Studies in Educational Evaluation 59 (2018) 235–243

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in Educational Evaluation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/stueduc

Validity and reliability of questionnaire on perceived professional identity T

among teachers (QIPPE) scores
⁎
Vanessa Lentillon-Kaestnera, , Emma Guillet-Descasb, Guillaume Martinentb, Valérian Ceceb
a
University of Teacher Education, State of Vaud (HEP Vaud), Lausanne, Switzerland
b
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 – Université de Lyon, France

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this study was to develop and examine the psychometric properties of a Questionnaire on
Professional identity Perceived Professional Identity among Teachers (QIPPE), including three individual components (i.e., subject
Expertise matter, didactical and pedagogical expertise) in the definition of teachers’ professional identity. This study
Teacher evaluation involved three steps: the development of a preliminary version; a first study to establish the factorial validity of
Personal evaluation
the QIPPE scores and its reliability; and a second study to test the convergent validity of the QIPPE. Through
three samples and based on multiple criteria for assessing model adequacy, the results provided evidence for a 2-
factor, 11-item solution of the QIPPE, including one factor related to pedagogical expertise and another related
to subject matter – didactical expertise, labelled ‘subject matter expertise’. This questionnaire will be helpful for
conducting longitudinal and quantitative research to estimate the reciprocal effects of perceived teachers’
professional identity (TPI) and other related factors.

1. Introduction
As described by Hong (2010), teachers’ professional identity (TPI)
“is an important factor in understanding their professional lives and
career decision making” (p. 1531). Teachers’ perceptions of their own
professional identity seem to affect their well-being, their efficacy and
their professional development as well as their ability and willingness
to cope with educational change and to implement innovations in their
own teaching practice (Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004).
Beijaard et al. (2004) classified three categories of studies on TPI:
(a) studies with a focus on TPI formation, (b) studies with a focus on the
identification of characteristics of TPI, and (c) studies with TPI (re)
presented by teachers’ stories. The results of prior studies are difficult to
compare because of the lack of consensus around the definition of TPI.
In addition, a number of studies on TPI are qualitative studies primarily
based on the emerging theory of dialogical self in psychology (e.g.,
Akkerman & Meijer, 2011; Anspal, Eisenschmidt, & Löfström, 2012;
Arvaja, 2016; Burns & Bell, 2011; Cohen, 2008; Curwood, 2014; Leijen
& Kullasepp, 2013; Vloet & van Swet, 2010). To date, even if previous
studies on TPI used questionnaires (Beijaard, Verloop, & Vermunt,
2000; Cheung, 2008; Ezer, Gilat, & Sagee, 2010; Pillen, Beijaard, & den
Brok, 2013; Pillen, Den Brok, & Beijaard, 2013; Tan, Van der Molen, &
Schmidt, 2017; Zhang, Hawk, Zhang, & Zhao, 2016), they could not be
used in this study for different reasons, which will be developed in a
paragraph below. With a definition of TPI including three core expertise
domains of teachers’ professional work (subject matter, didactical ex-
pertise and pedagogical expertise), the purpose of the present study was
to develop and validate a Questionnaire on Perceived Professional
Identity among Teachers (QIPPE).1
2. Definition of teachers’ professional identity
The concept of TPI has gained considerable attention in recent
years, and it has emerged as a distinct research area (Stenberg,
Karlsson, Pitkaniemi, & Maaranen, 2014). Nevertheless, it remains
difficult to build a solid theoretical framework around TPI. In previous
studies, TPI has been a poorly defined concept for a long time, and it is
a concept with different meanings and definitions (Beijaard et al., 2000,
2004; Pillen & Beijaard et al., 2013; Pillen & Den Brok et al., 2013;
Stenberg et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016; Zivkovic, 2016). The defini-
tion of TPI is complex, but there is general acknowledgment of its
multifaceted and dynamic nature (e.g., Beijaard et al., 2004; Canrinus,
Helms-Lorenz, Beijaard, Buitink, & Hofman, 2012). Beijaard et al.
(2004) underlined the four following features as essential for TPI: (a) it

