determination Theory typically overlook relatedness need perceptions when doing

empirical work as compared to research on the needs for perceived competence and

autonomy (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, &

Kindermann, 2008). Perhaps this is because the construct of “relatedness perceptions”

lacks definitional clarity and measurement consistency, which can be inferred from the

variety of ways students’ perceptions of relatedness support from their teachers have been

measured.

For example, using the self-determination theory framework, Ryan, Stiller, and

Lynch (1994) measured 606 middle school students’ relationships with teachers, parents,

and peers and among other findings they determined that students’ relationships with

teachers are strong predictors of their academic motivation. In this study, student-teacher

relationship representations are measured as a four-dimensional construct consisting of 1)

felt security, 2) emotional utilization, 3) school utilization, and 4) emulation with

20
coefficient alphas of .55, .80, .66, and .84 respectively (Ryan et al., 1994). The first two

dimensions were measured via an adaptation of the Inventory of Adolescent Attachments

(IAA) (Greenberg, 1982 as cited in Ryan et al., 1994). This inventory has since been

revised. It now has 25 items split into three subscales trust, communication, and

alienation and is called the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden &

Greenberg, 1987; Pace, Martini, & Zavattini, 2011). Ryan et al. (1994) substituted the

word “teacher” for “mother/father” in the parent items to make it an inventory of teacher

attachment. For their other relationship representation variables, they measured school

utilization with 3 items focused on whether or not the student used the teacher when

encountering academic problems, and they used 5 items that concerned student’s desire to

be liked and be seen as similar to their teacher to measure emulation (Ryan et al., 1994).

Taking a different measurement approach, yet adhering to self-determination

theory conceptually, Lynch and Cichetti (1992; 1997) used a 17-item relatedness

questionnaire adapted from Wellborn and Connell’s 1987 unpublished Manual for the

Rochester Assessment Package for Schools (as cited in Lynch & Cichetti, 1992). Lynch

and Cichetti (1992) used the questionnaire to measure differences in seven to thirteen

year-old, 115 maltreated and 100 demographically matched non-maltreated, children’s

relationships with teachers and parents determining that teachers can serve as an

alternative or secondary attachment figure for young children to develop secure

attachment relationships with. Lynch and Cichetti (1997) used this instrument again to

assess 1,226 second through eighth grade students’ relationship patterns with their

teachers, mothers, and peers to examine developmental differences in said relationships

such as the finding that relationship quality with teachers and parents declines during

21
these years while relationships with peers improves. This questionnaire has two

subscales labeled emotional quality and psychological proximity seeking. The 10

emotional quality items use a 4-point scale to assess children’s emotional experience;

specifically, the items assess the degree students’ feel relaxed, ignored, happy, mad,

bored, important, unhappy, scared, safe, and sad when they are with the teacher. The

seven psychological proximity seeking items use a 4-point scale to assess student’s

desiring more attention from, to spend more time with, to be better known by, to have

feelings perceived by, to be closer to, to enjoy more time with, and to be better able to

talk about things with their teacher. The optimal relationship is defined by high

emotional quality scores (high positive emotion) and low psychological proximity

seeking scores (satisfied with existing degrees of closeness). In the latest version of this

instrument, put out in 1998 by the Institute for Research and Reform in Education, the

emotional quality subscale has been reduced to 4 items and is now called teacher

emotional security; whereas, the psychological proximity seeking subscale was dropped

due to low reliabilities and lack of consistent associations with indices of student

performance and adjustment (IRRE, 1998). The reported reliability sample consisted of

2429 diverse middle school students with a teacher emotional security subscale

coefficient alpha of .71 (IRRE, 1998).

Using yet another measure, but again advocating the self-determination theory

perspective, Skinner and Belmont (1993) operationalized support for the relatedness need

as students’ perceptions of teacher involvement in their study of 114 (Grades 3-5)

children that validated their model suggesting need support influences student

engagement, which in turn influences student adjustment and achievement. Further, this

22
study provided strong evidence for the reciprocal effects of student engagement back on

teachers’ providing of need support in the classroom (Skinner & Belmont, 1993).

Skinner and Belmont (1993) measured teacher involvement using a shortened 8-item

version (alpha = .79) of their Teacher as Social Context (TASC) scale (Belmont, Skinner,

Wellborn, & Connell, 1988) with 2 items tapping teacher’s affection (liking and

appreciation), 2 items for attunement (understanding, and knowledge of the student), 2

items on dedication of resources (aid, time, energy), and 2 items regarding dependability

(available in case of need). The TASC also has a longer, 14-item version (alpha = .83)

with 3, 3, 2, and 6 items for each subscale respectively (Belmont et al., 1988). Bao and

Lam (2008) used the TASC to examine the relationships between perceptions of

relatedness and autonomy support from teachers in determining the importance of

freedom of task choice on task motivation in 4 studies of fifth-grade Chinese students.

Interestingly, choice mattered less when perceptions of student-teacher relatedness were

high, which provides support for the contention that relatedness facilitates internalization

and allows students to feel autonomous when doing teacher-determined tasks (Bao &

Lam, 2008). A more recent study used the TASC as a basis for the development of a

video coding rubric to measure observer perceptions of teacher involvement in 12 Dutch

and 12 Indonesian classrooms (Maulana, Opdenakker, Stroet, & Bosker, 2013). This

study revealed that during the first year of secondary education teacher involvement

decreased over the year and that students accordingly reported less autonomous academic

motivation across the year.

Meanwhile, Furrer and Skinner (2003), Marchand and Skinner (2007), as well as

Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, and Kindermann (2008) measured students’ sense of

23
relatedness to their teacher using a different four-item scale: 1) When I’m with my

teacher I feel accepted, 2) like someone special, 3) ignored, and 4) unimportant with good

internal consistency (alphas = .79-.93). Furrer and Skinner (2003) found this measure of

relatedness to predict changes in 641 third to sixth grade children’s engagement across a

school year over and above the effects of perceived control. Marchand and Skinner

(2007) found this student-reported measure of student-teacher relatedness to be the

primary predictor of help-seeking behavior, as compared to student-reports of

competence, autonomy, engagement, and teacher-reports of involvement, structure, or

autonomy supportiveness, in their study of 765 third to sixth grade children. Skinner,

Furrer, Marchand, and Kindermann (2008) measured changes in behavioral and

emotional engagement of 805 fourth- through seventh-grade children across an academic

year and found scores on this measure of relatedness during the fall semester to be an

important predictor of change in both emotional engagement and behavioral engagement.

Butzel and Ryan (1997) explain the measurement of another aspect of relatedness

need fulfillment with 7 items focusing on an individual’s willingness to share emotional

experiences with others, both positive and negative, calling their measure the Emotional

Reliance Questionnaire (ERQ). Specifically, the ERQ asks if the child would be willing

to turn to a specific adult (concerning this project, their teacher) when 1) depressed, 2)

anxious or scared, 3) excited about something, 4) feeling bad about themselves, 5)

overwhelmed, 6) frustrated or angry, and 7) proud of an accomplishment. Internal

consistency scores were not reported for the scale; however, scores on this measure were

associated with less depression and greater well-being (Butzel and Ryan, 1997).

24
 Formulating yet another measure of relatedness need satisfaction, founding self-

determination theorists Richard Ryan and Edward Deci collaborated with colleagues to

develop and use a Basic Need Satisfaction in Relationships scale (LaGuardia, Ryan,

Couchman, & Deci, 2000), which has 3 relatedness subscale items that when applied to

student-teacher relationships share the stem “when I am with my teacher” and finish with

1) I feel loved and cared about, 2) I often feel a lot of distance in our relationship, and 3) I

feel a lot of closeness and intimacy. Although they did not examine relationships

between students and teachers, it was found that basic need satisfaction measured in this

way (alpha = .92) fully mediated the relationship between attachment security (with

mother, father, romantic partner, roommate, and other significant adult) and well-being

(LaGuardia et al., 2000).

Finally, a well-known Canadian self-determination theorist by the name of Robert

Vallerand created another relatedness assessment (Richer & Vallerand, 1998). This scale

consists of 10 items split into the two, 5-item subscales titled acceptance and intimacy.

This scale can be used for any relationship by substituting the blank with coach, mother,

supervisor, teacher, etc. in the item stem that reads “In my relationship with my ______, I

feel…” The 5 items in the acceptance scale (alpha = .89) read 1) supported, 2)

understood, 3) listened to, 4) valued, and 5) safe. The 5 items in the intimacy subscale

(alpha = .91) read 1) close to them, 2) attached to them, 3) bonded to them, 4) close-knit,

and 5) as a friend. Most widely used in the area of sports psychology research, positive

scores on this instrument are related to increased vitality and performance.

Although the above may not be an exhaustive list, it is clear that the diversity of

operational definitions and corresponding measurement tools suggest that the concept of

25
a relatedness need-supportive relationship needs clarification. There is, however, much

support for the notion that students’ perceived relatedness in the classroom has an

important connection to many desirable outcomes. To summarize, it has been associated

with students’ intrinsic motivation (Anderson, Manoogian, & Resnick, 1976; Ryan &

Grolnick, 1986) , perceived competence, self-esteem (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986), perceived

control, self-regulation, positive coping, perceived autonomy (Ryan et al., 1994),

academic help-seeking (Marchand & Skinner, 2007), and behavioral/emotional

engagement in the classroom (Connell, 1990; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Furrer &

Skinner, 2003; Klem & Connell, 2004; Ryan et al., 1994; Skinner et al., 2008).

Closeness, conflict, and dependency. This grouping of measures is grounded

firmly in attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973), both in terms of how the relationship is

conceptualized and how results are interpreted. Though, it might seem appropriate to

present this theory-based grouping of measurement tools under the subheading of

“student-teacher attachment,” this subheading was not used because other groupings that

are distinct enough in terms of current theory to be separated, also cite attachment theory

as a historic influence on their perspective as well.

Measuring pre-school through 3rd-grade student-teacher relationships from the

teacher’s point of view, the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) was developed to

examine teachers’ cognitive representations of relationships with their students (Pianta,

1994; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991; Pianta & Steinberg 1992). Its theoretical structure, derived

from attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973), is a three-dimensional model consisting of the

factors 1) warmth/security, 2) anger/dependency, and 3) anxiety/insecurity. However,

efforts to determine the correct empirical model for the factor structure of this scale have

26
produced mixed results. It has been found to consist of five factors: 1) conflict/anger,

which measures the struggle and emotional drain that the teacher experiences from the

student, 2) warmth/closeness, which measures perceptions of warmth and closeness with

the student, as well as student expressions of positive affect, 3) open communication,

which measures student willingness to share feelings and teachers attunement to the

students feelings, 4) dependency, which measures students’ unnecessary requests for help

from the teacher and overly strong reactions to separation from the teacher, and 5)

troubled feelings, which measures the student’s refusal of teacher support and teacher’s

worrying about the relationship (Pianta, 1994; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992). Yet, some

researchers prefer to stay closer to Bowlby’s (1973) model by using a three subscale

structure of the STRS including 1) closeness, 2) dependency, and 3) conflict (Birch &

Ladd, 1997, 1998). Within this framework the closeness subscale includes 11 items that

assess warmth and open communication. The dependency subscale is a 5 item index of

the degree to which the student is overly dependent on the teacher. The conflict subscale

consists of 12 items measuring friction or struggling between the student and teacher. It

should be noted that the dependency subscale has demonstrated relatively weak internal

consistency in past studies (e.g., alpha = .61-.69; Kesner, 2000; Palermo et al., 2007). A

15-item short version of the STRS has been used more recently (Baker, 2006; Crosnoe et

al., 2010; Rudasill, 2011), which consists of 8 items for closeness (alpha = .64-.86) and 7

items for conflict (alpha = .84-.91). Webb and Neuharth-Pritchett (2011) recently

examined the three-factor structure validity and measurement invariance of the full 28-

item STRS across 178 African American and 130 European American students. The full

sample was found to show poor model fit until 2 items were dropped. When the sample

27
was split by ethnicity, the pattern of factor loadings failed the test of configural

invariance and exploratory factor analysis revealed large discrepancies in factor loadings

for items on the closeness and dependency scales between groups. All this suggests that

the factor structure of the STRS is not clear; nonetheless, this scale is quite popular in the

study of early-childhood, student-teacher relationships and requires further consideration.

In fact, this scale is gaining popularity in European countries as translations and

assessment of scale properties have been reported in Greece (Gregoriadis & Tsigilis,

2008), Italy (Fraire et al., 2013), Netherlands (Koomen et al., 2012), Norway (Drugli &

Hjemdal, 2013), and Germany (Milatz et al., 2014).

Valiente, Lemery-Chalfant, Swanson, and Reiser (2008) used a student-reported,

age-appropriate rendition of the STRS with 264, 7- to 12-year-old children in

combination with the typical teacher-report version of the STRS. Interestingly, the

maximum correlation between teacher- and child-report scores was only r = .30.

Henricsson and Rydell (2004) also found little (r = .21) to no relationship (r = .11)

between student-report of the relationship and teacher-reported STRS scores, as did

Lisonbee, Mize, Payne, and Granger (2008) who, at best, found r = .20. This discrepancy

between teacher and student reports of the relationship is a clear example of issues related

to the question of what is actually being measured by researchers studying student-

teacher relationships with so many different measurement tools. Specifically, these

studies demonstrate that students’ internal relationship representations and teachers’

internal relationship representations are different and should be treated as distinct

constructs. Similarly, when Doumen et al. (2012) examined agreement between teacher

and observer ratings of student-teacher relationships in kindergarten they found

28
significant yet small correlation between observer and teacher ratings of closeness (r =

.31), conflict (r = .35), and dependency (r = .43). Still, the STRS in its various forms is

by far the most widely cited measure of student-teacher relationships as determined by

the quantity of studies that surfaced in this literature review.

In a study on math achievement, Crosnoe et al. (2010) used the 15-item STRS to

measure closeness and conflict in the student-teacher relationship of 587 students in their

third- and fifth-grade years. They also measured math achievement using the Applied

Problems test of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised (WJ-R;

Woodcock & Johnson, 1989) as well as basic vs. inferential instructional style using

observer ratings. Results suggested that both conflict and closeness predict increases in

math achievement from 3rd to 5th grade. This relationship is particularly strong for those

entering below average in Math and in classrooms that use inferential instruction.

Valiente et al. (2008) measured 264 students between the ages of 7 and 12-years old on

effortful control using the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire (Capaldi &

Rothbart, 1992), teacher-student closeness and conflict using the STRS, as well as school

absences and GPA. The relationship variables were predictive of GPA and absences

beyond the effects of effortful control. In a cross cultural test of factor structure, Koomen

et al. (2012) delivered a translated version of the STRS to a Dutch sample of 2335

children ages 3-12. They also administered the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

(SDQ; Goodman, 2001) to examine predictive validity of the STRS as related to

adolescent adjustment elements of emotionality, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer

problems, and prosocial behaviors. The data suggested that the three-factor student-

teacher relationship structure of closeness, conflict, and dependency was satisfactory in

29
the Dutch version of the STRS. All three factors were predictive of all five adjustment

subscales in the expected directions as well.

Generally speaking, the outcomes related to high quality student-teacher

relationships as measured using teacher-reported STRS scores include higher school

achievement (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Crosnoe et al., 2010; Harme & Pianta, 2001; 2005;

Ladd & Burgess, 2001; Mantzicopoulos, 2005; O’Connor & McCartney, 2007; Pianta,

Belsky, Vandergrift, Houts, & Morrison, 2008; Pianta & Stulman, 2004), greater

classroom participation (Doumen et al., 2012; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999), less behavior,

internalizing, and attention problems along with higher work ethic, and frustration

tolerance (Pianta, 1994; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992), greater social

competence with peers (Howes, 2000; Koomen et al., 2012; Pianta, 1994; Pianta &

Nimetz, 1991; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992), lower school avoidance, more cooperation, and

better self-discipline (Birch & Ladd, 1997), increased prosocial behavior and decreased

peer aggression (Birch & Ladd; 1998; Henricsson & Rydell, 2004; Koomen et al., 2012;

Palermo, et al. 2007; Stipek & Miles, 2008), less externalizing problems, and lower levels

of disruptive behavior (Baker, 2006; Henricsson & Rydell, 2004). Data also suggest

positive relationships act as a buffer against the negative effects of insecure maternal

attachment on academic achievement (O’Connor & McCartney, 2007), they partially

mediate the relationship between effortful control and grades (Valiente, et al., 2008), and

they reduce the impact of various risk factors on academic achievement (Baker, 2006;

Harme & Pianta, 2005). Finally, in line with the contemporary interest in physiological

correlates of psychological phenomena, high scores on the conflict subscale of the STRS

30
have been shown to predict cortisol increases in children during teacher-child interactions

(Lisonbee et al., 2008).

Another tool, developed to measure closeness/warmth, dependency/autonomy,

and conflict from students’ perspective is titled Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher

Support (Y-CATS; Mantzicopoulos & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2003). To deliver this

measure, children are given a statement on a postcard and asked to place the card in a

mailbox if they agree and in a trashcan if they disagree, which generates a dichotomous

scoring system. The warmth/closeness subscale has 14 items related to supportiveness,

encouragement, and acceptance, the autonomy/dependence subscale has 9 items related to

perceived opportunities for choice and variety in activities, and the conflict subscale has 8

items related to teacher negativity and confrontational interactions (Mantzicopoulos &

Neuharth-Pritchett, 2003). Similar to what others have found when using both the STRS

and other student perception measures, the student reported Y-CATS data are modestly to

not-at-all correlated with teacher-reported STRS data. The subscales with the greatest

correlation are the Y-CATS warmth/closeness subscale and the STRS secure subscale,

yet these correlations range from only r = .25 in pre-school to r = .17 in first grade. Only

the conflict subscale of the Y-CATS seems to be consistently predictive of school

performance measures such as social skills (Mantzicopoulos & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2003),

academic achievement, and problem behaviors (Mantzicopoulos, 2005; Mantzicopoulos

& Neuharth-Pritchett, 2003).

Sense of belonging. Initially considered for its relevance to school attrition rates

(Finn, 1989), the sense of belonging (Goodenow, 1993) is a psychological construct

defined as the “extent to which students fell personally accepted, respected, included, and

31
supported by others in the school environment” (p. 80). Although broader in scope and

definition than student-teacher relationship conceptualizations, this perspective shares

many similarities with them, which is why it has been included in this study.

Specifically, the elements of acceptance, respect, acknowledgement, support,

appreciation, freedom of self-expression, and sense of attachment emerge as themes

throughout the review of student-teacher relationship perspectives herein. Whereas

school belongingness is thought to promote participation in school life through a shared

commitment to or identification with school goals (Goodenow, 1993), student-teacher

relationship quality is linked to academic engagement and internalization of academic

values (Ryan et al., 1985). Further validating the inclusion of this construct with an

exploration of student-teacher relationship research, Demanet and Van Houtte (2012) use

seven items from the primary measure of school belongingness, discussed below, and

refer to it as perceived teacher support as they demonstrate its inverse relationship to

school misconduct. It is also common for researchers in this field, like Zumbrunn et al.,

(2014), to cite student-teacher relationship research alongside school belongingness

research as though all are assumed to be measuring similar relationally supportive school

environments. Not surprisingly, school belongingness has also been found to be a

function of student-teacher relationship quality (Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996).

The Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM) scale, developed to

measure this relationship construct, demonstrates good internal consistency (α= .875) and

was a good predictor of effort and achievement in school (Goodenow, 1993). The PSSM

scale consists of 18 items which are averaged to create a single scale score. Items assess

perceptions such as the degree to which students feel able to be themselves, feel accepted,

32
feel their accomplishments are noticed by others, feel they are taken seriously, can talk

about problems with adults, feel included in activities, feel respected, and feel as though

they belong in the school. Goodenow’s (1993) belongingness scale has been adapted by

other educational researchers (e.g. Anderman, 1999; Anderman & Anderman, 1999;

Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Roeser et al., 1996), but the overall construct has not changed.

Variables associated with a high sense of belongingness include task valuing and

success expectancies (Freeman, Anderman, & Jensen, 2007; Goodenow, 1993;

Goodenow & Grady, 1993), general school motivation (Goodenow & Grady, 1993), less

absenteeism (Nichols, 2008), reduced risky behaviors (Resnick et al., 1997), increased

positive affect (Anderman, 1999; Roeser et al., 1996), greater optimism, less depression,

less social rejection, and less behavioral problems (Anderman, 2002), greater academic

efficacy and intrinsic goal orientation (Freeman & Anderman, 2002; Zumbrunn et al.,

2014), and increased school achievement as measured by GPA (Goodenow, 1993;

Anderman, 2002; Gutman & Midgley, 2000). Some additional terminology has been

used to refer to concepts nearly identical to the sense of belongingness. These include

identification with school (Finn, 1989), bonding with school (Kester, 1994), and

perceptions of school connectedness (Resnick et al., 1997).

More recently, Kennedy and Tuckman (2013) used the PSSM scale along with

numerous other psychological and academic performance measures in their study of 671

college freshmen. Their data supported a model where perceived school belonging in the

eighth week of classes was positively related to performance goal orientation, self-

efficacy, mastery goal orientation, and negatively related to perceived stress (Kennedy &

Tuckman, 2013). Others have begun investigating the role that perceived school

33
belonging plays in students’ experience of negative affect and depressive symptoms

(Shochet & Smith, 2014; Shochet, et al., 2011). These studies involved 504 Australian

seventh and eighth grade students measured at three time points separated by twelve

months and then six months points using self-report measures for characteristics of the

classroom environment, students’ perceived school belongingness (the PSSM) and their

depressive symptoms (Shochet & Smith, 2014). School belonging was found to partially

mediate the relationship between classroom environment variables and depressive

symptoms, but both also showed unique predictive importance at each time point

(Shochet & Smith, 2014).

The PSSM scale is clearly a reliable and valid measure of students’ perceived

school belonging. Across 26 studies reviewed by You, Ritchey, Furlong, Shochet, and

Boman (2011) the alpha coefficients ranged from .78 to .95. However, the factor

structure of the PSSM scale was brought into question (You et al., 2011) and it still does

not seem to be resolved (Ye & Wallace, 2014). Specifically, You et al. (2011) randomly

split their participants into two groups and identified three factors using exploratory

factor analysis with the first group (N = 256) and then validated the measurement model

using confirmatory factor analysis of the second group (N = 248). They named these

three factors caring relationships, acceptance, and rejection (You et al., 2011). Shochet et

al. (2011) reported further evidence supporting the importance of considering perceived

school belonging a multidimensional construct by using this three factor structure to

demonstrate the differential importance of acceptance on predicting negative affect for

adolescent boys and rejection for predicting negative affect in adolescent girls. Demanet

and Van Houtte (2012) analyzed PSSM data from 11,872 high school aged students using

34
Varimax rotation in a Principle Components Analysis and found four component factors.

They determined that the first factor represented teacher related items and the other three

did not yield straightforward interpretation so they chose to accept a two factor

measurement model for the PSSM with one factor being teacher support and the other

being general school belonging, which yielded acceptable results in confirmatory factor

analysis (Demanet & Van Houtte, 2012). Most recently, Ye and Wallace (2014)

examined the factor structure of the PSSM scale in a diverse American sample of high

school students (N = 890) and found further evidence for a three dimensional factor

structure; however, the items in the second and third factors do not overlap completely

with the items in the You et al. (2011) three factor structure and to further complicate

things they named their three factors generalized connection to teachers, perception of

fitting in among peers, and identification and participation in school (Ye & Wallace,

2014).

Before moving beyond this section of the paper, which covers the fifth and final

higher-order categorization of student-teacher relationship constructs, it is useful to

exemplify again the primary problem that this dissertation is addressing. The Australian

State of Victoria’s Department of Education, Employment and Training (2000) use a very

similar term, school connectedness to represent a very different construct. Their school

connectedness scale consists of 4 items measuring the degree to which students look

forward to school, like school, enjoy schoolwork, and have fun learning at school (DEET,

Victoria, 2000). Using this conceptualization, Skues, Cunningham, and Pokharel (2005)

found that students’ sense of school connectedness decreased as a function of being

bullied in school. Though it may be interesting to note that students who are bullied

35
enjoy school less and do not look forward to going to school; it would be a mistake to say

that being bullied at school is related to decreased school connectedness as

conceptualized by Resnick et al. (1997) or Goodenow (1993). Skues et al. (2005) did not

directly make such a claim; rather, it serves as a great example of the broader issue being

addressed herein, which is the potentiality for misinterpretation when measures differing

greatly in content are used to measure constructs with similar, and sometimes the exact

same name. Kohl, Recchia, and Steffgen (2013) touch on this issue in their call for

researchers to be more careful in their measurement of school climate constructs and to

stop creating new measures when multiple, well validated measures of the same

constructs already exist; again, echoing why measurement integration is so badly needed

in this field of research.

Integration of Student-Teacher Relationship Conceptualizations

The sections above reviewed many different approaches to defining, measuring,

and discussing student-teacher relationships and their importance for students’ social and

academic development. This review may not be fully comprehensive in scope; however,

it covers all the common perspectives and sheds light on the differences in measurement

tools and the similarities in empirical associations with positive social and cognitive

developmental outcomes across perspectives. The problem of theory integration is

considerable, yet attempts toward such solutions are required in order to truly understand

student-teacher relationships and their implications for student growth and achievement.

With this purpose, two main questions need discussion: 1) what is being measured that

could be responsible for the similarity in associations with positive developmental

outcomes? and 2) what is the psychological mechanism responsible for these empirical

36
associations between student-teacher relationships and desirable social and academic

student development outcomes?

What is Being Measured?

A general theme shared by multiple approaches is the notion that when measuring

student-teacher relationships researchers are trying to access students’ cognitive

relationship representations, also known as relational schemas (Baldwin, 1992).

Psychologists positing this construct often cite object relations theory (Behrends & Blatt,

1985; Fairbairn, 1952; Winnicott, 1965) or attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973) as the

intellectual background for their belief. Although their theoretical arguments may be

sound, the tools used to measure student’s relational schemas are broad, inconsistent, and

provide minimal direct evidence that such organized cognitive representations exist. For

example, researchers using the previously reviewed conceptualizations have primarily

relied on questionnaire items asking students to report their feelings of connectedness to

the classroom (Goodenow, 1993), perceptions of their teacher’s intentions (Wentzel,

1994), feelings and desires when with the teacher (Lynch and Cicchetti, 1992), feelings

while interacting with the teacher (Furrer & Skinner, 2003), a combination of behaviors

involving the teacher, feelings when around the teacher, and desire to emulate the teacher

(Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994); or, perhaps furthest from directly measuring students’

relational schemas, some measures ask teachers to report their feelings about the

relationship and their perceptions of student behavior (Pianta & Steinberg 1992).

So what are these mysterious relational schemas that are measured at various

degrees of directness by the aforementioned instruments? One could possibly argue that

a relatively unorganized bunch of memory traces are responsible for responses to

37
questionnaire items such as these. This seems unlikely, due to the association between

responses to the various questionnaires and the patterns of developmental outcomes;

however, without direct empirical evidence regarding the structure and function of

student-teacher relationship representations, a closer look at some underlying theory is

needed.

Relational schemas. These relationship representations are said to consist of

dynamic, organized schemas derived from, and used on-the-fly for socializing

interactions with others (Ryan, Avery, & Grolnick, 1985). From psychodynamic to social

cognitive perspectives, this dynamic set of schemas, which contain both knowledge and

affective information (Fiske, 1982), go by many different names. Some of these names

include internal working models of self in relation to others (Bowlby, 1973; Bretherton,

1985; Crittenden, 1990), relational models (Fiske, 1992), relational self (Andersen &

Chen, 2002), self-with-other unit (Ogilvie & Ashmore, 1991), interpersonal schemas

(Safran, 1990), relational models, (Mitchell, 1988), relationship schemas, (Horowitz,

1989), and relational schemas (Baldwin, 1992; Planalp, 1987). Because this construct

exists by so many names, to reduce confusion the term relational schema has been and

will continue to be used in this thesis in reference to a cognitive structure incorporating

aspects of self, other, and their respective interpersonal scripts.

With such widespread acceptance in psychological theories, it seems plausible

there would be some direct evidence for the existence of this construct. In particular,

methods used in research on social cognition seem well suited for investigating how

relationships are perceived, stored, processed, and recalled. Disappointingly, until the

mid-1990’s, social cognitive research has focused on the aspects of social perception

38
considered separately. For instance, a researcher might study how people perceive others

(e.g., Cantor & Mischel, 1979; Fiske & Cox, 1979; Schneider, 1973), how people

perceive themselves (e.g., Epstein, 1973; Markus, 1977; Rogers, 1977), or how people

construe situations (e.g., Cantor, Mischel, and Schwartz, 1982; Schank & Abelson, 1977).

However, some empirical support for the interconnected organization of these cognitive

structures has been established (Baldwin, 1992). Although the content, structure, and

function of relational schemas have never been directly investigated in the context of

student-teacher relationships, the social cognitive approach offers methodology,

principles, and preliminary data to guide such a program of research.

Preliminary Relational Schema Data. As an example of a relational schema,

consider a student who perceives himself as an inadequate, unworthy, loser, while

perceiving the teacher as a powerful, rejecting, criticizer. This student would likely

maintain if-then scripts such as “if I make a mistake then the teacher will scold me.”

Similar to stereotypes, implicit personality theories, and self-schemas, the activation of

relational schemas should bring about social cognitive phenomena such as the drawing of

attention to schema relevant information, the filling in of information gaps, and biasing of

interpretation of ambiguous information (Baldwin, 1992). In fact, with priming effects

and the process of spreading activation as defining aspects of organized schemas (Higgins

& Bargh, 1987), it is safe to say that Baldwin and his colleagues have illustrated the

existence of relational schemas and some of their perceptual influences. For example,

Baldwin and Holmes (1987) primed female participants’ relationships with their parents

and other participants with their campus friend relationships; then, in an ostensibly

unrelated task the researchers had participants rate their enjoyment of various stories. As

39
expected, participants with a primed parent-relational schema rated a sexually permissive

story as less enjoyable and less exciting than the other participants. In a second study,

male participants were subjected to imagery priming of a supportive, unconditionally

accepting relationship or an evaluative, shallow relationship and then given an extremely

difficult task. Participants primed with a shallow relationship were more likely to feel

badly and attribute their failure to “something about me” (Baldwin & Holmes, 1987).

These results have been replicated using the simple priming technique of exposure to the

name of a supportive vs. critical other (Baldwin, 1994).

To further explicate the underlying if-then script activation responsible for these

findings, Baldwin and Sinclair (1996) demonstrated that participants primed with a

conditionally accepting significant other showed the expected failure-rejection pattern in

a lexical decision task. This type of if-then script activation is an important mechanism

for the influence of relational schemas on thought (see Baldwin, 1997). Again using the

unconditional versus conditional acceptance distinction, relational schema activation,

once associated to specific tones through conditioning, produced different effects

depending on chronic attachment orientations (Baldwin & Meunier, 1999). Specifically,

insecure individuals were negatively affected by the activation of conditionally accepting

others, they showed failure-rejection activation, whereas secure individuals showed

increased activation of success-acceptance contingencies. In sum, reasonable evidence

exists in support of the relational schema as a social cognitive construct. Although direct

evidence has not yet been collected, it seems plausible to believe that such schemas also

exist in students’ cognitive systems regarding their relationships with teachers.

