Received: 2 July 2018 | Revised: 12 December 2018 | Accepted: 18 December 2018

DOI: 10.1002/pits.22233

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Predicting teacher burnout as a function of

school characteristics and irrational beliefs

Oksana Huk1 | Mark D. Terjesen2 | Lina Cherkasova2

1
Department of Psychology, Iona College,
New Rochelle, New York Abstract
2
St. Johns University, Jamaica, New York Irrational beliefs have been linked to negative unhealthy
emotions that can contribute to occupational burnout.
Correspondence
Oksana Huk, Department of Psychology, Iona Maladaptive cognitive schemas, such as irrational beliefs, are
College, New Rochelle, NY 10801.
theorized to interfere with an appraisal of the perceived
Email: ohuk@iona.edu
balance of resources and demands. The aim of the current
study is to investigate the extent to which irrational beliefs
account for occupational burnout among high school teachers
when considering school resources, job demands, and teacher
characteristics. A sample of 79 high school teachers, primarily
from New York and New Jersey, completed self‐report
questionnaires measuring burnout, the perception of school
demands and availability of resources, and irrational beliefs.
Among school‐based characteristics, correlational analyses
indicated that burnout was positively related to school
demands (i.e., student disrespect and student lack of atten-
tiveness) and negatively related to school resources (i.e.,
support from the administration and colleagues), supporting
previous research findings. Among teacher characteristics,
burnout was negatively related to self‐efficacy and positively
related to irrational beliefs. Results from regression analyses
indicated that, whereas irrational beliefs were predictive of
teacher burnout, they did not moderate the relationship
between demands and burnout. Implications, limitations, and
directions for future directions for research are discussed.

KEYWORDS
burnout, irrational beliefs, rational emotive behavior therapy,
teachers

792 | © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits Psychol Schs. 2019;56:792–808.

HUK ET AL. | 793

1 | INTRODUCTION

Occupational burnout refers to significantly diminished job performance due to employee emotional and physical
depletion (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Occupational stress refers to negative affect arising from difficulty or
inability to cope with environmental demands (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987; Prilleltensky, Neff, & Bessell, 2016).
Burnout among teachers is important to research as burnout impacts the provision of effective instruction. Thereby,
burnout carries potentially long‐reaching effects on teacher and student well‐being in schools. In the current climate
of high stakes testing and increased teacher accountability and scrutiny, educators may experience stress as a
function of their job. While burnout and stress are often used interchangeably (Rudow, 1999) in some cases, stress
may eventually lead to occupational burnout (Byrne, 1999; Kyriacou, 2001, Rudow, 1999; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2015).
While teacher performance as a function of burnout is difficult to measure (Rudow, 1999), teacher burnout is an
important area to study. Teachers with greater burnout that remain in the classroom are more likely to mismanage
classrooms (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009), are less attentive to students (Jennings &
Greenberg, 2009), cannot form close relationships with students (Osher, Bear, Sprague, & Doyle, 2010), and use more
punitive measures (Osher et al., 2010; Piekarska, 2000). The use of punitive measures by educators has been shown
to be detrimental to students’ academic and emotional growth. Specifically, when teachers use more punitive
measures, students tend to exhibit more anxiety and less motivation (Piekarska, 2000). Teachers who are more
stressed also have greater absenteeism (Kyraicou, 2001; Rudow, 1999), have greater turnover (Rudow, 1999), and
early retirement (Rudow, 1999) and value their relationships with students less (Osher et al., 2010). According to
research conducted by Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2015) in which they interviewed 30 teachers from Norway, weekends
and vacations were enough to help the youngest teachers in the sample to feel rejuvenated for work and diminish
their emotional exhaustion (EE). The older teachers, however, reported that this time was not enough to help them
feel ready to return to work, and thus they started taking more sick leave. The oldest teachers in this sample resorted
to reducing their work schedules to overcome exhaustion while some resorted to retiring early.
When teachers experience greater stress, they behave in ways that are likely to have a negative influence on
their students. In fact, Oberle and Schonert‐Reichl (2016) found that the level of stress a teacher experienced
predicted the level of the stress hormone, cortisol, found within students. Higher levels of cortisol in students are
related to lower academic performance and higher mental health problems (Oberle & Schonert‐Reichl, 2016). Thus,
students are more likely to experience physiological stress when they have teachers who are stressed. Not
surprisingly, teacher stress has been shown to be related to lessened student academic achievement (Klusmann,
Richter, & Lüdtke, 2016). Thus, it is necessary to identify variables, both environmental and personal, which
contribute to higher levels of burnout.

1.1 | Teacher burnout

While many varying definitions for occupational burnout exist, Maslach et al. (2001) proposed that burnout is
constituted by three constructs: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a lack of personal accomplishment. First,
emotional exhaustion refers to the physical manifestations of being tired. For example, when teachers are exhausted,
they may report feeling drained or not having much energy (Friedman, 2000). Second, depersonalization, which is the
act of developing a cynical attitude compacted with an emotional or physical detachment from work, may lead to a
teacher developing a general neglect toward the emotional and academic needs of the students (Brock & Grady, 2000).
Third, teachers experiencing burnout may also perceive a lack of personal accomplishment in that they fail to recognize
the benefits of their efforts and generally feel incompetent (Maslach et al., 2001). Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, and
Schaufeli (2001) extended the Maslach theory with the Job Demands‐Resources Model (JD‐R) which suggests that
burnout results from an excess of demands placed upon the employee, coupled with minimal resources provided to
meet these demands. This relationship between demands, resources, and burnout was supported in a study on 843
teachers in Finland. (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006).
794 | HUK ET AL.

