Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Contemporary Educational Psychology

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

Teacher self-efficacy profiles: Determinants, outcomes, and generalizability T

across teaching level
⁎
Harsha N. Perera , Celeste Calkins, Rachel Part
Department of Educational Psychology and Higher Education, College of Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Pkwy, Box 453003, Las Vegas, NV
89154-3003, United States

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

Keywords: There have been considerable advances in understanding teacher self-efficacy in the past two decades. However,
Teacher self-efficacy profiles the core theoretical postulate that teachers may simultaneously possess a variety of teaching-related self-efficacy
Social cognitive theory beliefs at varying levels has not been systematically examined. Adopting a person-centered, multidimensional
Sources of self-efficacy perspective on teacher self-efficacy, the current study aims to identify distinct profiles of teachers’ self-efficacy
Job satisfaction
beliefs in lower and upper secondary teachers and examine the replicability of the profiles across these groups. In
Profile invariance
Multiple-group latent profile analyses
addition, we draw on social cognitive perspectives to posit several predictors of teacher self-efficacy profile
membership, including professional development provisions and needs, mentoring experiences, gender, and
teaching experience, and outcomes of profile membership, including job satisfaction, perceived classroom cli-
mate, and teacher collaboration. Results revealed six teacher self-efficacy profiles, which were found to replicate
entirely across lower and upper secondary teachers. Job satisfaction, classroom climate, and teacher colla-
boration were found to differ as a function of the profiles, and these relations were found to be moderated by
teaching level, suggesting context-differentiated processes in the outcomes of teacher self-efficacy profile
membership. Finally, profile membership was shown to be predicted by professional development needs and
provisions, mentoring experiences, gender, and years of teaching experience. Implications of the results for
teacher self-efficacy theory and research are discussed.

1. Introduction
There has been an increased scholarly interest in teacher self-effi-
cacy in recent years (Zee & Koomen, 2016). This has been attributed to
an increased policy focus on promoting teacher effectiveness and sa-
tisfaction and reducing rates of teacher attrition (Klassen & Tze, 2014).
Given the considerable proportion of investment in education devoted
to teacher compensation, ineffective teachers impose an undue eco-
nomic burden on school districts as productivity fails to match invest-
ment. Furthermore, ineffective teachers become dissatisfied with
teaching, leading to increased absenteeism, illness, and ultimately at-
trition (Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Darr & Johns, 2008). Given these
concerns, scholars and policy-makers have turned their attention to
teacher self-efficacy as a determinant of teacher effectiveness (Klassen
& Tze, 2014) that may explain why some teachers disengage from,
become dissatisfied with, and ultimately leave the profession
(Granziera & Perera, 2019).
There is accumulating evidence that teacher self-efficacy is a key
determinant of instructional quality and student support (Holzberger,
Philipp, & Kunter, 2013), teacher engagement (Durksen, Klassen, &
Daniels, 2017; Granziera & Perera, 2019), job satisfaction (Klassen &
Chiu, 2010), well-being (Zee & Koomen, 2016), and occupational
commitment (Klassen & Chiu, 2011). Teacher self-efficacy has also been
found to be implicated in student-level outcomes, including academic
self-efficacy beliefs (Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Hannay, 2001), school
engagement (Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey, 2012), and
achievement (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006). Although
this suggests the importance of teacher self-efficacy at several levels of
classroom ecology (Zee & Koomen, 2016), this evidence is limited by
the assumption that individual teachers possess uniformly high or low
levels of their capability beliefs across specific teaching domains. Here,
teaching domain refers to core clusters of teaching tasks and responsi-
bilities in the classroom environment that constitute teachers’ daily
activities (Zee, Koomen, Jellesma, Geerlings, & de Jong, 2016) as dis-
tinguished from academic domains (e.g., math, English). Yet, from a
social cognitive theory standpoint (Bandura (1997)), teachers may not
be equally efficacious across all domains (e.g., classroom management
vs. instructional strategies) (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2000).

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Harsha.Perera@unlv.edu (H.N. Perera).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.02.006

Available online 20 February 2019

0361-476X/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
H.N. Perera, et al.
Indeed, teachers’ domain-specific capability beliefs are not isolated
constructs; instead, they co-exist within individuals at different levels.
As such, differing configurations of domain-specific teacher self-efficacy
beliefs may yield differential outcomes for teachers. However, little is
known about how these distinct teacher self-efficacy beliefs combine
within teachers, how such combinations can be inferred from data,
whether these configurations can be predicted by relevant socio-de-
mographic variables and learning experiences, and the role of these
capability belief combinations in outcomes.
Accordingly, drawing on social cognitive perspectives, we in-
vestigated latent profiles of teacher self-efficacy representing distinct
configurations of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Plausible predictors of
the probability of profile membership were also examined, including
years of teaching experience, gender, involvement in mentoring and
professional development activities, and perceptions of the need for
professional development. In addition, job satisfaction, classroom dis-
ciplinary climate, and teacher collaboration were examined as out-
comes of teacher self-efficacy profile membership. Notably, as the dis-
tinct configurations of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, and their relations
with these predictors and outcomes, may differ as a function of teaching
level (Klassen & Chiu, 2011), we also examined the generalizability of
teacher self-efficacy profiles and their relations with the predictors and
outcomes across lower and upper secondary school teachers.