⁎
Corresponding author at: Teaching and Research Unit in Physical Education and Sport (UER-EPS), University of Teacher Education, State of Vaud (HEP-VD),
Lausanne, Switzerland.
E-mail address: vanessa.lentillon-kaestner@hepl.ch (V. Lentillon-Kaestner).
1
The French acronym for the questionnaire is QIPPE (Questionnaire sur l’Identité Professionnelle Perçue chez les Enseignants).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.09.003
Received 20 February 2018; Received in revised form 3 September 2018; Accepted 6 September 2018
0191-491X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V. Lentillon-Kaestner et al.
is an ongoing process of interpretation and re-interpretation of ex-
periences, (b) it implies both person and context, (c) it consists of sub-
identities that more or less harmonize, and (d) the agency, meaning that
teachers have to be active in this process. TPI can also be seen as an
answer to the following questions: ‘Who am I at this moment?’”
(Beijaard et al., 2004, p. 108) and “‘How do I see my role as a teacher?”
(Cheung, 2008, p. 377).
Previous studies identified various personal key components of TPI
without consensus: “this lack of an empirical and theoretical foundation
has led researchers to try to identify major components that constitute
teachers’ professional identity in relation to particular research em-
phases” (Hong, 2010, p. 1531). Notably, some authors chose to directly
integrate influential factors in TPI components (e.g., Bukor, 2015;
Stenberg et al., 2014). For example, based on a holistic perspective,
Bukor (2015) concluded that teacher identity is deeply embedded in
one’s personal biography (e.g., childhood and personal life experi-
ences). From his point of view, participants’ beliefs and interpretations
are rooted in their family environment and have an impact on their
school experiences, career choices, instructional practice, teaching
philosophy, and teacher identity. In the same vein, Stenberg et al.
(2014) defined teacher identity as an ongoing process in which,
through dialogue within various contexts and relationships, different
teacher identities have their own voices and aims: I as a pedagogue, I as
a didactical professional, I as a subject matter expert, I as a member of a
school, I as a member of a society and so on. In the same vein, because
of the lack of validated tools to measure TPI (Aydeniz & Kirbulut,
2014), some researchers have investigated how relevant indicators of
teachers’ sense of their professional identity (e.g., job satisfaction, oc-
cupational commitment, professional orientation, task orientation, self-
efficacy and change in level of motivation) are related (Canrinus et al.,
2012; Canrinus, Helms-Lorenz, Beijaard, Buitink, & Hofman, 2011; Day,
2002; Hong, 2010; Lamote & Engels, 2010; Vloet & van Swet, 2010;
Zivkovic, 2016).
From our point of view, it is important to distinguish associated
psychological variables and influential factors from personal compo-
nents of perceived TPI. Identity evolves constantly under the influence
of a range of factors, including personal factors, such as emotion and
life experiences (e.g., biography, learning history, and teaching ex-
perience), and contextual factors, such as teaching experiences in par-
ticular contexts (e.g., teaching context, relationships with colleagues
and school directors, and school subject taught) (Beauchamp & Thomas,
2009; Beijaard et al., 2000; Biberman-Shalev, Sabbagh, Resh, &
Kramarski, 2011; Bukor, 2015; Eaude, 2014; Hsieh, 2015; Lamote &
Engels, 2010; Pillen & Beijaard et al., 2013; Schepens, Aelterman, &
Vlerick, 2009; Zembylas, 2003, 2005; Zivkovic, 2016).
In line with Beijaard et al. (2004), we argue for better conceptual
clarity of TPI. We emphasize that teachers’ expertise is a relevant
variable of their professional identity. Investigating teachers’ percep-
tions of the three expertise areas as the three core competencies of their
professional work inform us about a relevant aspect of their profes-
sional identity. The choice of expertise as key component of TPI is
useful for two main reasons.
First, expertise definition fits with the essential features of TPI (i.e.,
ongoing process, implying both person and context, domains of ex-
pertise and agency). Expertise generally refers to the special know-how
that is related to different professions (Happo, Määttä, & Uusiautti,
2012). It embodies not only knowledge that informs but also skills and
attitude for applying in practice (Eaude, 2014; Elliott, 2015; Traianou,
2006). Traianou (2006) identified critical differences between expert
and non-expert teachers in three dimensions: their ability to integrate
aspects of teacher knowledge in relation the teaching acts, their re-
sponse to their contexts of work, and their ability to engage in reflection
and conscious deliberation. The development of expertise is a process of
integration with the primary self (Peercy, Martin-Beltrán, Silverman, &
Daniel, 2015). Mieg (2009) identified two factors and conditions of
expertise: excellence and professional engagement. It is worth noting
236
Studies in Educational Evaluation 59 (2018) 235–243
that teaching experience – and the practical knowledge derived from it
– is a necessary but not sufficient condition to develop teacher expertise
(Peercy et al., 2015; Traianou, 2006; Winkler, 2001). Finally, teaching
is multifaceted and complex, and different areas of teacher expertise
can be discerned (Aydeniz & Kirbulut, 2014; Van der Zande, Akkerman,
Brekelmans, Waarlo, & Vermunt, 2012).
Second, this personal expertise perspective of TPI has been already
used by Beijaard et al. (2004) and is compatible with other TPI defi-
nitions, such as Tan et al.’s (2017) definition of professional identity
development in professional education as “the self that has been de-
veloped with the commitment to perform competently and legitimately
in the context of the profession” (p. 1505). In addition, the objectiva-
tion of personal TPI components in previous qualitative research has
often been related to the variety of teachers’ roles (Beijaard et al., 2004;
Cheung, 2008; Tan et al., 2017; Volkmann & Anderson, 1998): “pro-
fessional identity exists as a complex and dynamic equilibrium where
professional self-image is balanced with a variety of social roles tea-
chers feel obliged to play” (Volkmann & Anderson, 1998, p. 296). In the
same way, Cheung (2008) underlined that “one of the ways of under-
standing the professional identity of teachers is through teachers’ roles
and practices” (p. 375).
Researchers do not yet agree on the different types of teacher
knowledge in practice or domains of teacher expertise (Beijaard et al.,
2000; Kansanen, 1999; Thomas & Thomas, 2012). To develop our
questionnaire, we retain in this study three domains of expertise: ped-
agogical, didactical and subject matter expertise. Previous studies have
shown a consensus on these three domains as teaching expertise or
knowledge, sometimes with different labels (“subject matter,” “content
knowledge” or “academic subject content” expertise; “pedagogical” or
“interpersonal” expertise; and “didactical,” “pedagogical content” or
“teaching and learning” expertise) (Kansanen & Meri, 1999; Beijaard
et al., 2000; Elliott, 2015; Stenberg et al., 2014; Van der Zande et al.,
2012; Zierer, 2015). These three domains of expertise are also present
in the didactic triangle (Kansanen & Meri, 1999; Stenberg et al., 2014;
Zierer, 2015), which is “one of the oldest didactic models, if not the
oldest one of all” (Zierer, 2015, p. 788). In this vein, TPI can be “de-
scribed in terms of the teacher as a subject matter expert, the teacher as
a pedagogical expert, and the teacher as a didactical expert” (Beijaard
et al., 2000, p. 750). Zierer (2015) concluded that “in order to give
successful instruction, the teacher must possess subject matter compe-
tence, pedagogical competence, and didactical competence – and in
practice all three go hand in hand” (p. 790).
First, subject matter expertise refers to the teacher’s knowledge of
the content to be taught (Jegede, Taplin, & Chan, 2000; Kansanen &
Meri, 1999; Shulman, 1987; Stenberg et al., 2014; Zierer, 2015) and to
disciplinary knowledge that is unrelated to teaching (i.e., “content
knowledge” of Shulman, 1987) (Elliott, 2015; Van der Zande et al.,
2012). Second, didactical (or pedagogical content) expertise refers to
the relationship between the students and the content in the didactic
triangle (Kansanen & Meri, 1999; Stenberg et al., 2014; Zierer, 2015). It
“concerns the way in which the learning process of the students about a
particular subject matter can be facilitated by the teachers, e.g., by
selecting appropriate teaching and learning activities” (Van der Zande
et al., 2012, p. 1745Van der Zande et al., 2012Van der Zande et al.,
2012, p. 1745). Teachers must choose adequate teaching and learning
methods, such as group formation, organization of the classroom, di-
dactic supports, and definition of goals and content in relation to the
learning level of the students at the beginning of the lesson (Zierer,
2015). Shulman (1987) developed the term “pedagogical content
knowledge”, which is considered one of the seven core areas of teacher
knowledge (Hashweh, 2003; Husain, Hasan, Wahab, & Jantan, 2015;
Jegede et al., 2000; Shulman, 1987), and associated it with an entire
research tradition (Hashweh, 2003; Zierer, 2015). Notably, this ex-
pertise area contains not only knowledge but also attitudes, beliefs, and
skills (Van der Zande et al., 2012). In addition, didactical expertise
alone is just as insufficient as subject matter expertise alone (Zierer,
V. Lentillon-Kaestner et al.
2015). Finally, pedagogical (or interpersonal) expertise refers to the
relationship between the teacher and the students in the didactic tri-
angle (Kansanen & Meri, 1999; Stenberg et al., 2014; Zierer, 2015).
Teachers need to be capable of creating and maintaining good re-
lationships with their students, of building an atmosphere of trust and
confidence with students, and of making them feel comfortable in the
teaching-learning process (Van der Zande et al., 2012; Zierer, 2015).
3. Study relevance and purpose
Even if the majority of studies on TPI were qualitative, some pre-
vious studies developed questionnaires on perceived TPI (Beijaard
et al., 2000; Cheung, 2008; Ezer et al., 2010; Pillen & Beijaard et al.,
2013; Pillen & Den Brok et al., 2013; Tan et al., 2017; Zhang et al.,
2016). The existing scales on TPI cannot be used in this study for var-
ious reasons. Some of the existing TPI scales were conceptualized for a
specific sample, such as student teachers (Ezer et al., 2010; Pillen &
Beijaard et al., 2013; Pillen & Den Brok et al., 2013; Tan et al., 2017;
Zhang et al., 2016) or specific subject teachers (Sercu, 2006; Starr et al.,
2006), or for specific contexts (Cheung, 2008). The scale developed by
Cheung (2008) was based on a document published by the Hong Kong
Education Bureau and “the scale reflects society’s views and educators’
views about the professional practices of teachers” (p. 379). Three
domains were retained: the student needs domain, the school issues
domain, and the personal growth and development domain. The
questionnaires developed by Sercu (2006) (foreign language and in-
tercultural teachers) and Starr et al. (2006) (physicians) were also not
adapted to measure perceived TPI among active teachers. Similarly,
other researchers (Ezer et al., 2010; Pillen & Beijaard et al., 2013; Pillen
& Den Brok et al., 2013; Tan et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2016) developed
scales that were based on teacher education approaches and not the TPI
literature. Thus, some of the dimensions were not adapted for active
teachers (e.g., changing roles from being a student to becoming a tea-
cher, faculty support).
Among the questionnaires used in previous quantitative studies on
TPI, the Dutch language questionnaire developed by Beijaard et al.
(2000) in an exploratory study drew our attention because it was based
on teachers’ expertise, a relevant variable of their professional identity.
Nevertheless, this questionnaire had limitations in its validation. In-
deed, Beijaard et al. (2000) presented only the internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha) for each subscale of the questionnaire, but the fac-
torial validity of its scores was not examined. In addition, no in-
formation was given about the procedure for item selection for each
individual component of the TPI. Finally, to our knowledge, this
questionnaire has not been used by other researchers. As such, with a
definition of TPI that includes three individual components (subject
matter, didactical and pedagogical expertise), the purpose of this study
was to develop and validate the QIPPE following three steps: (a) the
development of a preliminary version based on the findings of a lit-
erature review on TPI, an existing questionnaire, and a committee va-
lidation process; (b) a first study conducted with two independent
subgroups of secondary school teachers to establish the construct va-
lidity and reliability of the QIPPE; and (c) a second study conducted on
a third independent sample that allowed us to test the convergent va-
lidity of the QIPPE.
4. Development of a preliminary version of the questionnaire
The development of the pool of items for the QIPPE was based on
the findings of a literature review on TPI, the questionnaire by Beijaard
et al. (2000), and a committee validation process. The questionnaire by
Beijaard et al. (2000) was developed in Dutch in an exploratory study
and was based on three individual components of TPI (subject matter,
didactical and pedagogical expertise). That questionnaire consisted of
four parts combining qualitative and quantitative data and various
types of questions (e.g., scoring and closed- and open-ended questions)
237
Studies in Educational Evaluation 59 (2018) 235–243
(Beijaard et al., 2000). For the development of the QIPPE, we focused in
greater depth on the third part of the questionnaire, which included 18
items (six for each expertise). Teachers were asked to express to what
extent each item was applicable to them on a four-point scale ranging
from 1 (not applicable) to 4 (completely applicable).
Because the three individual components of TPI retained by Beijaard
et al. (2000) matched the findings of the literature review, the devel-
opment of the QIPPE items was based on three expertise domains: di-
dactical, pedagogical and subject matter expertise. The development of
the pool of items consisted of three stages. First, the 18 Dutch language
items (6 for each expertise domain) of the questionnaire by Beijaard
et al. (2000) were translated into French following the recommenda-
tions of Squires et al. (2013) and Brislin (1970) concerning semantics
and technical aspects of translation during the forward and back
translation process (Dutch-French, French-Dutch). The 18 items were
first translated into French and then were sent to two bilingual trans-
lators, who translated them back into Dutch. Then, differences were
discussed and resolved so that the original meaning of each original
item was confirmed to be present in the French version. Second, a va-
lidation committee consisting of four researchers analysed the content
validity of each item based on the findings of the literature review on
TPI and on the definitions of the three dimensions retained. Each
committee member was asked to examine the domain relevance of the
18 items using a three-point scale (1 = not relevant; 2 = relevant but
needs revision; 3 = very relevant; Lynn, 1986). Six of the 18 items (2
from pedagogical expertise and 4 from subject matter expertise) were
rejected or adapted by the committee members to improve their clarity.
Third, the validation committee proposed the development of other
items based on a literature review on TPI and the definitions of the
expertise domains.
In summary, the committee members established a preliminary
version of the QIPPE consisting of 27 items (9 items for each expertise
domain) (Table 1). These items were randomly arranged, and each was
rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
5. Study 1
The objective of the first study was to examine the construct validity
of the QIPPE scores (i.e., exploratory factor, confirmatory factor, and
structural equation modelling analyses) and their reliability (i.e.,
Cronbach’s alphas, item analysis, and composite reliability values). We
hypothesized that we would find a 3-factor structure for the QIPPE,
with one factor related to didactical expertise, another one to pedago-
gical expertise and a third to subject matter expertise.
5.1. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA)
First, an EFA was conducted to (a) discover the number of latent
factors underlying the items of the preliminary version of the QIPPE
because EFA is suitable for guidance in initial scale development
(Roberson, Elliott, Chang, & Hill, 2014) and (b) to select the items from
the preliminary version of the QIPPE used to measure each dimension
in the final version of the QIPPE.
5.1.1. Participants, measures and procedures
After ethical approval was secured from the Ethics Committee for
Non-Interventional Studies at the different schools2 in which the study
was conducted, the questionnaire was distributed as a web survey to
French secondary school teachers. Participants provided written in-
formed consent by e-mail.
The preliminary 27-item version of the questionnaire (Table 1) was
completed by 205 French secondary school teachers (131 females and
2
CNIL: National Commission on Informatics and Civil Liberties; Approval
number: 2000844 v 0.
V. Lentillon-Kaestner et al. Studies in Educational Evaluation 59 (2018) 235–243