1.2 | Teacher perceptions and teacher burnout

Environmental contingencies such as school administration, resources, and support as well as individual
characteristics such as belief systems and cognitive attributions are essential in understanding teacher stress and
possible burnout. The transactional model of emotions and coping by Lazarus and Folkman (1987) underlines the
bidirectional process of coping and stress between the individual and the environment. Stress is experienced by an
individual based on a cognitive appraisal of the environment and environmental contingencies. Environmental
antecedents such as demands (student behavior) and constraints (school environment) as well as resources (school
supports) as well as ambiguities (i.e., uncertainty and lack of structure in the environment) set the stage for
individual’s stress experience. Second, an individual’s belief systems (i.e., irrational beliefs) and goal hierarchies color
the appraisal of the situation and thus the severity of the stress experience. The model emphasizes an individual’s
cognitive appraisal of the balance between demands and resources as a function of the individual’s perceived efficacy.
In addition, the model recognizes the role of emotive or personal appraisal in overall coping stress.
According to cognitive theories, emotional and behavioral responses are a function of one’s thoughts about
situations rather than a direct result from the situations themselves (DiGiuseppe, Doyle, Dryden, & Backx, 2013).
As an example, while the research has shown a relationship between disruptive students and teacher burnout,
using the cognitive framework, teachers’ frustrations would not result directly from the actions of disruptive
students but rather as a result of their thoughts and interpretations of the students’ behavior (Maag, 2008).
Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), developed by Albert Ellis, theorizes that one’s evaluations of
specific situations lead to emotional responses, and that evaluations constructed using irrational thought processes
produce psychological disturbance (DiGiuseppe et al., 2013). According to this theory, stress is not caused by a lack
of self‐efficacy or distorted automatic thoughts but rather as a result of the evaluations of one’s efficacy or
automatic thoughts (DiGiuseppe et al., 2013). These evaluations are at times incongruent with reality and are
conceptualized as irrational beliefs targeted by REBT interventions.
REBT research has linked higher levels of stress to higher ratios of irrational beliefs held by teachers,
specifically self‐disparaging attitudes and low frustration tolerance (Bernard, 1988) Irrational beliefs may be
conceptualized as affecting the belief systems and goal hierarchies of an individual which play a large role in the
appraisal process within the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping. The perception of stress necessitates an
individual to appraise a situation as threatening, harmful, or challenging. The perception of stress is also mitigated
by the evaluation of the level of challenge and the perception in the ability of the individual to cope with the
challenge. The irrational beliefs of the individual may be central to the stress experience as are the environmental
contingencies and supports. Cognitive Behavioral Therapies, like REBT, fit well into the framework of the
transactional theory of stress and irrational beliefs. The beliefs can be targeted in REBT interventions when
modifying environmental stressors is not an option. Implementing REBT interventions may help alleviate burnout
thereby protect students from the consequences that often result from teacher burnout.
Research on irrational beliefs has been applied to teachers showing that teachers who endorse more
irrational beliefs report higher stress (Bernard, 1990, 2016; Popov, Popov, & Damjanovic, 2015; Robertson &
Dunsmuir, 2013). The relationship of irrational beliefs to higher stress experience necessitates further
refinement in relation to the balance of perceived demands and resources. Bernard (1990) modified Ellis’
irrational beliefs theory to construct a measure of irrationality in teachers: the Teacher Irrational Belief Scale
(TIBS). This scale was then administered to 792 primary and secondary teachers, and a “moderately strong
relationship” was found between the amounts of irrational beliefs endorsed and stress levels (Bernard, 1990, p.
29). This deteriorating effect of irrationality on teacher performance, affective state, and burnout has also been
shown in the work of Bermejo‐Torro and Prieto‐Ursula. In looking at 71 secondary teachers in Spain, Bermejo‐
Toro and Prieto‐Ursúa (2006) examined the extent to which Bernard’s version of irrational beliefs affected
burnout and over 90 different symptoms of psychological distress as measured by the Symptoms Checklist‐90‐R.
The teachers endorsing low frustration tolerance and authoritarian attitudes toward students reported the most
HUK ET AL. | 795

overall distress. Strong individual differences were found where irrational beliefs impacted stress in teachers
differently.
Popov et al. (2015) examined the role of irrational beliefs among teachers in Serbia and found that low frustration
tolerance again led to the most stress. They further found that irrational beliefs partially mediated the relationship
between stressors at work and distress. These findings were corroborated by two studies on teachers in Australia
(Bernard, 2016) that also once again found that the greater irrational beliefs endorsed by the teachers was related to
greater stress. Among these teachers, self‐downing and low frustration tolerance were most predictive of teacher stress.
Within a second sample of teachers, also in Australia, Bernard (2016) found that different beliefs were related
to different stressors. Self‐downing was related to stress from student learning problems. Authoritarian beliefs
were related to classroom management problems. Demands for justice were related to problems with
administration and low frustration tolerance was related to workload stress. Within this sample, total irrational
beliefs were related to total stress; therefore, the more irrational thoughts a teacher has is related to greater stress.
To understand the variables influencing teacher burnout, all components such as environmental and individual
characteristics as well as moderating variables such as cognitive appraisals included in the Transactional Model of Stress
and coping should be considered. No research to date has been conducted to evaluate these relationships between
teacher burnout, teacher irrational beliefs, teacher perception of efficacy, student behavior, and school environment.

1.3 | Student behavior and teacher burnout

Substantial research exists to support student misbehavior as a contributing factor of teacher burnout (Grayson &
Alvarez, 2008; Hastings & Bham, 2003; Klusmann, Kunter, Trautwein, Lüdtke, & Baumert, 2008). McCormick and
Barnett (2011) found that student misbehavior was the strongest type of stressor related to burnout. A meta‐
analysis conducted by Aloe, Shisler, Norris, Nickerson, and Rinker (2014) examined the relationship student
misbehavior has with teacher burnout. They found that student misbehavior was significantly related to higher
levels of emotional exhaustion, higher levels of depersonalization, and lower levels of personal accomplishment;
although they noted that there is no consistent definition of misbehavior across studies. Misbehavior can take
many forms, and the type of behavior affects the teachers differently (Hastings & Bham, 2003). For example,
disrespect toward the teacher and a neglect to do homework can both be considered as misbehavior (Hastings &
Bham, 2003), yet the teacher may experience the stress related to each misbehavior differently. Irrational beliefs
held by a teacher may be the mediating variable of experiencing stress related to student misbehavior differently.

1.4 | Perceived social support and teacher burnout

Teacher perception of support can impact how much stress they feel and act as a “buffer” to the demands–burnout
relationship (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007). Generally, support has a positive relationship to
personal accomplishment (López et al., 2008), a negative relationship to emotional exhaustion and depersonaliza-
tion (Halbesleben, 2006), and can act as a “buffer” to the demands‐burnout relationship (Bakker et al., 2007).
Sources of support can stem from the administration, colleagues, students’ parents, and the teachers’ family or
friends, and each type of source may impact burnout differently (Halbesleben, 2006). Nonwork related support
(e.g., support from friends and family) has been shown to impact teacher burnout on all three dimensions. Support
from friends can decrease the teachers’ overall exhaustion (Halbesleben, 2006; López et al., 2008), cynicism (López
et al., 2008), and can lead the teacher to feel more accomplished (Halbesleben, 2006).