1.1. Teacher self-efficacy: theoretical overview
Teacher self-efficacy theory (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, &
Hoy, 1998) is predicated on Rotter’s (1966) attribution-based locus of
control theory and, to a greater extent, social cognitive theory (Bandura
(1997)). From this integrative perspective, teacher self-efficacy is
viewed as self-referent judgments of capability to organize and execute
actions required to successfully perform teaching tasks and positively
impact student learning. Notably, in line with this perspective, teacher
self-efficacy beliefs reflect judgments of personal teaching capabilities,
based on an appraisal of strengths and deficits, and judgments about the
requirements of domain-specific teaching tasks, which include apprai-
sals of external constraints and resources (Tschannen-Moran et al.,
1998). The convergence of judgments of personal teaching capabilities
with task-specific requirements in the conceptualization of teacher self-
efficacy suggests that teachers may not necessarily be efficacious across
all teaching domains. A central postulate of this theoretical perspective
is that teachers may be expected to feel more or less efficacious in
specific domains (Goddard et al., 2000; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998;
Zee & Koomen, 2016). For instance, a secondary school science teacher
may view herself as a capable teacher; she may feel highly efficacious
for developing and implementing instructional routines and engaging
her students in this learning process; yet, she may feel highly in-
efficacious in managing classroom behaviors. This teacher’s self-effi-
cacy reflects information drawn from judgments of personal teaching
capabilities and perceptions of the requirements of specific domains
and her strengths and weaknesses with respect to those domains.
Emerging from this theoretical view is the three-dimensional model
of teacher self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). This
model is designed to accommodate the centrality of domain-specificity
to teacher self-efficacy judgments while avoiding the efficiency pitfalls
of microscopic operationalization. In this regard, this multidimensional
model is intended to reflect an intermediate level of domain-specificity
on a continuum ranging from teachers’ general perceptions of con-
fidence to perform their professional role to highly task-specific cap-
ability beliefs (Zee et al., 2016). From this multidimensionality per-
spective, teacher self-efficacy reflects self-referent judgments of
capability in three teaching domains. Self-efficacy for classroom man-
agement refers to teachers’ perceived capability to establish and main-
tain order in the classroom. Self-efficacy for instructional strategies re-
flects the perceived capability to use alternate methods in teaching and
assessment. Self-efficacy for student engagement refers to the perceived
187
Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203
capability to develop relations with students and promote their moti-
vation and engagement in learning (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2001).
Although it is assumed in this multidimensional model that teachers
may be differentially efficacious in each of these domains of teaching,
this theoretical complexity has not been reflected in research. Hitherto,
no research has been conducted on how domain-specific teacher self-
efficacy beliefs co-exist at different levels within teachers. This dearth
of research is attributable, at least in part, to evidence for considerable
generality in teacher self-efficacy data (Duffin, French, & Patrick, 2012;
Perera, Wiens, McIlveen, Calkins, & McLennan, 2019). For instance,
studies have found support for a unidimensional structure of teacher-
self-efficacy data obtained from the widely-used Teacher Sense of Self-
Efficacy Scale (TSES), which is itself predicated on the three-dimen-
sional perspective (Duffin et al., 2012; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2001). Even where a three-factor structure has been supported
(Klassen and Chiu, 2010; Klassen et al., 2009; McLennan, McIlveen, &
Perera, 2017), factor correlations tend to be so high as to undercut the
dominant multidimensionality perspective. This evidence for con-
siderable generality has resulted in empirical practices of combining
domain-specific teacher self-efficacy dimensions into single composite
scores or modeling higher-order teacher self-efficacy factors (Granziera
& Perera, 2019; McLennan et al., 2017). The assumption underlying
these approaches is that individual teachers possess uniformly high or
low self-efficacy beliefs across domains, which is inconsistent with the
theoretical position that teachers may be differentially efficacious in
specific domains (Goddard et al., 2000).
One reason for inflated associations may be the improper dis-
aggregation of general and specific variance in teacher self-efficacy data
in previous work (Duffin et al., 2012; Klassen et al., 2009). Teachers’
ratings of their self-efficacy beliefs may simultaneously reflect a general
overarching teaching confidence construct together with self-referent
judgments of capability with respect to specific domains (e.g., class-
room management, instructional strategies) (Morin and Marsh (2015).
This position aligns with the theoretical view that teacher self-efficacy
beliefs encompass self-perceptions of personal teaching capabilities in
addition to judgments about the requirements of domain-specific
teaching tasks (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). At least some compo-
nent of these self-perceptions may reflect individuals’ global judge-
ments of their capability to perform their professional role as a teacher
generally based on an assessment of personal teaching capabilities (i.e.,
“I can perform my role as a teacher”) quite apart from capability
judgments that are tied to specific tasks or domains (e.g., “I can im-
plement a classroom reward system”), which are informed by both
assessments of personal teaching capabilities and task-specific re-
quirements. This differentiation of global levels of confidence for per-
forming a professional role from task-specific self-efficacy beliefs may
be particularly salient in teaching where there tends to be a greater
decoupling of expected professional role and enacted domain-specific
tasks (Aiken et al., 2001).