Table 1
Items from the Preliminary Version of the QIPPE and the Exploratory Factor Analysis: Factor Loadings, Eigenvalues, and Percentage of Variance for the Items on the
Final Version of the QIPPE.
Factor 1 Factor 2
Pedagogical expertise Subject matter
expertise

Didactical expertise
1 Le changement d’activités d’apprentissage est important pour motiver et intéresser les élèves [Changing learning activities is – –
important to motivate and engage students]
4 Je possède des connaissances qui m’aident à l’évaluation de mes élèves [I have knowledge that helps me evaluate my students] – –
7 J’attache peu d’importance à la planification de mes cours [I do not care about planning my class interventions] – –
10 Pendant mes leçons, j’accorde beaucoup d’attention à l’alternance des méthodes de travail [During my lessons, I pay a lot of – –
attention to alternating working methods]B
13 Je veille à ce que les élèves utilisent leur temps d’apprentissage et de travail efficacement [I make sure that students use their time to – –
learn and work effectively]a
16 Le plus souvent possible, je propose des outils de travail au sein de mes leçons [As often as possible, I propose work tools within my – –
lessons]a
19 J’évalue régulièrement mes enseignements [I regularly evaluate my teachings]a – –
22 J’accorde beaucoup d’attention à l’identification et aux remédiations des problèmes des élèves pendant l’apprentissage [I pay a lot – –
of attention to the identification and remediation of student problems during learning]a
25 Dans la préparation de mes cours, je passe beaucoup de temps à choisir les contenus les plus appropriés pour les élèves [During the .04 .64
preparation of my courses, I spend a lot of time choosing the most appropriate content for the students]B *