1.5 | Self‐efficacy and teacher burnout

Self‐efficacy has consistently been shown to be a predictor of burnout among teachers. Schwarzer and Hallum
(2008) used a cross‐lagged panel design, a statistical analysis used to suggest causal relationships, to determine
796 | HUK ET AL.

whether self‐efficacy predicted burnout or rather if burnout predicted self‐efficacy in 498 teachers from Germany
and Syria. At two time points, 1 year apart, less efficacious teachers reported higher levels of burnout, but more
importantly, self‐efficacy predicted burnout levels better than the alternative model.
The current study’s focus is to examine to what degree the demands of the profession and the resources available
impact the level and type of teacher burnout and whether specific patterns of thinking (i.e., irrational) influence this
relationship. The study investigates (a) the extent to which school demands, school resources, and teacher irrational beliefs
relate to burnout; (b) the extent to which irrational beliefs predict burnout above and beyond school characteristics
(demands and resources), and (c) if irrational beliefs moderate the relationship between school demands and burnout.

2 | METHOD

2.1 | Procedure
Primary recruitment for this sample occurred from 920 high schools in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut,
and out of these schools 10 chose to participate. High school teachers were chosen for this study because empirical
research indicates that these teachers experience more stress than teachers of other levels (Byrne, 1999).
Typically, in comparison with educators at other levels, they have more students, more classes to teach, more
intensive material to cover, and also student misbehavior can be more drastic at the high school level. Information
about participation in the study was disseminated through e‐mails to superintendents and principals within school
districts requesting permission to recruit participants. Schools were offered a workshop on strategies in reducing
burnout, where at least 20 teachers completed the surveys. There were not any schools where 20 teachers
completed the surveys; therefore, no workshops were provided. Participants were invited to email the survey link
to fellow high school teachers but were asked to refrain from sending mass emails to their colleagues. In an effort
to gain a broader sample, teachers invited to participate in this study were provided with an option to forward the
recruitment information to fellow teachers. There were no limitations on the locations they could send referrals to
and as a result teachers from Florida, Illinois, and Maryland also completed the surveys. All information was
collected through the PsychData software. Interested participants were sent an email describing the study and a
link to the consent form and surveys.

2.2 | Participants
The sample for this study consisted of 85 high school teachers out of which five ended the survey before
completing any substantial information and three participants were removed as they reported that they were
guidance counselors for a total of 77 participants. Within this sample, 83.1% worked as a regular education teacher
while 16.9% reported working as special education teachers. Also, 53.2% of participants taught classes within the
core curriculum (English: 14.3%, Math: 11.7%, Social Studies: 14.3%, Science: 13.0%, Combination of classes: 6.9%);
while 46.8% teachers taught extracurricular classes (Family and Consumer Science: 2.6%, Business: 7.8%,
Language: 6.5%, Art: 3.9%, Physical Education: 3.9%, Library: 3.9%, Dance/Music: 2.6%, Technology: 1.3%). The
range of years that participants reported working as teachers was 1–40 years (M = 12.86, SD = 10.51). All of the
participants reported having at least a bachelor’s degree, and 65.8% of the participants reported having earned a
master’s degree. As teachers were allowed to forward the surveys to teachers from other schools, teachers from
other states completed the surveys. The final sample consisted of 41.60% teachers from New York, 53.2% from
New Jersey, 2.6% from Florida, 1.3% from Illinois, and 1.3% from Maryland.
A demographic questionnaire was used to determine education level, teaching experience of participants, and
whether participants taught regular or special education. Also included in this questionnaire was a global question
assessing whether teachers have worked previously in other schools. Finally, the questionnaire requested the name
of the high school as well as the zip code the high school is located.
HUK ET AL. | 797

2.3 | Measures
2.3.1 | The Maslach burnout inventory (MBI)
The MBI was designed by Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter (1996) to measure burnout among human service
professionals (Aluja, Blanch, & Garcia, 2005). The measure consists of 22 items assessing the frequency with which
employees experience the statements on a 7‐point Likert scale (1 = never; 7 = everyday). Burnout is measured by
assessing three separate constructs: emotional exhaustion (EE) decreased energy at work, depersonalization (DP):
callous attitude employees can take toward the service recipients, and a lack of personal accomplishment (PA): the
degree to which employees feel efficacious. Each subscale is measured by summing the responses ranging from 1 to
55. The items on the personal accomplishment scale were reverse‐scored. Higher scores on each of the subscales
reflect more severe burnout. The total MBI score can be found by summing the three separate constructs (1–133)
with higher scores reflecting more burnout.
An adapted educators’ version was created of the MBI by substituting keywords such as service recipient to
student and focusing on the school context as the workplace. According to a study by Aluja et al. (2005) on 631
elementary school teachers, internal consistency alphas ranged from 0.61 to 0.88; test–retest scores were between
0.80 and 0.85. Concurrent validity has been shown between the MBI and the Teacher Stress Index (Ferrando &
Perez, 1996; as cited in Aluja et al., 2005), and predictive validity has been shown for general health measures
(Ferrando & Perez, 1996; as cited in Aluja et al., 2005).

2.3.2 | Pupil behavior patterns (PBP)

The PBP was developed by Friedman (1994) and normed on 391 Israeli elementary school teachers. This measure
was used because it was originally used in a study also exploring the relationship between teacher burnout and
student behavior with frequent citations in the literature on teacher burnout. The measure includes 38 items (20
positively worded, 18 negatively worded). Respondents were asked to report their level of agreement to the item on a
6‐point Likert scale (1 = Never to 6 = Always). The measure includes three subscales: Disrespect: student respect
toward teachers and peers (a = 0.87), Sociability: closeness of relationships the students have with each other and the
teacher (a = 0.81), and Attentiveness: willingness and receptiveness to learn (a = 0.85). Higher scores on the
disrespect scale reflect more student disrespect and thus represent a higher demand. Items on the Attentiveness
scale were reverse‐scored to reflect a “lack of attentiveness.” Thus, higher scores reflect less willingness to learn and
thus possibly a higher demand. As this was not a major focus of this study, for purposes of this study, the sociability
subscale was not included. The scale was modified by changing class to classes to reflect more of the school
population. Construct validity for the PBP was supported by a factor analysis conducted by Hastings and Bham
(2003) through a study comparing student behavior and burnout among 100 elementary school teachers in the UK.
The Comprehensive Assessment of the School Environment (CASE); School Climate Survey Teacher Measure
(SCSTM); and the Teacher Satisfaction Scale (TSS) were used for this study. These measures were designed by the
National Association of Secondary School Principals (1987) for measuring enduring characteristics of the school
environment (Halderson, Kelley, Keefe, & Berge, 2001). While these measures provide a wealth of information with
10 and 9 scales, respectively, only the administration scale (SCSTM) and the coworker support scale (TSS) were
used for this study as these subscales measured support from administration and from coworkers respectively.
The SCSTM, a 55‐item measure, can be administered to students, teachers, or parents of children between
Grades 6 and 12. Using a 5‐point Likert scale respondents are asked to report the degree to which they think most
people would agree with a statement (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). For purposes of this study, scale
scores were obtained by averaging the participants’ responses, with higher scores reflecting greater satisfaction.
Test–retest and Chronbach’s α ranged from 0.79 to 0.87 across all 10 subscales (Halderson et al., 2001).
The TSS measures teacher satisfaction (i.e., affective response of an individual to a specific situation or
condition; Halderson et al., 2001). There are 56 items total ranging on a 5‐point Likert scale assessing the degree
798 | HUK ET AL.

with which employees agree with certain statements (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Scale scores were
obtained by averaging the participants’ responses with higher scores reflecting greater satisfaction. Chronbach’s α
ranged from 0.80 to 0.93 for all subscales. In developing the SCSTM and TSS, content validity was supported
through an extensive expert analysis. Furthermore, construct validity for both of these scales were supported by a
factor analysis conducted by Halderson et al. (2001).