40
 Fitting relational schemas with previous student-teacher relationship

conceptualizations. In this section, each of the student-teacher relationship measurement

perspectives reviewed earlier will be examined in terms of how it might be construed as

measuring aspects of relational schemas. The major aspects of a relational schema of this

kind would consist of the student’s perception of self, perception of the teacher, and

associated interpersonal scripts. Taking a closer look at the measure of school belonging

(Goodenow, 1993), it could be interpreted as a possible measure of students general

relational schema for their relationship with others at school. As such, it seems to have 6

items that tap into students’ self-perceptions, such as “sometimes I feel as if I don’t

belong here,” 4 items examining students’ perception of other, such as “most teachers at

(name of school) are interested in me,” and 8 items which relate to interpersonal scripts,

such as “people here notice when I am good at something.” Of the 6 sample items

provided by Battistich et al. (1997) regarding the measurement of students’ sense of

school community, 4 relate to students’ interpersonal scripts, for instance “the teacher in

my class asks the students to help decide what the class should do,” and 2 tap perceptions

of others in the classroom, such as “the students in this class really care about one

another.”

As for the self-determination theorists, Ryan et al. (1994) specifically state that

they intend to measure relationship schemas and Lynch and Cichetti (1992; 1997) claim

adherence to the attachment perspective’s internal working model of the relationship

when explaining their relatedness measure as do Skinner and her colleagues (Furrer &

Skinner, 2003; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Accordingly, the IAA (Greenberg, 1982 as

cited in Ryan et al., 1994) incorporates students’ perceptions of characteristics of the

41
teacher such as trustworthiness and understanding as well as items examining students’

interpersonal scripts related to sharing feelings and accomplishments with the teacher.

Ryan et al.’s (1994) school utilization and teacher emulation components reflect the same

perception of teacher and interpersonal script foci. Skinner and Belmont’s (1993)

involvement scale also measures students’ perceptions of teacher characteristics (e.g.

appreciating, understanding, helpful) and their interpersonal scripts (e.g. if I need the

teacher then they will be available for me); whereas, the Furrer and Skinner (2003)

relatedness measure only taps affective aspects of the students’ if-then scripts, which is

also true for the Laguardia et al. (2000) measure. The Wellborn and Connell assessment

tool used by Lynch and Cichetti (1992; 1997) focuses on the measurement of both

affective and behavioral expectation aspects of students’ if-then interpersonal scripts.

The measure of pedagogical caring used by Wentzel (1994), only taps students’

perceptions of the teacher, specifically, whether the teacher cares about a number of

things related to the student’s school life. Feldlaufer et al.’s (1988) measure of teacher

supportiveness contains a few complex items that could arguably fit into many different

parts of the model. First, they appear to tap students’ perceptions of the teacher as caring

and fair; however, many of the items would require activation of students’ if-then

interpersonal scripts to generate a response because the items ask about specific teacher

behaviors in relation to specific student behavior. In the end, the focus on specific

teacher behaviors in these items makes them sound most like teacher involvement or

teacher use of punishment, which are predictors of the relationship in the model. For

example, the item worded “this teacher threatened to give me more work, tests, or to

lower my grade to control my behavior” could imply that the teacher is uncaring or

42
unfair, but the if-then script about misbehavior leading to threats would be activated and

the item would fit well as a measure of the teacher’s use of punishment.

The STRS (Pianta, 1994) does not directly measure any aspect of students’

relational schemas; rather, it measures aspects of teachers’ relational schemas, including

some of their beliefs about students’ perceptions. Specifically, teachers are asked to

report on their perceptions of students (e.g. dependent, sneaky, unpredictable, sees me as

a source of punishment and criticism), if-then scripts related to interpersonal situations

with the student (e.g. if upset, this child will seek comfort from me). Mantzicopoulos and

Neuharth-Pritchett’s (2003) Y-CATS measure on the other hand, does tap students’

relational schemas by asking young children to indicate their perception of the accuracy

of various statements about teacher characteristics as well as the teacher’s interpersonal

behaviors, which would require the activation of the students’ if-then interpersonal

scripts.

It seems then, that there is no difficulty discussing the major student-teacher

relationship measurement strategies through the social cognitive, relational schema lens.

Two important questions next emerge: 1) what are the most basic characteristics of a

desirable student-teacher relational schema, 2) by what mechanisms or processes do these

relational schemas affect student development in school?

One way to approach the first question would be to perform a comprehensive,

meta-analytic study of all the current research on student-teacher relationships. A major

challenge of this study would be to tease apart the effect sizes for each outcome measure

for each factor measured within each student-teacher relationship conceptualization. This

43
process could become inherently confounded due to the various questionnaire items and

formats used to measure each of the student-teacher relationship factors.

Another way to approach the question would be to perform a large study wherein

all the current major perspective on defining high-quality student teacher relationships

were taken into account when constructing a relatively comprehensive measure of

relationship characteristics. Perhaps some new characteristics would emerge from deeper

reflection on the relational schema concept as well. For instance, current perspectives do

not tend to measure much about students’ perceptions of self. The items from all

perspectives could be analyzed to determine the factor structure of student-teacher

relationships and which items best measure such factors. In a subsequent study, these

factors could be examined for predictive power in relation to each of the outcome

variables to determine the characteristics of a desirable student-teacher relationship.

Answers to the second question require additional research as well; however some further

discussion of relevant psychological theory could provide some possibilities.

Are there Common Psychological Mechanisms?

Research has provided much evidence that high quality student teacher

relationships are associated with pro-social classroom behaviors and social competence

(e.g., Mitchell-Copeland, Denham, & DeMulder, 1997; Pianta, 1999), as well as

academic achievement and emotional adjustment (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1996; 1997;

Goodenow, 1993; Ryan et al., 1994). Unfortunately, exactly how students’ perceptions

of high quality relationships with their teachers lead to the desirable outcomes is not

entirely known. Actually, there are multiple ways to explain these social and cognitive

44
developmental effects of student-teacher relationships, but the critical research has not yet

been performed to determine their respective merits.

One explanation comes directly from attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973). This

theory would suggest that high quality student-teacher relationships provide students with

a sense of security allowing their exploration of the environment, which leads to the

development of greater competencies. Additionally, accessible schema information can

influence the construal of behavior (Bargh & Pietromonaco, 1982; Higgins, Rholes, &

Jones, 1977; Srull & Wyer, 1979). Correspondingly, the activation of a particular

student-teacher relational schema might influence a student’s perception of teacher

behavior and somehow impact their development accordingly.

Another possible explanation stems from research design issues related to

correlation-based studies. If the direction of assumed causality is reversed, it could be

suggested that perhaps teachers simply like high achieving and socially developed

students more, or at least find them easier to befriend. This would imply that positive

relationships might actually be the outcome and not the cause. Of course, something

along those lines could be true in addition to the relationship having an impact on further

social and cognitive outcomes. This would be an explanation of reciprocal causation,

which data suggest some support for (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Skinner & Belmont, 1993;

Stipek & Miles, 2008).

Yet another possibility is that the correlational findings are due to a kind of third

variable effect. For instance, positive student-teacher relationships could be a product of

certain highly effective instructional practices such as cooperative learning, scaffolding in

the student’s zone of proximal development (ZPD), or experiential learning, which

45
simultaneously generate greater social and cognitive developmental outcomes. There is

some support for this notion in the relationship between instructional practices and

perceptions of teachers’ academic and social supportiveness found by Johnson et al.

(1985). Using a similar line of thought, perhaps high quality relationships develop

between students and teachers when the student’s behavior is moderated by other

characteristics such as conscientiousness or disinhibition, which also influence social and

cognitive development.

It is likely that all of these explanations have some merit. It is also likely that

each explanation has more or less merit depending on the outcome under consideration.

However, there is another explanation which has powerful implications for its potential

long-term developmental influence. High-quality relationships likely facilitate

internalization processes, which provide students with motivation to behave well and

achieve academically.

This position is explicated quite well as a sub-theory of self-determination theory

titled organismic integration theory, which proposes that high-quality relationships

facilitate students’ internalization of socially prescribed beliefs, values, and goals (Ryan,

1993; 1995). Simply put, if students feel that their teacher truly understands and cares

about them, then they are likely to accept the teacher’s social and task-related goals as

their own and willfully pursue them. Through the internalization process, goals that

originate externally (from the teacher) become valued or deemed important by the student

(identification) and potentially integrated into the student’s self-concept (integration).

Without internalization, goals will only be pursued for purely extrinsic reasons such as

acquiring rewards or avoiding punishment. With relatively shallow internalization, goal

46
pursuit may be energized to avoid feelings of guilt or to preserve one’s sense of self-

worth (introjection). Although the levels of internalization are labeled for ease of

communication, the internalization process is theorized as a continuous process spanning

from completely external to fully integrated (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Progression along the continuum is facilitated by the quality of relationships with

socializing agents (Hodgins, Koestner, Duncan, 1996; Ryan, 1993, 1995; Ryan &

Powelson, 1991). As described previously, within self-determination theory, relationship

quality is defined by the degree to which the relationship fulfills the basic psychological

need for relatedness and perceived relatedness is generally described as a feeling of

connection and belongingness with others. As was also revealed earlier, the best way to

measure such a sense of relatedness in a student-teacher relationship is not altogether

clear. What is clear is that measuring from the student’s perspective is crucial if the

effects of relatedness on facilitating internalization processes within the student are the

focus. This is not to say that the teacher’s perception of the relationship (e.g. STRS,

Pianta & Steinberg, 1992) is useless; actually, there are many cases when the teacher’s

perception would be useful. However, if the student’s internal representation of the

relationship is accessible and the outcomes of interests relate to the internalization

process, then measuring the relationship from the student’s point of view makes the most

sense.

The discussion of internalization processes being facilitated by high quality

student-teacher relationships is not singular to the self-determination theory perspective.

In fact, Sandler and Rosenblatt (1962), extended the Freudian perspective of learning as

internalization by describing the identification process as “modification of the self-

47
representation on the basis of another (usually an object) representation as a

model….More enduring identifications would be manifested as organized changes in the

self-representation” (p. 137). Similarly working from a Freudian perspective, Schafer

(1968) described internalization as “all those processes by which the subject transforms

real or imagined regulatory interactions with his environment, and real or imagined

characteristics of his environment, into inner regulations and characteristics” (p. 9). Also

taking a Freudian perspective was Fleming’s (1972) discussion of the “learning alliance”

as being the teacher-student form of the “therapeutic alliance” between psychoanalyst and

patient, which facilitates internalization processes. Internalization theory can be found in

many other popular psychological theories (e.g., Erikson, 1950; Fromm, 1956; Loevinger,

1976; Maslow, 1943; Piaget, 1971; Rogers, 1961; Schafer, 1968).

Some of the other research perspectives reviewed earlier in this paper also

propose the internalization explanation as well. Specifically, the Grussec and Goodenow

(1994) internalization or identification process closely resembles the integration process

of organismic integration theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan, 1993), as do the

explanations put forth by Solomon et al. (2000) and Wentzel (1998).

Summary and Next Steps

The relationship between a student and teacher is, at the very least, a strong

predictor of many desirable social and cognitive developmental outcomes. It likely plays

a causal role in producing such outcomes, though the mechanisms involved need further

study. Many approaches to studying student-teacher relationships currently exist among

educational and psychological researchers. Although the tools used for measurement

vary greatly in terms of both format and content, it is interesting how similar many of the

48
study outcomes are. There is need for a theory-based clarification of the relationship

construct responsible for such outcome consistency. Social cognitive psychologists have

provided strong empirical support for relational schema theory, which appears to hold

potential for explaining the psychological mechanism behind the student-teacher

relationship effects as well. Further, relational schema theory might be a good place to

start with an attempt to measure more directly and thoroughly the underlying relationship

construct in students’ psychological worlds, which ultimately impact their social and

cognitive developmental trajectories. Exactly how relational schemas impact such

development is also not entirely understood and many explanations have been proposed.

These too need further study. However, the first step toward this end is to improve our

measurement of the student-teacher relationship by clarifying the underlying factor

structure of students’ internal relationship representations.

49
 CHAPTER III. METHODS

Purpose

The conceptualization and measurement of student-teacher relationships is not

consistent in educational research. The purpose of this study is to examine the many

ways educational researchers define and measure student-teacher relationships and to

explore an integrative theory and measurement approach that accounts for their

similarities and differences. Data from a single sample of student-teacher relationship

perceptions was gathered using instruments from all the perspectives simultaneously.

Modeling of item covariance allowed empirical consideration of the potential for

measurement integration. The measurement integration results provided insights for

synthesizing the existing perspectives into a single theoretical framework.

Participants

Over 8000 Midwestern public university undergraduate students were solicited

via email for participation in this research with the promise of entry into a drawing for

$50 as an incentive for participation. The survey was opened by 893 participants. Of

those who started the survey, 238 participants were deleted for not officially submitting

the survey. These 238 participants had submitted demographic data and received the

prompt to begin reflecting on a student-teacher relationship; however, they did not

complete any of the subsequent 179 survey items referencing that relationship. Next, 4

more participants were deleted because they responded “no” to the demographic question

about being 18 or older, which immediately submitted their survey even before they

received the 179 student-teacher relationship items. Of the remaining 651 participants,

266 provided partially incomplete data. A visual scan of the raw data clearly revealed

50
that while some participants had large amounts of the survey items unanswered, the vast

majority of these 266 participants had only a few missing item responses. The criteria of

95% complete data or greater was used to retain participants, which is in line with the 5%

missing data cut-off suggested by Shafer (1999). It also results in a data set that retains

adequate statistical power to do the analyses of interest, a recommendation pointed out by

Schlomer, Bauman, & Card (2010). In other words, all participants who had missed 9 or

more of the 179 student-teacher relationship items were deleted. This removed 19 more

participants from the sample. Finally, 4 more participants were removed for not

responding to key demographic grouping questions such as gender and years since high

school graduation, which left 628 participants in the sample. Because the questionnaire

included 179 student-teacher relationship questions, the remaining 628 participant’s data

were examined for potentially unengaged respondents the lowest within-participant

standard deviation of responses was .60, therefore all 628 of these participants were

retained.

Of the 628 that remained in the sample, 136 were male and 492 were female. The

participants were randomly assigned to report their most recent experiences with a high

school math (N = 207), English (N = 202), or science (N = 219) teacher. Because these

were university students retrospectively reporting on a relationship they experienced in

high school, it is important to report how long it had been since they experienced that

relationship. Accordingly, 152 participants experienced the relationship less than one

year ago; whereas 150, 103, 88, 37, and 98 participants experienced the relationship two,

three, four, five, and more than five years ago respectively. Participants reported on

whether the teacher’s gender was male (N = 322) or female (N = 306) as well.

51
Instrumentation

The students completed a composite self-report instrument, which has accordingly

been given the title Composite Student-Teacher Relationship Instrument (C-STRI). This

instrument combines twelve instruments that have been used to measure the relationship

between students and their teachers, as well as two instruments used to measure a slightly

broader relationship between students and their classroom or school. To review, Table 1

contains a descriptive list of these fourteen instruments. After considering the risks of

creating too lengthy an instrument, all items from these scales were combined into a

single composite instrument for use in this study. There were two primary reasons for

this: 1) it allows for individual scale scores, predictive validity, and internal consistency

analyses of the original instruments to be comparatively examined, and 2) it eliminates

the potential for items with strong empirical importance, but less face validity, to be

incidentally removed in the process of reducing the length of the composite instrument.

The fourteen original instruments were combined into a single, conceptually

cohesive, composite instrument to allow all items from all fourteen instruments to be

administered as one instrument with random item ordering and minimized participant

confusion. All items from each of the 14 instruments, kept grouped by instrument of

origin, with original wording, and compiled into a single document for a total of 170

items, are displayed in Appendix A.

The original instrument response scales varied from 4-point to 7-point Likert style

formats. The response scales were thus removed and replaced with a 6-point scale to

standardize potential response variance in the C-STRI. Possible responses ranged from

strongly disagree to strongly agree. Although the question of an ideal number of scale

52
items remains unanswered despite decades of research (Preston & Colman, 2000), a 6-

point scale was selected in accordance with Miller’s (1956) discussion about the limits of

human conscious thought being approximately 7 items, as well as to “force” respondents

to make a decision and to avoid misinterpretation of midpoint ratings (Garland, 1991).

Next, item statements were slightly modified only as necessary to 1) ask for a

student’s perception of the student-teacher relationship as opposed to the teacher’s

perspective, 2) refer to the relationship in the past tense as opposed to present tense, and

to 3) refer to the student’s relationship with a single teacher as opposed to teachers in

general or the whole classroom. The new list of 170, conceptually cohesive items, still

categorized by their scale of origin, is displayed in Appendix B to allow comparison with

the original items in Appendix A. As an example of changing from teacher to student

perspective, item 114 (Appendix A) was originally worded “this student trusts me” in the

STRS (Pianta & Nimetz, 1991) and was reworded to “I trusted this teacher” for use as

item 114 in the C-STRI (Appendix B). As an example of referring to the past instead of

present-tense, item 27 (Appendix A) was originally worded “my teacher really cares

about me” in the TASC (Belmont et al., 1988) and was reworded to “this teacher really

cared about me” for use as item 27 in the C-STRI (Appendix B). As an example of

changing the wording to refer to a specific teacher rather than teachers in general (and

present to past-tense), item 65 (Appendix A) was originally worded “teachers here are not

interested in people like me” in the PSSM (Goodenow, 1993) and was reworded to “this

teacher was not interested in people like me” for use as item 65 of the C-STRI.

In addition to the 170 items from these 14 instruments, 10 additional items

representing the outcomes internalization, engagement, and academic achievement were

53
added to assess the comparative predictive validity of each original scale and to

strengthen the measurement of those outcomes in the hypothesized structural model. The

full set of C-STRI items, worded as they were when administered to participants, is

displayed in Appendix C, ordered by hypothesized factor grouping of the C-STRI. These

factor groupings are correspondingly displayed in a graphic representation of the

hypothesized C-STRI measurement model (Figure 1), the formation of which is

explained in the following sub-section of this report.

54
 Y2

Y5

Y59

Y66

Y71

Y90

Y91

Y93 ή1
Predictor:
Y94
Academic Support
Y102

Y103

Y105

Y147

Y151

Y152

Y156

Y47

Y48

Y50

Y51

Y52

Y53
ή2
Y104 Predictor:
Y106 Punishment

Y107

Y108

Y111

Y112

Y120

Y122

Y149

Figure 1. Hypothesized measurement model of the C-STRI based on Baldwin’s social

cognitive theory of relational schemas

55
 Y7

Y24

Y32

Y33

Y34

Y35

Y36

Y37

Y38
ή3
Y39 Predictor:
Involvement
Y56

Y60

Y67

Y95

Y96

Y97

Y128

Y129

Y150

Y154

Figure 1. Continued

56
 Y98

Y99

Y100

Y101

Y109

Y110
ή4
Y113
Predictor:
Y157 Autonomy
Support
Y158

Y159

Y160

Y161

Y162

Y163

Y164

Y165

Y166

Figure 1. Continued

57
 Y1

Y4

Y6

Y26

Y27

Y28

Y49

Y61

Y64

Y65

Y70

Y74

Y75

Y76 ή5
Caring
Y77

Y78

Y79

Y80

Y81

Y82

Y83

Y84

Y87

Y88 ξ1
Perceptions of
Y89
Teacher
Y125

Y148

Y153

Y8

Y13

Y15

Y22 ή6
Y25 Awareness/
Y29
Understanding
Y30

Y31

Y115

Figure 1. Continued

58
 Y10

Y54

Y55

Y57

Y68

Y69

Y85

Y86

Y114 ή7
Y116
Closeness

Y124

Y130

Y131

Y132

Y133

Y134 ξ2
Perceptions of Self
Y135

Y136

Y137

Y138

Y139

Y21
ή8
Y23 Affective
Y127 Experience

Y167

Y168

Y169

Y170

Figure 1. Continued

59
 Y9

Y14

Y16

Y17
ή9
Y18 Social Support
Y19
Seeking

Y20

Y63

Y119

Y142

Y155 ξ3
Interpersonal Scripts
Y12

Y40

Y41

Y42

Y43
ή10
Y44 Emotional
Y45
Reliance

Y46

Y117

Y126

Figure 1. Continued

60
 Y73

Y143

Y144

Y145 ή11
Y146
Outcome
Internalization
Y171

Y172

Y173

Y174

Y3

Y11

Y58

Y62

Y72

Y92

Y118
ή12
Y121
Outcome
Y123 Engagement
2
Y140

Y141

Y175

Y176

Y177

Y178

Y179
ή13
Outcome
Y180 Academic
Achievement

Figure 1. Continued

61
 To deliver the full instrument, all 180 C-STRI items were entered into Qualtrics,

an electronic survey delivery software program. Using this software, items were

presented to each participant in random order to avoid order effects like item familiarity,

which might result from the use of numerous similar items, and item fatigue, which might

result from the extraordinary length of this instrument. Using Qualtrics also allowed the

C-STRI to be administered online to simplify data collection and eliminate human errors

that occur during manual data entry.

Content Analysis of C-STRI Items

Central to this study is refining the measurement of students’ relational schemas.

As discussed in the literature review, Baldwin (1992) synthesized decades of research on

perceiving self, others, and situations to offer a cohesive, social cognitive theory of

relational schema structure. This schematic structure includes self-perception, other-

perception, and interpersonal scripts, which provided a foundation for the three latent

variables included in the hypothesized structural model (Figure 2).

62
 ή6
ή5
Awareness/
Caring
Understanding
ή1 ή9 ή10
Academic Social Support Emotional
Support Seeking Reliance
ή11
ξ1 Internalization
ή2 Perceptions of
Punishment Teacher
ξ3
ή12
Interpersonal
Engagement
Scripts
ή3 ξ2
Involvement Perceptions of
ή13
Self Academic
Achievement
ή4
Autonomy
Support
ή8
ή7
Affective
Closeness
Experience

Figure 2. Hypothesized structural model of latent variables measured by the C-STRI

based on Baldwin’s social cognitive theory of relational schemas

Baldwin’s theoretical relational schema structure also provided guidance for the a

priori coding categories for performing a content analysis (Stemler, 2001) of the C-STRI

item statements to determine which items would likely represent each latent variable in

the measurement model (Figure 1). In other words, all original scale items were sorted

into groups that represented perceptions of self, perceptions of the teacher, and if-then

type interpersonal script statements. Emergent coding was used on the items that did not

fit into the a priori categories. Those items fit into the two primary emergent groupings

of teacher behaviors and student behaviors. Teacher behaviors are external stimuli that

influence a student’s perception of the teacher and students’ perception of themselves;

63
whereas student behaviors are outcomes influenced by students’ interpersonal scripts.

Original scale items that reflected statements about how students perceived their teacher

fell into the two a priori factor groupings labeled caring and awareness/understanding.

Original scale items that reflected statements about students’ self-perception fell into two

a priori factor groupings as well, which were labeled closeness and affective experience.

Original scale items that reflected if-then statements about how students’ expected they

or their teacher might behave (interpersonal scripts) fell into the two a priori factor

groupings labeled emotional reliance and social support seeking. The specific items

included in each of the a priori factor groupings are listed in Appendix C.

Quasi-Independent Variables

Because no experimental manipulation of variables occurred in this study, all

predictor variables measured are considered quasi-independent variables. Participant

gender, teacher gender, and the subject matter taught by the teacher of reference in

participant responses to the instrument was measured to examine external consistency of

the hypothesized model. Participants’ high school graduation year and the year in high

school that they took the class was also recorded and combined to determine how far

back the participants were being asked to remember and examine consistency between

participants remembering relationships less than two years ago and participants

remembering four or more years ago. Participant gender, teacher gender, high school

graduation year, and year they took the class in high school were recorded by asking the

participants to report it at the start of the survey. Subject matter taught by the teacher of

reference in participant responses was randomly assigned to participants. Specifically,

three versions of the C-STRI were used. The only difference between the three versions

64
was the wording of a single sentence in the instructional paragraph, which preceded the

survey items. This instruction asked students to “use memories of experiences with their

most recent high school _______ teacher” while completing the survey questions. The

blank was filled in with math, science, or English in versions one, two, and three

respectively. These class topics were selected because they are considered common core

classes that all students would have typically taken during junior and senior year in high

school.

Numerous items from the original instruments were categorized into four factor

groupings of teacher behaviors. These behaviors are theoretically expected to affect

students’ relational schemas; however, they are teacher behaviors and not part of the

relational schema. As outlined in Appendix C, they are grouped as factors that represent

things that teachers do, they are not represented as parts of the students’ internal

relationship representation per se. Instead, they are treated as predictor variables in the

hypothesized structural model (Figure 2). These four quasi-independent variables are

academic support, punishment, involvement, and autonomy support.

Academic support. Items included in this grouping relate to teachers recognizing

and encouraging student academic achievement, providing support when the student did

not understand something, and assigning work at the appropriate level for the student.

Essentially, it represents things that teachers do to directly support student learning.

Punishment. Items included in this grouping relate to potentially harmful

teaching behaviors such as threatening the student, using sarcasm, imposing unrealistic

expectations, criticizing the student, and being mean. Essentially, it represents teacher

behaviors that create conflict between the student and the teacher.

65
 Involvement. Items in this grouping relate to things teachers do to show students

that they appreciate them, understand them, and respect them. Examples of these

behaviors include remembering the student’s birthday, being available for the student in

times of need, and smiling at the student. These teacher behaviors show students that

teachers see them as individuals whose feelings are important. While recognizing that

these behaviors are central to relationship development, they are still teacher behaviors

and thus not included in the model as part of the students’ relationship representation.

Autonomy support. Items included in this grouping relate to teaching strategies

that support students’ perception of self-determination in the classroom. Such strategies

include providing flexibility in assignments, giving students choices, including students

in establishing classroom rules, and using student input/feedback, and providing rational

for assignments. The opposite of these strategies would be strategies that impose a

controlling atmosphere.

Relational Schema Components

Caring. This factor represents the greatest number of items from the original

scales. These 28 items relate to the student’s perceptions of whether the teacher was

warm or friendly toward them, cared about them, and generally liked them. The large

number of items that categorically fit into this construct from numerous original

instruments suggests it has cross paradigm face validity.

Awareness/Understanding. The 9 items grouped into this factor represent

statements of the student’s perception of how much the teacher knew about them and

understood their feelings.

66
 Closeness. This factor also comprised a very large number of items. The 21

items in this grouping represent perceptions of the student’s trust in the teacher and their

feeling secure, accepted and close when with the teacher.

Affective Experience. This factor consisted of 7 items indicating whether the

student felt positive or negative feelings when with the teacher.

Social Support Seeking. The 11 items included in this factor represent how

willing the student would be to seek out help from the teacher if experiencing a problem.

Emotional Reliance. These 10 items are quite similar to social support seeking

items with the difference that all items in this factor relate specifically to a willingness of

the student to turn to the teacher for support when experiencing strong negative emotions

such as fear, anxiety, and frustration, or strong positive emotions like pride and

excitement.

Outcome Variables

As outlined in Appendix C, 14 of the items from the original instruments were

categorized into two student outcome factor groupings, internalization and engagement,

which represent characteristics of the student’s relationship with his/her schoolwork and

not the student’s relationship with the teacher. One more outcome, not measured by any

of the original tools, but included in the study for the purpose of examining predictive

validity is academic achievement.

Internalization. Items included in this grouping from the original scales represent

the students’ desire to be like or emulate the instructor. Because the original scales were

not intentionally constructed to represent the outcome internalization, four additional

items were added to potentially strengthen the measurement of this outcome, which

67
represents students’ internalization of the purpose, importance, or value in learning the

subject matter. These four items are listed under the internalization sub-heading in

Appendix C and marked with an asterisk.

Engagement. Eleven items in this category were taken from the original scales

that represent both the emotional experience of being in class and participatory behaviors.

Again, because the original scales were not intentionally constructed to represent

outcomes such as engagement, five additional items were added to represent other

aspects of cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement in the class for a total of 16

items. The five items that are not from the original fourteen scales are listed under the

engagement sub-heading in Appendix C and marked with an asterisk.

Academic Achievement. Because this study is limited by retrospective self-

reporting, academic achievement is measured by one item asking participants to self-

report the grade that they earned in the class taught by the teacher of reference. Whereas,

all other C-STRI items will be responded to using a 6-point scale ranging from strongly

agree to strongly disagree, for this item the response options will be A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+,

C, C-, D+, D, D-, and F.

Procedure

Recruitment. At two Midwestern universities, course instructors were asked if

they would forward an email invitation to participate in this project. At one university,

Introduction to Educational Psychology and Measurement instructors were solicited. At

the other university, all instructors teaching 100 or 200 level courses in the Psychology,

Education, and Sociology departments were solicited. Instructors who responded

positively to the solicitation were provided with an email invitation (Appendix D) to

68
forward on to their students. Entry into a drawing for $50 was used as an incentive to

encourage participation. This method of recruitment generated the participation of 11

course instructors, which yielded 165 participants. Because a minimum of 600

participants was desired (200 participants per course subject condition), approval to

mass-email the survey to the entire undergraduate student body at one of the universities

was pursued and granted. Following this distribution, the participant number grew to 580

responses. The mass-email of this survey was sent out a second time as a reminder,

which brought the final number of responses to 893 responses. The process of

winnowing the 893 responses down to the 628 participant included in the analyses is

detailed in the above section describing the participants.

Survey administration. The survey link, which was embedded in the email

inviting potential participants to take part in the research, brought participants to an

informed consent page (appendix E). Interested students read the informed consent page

and indicated their consent to participate by entering their name and email address into

the consent page and clicking the submit button. After the participant submitted consent

information, Qualtrics administered 3 initial demographic questions (Appendix F). These

questions included the year the participant graduated high school, the participant’s

gender, and if the participant was 18 years old or older. If the participant responded no to

the question about being 18 years old or older, Qualtrics skipped directly to the end of

survey thank you note (Appendix G). For all participants who answered yes to the 18

years or older question, Qualtrics randomly assigned them to one of the three course

subject conditions (Math, Science, or English) and administered the corresponding C-

STRI introduction statement (Appendix H). After reading the introduction statement,

69
participants clicked the “continue” link and Qualtrics administered all of the remaining

C-STRI questions. The first three questions directly following the introduction statement

asked participants the year of high school that the class took place, the letter grade that

the participant earned in the class, and the gender of the teacher for the class. The next

179 items were presented in a randomized order for each participant. See Appendix I for

an example of this section of the C-STRI.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1. When examined separately from other instruments’ items, the

items from each of the original instruments will demonstrate acceptable internal

consistency and fit to their instrument’s expected structural model.

Hypothesis 2. Calculated scale scores from each of the original measurement

tools will demonstrate acceptable predictive validity in the expected direction as related

to each of the student outcomes internalization, engagement, and academic achievement.

Hypothesis 3. Items from the all the measurement tools taken together will fit

well into the hypothesized 13-factor structure (Figure 1).

Hypothesis 4. The hypothesized structural model as specified in Figure 2 will

demonstrate good fit. Specifically, the four variables (academic support, punishment,

involvement, and autonomy support) will predict the three outcome variables

(internalization, engagement, and academic achievement) as mediated by the relational

schema. The schema will be represented by three latent variables 1) perceptions of self

with the two observed variables closeness and affective experience, 2) perceptions of

teacher with the two observed variables caring and awareness/understanding, and 3)

70
interpersonal scripts with the two observed variables social support seeking and

emotional reliance.

Data Analysis

Hypothesis 1. Confirmatory factor analyses were used to examine internal

consistency and fit of the data to the proposed factor structure of each original scale and

respective subscales.

Hypothesis 2. Linear regressions were used to examine the predictive validity of

each original scale in relation to the outcome variables internalization, engagement, and

academic achievement.

Hypothesis 3. Confirmatory factor analyses were used to examine internal

consistency and fit of the data to the hypothesized factor structure proposed in Figure 1.

First, the measurement model of predictor variables was examined. Second, the

measurement model for perceptions-of-teacher factors was examined. Third, the

measurement model for perceptions-of-self factors was examined. Fourth, the

measurement model for interpersonal-scripts factors was examined. Finally, the

measurement model of outcome factors was examined. In cases where the observed data

did not reasonably fit the hypothesized model, model modifications such as item

elimination and allowing correlated error variance were utilized to improve the goodness

of fit. Minimum acceptance of reasonable fit required the model to have an RMSEA

value of .08 or less (Browne & Cudeck, 1993) and a CFI value of .90 or greater (Hu &

Bentler, 1999).