In factor models, the lack of statistical control for generality induces
upwardly biased estimates of relations as the generality underlying all
items is absorbed by (inflated) correlations among domain-specific di-
mensions of teacher self-efficacy beliefs (Morin, Arens, & Marsh, 2016).
This failure to disentangle generality from specificity may obscure
distinct intra-individual patterns of domain-specific teacher self-effi-
cacy beliefs. Comparably, Morin and Marsh (2015) noted that failure to
account for teachers’ global levels of effectiveness makes it difficult to
isolate specific areas of perceived strengths and weaknesses. Consistent
with the position for generality and specificity, Perera et al. (2019)
found support for a bifactor structure of teacher self-efficacy data,
among competing unidimensional, correlated-factors, and higher-order
models, drawn from the short-form of the TSES (TSES-SF) in Australian
and US teachers. The bifactor structure was characterized by well-de-
fined and orthogonal general teacher confidence and specific self-effi-
cacy for classroom management, instructional strategies, and student
H.N. Perera, et al.
engagement factors. Notably, the orthogonality among the general
confidence and domain specific self-efficacy beliefs is consistent with
the theoretical view that teachers may be differentially efficacious in
specific teaching domains.
In this study, we extend the variable-centered work of Perera et al.
(2019) by adopting a person-centered perspective in investigating
profiles of teachers’ multidimensional self-efficacy involving distinct
configurations of their general teaching confidence and domain-specific
self-efficacy beliefs. We do so by drawing on the bifactor representation
of teacher self-efficacy supported in Perera et al. (2019) that teases
apart generality and specificity. In person-centered representations,
using preliminary bifactor measurement models may be necessary to
disentangle distinct patterns of self-efficacy dimensions on which in-
dividuals may be high, medium, or low (i.e., shape-differentiated pro-
files) from level-differentiated profiles reflecting the tendency for in-
dividuals to be uniformly high, medium, or low across all teacher self-
efficacy dimensions (Morin and Marsh, 2015). This is because gen-
erality in data makes the identification of shape-differentiated profiles
more difficult as strong level effects, induced by generality, generate
strong level differences between profiles (Morin and Marsh, 2015).
1.2. Teacher self-efficacy: towards a person-centered representation
The theoretical position that teachers may not be equally efficacious
across all teaching domains suggests that they may emerge from dis-
tinct unobserved subpopulations presenting unique configurations of
self-efficacy dimensions. However, this presumed heterogeneity in
teacher self-efficacy beliefs has not been investigated in prior work;
rather, extant research has been limited to examining teacher self-ef-
ficacy from a variable-centered perspective. Although this variable-
centered research has been central to establishing the nomological net
of teacher self-efficacy (Zee & Koomen, 2016), and demonstrating the
mechanisms through which teacher self-efficacy is related to mean-
ingful outcomes (Granziera & Perera, 2019), this approach assumes that
all individuals in a sample belong to the sample population and, by
implication, share the same set of parameter estimates and neglects the
possibility of unobserved subpopulations.
A holistic, multidimensional person-centered approach may yield
important insights into teacher self-efficacy theory, namely how tea-
chers’ general capability and domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs
meaningfully interact to reflect an integrated system of their confidence
beliefs. Indeed, from a theoretical standpoint, teachers possess differ-
ential levels of these self-efficacy beliefs, and it is likely that a combi-
nation of these self-beliefs, rather than domain-specific beliefs uniquely
considered, governs how they navigate teaching and learning en-
vironments. For instance, a teacher’s high self-efficacy for instructional
strategies, considered in isolation, reflects his or her confidence in using
a variety of assessment strategies, providing alternative explanations of
content, and adjusting lessons to suit different abilities (Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Possessing a high level of self-efficacy
for instructional strategies may, prima facie, suggest that this teacher is
more likely to use learner-centered and constructivist approaches in
their teaching (Dunn and Rakes (2011)). However, when combined
with low levels of classroom management and student engagement self-
efficacy, the potentially beneficial effects of high self-efficacy for in-
structional strategies on instructional practices may be inhibited by
doubts about abilities to control disruptive behavior and engage stu-
dents in the learning process. Such a teacher, notwithstanding higher
self-efficacy for instructional strategies, may revert to traditional
teaching formats that allow for stricter control of the learning en-
vironment.