2.3.3 | Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES)

The TSES was designed by Tschannen‐Moran and Hoy (2001) to measure teachers’ self‐perceptions of their
competence in using various teaching tasks and strategies. The measure consists of 24 items, or a shortened
version of 12 items, using a 9‐point Likert scale (0 = nothing, 3 = very little, 5 = some influence, 7 = quite a bit, and 9 = a
great deal). Efficacy is measured by assessing three separate constructs: efficacy in student engagement, efficacy in
instructional practice, and efficacy in classroom management. Each subscale is measured by summing the responses
and a total efficacy score can be found by summing the subscales with higher scores reflecting higher efficacy.
Coefficient α internal consistency estimates of reliability for the TSES total score were reported to be 0.94
(Tschannen‐Moran & Hoy, 2001). Additionally, statistically significant correlations ranging from 0.52 to 0.61 were
found between the TSES and other measures of teacher efficacy. The shortened version was utilized in the present
investigation.

2.3.4 | TIBS
The TIBS was designed by Bernard (1990) to assess teacher irrational thinking. There are 22 items that are
assessed on a 5‐point Likert scale assessing the degree to which teachers agree with the item (1 = Strongly disagree,
5 = Strongly agree). Four separate subscales are measured: low frustration tolerance (belief that teaching should be
easy), authoritarian attitudes toward students (belief that students should not misbehave and should be punished
when they do), Attitudes toward school organization (belief that teachers should be more involved in the running of
the school), and self‐downing (belief that one’s value can be reduced as a result of making mistakes or not receiving
enough approval). As aforementioned the difference between an irrational and rational belief is the degree of
demandingness. For example, the belief, “I wish teaching was easy,” would not be considered irrational, but
“Teaching should be easy,” would be. Each subscale is measured by summing the responses provided for the items,
and for each scale higher scores reflect higher irrational thinking. Calvete and Villa (1999) have found Chronbach’s
α to range from 0.71 to 0.74 (as cited in Bermejo‐Toro & Prieto‐Ursúa, 2006).

3 | RES U LTS

All data were analyzed using the IBM Statistics software for Windows version 24. Descriptive statistics, including
means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis were obtained for all measures and are reported in Table 1.
These results are part of a larger study.

3.1 | Missing data

This sample had 15.32% of missing data, and according to the Little MCAR test the data was missing at random
(χ2 = 1630.90, df = 2355, p = 1.00). The participants were stacked in order of the type of teacher they were (i.e.,
regular education or special education teacher), then by which class they taught, and then by years of experience.
Then, median substitution of nearby data points was used to replace the missing data (Cokluk & Kayri, 2011).
HUK ET AL. | 799

T A B L E 1 Psychometric properties of scales

Range
Scale M SD a Potential Actual Skew Kurtosis
MBI LPA 22.01 8.66 0.88 0–48 1.00–45.00 −0.20 0.79
MBI EE 11.53 9.75 0.91 0–54 0.00–39.00 0.89 0.19
MBI DP 2.48 3.33 0.71 0–30 0.00–18.00 2.10 56.5
MBI total 35.94 13.36 0.89 0–132 8.00–66.00 0.32 −0.53
PBP‐Att 27.48 5.47 0.69 1–48 15.00–46.00 0.49 0.98
PBP‐Dis 25.60 7.77 0.88 1–66 11.00–44.50 −0.04 −0.57
SCSTM: administrative 3.28 0.78 0.84 1–5 1.33–5.00 −0.15 −0.53
TSS coworker 3.99 0.62 0.88 1–5 2.14–5.00 −0.97 0.72
TSES: student engagement 26.91 4.14 0.74 0–36 15.00–34.00 −0.66 0.26
TSES: instructional management 30.39 3.82 0.72 0–36 20.00–36.00 −0.37 −0.45
TSES: classroom management 28.55 4.32 0.83 0–36 15.00–36.00 −0.53 0.78
TSES total 85.85 10.17 0.88 0–108 57.00–106.00 −0.52 0.34
TIBS SD 21.31 5.04 0.79 8–40 8.00–37.00 0.38 1.54
TIBS LFT 9.63 3.65 0.78 4–20 4.00–18.00 0.26 −0.67
TIBS organization 19.49 3.16 0.79 5–25 11.00–25.00 −0.28 0.26
TIBS student 16.33 3.92 0.75 5–25 8.00–25.00 −0.02 −047
TIBS total 66.76 11.26 0.86 22–110 45.00–69.00 0.12 −0.21
Note. MBI: Maslach Burnout Inventory; PBP: Pupil Behavioral Patterns; SCSTM: School Climate Survey; TIBS: Teacher
Irrational Beliefs Scale; TSES: Teacher Self Efficacy Scale; TSS: Teacher Satisfaction Survey; WL: Work Load.

3.2 | Reliability
All measures were tested for internal consistency using the Chronbach’s α. α Levels above 0.70 were deemed good
and any falling within 0.65–0.70 range were deemed acceptable. Where possible the normative sample was
compared to the current sample using a one‐sample t test.

3.2.1 | The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI)

As seen by a one‐sample t test this particular sample reported less burnout than the normative sample: less
exhaustion: t(77) = −20.74, p < 0.01; less depersonalization: t(77) = −48.01, p < 0.01; and greater PA: t(74) = −13.20,
p < 0.01. Overall the MBI had a Chronbach’s α coefficient equal to 0.89.

3.2.2 | The PBP

As there is no normative data for this measure, for purposes of this study, the following ranges were defined: low:
11–29, moderate: 30–47, and high: 48–66. This sample showed low perceptions of student disrespect (M = 25.60,
SD = 7.77). Scores on the Student Attentiveness scale, which was reverse scored, ranged from 8 to 48 with higher
scores reflecting a greater lack of attentiveness and thus a greater demand. For purposes of this study, the
following ranges were defined: low: 8–21, moderate: 22–34, and high: 35–48. This sample showed moderate
perceptions of student lack of attentiveness: (M = 27.48, SD = 5.47). Internal consistencies for this measure ranged
from a = 0.69 to 0.88.
800 | HUK ET AL.