Hypothesis 4. Structural equation modeling was employed to test the goodness of

fit of the hypothesized full structural model of latent variable relationships as displayed in

71
Figure 2. Again, the model underwent modifications until the acceptable fit was reached

where the minimum acceptance of reasonable fit required the model to have an RMSEA

value of .08 or less (Browne & Cudeck, 1993) and a CFI value of .90 or greater (Hu &

Bentler, 1999).

Post Hoc Analysis. Because the hypothesized model possessed serious

multicollinearity problems among its factors, exploratory factor analysis was utilized to

reveal the structure of the data from a purely empirical starting point. The principal

components analysis method of extraction was used to reduce the set of items down to a

small number of factors that could potentially be used to create composite scores for use

in subsequent analysis. To create independent factors and avoid the issue of

multicollinearity in the final solution of relational schema factors, the orthogonal

VARIMAX rotation, developed by Kaiser (1958), was used. The number of factors to

extract was based on examination of the scree plot (Cattell, 1966).

For decisions of item elimination, the following criteria were used. Items were

eliminated that did not have a primary factor loading of .6 or greater. Items were also

eliminated if the gap between primary and cross-loadings was less than .2. Items with

cross-loadings of .3 or above were eliminated as well. Finally, after the latent factors

were identified, the remaining items were examined for meaningful and useful

membership to their factor by reading over the item wording to assess face validity and to

determine the extent to which the item appeared to be redundant with other items.

72
 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

The average completion time for all 628 participants was 24.02 minutes.

However there were a few participants who must have begun/opened the questionnaire,

left it to do something else, and went back to complete/submit it later. In a few cases

several hours passed between the questionnaire’s start and finish time. Due to the

outliers, it is important to note that the median of all 628 completion times was 16.70

minutes. Of the 610 participants who completed the questionnaire in less than one hour,

the average completion time was 17.93 minutes. C-STRI item codes, item wording,

whether an item was reverse scored or not, and the item descriptive statistics for all items

in the C-STRI that utilized the 6-point scale and were presented to participants in random

order are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for all C-STRI items

Item Code Item Wording Rev N Min Max M SD
A1_IPPA_T This teacher respected my feelings. 628 1.0 6.0 4.59 1.22
A2_IPPA_T I feel this teacher did a good job as my teacher. 628 1.0 6.0 4.80 1.44
A3_IPPA_T I wish I had a different teacher. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.69 1.63
A4_IPPA_T This teacher accepted me as I was. 628 1.0 6.0 4.66 1.21
A5_IPPA_T This teacher expected too much of me. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.72 1.15
When we discussed things, this teacher cared about
A6_IPPA_T 628 1.0 6.0 4.35 1.24
my point of view.
A7_IPPA_T This teacher trusted my judgment. 628 1.0 6.0 4.36 1.22
A8_IPPA_T This teacher understood me. 628 1.0 6.0 4.02 1.36
When I was angry about something, this teacher
A9_IPPA_T 628 1.0 6.0 4.04 1.26
tried to be understanding.
A10_IPPA_T I trusted this teacher. 628 1.0 6.0 4.59 1.33
I liked to get this teacher’s point of view on things
A11_IPPA_C 628 1.0 6.0 3.70 1.45
I was concerned about.
I felt it was no use letting my feelings show around
A12_IPPA_C X 628 1.0 6.0 4.09 1.36
this teacher.
This teacher could tell when I was upset about
A13_IPPA_C 628 1.0 6.0 3.63 1.34
something.
This teacher had his/her own problems, so I didn’t
A14_IPPA_C X 628 1.0 6.0 4.07 1.32
bother him/her with mine.
A15_IPPA_C This teacher helped me to understand myself better. 628 1.0 6.0 3.67 1.42
A16_IPPA_C I told this teacher about my problems and troubles. 628 1.0 6.0 2.71 1.34

73
Table 2. Continued
This teacher helped me to talk about my
A17_IPPA_C 628 1.0 6.0 3.39 1.41
difficulties.
I could count on this teacher when I needed to get
A18_IPPA_C 628 1.0 6.0 3.41 1.43
something off my chest.
If this teacher knew something was bothering me,
A19_IPPA_C 628 1.0 6.0 3.60 1.37
he/she asked me about it.
Talking over my problems with this teacher made
A20_IPPA_A X 628 1.0 6.0 4.61 1.30
me feel ashamed or foolish.
A21_IPPA_A I got upset easily around this teacher. X 628 1.0 6.0 5.00 1.20
A22_IPPA_A I get upset a lot more than this teacher knew about. X 628 1.0 6.0 3.70 1.52
A23_IPPA_A I felt angry with this teacher. 628 1.0 6.0 4.94 1.29
A24_IPPA_A I didn’t get much attention from this teacher. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.33 1.28
This teacher didn’t understand what I was going
A25_IPPA_A X 628 1.0 6.0 4.03 1.42
through in those days.
A26_Inv_Aff This teacher liked me. 628 1.0 6.0 4.63 1.18
A27_Inv_Aff This teacher really cared about me. 628 1.0 6.0 4.22 1.32
This teacher didn’t seem to enjoy having me in
A28_Inv_Aff X 628 1.0 6.0 4.94 1.21
his/her class.
A29_Inv_Att This teacher knew a lot about me. 628 1.0 6.0 3.56 1.50
A30_Inv_Att This teacher knew me well. 628 1.0 6.0 3.75 1.46
A31_Inv_Att This teacher didn’t understand me. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.45 1.36
A32_Inv_DR This teacher spent time with me. 628 1.0 6.0 3.74 1.34
A33_Inv_DR This teacher talked with me. 628 1.0 6.0 4.54 1.23
A34_Inv_Dep This teacher was always there for me. 628 1.0 6.0 3.94 1.33
A35_Inv_Dep I could count on this teacher to be there for me. 628 1.0 6.0 4.10 1.38
I could rely on this teacher to be there when I
A36_Inv_Dep 628 1.0 6.0 4.02 1.39
needed him/her.
A37_Inv_Dep This teacher was never there for me. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.79 1.26
I couldn’t depend on this teacher for important
A38_Inv_Dep X 628 1.0 6.0 4.46 1.40
things.
I couldn’t count on this teacher when I needed
A39_Inv_Dep X 628 1.0 6.0 4.43 1.44
him/her.
If I were feeling alone or depressed, I would have
A40_ERQ 628 1.0 6.0 3.42 1.56
been willing to turn to this teacher.
If I were feeling anxious or scared about
A41_ERQ something, I would have been willing to turn to this 628 1.0 6.0 3.60 1.52
teacher.
If I were feeling excited about something
A42_ERQ happening in my life, I would have been willing to 628 1.0 6.0 3.81 1.49
turn to this teacher.
If I were feeling very bad about myself and needed
A43_ERQ a boost, I would have been willing to turn to this 628 1.0 6.0 3.53 1.56
teacher.
If I were feeling overwhelmed, I would have been
A44_ERQ 628 1.0 6.0 3.87 1.52
willing to turn to this teacher.
If I were feeling frustrated or angry, I would have
A45_ERQ 628 1.0 6.0 3.65 1.50
been willing to turn to this teacher.
If I were feeling proud of my accomplishments, I
A46_ERQ 628 1.0 6.0 4.07 1.46
would have been willing to turn to this teacher.
This teacher criticized me for turning work in late
A47_Friend X 628 1.0 6.0 4.19 1.45
or failing to turn in assignments.
This teacher told me publicly that I might get a bad
A48_Friend X 628 1.0 6.0 5.22 1.20
grade in that subject.
A49_Friend This teacher was warm and supportive. 628 1.0 6.0 4.31 1.38

74
Table 2. Continued
This teacher seemed pessimistic about my ability to
A50_Friend be self-disciplining and responsible for my own X 628 1.0 6.0 4.79 1.31
behavior.
A51_Friend This teacher expected me to make stupid mistakes. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.98 1.19
A52_Friend This teacher used sarcasm. X 628 1.0 6.0 2.87 1.44
This teacher threatened to give me more work,
A53_Friend X 628 1.0 6.0 5.44 0.92
tests, or to lower my grade to control my behavior.
A54_Rel When I was with this teacher I felt accepted. 628 1.0 6.0 4.39 1.30
When I was with this teacher I felt like someone
A55_Rel 628 1.0 6.0 3.39 1.42
special.
A56_Rel When I was with this teacher I felt ignored. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.78 1.28
A57_Rel When I was with this teacher I felt unimportant. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.76 1.32
A58_PSSM I felt like a real part of this teacher’s class. 628 1.0 6.0 4.39 1.36
This teacher noticed when I was good at
A59_PSSM 628 1.0 6.0 4.53 1.25
something.
A60_PSSM This teacher took my opinions seriously. 628 1.0 6.0 4.39 1.27
A61_PSSM This teacher was interested in me. 628 1.0 6.0 4.04 1.31
Sometimes I felt as if I didn’t belong in this
A62_PSSM X 628 1.0 6.0 4.47 1.48
teacher’s class.
A63_PSSM I could talk to this teacher if I had a problem. 628 1.0 6.0 4.08 1.42
A64_PSSM This teacher was friendly to me. 628 1.0 6.0 4.88 1.17
A65_PSSM This teacher was not interested in people like me. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.79 1.33
This teacher made sure I was included in lots of
A66_PSSM 628 1.0 6.0 4.26 1.27
activities in class.
A67_PSSM I was treated with respect by this teacher. 628 1.0 6.0 4.89 1.21
A68_PSSM I felt very different from this teacher. X 628 1.0 6.0 3.80 1.45
A69_PSSM I could really be myself around this teacher. 628 1.0 6.0 4.29 1.40
A70_PSSM This teacher respected me. 628 1.0 6.0 4.78 1.22
A71_PSSM This teacher knew I could do good work. 628 1.0 6.0 5.02 1.01
A72_PSSM I wished I was in a different teacher’s class. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.65 1.66
A73_PSSM I feel proud of knowing this teacher. 628 1.0 6.0 4.39 1.49
A74_PSSM This teacher liked me the way I was. 628 1.0 6.0 4.54 1.20
It was hard for people like me to be accepted by
A75_PSSM X 628 1.0 6.0 4.78 1.32
this teacher.
A76_CLM_SS This teacher really cared about me. 628 1.0 6.0 4.19 1.34
This teacher thought it was important to be my
A77_CLM_SS 628 1.0 6.0 3.32 1.36
friend.
A78_CLM_SS This teacher liked me as much as other students. 628 1.0 6.0 4.52 1.25
A79_CLM_SS This teacher cared about my feelings. 628 1.0 6.0 4.24 1.27
A80_CLM_AS This teacher cared about how much I learned. 628 1.0 6.0 4.82 1.20
A81_CLM_AS This teacher liked to see my work. 628 1.0 6.0 4.51 1.16
A82_CLM_AS This teacher liked to help me learn. 628 1.0 6.0 4.74 1.24
This teacher wanted me to do my best in
A83_CLM_AS 628 1.0 6.0 5.15 0.99
schoolwork.
When I was with this teacher, I felt loved and cared
A84_BNS_Rel 628 1.0 6.0 3.62 1.38
about.
When I was with this teacher, I often felt a lot of
A85_BNS_Rel X 628 1.0 6.0 4.20 1.34
distance in our relationship.
When I was with this teacher, I felt a lot of
A86_BNS_Rel 628 1.0 6.0 2.55 1.34
closeness and intimacy.
A87_YCATS_W This teacher liked my family. 628 1.0 6.0 3.99 1.33
A88_YCATS_W This teacher liked me. 628 1.0 6.0 4.61 1.18

75
Table 2. Continued
A89_YCATS_W This teacher was my friend. 628 1.0 6.0 3.44 1.45
A90_YCATS_W This teacher said nice things about my work. 628 1.0 6.0 4.53 1.21
A91_YCATS_W This teacher helped me when I didn’t understand. 628 1.0 6.0 4.77 1.25
A92_YCATS_W This teacher made the class fun. 628 1.0 6.0 4.46 1.54
A93_YCATS_W This teacher answered my questions. 628 1.0 6.0 4.95 1.11
A94_YCATS_W This teacher told good stories. 628 1.0 6.0 4.55 1.45
A95_YCATS_W This teacher remembered special days for me. 628 1.0 6.0 2.90 1.41
A96_YCATS_W This teacher chose me to be a special helper. 628 1.0 6.0 2.57 1.30
A97_YCATS_W This teacher smiled a lot. 628 1.0 6.0 4.66 1.36
This teacher let me choose work that I wanted to
A98_YCAT_A 628 1.0 6.0 2.84 1.31
do.
A99_YCAT_A This teacher let me choose where I wanted to sit. 628 1.0 6.0 4.28 1.63
A100_YCAT_A This teacher let me do activities I wanted to do. 628 1.0 6.0 3.37 1.34
A101_YCAT_A This teacher let me do different activities in class. 628 1.0 6.0 3.24 1.43
A102_YCAT_A This teacher did activities with me. 628 1.0 6.0 3.61 1.38
A103_YCAT_A This teacher told me I was smart. 628 1.0 6.0 4.24 1.38
This teacher told me I was going to get in trouble a
A104_YCAT_C X 628 1.0 6.0 5.33 1.04
lot.
This teacher told me to do work that was too hard
A105_YCAT_C X 628 1.0 6.0 4.45 1.24
for me.
A106_YCAT_C This teacher got angry with me. X 628 1.0 6.0 5.01 1.21
This teacher told me that I was doing something
A107_YCAT_C X 628 1.0 6.0 4.79 1.18
wrong a lot.
A108_YCAT_C This teacher told me that I didn’t try hard enough. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.86 1.30
This teacher told me to stop doing work I liked
A109_YCAT_C X 628 1.0 6.0 5.15 0.93
doing.
A110_YCAT_C This teacher told me to do work I didn’t want to do. X 628 1.0 6.0 3.62 1.38
A111_YCAT_C This teacher told me I did not listen. X 628 1.0 6.0 5.04 1.12
A112_YCAT_C This teacher was mean. X 628 1.0 6.0 5.09 1.23
A113_YCAT_C This teacher had too many rules for our class. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.79 1.10
A114_STRS I trusted this teacher. 628 1.0 6.0 4.62 1.32
A115_STRS This teacher was in tune with what I was feeling. 628 1.0 6.0 3.55 1.31
A116_STRS I was wary of this teacher. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.67 1.32
A117_STRS I allowed this teacher to connect/relate with me. 628 1.0 6.0 3.91 1.32
I tried to get help, recognition, and support from
A118_STRS 628 1.0 6.0 3.93 1.27
this teacher.
This teacher was able to comfort me or cheer me
A119_STRS 628 1.0 6.0 3.76 1.38
up.
A120_STRS I avoided contact with this teacher. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.62 1.46
I tried to get support and encouragement from this
A121_STRS 628 1.0 6.0 3.79 1.31
teacher.
I saw this teacher as a source of punishment and
A122_STRS X 628 1.0 6.0 5.05 1.20
criticism.
A123_STRS I participated deeply in this teacher’s class. 628 1.0 6.0 4.20 1.32
A124_STRS I felt safe and secure with this teacher. 628 1.0 6.0 4.47 1.29
This teacher shared an affectionate, warm
A125_STRS 628 1.0 6.0 3.27 1.47
relationship with me.
A126_STRS If upset, I would seek comfort from this teacher. 628 1.0 6.0 2.98 1.43
A127_STRS I felt upset when separated from this teacher. 628 1.0 6.0 2.01 1.10
My relationship with this teacher became more
A128_STRS 628 1.0 6.0 4.29 1.39
positive throughout the school year.

76
Table 2. Continued
My relationship with this teacher became more
A129_STRS X 628 1.0 6.0 4.91 1.37
negative throughout the school year.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt
A130_NRS_A 628 1.0 6.0 4.29 1.31
supported.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt
A131_NRS_A 628 1.0 6.0 4.14 1.28
understood.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt listened
A132_NRS_A 628 1.0 6.0 4.34 1.27
to.
A133_NRS_A In my relationship with this teacher, I felt valued. 628 1.0 6.0 4.22 1.30
A134_NRS_A In my relationship with this teacher, I felt safe. 628 1.0 6.0 4.58 1.20
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close to
A135_NRS_I 628 1.0 6.0 3.46 1.42
them.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt attached
A136_NRS_I 628 1.0 6.0 2.96 1.42
to them.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt bonded
A137_NRS_I 628 1.0 6.0 3.39 1.44
to them.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close-
A138_NRS_I 628 1.0 6.0 3.30 1.44
knit.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt like a
A139_NRS_I 628 1.0 6.0 3.41 1.48
friend.
If I had a problem with my school work I would
A140_Sch_Ut 628 1.0 6.0 4.02 1.44
share it with this teacher.
If I were having trouble understanding a subject at
A141_Sch_Ut 628 1.0 6.0 3.65 1.46
school, I would talk it over with this teacher.
I could usually rely on this teacher when I had
A142_Sch_Ut 628 1.0 6.0 3.67 1.48
problems at my school.
A143_Emul I tried to model myself after this teacher. 628 1.0 6.0 3.18 1.44
I would feel good if someone said I was a lot like
A144_Emul 628 1.0 6.0 3.77 1.56
this teacher.
A145_Emul I wanted to be like this teacher. 628 1.0 6.0 3.57 1.55
As I get older, I’ll probably be a lot like this
A146_Emul 628 1.0 6.0 3.28 1.49
teacher.
A147_ClsSup When I did well, this teacher made me feel good. 628 1.0 6.0 4.47 1.22
A148_ClsSup This teacher’s was like family to me. 628 1.0 6.0 2.67 1.45
A149_ClsSup This teacher was mean to me. X 628 1.0 6.0 5.22 1.16
A150_ClsSup This teacher just looked out for his/herself. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.90 1.25
When I had trouble with my schoolwork, this
A151_ClsSup 628 1.0 6.0 4.56 1.27
teacher tried to help.
A152_ClsSup This teacher worked with me to solve problems. 628 1.0 6.0 4.45 1.25
A153_ClsSup This teacher cared about me. 628 1.0 6.0 4.35 1.26
A154_ClsSup This teacher treated me with respect. 628 1.0 6.0 4.89 1.22
A155_ClsSup This teacher helped me, even if he/she was busy. 628 1.0 6.0 4.28 1.30
A156_ClsSup This teacher helped me learn. 628 1.0 6.0 4.81 1.24
This teacher let me help decide what the rules were
A157_MePart 628 1.0 6.0 2.52 1.21
going to be.
A158_MePart This teacher let me do things that I wanted to do. 628 1.0 6.0 3.45 1.34
This teacher let me get a rule changed if I thought
A159_MePart 628 1.0 6.0 2.78 1.28
it was unfair.
This teacher let me have a say in deciding what
A160_MePart 628 1.0 6.0 2.77 1.27
went on in class.
This teacher let me help plan what we would do in
A161_MePart 628 1.0 6.0 2.48 1.24
class.
A162_MePart This teacher let me do things my own way. 628 1.0 6.0 3.50 1.33

77
Table 2. Continued
In this class the teacher was the only one who
A163_MePart X 628 1.0 6.0 2.89 1.31
decided on the rules.
This teacher included me when planning what we
A164_MePart 628 1.0 6.0 2.73 1.29
did in class.
This teacher asked me to help decide what the class
A165_MePart 628 1.0 6.0 2.56 1.21
should do.
A166_MePart This teacher let me choose what I would work on. 628 1.0 6.0 2.96 1.31
A167_RAPS_E When I was with this teacher, I felt good. 628 1.0 6.0 4.06 1.35
A168_RAPS_E When I was with this teacher, I felt mad. X 628 1.0 6.0 5.00 1.25
A169_RAPS_E When I was with this teacher, I felt unhappy. X 628 1.0 6.0 4.85 1.27
A170_RAPS_E When I was with this teacher, I felt happy. 628 1.0 6.0 4.07 1.38
A171_Add_In I believe learning the content of this teacher’s class
628 1.0 6.0 4.74 1.22
is important.
A172_Add_In I felt that completing the assignments in this class
628 1.0 6.0 4.77 1.20
was beneficial to me.
A173_Add_In I believe the content of this teacher’s class is
628 1.0 6.0 4.73 1.21
valuable to understand.
A174_Add_In Because of this teacher, I believe more in the
628 1.0 6.0 4.13 1.50
purpose of learning the content of the class.
A175_Add_En I tried hard to do well in this teacher’s class. 628 1.0 6.0 4.93 1.13
A176_Add_En I paid attention when in this teacher’s class. 628 1.0 6.0 4.85 1.08
A177_Add_En I felt interested when in this teacher’s class. 628 1.0 6.0 4.29 1.47
A178_Add_En I enjoyed learning in this teacher’s class. 628 1.0 6.0 4.49 1.49
A179_Add_En I felt engaged by the content when in this teacher’s
628 1.0 6.0 4.33 1.41
class.

78
Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Original Fourteen Scales

Using SPSS AMOS Version 23, confirmatory factor analyses were performed to

examine each of the original fourteen relationship measures independently. Fit of the

observed data to the models implied by the measures were assessed with the χ2 statistic,

which reflects the absolute difference between actual and model-generated data. Because

the χ2 statistic is sensitive to sample size and this study has a fairly large sample (N =

628), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and its 90% confidence

interval are reported to provide another goodness of fit index that takes both sample size

and model complexity into account (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). In addition, the

comparative fit index (CFI), which has been shown to be one of the best incremental fit

indices (Bentler, 1990), is also reported to assess fit based on the assumption that model

may only provide a reasonable approximation of the population covariance matrix, which

is most likely the case here as it is in most social science research. RMSEA values less

than .08 and .05 suggest the model fit is adequate and close, respectively (Marsh, Hau, &

Wen, 2004). RMSEA values of .08 to .10 suggest a mediocre fit, whereas values .10 and

greater suggest a poor fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). CFI values in the range of .90 or

greater are generally considered to indicate reasonable model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999)

and the criterion for a good fit is a CFI value of .95 or greater (Russell, 2002).

Standardized factor loadings (which represent the correlation between latent variable and

measured items), squared multiple correlations (which represent the variance in each item

accounted for by the latent variable), and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (representing

internal consistency) are reported for each of the original fourteen scales under their sub-

79
headings below. A summary of the fit indices for each of the fourteen original scales is

displayed in Table 3 as well.

Table 3. CFA model fit statistics for the fourteen original scales
RMSEA
Scale Title df χ2 p RMSEA CFI
CI (90%)
Classroom Life Measure 19 102.4 < .001 .084 .068 - .100 .978

Student Classroom Environment 14 39.9 < .001 .054 .035 - .075 .980
Measure
Developmental Studies Center 169 779.5 < .001 .076 .071 - .081 .929
Student Questionnaire
Inventory of Parent & Peer 272 1403.9 < .001 .081 .077 - .086 .912
Attachments
School Utilization & Teacher 13 30.6 .004 .046 .025 - .068 .995
Emulation
Research Assessment Package 2 135.3 < .001 .326 .281 - .374 .934
for Schools
Teacher as Social Context 71 548.2 < .001 .104 .096 - .112 .936

Sense of Relatedness 2 34.9 < .001 .162 .118 - .211 .981

Emotional Reliance 14 85.3 < .001 .090 .072 - .109 .984

Questionnaire
Basic Need Satisfaction in 0 0.0 NA .567 .530 - .606 1.00
Relationships
Need for Relatedness Scale 34 62.6 .002 .037 .022 - .051 .995

Student-Teacher Relationship 104 1170.9 < .001 .128 .121 - .135 .849
Scale
Young Children’s Appraisals 321 1712.8 < .001 .083 .079 - .087 .860
of Teacher Support
Psychological Sense of School 135 717.9 < .001 .083 .077 - .089 .942
Membership

Classroom Life Measure. As shown in Table 3, the goodness of fit statistics for

this measure are χ2(df = 19, N = 628) = 102.4, p < .001; CFI = .978; RMSEA = .084;

80
RMSEA 90% CI = .068 - .100. Standardized parameter estimates for the two-factor

model of the Classroom Life Measure items, consisting of the social support and the

Figure 3. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Classroom Life Measure items

academic support factors range from .62 to .90 and are Table 4. SMC estimates for
Classroom Life Measure
provided in Figure 3. The 4-item social support factor
Item Estimate
and the 4-item academic support factor coefficient A76_CLM_SS .807
alphas are .86 and .90 respectively. The estimated A77_CLM_SS .379
A78_CLM_SS .551
correlation between social support and academic A79_CLM_SS .795
support is .92. The squared multiple correlation A80_CLM_AS .775
A81_CLM_AS .614
(SMC) estimates range from .379 to .807 and are A82_CLM_AS .782
A83_CLM_AS .634
listed in Table 4.

Student Classroom Environment Measure. As shown in Table 3, the goodness of

fit statistics for this measure are χ2(df = 14, N = 628) = 39.9, p < .001; CFI = .980;

81
RMSEA = .054; RMSEA 90% CI = .035 - .075. Standardized parameter estimates for the

fairness/friendliness items of the Student Classroom Environment Measure ranged from

.06 to .83 and are provided in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Student Classroom Environment

Measure items

This 7-item factor had a coefficient alpha of .76. The Table 5. SMC estimates for
Student Classroom
squared multiple correlation (SMC) estimates ranged Environment Measure items

from .004 to .697 and are listed in Table 5. Item Estimate

A47_Friend .185
Developmental Studies Center Student
A48_Friend .697
Questionnaire. As shown in Table 3, the goodness of A49_Friend .471
A50_Friend .497
fit statistics for this measure are χ2(df = 169, N = 628) A51_Friend .587
A52_Friend .004
= 779.5, p < .001; CFI = .929; RMSEA = .076;
A53_Friend .381
RMSEA 90% CI = .071 - .081. Standardized parameter

estimates for the two-factor model of the Developmental Studies Center Student

Questionnaire items, consisting of the classroom supportiveness and the meaningful

82
participation factors range from .58 to .87 and are displayed in Figure 5. The 10-item

classroom supportiveness factor and the 10-item meaningful participation factor have

Figure 5. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Developmental Studies Center

Student Questionnaire items

Table 6. SMC estimates for

coefficient alphas of .94 and .91 respectively. The Developmental Studies Center
Student Questionnaire items
estimated correlation between classroom Item Estimate
A147_ClsSup .683
supportiveness and meaningful participation is .54. A148_ClsSup .337
A149_ClsSup .602
The squared multiple correlation (SMC) estimates A150_ClsSup .534
A151_ClsSup .655
range from .337 to .765 and are listed in Table 6. A152_ClsSup .664
A153_ClsSup .761
A154_ClsSup .765
A155_ClsSup .687
A156_ClsSup .671

83
 Inventory of Parent & Peer Attachments. As Table 6. Continued
A157_MePart .517
shown in Table 3, the goodness of fit statistics for this A158_MePart .483
A159_MePart .449
measure are χ2(df = 272, N = 628) = 1403.9, p < .001; A160_MePart .667
A161_MePart .607
CFI = .912; RMSEA = .081; RMSEA 90% CI = .077
A162_MePart .452
- .086. Standardized parameter estimates for the A163_MePart .347
A164_MePart .514
three-factor model of the Inventory of Parent and Peer A165_MePart .582
A166_MePart .533
Attachments items, consisting of the trust,

Figure 6. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Inventory of Parent & Peer

Attachments items

84
communication, and alienation factors range from .46 Table 7. SMC estimates for
Inventory of Parent and Peer
to .87 and are displayed in Figure 6. The 10-item trust Attachments items
Item Estimate
factor, the 9-item communication factor, and the 6- A1_IPPA_T .750
A2_IPPA_T .723
item alienation factor have coefficient alphas of .95, A3_IPPA_T .726
A4_IPPA_T .747
.92, and .86 respectively. The estimated correlations A5_IPPA_T .220
A6_IPPA_T .684
between latent variables are .89 for trust and
A7_IPPA_T .656
communication, .93 for trust and alienation, and .77 for A8_IPPA_T .748
A9_IPPA_T .649
communication and alienation. The squared multiple A10_IPPA_T .742
A11_IPPA_C .609
correlation (SMC) estimates range from .214 to .748 A12_IPPA_C .525
A13_IPPA_C .615
and are listed in Table 7. A14_IPPA_C .214
A15_IPPA_C .605
School Utilization and Teacher Emulation. As
A16_IPPA_C .463
shown in Table 3, the goodness of fit statistics for this A17_IPPA_C .611
A18_IPPA_C .728
measure are χ2(df = 13, N = 628) = 30.6, p < .005; CFI A19_IPPA_C .682
A20_IPPA_A .505
= .995; RMSEA = .046; RMSEA 90% CI = .025 - A21_IPPA_A .644
A22_IPPA_A .281
.068. Standardized parameter estimates for the two- A23_IPPA_A .740
A24_IPPA_A .511
factor model of School Utilization and Teacher
A25_IPPA_A .488
Emulation items range from .75 to .92 and are displayed in Figure 7. The 3-item school

utilization factor and the 4-item emulation factor

Table 8. SMC estimates for School
have coefficient alphas of .84 and .94 Utilization & Emulation items
Item Estimate
respectively. The estimated correlation between A140_Sch_Ut .555
A141_Sch_Ut .577
school utilization and emulation is .86. The A142_Sch_Ut .739
A143_Emul .782
squared multiple correlation (SMC) estimates A144_Emul .813
A145_Emul .855
range from .555 to .855 and are listed in Table 8.
A146_Emul .776

85
Figure 7. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of School Utilization and Teacher
Emulation items

Research Assessment Package for Schools. As shown in Table 3, the goodness of

fit statistics for this measure are χ2(df = 2, N = 628) = 135.3, p < .001; CFI = .934;

RMSEA = .326; RMSEA 90% CI = .281 - .374. Standardized parameter estimates for

the emotional security items from the Research Assessment Package for Schools range

from .83 to .89 and are displayed in Figure 8. This 4-item emotional security factor has a

Figure 8. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Research Assessment Package for

Schools items

86
coefficient alpha of .92. The squared multiple Table 9. SMC estimates for
Research Assessment Package
correlation (SMC) estimates range from .687 to .788 for Schools items
Item Estimate
and are listed in Table 9. A167_RAPS_E .763
A168_RAPS_E .687
Teacher as Social Context. As shown in
A169_RAPS_E .788
Table 3, the goodness of fit statistics for this measure A170_RAPS_E .770

are χ2(df = 71, N = 628) = 548.2, p < .001; CFI = .936; RMSEA = .104; RMSEA 90% CI

= .096 - .112. Standardized parameter estimates for the four-factor model of the Teacher

as Social Context items, consisting of the affection, attunement, dedication of resources,

and dependability factors range from .55 to .89 and are displayed in Figure 9. The 3-item

affection factor, the 3-item attunement factor, the 2-item dedication of resources factor,

and the 6 item dependability factors have coefficient Table 10. SMC estimates for
Teacher as Social Context items
alphas of .88, .86, .77, and .90 respectively. The Item Estimate
A26_Inv_Aff .690
estimated correlations between latent variables are
A27_Inv_Aff .797
.90 for affection and attunement, .96 for affection A28_Inv_Aff .606
A29_Inv_Att .681
and dedication of resources, .96 for affection and A30_Inv_Att .776
A31_Inv_Att .630
dependability, .91 for attunement and dedication of A32_Inv_DR .612
A33_Inv_DR .641
resources, .90 for attunement and dependability, and A34_Inv_Dep .769
A35_Inv_Dep .776
.96 for dedication of resources and dependability.
A36_Inv_Dep .763
The squared multiple correlation (SMC) estimates A37_Inv_Dep .715
A38_Inv_Dep .401
range from .301 to .797 and are listed in Table 10. A39_Inv_Dep .301

87
Figure 9. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Teacher as Social Context items

Sense of Relatedness. As shown in Table 3, the goodness of fit statistics for this

measure are χ2(df = 2, N = 628) = 34.9, p < .001; CFI = .981; RMSEA = .162; RMSEA

90% CI = .118 - .211. Standardized parameter estimates

Table 11. SMC estimates for
for the Sense of Relatedness items range from .75 to .89 Sense of Relatedness items
Item Estimate
and are displayed in Figure 10. This 4-item relatedness A54_Rel .751
A55_Rel .560
factor has a coefficient alpha of .91. The squared A56_Rel .752
A57_Rel .788

88
multiple correlation (SMC) estimates range from .560 to .788 and are listed in Table 11.