Pedagogical expertise
2 Je fais attention au bien-être de mes élèves dès le début de leçon [I take care of the wellbeing of my students from the beginning of .63 .04
the lesson]*
5 Les relations avec mes élèves sont de bonne qualité [Relations with my students are good]* .62 −.01
8 J’ai du mal à canaliser l’attention de mes élèves en classe [I have trouble channelling the attention of my students in my classroom] – –
11 Je propose des formes de groupement adaptées aux élèves lors de mes enseignements [I propose grouping forms adapted to students – –
during my teachings]
14 J’accorde de l’importance à développer une relation de confiance avec mes élèves [I value developing a trusting relationship with .74 .12
my students]*
17 En tant qu’enseignante, je montre l’exemple sur la manière dont les élèves ont à se comporter/à interagir entre eux et avec les autres – –
[As a teacher, I show the example of how students have to behave / interact among and with others]a
20 Quand je remarque qu’un élève est en difficulté, j’essaie de l’aider [When I notice a student is struggling, I try to help him]a * .54 .09
23 Ma première priorité est de créer un climat de classe où les élèves se sentent en sécurité et valorisés [My first priority is to create a .74 .03
class atmosphere where students feel safe and valued]a *
26 Le développement de soi des élèves est un aspect dont je tiens fortement compte au sein de mes leçons [Students' self-development is .55 .19
one aspect that I strongly consider in my lessons]a *

Subject matter expertise

3 Je renouvèle régulièrement mes enseignements [I renew my teachings]* .14 .64
6 Je maîtrise les contenus enseignés aux élèves [I master the contents taught to students] – –
9 En tant qu’enseignant, je ne peux pas me permettre de faire des erreurs [As a teacher, I can not afford to make mistakes] – –
12 La maîtrise des contenus ne me suffit pas à elle seule pour enseigner [Mastery of content is not enough for me to teach] – –
15 J’arrive à faire des liens entre la théorie et la pratique dans mes enseignements [I can make connections between theory and practice .10 .65
in my teachings]*
18 Je suis capable d’évaluer mes points forts et mes lacunes concernant la matière que j’enseigne [I am able to assess my strengths and – –
weaknesses in the subject I teach]
21 Je suis respectée de mes élèves notamment grâce à mon expertise dans la matière enseignée [I am respected by my students thanks – –
to my expertise in the subject taught]
24 Je mets à jour mes compétences dans mon domaine de manière autodidacte ou en suivant des formations [I update my skills in my .12 .79
field in a self-taught way or by following training]a *
27 Je suis intéressé.e par les avancées dans ma matière [I am interested in new developments in my subject matter]a * −.06 .73
Eigenvalues 3.06 1.98
Percentage of total variance 27.85 18.01

Note: * Items retained in the final version of the QIPPE.

a
Items retained from the Dutch questionnaire of Beijaard et al. (2000) through a standardized back-translation procedure. English versions of the items are
provided for informational purposes, as a standardized back-translation procedure was not followed.

74 males). The mean age of this sample was 45.46 years (SD = 9.30;
age range: 23–65), the mean work experience was 19.20 years
(SD = 9.60), and the mean workweek was 18.20 h (SD = 3.49).
5.1.2. Data analysis and results
The statistical analyses were performed with the STATISTICA 7.1
program (StatSoft France, 2005). An EFA with varimax rotation was
used to extract factors as this method is recommended in scale devel-
opment (Roberson et al., 2014). The number of factors was determined
by both an examination of the scree plot and the criterion of eigenva-
lues greater than 1 (Roberson et al., 2014). The decision to eliminate a
QIPPE item was based on a weak factor loading on a factor and/or an
item loading on more than one factor. The remaining data were then
subjected to a follow-up EFA because loadings may change with the
addition or removal of items. This process continued as long as an item
simultaneously loaded on two or more factors (i.e., an item with two or
more loadings higher than 0.30) or a factor loading of 0.40 or lesser on
the primary factor could be found.
The scree criteria and the number of eigenvalues greater than 1.0
both indicated two factors, providing strong evidence of a two-factor
solution. Seven items (i.e., items 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 22) did not
achieve a loading of 0.40 or more on any factor. Using the procedures
outlined above, we re-estimated the QIPPE model through systematic
and sequential item deletion. Following each item deletion, a follow-up
EFA was performed. This process resulted in the deletion of nine items
(i.e., items 1, 4, 6, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21)3, in addition to the seven
3
It is noteworthy that the scree criteria and the number of eigenvalues