A person-centered approach allows for the identification of distinct
subpopulations of teachers that differ both quantitatively and qualita-
tively on the teacher self-efficacy dimensions. Profiles that differ
quantitatively vary with respect to absolute levels of the teacher self-
efficacy dimensions (Marsh, Lüdtke, Trautwein, & Morin, 2009). For
188
Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203
instance, one profile of teachers may be characterized by uniformly
high levels of the self-efficacy dimensions whereas another profile may
contain teachers with uniformly low levels of these dimensions. Profiles
ordered in terms of quantitative level differences can be adequately
represented using variable-centered techniques (Marsh et al., 2009;
Muthén, 2001). Contrariwise, profiles that are qualitatively different
have distinct patterns of teacher self-efficacy dimensions on which they
are high, medium, or low (i.e., shape-differentiation). For example, one
profile may be characterized by higher levels of instructional strategy
self-efficacy but lower levels of self-efficacy for classroom management
and student engagement. These differences in profile shape cannot be
straightforwardly accommodated by variable-centered methods. A
person-centered approach would allow for the first direct empirical
examination of the postulate that teachers may simultaneously possess
multiple capability beliefs at varying levels (Goddard et al., 2000).
Accordingly, drawing on a person-centered perspective, we aimed to
investigate whether there are quantitatively and qualitatively distinct
profiles of teacher self-efficacy beliefs.
1.3. Outcomes of profile membership
Distinct configurations of teacher self-efficacy beliefs may be dif-
ferentially implicated in important teacher outcomes. From a social
cognitive perspective, teachers experience favorable outcomes, such as
satisfaction, greater collaboration, and heightened quality of classroom
processes (Zee & Koomen, 2016), when they possess a strong sense of
self-efficacy to perform required tasks (Klassen and Chiu, 2010). Tea-
chers’ self-efficacy beliefs influence the decisions they make about
choosing, investing attention and effort in, and persisting with goal-
directed activity (Granziera & Perera, 2019). However, no work has
been conducted to investigate the way in which distinct intraindividual
patterns of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are associated with important
outcomes. Yet, as teachers are expected to be differentially efficacious
across domains (Goddard et al., 2000), investigating whether different
configurations of these beliefs differentially relate to outcomes would
represent an important advancement to both teacher self-efficacy
theory and prior work by providing a fuller picture of the way in which
self-beliefs interact to shape teachers’ perceptions of their work en-
vironment. Furthermore, examining such profile-outcome relations
provides a critical test of profile validity (Perera & McIlveen, 2018).
Per social cognitive perspectives (Lent & Brown, 2006; Zee &
Koomen, 2016), we consider job satisfaction, teacher collaboration, and
(positive) classroom disciplinary climate as outcomes of profile mem-
bership. Job Satisfaction is a positive cognitive-affective state resulting
from a favorable evaluation of work-related experiences (Lent & Brown,
2006). Research shows that teachers with higher global self-efficacy
experience greater work satisfaction (Caprara et al., 2006; Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2014; Granziera & Perera, 2019). Beyond global self-efficacy,
significant relations of teacher self-efficacies for classroom management
and instructional strategies with job satisfaction have been found
(Klassen and Chiu, 2010). Teacher collaboration refers to cooperative
practices and activities in which teachers are engaged towards
achieving common educational goals (Ning, Lee, & Lee, 2015). Re-
search shows that efficacious teachers are better able to collaborate
with colleagues in achieving shared educational goals (Caprara et al.,
2003; Goddard & Kim, 2018). For instance, Goddard and Kim (2018)
found that elementary teachers’ self-efficacy was positively associated
with their collaboration on instructional policy, formal collaboration,
and informal collaboration. Finally, positive classroom disciplinary
climate refers to perceptions of orderliness and predictability in the
implementation of classroom activities (Ning, Van Damme, Van Den
Noortgate, Yang, & Gielen, 2015). For efficacious teachers, perceptions
of positive classroom climate may be attributed to (a) being better able
to cope with problem behavior (Almog and Shechtman, 2007), (b)
using more constructive conflict management strategies (Morris-
Rothschild & Brassard, 2006), and (c) adopting more learner-centered
H.N. Perera, et al.
teaching approaches (Nie, Tan, Liau, Lau, & Chua, 2013). Indeed, ef-
ficacious teachers have been shown to perceive less student mis-
behavior (Tsouloupas, Carson, Matthews, Grawitch, & Barber, 2010).
Although this literature is suggestive of relations of teacher self-efficacy
with satisfaction, collaboration, and climate, it is limited by in-
vestigating the unique and additive relations of teacher’ self-efficacy
beliefs with these outcomes. We extended this work by investigating
how a range of multidimensional teacher self-efficacy beliefs combine
in their relations with these outcomes.