3.2.3 | The CASE: SCSTM and TSS

The administration subscale from the SCSTM and the coworkers scale from the TSS were the only subscales used in
this study. Scores on both subscales ranged from 1 to 6. As there is no normative data for these measures, for
purposes of this study, the following ranges were defined for each subscale: low: 1–2, moderate: 3–4, and high: 5–6.
Higher scores on the administrative subscale reflect greater support perceived from the administration. Higher
scores on the coworkers subscale reflect greater perceived support from one’s coworkers. This sample showed
moderate perceptions of support from the administration (M = 3.28, SD = 0.78) and moderate perceptions of
support from coworkers (M = 3.99, SD = 0.88). Internal consistencies for this measure ranged from 0.84 to 0.88.

3.2.4 | The TSES

Internal consistencies for this measure ranged from 0.72 to 0.88, and overall had a Chronbach’s α equal to 0.88
indicating that it is a fairly reliable measure. As seen by a one‐sample t test, this particular sample reported a similar
total efficacy as the normative sample: t(78) = 0.10, p = 0.92. There was no difference in instructional management:
t(78) = 0.18, p = 0.07. This sample reported greater efficacy in classroom management: t(78) = 2.09, p < 0.05 and less
efficacy with student engagement: t(78) = 4.13, p < 0.01.

3.2.5 | TIBS
Internal consistencies for this measure ranged from 0.75 to 0.79 with an overall Chronbach’s α reaching
a = 0.86. The current sample reported irrational thinking consistent with the normative sample total: t(78) = 0.02,
p = 0.98; self‐downing: t(78) = 1.62, p = 0.11; low frustration tolerance: t(78) = 0.50, p = 0.62; attitude to school; t
(78) = 1.24, p = 0.22; authoritarian attitude to students: t(78) = 0.07, p = 0.94.

3.3 | Correlational analysis

A series of correlational analyses were conducted to examine the relationships of school demands and teacher
burnout. All correlations are reported in Table 2.

3.3.1 | Student behavior

Student disrespect and student lack of attentiveness were both significantly positively related to all burnout scales
with one exception. Student disrespect was not correlated with personal accomplishment. These results indicate
that both greater student disrespect and lack of attentiveness are associated with greater teacher burnout (more
exhaustion and greater detachment from students). Also, lower levels of students’ attentiveness are associated
with lower levels of teacher personal accomplishment. Thus, the less behaved the students are, the more likely a
teacher may experience burnout.

3.3.2 | Workplace support

Correlational analyses indicated that administrative support was significantly negatively related to total burnout
and depersonalization but not related to emotional exhaustion or lack of personal accomplishment. Colleague
support was not related with any burnout measure. These results indicate that increased support from the
administration is associated with less overall teacher burnout and that colleague support is unrelated to teacher
burnout.
HUK ET AL. | 801

T A B L E 2 Correlation coefficients between demands, resources, irrational beliefs with teacher burnout
Independent variable MBI total MBI exhaustion MBI depersonalization MBI personal accomplishment
Student disrespect 0.39** 0.26* 0.31** 0.17
Lack of attentiveness 0.44** 0.24* 0.36** 0.26*
Administrative −0.28** −0.12 −0.25* −0.17
Colleague −0.14 −0.14 0.02 −0.06
Efficacy: total −0.40** −0.24* −0.26* −0.23*
Student engagement −0.38** −0.24* −0.23* −0.21*
Instructional practice −0.34** −0.16 −0.18 −0.26*
Classroom management −0.28** −0.20* −0.22* −0.11
Irrational beliefs total 0.48** 0.41** 0.29** 0.12
Self‐downing 0.36** 0.19 0.18 0.26*
LFT 0.45** 0.48** 0.16 0.08
Attitude to school 0.32** 0.34** 0.22* −0.01
Authoritarian attitude 0.21* 0.23* 0.28** −0.08
*p < 0.05.
**p < 0.01.

3.3.3 | Self‐efficacy
Correlational analyses indicated that total self‐efficacy and efficacy in student engagement were significantly
negatively related to all burnout measures. Efficacy in instructional practice was significantly negatively correlated
with total burnout and lack of personal accomplishment; whereas efficacy in classroom management was significantly
negatively correlated with total burnout, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization. These results indicate that
greater confidence in teaching (specifically in engaging students and in the process of teaching) is associated with less
overall burnout. Interestingly, whereas efficacy in classroom management is associated with teachers’ levels of fatigue
and cynicism, efficacy in instructional practice is associated with personal accomplishment.

3.3.4 | Irrational beliefs

In examining the relationship between teacher irrational beliefs and burnout, a total score was calculated for
teacher irrational beliefs and it was significantly positively related with total burnout; emotional exhaustion; and
depersonalization but not related to personal accomplishment. The more irrational beliefs the teacher endorses is
associated with more exhaustion, and cynicism but not a personal accomplishment. Total burnout was significantly
related to all irrational beliefs as well. Thus, thinking irrationally may have more of an influence on a teacher’s
emotional well‐being and perception of work rather than their sense of efficacy.
Authoritarian attitudes and attitude to the school were significantly positively related to total burnout,
emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization and were unrelated to personal accomplishment. Low frustration
tolerance was related to total burnout and emotional exhaustion but was unrelated to depersonalization or
personal accomplishment. Self‐downing was related to a lack of personal accomplishment but unrelated to
emotional exhaustion or depersonalization.

3.4 | Multiple regression analysis

A simultaneous multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the predictive ability of student behavior
(disrespect, lack‐of‐attentiveness), administrative support, teacher self‐efficacy (in instructional management and
802 | HUK ET AL.