Figure 10. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Sense of Relatedness items

Emotional Reliance Questionnaire. As shown in Table 3, the goodness of fit

statistics for this measure are χ2(df = 14, N = 628) = 85.3, p < .001; CFI = .984; RMSEA

= .090; RMSEA 90% CI = .072 - .109. Standardized parameter estimates for the

Emotional Reliance Questionnaire items range from .84 to .91 and are displayed in

Figure 11. This 7-item emotional reliance factor has a coefficient alpha of .96. The

Figure 11. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Emotional Reliance Questionnaire

items

89
squared multiple correlation (SMC) estimates range .706 to Table 12. SMC estimates
for Emotional Reliance
.825 and are in Table 12. Questionnaire items
Item Estimate
Basic Need Satisfaction in Relationships. As shown A40_ERQ .766
A41_ERQ .825
in Table 3, the goodness of fit statistics for this measure are A42_ERQ .785
A43_ERQ .817
χ2(df = 0, N = 628) = 0.0, p = NA; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = A44_ERQ .737
A45_ERQ .766
.567; RMSEA 90% CI = .530 - .606. Standardized A46_ERQ .706
parameter estimates for the relatedness need support items of the Basic Need Satisfaction

in Relationships scale range from .66 to .92 and are displayed in Figure 12. This 3-item

Figure 12. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Basic Need Satisfaction in

Relationships items

relatedness-support factor has a coefficient alpha of

Table 13. SMC estimates for
.79. The squared multiple correlation (SMC) estimates Basic Need Satisfaction in
relationships items
range from .441 to .837 and are listed in Table 13. Item Estimate
A84_BNS_Rel .837
Need for Relatedness Scale. As shown in Table A85_BNS_Rel .441
A86_BNS_Rel .466
3, the goodness of fit statistics for this measure are

χ2(df = 34, N = 628) = 62.6, p < .005; CFI = .995; RMSEA = .037; RMSEA 90% CI =

.022 - .051. Standardized parameter estimates for the two-factor Need for Relatedness

Scale items, consisting of the acceptance and intimacy factors range from .73 to .92 and

are displayed in Figure 13. The 5-item acceptance factor and the 5-item intimacy factor

90
Figure 13. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Need for Relatedness Scale items

have coefficient alphas of .94 and .93 respectively. Table 14. SMC estimates for
Need for Relatedness Scale items
The estimated correlation between acceptance and Item Estimate
A130_NRS_A .829
intimacy is .88. The squared multiple correlation A131_NRS_A .820
A132_NRS_A .809
(SMC) estimates range from .535 to .842 and are A133_NRS_A .812
A134_NRS_A .535
listed in Table 14.
A135_NRS_I .842
Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. As A136_NRS_I .587
A137_NRS_I .764
shown in Table 3, the goodness of fit statistics for A138_NRS_I .819
A139_NRS_I .682
this measure are χ2(df = 104, N = 628) = 1170.9, p <

.001; CFI = .849; RMSEA = .128; RMSEA 90% CI = .121 - .135. Standardized

parameter estimates for the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale items range from .37 to

.85 and are displayed in Figure 14. The 16-item relationship quality factor has a

91
Figure 14. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Student-Teacher Relationship Scale
items

Table 15. SMC estimates for Student-

coefficient alpha of .94. The squared multiple Teacher Relationship Scale items
Item Estimate
correlation (SMC) estimates range from .202
A114_STRS .717
to .717 and are listed in Table 15. A115_STRS .644
A116_STRS .537
A117_STRS .569
A118_STRS .202
A119_STRS .708
A120_STRS .670
A121_STRS .306

92
 Table 15. Continued
Young Children’s Appraisals of
A122_STRS .485
Teacher Support. As shown in Table 3, the A123_STRS .341
A124_STRS .662
goodness of fit statistics for this measure are A125_STRS .510
A126_STRS .561
χ2(df = 321, N = 628) = 1712.8, p < .001; CFI A127_STRS .138
A128_STRS .676
= .860; RMSEA = .083; RMSEA 90% CI = A129_STRS .585
.079 - .087. Standardized parameter estimates
Table 16. SMC estimates for Young
for the three-factor model of the Young Children's Appraisals of Teacher
Support items
Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support
Item Estimate
items, consisting of the warmth, the autonomy, A87_YCATS_W .385
A88_YCATS_W .666
and the conflict factors range from .37 to .84 A89_YCATS_W .584
A90_YCATS_W .689
and are displayed in Figure 15. The 11-item A91_YCATS_W .671
A92_YCATS_W .707
warmth factor, the 6-item autonomy factor, and A93_YCATS_W .587
A94_YCATS_W .559
the 10-item conflict factor have coefficient
A95_YCATS_W .335
alphas of .92, .79 and .88 respectively. The A96_YCATS_W .210
A97_YCATS_W .534
estimated correlations between latent variables A98_YCAT_A .443
A99_YCAT_A .202
are .87 for warmth and autonomy, .80 for A100_YCAT_A .552
A101_YCAT_A .334
warmth and conflict, and .60 for autonomy and A102_YCAT_A .448
A103_YCAT_A .474
conflict. The squared multiple correlation
A104_YCAT_C .530
(SMC) estimates range from .135 to .689 and A105_YCAT_C .146
A106_YCAT_C .641
are listed in Table 16. A107_YCAT_C .561
A108_YCAT_C .558
A109_YCAT_C .429
A110_YCAT_C .135
A111_YCAT_C .493
A112_YCAT_C .658
A113_YCAT_C .430

93
Figure 15. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Young Children’s Appraisals of
Teacher Support items

94
 Psychological Sense of School Membership. As shown in Table 3, the goodness of

fit statistics for this measure are χ2(df = 135, N = 628) = 717.9, p < .001; CFI = .942;

RMSEA = .083; RMSEA 90% CI = .077 - .089. Standardized parameter estimates for

the Psychological Sense of School Membership items range from .64 to .87 and are

displayed in Figure 16. This 18-item belongingness factor has a coefficient alpha of .97.

Figure 16. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Psychological Sense of School

Membership items

95
The squared multiple correlation (SMC) estimates range Table 17. SMC estimates for
Psychological Sense of
from .408 to .755 and are listed in Table 17. School Membership items
Item Estimate
Regression of Scale Scores on Internalization, A58_PSSM .747
A59_PSSM .637
Engagement, and Academic Achievement A60_PSSM .713
A61_PSSM .591
To address the second hypothesis, scale scores
A62_PSSM .508
were calculated for each of the original scales. Scale A63_PSSM .629
A64_PSSM .694
scores were also calculated for the internalization and A65_PSSM .625
A66_PSSM .527
engagement measures; whereas, academic achievement A67_PSSM .753
A68_PSSM .408
was only measured with one item so scale score A69_PSSM .656
A70_PSSM .752
calculation was not necessary. Next, linear regression
A71_PSSM .470
was used to examine the predictive validity of each of A72_PSSM .702
A73_PSSM .697
the original scales in relation to each of the outcomes, A74_PSSM .755
A75_PSSM .548
internalization, engagement, and academic achievement.

Calculating scale scores. For each of the 628 participants, scale scores for the

original fourteen instruments were calculated using SPSS version 22. If the original

instrument was divided into more than one factor by its original author, scores were

calculated for each of those factors, also referred to as subscale scores. For instance, the

Psychological Sense of School Membership scale consists of only one factor called

belongingness (Figure 16); therefore, only one score was calculated for that scale for each

respondent. Whereas, the Teacher as Social Context scale produces four factors, which

are titled affection, attunement, dedication of resources, and dependability (Figure 9);

therefore, four subscale scores, one for each of the factors, were calculated for each

respondent. The calculation of all scale and subscale scores for each participant consisted

96
of adding the scores for items included in the scale/subscale and dividing the sum by the

number of items in the scale/subscale. In other words, scale scores are an average of the

scores for the items included in the factor. Even though several of the factor loadings and

squared multiple correlations, displayed in Figures 3-16 and Tables 4-17 respectively,

suggest that the inclusion of some items is questionable, all of the original items were

retained for the calculation of scale/subscale scores.

Calculating scores for internalization, engagement and academic achievement.

Although items from several of the original fourteen scales are hypothesized to fit well

into a model that has them directly loading on the latent variables of internalization and

engagement, those items were not included in the calculation of subscale scores for

internalization and engagement for the purposes of examining the predictive validity of

the original fourteen instruments. Instead only the 4 additional internalization items and

the 5 additional engagement items were considered for the calculation of scores for

internalization and engagement. Only one C-STRI item measured academic achievement

by asking participants to select the letter grade they received in the class. Because higher

scores on the relationship quality items represent higher quality relationships, the letter

grade responses were coded as follows: A = 12, A- = 11, B+ = 10, B = 9, B- = 8, C+ = 7,

C = 6, C- = 5, D+ = 4, D = 3, D- = 2, F = 1.

Before calculating the subscale scores for internalization and engagement, the

internal consistency, factor loadings, and model fit were examined using Confirmatory

Factor Analysis. As displayed in Figure 17, the factor loadings of the four internalization

items are good, ranging from .71 to .87.

97
Figure 17. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of internalization items added to the C-
STRI for examining predictive validity of original scales

This 4-item internalization factor has acceptable internal consistency (alpha = .87) with a

χ2(df = 2, N = 628) = 22.86, p < .001; CFI = .984; RMSEA = .129; RMSEA 90% CI =

.085 - .179. Although the CFI suggests a good fit, the RMSEA indicates a poor fit

between observed data and the model. Therefore, the modification indices and factor

loading estimates were reviewed for ways to improve the model. The factor loadings of

the unrevised model range from .71 to .87 so all four items seem to belong as indicators

for the latent variable internalization. The modification indices provided by AMOS

indicate a modest but existing covariance between the error terms e2 and e4 (M.I. =

19.9). Adding the covariance path between e2 and e4 to the model left only one degree

of freedom, therefore, error variance parameter estimates were examined. The estimated

variance of e1 = .346 and the estimated variance of e3 = .357; therefore these parameters

were constrained to be equal in order to add a degree of freedom for model identification.

The revised 4-item model of internalization is displayed in Figure 18.

98
Figure 18. Standardized CFA parameter estimates for revised model of internalization
items added to the C-STRI for examining predictive validity of original scales

For this revised model of the internalization items, the fit statistics were χ2(df = 2, N =

628) = .582, p = .748; CFI = 1.0; RMSEA = .000; RMSEA 90% CI = .000 - .055, which

suggest good fit between observed data and the model. The five items added to the C-

STRI to measure engagement were examined next. The factor loading estimations are

displayed in Figure 19.

Figure 19. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of engagement items added to the C-
STRI for examining predictive validity of original scales

This 5-item engagement factor showed acceptable internal consistency (alpha = .88);

however, the model fit statistics suggested this model required modifications in order to

obtain acceptable fit (χ2 = 144.34, df = 5, N = 628, p < .001; CFI = .930; RMSEA = .211;

99
RMSEA 90% CI = .182 - .241). The modification indices provided by AMOS indicated

strong covariance between the error terms e1 and e2 (M.I. = 115.9). Before adding that

covariance path to the model, the factor loading estimates were examined for any items

lower than .60 that might need to be deleted from the model. The estimated factor

loading of .52 for item number 175 on the latent variable engagement suggested it as

good candidate for deletion. Thus, item 175 was deleted and the new parameter estimates

as well as model fit were again examined. Figure 20 shows the estimated factor loadings

for the engagement factor with 4-items.

Figure 20. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of the 4-item model of engagement
items added to the C-STRI for examining predictive validity of original scales

This revised, 4-item model of the engagement’s fit statistics were χ2(df = 2, N = 628) =

7.30, p = .026; CFI = .997; RMSEA = .065; RMSEA 90% CI = .019 - .119, which

suggest good fit between observed data and the model.

In accordance with the CFA analyses, the four internalization items were added

together and divided by 4 to create an internalization scale score for each participant.

Similarly, the four engagement items that remained in the reduced 4-item model were

added together and divided by 4 to create an engagement scale score for each participant.

100
 Regression of original scales on internalization. Using participants’

internalization scale score as the dependent variable, fourteen separate linear regression

analyses were performed, one for each original instrument. The subscale score(s) were

entered as the independent variable(s). For instruments that had more than one subscale,

the Entry method in SPSS version 22 was used to include all subscale scores in the

analyses, which forces all independent variables into the equation in one step. The results

are presented in Table 18.

Table 18. Regression results for each original scale with internalization as the dependent
variable
Scale Subscale B SE B βeta R2
Social Support .119 .048 .120*
Classroom Life Measure .530***
Academic Support .677 .052 .626***

Student Classroom
Friendly/Fair .687 .045 .518*** .268***
Environment Measure

Classroom
.738 .036 .692***
Developmental Studies Center Supportiveness
.498***
Student Questionnaire Meaningful
.029 .038 .026
Participation

Trust .500 .065 .497***

Inventory of Parent & Peer
Communication .148 .051 .145** .509***
Attachments
Alienation .111 .056 .105*

School Utilization & Teacher School Utilization .263 .038 .306***

.478***
Emulation Teacher Emulation .336 .035 .430***

Research Assessment Package

Emotional Security .632 .027 .685*** .469***
for Schools

Affection .248 .058 .252***

Attunement .016 .045 .019
Teacher as Social Context
Dedication of .485***
.194 .048 .206***
Resources
Dependability .263 .059 .270***

Sense of Relatedness NA .628 .027 .676*** .457***

101
Table 18. Continued
Emotional Reliance
NA .514 .025 .640*** .409***
Questionnaire

Basic Need Satisfaction in

Relatedness .541 .032 .564*** .318***
Relationships

Acceptance .575 .048 .602***

Need for Relatedness Scale .495***
Intimacy .102 .042 .119*

Student-Teacher Relationship
NA .797 .031 .713*** .507***
Scale

Warmth .683 .057 .672***

Young Children’s Appraisals
Autonomy -.045 .048 -.041 .492***
of Teacher Support
Conflict .189 .052 .142***

Psychological Sense of School

Belongingness .735 .028 .718*** .516***
Membership
* significant at p < .05; ** significant at p < .01; ***significant at p < .001.

Regression of original scales on engagement. A second series of fourteen

regressions were performed with participant’s engagement scale score used as the

dependent variable. The results are presented in Table 19.

Table 19. Regression results for each original scale with engagement as the dependent
variable
Scale Subscale B SE B βeta R2
Social Support .180 .047 .165***
Classroom Life Measure .621***
Academic Support .767 .051 .647***

Student Classroom
Friendly/Fair .849 .047 .584*** .341***
Environment Measure

Classroom
.860 .034 .737***
Developmental Studies Center Supportiveness
.614***
Student Questionnaire Meaningful
.103 .037 .082**
Participation

Trust .698 .060 .632***

Inventory of Parent & Peer
Communication .098 .048 .088* .648***
Attachments
Alienation .131 .052 .113*

School Utilization & Teacher School Utilization .325 .037 .345***

.581***
Emulation Teacher Emulation .400 .034 .467***

Research Assessment Package

Emotional Security .797 .025 .788*** .620***
for Schools

102
Table 19. Continued
Affection .305 .058 .283***
Attunement .106 .045 .113*
Teacher as Social Context
Dedication of .575***
.131 .048 .128**
Resources
Dependability .313 .059 .294***

Sense of Relatedness NA .769 .027 .755*** .571***

Emotional Reliance
NA .623 .025 .708*** .501***
Questionnaire

Basic Need Satisfaction in

Relatedness .685 .032 .652*** .425***
Relationships

Acceptance .676 .046 .646***

Need for Relatedness Scale .603***
Intimacy .143 .041 .153**

Student-Teacher Relationship
NA .968 .030 .790*** .624***
Scale

Warmth .800 .053 .670***

Young Children’s Appraisals
Autonomy .017 .045 .014 .638***
of Teacher Support
Conflict .234 .048 .160***

Psychological Sense of School

Belongingness .906 .027 .807*** .651***
Membership
* significant at p < .05; ** significant at p < .01; ***significant at p < .001.

Regression of original scales on academic achievement. A third series of

fourteen regressions were performed, using the participant’s self-reported grade they

achieved in the class as the dependent variable. The results are presented in Table 20.

Table 20. Regression results for each original scale with academic achievement as the
dependent variable
Scale Subscale B SE B βeta R2
Social Support .171 .111 .094
Classroom Life Measure .235***
Academic Support .795 .120 .404***
Student Classroom
Friendly/Fair 1.080 .086 .448*** .201***
Environment Measure

Classroom
.729 .081 .376***
Developmental Studies Center Supportiveness
.216***
Student Questionnaire Meaningful
.298 .087 .139**
Participation

103
Table 20. Continued
Trust .863 .148 .472***
Inventory of Parent & Peer
Communication -.217 .116 -.117 .233***
Attachments
Alienation .229 .127 .119

School Utilization & Teacher School Utilization .469 .087 .299***

.175***
Emulation Teacher Emulation .203 .079 .143**

Research Assessment Package

Emotional Security .759 .060 .452*** .204***
for Schools

Affection .624 .130 .348***

Attunement .175 .101 .113
Teacher as Social Context
Dedication of .281***
.087 .108 .051
Resources
Dependability -.035 .133 -.020

Sense of Relatedness NA .758 .060 .449*** 201***

Emotional Reliance
NA .589 .053 .403*** .162***
Questionnaire

Basic Need Satisfaction in

Relatedness .670 .064 .384*** .148***
Relationships

Acceptance .689 .108 .397***

Need for Relatedness Scale .208***
Intimacy .108 .097 .069

Student-Teacher Relationship
NA .943 .072 .464*** .215***
Scale

Warmth .403 .123 203**

Young Children’s Appraisals
Autonomy .220 .105 110* .277***
of Teacher Support
Conflict .683 .113 282***

Psychological Sense of School

Belongingness .936 .064 .503*** .253***
Membership
* significant at p < .05; ** significant at p < .01; ***significant at p < .001.

Fitting the Data to the Hypothesized Measurement Model

Addressing the third hypothesis, confirmatory factor analysis was used to

examine the measurement model of C-STRI items as organized into the factors displayed

in Figure 1. To simplify this portion of the analysis, due to the massive number of

predictor items, the model was initially divided into five separate parts for independent

analyses. The four predictor variables, academic support, punishment, involvement, and

104
autonomy support made up the first part. The second part consisted of the factors caring

and awareness/understanding, which are part of the higher order latent variable

perceptions of teacher. Next, the higher order latent variable perceptions of self with its

closeness and affective experience factors made up the third part. The fourth part was the

higher order latent variable interpersonal scripts along with its social support seeking and

emotional reliance factors. Finally, the fifth part of the model examined included the

outcome factors internalization, engagement, and academic achievement. Each of the

five model parts were checked for model fit and modified until the model’s goodness of

fit statistics reached acceptable levels. After the five modified parts independently

produced acceptable model fit statistics, the full structural model was tested for goodness

of fit.

Predictor variables. The four factors treated as predictor variables in the

hypothesized model are academic support, punishment, involvement, and autonomy-

support. Figure 21 shows the initial confirmatory factor analysis model of all items

hypothesized to fit in these factors after the categorical item sorting process. This 4-

factor hypothesized model of all the predictor variable items produced the goodness of fit

statistics χ2(df = 2204, N = 628) = 7313.54, p < .001; CFI = .850; RMSEA = .061;

RMSEA 90% CI = .059 - .062. While the RMSEA value is in the acceptable range, the

CFI value suggests poor fit between observed data and the model. The first modification

to the hypothesized measurement model of predictor factors was made based on the latent

variable covariance between academic support and involvement. Specifically, the

covariance of .97 suggests that the items hypothesized to be measuring the teacher’s

providing of academic support were possibly measuring the same construct as the items

105
Figure 21. Latent variable covariance and factor loading parameter estimates for the
hypothesized measurement model of predictor variables

106
hypothesized to be measuring the teacher’s involvement or appreciation, understanding

and respect for the student. Upon reviewing the content of the items it seems obvious in

hindsight that the behaviors and actions that relate to the concept of involvement for a

teacher would most often be academic support behaviors as that is the primary nature of a

teacher’s job. Therefore, the latent variable for academic support was eliminated and all

of its items were transferred to the involvement factor. Figure 22 displays the 3-factor

model with standardized parameter estimates and all of the items included. Goodness of

fit statistics for this model are χ2(df = 2207, N = 628) = 7485.97, p < .001; CFI = .846;

RMSEA = .062; RMSEA 90% CI = .060 - .063. Although model parsimony improved,

the fit statistics still suggest relatively poor model fit. In other words, the model required

further modifications. To improve the more parsimonious 3-factor model, due to the

extremely large number of items associated with each factor, item elimination was the

next technique used. First, all items with standardized factor loadings less than .60 were

eliminated. This resulted in items A5_IPPA_T, A39_Inv_Dep, A95_YCATS_W,

A96_YCATS_W, and A105_YCAT_C being removed from the involvement factor.

Similarly, items A47_Friend and A52_Friend were removed from the punishment factor.

And, items A99_YCAT_A, A109_YCAT_C, A110_YCAT_C, A113_YCAT_C, and

A163_MePart were removed from the autonomy-support factor. Table 21 lists the item

wording, standardized parameter estimate, and title of the latent variable hypothesized to

be measured by the item. Goodness of fit statistics for this 3-factor model with 12 items

removed are χ2(df = 1481, N = 628) = 5032.65, p < .001; CFI = .885; RMSEA = .062;

RMSEA 90% CI = .060 - .064. Although improved, the reduced item, 3-factor model

required further modification.

107
Figure 22. Standardized parameter estimates for 3-factor model of predictors with all
items included

108
Table 21. Items deleted from predictor factors in hypothesized model due to low factor
loadings
Standardized Associated
Item Wording Estimate Factor
A5_IPPA_T This teacher expected too much of me. (reverse score) .47 Involvement
I couldn’t count on this teacher when I needed him/her.
A39_Inv_Dep .55 Involvement
(reverse score)
A95_YCATS_W This teacher remembered special days for me. .56 Involvement
A96_YCATS_W This teacher chose me to be a special helper. .42 Involvement
This teacher told me to do work that was too hard for
A105_YCAT_C .31 Involvement
me. (reverse score)
This teacher criticized me for turning work in late or
A47_Friend .43 Punishment
failing to turn in assignments.
A52_Friend This teacher used sarcasm. .05 Punishment
Autonomy-
A99_YCAT_A This teacher let me choose where I wanted to sit. .45
Support
This teacher told me to stop doing work I liked doing. Autonomy-
A109_YCAT_C .31
(reverse score) Support
This teacher told me to do work I didn’t want to do. Autonomy-
A110_YCAT_C .25
(reverse score) Support
This teacher had too many rules for our class. (reverse Autonomy-
A113_YCAT_C .36
score) Support
In this class the teacher was the only one who decided Autonomy-
A163_MePart .58
on the rules. (reverse score) Support

The next strategy used to improve model fit for the items that remained in this

portion of the hypothesized model involved examination of cross loading estimates from

the modification indices provided by AMOS. Specifically, estimated regression weights

for items on latent variables other than the one they are hypothesized to correspond with

in the model were scanned for modification indices greater than 10.0. Using this

strategy, 15 more items were identified for elimination. Table 22 lists these 15 items,

their wording, the latent variable they were hypothesized to measure, and any

unacceptable (M.I. > 10.0) regression weight modification indices that they had for latent

variables they were not hypothesized to measure.

109
Table 22. Items deleted from predictor factors in hypothesized model due to high cross
loading modification estimates
Autonomy-
Item Wording Involvement Punishment
Support
A32_Inv_DR This teacher spent time with me. Hyp 13.69 17.92
This teacher made sure I was included in
A66_PSSM Hyp* 11.88
lots of activities in class.
A67_PSSM I was treated with respect by this teacher. Hyp 13.02
A93_YCATS_W This teacher answered my questions. Hyp* 13.33
A102_YCAT_A This teacher did activities with me. Hyp* 37.36
My relationship with this teacher became
A129_STRS more negative throughout the school year. Hyp 25.05
(reverse score)
This teacher just looked out for his/herself.
A150_ClsSup Hyp 11.41
(reverse score)
A154_ClsSup This teacher treated me with respect. Hyp 12.33
This teacher threatened to give me more
A53_Friend work, tests, or to lower my grade to control Hyp 12.09
my behavior.
A120_STRS I avoided contact with this teacher. 28.51 Hyp 27.90
This teacher let me do activities I wanted
A100_YCAT_A 16.67 Hyp
to do.
This teacher let me help decide what the
A157_MePart 11.41 Hyp
rules were going to be.
This teacher let me do things that I wanted
A158_MePart 13.37 Hyp
to do.
This teacher let me help plan what we
A161_MePart 13.28 Hyp
would do in class.
A162_MePart This teacher let me do things my own way. 16.05 21.98 Hyp
*Originally hypothesized to be in the academic-support factor, but included in the involvement factor in the
revised 3-factor model

With these 15 items removed, the goodness of fit statistics are χ2(df = 776, N = 628) =

2408.62, p < .001; CFI = .924; RMSEA = .058; RMSEA 90% CI = .055 - .061. These fit

statistics suggest a reasonable, but not good fit; therefore, one more modification strategy

was used to further improve the fit. Specifically, error covariance modification indices

were examined for items within each latent variable. Because there is no magic number

for this kind of strategy, the modifications indices were examined to determine the size of

modification indices to act on by adding error covariance parameters to the model. The

five largest indices were greater than 60.0 and the sixth largest was less than 50.0 so the

model was modified once more by adding five error covariance parameters.

110
Table 23 displays the error terms for which covariance
Table 23. Five highest error
parameters were added as well as the associated covariance modification
indices for items in
modification indices that led to that modification. Figure hypothesized predictor
factor measurement model
Error Error M.I.
23 is a representation of the modified measurement model Label Label
e1 <--> e16 96.9
for predictor variables in the hypothesized structural e53 <--> e54 66.2
e32 <--> e64 66.1
model after the 12 items were removed for low factor e3 <--> e11 62.6
e28 <--> e31 62.0
loadings, the 15 items were removed for factor cross loadings, and the 5 strongest within-

factor item error covariance were added. The goodness of fit statistics χ2(df = 771, N =

628) = 2034.51, p < .001; CFI = .941; RMSEA = .051; RMSEA 90% CI = .048 - .054

now suggest good fit of observed data to the model, which has 23 items associated with

the involvement factor, 11 items associated with the punishment factor, and 7 items

associated with the autonomy-support factor.

111
Figure 23. Standardized parameter estimates for 3-factor model of predictors with items
removed and error covariance added

112
 Perceptions of teacher. The hypothesized measurement model for the perceptions

of teacher portion is a second-order factor model. The second-order latent variable is

labeled perceptions of teacher. The two first order latent variables are labeled

awareness/understanding and caring. Figure 24 shows the initial confirmatory factor

analysis model of all items hypothesized to load on these factors after the categorical item

sorting process.

Figure 24. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized second-order factor
model of perceptions of teacher with all items included

113
The goodness of fit statistics χ2(df = 628, N = 628) = 3187.58, p < .001; CFI = .893;

RMSEA = .081; RMSEA 90% CI = .078 - .083 for this model suggest a borderline poor

fit of the observed data to the model. Due to the large number of items associated with

each factor in this portion of the hypothesized model, item elimination was a highly

desired technique for model fit improvement. However, due to the high factor loadings,

particularly for the caring factor, the criterion for item elimination was increased.

Specifically, items with standardized factor loadings of less than .65 were eliminated.

This resulted in item A22_IPPA_A being removed from the awareness/understanding

factor and the items A77_CLM_SS, A87_YCATS_W, and A148_ClsSup being removed

from the caring factor. Table 24 lists the item wording, standardized parameter estimate,

and title of the latent variable hypothesized to be measured by the item. The goodness of

fit statistics for this model reduced by 4 items χ2(df = 494, N = 628) = 2407.95, p < .001;

CFI = .914; RMSEA = .079; RMSEA 90% CI = .075 - .082 for this model suggest an

improved, borderline acceptable, but still not good model fit.

Table 24. Items deleted from perceptions of teacher measurement model due to low
factor loadings
Standardized
Item Wording Associated Factor
Estimate
A22_IPPA_A I get upset a lot more than this teacher .49 Awareness/Understanding
knew about. (reverse score)
A77_CLM_SS This teacher thought it was important to be .63 Caring
my friend.
A87_YCATS_W This teacher liked my family. .64 Caring
A148_ClsSup This teacher’s was like family to me. .64 Caring

Examination of cross loading estimates from the modification indices was again

utilized to determine the item elimination for improved model fit. This time, only one

item, A89_YCATS_W on awareness/understanding, worded “This teacher was my

friend,” had a cross loading modification indicator greater than 10.0 (M.I. = 13.95).

114
Eliminating this item negligibly improved the model fit to χ2(df = 463, N = 628) =

2190.02, p < .001; CFI = .920; RMSEA = .077; RMSEA 90% CI = .074 - .080. To reach

good model fit, error covariance modification indices were examined next. The five

largest indices were greater than 50.0; thus, the model was modified by adding five error

covariance parameters. Table 25 displays the error Table 25. Five highest error
covariance modification indices
terms for which covariance parameters were added as for items in hypothesized
perceptions of teacher portion of
well as the associated modification indices that led to the measurement model
Error Error
that modification. Figure 25 is a representation of the Label Label M.I.
e6 <--> e7 149.2
modified measurement model for the perceptions of e31 <--> e35 82.9
e27 <--> e29 75.1
e14 <--> e23 58.4
teacher factors in the hypothesized structural model
e13 <--> e33 51.9

after the 4 items were removed for low factor loadings, 1 item was removed for its factor

cross loading, and the 5 strongest within-factor item error covariance were added. The

goodness of fit statistics χ2(df = 458, N = 628) = 1750.35, p < .001; CFI = .940; RMSEA

= .067; RMSEA 90% CI = .064 - .070 now suggest a fairly good fit between the observed

data and the model, which has 8 items associated with the awareness/understanding factor

and 24 items associated with the caring factor.

115
Figure 25. Standardized parameter estimates for the second-order perceptions of teacher
factor model with items removed and error covariance added
Perceptions of self. The next part of the model to examine, and improve if

necessary, represents student’s perceptions of themselves in relation to the teacher. The

116
hypothesized model with all items included is displayed in Figure 26 and has goodness of

fit statistics χ2(df = 349, N = 628) = 2835.76, p < .001; CFI = .869; RMSEA = .107;

RMSEA 90% CI = .103 - .110, which suggests the data do not fit the model. In other

words, the model needs modification before it can be used in testing the hypothesized

structural model.