238
V. Lentillon-Kaestner et al.
aforementioned items. Of note, all items related to specific didactical
practices, such as changing learning activities, planning interventions,
alternating working methods, learning times, remediation, and work
tools (items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, and 22) were not retained in the
EFAs. The correlation between the two final factors was 0.23 (Table 3).
Factor 1 consisted of six items developed to evaluate pedagogical ex-
pertise (i.e., three items translated from the Dutch questionnaire of
Beijaard et al. (2000) and three new items), and factor 2 consisted of
five items designed to assess subject matter – didactical expertise, la-
belled “subject matter expertise” (i.e., three items translated from the
Dutch questionnaire by Beijaard et al. (2000) and two new items). In
summary, this series of EFAs led to a final version of the QIPPE con-
sisting of 11 items, six for pedagogical expertise and five for subject
matter expertise (Table 1).
5.2. Confirmatory factor (CFA) and exploratory structural equation
modelling (ESEM) analyses
Because the model generation strategy used in the re-estimation of
the QIPPE model through item deletion (i.e., an initial EFA is per-
formed, and problematic items are then deleted until the EFA results are
adequate) could be susceptible to capitalization on chance, the final
best-fitting model of the EFA must be evaluated by fitting it to an in-
dependent sample using a CFA and/or ESEM approach (Martinent,
Guillet-Descas, & Moiret, 2015). To date, the CFA model has been the
most popular measurement model (Marsh, Morin, Parker, & Kaur,
2014). Because the CFA model implies that all cross-loadings should be
zero and all residuals should be uncorrelated, it has been recently re-
commended to also use an ESEM model, which is a less restrictive
measurement model that is still compatible with theory (Marsh et al.,
2014; Myers, Martin, Ntoumanis, Celimli, & Bartholomew, 2014).
ESEM models allow accommodating factor cross-loadings that are dif-
ferent from zero (Marsh et al., 2014). In particular, each group of items
loads on its target latent factor, and loadings on non-target latent fac-
tors are supposed to be lower but are freely estimated as non-zero va-
lues.
5.2.1. Participants, measures and procedures
The 11-item QIPPE was completed by a second independent sample
of 350 French secondary school teachers (225 females and 125 males)
with a mean age of 43.2 years (SD = 9.40; age range: 21–63). They had
a mean work experience of 17.80 years (SD = 9.28) and worked an
average of 18.60 h per week (SD = 3.29). The implementation of this
study with this second sample followed the same procedure described
for the first sample.
5.2.2. Data analysis and results
The construct validity of the two-factor 11-item QIPPE that emerged
from the series of EFAs was tested using CFA and ESEM models. All
models were estimated using Mplus 7.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012) with
a robust maximum likelihood estimator.
For the CFA model, a hierarchical, 2-factor, 11-item model was
specified (based on the EFA results). For the ESEM model, item loadings
on their a priori TPI factors were freely estimated, and all cross-loadings
were also freely estimated but targeted to be as close to 0 as possible.
Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested reporting the comparative fit index
(CFI), the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square (χ2), the Tucker-Lewis
index (TLI) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
for the examination of model fit. CFI and TLI values above 0.90 and
RMSEA values under 0.08 indicate adequate model fit (Hu & Bentler,
1999). The goodness-of-fit indices for the hierarchical CFA and ESEM
(footnote continued)
greater than 1.0 indicate two factors for each of the follow-up EFA, thus pro-
viding strong evidence for the two-factor solution of the QIPPE.
239
Studies in Educational Evaluation 59 (2018) 235–243
models reached cut-off criterion values: χ2 = 87.16 / 76.40; CFI = 0.93
/0.93; TLI = 0.91 / 0.90; RMSEA = .05 / .06.4 All factor loadings (λ)
were significant at p < .05 (t > 1.96) and were higher than the cut-off
criterion of 0.40 (Table 2). It is also noteworthy that the ESEM results
provided evidence that each QIPPE item only loaded on its hypothe-
sized factor, as all the loadings on non-target latent factors were rather
weak. In summary, the CFA and ESEM supported the 2-factor structure
of the 11-item QIPPE in this second independent sample of teachers.
5.3. Reliability of the 11-Item QIPPE scores
The reliability of the QIPPE scores was assessed through Cronbach’s
α coefficient, item analysis and composite reliability values (ρ) from the
two independent samples in study 1. Concerning the item analysis, the
following criteria were adopted to test each item (Clark & Watson,
1995; DeVellis, 2003): (a) a minimum item-total correlation coefficient
of r = .40 and (b) a mean inter-item correlation between r = 0.20 and r
= 0.50. Composite reliability values (i.e., ρ = {(sum of standardized
loadings)2} / {(sum of standardized loadings)2 + (sum of indicator
measurement errors)}) measure the overall reliability of a collection of
heterogeneous but similar items. A value of 0.70 or greater indicates
good reliability (Raykov, 2001).
Cronbach’s α coefficients for pedagogical expertise and subject
matter expertise were 0.70 and 0.73, respectively, for sample 1 and
were 0.74 and .76, respectively, for sample 2, suggesting relatively
good reliability of the two QIPPE subscales (DeVellis, 2003; Nunnaly,
1970). All 11 QIPPE items fulfilled the two criteria of item analysis,
providing evidence of adequate reliability of the QIPPE in the two in-
dependent subsamples (Table 3). Finally, the ρ-values indicated that the
reliability of each of the two QIPPE subscales was acceptable, with ρ
values of 0.72 and .74, respectively, for sample 1 and ρ values of 0.76
and 0.73, respectively, for sample 2. In summary, the reliability of the
11-item QIPPE scores was supported in the two independent teacher
samples in study 1.
6. Study 2
The aim of study 2 was to explore the convergent validity of the
QIPPE scores. Work motivation was considered as a factor associated
with TPI, since some researchers have argued that TPI is acquired
through investigating teachers’ motivation and perceiving teacher
motivation as an indicator of teachers’ sense of their professional
identity (Canrinus et al., 2011, 2012; Day, 2002; Vloet & van Swet,
2010; Zhang et al., 2016).
The self-determination theory leads to differentiate levels of work
motivation among teachers (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Autonomous and
controlled motivation are conceptualized as qualitatively different
motivational orientations, with autonomous motivation being more
adaptive than controlled motivation and amotivation. When amoti-
vated, a teacher’s behaviour lacks intentionality and a sense of personal
causation. Amotivation results from not valuing the teaching activity,
for example. Controlled motivation refers to feeling pressured or
coerced to engage in specific behaviours or activities. This pressure can
arise from external sources, such as a desire to obtain rewards or to
avoid disapproval and criticism. With external regulation, a teacher
would, for instance, dutifully prepare lessons because of an impending
school inspection. Pressure can also originate from internal sources,
4
An EFA was also conducted on the 11 items of the F-TIP. Two eigenva-
lues > 1.0 were obtained following the EFA (λ1 = 3.71; λ2 = 1.51). An ex-
amination of the eigenvalue scree plot (i.e., scree test) also suggested the re-
tention of two factors. Thus, the CFA and EFA results suggested the tenability of
a 2-factor solution. Because the EFA solution corresponded directly to the CFA
results, we chose not to present the EFA results. For interested readers, the EFA
results are available upon request to the first author.
V. Lentillon-Kaestner et al. Studies in Educational Evaluation 59 (2018) 235–243

Table 2 experience of 13.79 years (SD = 9.22), and worked an average of

Standardized Factor Loadings (λ) and Uniqueness (δ) for Confirmatory Factor 19.30 h per week (SD = 8.71). The implementation of this study fol-
Analysis (CFA) and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) of the lowed the same procedure described in the first study. The Institutional
QIPPE. Review Board of the Universities of Lausanne provided approval to
CFA Solution ESEM Solution conduct this study in secondary school teachers in the State of Vaud in
Switzerland.
Items λ δ PE (λ) SME (λ) δ

Pedagogical Expertise (PE)

6.1.2. Measures
Item 1 (2) .72 .43 .70 .17 .46 Motivation was measured using the French version of the
Item 3 (5) .54 .70 .55 .10 .68 Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale (MWMS, Gagné et al., 2015).
Item 4 (14) .57 .66 .61 .04 .62 This scale is composed of 19 items divided into five dimensions: in-
Item 6 (20) .51 .74 .46 .21 .74
trinsic motivation (three items), identified regulation (three items),
Item 7 (23) .66 .55 .62 .21 .57
Item 10 (26) .51 .73 .45 .20 .74 introjected regulation (four items), external regulation (six items) and
Subject Matter Expertise (SME) amotivation (three items). Items are associated with a Likert-type scale,
Item 2 (3) .56 .67 .26 .48 .69 graded from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α
Item 5 (15) .52 .72 .23 .45 .74
values ranged from 0.71 to .85.
Item 8 (24) .61 .62 .12 .63 .58
Item 9 (25) .58 .66 .12 .58 .64
Perceived TPI was assessed with the 11-item QIPPE (established in
Item 11 (27) .69 .51 .22 .65 .51 study 1), which includes two dimensions: pedagogical expertise (six
items) and subject matter expertise (five items). Participants responded
Note: The corresponding number of each item from the 27-item preliminary using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
version of the questionnaire is shown in parentheses. Cronbach’s α values for pedagogical expertise and subject matter ex-
pertise were 0.72 and .79, respectively (Table 3).
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics, Cronbach’s Alphas, and Pearson’s Correlations between 6.1.3. Data analysis
the Two Dimensions of the QIPPE (Samples 1, 2, and 3) and Pearson’s
Pearson product-moment correlations were computed among the
Correlations between the QIPPE Factors and Motivation Subscales (Sample 3).
QIPPE and MWMS scores. Correlations were interpreted using Cohen
Cronbach’s M SD PE SME (1988) criteria (i.e., small ≤0.30; medium = .30–.50; large ≥0.50).
Alpha The correlation inter-factors are indicated in Table 3.
QIPPE factors - Sample 1
Pedagogical expertise .70 4.22 .44 6.2. Results
Subject matter expertise .73 4.03 .53 .23*
QIPPE factors - Sample 2 Significant relationships in the expected directions were observed
Pedagogical expertise .74 4.27 .42
between the QIPPE and MWMS scores. More precisely, the correlations
Subject matter expertise .76 3.92 .50 .49*
QIPPE factors - Sample 3 for pedagogical expertise and subject matter expertise were positively
Pedagogical expertise .72 4.32 .41 correlated with intrinsic, r = 0.45 and r = 0.35, respectively, and
Subject matter expertise .79 3.86 .47 .39* identified regulation, r = 0.39 and r = 0.25, respectively, and were
Motivation subscales - Sample
negatively correlated with amotivation, r = −.30 and r = −0.19,
3
Amotivation .82 1.32 .70 −.30* −.19*
respectively. Notably, these correlations were in the small-to-medium
External regulation .74 2.63 .91 −.11 −.03 range (Table 3).
Introjected regulation .74 4.20 1.37 −.07 .05
Identified regulation .71 5.68 .89 .39* .25* 7. Discussion
Intrinsic regulation .85 5.98 .93 .45* .35*