1.4. Predictors of profile membership
A challenge for teacher self-efficacy theory development is under-
standing how a teacher’s configuration of multidimensional self-effi-
cacy beliefs may emerge from their learning experiences and socio-
demographic characteristics. According to teacher self-efficacy theory,
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are developed as they interpret informa-
tion from mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persua-
sions, and physiological and emotional arousal (Bandura, 1997;
Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). From this perspective, teachers’ pro-
fessional development participation and mentoring experiences may be
viewed as learning experiences that serve as sources of mastery ex-
periences, vicarious learning, and social persuasions that shape and
reshape their role-specific self-efficacy beliefs. Consistent with this
view, accumulating evidence demonstrates positive effects of profes-
sional development participation on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
(Carney, Brendefur, Thiede, Hughes, & Sutton, 2016; Henson, 2001;
Ross & Bruce, 2007; Watson, 2006; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster,
2009). Furthermore, research also shows benefits of mentoring ex-
periences for mentee (LoCasale-Crouch, Davis, Wiens, & Pianta, 2012;
Richter et al., 2013) and mentor (Holloway, 2001) teachers. In this
study, we investigated whether membership into the teacher self-effi-
cacy profiles differs as a function of (a) serving as a mentor or mentee
and (b) participation in professional development activities in the fol-
lowing five critical domains of teacher practice: subject field knowl-
edge; pedagogical competencies; assessment practices, classroom
management practices; and individualized learning.
From a social cognitive standpoint, teachers’ perceptions of pro-
fessional development needs may also inform their configurations of
multidimensional teaching self-efficacy. Teachers form perceptions of
their needs for specific professional development as they encounter
novel teaching tasks and evaluate the requirements of these tasks with
respect to their capabilities in the self-efficacy development process
(Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Higher levels of perceived professional
development needs, particularly when those needs remain unmet, may
be viewed as self-efficacy-relevant barriers that undermine teachers’
domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2002).
Consistently, prior research shows that cognitive appraisals of en-
vironmental resources and barriers inform self-efficacy beliefs, in-
cluding in teachers (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). How-
ever, this work has been limited to investigating the unique and
additive relations of perceived barriers with teacher self-efficacy be-
liefs. In this study, we investigated the relations of teachers’ perceptions
of professional development needs in the five domains of teacher
practice noted above—subject field knowledge, pedagogical compe-
tencies, assessment practices, classroom management practices, and
individualized learning—with their configurations of multidimensional
self-efficacy beliefs.
Finally, socio-demographic factors are posited to be implicated in
teacher self-efficacy beliefs per social cognitive perspectives (Lent et al.,
2002; Klassen and Chiu, 2010). Two such factors are gender and years
of teaching experience (Bandura, 1997; Klassen and Chiu, 2010;
Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Although research on gender differences
in teacher self-efficacy has yielded inconsistent results (Brennan &
Robison, 1995; Klassen and Chiu, 2010; Raudenbush, Rowan, &
Cheong, 1992), gender effects should be expected per social cognitive
189
Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203
theory (Lent et al., 2002). Gender-role socialization experiences, in-
cluding the divergent communal and agentic social roles of women and
men, respectively (Perera, 2016), may inform differences in how tea-
chers perceive their gender roles in school settings. These differences
may have implications for teachers’ beliefs about their ability to per-
form their professional roles generally as well as in specific domains
(Drudy, 2008; Ross, Cousins, & Gadalla, 1996; Skaalvik & Skaalvik,
2007). Like gender, initial work on the associations between years of
experience and teacher self-efficacy yielded inconsistent results
(Wolters & Daugherty, 2007; Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005). Klassen and
Chiu (2010) clarified these inconsistent results by finding a curvilinear,
inverted U-shaped association, such that self-efficacy dimensions ex-
perienced increases up to mid-career followed by declines into later
career stages. These results have been explained in terms of the teacher
career development model of Huberman (1989). However, this work
does not account for the possible existence of distinct subpopulations of
teachers who may show differential capability belief configurations as a
function of years of experience. Indeed, Bandura (1997) suggested that
the expected decline in self-efficacy beliefs in later career stages may
not be universally experienced, raising the possibility of distinct sub-
populations characterized by differential self-efficacy configurations
that may be tied to different career stages. In this study, we examined
the extent to which teachers’ gender and years of experience predict the
probability of membership into the teacher self-efficacy profiles.
1.5. Teaching level and teacher self-efficacy
Teaching level may also be implicated in profiles of teacher self-
efficacy and their relations with the theorized predictors and outcomes.
Teachers’ work contexts, including teaching level (Klassen and Chiu
(2011)), are posited to be implicated in their self-efficacy beliefs per
models of teacher motivation and engagement (Bandura, 1997; Lent
et al., 2002; Perera, Vosicka, Granziera, & McIlveen, 2018). The small
amount of available evidence shows that teachers of elementary school-
aged students report higher self-efficacy than middle-and-high-school
teachers (Fives and Buehl, 2009; Klassen and Chiu, 2010; Wolters &
Daugherty, 2007). Within specific education levels, Klassen and Chiu
(2010) found that teachers of kindergarten students reported higher
self-efficacy for classroom management and student engagement than
those from other elementary grades. However, within secondary
schools, a small amount of evidence shows that global levels of teacher
self-efficacy are higher as secondary grade level increases (Raudenbush
et al., 1992). Although this variable-centered evidence is suggestive of
differences in teacher self-efficacy beliefs across teaching level, the way
in which these differences are reflected in distinct profiles of teacher
self-efficacy remains unclear. One possibility is the emergence of pro-
files that are teaching-level-specific. A second possibility is that the
structure of the profiles may be invariant across teaching levels; how-
ever, the probability of profile membership may vary across teaching
levels. We investigated the extent to which the teacher self-efficacy
profiles replicate across lower and upper secondary teachers. We also
examined the invariance of relations of teacher self-efficacy profile
membership with the theorized predictors and outcomes across these
teaching levels.