T A B L E 3 Multiple regression results: burnout

Independent variable B β sri2

Student disrespect 0.43 0.26 0.06
Lack of attentiveness 0.39 0.17 0.02
Support: administrative −0.69 −0.04 0.00
Support: colleague 0.80 0.04 0.00
Self‐efficacy: instructional management −0.28 −0.08 0.01
Self‐efficacy: student engagement −0.48 −0.15 0.02
Self‐efficacy: classroom management 0.47 0.16 0.02
Low frustration tolerance 0.81 0.23 0.05
Self‐downing 0.51 0.20 0.04
Authoritarian attitudes −0.62 −0.18 0.04
Attitudes to school 1.25 0.31 0.09
Constant −12.13
R = 0.68; R2 = 0.46.

student engagement), and each of the teacher irrational beliefs (low frustration tolerance, self‐downing,
authoritarian attitudes toward students, and one more) on teacher burnout. This model was found to be
significant, F(11,59) = 4.53, p < 0.01, R2 = 0.46. More specifically student behavior, workplace support, teacher self‐
efficacy, and teacher irrational beliefs predicted 46% of the variance in burnout. Attitude toward the school was the
strongest predictor of burnout (β = 0.31, p < 0.05). Table 3 displays the unstandardized regression coefficients (B),
the standardized regression coefficients (β), the semi‐partial correlations (sri2), and adjusted R2.
Next, a stepwise multiple regression was performed to predict teacher burnout from school characteristics (student
disrespect, student lack of attentiveness, administrative support, and coworker support). The results of this analysis
indicated that school characteristics account for a significant amount of teacher burnout, F(4,66) = 5.55, p < 0.01,
R2 = 0.25. Next, a regression analysis was conducted to evaluate whether irrational beliefs predicted burnout over and
above school characteristics. Irrational beliefs accounted for a significant proportion of burnout variance after
controlling for the effects of school characteristics, R2 change = 0.18, F(8,62) = 5.89, p < 0.01, R2 = 0.43. These results
indicate that teachers working in similar schools are more likely to have burnout if they have higher irrational beliefs.
A final regression analysis was performed to determine if irrational beliefs moderated the relationship between
demands and burnout. A total student behavior variable was created by averaging the student disrespect and
student lack of attentiveness scales. A main effect was found for both total student behavior and for total irrational
beliefs, but no significant interaction was found. The first step included the total student behavior score and the
total irrational beliefs score: R2 = 0.35, adjusted R2 = 0.33, F(2,68) = 18.32, p < 0.01. The second step included total
student behavior multiplied by irrational beliefs: R2 = 0.35, adjusted R2 = 0.32, F(3,67) = 12.03, p < 0.01. Yet there
was no significant change in F:p = 0.98. Table 4 shows the results from this analysis (Table 5).

4 | D IS C U S S IO N

The purpose of this study was to understand the relationship between school demands (student behavior), school
resources (workplace support), and teacher characteristics (teacher self‐efficacy and teacher irrational beliefs) as
they relate to teacher burnout. Specifically, the goals of this study included understanding (a) how these variables
relate to teacher burnout; (b) if irrational beliefs predict burnout above and beyond school characteristics; and (c) if
they moderate the relationship between student behavior and burnout.
HUK ET AL. | 803

T A B L E 4 Stepwise multiple regression school characteristics and irrational beliefs results: burnout

Model 1 Model 2

Independent variable B β sri2 B β sri2

Student disrespect 0.39 0.24 0.05 0.35 0.21 0.04
Lack of attentiveness 0.50 0.21 0.03 0.46 0.20 0.03
Support: administrative −3.16 −0.19 0.04 −1.20 −0.07 0.01
Support: colleague −1.60 −0.08 0.01 0.99 0.00 0.00
Low frustration tolerance 0.62 0.24 0.07
Self‐downing 0.80 0.23 0.05
Authoritarian attitudes 1.16 0.28 0.08**
Attitudes to school −0.57 −0.17 0.03
Constant 28.63 −16.72
Model 1: R = 0.50; R2 = 0.25; **p < 0.01, Model 2: R = 0.66; adjusted R2 = 0.36; **p < .05.

Participants in this sample reported similar total efficacy and irrational beliefs, compared with normative
samples, this sample reported much less burnout. Furthermore, this sample reported greater efficacy in classroom
management, but less efficacy in student engagement. Within this sample, half of the teachers taught core
curriculum classes, and approximately the other half taught extracurricular classes. This makeup may explain these
differences in burnout, classroom management, and efficacy as compared with normative samples.
As expected, student misbehavior was positively related to teacher burnout, whereas administrative support
was negatively related to teacher burnout. Both greater student disrespect and lack of attentiveness were
associated with greater teacher burnout (more exhaustion and greater detachment from students). Only student
disrespect was associated with reduced personal accomplishment. Thus, the less behaved or attentive the students
are, the more likely a teacher may experience burnout, and in particular the less attentive students are, the less
accomplished a teacher may feel. These findings are consistent with previous research linking student misbehavior
with burnout (Grayson & Alvarez, 2008; Hastings & Bham, 2003; Klusmann et al., 2008). Thus, one implication of
these findings may be that to prevent teacher burnout from occurring, schools may preemptively implement
school‐wide interventions targeting student behavior.
Consistent with previous research, increased support from the administration was associated with less overall
teacher burnout and a greater sense of attachment to students. Colleague support was unrelated to teacher burnout,
which is inconsistent with previous research. Perhaps this finding is due to the fact that roughly half of the sample
consisted of teachers of extracurricular subjects. Maybe teachers rely more heavily on colleagues that teach similar
content for support and guidance with their workload. It is reasonable to think that there would be more teachers of
mainstream subjects than each extracurricular subject, and perhaps teachers of extracurricular subjects do not have
colleagues teaching similar content to turn to. Further investigation into colleague support would be helpful.
Consistent with previous research teacher self‐efficacy was also negatively related to teacher burnout
(Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008). Self‐efficacy in student engagement was related to exhaustion, cynicism, and personal
accomplishment. Interestingly, whereas self‐efficacy in classroom management was related to exhaustion and their
attachment to the students, self‐efficacy in instructional management was related to personal accomplishment.
Perhaps when teachers feel capable of maintaining order in their classrooms, they feel less emotionally drained and
less cynical toward their students; whereas if they feel capable of the direct teaching, they are likely to feel that
they are stronger teachers. Furthermore, perhaps the ability to engage their students in their lessons prevents
teachers from experiencing an emotional and cynical toll, and instead helps them to feel better as a teacher.
Similarly, it would be logical to assume that if students are more engaged in the lesson or with the teacher, they are
less likely to be disrespectful or inattentive. Providing professional development opportunities to teachers that
804 | HUK ET AL.