Note: *p < .05; PE = pedagogical expertise, SME = subject matter expertise.
such as a desire to increase one’s self-worth or to avoid feelings of
shame or guilt. With introjected regulation, teachers might, for in-
stance, want to prove themselves and show off their own skills as a good
teacher. Autonomous motivation involves a sense of volition and self-
endorsement. With identified regulation, a teacher might deeply value
the importance of transferring certain skills to students. Autonomous
motivation might also arise from the pleasure or inherent satisfaction
derived from engaging in the teaching activity itself. With intrinsic
motivation, a teacher may enjoy enriching students with new insights
and knowledge. Consequently, we hypothesized that the two QIPPE
subscale scores should be positively correlated with self-determined
forms of motivation (i.e., intrinsic motivation and identified regulation)
and negatively correlated with non-self-determined forms of motivation
(i.e., introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation).
6.1. Methods
6.1.1. Participants and procedure
A sample of 194 Swiss secondary school teachers (122 females and
71 males) completed the online survey. The participants had a mean
age of 40.26 years (SD = 9.57; 23–62 age range), a mean work
The purpose of this study was to develop a reliable and psycho-
metrically sound questionnaire related to perceived TPI (QIPPE). The
three stages followed for the development of this questionnaire de-
monstrated strong support for the psychometric properties and con-
struct validity of the QIPPE scores. The QIPPE consists of a two-factor
structure and 11 items that evaluate pedagogical expertise (6 items)
and subject matter expertise (5 items). These two dimensions assess
unique, yet correlated, dimensions of perceived TPI (Table 3).
Based on the literature review, three domains of expertise in
teaching were retained to develop the QIPPE items: didactical, peda-
gogical, and subject matter expertise. Nevertheless, considering mul-
tiple criteria for assessing model adequacy and contrary to our hy-
pothesis, the QIPPE demonstrated a close fit with a 2-factor solution,
but not with a 3-factor solution. In the preliminary version, 9 items
were elaborated to evaluate each of three domains of expertise
(Table 1); nevertheless, in the final QIPPE version, 11 items were re-
tained. In the EFA, six items created to measure pedagogical expertise
fit on factor 1, called pedagogical expertise; one item (item 25) created
to measure didactical expertise and four items created to measure
subject matter expertise fit on factor 2, called subject matter expertise
(Table 1). Item 25 refers to the choice of appropriate content in course
preparation. Therefore, the close relationship between didactical and
subject matter expertise is clear in the formulation of this item.
The 2-factor structure of the QIPPE is not surprising, referring to