Figure 26. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized second-order factor
model of Perceptions of Self with all items included

117
Following the same strategies of model modification until a good fit is achieved, the first

modification examined related to the extremely high standardized parameters connecting

the first-order factors to the second-order factors. That is, the .98 loading of Closeness

and the .96 loading of Affective Experience suggest that the items in this measurement

model might be better represented by a single-factor model. However, the single-factor

model of all the items in this portion of the hypothesized model resulted in a decrease of

model fit; specifically, χ2(df = 350, N = 628) = 3059.99, p < .001; CFI = .857; RMSEA =

.111; RMSEA 90% CI = .108 - .115. Thus, the single-factor model modification was

rejected. Next, item elimination began with items having standardized factor loadings

less than .60 removed. This step only removed item A127_STRS, worded “I felt upset

when separated from this teacher,” from the Affective Experience factor. This resulted in

a very slight improvement to the fit statistics χ2(df = 323, N = 628) = 2652.63, p < .001;

CFI = .876; RMSEA = .107; RMSEA 90% CI = .103 - .111, but the data still do not fit

the model. The next step in modification involved examining cross factor loading

modification indicators for values greater than 10.0, of which there were none. Finally,

error covariance modification indices were examined. The four largest indices, listed in

Table 26, were extremely high. The model was Table 26. Four highest error
covariance modification indices
modified by adding four error covariance parameters, for items in hypothesized
Perceptions of Self portion of
which improved the model fit χ2(df = 319, N = 628) = the measurement model
Error Error
2149.57, p < .001; CFI = .903; RMSEA = .096; Label Label M.I.
e17 <--> e20 173.6
RMSEA 90% CI = .092 - .100. Yet, because the e8 <--> e18 110.0
e17 <--> e19 108.4
e19 <--> e20 105.9
covariance parameter estimates were really high and

because three of the error terms included multiple covariance parameters, elimination of

118
the five items associated with these error terms was performed as the next step in

modifying this portion of the measurement model. As expected, elimination of items

A86_BNS_Rel, A135_NRS_I, A136_NRS_I, A137_NRS_I, and A138_NRS_I resulted

in further improvement of model fit χ2(df = 208, N = 628) = 1416.46, p < .001; CFI =

.921; RMSEA = .096; RMSEA 90% CI = .092 - .101. Although the model fit indices are

approaching the acceptable range, further adjustment by examining error covariance

modification indices was performed. This time, using greater than 50 as the cutoff, just

as was done with the Perceptions of Teacher portion of the model, seven error covariance

parameters were added to the model. Table 27 Table 27. Seven remaining
allowable error covariance
shows the associated error covariance modification modification indices greater than
50 for items in the hypothesized
indices. Additionally, the error term e10 had four Perceptions of Self portion of the
measurement model
unallowable (error covariance with error terms not Error Error
Label Label M.I.
associated with items in the same factor) error e23 <--> e26 82.2
e22 <--> e26 80.8
e25 <--> e28 76.3
covariance modification indices greater than 60, so e1 <--> e9 73.8
e22 <--> e23 62.3
its associated item, A116_STRS was eliminated at e11 <--> e16 55.9
e25 <--> e26 55.1
this step as well. Figure 27 is a representation of the

modified measurement model for the Perceptions of Self portion of the hypothesized

structural model after the items were removed for low factor loadings and unacceptable

error covariance modification indices and seven within-factor item error covariance

parameters were added. The resulting goodness of fit statistics for this model χ2(df = 181,

N = 628) = 792.23, p < .001; CFI = .958; RMSEA = .073; RMSEA 90% CI = .068 - .079

now suggest a fairly good fit between the observed data and the model, which has 15

119
items associated with the closeness factor and 6 items associated with the affective

experience factor.

Figure 27. Standardized parameter estimates for the second-order Perceptions of Self
factor model with items removed and error covariance added

120
 Interpersonal scripts. The interpersonal scripts portion of the hypothesized

model, representing if-then statements about students’ behavioral expectations for

interactions between themselves and their teacher, with 11 items associated with the

social support seeking factor and 10 items associated with emotional reliance is displayed

in Figure 28 and has goodness of fit statistics χ2(df = 188, N = 628) = 787.99, p < .001;

CFI = .952; RMSEA = .071; RMSEA 90% CI = .066 - .077, which suggests a fairly good

fit between the observed data and the model. In other words, it can be used as is when

testing the hypothesized structural model.

Figure 28. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized second-order factor
model of Interpersonal Scripts with all items included

121
 However, the dual .99 standardized regression weights between the first-order and

second-order factors suggests that a single factor model might fit the data even better and

would be a more parsimonious model. The single-factor model of all the items in this

portion of the hypothesized model resulted in a decrease of model fit so it was rejected.

Outcome variables. The hypothesized measurement model for internalization,

engagement, and academic achievement as outcome variables with all items included is

displayed in Figure 29. The goodness of fit statistics for this portion of the model are

Figure 29. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized outcome variables with
all items included

122
χ2(df = 297, N = 628) = 2767.11, p < .001; CFI = .829; RMSEA = .115; RMSEA 90% CI

= .111 - .119, which suggests the data do not fit the model. That is, the model of items

measuring the outcome variables needs modification before it can be used in testing the

full structural model. Keeping with the model modification strategies utilized for the

other measurement models in in this study, item elimination began with items having

standardized factor loadings less than .60 removed. This step removed item

A118_STRS, A121_STRS, and A175_Add_En. Table 28 shows the wording for these

deleted items. This resulted in an improvement to the fit statistics χ2(df = 228, N = 628)

Table 28. Items deleted from the outcome variables’ measurement model due to low
factor loadings
Standardized
Item Wording Estimate Associated Factor
A118_STRS I tried to get help, recognition, and support .42 Engagement
from this teacher.
A121_STRS I tried to get support and encouragement .51 Engagement
from this teacher.
A175_Add_En I tried hard to do well in this teacher’s class. .48 Engagement

= 2150.81, p < .001; CFI = .857; RMSEA = .116; RMSEA 90% CI = .112 - .120, but the

data still do not fit the model. The next step in modification involved examining cross

factor loading modification indicators for values greater than 10.0, of which there were

the six displayed in Table 29. Whereas, this modification did result in a slight

improvement to the fit statistics χ2(df = 117, N = 628) = 1155.02, p < .001; CFI = .89;

RMSEA = .119; RMSEA 90% CI = .113 - .125, the data still do not fit the model.

Additionally, examination of the wording of items that have been removed from the

model and the items that are left in the model reveals that the fit is being improved by

moving away from internalization toward something more like emulation in the first

123
Table 29. Items deleted from outcome factors in hypothesized model due to high cross
loading modification estimates
Item Wording Internalization Engagement Achievement
A172_Add_In I felt that completing the assignments Hyp 16.86
in this class was beneficial to me.
A173_Add_In I believe the content of this teacher’s Hyp 12.69
class is valuable to understand.
A62_PSSM Sometimes I felt as if I didn’t belong Hyp 14.52
in this teacher’s class.
A92_YCATS_W This teacher made the class fun. Hyp 14.16
A123_STRS I participated deeply in this teacher’s Hyp 17.87
class.
A176_Add_En I paid attention when in this teacher’s Hyp 10.27
class.

factor. Because a set of items had been added that directly represented the factors of

internalization and engagement, an entirely different approach to modifying the outcome

variables’ measurement model to improve model fit was attempted. Starting again with

the items displayed in Figure 29, all items that came from the original scales were deleted

from the internalization factor, because they represented emulation or desired emulation

of the teacher as opposed to representing specific internalization of the course content.

Next the same was done for the engagement factor because the items from the original

scales represented liking the teacher, belonging in class, and help seeking efforts as

opposed to direct statements about behavioral or emotional engagement in the class. This

improved the fit statistics to χ2(df = 33, N = 628) = 411.16, p < .001; CFI = .912; RMSEA

= .135; RMSEA 90% CI = .124 - .147, yet the model is still not acceptable. In an effort

to further improve the model fit, the standardized parameter estimates for the factor

loadings were examined. The lowest two were .54 for A175_Add_En and .68 for

A176_Add_En. Comparison between the content of these two Engagement items with

the content of the other three remaining Engagement factor items revealed that the two

with low loadings are related to behavioral aspects of Engagement and the other three are

124
related to emotional aspects of engagement. Thus, the next step in improving the fit of

this measurement model involved splitting those five Engagement items into two separate

factors titled Behavioral Engagement and Emotional Engagement. This modification

improved the model’s goodness of fit χ2(df = 30, N = 628) = 270.05, p < .001; CFI =

.944; RMSEA = .113; RMSEA 90% CI = .101 - .126; however, model fit is not

acceptable. Additional modification was still required. To this end, error covariance

modification indices were examined. Only one pair of error terms had an error

covariance modification index greater than 50. The error term for A171_Add_In, e6, and

the error term for A173_Add_In, e8 had the modification index of 117.16 so their

covariance parameter was added to the model. The model after this modification, which

has 4 items associated with the internalization factor, 2 items for the behavioral

engagement factor, 3 items for the emotional engagement factor, and 1 item for the

academic achievement factor, produced acceptable goodness of fit statistics χ2(df = 29, N

= 628) = 119.64, p < .001; CFI = .979; RMSEA = .071; RMSEA 90% CI = .058 - .084

and it is displayed in Figure 30.

125
Figure 30. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized outcome variables after
item elimination and splitting of behavioral and emotional engagement

Testing the Hypothesized Structural Model

To address the fourth hypothesis, the modified measurement model parts were

combined into a single model with the hypothesized latent variable associations, as

displayed in Figure 31. Unfortunately, the resultant model was found to have problems

of underidentification. In other words, the model contained fewer known parameters than

unknown parameters. To address the issue of underidentification, one approach might

have been to search for a set of possibly justifiable restrictions to impose in the model in

order to reduce the number of unknown parameters. However, options within this

method seemed superfluous when used purely to reach identification in a complex model.

Rather, the latent variables involvement, punishment, autonomy support,

awareness/understanding, caring, closeness, affective experience, social support

126
Figure 31. Full structural equation model with the hypothesized latent variable
associations using the modified measurement model parts

seeking, and emotional reliance were transformed into measured variables. To

accomplish this, each of these variables was treated as a subscale by calculating simple

means of their respective items from the modified measurement model parts. This

greatly reduced the number of unknown parameters in the model resulting in the model

displayed in Figure 32. This model is overidentified. It has a greater number of known

parameters than unknown parameters, which is necessary in structural equation modeling

to have an adequate test of model fit (Bolen, 1989). The model in Figure 32 produced

results of questionable (unacceptable CFI) acceptability (adequate RMSEA) in terms of

its goodness of fit statistics χ2 (df = 1522, N = 628) = 5977.80, p < .001; CFI = .878;

127
Figure 32. Full structural equation model with unknown parameters reduced by
calculating subscale scores for several factors from the modified measurement model
specifications

RMSEA = .068; RMSEA 90% CI = .067 - .070. To improve this model, the error

covariance and regression weight modification indices were examined. The regression

weight modification indices were first sorted alphabetically to remove all pathways

except those involving only latent variables. Next, they were sorted from highest to

lowest to determine what pathways might have sufficient empirical utility in order to be

considered for theoretical justification. The highest modification indicator was for the

pathway from behavioral engagement to academic achievement (M.I. = 41.0). This

pathway arguably makes more sense than the pathway from interpersonal scripts to

academic achievement in that relationship quality might have direct effects on the

student’s internalization and engagement, which then leads to more or less academic

achievement accordingly. In other words, modification of the model using this logic

128
would require the removal of the pathway from interpersonal scripts to academic

achievement and the addition of three paths from behavioral engagement to academic

achievement, from emotional Table 30. Regression weight modification

indices for treating academic achievement as a
engagement to academic secondary outcome in the structural model
Predictor Criterion M.I.
achievement, and from Behavioral_Engagement --> Achievement 41.0
Emotional_Engagement --> Achievement 19.8
internalization to academic Internalization --> Achievement 5.3

achievement. Table 30 lists the modification indices for these three regression pathways.

The resultant model demonstrated improved goodness of fit statistics χ2(df = 1520, N =

628) = 5493.79, p < .001; CFI = .891; RMSEA = .065; RMSEA 90% CI = .063 - .066

and is displayed in Figure 33. None of the remaining regression weight modification

indices of substantive size presented any path modifications that could be justified with

Figure 33. Full model using subscale scores and treating academic achievement as a
secondary outcome

129
theory. Therefore, in order to improve the model further, error covariance modification

indices were examined next.

To accomplish this, the error covariance modification indices were sorted to retain

only the ones related to covariance between latent variable error terms of the same level

in the model and covariance between error terms associated with subscale scores

measuring the same latent variable. Of these error covariance parameters, the top four

highest modification indices are displayed in

Table 31. Four highest error
Table 31. Three of the four highest covariance modification indices for the
Full model as displayed in Figure 33
modification indices were for the covariance Error Label Error Label M.I.
e135 <--> e137 192.7
parameters between the three error terms e99 <--> e110 138.3
e135 <--> e136 80.5
e137 <--> e136 38.0
associated with the latent outcome variables

internalization, behavioral engagement, and emotional engagement. While it makes

sense that these latent variables are interrelated, regression lines connecting them were

not a desired part of this model. Given that, it made theoretical sense to add covariance

parameters between the error terms to the model.

The other modification indicator in table 30, the second highest, was for the

covariance parameter between the error terms associated with the subscales emotional

reliance and social support seeking. This parameter was also acceptable and added to the

model. The modified model is shown in Figure 34. This version produced improved

goodness of fit statistics χ2(df = 1516, N = 628) = 4755.03, p < .001; CFI = .911; RMSEA

= .058; RMSEA 90% CI = .057 - .060. With an adequate RMSEA and a reasonable CFI,

the model in Figure 34 was acceptable. The parameter estimates for factor loadings and

path coefficients can be found in Table 32.

130
Figure 34. Full model using subscale scores and treating academic achievement as a
secondary outcome and modified by the addition of error covariance parameters

Table 32. Parameter estimates for factor loadings and path coefficients in the final
version of the full model
Latent Variables Indicators Parameter Estimates
Factor Loadings
Involvement A2_IPPA_T 0.843
A7_IPPA_T 0.820
A24_IPPA_A 0.753
A33_Inv_DR 0.787
A34_Inv_Dep 0.859
A35_Inv_Dep 0.854
A36_Inv_Dep 0.841
A37_Inv_Dep 0.847
A38_Inv_Dep 0.632
A56_Rel 0.837
A59_PSSM 0.809
A60_PSSM 0.847
A71_PSSM 0.685
A90_YCATS_W 0.818
A91_YCATS_W 0.828
A94_YCATS_W 0.708
A97_YCATS_W 0.704
A103_YCAT_A 0.711
A128_STRS 0.814
A147_ClsSup 0.830

131
Table 32. Continued
A151_ClsSup 0.781
A152_ClsSup 0.795
A156_ClsSup 0.817
Punishment A48_Friend 0.824
A50_Friend 0.693
A51_Friend 0.752
A104_YCAT_C 0.708
A106_YCAT_C 0.789
A107_YCAT_C 0.753
A108_YCAT_C 0.739
A111_YCAT_C 0.669
A112_YCAT_C 0.832
A122_STRS 0.843
A149_ClsSup 0.862
Autonomy-Support A98_YCAT_A 0.715
A101_YCAT_A 0.623
A159_MePart 0.652
A160_MePart 0.820
A164_MePart 0.726
A165_MePart 0.769
A166_MePart 0.712
Perceptions of Teacher Aware Understand 0.895
Caring 0.981
Perceptions of Self Affect Experience 0.909
Closeness 0.974
Interpersonal Scripts Emotional Reliance 0.893
Social Support Seeking 0.911
Internalization A171_Add_In 0.675
A172_Add_In 0.696
A173_Add_In 0.693
A174_Add_In 0.839
Behavioral Engagement A175_Add_En 0.702
A176_Add_En 0.864
Emotional Engagement A177_Add_En 0.881
A178_Add_En 0.906
A179_Add_En 0.871
Achievement Course Grade 1.000
Path Coefficients
Involvement --> Perceptions of Teacher 0.919
Involvement --> Perceptions of Self 0.931
Punishment --> Perceptions of Teacher 0.078
Punishment --> Perceptions of Self 0.060
Autonomy-Support --> Perceptions of Teacher 0.027
Autonomy-Support --> Perceptions of Self 0.031
Perceptions of Teacher --> Interpersonal Scripts -15.301
Perceptions of Self --> Interpersonal Scripts 16.306
Interpersonal Scripts --> Internalization 0.847

132
Table 32. Continued
Interpersonal Scripts --> Behavioral Engagement 0.573
Interpersonal Scripts --> Emotional Engagement 0.858
Internalization --> Achievement -17.737
Behavioral Engagement --> Achievement 2.349
Emotional Engagement --> Achievement 16.478

Testing the Hypothesized Structural Model across Groups

With respect to hypotheses five, six, and seven, invariance was not examined for

participant gender, teacher gender, or course topic groupings. Several path coefficients in

Table 31 revealed 1) an unacceptable amount of multicollinearity among model factors

(Joreskog, 1999; Kline, 2005) and 2) a strong suppressor structure creating negative

suppression effects in the model (Kline, 2005). For example, the path coefficients from

predictors (involvement, punishment, and autonomy support) to the relational schema

components (perceptions of teacher and perceptions of self) suggest an extreme

multicollinearity issue. The β = .919 and β = .931 paths from involvement suggest

predictive importance and the β = .078, β = .060, β = .027 and β = .031 paths from

punishment and autonomy support respectively suggest those variables are unimportant.

When considered alongside of the subscale correlations displayed in Table 32, there is an

obvious suppression effect resulting from severe multicollinearity. As another example,

the paths from perceptions of teacher (β = -15.301) and perceptions of self (β = 16.306)

to interpersonal scripts suggest extreme multicollinearity due to the oddly high

coefficients (Joreskog, 1999) and negative suppression due to the reversal of effect

directionality indicated by the coefficient (Kline, 2005). Paths from the outcome factors

(internalization, behavioral engagement, and emotional engagement) to academic

achievement reveal a combination of both effects as well. Overall, it is sufficient to say

133
that the path coefficient values in the model are of little use except to demonstrate the

problems of modeling variables that have high multicollinearity.

To further examine multicollinearity among the variables in the model, subscale

scores for the predictor variables (involvement, punishment, and autonomy support) and

the outcome variables (internalization, behavioral engagement, and emotional

engagement) were calculated from the associated measured items in the final full model

as had already been done for the relational schema component factors

(awareness/understanding, caring, closeness, affective experience, social support seeking,

Table 33. Bivariate correlations among subscale scores for predictor factors, relational
schema factors, and outcome factors in modified full structural model
Subscale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Involvement 1 .78* .54* .89* .96* .95* .89* .90* .86* .74* .54* .82*
2. Punishment 1 .35* .62* .81* .76* .81* .65* .61* .57* .50* .61*
* * * * * * * *
3. Autonomy-Support 1 .55 .54 .55 .47 .58 .56 .39 .23 .49*
4. Aware/Understand 1 .87* .90* .79* .92* .90* .66* .48* .74*
5. Caring 1 .95* .89* .88* .84* .69* .51* .77*
6. Closeness 1 .90* .91* .89* .71* .50* .79*
* * * *
7. Affective Experience 1 .81 .79 .67 .47 .79*
8. Social Support Seeking 1 .94* .64* .45* .73*
9. Emotional Reliance 1 .65* .45* .73*
10. Internalization 1 .62* .80*
11. Behavioral Engagement 1 .60*
12. Emotional Engagement 1
* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

and emotional reliance). Next, bivariate correlations were calculated for all of these

variables. As displayed in Table 33, all of these variables are significantly intercorrelated

with numerous correlations surpassing the r > .85 criterion suggested by Kline (2005) as

signaling a potential problem of multicollinearity. To further investigate

multicollinearity, all of the variables in Table 33 were entered as independent variables

simultaneously into a linear regression model in SPSS with academic achievement

134
as the dependent variable to acquire a report of the collinearity diagnostic statistics. The

resulting variance inflation factor (VIF) statistics are reported in Table 34. It has been

suggested that a VIF of 5.0 or greater is something to be concerned about and VIF of 10.0

or greater almost certainly indicates a serious

Table 34. Variance inflation factor
statistics for all predictor factors,
collinearity problem (Menard, 1995). Using
relational schema factors, and outcome
factors in modified full structural model
those criteria, a quick scan of Table 34 leads
when regressed on achievement
Subscale VIF
to the conclusion that the variables in the
1. Involvement 21.8
modified full structural model (Figure 34) 2. Punishment 4.2
3. Autonomy-Support 1.6
have a serious multicollinearity problem. 4. Aware/Understand 8.5
5. Caring 20.6
Kline (2005) suggests problems of
6. Closeness 21.0
multicollinearity may be dealt with by either 7. Affective Experience 7.4
8. Social Support Seeking 12.2
eliminating redundant variables or combining 9. Emotional Reliance 9.8
10. Internalization 3.2
redundant variables into a single variable. In
11. Behavioral Engagement 1.9
this case the multicollinearity is both severe 12. Emotional Engagement 4.9

and spread across various levels of the model. Dissecting, deleting, recombining, and

renaming factors to address multicollinearity of this magnitude is not a practical solution.

Instead, exploratory factor analysis as presented in the post hoc analysis section generates

a better avenue for further consideration of the data.

Post Hoc Exploratory Factor Analysis

Because of the multicollinearity problems among factors in the hypothesized

model, exploratory factor analysis was utilized to discover underlying empirical structure

in the data. Principal components analysis method of extraction was used because the

end goal was to reduce the set of items to a small number of factors that might be used to

135
create composite scores for use in subsequent analysis. Because avoiding

multicollinearity in the final solution is a primary goal, the orthogonal VARIMAX

rotation, developed by Kaiser (1958), was used. The scree plot (Figure 35) was

examined to see if there was an obvious point at which the last substantial drop in the

magnitude of the eigenvalues would lead to a clear decision about the number of factors

Figure 35. Forward portion of the principal components analysis scree plot

to extract, which is known as the scree test (Cattell, 1966). The most substantial drop

was after the first factor, suggesting a possible best model might be the single factor

solution. However, the second and third factors were retained for extraction as they also

appeared to possess some potentially important information for theory development as

well.

Accordingly, principal components analysis was run with all 170 items from the

C-STRI that came from the 14 original instruments using VARIMAX rotation and

136
extracting 3 factors. The additional 10 items that were added to improve the

measurement of internalization, engagement, and academic achievement were not

included as they were never thought to be measures of the student teacher relationship per

se. To reduce the number of items and clean up the 3-factor extraction results, item

elimination began with deletion of all items that did not have a primary factor loading of

.6 or greater. This step resulted in the deletion of 43 items (see Appendix J for factor

loadings). The principle components analysis was run again with the retained items and

the second step in item elimination was performed. This eliminated all items that had a <

.2 gap between their primary factor loading and any cross-loading. This step resulted in

the deletion of 31 more items (see Appendix K for factor loadings). The analysis was run

again. The third and final item elimination strategy removed all items with a cross-

loading of .3 or above. This step resulted in 58 more items being deleted (see Appendix

L for factor loadings). The results of this process are displayed in Table 35. Although

the retained items formed three distinct factors empirically, examination of their content

suggested an obvious methods effect with the first factor containing positive relationship

items and the second factor containing negatively worded items. The third factor is not a

measure of the relationship at all; rather, it contains items related a specific teaching

strategy of providing students with opportunities for choice and decision making in the

classroom. In other words, the results provide support for a global relationship quality

construct as opposed to the more complicated multidimensional relational schema

construct hypothesized in this study. While there are numerous items retained in the 3-

factor model (Figure 34) that could be deleted for redundancy, it would not be

worthwhile to do so because the model is a better illustration of method effects than an

137
Table 35. Factor loadings of items retained for the three factor solution after items
deleted for issues of cross-loading
Factor
Item Code Wording 1 2 3
A135_NRS_I In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close to them. .804 .297 .249
A148_ClsSup This teacher’s was like family to me. .803 .137 .194
A126_STRS If upset, I would seek comfort from this teacher. .790 .224 .208
A18_IPPA_C I could count on this teacher when I needed to get something off my chest. .777 .277 .249
A16_IPPA_c I told this teacher about my problems and troubles. .734 .026 .210
A29_Inv_Att This teacher knew a lot about me. .733 .243 .181
A13_IPPA_C This teacher could tell when I was upset about something. .711 .245 .148
A136_NRS_I In my relationship with this teacher, I felt attached to them. .706 .181 .258
A117_STRS I allowed this teacher to connect/relate with me. .694 .269 .286
A15_IPPA_C This teacher helped me to understand myself better. .692 .287 .230
A17_IPPA_C This teacher helped me to talk about my difficulties. .689 .231 .255
A11_IPPA_C I liked to get this teacher’s point of view on things I was concerned about. .677 .291 .281
A125_STRS This teacher shared an affectionate, warm relationship with me. .653 .295 .288
A121_STRS I tried to get support and encouragement from this teacher. .652 .079 .084
If I were having trouble understanding a subject at school, I would talk it
A141_Sch_Ut .625 .295 .221
over with this teacher.
A149_ClsSup This teacher was mean to me. .253 .831 .122
A122_STRS I saw this teacher as a source of punishment and criticism. .254 .793 .123
A48_Friend This teacher told me publicly that I might get a bad grade in that subject. .178 .781 .145
A112_YCAT_C This teacher was mean. .292 .771 .159
A106_YCAT_C This teacher got angry with me. .150 .770 .129
This teacher seemed to expect me to do shoddy work or make stupid
A51_Friend .180 .745 .115
mistakes.
A107_YCAT_C This teacher told me that I was doing something wrong a lot. .149 .736 .128
A104_YCAT_C This teacher told me I was going to get in trouble a lot. .062 .730 .084
A75_PSSM It was hard for people like me to be accepted by this teacher. .288 .709 .138
A108_YCAT_C This teacher told me that I didn’t try hard enough. .154 .696 .109
A111_YCAT_C This teacher told me I did not listen. .071 .679 .066
This teacher seemed pessimistic about my ability to be self-disciplining
A50_Friend .144 .678 .129
and responsible for my own behavior.
This teacher threatened to give me more work, tests, or to lower my grade
A53_Friend .024 .658 .028
to control my behavior.
A109_YCAT_C This teacher told me to stop doing work I liked doing. .162 .645 .091
Talking over my problems with this teacher made me feel ashamed or
A20_IPPA_A .286 .637 .088
foolish.
A160_MePart This teacher let me have a say in deciding what went on in class. .254 .121 .765
A98_YCAT_A This teacher let me choose work that I wanted to do. .265 .131 .736
A157_MePart This teacher let me help decide what the rules were going to be. .195 .031 .736
A166_MePart This teacher let me choose what I would work on. .280 .154 .717
A164_MePart This teacher included me when planning what we did in class. .248 .037 .676
A101_YCAT_A This teacher let me do different activities in class. .175 .155 .645
A159_MePart This teacher let me get a rule changed if I thought it was unfair. .276 .173 .619
A163_MePart In this class the teacher was the only one who decided on the rules. .115 .170 .611
Factor Correlations
Factor 1 1.00 .533 .581
Factor 2 1.00 .360
Factor 3 1.00

illustration of distinct relationship dimensions. Only 22%, 38 out of 170 items were

retained using the item deletion process outlined above, which eliminated items based on

138
how indistinctive they were. This further illustrates how extremely inter-correlated the

items were, why the hypothesized latent variables displayed extreme multicollinearity,

and gave additional support for the potential that a single factor solution might be best.

As previously mentioned, the scree plot in Figure 35 provided additional evidence that a

single-factor extraction might produce the best results. Therefore, the final step in this

iterative process of exploratory, post hoc data analysis was to run the principle

components analysis once more, this time with the restriction of extracting one factor.

The results are displayed in Table 36.