T A B L E 5 Interaction between student behavior and irrational beliefs as a predictor of teacher burnout

MBI burnout

Predictor variables R2 Adjusted R2 R2 change F change

Total behavior and irrational beliefs 0.35 0.33 0.35 18.32
Total Behavior × Irrational Beliefs 0.35 0.32 0.00 0.00

target student engagement, improving general teaching and classroom management skills would seem like an
appropriate preventative approach to minimizing teacher burnout.
Consistent with models of REBT, irrational beliefs moderately correlated with burnout, and accounted for the
most unique variance of burnout. Also, as expected, irrational beliefs predicted burnout above and beyond student
behavior, administrative support, and colleague support. The more irrational beliefs the teacher endorses was
associated with more exhaustion and cynicism but only self‐downing was associated with personal accomplishment.
Thus, thinking irrationally may have more of an influence on a teacher’s emotional well‐being and perception of
work; whereas placing their self‐worth as contingent upon their work performance is likely to be related to their
sense of accomplishment.
As many schools may not have the resources to modify the amount of demands placed upon the teachers or the
resources provided, psychoeducation on modifying irrational beliefs can be provided to teachers to reduce their
overall levels of burnout. One option to prevent teacher burnout would be to provide an in‐service/staff
development to teachers on how to identify and replace their irrational beliefs, particularly low frustration
tolerance. That is, if teachers can learn to think that while maybe student disrespect is unfavorable, it is not awful
or intolerable, they may experience stress but not feel burned out. If teachers can learn these strategies to regulate
their own emotions, chances are they may be less likely to experience occupational burnout. An in‐service for all
teachers providing this psychoeducation seems to be a more practical strategy for preventing teacher burnout that
intervening for every instance of student misbehavior. Additionally, teachers may not be able to always minimize
student misbehavior, but they can learn to modify their own thinking in response to this behavior which would help
them feel less stress in the long‐term.
The final goal of this study was to see if irrational beliefs moderated the relationship between student behavior
and teacher burnout. Although student behavior significantly predicted burnout, and irrational beliefs significantly
predicted burnout, there was not a significant interaction between the two. This finding is inconsistent with the
REBT model that suggests that it is not the situation that causes the emotional affect but rather the individual's
evaluations of the beliefs (DiGiuseppe et al., 2013). This finding could be a result of the small sample size or the
measures used and requires future investigation.

4.1 | Limitations
There are several important limitations to the present investigation that limit the generalizability of the findings and
suggest future investigations. First, a logical limitation is that perhaps teachers who are experiencing severe burnout
are not as likely to volunteer in a research study. They would likely feel too tired and detached or believe that they
just do not have the time to participate in a study. Because this study examined the relationship between demands
and resources with burnout, it would have been helpful to include teachers who experience the most burnout.
The next limitation is the small sample size, the abundance of missing data, along with the fact that this sample
consisted primarily of teachers working in upper northeast (NY and NJ) with roughly half the sample teaching
extracurricular subjects. While an effort was made to collect data from a bigger sample and obtain more complete
data, more confidence would exist if the sample was representative of teachers within various settings if more
schools agreed to participate in this study. Ideally the participants in the sample would teach in more regions than
HUK ET AL. | 805

the northeast, and the makeup of the sample with regard to which classes are taught would be more similar to
teachers across high schools.
Finally, some of the measures used in this study lacked normative information. Including different measures
would provide a more complete understanding of teacher burnout. While understanding student disrespect and
lack of attentiveness is helpful in understanding burnout, there are certainly other ways students can misbehave
that should be studied as well. Similarly, a closer look at various ways administration and colleagues can support
teachers may be helpful in understanding burnout.

4.2 | Future research

Future directions for research ultimately should include what factors may be related to teacher burnout as a way to
help create interventions to protect teachers from burnout. Irrational beliefs in this study were the best predictor
of burnout; but research on this relationship is very limited and as such more research is needed to investigate this
finding further. Research should be conducted on exploring what other factors may be related to these demands
and resources that do contribute to teacher burnout.
As workplace support was found to be related to teacher burnout, one suggestion is to conduct interviews of
teachers and compare the differences between those teachers that feel supported from those that do not. These
interviews can ask teachers to identify concrete behaviors that their administration and colleagues demonstrate
that lead the teachers to feel supported. As a result, then school psychologists could then tailor programs to guide
administrators on how to help teachers feel more supported or to lower their perceived expectations.
Finally, interventions targeting these related factors should be researched to see if they reduce overall teacher
burnout. Preventative interventions, for example, schoolwide positive behavioral support for students, professional
development for teachers, or in‐services providing psychoeducation should be researched to see if they help
teachers experience less burnout.

5 | IMP L I C A T I O N S F O R SC H O O L P SY C H O L O G I S T S

Among the varied professional activities of school psychologists, traditionally the areas of assessment, consultation,
and intervention are among the most frequently identified (Fagan & Wise, 2007). Often school psychologists help
teachers manage academic difficulties or behavioral disruptions with academic intervention services, behavioral
intervention plans, or referrals for mental health services (Fagan & Wise, 2007). Teachers who meet the criteria for
burnout may impose more of a strain on the school psychologist’s available time by requiring more assistance from
the school psychologists and possibly utilizing more service delivery components provided than teachers that are
not as stressed.
As part of their role, teachers refer students exhibiting difficulty learning grade‐appropriate academic material
to the school psychologist for an evaluation of a learning disability (Fagan & Wise, 2007). Stressed teachers (those
teachers that are tired and removed from their job) are likely to make more mistakes (Rudow, 1999); thus, they are
then more likely to miss warning signs of student deficiencies. Early identification of students with a disability may
lead to the development of more effective interventions (Glascoe, 2001). Thus, stressed teachers may fail to refer
students in need to the school psychologist. Accurate referral of students that truly have a need will also greatly
enhance the efficiency of the school psychologists’ time.
School psychologists also help teachers manage behavioral disruptions within the classroom (Fagan & Wise,
2007). Kokkinos, Panayiotou, and Davazoglou (2005) identified that stressed teachers perceive behavioral
difficulties as more problematic than teachers who are not stressed. This difference in perception may then
eventually lead to more referrals to the school psychologist requiring the creation of behavioral intervention plans
or the provision of mental health services that may not be necessary. If the behavioral difficulties are within the
806 | HUK ET AL.

expected range of student behavioral responses, the intervention plans or mental health services take valuable
time away from the school psychologist that could be used for other students.
In addition to impacting upon the initial referral, stress experienced by teachers may also impact upon the
implementation of an academic or behavioral intervention developed with the school psychologist. Teachers
already feeling stressed due to the amount of demands placed upon them will probably be less likely to take the
time and care to implement either academic or behavioral interventions effectively (Endes, 1996). This reduced
effort in implementing interventions would negatively impact the student’s progress with the perceived problems
and may require further, more intensive intervention in the future. Thus, stressed teachers also may inhibit
adequate development of student growth.
Given the importance of teacher stress and burnout on student behavior and learning, it is important to
consider what variables contribute to this stress. The results from this study indicate that while school demands
and resources contribute to teacher burnout, irrational beliefs are the best predictor. As school psychologists often
do not have direct influence on these demands or resources (e.g., teacher work load) it is not possible to alleviate
teacher stress through modifying these factors. Rather, school psychologists can target these teacher irrational
beliefs through consultation and intervention. Incorporating REBT techniques during the consultation process may
act as a helpful intervention for school psychologists when working with these teachers (Bernard & DiGiuseppe,
2000). By learning the tools from this model in developing more effective ways to think, the teachers would then
learn effective means of coping with their respective demands and resources and may ultimately reduce the
demands placed upon the school psychologist.