240
V. Lentillon-Kaestner et al.
previous studies that highlight the close relationship between didactical
and subject matter expertise and the importance of subject matter ex-
pertise (Beijaard et al., 2000; Hogan & Rabinowitz, 2009; Kansanen &
Meri, 1999; Thomas & Thomas, 2012; Van der Zande et al., 2012). The
qualitative data reported by Beijaard et al. (2000) showed that teachers
who perceived themselves as primarily subject matter experts often
clarified this fact by stating that, without expertise in a subject matter,
one cannot be a teacher. In the study by Thomas and Thomas (2012),
the interviewees’ responses suggested that expert teachers possess in-
depth knowledge of the content area, rather than prior knowledge of
students’ abilities, and then use that knowledge to help them plan and
teach their lessons. In addition, this 2-factor structure of the QIPPE il-
lustrated how the expertise fields are defined in French language
countries (e.g., Switzerland and France) (Zouari, 2010). As underlined
by Perrenoud (1994), the structure of the initial teacher formation is
characterized by a juxtaposition of two domains of expertise: pedago-
gical expertise and subject matter expertise. These domains were also
clearly distinguished in previous research (Blândul, 2015; Kansanen &
Meri, 1999; Pepin, 2009; Sarrazy, 2002).
In summary, this study underlined two distinguishable domains of
teaching expertise in perceived TPI: one directly related to content (i.e.,
subject matter expertise) and the other not (i.e., pedagogical expertise).
Didactical practices depend not only on teachers but also on students,
which could explain why it does not appear as a personal component of
perceived TPI. Based on the German didactic tradition (Harjunen,
2009), Kansanen and Meri (1999) emphasized that, in the didactic
triangle, “didactic relation means a relation to another relation” (p. 8).
First, there is a relation between the student and the subject matter.
This relation is manifest as studying and latent as learning and other
changes. Second, the teacher has a relation to the link between the
student and the subject matter. Didactic interaction occurs between the
teacher, the student and the subject matter, where the interactions
between the teacher or the student and subject matter are of great
concern (Harjunen, 2009).
Previous studies showed that work motivation was related to TPI
(Canrinus et al., 2011, 2012; Day, 2002; Vloet & van Swet, 2010; Zhang
et al., 2016), and work motivation was used in this study to estimate the
convergent validity of the QIPPE. Confirming our hypothesis, the re-
sults from the present study provided evidence for a relationship be-
tween the QIPPE scores and work motivation. In particular, pedagogical
expertise and subject matter expertise were positively correlated with
autonomous motivation and negatively correlated with amotivation.
Notably, no significant correlation was observed between controlled
motivation (i.e., external and introjected regulation) and the QIPPE
scores. Correlations were finally significant with only the forms of
motivation located at the extremities of the self-determination con-
tinuum. Zhang et al. (2016) showed positive relationships between the
three dimensions retained in their questionnaire measuring TPI (i.e.,
intrinsic value identity, external factors, and volitional behaviour
identity) and intrinsic and extrinsic learning motivations in pre-service
teachers. Nevertheless, because of differences in the definitions of TPI
and the motivation measure (work vs. learning), it is difficult to com-
pare these results, and future quantitative research needs to be con-
ducted to better understand the relationship between TPI and work
motivation.
8. Limitations and future studies
The QIPPE could be useful for future research, filling a gap in the
literature, even if it presents some limitations in terms of future re-
search directions. The first typical limitation of research based on self-
report measures is the potential for social desirability bias. Moreover,
this study was conducted with three samples of secondary school tea-
chers and among French language teachers in two countries, France and
Switzerland (State of Vaud). The validation of the QIPPE was included
in an international research project between these two countries, and it
241
Studies in Educational Evaluation 59 (2018) 235–243
was useful to ask teachers from both countries to implement the two
studies included in the validation process of the QIPPE. Items were well
understood by the teachers of both countries, and providing evidence of
the construct validity of the QIPPE scores on independent samples from
different countries suggested that the QIPPE could be used in the future
in different contexts. Further studies need to validate the QIPPE in other
languages for future international comparative studies on TPI. In ad-
dition, it could be interesting to test other item formulations related to
didactical expertise to determine whether a third dimension of ex-
pertise could be found in TPI, as expected in this study.
Second, we chose not to integrate contextual and personal factors
related to TPI into the QIPPE and focused only on personal aspects of
TPI with an expertise perspective. Nevertheless, as noted by Ray
(2008), “it would be impossible to address professional identity without
analysing the factors that influence it” (p. 1659). Perceived TPI “is
shaped through continuous interaction between person and context”
(Canrinus et al., 2011, p. 604). Consequently, this current study is
limited and it would be useful in future research to more thoroughly
identify the personal (i.e., teaching experience and teacher’s biography)
and contextual (e.g., relationships with other teachers and school di-
rectors, and school subject taught) factors related to TPI. In this vein, it
would be interesting to develop a person and context questionnaire to
determine how the personal and contextual factors relate the two per-
sonal dimensions of the QIPPE.
Third, another possibility for expanding the present study in future
research lies in the investigation of the relationships between perceived
TPI and other psychological factors (e.g., well-being, burnout). In ad-
dition to existing qualitative and quantitative descriptive studies, and
because TPI is an ongoing process (Beijaard et al., 2000, 2004; Stenberg
et al., 2014), it would be interesting to conduct longitudinal studies to
follow the development of TPI, its components, and related factors
during a teacher’s career.
9. Conclusion
Through three samples and based on multiple criteria for assessing
model adequacy, this study confirmed the validity and reliability of the
11-item QIPPE scores, including one factor related to pedagogical ex-
pertise and another related to subject matter expertise. The develop-
ment of this questionnaire, based on a clear definition of TPI, fills a gap
in the literature and offers opportunities for conducting longitudinal
and quantitative research to estimate the reciprocal effects of perceived
TPI and other related factors.
10. Author note
Vanessa Lentillon-Kaestner, Teaching and Research Unit in Physical
Education and Sport (UER-EPS), University of Teacher Education, State
of Vaud (HEP-Vaud), Lausanne, Switzerland, Emma Guillet-Descas,
Guillaume Martinent, & Valérian Cécé, Laboratoire sur les
Vulnérabilités et l’Innovation dans le Sport (EA 7428), Confédération
Recherches Interdisciplinaires en Sport (FED 4272), Université Claude
Bernard Lyon 1 – Université de Lyon, France.
Funding
This work was supported by the direction of the evaluation, fore-
sight and performance (DEPP), Ministry of National Education, France
[grant number 2015-033].
References
Akkerman, S. F., & Meijer, P. C. (2011). A dialogical approach to conceptualizing teacher
identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2010.08.013.
Anspal, T., Eisenschmidt, E., & Löfström, E. (2012). Finding myself as a teacher: Exploring
V. Lentillon-Kaestner et al.
the shaping of teacher identities through student teachers’ narratives. Teachers and
Teaching Theory and Practice, 18(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.
2012.632268.
Arvaja, M. (2016). Building teacher identity through the process of positioning. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 59, 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.024.
Aydeniz, M., & Kirbulut, Z. D. (2014). Exploring challenges of assessing pre-service sci-
ence teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 42(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.890696.
Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of
issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 39(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640902902252.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’
professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107–128. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001.
Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional
identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 16(7), 749–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)
00023-8.
Biberman-Shalev, L., Sabbagh, C., Resh, N., & Kramarski, B. (2011). Grading styles and
disciplinary expertise: The mediating role of the teacher’s perception of the subject
matter. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 831–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2011.01.007.
Blândul, V. C. (2015). The role and status of didactic communication in educational ac-
tivity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 2568–2572. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.584.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-cultural
Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301.
Bukor, E. (2015). Exploring teacher identity from a holistic perspective: Reconstructing
and reconnecting personal and professional selves. Teachers and Teaching Theory and
Practice, 21(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.953818.
Burns, E., & Bell, S. (2011). Narrative construction of professional teacher identity of
teachers with dyslexia. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 952–960. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.007.
Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2012). Self-
efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships
between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 27(1), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0069-2.
Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2011).
Profiling teachers’ sense of professional identity. Educational Studies, 37(5), 593–608.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2010.539857.
Cheung, H. Y. (2008). Measuring the professional identity of Hong Kong in‐service tea-
chers. Journal of In-service Education, 34(3), 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13674580802003060.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-
3590.7.3.309.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L.
Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J. L. (2008). ‘That’s not treating you as a professional’: Teachers constructing
complex professional identities through talk. Teachers and Teaching Theory and
Practice, 14(2), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600801965861.
Curwood, J. S. (2014). Between continuity and change: Identities and narratives within
teacher professional development. Teaching Education, 25(2), 156–183. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10476210.2012.755159.
Day, C. (2002). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity.
International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 677–692. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0883-0355(03)00065-X.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). London, UK:
Sage publications.