Table 36. Factor loadings of all items for the single-factor solution
Item Wording Loading
A130_NRS_A In my relationship with this teacher, I felt supported. .893
A54_Rel When I was with this teacher I felt accepted. .889
A132_NRS_A In my relationship with this teacher, I felt listened to. .885
A131_NRS_A In my relationship with this teacher, I felt understood. .884
A133_NRS_A In my relationship with this teacher, I felt valued. .882
A76_CLM_SS This teacher really cared about me. .875
A27_Inv_Aff This teacher really cared about me. .868
A153_ClsSup This teacher cared about me. .868
A8_IPPA_T This teacher understood me. .868
A167_RAPS_E When I was with this teacher, I felt good. .864
A79_CLM_SS This teacher cared about my feelings. .863
A170_RAPS_E When I was with this teacher, I felt happy. .863
A10_IPPA_T I trusted this teacher. .862
A35_Inv_Dep I could count on this teacher to be there for me. .857
A74_PSSM This teacher liked me the way I was. .856
A49_Friend This teacher was warm and supportive. .854
A58_PSSM I felt like a real part of this teacher’s class. .854
A34_Inv_Dep This teacher was always there for me. .852
A4_IPPA_T This teacher accepted me as I was. .852
A1_IPPA_T This teacher respected my feelings. .849
A114_STRS I trusted this teacher. .848
A73_PSSM I feel proud of knowing this teacher. .847
A3_IPPA_T I wish I had a different teacher. .846
A84_BNS_Rel When I was with this teacher, I felt loved and cared about. .846
A119_STRS This teacher was able to comfort me or cheer me up. .843
A60_PSSM This teacher took my opinions seriously. .842
If I were feeling excited about something happening in my life, I would have been
A42_ERQ .841
willing to turn to this teacher.
A36_Inv_Dep I could rely on this teacher to be there when I needed him/her. .840
A154_ClsSup This teacher treated me with respect. .839
A37_Inv_Dep This teacher was never there for me. .839

139
Table 36. Continued
A70_PSSM This teacher respected me. .838
A57_Rel When I was with this teacher I felt unimportant. .837
A2_IPPA_T I feel this teacher did a good job as my teacher. .833
A63_PSSM I could talk to this teacher if I had a problem. .831
A169_RAPS_E When I was with this teacher, I felt unhappy. .830
A92_YCATS_W This teacher made the class fun. .827
If I were feeling proud of my accomplishments, I would have been willing to turn
A46_ERQ .826
to this teacher.
A72_PSSM I wished I was in a different teacher’s class. .825
A82_CLM_AS This teacher liked to help me learn. .825
A67_PSSM I was treated with respect by this teacher. .823
A135_NRS_I In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close to them. .823
A88_YCATS_W This teacher liked me. .823
A6_IPPA_T When we discussed things, this teacher cared about my point of view. .822
A144_Emul I would feel good if someone said I was a lot like this teacher. .822
A56_Rel When I was with this teacher I felt ignored. .821
A26_Inv_Aff This teacher liked me. .821
A142_Sch_Ut I could usually rely on this teacher when I had problems at my school. .820
A147_ClsSup When I did well, this teacher made me feel good. .819
A120_STRS I avoided contact with this teacher. .818
A31_Inv_Att This teacher didn’t understand me. .818
If I were feeling very bad about myself and needed a boost, I would have been
A43_ERQ .818
willing to turn to this teacher.
A124_STRS I felt safe and secure with this teacher. .817
A7_IPPA_T This teacher trusted my judgment. .817
A69_PSSM I could really be myself around this teacher. .816
If I were feeling anxious or scared about something, I would have been willing to
A41_ERQ .815
turn to this teacher.
My relationship with this teacher became more positive throughout the school
A128_STRS .813
year.
A55_Rel When I was with this teacher I felt like someone special. .811
A44_ERQ If I were feeling overwhelmed, I would have been willing to turn to this teacher. .810
A138_NRS_I In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close-knit. .810
A155_ClsSup This teacher helped me, even if he/she was busy. .809
A90_YCATS_W This teacher said nice things about my work. .809
A9_IPPA_T When I was angry about something, this teacher tried to be understanding. .809
A64_PSSM This teacher was friendly to me. .809
A91_YCATS_W This teacher helped me when I didn’t understand. .806
A89_YCATS_W This teacher was my friend. .804
A59_PSSM This teacher noticed when I was good at something. .799
A156_ClsSup This teacher helped me learn. .799
A115_STRS This teacher was in tune with what I was feeling. .798
A137_NRS_I In my relationship with this teacher, I felt bonded to them. .797
A80_CLM_AS This teacher cared about how much I learned. .793
A61_PSSM This teacher was interested in me. .792
A145_Emul I wanted to be like this teacher. .791
A18_IPPA_C I could count on this teacher when I needed to get something off my chest. .786
A33_Inv_DR This teacher talked with me. .783
A152_ClsSup This teacher worked with me to solve problems. .783
A28_Inv_Aff This teacher didn’t seem to enjoy having me in his/her class. .779
A30_Inv_Att This teacher knew me well. .777

140
Table 36. Continued
A23_IPPA_A I felt angry with this teacher. .774
If I were feeling frustrated or angry, I would have been willing to turn to this
A45_ERQ .771
teacher.
A168_RAPS_E When I was with this teacher, I felt mad. .771
A151_ClsSup When I had trouble with my schoolwork, this teacher tried to help. .769
A65_PSSM This teacher was not interested in people like me. .766
A139_NRS_I In my relationship with this teacher, I felt like a friend. .766
If I were feeling alone or depressed, I would have been willing to turn to this
A40_ERQ .766
teacher.
My relationship with this teacher became more negative throughout the school
A129_STRS .766
year.
A81_CLM_AS This teacher liked to see my work. .761
A93_YCATS_W This teacher answered my questions. .755
A24_IPPA_A I didn’t get much attention from this teacher. .753
A143_Emul I tried to model myself after this teacher. .751
A19_IPPA_C If this teacher knew something was bothering me, he/she asked me about it. .750
A112_YCAT_C This teacher was mean. .748
A149_ClsSup This teacher was mean to me. .747
A116_STRS I was wary of this teacher. .747
A146_Emul As I get older, I’ll probably be a lot like this teacher. .747
A11_IPPA_C I liked to get this teacher’s point of view on things I was concerned about. .744
A134_NRS_A In my relationship with this teacher, I felt safe. .744
A32_Inv_DR This teacher spent time with me. .743
A85_BNS_Rel When I was with this teacher, I often felt a lot of distance in our relationship. .741
A126_STRS If upset, I would seek comfort from this teacher. .740
A117_STRS I allowed this teacher to connect/relate with me. .740
A15_IPPA_C This teacher helped me to understand myself better. .737
A66_PSSM This teacher made sure I was included in lots of activities in class. .733
A78_CLM_SS This teacher liked me as much as other students. .732
A12_IPPA_C I felt it was no use letting my feelings show around this teacher. .730
A83_CLM_AS This teacher wanted me to do my best in schoolwork. .720
A125_STRS This teacher shared an affectionate, warm relationship with me. .719
A122_STRS I saw this teacher as a source of punishment and criticism. .716
A150_ClsSup This teacher just looked out for his/herself. .715
A29_Inv_Att This teacher knew a lot about me. .712
A94_YCATS_W This teacher told good stories. .711
A75_PSSM It was hard for people like me to be accepted by this teacher. .707
A103_YCAT_A This teacher told me I was smart. .706
A97_YCATS_W This teacher smiled a lot. .706
A140_Sch_Ut If I had a problem with my school work I would share it with this teacher. .704
A21_IPPA_A I got upset easily around this teacher. .702
A13_IPPA_C This teacher could tell when I was upset about something. .702
A62_PSSM Sometimes I felt as if I didn’t belong in this teacher’s class. .700
A17_IPPA_C This teacher helped me to talk about my difficulties. .700
A25_IPPA_A This teacher didn’t understand what I was going through in those days. .692
If I were having trouble understanding a subject at school, I would talk it over with
A141_Sch_Ut .692
this teacher.
A148_ClsSup This teacher’s was like family to me. .682
A136_NRS_I In my relationship with this teacher, I felt attached to them. .671
A48_Friend This teacher told me publicly that I might get a bad grade in that subject. .667
A68_PSSM I felt very different from this teacher. .666

141
Table 36. Continued
A71_PSSM This teacher knew I could do good work. .665
A38_Inv_Dep I couldn’t depend on this teacher for important things. .640
A77_CLM_SS This teacher thought it was important to be my friend. .638
A51_Friend This teacher expected me to make stupid mistakes. .635
A87_YCATS_W This teacher liked my family. .633
A102_YCAT_A This teacher did activities with me. .628
A20_IPPA_A Talking over my problems with this teacher made me feel ashamed or foolish. .628
A95_YCATS_W This teacher remembered special days for me. .627
A106_YCAT_C This teacher got angry with me. .619
A107_YCAT_C This teacher told me that I was doing something wrong a lot. .610
A86_BNS_Rel When I was with this teacher, I felt a lot of closeness and intimacy. .601
A100_YCAT_A This teacher let me do activities I wanted to do. .589
A123_STRS I participated deeply in this teacher’s class. .588
A108_YCAT_C This teacher told me that I didn’t try hard enough. .580
This teacher seemed pessimistic about my ability to be self-disciplining and
A50_Friend .574
responsible for my own behavior.
A158_MePart This teacher let me do things that I wanted to do. .572
A162_MePart This teacher let me do things my own way. .571
A16_IPPA_c I told this teacher about my problems and troubles. .561
A113_YCAT_C This teacher had too many rules for our class. .556
A39_Inv_Dep I couldn’t count on this teacher when I needed him/her. .545
A109_YCAT_C This teacher told me to stop doing work I liked doing. .543
A104_YCAT_C This teacher told me I was going to get in trouble a lot. .528
A121_STRS I tried to get support and encouragement from this teacher. .524
A166_MePart This teacher let me choose what I would work on. .500
A111_YCAT_C This teacher told me I did not listen. .493
A159_MePart This teacher let me get a rule changed if I thought it was unfair. .488
A98_YCAT_A This teacher let me choose work that I wanted to do. .481
A160_MePart This teacher let me have a say in deciding what went on in class. .480
A22_IPPA_A I get upset a lot more than this teacher knew about. .478
A14_IPPA_C This teacher had his/her own problems, so I didn’t bother him/her with mine. .473
A96_YCATS_W This teacher chose me to be a special helper. .471
A5_IPPA_T This teacher expected too much of me. .468
A161_MePart This teacher let me help plan what we would do in class. .453
A165_MePart This teacher asked me to help decide what the class should do. .449
A118_STRS I tried to get help, recognition, and support from this teacher. .424
This teacher threatened to give me more work, tests, or to lower my grade to
A53_Friend .422
control my behavior.
A101_YCAT_A This teacher let me do different activities in class. .421
A164_MePart This teacher included me when planning what we did in class. .402
A157_MePart This teacher let me help decide what the rules were going to be. .374
A99_YCAT_A This teacher let me choose where I wanted to sit. .368
A127_STRS I felt upset when separated from this teacher. .360
A163_MePart In this class the teacher was the only one who decided on the rules. .356
A105_YCAT_C This teacher told me to do work that was too hard for me. .308
A110_YCAT_C This teacher told me to do work I didn’t want to do. .307
A47_Friend This teacher criticized me for turning work in late or failing to turn in assignments. .304
A52_Friend This teacher used sarcasm. -.052

142
 The single-factor loadings offer strong support for a general, global relationship

quality construct. Aside from one outlier item “this teacher used sarcasm” (λ = -.052) the

lowest loading was λ = .304, which is above the cutoff specified previously for an item to

be acceptably distinct from the factor. On the other hand, 65 items loaded λ > .800, 118

items loaded λ > .700, and 135 items loaded λ > .600, which was the cutoff specified

previously for acceptance as a primary factor loading. That is, nearly 80% of the items

loaded strongly in the single-factor model and 99% of the items resulted in λ > .300,

which was used as a cutoff for indicating “salient” factor loadings in a Psychological

Methods journal report on the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research

(Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999).

143
 CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION

Several interesting findings resulted from this study. The hypothesized model,

which proposed a multidimensional relational schema structure of students’ internal

representation of their relationship with a teacher, was not supported by the data. The

study did, however, provided a first look into the comparative utility of 14 different

student-teacher relationship measures through simultaneous administration of their items

in the context of a single student-teacher relationship. The study demonstrated that

numerous instruments could individually generate acceptable internal consistency and

model fit statistics, and then be successfully recombined into a series of other

measurement models that fit the data as well. Although not in the expected fashion, the

study also afforded empirical evaluation as to which of the 170 items from the 14 original

scales most closely measure the core of student teacher relationship quality and which

items do not. The study exemplified the dangers of negative item wording. Finally the

study provided strong evidence for conceptualizing student teacher relationships as a

single, global relationship quality construct.

Comparing the 14 Original Scales

All of the original 14 scales were examined using confirmatory factor analysis to

check model fit and the results were presented in Table 3. Based on the data collected for

this study, quality of fit varied substantially for the original scales. The Basic Need

Satisfaction in Relationships scale had only one factor with three items so the model was

“just identified” (Kline, 2005) and thus its CFA results are not to be trusted. From the

data collected for this study, five scales produced unacceptable model fit statistics.

Specifically, the Research Assessment Package for Schools generated RMSEA = .326,

144
Teacher as a Social Context generated RMSEA = .104, Sense of Relatedness generated

RMSEA = .162, Student Teacher Relationship Scale generated RMSEA = .128 & CFI =

.849, and the Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support generated CFI = .860.

The remaining 8 scales demonstrated acceptable fit RMSEA = .037-.090 and CFI = .912-

.995. A few of these original scales have the results of exploratory factor analyses

reported in the original publication of the scales, none of them reported measurement

model fit statistics from confirmatory factor analyses. Therefore, the confirmatory factor

analysis results found in this project could not be compared to original model fit

statistics. However, all of the original studies reported internal reliability coefficient

alphas. Table 37 shows the original coefficient alphas and the coefficient alphas found in

this study side-by-side for each of the 14 scales and respective subscales. In comparison

to internal reliability data presented in the original publications for each of the 14 scales,

data from this study suggest slightly more internal consistency; however the patterns of

reliability coefficients match fairly well. All scales and subscales demonstrated

acceptable internal reliability.

To compare the 14 original scales in terms of predictive validity, regression

results (βeta & R2) from Table 18 (internalization), Table 19 (engagement), and Table 20

(achievement) were condensed into a single table. Bivariate correlations were added as

well due to concerns about suppressor effects in the βeta coefficients. Table 38 shows the

results of this predictive validity comparison. Comparison of the bivariate correlations

and Beta coefficients revealed suppressor effects in the scales that were divided into

subscales. The combination of these statistics and the post hoc exploratory factor

analysis call the proposed dimensionality of these original scales into question. More

145
Table 37. Comparison of internal reliability from original publication and this study for
all 14 original scales
Scale Subscale Items Original α This Study α
Social Support 4 .80 .86
Classroom Life Measure (N = 91)
Academic Support 4 .78 .90
Student Classroom Environment
Friendly/Fair 7 .70 - .75 .76
Measure (N = 1788)
Developmental Studies Center Classroom Supportiveness 10 .82 .94
Student Questionnaire (N = 5143) Meaningful Participation 10 .80 .91
Trust 10 .91 .95
Inventory of Parent & Peer
Communication 9 .91 .92
Attachments (N = 179)
Alienation 6 .86 .86
School Utilization & Teacher School Utilization 3 .66 .83
Emulation (N = 606) Teacher Emulation 4 .84 .94
Research Assessment Package
Emotional Security 4 .71 .92
for Schools (N = 2429)
Affection 3 .71 .88
Teacher as Social Context (N = 500) Attunement 3 .54 .86
Dedication of Resources 2 NA .77
Dependability 6 .72 .90
Sense of Relatedness (N = 641) NA 4 .79 .91
Emotional Reliance
NA 7 .91 - .97 .96
Questionnaire (N = 195)
Basic Need Satisfaction in
Relatedness 3 .90 .79
Relationships (N = 152)
Need for Relatedness Scale Acceptance 5 .89 .94
(N = 265) Intimacy 5 .91 .93
Student-Teacher Relationship Scale
NA 16 .85 .94
(N = 72)
Warmth 11 .75 .92
Young Children’s Appraisals
Autonomy 6 .67 .79
of Teacher Support (N = 364)
Conflict 10 .75 .88
Psychological Sense of School
Belongingness 18 .87 .97
Membership (N = 454)

will be said about support for a single global relationship quality construct later. Overall,

the data in Table 38 suggest that all of the relationship measures have predictive validity

in relation to internalization, engagement, and achievement. When all three outcomes are

considered together, the Student Classroom Environment Measure, School Utilization &

146
Teacher Emulation, the Emotional Reliance Questionnaire, and the Basic Needs

Satisfaction in Relationships scales performed poorest of the 14 scales; whereas, the

Psychological Sense of School Membership scale performed the best overall.

147
Table 38. Predictive validity comparison of 14 original scales
Internalization Engagement Achievement
Scale Subscale r β R2 r β R2 r β R2

Social Support .63** .12* .69** .16*** .43** .09

Classroom Life Measure .53*** .62*** .24***
Academic Support .73** .63*** .78** .65*** .48** .40***

Student Classroom
Friendly/Fair .52** .52*** .27*** .58** .58*** .34*** .45** .45*** .20***
Environment Measure

Developmental Studies Center Classroom Supportiveness .71** .69*** .78** .74*** .45** .38***
.50*** .61*** .22***
Student Questionnaire Meaningful Participation .39** .03 .47** .08** .34** .14**

Trust .71** .50*** .80** .63*** .47** .47***

Inventory of Parent & Peer
Communication .63** .14** .51** .69** .09* .65*** .36** -.12 .23***
Attachments
Alienation .63** .10* .71** .11* .43** .12

School Utilization & Teacher School Utilization .63** .31*** .70** .34*** .41** .30*** .17***
.48*** .58***
Emulation Teacher Emulation .66** .43*** .73** .47*** .37** .14**

Research Assessment Package

Emotional Security .68** .68*** .47*** .79** .79*** .62*** .45** .45*** .20***
for Schools

Affection .65** .25*** .72** .28*** .46** .35***

Teacher as Social Context Attunement .59** .02 .67** .11* .41** .11
.48*** .57*** .28***
Dedication of Resources .63** .21*** .66** .13** .39** .05
Dependability .66** .27*** .72** .29*** .40** -.02

Sense of Relatedness NA .68** .68*** .46*** .75** .75*** .57*** .45** .45*** .20***

Emotional Reliance
NA .64** .64*** .41*** .71** .71*** .50*** .40** .40*** .16***
Questionnaire

148
Table 38. Continued
Basic Need Satisfaction in
Relatedness .56** .56*** .32*** .65** .65*** .43*** .38** .38*** .15***
Relationships

Acceptance .70** .60*** .77** .65*** .45** .40***

Need for Relatedness Scale .49*** .60*** .21***
Intimacy .61** .12* .68** .15** .39** .07

Student-Teacher Relationship
NA .71** .71*** .51*** .79** .79*** .62*** .46** .46*** .21***
Scale

Warmth .69** .67*** .79** .67*** .48** .20**

Young Children’s Appraisals
Autonomy .51** -.04 .49*** .60** .01 .64*** .41** .11* .28***
of Teacher Support
Conflict .55** .14*** .63** .16*** .48** .28***

Psychological Sense of School

Belongingness .72** .72*** .52*** .81** .81*** .65*** .50** .50*** .25***
Membership
* significant at p < .05; ** significant at p < .01; ***significant at p < .001.

149
Multiple Models Can Fit the Data

The exercise of fitting data to a hypothesized model through an iterative process

like the one used in this project can be problematic. One might even say that this project

serves as a prime example of how the use of model fit to judge the quality of a model can

be misleading in some cases. Even if a model is consistent with data, a researcher cannot

determine if it reflects a true phenomenological process because another model, or even

several other models might also fit the data collected.

In this study, each of the measurement models, with only slight modifications

required, came to “fit” the data acceptably well. A researcher’s experience as this

happens is typically of relief and satisfaction. Moreover, this feeling was experienced

tenfold as the full model underwent its final modification and it too “fit” the data.

However, the path coefficients, multicollinearity analyses, and exploratory post hoc data

analyses together remind us of the fact that even when a model fits, the researcher should

always explore alternative models. Perhaps Norman Cliff (1983, 118, italics in original)

put it best, “Even without resorting to alternative variables as explanations of data, it is

well to remember that models other than the one that “fits” will fit the data equally well.

Indeed, the very form of the equations underlying LISREL guarantee that in virtually

every application there are an infinity of models that will fit the data equally well.”

Methods Effects of Negative Item Wording

Using positively worded items and negatively worded items in a single

questionnaire has been encouraged by experts in educational testing for a long time (e.g.,

Anastasi, 1982; Cronbach 1950; Spector, 1992). The rationale is that reversed wording

helps to avoid participant bias such as response acquiescence or to add mental speed

150
bumps that slow down cognitive processing to improve the thoughtfulness of responses

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). However, multiple psychometric

studies of self-esteem scales have produced evidence that including both items worded

negatively and items worded positively can thwart accurate analysis and interpretation of

survey data by creating systematic measurement error (Horan, DiStefano, & Motl, 2003;

DiStefano & Motl, 2006; 2009; Marsh, 1996). Similar evidence is demonstrated in the

data collected for this study as displayed in Table 35. The student teacher relationship

construct appears to be multidimensional, yet a closer look reveals the distinction

between factors 1 and 2 is clearly the wording of the items as positive statements or

negative statements. In terms of item content that led to the hypothesized

multidimensionality of C-STRI items, there is greater variety within factors 1 and 2 in

Table 35 than there is between them.

One could argue that the two factors represent positive aspects of the relationship

(warmth) and negative aspects of relationship (conflict) and that the items in factor 3

represent a third factor (autonomy). This is the model proposed by Mantzicopoulos and

Neuharth-Pritchett (2003). However, the factor loadings for the single factor model

(Table 36) cast strong doubt on the distinction between the warmth and conflict

dimensions. The items loading on factor 3 in Table 35 do include items from the Y-

CATS instrument’s autonomy subscale and similar items about opportunities for students

to experience choices in the classroom from the meaningful participation subscale of the

Developmental Studies Center Student Questionnaire (DSC, 2002) and they do create a

distinct factor; yet, these items represent a teaching strategy that may or may not have an

151
influence on the relationship. Further, there is much more to autonomy-support than

being offered a choice (Reeve & Jang, 2006).

The Global Relationship Quality Construct

Other researchers have wrestled with this same issue when measuring attachment

using the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). The

initial report stated that based on the eigenvalue criterion of greater than 1, they extracted

3 factors (trust, communication, and alienation). However, due to highly correlated

subscales (r between .70 and .76), the authors utilized a combined score for overall

attachment instead of the individual factor scores for the analyses. Johnson, Ketring, and

Abshire (2003) ran a confirmatory factor analysis on the IPPA and found that it did not fit

(χ2 = 735.32, p < .001; CFI = .73; RMSEA = .09). When they ran the data using

exploratory factor analysis, two factors emerged. The first factor they found relates to

trust/avoidance and the items seem to represent the general relationship quality construct.

On the other hand, the second dimension they found had 6 items loading λ = .594 to .401

and the items represented communication, which might better be construed as an

interpersonal strategy that likely influences relationship quality. Measuring a sample of

(N = 1059) Italian adolescents, Pace et al. (2011) found acceptable fit of a uni-factorial

solutions of the IPPA items, which corroborates the evidence in this dissertation that

relationship quality may be best measured along one dimension.

Taking another angle, we ought to reflect again upon the performance of the

original instruments. The strength of the suppressor effects displayed among all of the

scales that were originally proposed to be multidimensional in Table 38 suggests that the

predictive power within each of the subscales is shared among them. In fact, the

152
subscales may not truly represent distinct factors at all. Instead, they may all be artifacts

of a global relationship quality construct. Another way to investigate this proposition is

to examine the bivariate correlations among the subscales. For the Student Classroom

Environment Measure, the Social Support and Academic Support subscales are highly

correlated (r = .82). A correlation of this magnitude provides a strong case for the single

factor model. The Developmental Studies Center Student Questionnaire, the Classroom

Supportiveness and Meaning full Participation subscales are moderately correlated (r =

.53), which suggests that they contain some distinct elements but nonetheless share a

large amount of variance. Remember, several of the Meaningful Participation items were

among the items that loaded on the third factor in the exploratory factor analysis where

three factors were extracted. Those items, measuring the allowance of student choices as

a classroom strategy, are likely responsible for lowering the bivariate correlation. Similar

to Armsden and Greenberg’s (1987) original findings, the Inventory of Parent and Peer

Attachment subscales were highly correlated (r = .73 - .85). School Utilization and

Teacher Emulation were also highly correlated (r = .76), as were the subscales of the

Teacher as a Social Context scale (r = .75 - .84), and the Acceptance and Intimacy

subscales of the Need for Relatedness Scale (r = .82). Finally, the Young Children’s

Appraisals of Teacher Support scale produced subscale correlations of r = .51 - .76 with

the lower correlations being those that relate to the Autonomy subscale, which includes

the other items that made up the third factor in the three-factor exploratory factor analysis

model.

The fact that half of the original 14 scales measured the quality of the relationship

as a single factor should not be left unmentioned. All seven of the single factor scales

153
produced reasonable predictive validity as reported in Table 38 and one of them, the

Psychological Sense of School Membership, arguably performed the best overall. All of

this evidence, along with the importance of selecting the most parsimonious theory,

suggests that empirically conceptualizing relationship quality as a unidimensional

construct may be best.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the data were collected from college

students’ retrospective reports of relationships with high school teachers. The reasoning

for this is that college students are a convenient population to study; however, their

relationships with current college professors may have been under developed depending

on the time of participation in the study and because relationships with college professors

are often less developed due to the format of collegiate instruction, especially in the large

lecture classes of freshman and sophomores. In most cases, the relationships participants

were asked to recall occurred between 1-2 years ago, but in some cases up to 5 years ago.

Nonetheless it seemed reasonable to assume that university student participants could

remember their relationships with several high school teachers. That said, the fact that

they are all university students separates them from being a representative high-school

student population as many high school students do not attend a university. Therefore

this sample may have been biased in terms of higher than average achievement.

Additionally, some of their reconstructions of these relationships may have been

inaccurate or subject to cognitive bias. Ideally, predictor variables and outcome variables

should be actual teacher behaviors or at least students’ perceptions of teacher behaviors

as they are happening rather than memories skewed by known systematic errors of

154
cognitive bias such as confirmation bias. However, it should be noted that the purpose of

this study was to explore the underlying structure of students’ internal representations of

the relationship and not the accuracy of participants’ memories.

That said, an argument could still be made that the passing of time causes a

reduction in the level of detail contained in students’ relation schemas. That is, there may

be a more complex internal representation of the relationship while it is current and as

time passes that representation may fade into a generalized, relatively positive or

relatively negative internal representation of the relationship.

Second, also related to the study being based on self-report, there is no way to

know if participants put effort into making distinct responses to the massive variety of

items. It is possible that the huge number of items led participant to speed up the process

of filling out the survey by relying on a global assessment of whether the relationship was

positive or negative rather than fully reading each item or putting much thought into their

responses. There was also the potential problem of reactivity where participants may

have begun to think about what is socially desirable or what the researcher was looking

for and they may begin answering questions accordingly.

The sample of participants is another limitation. Because of the characteristics of

the Midwestern university student population from which the convenience sample came,

the sample was not very diverse in terms of ethnicity, age, or socioeconomic status.

Finally, external validity is also constricted by limiting the student-teacher

relationships under examination to those from the final high school years. In other

words, it is possible that these student-teacher relationships do not reflect what is most

relevant in students’ relationships with teachers before and/or after the high school years.

155
General Conclusions and Next Steps

On one hand, the data from this study may suggest that elements of self-

perception, teacher perception, and if-then interactional expectation scripts may be

indistinct as relational schema components. That is, judgements about the teacher,

judgements about one’s self in relation to the teacher, and expectations about interactions

with the teacher may all be dependent on the student’s global assessment of the quality of

their relationship with that teacher. On the other hand, the data may suggest that aspects

of students’ relational schemas about a particular teacher may be multidimensional, yet

coherent and so highly interconnected that they failed to reveal any empirical distinction

in the data collected for this study.

Theoretical positions on the structure of relational schemas, often called internal

working models, are well established, as reviewed in the literature that led to the

hypotheses formulated for this study. Unfortunately, empirical tests of those theoretical

propositions are lacking and the data collected in this study does little to support them;

rather, these data suggest that such complexities may be unnecessary when examining the

quality of a student-teacher relationship and its impact on student engagement and

achievement. Accordingly, it is no surprise that so many diverse approaches to

measuring student-teacher relationship quality have produced consistent results in terms

of predicting students’ cognitive, developmental, behavioral, and achievement related

outcomes.

Conclusions such as these should be considered tentative. Further studies using a

variety of social cognitive methodology are still required. For example, a distinction

between relational schema components may be better assessed using implicit priming

156
techniques as opposed to retrospective self-reports. In the adult attachment literature,

researches have had some success using implicit methods to examine cognitive processes

underlying working models, however, direct evidence of structure and function does not

exist (Peitromonaco & Barrett, 2000).

As usual, we are left with more questions than answers. Are student-teacher

relational schemas multidimensional? Are student’s relational schemas the best construct

to examine when measuring relationship quality with their teachers? Are relational

schemas enduring individual differences, entirely relationship specific, or some

combination of the two? Might relational schemas be multidimensional when relevant to

an existing relationship and more general with the passage of time following an end to

the relationship? Further research is required to address questions like these and more.

157
 APPENDIX A. ORIGINAL 14 INSTRUMENTS, SUBSCALES, AND ITEMS

Inventory of Parent & Peer Attachment – Revised Version (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987)

Trust (10 items).

1) My __ respects my feelings.

2) I feel my __ does a good job as my __.

3) I wish I had a different __. (reverse score)

4) My __ accepts me as I am.

5) My __ expects too much of me. (reverse score)

6) When we discuss things, my __ cares about my point of view.

7) My __ trusts my judgment.

8) My __ understands me.

9) When I am angry about something, my __ tries to be understanding.

10) I trust my __.

Communication (9 items).

11) I like to get my __’s point of view on things I am concerned about.

12) I feel it is no use letting my feelings show around my __. (reverse score)

13) My __ can tell when I am upset about something.

14) My __ has her own problems, so I don’t bother her with mine. (reverse score)

15) My __ helps me to understand myself better.

16) I tell my __ about my problems and troubles.

17) My __ helps me to talk about my difficulties.

18) I can count on my __ when I need to get something off my chest.

19) If my __ knows something is bothering me, she asks me about it.

158
 Alienation (6 items). (all reverse scored)

20) Talking over my problems with my __ makes me feel ashamed or foolish.

21) I get upset easily around my __.

22) I get upset a lot more than my __ knows about.

23) I feel angry with my __.

24) I don’t get much attention from my __.

25) My __ doesn’t understand what I am going through these days.

Teacher as Social Context (TASC; Belmont, Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1992)

Affection (3 items).

26) My teacher likes me.

27) My teacher really cares about me.

28) My teacher doesn’t seem to enjoy having me in her class. (reverse score)

Attunement (3 items).

29) My teacher knows a lot about me.

30) My teacher knows me well.

31) My teacher just doesn’t understand me. (reverse score)

Dedication of resources (2 items).

32) My teacher spends time with me.

33) My teacher talks with me.

Dependability (6 items).

34) My teacher is always there for me.

35) I can count on my teacher to be there for me.

36) I can rely on my teacher to be there when I need him/her.

159
 37) My teacher is never there for me. (reverse score)

38) I can’t depend on my teacher for important things. (reverse score)

39) I can’t count on my teacher when I need him/her. (reverse score)

Emotional Reliance Questionnaire (Butzel, Ryan, 1997)

No subscales (7 items).

40) If I were feeling alone or depressed, I would be willing to turn to (my) _____.

41) If I were feeling anxious or scared about something, I would be willing to

turn to (my) _____.

42) If I were feeling excited about something happening in my life, I would be

willing to turn to (my) _____.

43) If I were feeling very bad about myself and needed a boost, I would be

willing to turn to (my) _____.

44) If I were feeling overwhelmed, I would be willing to turn to (my) _____.

45) If I were feeling frustrated or angry, I would be willing to turn to (my) _____.

46) If I were feeling proud of my accomplishments, I would be willing to turn to

(my) _____.

Student Classroom Environment Measure (Feldlaufer et al., 1988)

Teacher—unfair/unfriendly (7 items).

47) Students are criticized for turning math work in late or failing to turn in

assignments. (reverse score)

48) The teacher says to some students or the class as a whole that they may get a

bad grade or report card in math. (reverse score)

49) The teacher is warm and supportive.

160
 50) The teacher seems pessimistic about the ability of students to be self-

disciplining and responsible for their own behavior. (reverse score)

51) The teacher seems to expect some students to do shoddy work or make stupid

mistakes in math. (reverse score)

52) The teacher uses sarcasm. (reverse score)

53) The teacher threatens to give more work, math tests, or to lower grades to

control student behavior. (reverse score)

Sense of Relatedness (Furrer & Skinner, 2003)

No subscales (4 items).

54) When I am with my teacher I feel accepted.

55) When I am with my teacher I feel like someone special.

56) When I am with my teacher I feel ignored. (reverse score)

57) When I am with my teacher I feel unimportant. (reverse score)

Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM; Goodenow, 1993)

No subscales (18 items).

58) I feel like a real part of (name of school).

59) People here notice when I'm good at something.

60) Other students in this school take my opinions seriously.

61) Most teachers at (name of school) are interested in me.

62) Sometimes I feel as if I don’t belong here. (reverse score)

63) There’s at least one teacher or other adult in this school I can talk to if I have

a problem.

64) People at this school are friendly to me.

161
 65) Teachers here are not interested in people like me. (reverse score)

66) I am included in lots of activities at (name of school).

67) I am treated with as much respect as other students.

68) I feel very different from most other students here. (reverse score)

69) I can really be myself at this school.

70) The teachers here respect me.

71) People here know I can do good work.

72) I wish I were in a different school. (reverse score)

73) I feel proud of belonging to (name of school).

74) Other students here like me the way I am.

75) It is hard for people like me to be accepted here. (reverse score)

Classroom Life Measure (Johnson et al., 1985)

Teacher social support (4 items).

76) My teacher really cares about me.

77) My teacher thinks it is important to be my friend.

78) My teacher likes me as much as other students.

79) My teacher cares about my feelings.

Teacher academic support (4 items).

80) My teacher cares about how much I learn.

81) My teacher likes to see my work.

82) My teacher likes to help me learn.

83) My teacher wants me to do my best in schoolwork.

Basic Need Satisfaction in Relationships (LaGuardia, Ryan, Cochman, Deci, 2000)

162
 Relatedness (3 items).

84) When I am with XXXXX, I feel loved and cared about.

85) When I am with XXXXX, I often feel a lot of distance in our relationship.

(reverse score)

86) When I am with XXXXX, I feel a lot of closeness and intimacy.

Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support (Y-CATS; Mantzicopoulos & Neuharth-

Pritchett, 2003)

Warmth (11 items).

87) My teacher likes my family.

88) My teacher likes me.

89) My teacher is my friend.

90) My teacher says nice things about my work.

91) My teacher helps me when I don’t understand.

92) My teacher makes the class fun.

93) My teacher answers my question.

94) My teacher tells good stories.

95) My teacher remembers special days for me.

96) My teacher chooses me to be a special helper.

97) My teacher smiles a lot.

Autonomy (6 items).

98) My teacher lets me choose work that I want to do.

99) My teacher lets me choose where I want to sit.

100) My teacher lets me do activities I want to do.

163
 101) My teacher lets me do different activities in class.

102) My teacher does activities with me.

103) My teacher tells me I am smart.

Conflict (10 items). (all reverse scored)

104) My teacher tells me I am going to get in trouble a lot.

105) My teacher tells me to do work that is too hard for me.

106) My teacher gets angry with me.

107) My teacher tells me that I am doing something wrong a lot.

108) My teacher tells me that I don’t try hard enough.

109) My teacher tells me to stop doing work I like doing.

110) My teacher tells me to do work I don’t want to do.

111) My teacher tells me I do not listen.

112) My teacher is mean.

113) My teacher has too many rules for our class.

Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991)

No subscales (18 items).

114) This student trusts me.

115) It is easy to be in tune with what this student is feeling.