1.6. The present study
Drawing on social cognitive perspectives, this study aimed to ex-
plore suspected heterogeneity in teacher self-efficacy data by ex-
amining profiles of teachers’ hierarchical and multidimensional self-
efficacy beliefs. In doing so, we addressed a gap in the teacher self-
efficacy literature concerning the largely untested proposition that
teachers can simultaneously hold multiple self-efficacy beliefs at dif-
ferent levels. As teaching level has been theorized to be an important
contextual factor in social cognitive models of teacher motivational
beliefs (Klassen and Chiu, 2010), we also investigated the degree to
H.N. Perera, et al. Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203

Fig. 1. Depiction of the models tested in the present study. The hexagon depicts the latent categorical variable representing C latent profiles estimated from the
teacher self-efficacy indicators. In this model, the paths linking the predictors to the latent categorical variables implies that the predictors predict the likelihood of
profile membership. Paths from the Professional Development Participation and Professional Development Needs predictors are stylistic and designed to suggest that
all five domains of professional development examined are specified to predict the probability of profile membership. The paths from the latent categorical variable
to the outcomes indicate that the likelihood of profile membership predicts the outcomes. The paths from teaching level to the latent categorical variable as well as to
the paths linking the predictors and outcomes with the latent categorical variables indicate that (a) the profiles may differ as a function of teaching level and (b) the
predictor and outcome relations may be moderated by teaching level, respectively. Note: SE = Self-efficacy.

which the profiles generalize across lower and upper secondary tea-
chers. Furthermore, because teachers are expected to be more or less
efficacious in different domains, it may be that it is a combination of
these beliefs that has implications for teacher outcomes and can be
predicted by meaningful socio-demographic factors and learning ex-
periences. Accordingly, we (a) examined teacher job satisfaction, per-
ceived classroom disciplinary climate, and collaborative activity as
outcomes of the profiles, (b) investigated professional development
participation and needs, mentoring activities, gender, and years of ex-
perience as predictors of profile membership, and (c) considered the
degree to which these profile-outcome and predictor-profile relations
generalize across teaching level. Fig. 1 depicts the models to be tested in
the present study.
As there has been, to the authors’ knowledge, no prior person-cen-
tered research on teacher self-efficacy beliefs, we adopt an exploratory
approach guided by the following research questions:
Research Question 1 (RQ #1): Are there quantitatively and qua-
litatively distinct profiles of teacher self-efficacy beliefs?
Research Question 2 (RQ #2): Do the retained profiles generalize
across lower and upper secondary teachers?
Research Question 3a (RQ #3a): Do teacher job satisfaction,
classroom disciplinary climate, and teacher collaboration differ as a
function of profile membership?
Research Question 3b (RQ #3b): Do the relations of profile
membership with the teacher outcomes generalize across lower and
upper secondary teachers?
Research Question 4a (RQ #4a): Can profile membership be
predicted by professional development participation, perceived
professional development needs, mentoring activities, gender, and
years of experience?
Research Question 4b (RQ #4b): Do the predictor-profile relations
generalize across lower and upper secondary teachers?
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
We relied on Australian data from the TALIS 2013 study (Rutkowski
et al., 2013). TALIS 2013 is an international study examining teachers’
teaching practices, learning environments, and working conditions
conducted under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD). The TALIS 2013 comprises data
from 33 countries and sub-national entities, including data from over
10,000 schools and approximately 170,000 teachers (OECD, 2014).
Country-specific datasets constitute data obtained from nationally re-
presentative samples (Scherer, Jansen, Nilsen, Areepattamannil, &
Marsh, 2016). All participating countries surveyed lower secondary
teachers (i.e., ISCED Level 2). In addition, the survey of ISCED Level 1
(i.e., Primary) and Level 3 (i.e., Upper secondary) teachers was optional
for countries. The TALIS 2013 involved the collection of data in six
areas as follows: (a) self-efficacy and job satisfaction; (b) learning en-
vironment; (c) appraisal and feedback; (d) teaching practices and
classroom environment; (e) development and support; and (f) school
leadership. Data on key socio-demographics were also collected (e.g.,
gender, age, years of experience). Following the survey development
and field trial, Australian teachers responded to the TALIS items in the
fourth quarter of 2012. The full battery comprised 50 items that re-
quired approximately 45–60 min to complete. Participation was vo-
luntary, and participants completed the survey online. Completion and
return of the survey was indicative of implied consent.
The Australian sample from TALIS 2013 used in this study com-
prises 37351 teachers working in 247 schools. The mean age of
1
Please note that the present sample of 3735 teachers includes 1915 lower-
secondary teachers constituting the Australian sample in Perera et al. (2019)

190
H.N. Perera, et al.
participants was 43.78 (SD = 11.48), and 58.2% (n = 2174) of the
sample was female. Participants reported diverse teaching experience,
ranging from less than a year to 49 years (M = 17.05, SD = 11.16).