OR CID

Oksana Huk http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9265-3046

Mark D. Terjesen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7687-085X
Lina Cherkasova http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3388-284X

REFERENC ES

Aloe, A. M., Shisler, S. M., Norris, B. D., Nickerson, A. B., & Rinker, T. W. (2014). A multivariate meta‐analysis of student
misbehavior and teacher burnout. Educational Research Review, 12, 30–44.
Aluja, A., Blanch, A., & Garcí, a L. F. (2005). Dimensionality of the Maslach Burnout Inventory in school teachers: A study of several
proposals. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015‐5759.21.1.67
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly
when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 274–284. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/
0022‐0663.99.2.274
Bermejo‐Toro, L., & Prieto‐Ursúa, M. (2006). Teachers’ irrational beliefs and their relationship to distress in the profession.
Psychology in Spain, 10, 88–96.
Bernard, M. E. (1990). Taking the stress out of teaching. Melbourne, Australia: Collins Dove.
Bernard, M. E. (2016). Teacher beliefs and stress. Journal of Rational Emotive and Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 34(1), 209–224.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942‐016‐0238‐y
Bernard, M. E., & DiGiuseppe, R. (2000). Advances in the theory and practice of rational‐emotive behavioral consultation.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(3&4), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2000.
9669419
Brock, B., & Grady, M. (2000). Rekindling the flame: Principals combating teacher burnout. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2001). The factorial validity of scores on the teacher interpersonal self-efficacy scale. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 61(3), 433–445.
Byrne (1999). Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Calvete, E. & Villa, A. (1999). Estrés y burnout docente: Influencia de variables cognitivas. Revista de Educación, 319,
291–303.
HUK ET AL. | 807

Cokluk, O., & Kayri, M. (2011). The effects of methods of imputation for missing values on the validity and reliability of
scales. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 303–309.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands‐resources model of burnout. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021‐9010.86.3.499
DiGiuseppe, R., Doyle, K., Dryden, W., & Backx, W. (2013). A practitioner’s guide to rational‐emotive therapy (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Endes, R. B. (1996). The role of irrational beliefs in behavioral consultation: Implications for treatment outcomes.
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 56(8‐A), 3055.
Fagan, T. K., & Wise, P. S. (2007). School psychology: Past, present, and future. Washington, DC: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Ferrando, J., & Pérez, J. (1996). Un instrumento para medir quemazón profesional en los docentes: adaptación catalana del
Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). Rev. Psiquiatría Daf. Med. Barna, 23(1), 11–18.
Friedman, I. A. (1994). Conceptualizing and measuring teacher‐perceived student behaviors: Disrespect, sociability, and
attentiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(4), 949–958.
Friedman, I. A. (2000). Burnout in teachers: Shattered dreams of impeccable professional performance. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 56(5), 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054004011
Glascoe, F. P. (2001). Can teachers’ global ratings identify children with academic problems? Journal of Developmental and
Behavioral Pediatrics, 22(3), 163–168.
Grayson, J., & Alvarez, H. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A mediator model. Teaching & Teacher
Education, 24(5), 1349–1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.005
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School
Psychology, 43(6), 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta‐analytic test of the conservation of resources
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1134–1145.
Halderson, C., Kelley, E. A., Keefe, J. W., & Berge, P. (2001). Comprehensive assessment of school environments: Technical
manual for school climate survey. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Hastings, R. P., & Bham, M. S. (2003). The relationship between student behaviour patterns and teacher burnout. School
Psychology International, 24(1), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034303024001905
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to
student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525.
Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Engagement and emotional exhaustion in
teachers: Does the school context make a difference? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 127–151. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1464‐0597.2008.00358.x
Klusmann, U., Richter, D., & Lüdtke, O. (2016). Teachers’ emotional exhaustion is negatively related to students’
achievement: Evidence from a large‐scale assessment study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1193–1203.
Kokkinos, C. M., Panayiotou, G., & Davazoglou, A. M. (2005). Correlates of teacher appraisals of student behaviors.
Psychology in the Schools, 42(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20031
Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53(1), 27–35.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of
Personality, 1(3), 141–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410010304
Leiter, M. P., & Durup, J. (1994). The discriminant validity of burnout and depression: A confirmatory factor analytic study.
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 7, 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615809408249357
López, J., Santiago, M., Godás, A., Castro, C., Villardefrancos, E., & Ponte, D. (2008). An integrative approach to burnout in
secondary school teachers: Examining the role of student disruptive behaviour and disciplinary issues. International
Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 8(2), 259–270.
Maag, J. (2008). Rational‐emotive therapy to help teachers control their emotions and behavior when dealing with
disagreeable students. Intervention in School & Clinic, 44(1), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451208318680
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alta, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
McCormick, J., & Barnett, K. (2011). Teachers’ attributions for stress and their relationships with burnout. International
Journal of Educational Management, 25(3), 278–293.
National Association of Secondary School Principals (1987). Comprehensive assessment of school environments school climate
surveys. Reston, VA: Author.
Oberle, E., & Schonert‐Reichl, K. A. (2016). Stress contagion in the classroom? The link between classroom teacher burnout
and morning cortisol in elementary school students. Social Science & Medicine, 159, 30–37.
808 | HUK ET AL.

Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Sprague, J. R., & Doyle, W. (2010). How can we improve school discipline? Educational Researcher, 39(1),
48–58.
Piekarska, A. (2000). School stress, teachers’ abusive behaviors, and children’s coping strategies. Child Abuse and Neglect,
24(11), 1443–1449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145‐2134(00)00201‐5
Popov, S., Popov, B., & Damjanovic, R. (2015). The role of stressors at work and irrational beliefs in the prediction of
teacher stress. Primjena Psihologija, 8(1), 5–23.
Prilleltensky, I., Neff, M., & Bessell, A. (2016). Teacher stress: What it is, why it’s important, how it can be alleviated. Theory
Into Practice, 55(2), 104–111.
Robertson, C., & Dunsmuir, S. (2013). Teacher stress and pupil behaviour explored through a rational‐emotive behaviour
therapy framework. Educational Psychology, 33(2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2012.730323
Rudow (1999). Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527784.004
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self‐efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation
Analyses. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 152–171.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2015). Job satisfaction, stress and coping strategies in the teaching profession—What do
teachers say? International Education Studies, 8(3), 181.
Tschannen‐Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 17(7), 783–805.

How to cite this article: Huk O, Terjesen MD, Cherkasova L. Predicting teacher burnout as a function of
school characteristics and irrational beliefs. Psychol Schs. 2019;56:792–808.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22233
Copyright of Psychology in the Schools is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.