116) This child seems wary of me. (reverse score)

117) This child challenges my efforts to reach him/her.

118) This child seeks help, recognition, and support from me.

119) I am able to console this child.

120) This child avoids contact with me. (reverse score)

164
 121) This child constantly needs reassurance from me.

122) This child sees me as a source of punishment and criticism. (reverse score)

123) This child responds to my efforts to teach.

124) This child seems secure with me.

125) I share an affectionate, warm relationship with the student.

126) If upset, the child will seek comfort from me.

127) This child overreacts to separation from me.

128) My relationship with this child has become more positive during the school

year.

129) My relationship with this child has become more negative during the school

year. (reverse score)

Need for Relatedness Scale (NRS-10; Richer & Vallerand, 1998)

Acceptance (5 items).

130) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel supported.

131) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel understood.

132) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel listened to.

133) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel valued.

134) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel safe.

Intimacy (5 items).

135) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel close to them.

136) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel attached to them.

137) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel bonded to them.

138) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel close-knit.

165
 139) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel as a friend.

Relatedness (Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994)

School utilization (3 items).

140) If I had a problem with my school work I would share it with my teacher.

141) If I were having trouble understanding a subject at school, I would talk it

over with my teacher.

142) I can usually rely on my teacher when I have problems at my school.

Emulation (4 items).

143) I try to model myself after my teachers.

144) I would feel good if someone said I was a lot like my teacher.

145) I would like to be more like my teacher.

146) When I am an adult, I’ll probably be a lot like my teacher.

Developmental Studies Center Student Questionnaire (DSC, 2002)

Classroom supportiveness (10 Items).

147) When someone in my class does well, everyone in the class feels good.

148) My class is like a family.

149) Students in my class are mean to each other. (reverse score)

150) Students in my class just look out for themselves. (reverse score)

151) When I’m having trouble with my schoolwork, at least one of my classmates

will try to help.

152) Students in my class work together to solve problems.

153) The students in my class don’t really care about each other.

154) Students in my class treat each other with respect.

166
 155) Students in my class help each other, even if they are not friends.

156) Students in my class help each other learn.

Meaningful participation (10 items).

157) In my class the teacher and students decide together what the rules will be.

158) In my class I get to do things that I want to do.

159) Students in my class can get a rule changed if they think it is unfair.

160) In my class students have a say in deciding what goes on.

161) In my class the students get to help plan what they will do.

162) The teacher lets us do things our own way.

163) In my class the teacher is the only one who decides on the rules. (reverse

score)

164) In my class the teacher and students together plan what we will do.

165) The teacher in my class asks the students to help decide what the class

should do.

166) The teacher lets me choose what I will work on.

Research Assessment Package for Schools (IRRE, 1998)

Teacher emotional security (4 items).

167) When I’m with my teacher, I feel good.

168) When I’m with my teacher, I feel mad. (reverse score)

169) When I’m with my teacher, I feel unhappy. (reverse score)

170) When I’m with my teacher, I feel happy.

167
 APPENDIX B. REVISED 14 INSTRUMENTS, SUBSCALES, AND ITEMS

Inventory of Parent & Peer Attachment – Revised Version (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987)

Trust (10 items).

1) This teacher respected my feelings.

2) I feel this teacher did a good job as my teacher.

3) I wish I had a different teacher. (reverse score)

4) This teacher accepted me as I was.

5) This teacher expected too much of me. (reverse score)

6) When we discussed things, this teacher cared about my point of view.

7) This teacher trusted my judgment.

8) This teacher understood me.

9) When I was angry about something, this teacher tried to be understanding.

10) I trusted this teacher.

Communication (9 items).

11) I liked to get this teacher’s point of view on things I was concerned about.

12) I felt it was no use letting my feelings show around this teacher. (reverse

score)

13) This teacher could tell when I was upset about something.

14) This teacher had his/her own problems, so I didn’t bother him/her with mine.

(reverse score)

15) This teacher helped me to understand myself better.

16) I told this teacher about my problems and troubles.

17) This teacher helped me to talk about my difficulties.

168
 18) I could count on this teacher when I needed to get something off my chest.

19) If this teacher knew something was bothering me, he/she asked me about it.

Alienation (6 items). (all reverse scored)

20) Talking over my problems with this teacher made me feel ashamed or foolish.

21) I got upset easily around this teacher.

22) I get upset a lot more than this teacher knew about.

23) I felt angry with this teacher.

24) I didn’t get much attention from this teacher.

25) This teacher didn’t understand what I was going through in those days.

Teacher as Social Context (TASC; Belmont, Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1992)

Affection (3 items).

26) This teacher liked me.

27) This teacher really cared about me.

28) This teacher didn’t seem to enjoy having me in his/her class. (reverse score)

Attunement (3 items).

29) This teacher knew a lot about me.

30) This teacher knew me well.

31) This teacher didn’t understand me. (reverse score)

Dedication of resources (2 items).

32) This teacher spent time with me.

33) This teacher talked with me.

Dependability (6 items).

34) This teacher was always there for me.

169
 35) I could count on this teacher to be there for me.

36) I could rely on this teacher to be there when I needed him/her.

37) This teacher was never there for me. (reverse score)

38) I couldn’t depend on this teacher for important things. (reverse score)

39) I couldn’t count on this teacher when I needed him/her. (reverse score)

Emotional Reliance Questionnaire (Butzel, Ryan, 1997)

No subscales (7 items).

40) If I were feeling alone or depressed, I would have been willing to turn to this

teacher.

41) If I were feeling anxious or scared about something, I would have been

willing to turn to this teacher.

42) If I were feeling excited about something happening in my life, I would have

been willing to turn to this teacher.

43) If I were feeling very bad about myself and needed a boost, I would have

been willing to turn to this teacher.

44) If I were feeling overwhelmed, I would have been willing to turn to this

teacher.

45) If I were feeling frustrated or angry, I would have been willing to turn to this

teacher.

46) If I were feeling proud of my accomplishments, I would have been willing to

turn to this teacher.

Student Classroom Environment Measure (Feldlaufer et al., 1988)

Teacher—unfair/unfriendly (7 items).

170
 47) This teacher criticized me for turning work in late or failing to turn in

assignments. (reverse score)

48) This teacher told me publicly that I might get a bad grade in that subject.

(reverse score)

49) This teacher was warm and supportive.

50) This teacher seemed pessimistic about my ability to be self-disciplining and

responsible for my own behavior. (reverse score)

51) This teacher seemed to expect me to do shoddy work or make stupid mistakes.

(reverse score)

52) This teacher used sarcasm. (reverse score)

53) This teacher threatened to give me more work, tests, or to lower my grade to

control my behavior. (reverse score)

Sense of Relatedness (Furrer & Skinner, 2003)

No subscales (4 items).

54) When I was with this teacher I felt accepted.

55) When I was with this teacher I felt like someone special.

56) When I was with this teacher I felt ignored. (reverse score)

57) When I was with this teacher I felt unimportant. (reverse score)

Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM; Goodenow, 1993)

No subscales (18 items).

58) I felt like a real part of this teacher’s class.

59) This teacher noticed when I was good at something.

60) This teacher took my opinions seriously.

171
 61) This teacher was interested in me.

62) Sometimes I felt as if I didn’t belong in this teacher’s class. (reverse score)

63) I could talk to this teacher if I had a problem.

64) This teacher was friendly to me.

65) This teacher was not interested in people like me. (reverse score)

66) This teacher made sure I was included in lots of activities in class.

67) I was treated with respect by this teacher.

68) I felt very different from this teacher. (reverse score)

69) I could really be myself around this teacher.

70) This teacher respected me.

71) This teacher knew I could do good work.

72) I wished I was in a different teacher’s class. (reverse score)

73) I feel proud of knowing this teacher.

74) This teacher liked me the way I was.

75) It was hard for people like me to be accepted by this teacher. (reverse score)

Classroom Life Measure (Johnson et al., 1985)

Teacher social support (4 items).

76) This teacher really cared about me.

77) This teacher thought it was important to be my friend.

78) This teacher liked me as much as other students.

79) This teacher cared about my feelings.

Teacher academic support (4 items).

80) This teacher cared about how much I learned.

172
 81) This teacher liked to see my work.

82) This teacher liked to help me learn.

83) This teacher wanted me to do my best in schoolwork.

Basic Need Satisfaction in Relationships (LaGuardia, Ryan, Cochman, Deci, 2000)

Relatedness (3 items).

84) When I was with this teacher, I felt loved and cared about.

85) When I was with this teacher, I often felt a lot of distance in our relationship.

(reverse score)

86) When I was with this teacher, I felt a lot of closeness and intimacy.

Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support (Y-CATS; Mantzicopoulos & Neuharth-

Pritchett, 2003)

Warmth (11 items).

87) This teacher liked my family.

88) This teacher liked me.

89) This teacher was my friend.

90) This teacher said nice things about my work.

91) This teacher helped me when I didn’t understand.

92) This teacher made the class fun.

93) This teacher answered my questions.

94) This teacher told good stories.

95) This teacher remembered special days for me.

96) This teacher choose me to be a special helper.

97) This teacher smiled a lot.

173
 Autonomy (6 items).

98) This teacher let me choose work that I wanted to do.

99) This teacher let me choose where I wanted to sit.

100) This teacher let me do activities I wanted to do.

101) This teacher let me do different activities in class.

102) This teacher did activities with me.

103) This teacher told me I was smart.

Conflict (10 items). (all reverse scored)

104) This teacher told me I was going to get in trouble a lot.

105) This teacher told me to do work that was too hard for me.

106) This teacher got angry with me.

107) This teacher told me that I was doing something wrong a lot.

108) This teacher told me that I didn’t try hard enough.

109) This teacher told me to stop doing work I liked doing.

110) This teacher told me to do work I didn’t want to do.

111) This teacher told me I did not listen.

112) This teacher was mean.

113) This teacher had too many rules for our class.

Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991)

No subscales (18 items).

114) I trusted this teacher.

115) This teacher was in tune with what I was feeling.

116) I was wary of this teacher. (reverse score)

174
 117) I allowed this teacher to connect/relate with me.

118) I tried to get help, recognition, and support from this teacher.

119) This teacher was able to comfort me or cheer me up.

120) I avoided contact with this teacher. (reverse score)

121) I tried to get support and encouragement from this teacher.

122) I saw this teacher as a source of punishment and criticism. (reverse score)

123) I participated deeply in this teacher’s class.

124) I felt safe and secure with this teacher.

125) This teacher shared an affectionate, warm relationship with me.

126) If upset, I would seek comfort from this teacher.

127) I felt upset when separated from this teacher.

128) My relationship with this teacher became more positive throughout the

school year.

129) My relationship with this teacher became more negative throughout the

school year. (reverse score)

Need for Relatedness Scale (NRS-10; Richer & Vallerand, 1998)

Acceptance (5 items).

130) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt supported.

131) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt understood.

132) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt listened to.

133) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt valued.

134) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt safe.

Intimacy (5 items).

175
 135) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close to them.

136) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt attached to them.

137) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt bonded to them.

138) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close-knit.

139) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt like a friend.

Relatedness (Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994)

School utilization (3 items).

140) If I had a problem with my school work I would share it with this teacher.

141) If I were having trouble understanding a subject at school, I would talk it

over with this teacher.

142) I could usually rely on this teacher when I had problems at my school.

Emulation (4 items).

143) I tried to model myself after this teacher.

144) I would feel good if someone said I was a lot like this teacher.

145) I wanted to be like this teacher.

146) As I get older, I’ll probably be a lot like this teacher.

Developmental Studies Center Student Questionnaire (DSC, 2002)

Classroom supportiveness (10 Items).

147) When I did well, this teacher made me feel good.

148) This teacher’s was like family to me.

149) This teacher was mean to me. (reverse score)

150) This teacher just looked out for his/herself. (reverse score)

151) When I had trouble with my schoolwork, this teacher tried to help.

176
 152) This teacher worked with me to solve problems.

153) This teacher cared about me.

154) This teacher treated me with respect.

155) This teacher helped me, even if he/she was busy.

156) This teacher helped me learn.

Meaningful participation (10 items).

157) This teacher let me help decide what the rules were going to be.

158) This teacher let me do things that I wanted to do.

159) This teacher let me get a rule changed if I thought it was unfair.

160) This teacher let me have a say in deciding what went on in class.

161) This teacher let me help plan what we would do in class.

162) This teacher let me do things my own way.

163) In this class the teacher was the only one who decided on the rules. (reverse

score)

164) This teacher included me when planning what we did in class.

165) This teacher asked me to help decide what the class should do.

166) This teacher let me choose what I would work on.

Research Assessment Package for Schools (IRRE, 1998)

Teacher emotional security (4 items).

167) When I was with this teacher, I felt good.

168) When I was with this teacher, I felt mad. (reverse score)

169) When I was with this teacher, I felt unhappy. (reverse score)

170) When I was with this teacher, I felt happy.

177
 APPENDIX C. C-STRI ITEMS GROUPED BY PROPOSED MODEL FACTORS

Predictor: Academic Support

2) I feel this teacher did a good job as my teacher.

5) This teacher expected too much of me. (reverse score)

59) This teacher noticed when I was good at something.

66) This teacher made sure I was included in lots of activities in class.

71) This teacher knew I could do good work.

90) This teacher said nice things about my work.

91) This teacher helped me when I didn’t understand.

93) This teacher answered my questions.

94) This teacher told good stories.

102) This teacher did activities with me.

103) This teacher told me I was smart.

105) This teacher told me to do work that was too hard for me. (reverse score)

147) When I did well, this teacher made me feel good.

151) When I had trouble with my schoolwork, this teacher tried to help.

152) This teacher worked with me to solve problems.

156) This teacher helped me learn.

Predictor: Punishment (all reverse scored)

47) This teacher criticized me for turning work in late or failing to turn in

assignments.

48) This teacher told me publicly that I might get a bad grade in that subject.

178
 50) This teacher was pessimistic about my ability to be self-disciplining and

responsible for my own behavior.

51) This teacher seemed to expect me to do shoddy work or make stupid mistakes.

52) This teacher used sarcasm.

53) This teacher threatened to give me more work, tests, or to lower my grade to

control my behavior.

104) This teacher told me I was going to get in trouble a lot.

106) This teacher got angry with me.

107) This teacher told me that I was doing something wrong a lot.

108) This teacher told me that I didn’t try hard enough.

111) This teacher told me I did not listen.

112) This teacher was mean.

120) I avoided contact with this teacher.

122) I saw this teacher as a source of punishment and criticism.

149) This teacher was mean to me.

Predictor: Involvement

7) This teacher trusted my judgment.

24) I didn’t get much attention from this teacher. (reverse score)

32) This teacher spent time with me.

33) This teacher talked with me.

34) This teacher was always there for me.

35) I could count on this teacher to be there for me.

36) I could rely on this teacher to be there when I needed him/her.

179
 37) This teacher was never there for me. (reverse score)

38) I couldn’t depend on this teacher for important things. (reverse score)

39) I couldn’t count on this teacher when I needed him/her. (reverse score)

56) When I was with this teacher I felt ignored. (reverse score)

60) This teacher took my opinions seriously.

67) I was treated with respect by this teacher.

95) This teacher remembered special days for me.

96) This teacher chose me to be a special helper.

97) This teacher smiled a lot.

128) My relationship with this teacher became more positive throughout the

school year.

129) My relationship with this teacher became more negative throughout the

school year. (reverse score)

150) This teacher just looked out for his/herself. (reverse score)

154) This teacher treated me with respect.

Predictor: Autonomy Support

98) This teacher let me choose work that I wanted to do.

99) This teacher let me choose where I wanted to sit.

100) This teacher let me do activities I wanted to do.

101) This teacher let me do different activities in class.

109) This teacher told me to stop doing work I liked doing. (reverse score)

110) This teacher told me to do work I didn’t want to do. (reverse score)

113) This teacher had too many rules for our class. (reverse score)

180
 157) This teacher let me help decide what the rules were going to be.

158) This teacher let me do things that I wanted to do.

159) This teacher let me get a rule changed if I thought it was unfair.

160) This teacher let me have a say in deciding what went on in class.

161) This teacher let me help plan what we would do in class.

162) This teacher let me do things my own way.

163) In this class the teacher was the only one who decided on the rules. (reverse

score)

164) This teacher included me when planning what we did in class.

165) This teacher asked me to help decide what the class should do.

166) This teacher let me choose what I would work on.

Caring (Perceptions of Teacher)

1) This teacher respected my feelings.

4) This teacher accepted me as I was.

6) When we discussed things, this teacher cared about my point of view.

26) This teacher liked me.

27) This teacher really cared about me.

28) This teacher didn’t seem to enjoy having me in his/her class. (reverse score)

49) This teacher was warm and supportive.

61) This teacher was interested in me.

64) This teacher was friendly to me.

65) This teacher was not interested in people like me. (reverse score)

70) This teacher respected me.

181
 74) This teacher liked me the way I was.

75) It was hard for people like me to be accepted by this teacher. (reverse score)

76) This teacher really cared about me.

77) This teacher thought it was important to be my friend.

78) This teacher liked me as much as other students.

79) This teacher cared about my feelings.

80) This teacher cared about how much I learned.

81) This teacher liked to see my work.

82) This teacher liked to help me learn.

83) This teacher wanted me to do my best in schoolwork.

84) When I was with this teacher, I felt loved and cared about.

87) This teacher liked my family.

88) This teacher liked me.

89) This teacher was my friend.

125) This teacher shared an affectionate, warm relationship with me.

148) This teacher’s was like family to me.

153) This teacher cared about me.

Awareness/Understanding (Perceptions of Teacher)

8) This teacher understood me.

13) This teacher could tell when I was upset about something.

15) This teacher helped me to understand myself better.

22) I get upset a lot more than this teacher knew about. (reverse score)

182
 25) This teacher didn’t understand what I was going through in those days.

(reverse score)

29) This teacher knew a lot about me.

30) This teacher knew me well.

31) This teacher didn’t understand me. (reverse score)

115) This teacher was in tune with what I was feeling.

Closeness (Perceptions of Self)

10) I trusted this teacher.

54) When I was with this teacher I felt accepted.

55) When I was with this teacher I felt like someone special.

57) When I was with this teacher I felt unimportant. (reverse score)

68) I felt very different from this teacher. (reverse score)

69) I could really be myself around this teacher.

85) When I was with this teacher, I often felt a lot of distance in our relationship.

(reverse score)

86) When I was with this teacher, I felt a lot of closeness and intimacy.

114) I trusted this teacher.

116) I was wary of this teacher. (reverse score)

124) I felt safe and secure with this teacher.

130) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt supported.

131) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt understood.

132) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt listened to.

133) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt valued.

183
 134) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt safe.

135) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close to them.

136) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt attached to them.

137) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt bonded to them.

138) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close-knit.

139) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt like a friend.

Affective Experience (Perceptions of Self)

21) I got upset easily around this teacher. (reverse score)

23) I felt angry with this teacher. (reverse score)

127) I felt upset when separated from this teacher.

167) When I was with this teacher, I felt good.

168) When I was with this teacher, I felt mad. (reverse score)

169) When I was with this teacher, I felt unhappy. (reverse score)

170) When I was with this teacher, I felt happy.

Social Support Seeking (Interpersonal Scripts)

9) When I was angry about something, this teacher tried to be understanding.

14) This teacher had his/her own problems, so I didn’t bother him/her with mine.

(reverse score)

16) I told this teacher about my problems and troubles.

17) This teacher helped me to talk about my difficulties.

18) I could count on this teacher when I needed to get something off my chest.

19) If this teacher knew something was bothering me, he/she asked me about it.

184
 20) Talking over my problems with this teacher made me feel ashamed or foolish.

(reverse score)

63) I could talk to this teacher if I had a problem.

119) This teacher was able to comfort me or cheer me up.

142) I could usually rely on this teacher when I had problems at my school.

155) This teacher helped me, even if he/she was busy.

Emotional Reliance (Interpersonal Scripts)

12) I felt it was no use letting my feelings show around this teacher. (reverse

score)

40) If I were feeling alone or depressed, I would have been willing to turn to this

teacher.

41) If I were feeling anxious or scared about something, I would have been

willing to turn to this teacher.

42) If I were feeling excited about something happening in my life, I would have

been willing to turn to this teacher.

43) If I were feeling very bad about myself and needed a boost, I would have

been willing to turn to this teacher.

44) If I were feeling overwhelmed, I would have been willing to turn to this

teacher.

45) If I were feeling frustrated or angry, I would have been willing to turn to this

teacher.

46) If I were feeling proud of my accomplishments, I would have been willing to

turn to this teacher.

185
 117) I allowed this teacher to connect/relate with me.

126) If upset, I would seek comfort from this teacher.

Outcome: Internalization

73) I feel proud of knowing this teacher.

143) I tried to model myself after this teacher.

144) I would feel good if someone said I was a lot like this teacher.

145) I wanted to be like this teacher.

146) As I get older, I’ll probably be a lot like this teacher.

*171) I believe learning the content of this teacher’s class is important.

*172) I felt that completing the assignments in this class was beneficial to me.

*173) I believe the content of this teacher’s class is valuable to understand.

*174) Because of this teacher, I believe more in the purpose of learning the

content of the class.

Outcome: Engagement

3) I wish I had a different teacher. (reverse score)

11) I liked to get this teacher’s point of view on things I was concerned about.

58) I felt like a real part of this teacher’s class.

62) Sometimes I felt as if I didn’t belong in this teacher’s class. (reverse score)

72) I wished I was in a different teacher’s class. (reverse score)

92) This teacher made the class fun.

118) I tried to get help, recognition, and support from this teacher.

121) I tried to get support and encouragement from this teacher.

123) I participated deeply in this teacher’s class.

186
 140) If I had a problem with my school work I would share it with this teacher.

141) If I were having trouble understanding a subject at school, I would talk it

over with this teacher.

*175) I tried hard to do well in this teacher’s class.

*176) I paid attention when in this teacher’s class.

*177) I felt interested when in this teacher’s class.

*178) I enjoyed learning in this teacher’s class.

*179) I felt engaged by the content when in this teacher’s class.

Outcome: Academic Achievement

*180) What grade did you receive in this teacher’s class?

* Indicates items that are not from the original 14 scales. They have been added to

strengthen outcome factors and improve assessment of predictive validity.

187
 APPENDIX D. TEXT FOR INVITATION PARTICIPATE EMAIL

Dear _(insert name of course or University)_ Student:

Please use the link below to participate in a simple, yet important study to improve the
measurement of student-teacher relationships in educational psychology research.
As a participant you will get a chance to win $50 and you will be helping me finish
my doctoral degree. If you have already completed the survey, thank you! You do not
need to do it again.
Participation in the study involves reading an informed consent page and completing a
questionnaire about your experiences with a teacher that you had in high school. This
typically takes participants 20 minutes so make sure you have sufficient time when you
begin.
http://nmu.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_eg0gTn8voHzlnOR
If the link is not working, try copying and pasting it directly into the address bar of
your internet browser.
Thank you!
Jon Barch
jbarch@nmu.edu
Associate Director of the Center for Student Enrichment, Northern Michigan University
and
Educational Psychology Doctoral Student, University of Iowa

188
APPENDIX E. ELECTRONIC INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT

189
APPENDIX F. INITIAL DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS

190
APPENDIX G. END OF SURVEY THANK YOU NOTE

191
APPENDIX H. C-STRI STATEMENTS FOR COUSE SUBJECT ASSIGNMENT

192
193
 APPENDIX I. SAMPLE OF C-STRI QUESTIONS FORMATTED AS A

PARTICIPANT WOULD HAVE SEEN

*The first 3 items shown above were always delivered first; the remaining 179 items, 4 of
which are shown above, were delivered in an order randomized for each participant. See
Appendix C for a full list of the C-STRI Items.

194
APPENDIX J. PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3-FACTOR

EXTRACTION AND ALL C-STRI ITEMS INCLUDED

Component
Identified for
Item Code Deletion 1 2 3
A1_IPPA_T .665 .500 .209
A2_IPPA_T .668 .513 .112
A3_IPPA_T .673 .514 .145
A4_IPPA_T .687 .497 .174
A5_IPPA_T X .555 .114 .053
A6_IPPA_T X .596 .511 .255
A7_IPPA_T X .575 .521 .260
A8_IPPA_T .507 .685 .205
A9_IPPA_T .490 .600 .247
A10_IPPA_T .647 .568 .133
A11_IPPA_C .309 .673 .270
A12_IPPA_C X .462 .548 .156
A13_IPPA_C .264 .706 .146
A14_IPPA_C X .345 .329 .058
A15_IPPA_C .313 .678 .225
A16_IPPA_C .018 .707 .236
A17_IPPA_C .241 .680 .259
A18_IPPA_C .288 .767 .244
A19_IPPA_C .320 .700 .199
A20_IPPA_A .629 .263 .083
A21_IPPA_A .710 .288 .092
A22_IPPA_A X .336 .323 .108
A23_IPPA_A .769 .332 .102
A24_IPPA_A X .465 .572 .171
A25_IPPA_A X .480 .473 .160
A26_Inv_Aff .681 .450 .192
A27_Inv_Aff .545 .654 .191
A28_Inv_Aff .746 .342 .153
A29_Inv_Att .254 .710 .198
A30_Inv_Att .318 .749 .183
A31_Inv_Att .612 .539 .133
A32_Inv_DR .344 .642 .260
A33_Inv_DR X .538 .534 .197
A34_Inv_Dep .535 .673 .110
A35_Inv_Dep .503 .677 .197
A36_Inv_Dep .513 .667 .139

195
A37_Inv_Dep .675 .498 .154

A38_Inv_Dep X .504 .400 .094

A39_Inv_Dep X .426 .329 .117
A40_ERQ .326 .734 .158
A41_ERQ .399 .726 .179
A42_ERQ .434 .720 .200
A43_ERQ .365 .754 .202
A44_ERQ .432 .683 .187
A45_ERQ .348 .700 .207
A46_ERQ .451 .689 .184
A47_Friend X .421 -.052 .200
A48_Friend .768 .157 .146
A49_Friend .615 .548 .229
A50_Friend .667 .127 .132
A51_Friend .728 .165 .110
A52_Friend X .122 -.158 -.095
A53_Friend .603 -.001 .053
A54_Rel .653 .580 .185
A55_Rel .400 .688 .253
A56_Rel .709 .449 .130
A57_Rel .725 .447 .154
A58_PSSM .624 .558 .184
A59_PSSM X .537 .552 .215
A60_PSSM .601 .542 .240
A61_PSSM X .485 .586 .229
A62_PSSM X .582 .399 .125
A63_PSSM .469 .674 .196
A64_PSSM .721 .389 .204
A65_PSSM .673 .405 .128
A66_PSSM X .475 .488 .284
A67_PSSM .766 .391 .139
A68_PSSM X .445 .496 .096
A69_PSSM X .558 .574 .169
A70_PSSM .722 .445 .166
A71_PSSM X .568 .374 .092
A72_PSSM .677 .488 .126
A73_PSSM .545 .645 .137
A74_PSSM .669 .512 .193
A75_PSSM .720 .277 .115
A76_CLM_SS .569 .634 .208

196
A77_CLM_SS .180 .607 .366
A78_CLM_SS .656 .365 .145
A79_CLM_SS .566 .620 .207
A80_CLM_AS .648 .469 .127
A81_CLM_AS X .576 .468 .187
A82_CLM_AS .681 .475 .146
A83_CLM_AS .667 .354 .099
A84_BNS_Rel .448 .708 .215
A85_BNS_Rel X .535 .512 .106
A86_BNS_Rel .124 .609 .365
A87_YCATS_W X .357 .494 .194
A88_YCATS_W .688 .453 .174
A89_YCATS_W .334 .724 .302
A90_YCATS_W .627 .451 .280
A91_YCATS_W .689 .446 .128
A92_YCATS_W X .552 .560 .258
A93_YCATS_W .707 .376 .074
A94_YCATS_W X .461 .482 .253
A95_YCATS_W .117 .664 .339
A96_YCATS_W X .078 .429 .450
A97_YCATS_W X .503 .447 .218
A98_YCAT_A .152 .256 .733
A99_YCAT_A X .232 .140 .416
A100_YCAT_A .269 .323 .671
A101_YCAT_A .184 .182 .622
A102_YCAT_A X .299 .473 .372
A103_YCAT_A X .480 .470 .220
A104_YCAT_C .704 .042 .088
A105_YCAT_C X .395 .018 .104
A106_YCAT_C .731 .128 .138
A107_YCAT_C .728 .119 .133
A108_YCAT_C .684 .118 .135
A109_YCAT_C .624 .141 .092
A110_YCAT_C X .279 .113 .150
A111_YCAT_C .647 .046 .089
A112_YCAT_C .770 .275 .147
A113_YCAT_C X .584 .175 .152
A114_STRS .633 .564 .127
A115_STRS .348 .725 .246
A116_STRS .690 .374 .092
A117_STRS .281 .692 .277

197
A118_STRS X .055 .539 .066
A119_STRS .419 .719 .249
A120_STRS .675 .474 .139
A121_STRS .083 .643 .100
A122_STRS .780 .228 .121
A123_STRS X .320 .470 .183
A124_STRS .617 .520 .164
A125_STRS .301 .630 .307
A126_STRS .225 .769 .222
A127_STRS X -.052 .449 .319
A128_STRS X .555 .587 .132
A129_STRS .753 .344 .079
A130_NRS_A .620 .618 .187
A131_NRS_A .567 .649 .209
A132_NRS_A .609 .606 .214
A133_NRS_A .594 .622 .200
A134_NRS_A X .556 .470 .170
A135_NRS_I .313 .792 .253
A136_NRS_I .188 .682 .281
A137_NRS_I .330 .751 .222
A138_NRS_I .318 .783 .216
A139_NRS_I .295 .698 .322
A140_Sch_Ut X .381 .590 .158
A141_Sch_Ut .303 .627 .211
A142_Sch_Ut .389 .734 .200
A143_Emul .346 .678 .196
A144_Emul .477 .660 .175
A145_Emul .388 .689 .210
A146_Emul .361 .673 .154
A147_ClsSup X .588 .533 .208
A148_ClsSup .135 .775 .219
A149_ClsSup .821 .237 .108
A150_ClsSup .686 .333 .087
A151_ClsSup X .584 .499 .124
A152_ClsSup X .545 .560 .117
A153_ClsSup .628 .569 .199
A154_ClsSup .754 .417 .162
A155_ClsSup X .595 .524 .178
A156_ClsSup .670 .460 .116
A157_MePart .054 .202 .721
A158_MePart .285 .295 .643

198
A159_MePart .185 .282 .614
A160_MePart .147 .253 .751
A161_MePart .042 .337 .699
A162_MePart .301 .294 .601
A163_MePart .168 .107 .611
A164_MePart .064 .260 .651
A165_MePart .074 .305 .690
A166_MePart .172 .276 .705
A167_RAPS_E .537 .645 .216
A168_RAPS_E .778 .326 .082
A169_RAPS_E .733 .432 .147
A170_RAPS_E .543 .639 .214

199
APPENDIX K. PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3-FACTOR

EXTRACTION AFTER FIRST ROUND OF C-STRI ITEM DELETION

Component
Identified for
Item Code Deletion 1 2 3
A1_IPPA_T X .676 .491 .211
A2_IPPA_T X .676 .502 .121
A3_IPPA_T X .676 .510 .150
A4_IPPA_T .696 .490 .173
A8_IPPA_T X .515 .678 .205
A9_IPPA_T X .497 .594 .246
A10_IPPA_T X .657 .558 .137
A11_IPPA_C .316 .670 .274
A13_IPPA_C .272 .700 .144
A15_IPPA_C .312 .683 .222
A16_IPPA_C .025 .713 .228
A17_IPPA_C .252 .678 .255
A18_IPPA_C .289 .774 .243
A19_IPPA_C .324 .700 .194
A20_IPPA_A .628 .262 .087
A21_IPPA_A .711 .284 .105
A23_IPPA_A .773 .327 .111
A26_Inv_Aff .690 .440 .190
A27_Inv_Aff X .554 .648 .190
A28_Inv_Aff .751 .329 .161
A29_Inv_Att .261 .712 .189
A30_Inv_Att .324 .749 .174
A31_Inv_Att X .611 .533 .142
A32_Inv_DR .351 .631 .262
A34_Inv_Dep X .543 .665 .115
A35_Inv_Dep X .509 .675 .194
A36_Inv_Dep X .516 .663 .141
A37_Inv_Dep .679 .487 .163
A40_ERQ .325 .742 .160
A41_ERQ .401 .729 .180
A42_ERQ .435 .722 .198
A43_ERQ .364 .760 .203
A44_ERQ .434 .680 .195
A45_ERQ .349 .705 .208
A46_ERQ .455 .684 .184