ISCED2 teachers constituted 51.3% (n = 1915) of the sample whereas
the remaining teachers were ISCED 3 teachers.2 Participation rates for
Australian teachers in participating schools at ISCED 2 and ISCED 3
were 86.8% and 83.9%, respectively (OECD, 2014). The Australian
sample comprised schools from all Australian states and territories and
included schools from the Government, Catholic, and Independent
sectors as well as metropolitan, rural, and remote regions.
2.2. Measures
Teacher self-efficacy. Teacher self-efficacy was measured using a
self-report scale based on the TSES-SF (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2001). The instrument is predicated on the multidimensional
teacher self-efficacy perspective proposed by Tschannen-Moran and
Woolkfolk Hoy, and is designed to measure self-efficacy for classroom
management, instructional strategies, and student engagement. The
measure comprises 12 items, rated on a four-point Likert-type scale
(1 = Not at all to 4 = A lot), with four items measuring each purported
factor. Scores generated from the measure have been shown to be re-
liable and validity evidence has also been obtained (OECD, 2014). Scale
items and reliability estimates in this sample are shown in Appendix A.
Job satisfaction. Teachers’ job satisfaction was measured using the
Satisfaction with Current Work Environment scale administered in the
TALIS 2013 (OECD, 2014). The scale comprises four items, rated on a
four-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly
Agree), designed to measure teachers’ cognitive-affective evaluations of
satisfaction with work. Reliability and validity evidence of the scale
scores has been obtained (OECD, 2014). Scale items and reliability
estimates in the present sample are shown in Appendix A.
Classroom disciplinary climate. Teachers’ perceptions of the dis-
ciplinary climate of their classrooms was appraised using the TALIS
2013 Classroom Disciplinary Climate Scale (OECD, 2014). This scale
comprises four items, rated on a four-point Likert-type scale
(1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree), and is designed to measure
teachers’ perceptions of the extent of orderliness and composure in the
classroom. Evidence of reliability and validity of the scale data has been
obtained (OECD, 2014). Scale items and reliability estimates for this
sample are shown in Appendix A.
Teacher collaboration. Teachers’ collaborative activity was mea-
sured using the TALIS 2013 Exchange and Coordination for Teaching
Scale. This scale contains four item, rated on a six-point Likert-type
scale (1 = Never to 6 = Once a week or more), intended to measure the
extent of teachers’ professional cooperative practices and activities in
the service of achieving common educational goals. Scores from the
instrument have been shown to be reliable and valid (OECD, 2014).
Scale items and reliability estimates in this sample are shown in Ap-
pendix A.
Professional development participation. Participation in profes-
sional development over the previous 12 months up to the TALIS as-
sessment was operationalized using five items corresponding to parti-
cipation in the following five professional development domains:
subject field knowledge; pedagogical competencies; assessment prac-
tices; classroom management; individualized learning. Teachers in-
dicated whether they participated in professional development
(footnote continued)
and available as part of the public-use TALIS database.
2
ISCED Level 2 denotes lower secondary years (As at 2013, this corresponds
to years 7–10 in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Tasmania,
and Victoria; years 8–10 in the Northern Territory, Queensland, South
Australia, and Western Australia). ISCED Level 3 denotes upper secondary years
(i.e., years 11–12 in Australian schools).
191
Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203
activities in these domains using a dichotomous response scale
(0 = Yes, 1 = No).
Perceived professional development needs. Teachers’ perceived
need for professional development was assessed using five items cor-
responding to the professional development domains noted above. For
each domain, teachers rated the extent to which they perceive a current
need for professional development using a four-point response scale,
ranging from 1 (No need at present) to 4 (High level of need).
Mentoring activities. Teachers’ participation in mentoring activ-
ities was indexed by two items from the TALIS 2013. First, teachers
indicated, on a dichotomous response scale (0 = Yes, 1 = No), whether
they currently have an assigned mentor to support them (i.e., Mentee).
For the second item, teachers indicated, on a dichotomous scale
(0 = Yes, 1 = No), whether they serve as an assigned mentor for one or
more teachers (i.e., Mentor).
Socio-demographics/Contextual variables. In the TALIS 2013,
teachers reported their gender on a binary response scale (0 = Female,
1 = Male). Years of teaching experience was indexed as the number of
years’ teachers reported working in the profession cumulatively.
Finally, teaching level was indexed as a dichotomous variable
(0 = lower secondary, 1 = upper secondary).