Eaude, T. (2014). What makes primary classteachers special? Exploring the features of
expertise in the primary classroom. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice, 20(1),
4–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848513.
Elliott, J. G. (2015). Teacher expertise A2 - Wright. In D. James (Ed.). International en-
cyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 56–59). (second edition). Oxford:
Elsevier.
Ezer, H., Gilat, I., & Sagee, R. (2010). Perception of teacher education and professional
identity among novice teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(4),
391–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2010.504949.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A.
K., & Güntert, S. T. (2015). The multidimensional work motivation scale: Validation
evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 24(2), 178–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.
2013.877892.
Happo, I., Määttä, K., & Uusiautti, S. (2012). Experts or good educators – or both? The
development of early childhood educators’ expertise in Finland. Early Child
Development and Care, 182(3–4), 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2011.
646719.
Harjunen, E. (2009). How do teachers view their own pedagogical authority? Teachers
and Teaching Theory and Practice, 15(1), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13540600802661345.
Hashweh, M. Z. (2003). Teacher accommodative change. Teaching and Teacher Education,
19(4), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00026-X.
Hogan, T., & Rabinowitz, M. (2009). Teacher expertise and the development of a problem
242
Studies in Educational Evaluation 59 (2018) 235–243
representation. Educational Psychology, 29(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01443410802613301.
Hong, J. Y. (2010). Pre-service and beginning teachers’ professional identity and its re-
lation to dropping out of the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8),
1530–1543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.003.
Hsieh, B. (2015). The importance of orientation: Implications of professional identity on
classroom practice and for professional learning. Teachers and Teaching Theory and
Practice, 21(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.928133.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Husain, M. Z., Hasan, A., Wahab, N. B. A., & Jantan, J. (2015). Determining teaching
effectiveness for physical education teacher. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
172, 733–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.426.
Jegede, O., Taplin, M., & Chan, S.-L. (2000). Trainee teachers’ perception of their
knowledge about expert teaching. Educational Research, 42(3), 287–308. https://doi.
org/10.1080/001318800440614.
Kansanen, P. (1999). The deutsche didaktik and the american research on teaching.
Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as Science (-s) of the Teaching profession, 2(1), 21–36.
Kansanen, P., & Meri, M. (1999). The didactic relation in the teaching-studying-learning
process. Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as Science(-s) of the Teaching profession, 2(1), 107–116.
Lamote, C., & Engels, N. (2010). The development of student teachers’ professional
identity. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02619760903457735.
Leijen, Ä., & Kullasepp, K. (2013). All roads lead to Rome: Developmental trajectories of
student teachers’ professional and personal identity development. Journal of
Constructivist Psychology, 26(2), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2013.
759023.
Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing
Research. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017.
Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural
equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and con-
firmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 85–110.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700.
Martinent, G., Guillet-Descas, E., & Moiret, S. (2015). Reliability and validity evidence for
the French Psychological Need Thwarting Scale (PNTS) scores: Significance of a
distinction between thwarting and satisfaction of basic psychological needs.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 20, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.
2015.04.005.
Mieg, H. A. (2009). Two factors of expertise? Excellence and professionalism of en-
vironmental experts. High Ability Studies, 20(1), 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13598130902860432.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Myers, N. D., Martin, J. J., Ntoumanis, N., Celimli, S., & Bartholomew, K. J. (2014).
Exploratory bifactor analysis in sport, exercise, and performance psychology: A
substantive-methodological synergy. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology,
3(4), 258. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000015.
Nunnaly, J. C. (1970). Introduction to psychological measurement. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Peercy, M. M., Martin-Beltrán, M., Silverman, R. D., & Daniel, S. (2015). Curricular design
and implementation as a site of teacher expertise and learning. Teachers and Teaching
Theory and Practice, 21(7), 867–893. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.
995486.
Pepin, B. (2009). Existing models of knowledge in teaching: Developing an understanding
of the Anglo/American, the French and the German scene. Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as
Science (-s) of the Teaching profession, 2(1), 49–66.
Perrenoud, P. (1994). La formation des enseignants entre théorie et pratique [Teacher training
between theory and practice]. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Pillen, M., Beijaard, D., & den Brok, P. (2013). Professional identity tensions of beginning
teachers. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice, 19(6), 660–678. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13540602.2013.827455.
Pillen, M. T., Den Brok, P. J., & Beijaard, D. (2013). Profiles and change in beginning
teachers’ professional identity tensions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 86–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.04.003.
Ray, J. M. (2008). Building the bridge as you walk on it: Didactic behaviors of elementary
teachers in a dual language program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6),
1658–1671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.01.007.
Raykov, T. (2001). Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covariance structure
analysis with nonlinear constraints. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
Psychology, 54(2), 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711001159582.
Roberson, R. B., Elliott, T. R., Chang, J. E., & Hill, J. N. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis
in Rehabilitation Psychology: A content analysis. Rehabilitation Psychology, 59(4),
429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037899.
Sarrazy, B. (2002). Didactique, pédagogie et enseignement: Pour une clarification du
débat dans la communauté des sciences de l’éducation [didactics, pedagogy and
education: To clarify the discussion in the education sciences community]. In J. F.
Marcel (Ed.). Les sciences de l’education: Des recherches, une discipline? (pp. 131–134).
Paris: L’Harmattan.
Schepens, A., Aelterman, A., & Vlerick, P. (2009). Student teachers’ professional identity
formation: Between being born as a teacher and becoming one. Educational Studies,
35(4), 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690802648317.
Sercu, L. (2006). The foreign language and intercultural competence teacher: The ac-
quisition of a new professional identity. Intercultural Education, 17(1), 55–72. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14675980500502321.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.
V. Lentillon-Kaestner et al.
j463w79r56455411.
Squires, A., Aiken, L. H., van den Heede, K., Sermeus, W., Bruyneel, L., Lindqvist, R., ...
Matthews, A. (2013). A systematic survey instrument translation process for multi-
country, comparative health workforce studies. International Journal of Nursing
Studies, 50(2), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.02.015.
Starr, S., Haley, H.-L., Mazor, K. M., Ferguson, W., Philbin, M., & Quirk, M. (2006). Initial
testing of an instrument to measure teacher identity in physicians. Teaching and
Learning in Medicine, 18(2), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15328015tlm1802_5.
Stenberg, K., Karlsson, L., Pitkaniemi, H., & Maaranen, K. (2014). Beginning student
teachers’ teacher identities based on their practical theories. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 37(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.
882309.
Tan, C. P., Van der Molen, H. T., & Schmidt, H. G. (2017). A measure of professional
identity development for professional education. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8),
1504–1519. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1111322.
Thomas, C. M., & Thomas, M. A. M. (2012). Zambian teachers’ perceptions of expert
teaching: Resourcefulness, punctuality, and sobriety. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(5), 583–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.
2011.605077.
Traianou, A. (2006). Understanding teacher expertise in primary science: A sociocultural
approach. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02671520500445466.
Van der Zande, P., Akkerman, S. F., Brekelmans, M., Waarlo, A. J., & Vermunt, J. D.
(2012). Expertise for teaching biology situated in the context of genetic testing.
International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1741–1767. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09500693.2012.671557.
Vloet, K., & van Swet, J. (2010). ‘I can only learn in dialogue!’ exploring professional
243
Studies in Educational Evaluation 59 (2018) 235–243
identities in teacher education. Professional Development in Education, 36(1-2),
149–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415250903457083.
Volkmann, M. J., & Anderson, M. A. (1998). Creating professional identity: Dilemmas and
metaphors of a first-year chemistry teacher. Science Education, 82(3), 293–310.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199806)82:3<293::AID-SCE1>3.0.
CO;2-7.
Winkler, G. (2001). Reflection and theory: Conceptualising the gap between teaching
experience and teacher expertise. Educational Action Research, 9(3), 437–449. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09650790100200168.
Zembylas, M. (2003). Emotions and teacher identity: A poststructural perspective.
Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice, 9(3), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13540600309378.
Zembylas, M. (2005). Discursive practices, genealogies, and emotional rules: A post-
structuralist view on emotion and identity in teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21(8), 935–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.005.
Zhang, Y., Hawk, S. T., Zhang, X., & Zhao, H. (2016). Chinese preservice teachers’ pro-
fessional identity links with education program performance: The roles of task value
belief and learning motivations. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2016.00573.
Zierer, K. (2015). Educational expertise: The concept of ‘mind frames’ as an integrative
model for professionalisation in teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 41(6),
782–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1121140.
Zivkovic, P. (2016). The Nexus Between teacher professional identity and some socio-
demographic and psychological variables. European Scientific Journal, 12(10).
Zouari, Y. (2010). Pédagogie et didactique à l’épreuve de la modernité [Pedagogy and
didactics to the test of modernity]. Questions Vives. Recherches en Education, 4(13),
305–323.