200
A48_Friend .770 .153 .144
A49_Friend X .622 .543 .231
A50_Friend .666 .125 .128
A51_Friend .730 .154 .115
A53_Friend .609 -.006 .048
A54_Rel X .661 .573 .187
A55_Rel .406 .688 .246
A56_Rel .710 .439 .141
A57_Rel .726 .440 .161
A58_PSSM X .627 .548 .185
A60_PSSM X .606 .535 .240
A63_PSSM .474 .671 .200
A64_PSSM .732 .377 .206
A65_PSSM .672 .398 .135
A67_PSSM .778 .379 .145
A70_PSSM .734 .433 .171
A72_PSSM .680 .482 .137
A73_PSSM X .555 .639 .134
A74_PSSM X .678 .505 .193
A75_PSSM .723 .268 .125
A76_CLM_SS X .578 .628 .204
A77_CLM_SS .188 .609 .355
A78_CLM_SS .663 .355 .150
A79_CLM_SS X .576 .611 .209
A80_CLM_AS .657 .452 .133
A82_CLM_AS .688 .459 .156
A83_CLM_AS .681 .332 .108
A84_BNS_Rel .457 .704 .211
A86_BNS_Rel .130 .614 .354
A88_YCATS_W .698 .441 .177
A89_YCATS_W .339 .725 .298
A90_YCATS_W X .628 .442 .276
A91_YCATS_W .698 .428 .133
A93_YCATS_W .716 .356 .087
A95_YCATS_W .123 .668 .330
A98_YCAT_A .146 .263 .736
A100_YCAT_A .264 .326 .677
A101_YCAT_A .180 .180 .631
A104_YCAT_C .705 .035 .089
A106_YCAT_C .738 .123 .139
A107_YCAT_C .723 .123 .127

201
A108_YCAT_C .680 .121 .121
A109_YCAT_C .623 .134 .098
A111_YCAT_C .648 .043 .079
A112_YCAT_C .774 .270 .151
A114_STRS X .643 .554 .133
A115_STRS .353 .723 .245
A116_STRS .693 .371 .095
A117_STRS .285 .691 .279
A119_STRS .426 .720 .244
A120_STRS .678 .466 .145
A121_STRS .091 .639 .094
A122_STRS .787 .223 .122
A124_STRS X .620 .511 .169
A125_STRS .304 .638 .294
A126_STRS .231 .776 .213
A129_STRS .758 .336 .091
A130_NRS_A X .627 .611 .187
A131_NRS_A X .575 .641 .211
A132_NRS_A X .616 .595 .220
A133_NRS_A X .604 .615 .196
A135_NRS_I .320 .793 .245
A136_NRS_I .197 .689 .264
A137_NRS_I .330 .759 .211
A138_NRS_I .324 .786 .205
A139_NRS_I .299 .706 .311
A141_Sch_Ut .312 .619 .210
A142_Sch_Ut .392 .735 .197
A143_Emul .355 .678 .190
A144_Emul X .482 .660 .175
A145_Emul .397 .687 .209
A146_Emul .366 .676 .151
A148_ClsSup .144 .782 .207
A149_ClsSup .830 .229 .115
A150_ClsSup .688 .321 .094
A153_ClsSup X .640 .561 .194
A154_ClsSup .765 .405 .168
A156_ClsSup .676 .445 .125
A157_MePart .051 .203 .728
A158_MePart .282 .299 .647
A159_MePart .187 .280 .613
A160_MePart .143 .255 .757

202
A161_MePart .042 .340 .701
A162_MePart .295 .302 .601
A163_MePart .161 .111 .617
A164_MePart .064 .255 .665
A165_MePart .074 .301 .697
A166_MePart .168 .279 .714
A167_RAPS_E X .544 .643 .213
A168_RAPS_E .782 .320 .091
A169_RAPS_E .737 .429 .151
A170_RAPS_E X .549 .634 .218

203
APPENDIX L. PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3-FACTOR

EXTRACTION AFTER SECOND ROUND OF C-STRI ITEM DELETION

Identified for Component

Item Code Deletion 1 2 3
A4_IPPA_T X .484 .685 .182
A11_IPPA_C X .670 .311 .274
A13_IPPA_C .703 .268 .142
A15_IPPA_C X .683 .308 .224
A16_IPPA_C .729 .031 .212
A17_IPPA_C .684 .249 .249
A18_IPPA_C .779 .289 .239
A19_IPPA_C X .705 .320 .189
A20_IPPA_A .272 .635 .084
A21_IPPA_A .290 .713 .112
A23_IPPA_A X .334 .775 .116
A26_Inv_Aff X .442 .684 .193
A28_Inv_Aff X .336 .751 .163
A29_Inv_Att .721 .262 .180
A30_Inv_Att X .756 .323 .169
A32_Inv_DR X .628 .344 .267
A40_ERQ X .753 .329 .152
A41_ERQ X .736 .401 .175
A42_ERQ X .725 .434 .197
A43_ERQ X .768 .366 .199
A44_ERQ X .684 .434 .195
A45_ERQ X .712 .350 .204
A46_ERQ X .686 .450 .187
A48_Friend .164 .775 .141
A50_Friend .131 .669 .128
A51_Friend .168 .740 .109
A53_Friend .009 .624 .037
A55_Rel X .689 .401 .247
A56_Rel X .437 .703 .152
A57_Rel X .441 .720 .170
A63_PSSM X .672 .470 .202
A64_PSSM .378 .726 .212
A65_PSSM X .404 .672 .138
A67_PSSM .379 .771 .155
A70_PSSM X .431 .725 .181
A72_PSSM X .480 .674 .150
A75_PSSM .272 .723 .130
A77_CLM_SS X .616 .185 .348
A78_CLM_SS X .354 .654 .161
A80_CLM_AS X .442 .643 .150
A82_CLM_AS X .451 .678 .172
A83_CLM_AS X .331 .676 .116
A84_BNS_Rel X .700 .449 .216
A86_BNS_Rel X .623 .128 .347
A88_YCATS_W X .440 .689 .184
A89_YCATS_W X .732 .339 .294
A91_YCATS_W X .423 .688 .146

204
A93_YCATS_W X .351 .708 .102
A95_YCATS_W X .680 .125 .319
A98_YCAT_A .268 .138 .734
A100_YCAT_A X .330 .258 .676
A101_YCAT_A .176 .172 .639
A104_YCAT_C .044 .714 .087
A106_YCAT_C .134 .748 .132
A107_YCAT_C .134 .728 .125
A108_YCAT_C .136 .685 .111
A109_YCAT_C .144 .633 .094
A111_YCAT_C .057 .657 .070
A112_YCAT_C .275 .774 .155
A115_STRS X .721 .347 .247
A116_STRS X .380 .697 .096
A117_STRS .692 .283 .278
A119_STRS X .718 .423 .246
A120_STRS X .472 .679 .148
A121_STRS .646 .093 .084
A122_STRS .234 .791 .121
A125_STRS X .646 .303 .287
A126_STRS .785 .233 .205
A129_STRS X .341 .760 .096
A135_NRS_I X .795 .316 .245
A136_NRS_I .696 .194 .259
A137_NRS_I X .765 .330 .207
A138_NRS_I X .793 .324 .200
A139_NRS_I X .715 .300 .303
A141_Sch_Ut X .621 .311 .213
A142_Sch_Ut X .739 .390 .197
A143_Emul X .679 .353 .193
A145_Emul X .684 .395 .214
A146_Emul X .675 .365 .157
A148_ClsSup .793 .146 .197
A149_ClsSup .235 .834 .117
A150_ClsSup X .324 .686 .100
A154_ClsSup X .405 .756 .176
A156_ClsSup X .440 .666 .140
A157_MePart .201 .042 .732
A158_MePart X .302 .275 .649
A159_MePart .281 .181 .615
A160_MePart .257 .135 .760
A161_MePart X .342 .032 .703
A162_MePart X .309 .290 .599
A163_MePart .118 .162 .612
A164_MePart .253 .053 .671
A165_MePart X .301 .064 .702
A166_MePart .283 .160 .715
A168_RAPS_E X .327 .786 .097
A169_RAPS_E X .431 .735 .158

205
 REFERENCES

Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillian.

Anderman, E. (2002). School effects on psychological outcomes during adolescence.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 795-809.

Anderman, L. (1999). Classroom goal orientation, school belonging, and social goals as

predictors of students’ positive and negative affect following transition to middle

school. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 89-103.

Anderman, L. & Anderman, E. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students’

achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 21-37.

Anderson, R., Manoogian, S., & Reznick, J. (1976). The undermining and enhancing of

intrinsic motivation in preschool children. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 34, 915-922.

Andersen, S. & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive

theory. Psychological Review, 109(4), 619-645.

Armsden, G. & Greenberg, M. (1978). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment:

Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in

adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427-454.

Baker, J. (2006). Contributions of teacher-child relationships to positive school

adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 211-229.

Baldwin, M. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information.

Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461-484.

Baldwin, M. (1994). Primed relational schemas as a source of self-evaluative reactions.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13(4), 380-403.

206
Baldwin, M. (1997). Relational schemas as a source of if-then self-inference procedures.

Review of general psychology, 1(4), 326-335.

Baldwin, M. & Holmes, J. (1987). Salient private audiences and awareness of the

self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1087-1098.

Baldwin, M. & Meunier, J. (1999). The cued activation of attachment relational schemas.

Social Cognition, 17, 209-227.

Baldwin, M. & Sinclair, L (1996). Self-esteem and “if…then” contingencies of

interpersonal acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,

1130-1141.

Bao, X. & Lam, S. (2008). Who makes the choice? Rethinking the role of autonomy and

relatedness in Chinese children’s motivation. Child Development, 79(2), 269-283.

Bargh, J. & Pietromonaco, P. (1982). Automatic information processing and social

perception: The influence of trait information presented outside of conscious

awareness on impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 43, 437-449.

Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., Solomon, D., & Lewis, C. (2000). Effects of the

Child Development Project on students’ drug use and other problem behaviors.

The Journal of Primary Prevention, 21(1), 75-99.

Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1995). Schools as

communities, poverty levels of student populations, and students’ attitudes,

motives, and performance: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research

Journal, 32(3), 627-658.

207
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school

communities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137-151.

Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),

497-529.

Behrends, R. & Blatt, J. (1985). Internalization and psychological development through

the life cycle. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 40, 11-39.

Belmont, M., Skinner, E., Wellborn, J., & Connell, J. (1988). Teacher as Social Context

(TASC). A measure of student perceptions of teacher provision of involvement,

structure, and autonomy Support. Technical Report No. 102. University of

Rochester, Rochester, NY.

Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,

107, 238-246.

Birch, S. & Ladd, G. (1996). Interpersonal relationships in the school environment and

children’s early school adjustment. In K. Wentzel & J. Juvonen (Eds.), Social

motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp.199-225). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Birch, S. & Ladd, G. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school

adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61-79.

Birch, S. & Ladd, G. (1998). Children’s interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-child

relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34, 934-946.

Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley &

Sons.

208
Bowlby, J. (1973). Self-reliance and some conditions that promote it. In R. Gosling (Ed.),

Support, innovation, and autonomy. London: Tavistock.

Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs of the

Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1-2, Serial No. 209).

Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Browne, M. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen

& J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Butzel, J. & Ryan, R. (1997). The dynamics of volitional reliance: A motivational

perspective on dependence, independence and social support. In G. R. Pierce, B.

Lakey, I. G. Sarason, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook of Social Support and

Personality (pp. 49-67). New York: Plenum Press.

Cameron, L., Ittenbach, R., McGrew, K., Harrison, P., Taylor, L., & Hwang, Y. (1997).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the K-ABC with gifted referrals. Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 57(5), 823-840.

Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception. In L. Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 3–52). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Cantor, N., Mischel, W., & Schwartz, J. C. (1982). A prototype analysis of psychological

situations. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 45-77.

Capaldi, D. & Rothbart, M. (1992). Development and validation of an early adolescent

temperament measure. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 153-173.

209
Carroll, J. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Carvallo, M. & Gabriel, S. (2006). No man is an island: The need to belong and

dismissing avoidant attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

32(5), 697-709.

Cattell, R. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 1, 245-276.

Cliff, N. (1983). Some cautions concerning the application of causal modeling methods,

Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 115-126.

Connell, J. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system

processes across the life-span. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds.), The self in

transition: From infancy to childhood (pp. 61-97). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Connell, J. & Wellborn, J. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A

motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe

(Eds.) Self Processes in Development: Minnesota Symposium on Child

Psychology, Vol. 23 (pp. 43-77). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The

NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13.

Crittenden, P. (1990). Internal representational models of attachment relationships. Infant

Mental Health Journal, 11, 259-277.

Cronbach, L. (1950). Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 10, 3-31.

210
Crosnoe, R., Morrison, F., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Keating, D., Friedman, S., Clarke-

Stewart, K., & The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health

and Human Development Early Child Car Research Network (2010). Instruction,

Teacher-Student Relations, and Math Achievement Trajectories in Elementary

School. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 407-417.

Davis, H. (2001). The quality and impact of relationships between elementary school

children and teachers. Journal of Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26,

431-453.

Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality.

In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38.

Perspectives on Motivation (pp. 237-288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska

Press.

Demanet, J. & Van Houtte, M. (2012). School belonging and school misconduct: The

differing role of teacher and peer attachment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,

41, 499-514.

Department of Education, Employment and Training, Victoria. (2000). Clip Ons:

Approaches to school improvement. Connecting students to schools. Retrieved

March 29, 2006, from http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/standards/pdf/SOC_CLIP-

ON.pdf

Developmental Studies Center (2002). Student Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript.

211
DiStefano, C. & Motl, R. (2006). Further investigating method effects associated with

negatively worded items on self-report surveys. Structural Equation Modeling,

13, 440-464.

DiStefano, C. & Motl, R. (2009). Self-esteem and method effects associated with

negatively worded items: Investigating factorial invariance by sex. Structural

Equation Modeling, 16, 134-146.

Doumen, S., Koomen, H., Buyse, E., Wouters, S., & Verschueren, K. (2012). Teacher

and observer views on student-teacher relationships: Convergence across

kindergarten and relations with student engagement. Journal of School

Psychology, 50, 61-76.

Drugli, M. & Hjemdal, O. (2013). Factor structure of the Student–Teacher Relationship

Scale for Norwegian school-age children explored with confirmatory factor

analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(5), 457-466.

Eccles, J. & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate

classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on

motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (pp. 139-186). San Diego, CA:

Academic.

Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory. American

Psychologist, 28, 404-416.

Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.

Fabrigar, L., Wegener, D., MacCallum, R., & Strahan, E. (1999). Evaluating the use of

exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods,

4(3), 272-299.

212
Fairbairn, W. (1952). An object-relations theory of personality. New York: Basic Books.

Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. (1988). Student, teacher, and observer

perceptions of the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior

high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8(2), 133-156.

Finn, J. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.

Fiske, A. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory

of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689-723.

Fiske, S. (1982). Schema-triggered affect: Applications to social perception. In M. C.

Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie

Symposium on Cognition (pp. 55-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fiske, S. & Cox, M. (1979). Person concepts: The effect of target familiarity and

descriptive purpose on the process of describing others. Journal of Personality,

47, 136-161.

Fleming, J. (1972). Early object deprivation and transference phenomena: The working

alliance. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 41(1), 23-49.

Fraire, M., Longobardi, C., Prino, L. E., Sclavo, E., & Settanni, M. (2013). Examining

the student-teacher relationship scale in the Italian context: A factorial validity

study. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11(3), 851-882.

Freeman, T. & Anderman, L. (2002, August). College freshmen’s classroom belonging:

Relations to motivation and instructor practices. Poster presented at the annual

conference of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

213
Freeman, T., Anderman, L., & Jensen, J. (2007). Sense of belonging in college freshmen

at the classroom and campus levels. The Journal of Experimental Education,

75(3), 203-220.

Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its Discontents. (J. Riviere, Trans.) London: Hogarth

Press.

Fromm, E. (1956). The Art of Loving. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Furrer, C. & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic

engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148-162.

Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a Likert rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing

Bulletin, 2, 66-70.

Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and the

study of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 177-196.

Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among

adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the

Schools, 30, 79-90.

Goodenow, C. & Grady, K. (1993). The relationship of school belongingness and friends’

values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of

Experimental Education, 62, 60-71.

Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties

Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry, 40, 1337-1345.

214
Gregoriadis, A. & Tsigilis, N. (2008). Applicability of the Student-Teacher Relationship

Scale (STRS) in the Greek educational setting. Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment, 26(2), 108-120.

Grossnickle, D. (1986). High school dropouts: Causes, consequences, and cures.

Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Grusec, J. & Goodenow, J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s

Internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view.

Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 4-19.

Gutman, L. & Midgley, C. (2000). The role of protective factors in supporting the

academic achievement of poor African American students during the middle

school transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 223-248.

Hamre, B. & Pianta, R. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of

children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625-

638.

Hamre, B. & Pianta, R. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade

classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child

Development, 76(5), 949-967.

Henricsson, L. & Rydell, A. (2004). Elementary school children with behavior problems:

Teacher-child relations and self-perception. A prospective study. Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 50(2), 111-138.

Higgins, E. & Bargh, J. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review

of Psychology, 38, 369-425.

215
Higgins, E., Rholes, W., & Jones, C. (1977). Category accessibility and impression

formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141-154.

Hodgins, H., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the compatibility of autonomy and

relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 227-237.

Horan, P, DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. (2003). Wording effects in self-esteem scales:

Methodological artifact or response style? Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 444-

455.

Horn, J. (1994). Theory of fluid and crystalized intelligence. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 443-451). New York: Prentice Hall.

Horn, J. & Cattell, R. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystalized

general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(5), 253-270.

Horney, K. (1945). Our Inner Conflicts: A constructive Theory of Neurosis. New York:

Norton.

Horowitz, M. (1989). Relationship schema formulation: Role-relationship models and

intrapsychic conflict. Psychiatry, 52, 260-274.

House, J., Landis, K., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science,

241, 540-545.

Howes, C. (2000). Social-emotional classroom climate in child care, child-teacher

relationships and children’s second grade peer relations. Social Development,

9(2), 191-204.

Hu, L. & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation

Modeling, 6, 1–55.

216
IRRE (1998). Research Assessment Package For Schools (RAPS): Student Supports and

Opportunities in School: Engagement, Beliefs about Self, and Experiences of

Interpersonal Support: Manual for Elementary and Middle School Assessments.

Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Research and Reform in Education, Inc.

Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1983). Social interdependence and perceived academic and

personal support in the classroom. The Journal of Social Psychology, 120, 77-82.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., Buckman, L., & Richards, P. (1985). The effect of prolonged

implementation of cooperative learning on social support within the classroom.

The Journal of Psychology, 119, 405-411.

Johnson, L., Ketring, S., & Abshire, C. (2003). The revised inventory of parent

attachment: Measuring attachment in families. Contemporary Family Therapy,

25(3), 333-349.

Joreskog, K. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be? Retrieved September

16, 2015 from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandard

izedCoefficientbe.pdf.

Kaiser, H. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis.

Psychometrika, 23(3), 187-200.

Kennedy, G. & Tuckman, B. (2013). An exploration into the influence of academic and

social values, procrastination, and perceived school belongingness on academic

performance. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 435-470.

Kesner, J. (2000). Teacher characteristics and the quality of child-teacher relationships.

Journal of School Psychology, 28, 133-149.

217
Kester, V. (1994). Factors that affect African-American students’ bonding to middle

school. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 63-73.

Klem, A. & Connell, J. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student

engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.

Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling: Second

edition. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Kohl, D., Recchia, S., & Steffgen, G. (2013). Measuring school climate: An overview of

measurement scales. Educational Research, 55(4), 411-426.

Koomen, H., Verschueren, K., van Schooten, E., Jak, S., & Pianta, R. (2012). Validating

the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: Testing factor structure and measurement

invariance across child gender and age in a Dutch sample. Journal of School

Psychology, 50, 215-234.

Ladd, G., Birch, S., & Buhs, E. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in

kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70(6), 1373-

1400.

Ladd, G. & Burgess, K. (2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the

linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school

adjustment? Child development, 72, 1579-1601.

Laguardia, J., Ryan, R., Couchman, C. & Deci, E. (2000). Within-person variation in

security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment,

need satisfaction, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

79, 367-384.

218
Lisonbee, J., Mize, J., Payne, A., Granger, D. (2008). Children's cortisol and the quality

of teacher-child relationships in child care. Child Development, 79(6), 1818-1832.

Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lynch, M. & Cicchetti, D. (1991). Patterns of relatedness in maltreated and

nonmaltreated children: Connections among multiple representational models.

Development and Psychopathology, 3, 207-226.

Lynch, M. & Cicchetti, D. (1992). Maltreated children’s reports of relatedness to their

teachers. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in

children’s lives (Vol. 57, pp. 81-107). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lynch, M. & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children’s relationships with adults and peers: An

examination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School

Psychology, 35, 81-99.

Maassen, G. & Bakker, A. (2001). Suppressor variables in path models: Definitions and

interpretations. Sociological Research and Methods, 30(2), 241-270.

Mantzicopoulos, P. (2005). Conflictual relationships between kindergarten children and

their teachers: Associations with child and classroom context variables. Journal of

School Psychology, 43, 425-442.

Mantzicopoulos, P. & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2003). Development and validation of a

measure to assess head start children’s appraisals of teacher support. Journal of

School Psychology, 41, 431-451.

Marchand, G. & Skinner, E. (2007). Motivational dynamics of children’s academic help-

seeking and concealment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 65-82.

219
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.

Marsh, H. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful

distinction or artifacts? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 810-

819.

Marsh, H., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis

testing approaches to setting cut-off values for fit indexes and dangers in

overgeneralizing Hu & Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling,

11, 320-341.

Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

Matzye, C. (1995). Parental involvement in middle school. ERIC Document ED 385 365.

Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M., Stroet, K., & Bosker, R. (2013). Changes in teachers’

involvement versus rejection and links with academic motivation during the first

year of secondary education: A multilevel growth curve analysis. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1348-1371.

McCallum, R. & Bracken, B. (1993). Interpersonal relations between school children and

their peers, parents and teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 155-176.

McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across

instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-

90.

Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis: Sage university series on

quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

220
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Student/teacher relations and attitudes

toward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high school. Child

Development, 60, 981-992.

Milatz, A., Gluer, M., Harwardt-Heinecke, E., Kappler, G., & Ahnert, L. (2014). The

Student-Teacher Relationship Scale revisited: Testing factorial structure,

measurement invariance and validity criteria in German-speaking samples. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 357-368.

Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our

capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.

Mitchell, S. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Mitchell-Copeland, J., Denham, S., & DeMulder, E. (1997). Q-Sort assessment of child-

teacher attachment relationships and social competence in preschool. Early

Education and Development, 8, 27-39.

Nichols, S. (2008). An exploration of students’ belongingness beliefs in one middle

school. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(2), 145-169.

Noodings, N. (1992). The Challenge to Care in Schools: an alternative Approach to

Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

O'Connor, E. & McCartney, K. (2007). Examining teacher-child relationships and

achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American

Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 340-369.

221
Oldfather, P. & Dahl, K. (1994). Toward a social constructivist reconceptualization of

intrinsic motivation for literacy learning. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 139-

158.

Ogilvie, D. & Ashmore, R. (1991). Self-with-other representation as a unit of analysis in

self-concept research. In R. C. Curtis (Ed.), The relational self (pp. 282–314).

New York: Guilford Press.

Pace, C., Martini, P., & Zavattini, G. (2011). The factor structure of the Inventory of

Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA): A survey of Italian adolescents. Personality

and Individual Differences, 51, 83-88.

Palermo, F., Hanish, L., Martin, C., Fabes, R., & Reiser, M. (2007). Preschoolers’

academic readiness: What role does the teacher-child relationship play? Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 407-422

Patrick, H., Kaplan, A., & Ryan, A. (2011). Positive classroom motivational

environments: Convergence between mastery goal structure and classroom social

climate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 367-382.

Patrick, H., Ryan, A., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the

classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 99(1), 83-98.

Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pianta, R. (1994). Patterns of relationships between children and kindergarten teachers.

Journal of School Psychology, 32, 15-31.

Pianta, R. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

222
Pianta, R. (2006). Teacher-child relationships and early literacy. In D. Dickinson & S.

Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 149-162). New

York: Guilford Press.

Pianta, R., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison, F., (2008). Classroom

effects on children's achievement trajectories in elementary school. American

Educational Research Journal, 45(2) 365-397.

Pianta, R. & Nimetz, S. (1991). Relationships between children and teachers:

Associations with classroom and home behavior. Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 12, 379-393.

Pianta, R. & Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher-child relationships and the process of

adjusting to school. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other

adults in children’s lives (pp. 61-80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pianta, R. & Stuhlman, M. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children’s success in

the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444-458.

Pietromonoco, P. & Barrett, L. (2000). The internal working models concept: What do

we really know about the self in relation to others? Review of General

Psychology, 4(2), 155-175.

Planalp, S. (1987). Interplay between relational knowledge and events. In R. Burnett, P.

McGhee, & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Accounting for relationships (pp. 175–191). New

York: Methuen.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases

in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

223
Preston, C. & Colman, A. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales:

Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta

Psychologica, 104, 1-15.

Reeve, J. & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy

during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209-218.

Resnick, M., Bearman, P., Blum, R., Bauman, K., Harris, K., Jones, J., Tabor, J.,

Beuhring, T., Sieving, R., Shew, M., Ireland, M., Bearinger, L., & Udry, J.

(1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the national longitudinal

study on adolescent health. Journal of the American Medical Association,

278(10), 823-832.

Richer, S. & Vallerand, R. (1998). Construction and validation of the perceived

relatedness scale. Revue Européene de Psychologie Appliquée 48, 129–137.

Roeser, R., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1996). Perceptions of school psychological

environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in

school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 88, 408-422.

Rogers, C. (1951). Client centered therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychopathology.

Boston: Houghten Mifflin

Rogers, T. (1977). Self-reference in memory: Recognition of personality items. Journal

of Research in Personality, 11, 295-305.

224
Rudasill, K. (2011). Child temperament, teacher-child interactions, and teacher-child

relationships: A longitudinal investigation from first to third grade. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 147-156.

Russell, D. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor

analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646.

Ryan, R. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, and the self

in psychological development. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on

Motivation: Developmental perspectives on motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 1-56).

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press

Ryan, R. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of the integrative processes.

Journal of Personality, 63(3), 397-427.

Ryan, R., Avery, R. & Grolnick, W. (1985). A Rorschach assessment of children’s

mutuality of autonomy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 6-12.

Ryan, R., Connell, J., & Deci, E. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determination

and self-regulation in education. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on

motivation in education, 2 (pp. 13-51). New York: Academic.

Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1),

68-78.

Ryan, R., & Grolnick, W. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and

projective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 550-558.

225
Ryan, R. & Powelson, C. (1991). Autonomy and relatedness as fundamental to

motivation in education. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 49-66.

Ryan, R., Stiller, J., & Lynch, J. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers,

parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal

of Early Adolescence, 14, 226-249.

Ryzin, M., Gravely, A., & Roseth, C. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement

in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 38(1), 1-12.

Safran, J. (1990). Towards a refinement of cognitive therapy in light of interpersonal

theory: I. Theory. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 87-105.

Sandler, J. & Rosenblatt, B. (1962). The concept of the representational world. The

Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 17, 128-145.

Schafer, J. (1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical

Research, 8, 3-15.

Schafer, R. (1968). Aspects of internalization. New York: International Universities

Press.

Schank, R. & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Schlomer, G., Bauman, S., & Card, N. (2010). Best practices for missing data

management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

57(1), 1-10.

Schneider, D. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 79,

294-309.

226
Shochet, I. & Smith, C. (2014). A prospective study investigating the links among

classroom environment, school connectedness, and depressive symptoms in

adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 51(1), 480-492.

Shochet, I., Smith, C., Furlong, M., & Homel, R. (2011). A prospective study

investigating the impact of school belonging factors on negative affect in

adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40(4), 586-

595.

Skinner, E. & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of

teacher behavior and students engagement across the school year. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 85, 571-588.

Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kinderman, T. (2008). Engagement and

disafection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of

Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765-781.

Skues, J., Cunningham, E., & Pokharel, T. (2005). The influence of bullying behaviours

on sense of school connectedness, motivation and self-esteem. Australian

Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 15(1), 17-26.

Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Kim, D., & Watson, M. (1997). Teacher practices associated

with students’ sense of the classroom as a community. School Psychology of

Education, 1, 235-267.

Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E., Lewis, C. (2000). A six-district

study of educational change: Direct and mediated effects of the child development

project. Social Psychology of Education, 4(1), 3-51.

227
Solomon, D., Watson, M., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Delucchi, K. (1996). Creating

classrooms that students experience as communities. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 24(6), 719-748.

Solomon, D., Watson, M., Delucchi, K., Schaps, E., & Battistich, V. (1988). Enhancing

children’s prosocial behavior in the classroom. American Educational Research

Journal, 25(4), 527-554.

Spector, P. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Srull, T. & Wyer, R. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of

information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1660-1662.

Stemler, S. (2001). An Introduction to Content Analysis. (ERIC Digest). Retrieved from

ERIC Database (ED458218).

Stipek, D. & Miles, S. (2008). Effects of aggression on achievement: Does conflict with

the teacher make it worse? Child Development, 79(6), 1721-1735.

Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Swanson, J., & Reiser, M. (2008). Prediction of

Children's Academic Competence from their effortful control, relationships, and

classroom participation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 67-77.

Van Ryzin, M., Gravely, A., & Roseth, C. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness, and

engagement in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1-12.

228
Webb, M. & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2011). Examining factorial validity and

measurement invariance of the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 205-215.

Wentzel, K. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom

behavior, and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,

173-182.

Wentzel, K. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived

pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 411-419.

Wentzel, K. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of

parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202-209.

Wentzel, K. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships at

school: Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 91, 76-97.

Wentzel, K., Baker, S., & Russell, S. (2012). Young adolescents’ perceptions of teachers’

and peers’ goals as predictors of social and academic goal pursuit. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 61(4), 605-633.

Winnicott, D. (1965). The maturational process and the facilitating environment. New

York: International Universities Press.

Woodcock, R. (1990). Theoretical foundations of the WJ-R measures of cognitive ability.

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 231-258.

Woodcock R. & Johnson, M. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement.

Itasca, IL: Riverside.

229
Ye, F. & Wallace, T. (2014). Psychological Sense of School Membership scale: Method

effects associated with negatively worded items. Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment, 32(3), 202-215.

You, S., Ritchey, K., Furlong, M., Shochet, I., & Boman, P. (2011). Examination of the

latent structure of the Psychological Sense of School Measurement scale. Journal

of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(3), 225-237.

Zumbrunn, S., McKim, C., Buhs, E., & Hawley, L. (2014). Support, belonging,

motivation, and engagement in the college classroom: A mixed method study.

Instructional Science, 42, 661-684.

230