2.3. Statistical analyses
Analyses were conducted in four phases. First, preliminary multiple-
group bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling analyses
(BESEM) of the TSES-SF data across the lower and upper secondary
teacher samples were conducted to obtain factor scores on the self-ef-
ficacy dimensions from the most invariant measurement model to serve
as LPA indicators. Factor score mixture indicators from multi-group
BESEM models should be preferred for four reasons (Morin et al., 2017;
Morin and Marsh, 2015). First, factor score indicators give greater
weight to more reliable items and, in this regard, provide partial control
for measurement errors. Second, factor scores can be generated based
on standardized information, thereby facilitating profile labeling and
interpretability. Third, factor-scores based on BESEM models accom-
modate construct-relevant multidimensionality due to (a) general and
specific constructs underlying item data and (b) item fallibility (Perera
et al., 2019; Scherer et al., 2016). Notably, Morin et al. (2017) note
that, where there is a general construct underlying data, as is the case
with the TSES-SF data, LPA based on factors scores obtained from bi-
factor models results in an appropriate disaggregation of shape and
level effects. Finally, TSES-SF factor scores obtained from multiple-
group models of invariance ensure comparability of the self-efficacy
scores across the independent samples (Morin, Arens et al., 2016;
Perera & McIlveen, 2018).
For the BESEM measurement model, each TSES-SF item was speci-
fied to have a primary loading on one of the three self-efficacy di-
mensions as well as a primary loading on the general teacher self-effi-
cacy factor. In addition, the solution was rotated using the target
(orthogonal) rotational criterion with cross-loadings “targeted” to be
approximately zero but not restricted to zero (Asparouhov & Muthén,
2009; Perera, McIlveen, Burton, & Corser, 2015). The target rotational
criterion is particularly useful as there is an expectation for construct-
relevant multidimensionality due, in part, to item fallibility. Condi-
tional on the acceptable fit of the BESEM model in each sample, the
invariance of the TSES-SF data was examined across lower and upper
secondary teachers. These multiple-group invariance tests were con-
ducted in line with Millsap and Yun-Tein’s (2004) taxonomy of in-
variance tests for models based on ordered categorical data adapted for
ESEM (Perera et al., 2015). This involves the sequential testing of
configural invariance and the invariance of item factor loadings,
thresholds,3 uniquenesses, factor variances and covariances, and factor
3
When ordinal data are examined, both item thresholds and intercepts are
H.N. Perera, et al.
means (Perera et al., 2015).4
Analyses of the preliminary measurement structures were con-
ducted using Mplus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2015). Solutions
were estimated using weighted least squares with diagonal weight
matrices for the estimation of parameters and full weight matrix for the
standard errors and mean-and-variance-adjusted chi-square tests sta-
tistic. In Mplus, this estimation routine is operationalized as the
Weighted Least Squares Mean-and-Variance adjusted (WLSMV) esti-
mator. As the TALIS uses a cluster sampling design, with teachers
nested within schools, we used the complex design-based correction of
standard errors in Mplus to account for these dependencies
(Asparouhov, 2005). Also, given different selection probabilities in the
sampling of schools and teachers, all analyses were based on the TALIS
final teacher weights (i.e., TCHWGT) that incorporate sub-weights ac-
counting for different probabilities of being selected as a school and
being selected as a teacher within a country (OECD, 2014). Fit assess-
ment was inclusive and involved an evaluation of fit indices, parameter
estimates, and alternative models. As the χ2 can be oversensitive to
minor model misspecifications given even moderate-sized samples and
contains a restrictive hypothesis test (i.e., exact fit), three approximate
fit indices were considered: RMSEA, less than 0.050 and 0.080 for close
and reasonable fit; Comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index
(TLI), > 0.900 and 0.950 for acceptable and excellent fit, respectively.
For nested model comparisons, because the adjusted χ2 difference (MD
Δχ2) test appropriate for the WLSMV estimator also tends to be sensi-
tive to even trivial differences, changes in the CFI (ΔCFI) and RMSEA
(ΔRMSEA) were primarily used. A decrease in the CFI and increase in
the RMSEA of less than 0.010 and 0.015, respectively, are indicative of
support for a more restrictive model (Chen, 2007; Cheung and
Rensvold, 2002).
Phase 2 of the analyses involved LPA with factor scores from the
most invariant BESEM model serving as mixture indicators. LPA is a
statistical model for modeling unobserved population heterogeneity.
LPA models assume that samples drawn from a heterogeneous popu-
lation generate data that are a mixture of k profile-specific distributions
where k is the number of profiles (k > 1). LPA models capture het-
erogeneity by grouping individuals into latent profiles based on simi-
larities in their response variable data. The LPA models were initially
tested separately in each sample to determine if the same number of
profiles could be identified. Models including one to eight profiles were
estimated. Across the models, means of the profile indicators were
freely estimated, but indicator variances were equality constrained
across the profiles consistent with the homogeneity assumption of the
classical LPA model (Lubke and Neale (2006).5
(footnote continued)
not simultaneously identified. Item thresholds refer to points on the unobserved
response variate underlying the observed ordinal item at which observed
scores, on average, change from one response category to another. For every k
response categories constituting a response scale, there are k-1 thresholds di-
viding the latent response variate distribution. Contrariwise, item intercepts
refer to the intercept of the link between the latent factor and latent response
variate. The default in Mplus is the modeling of item thresholds as reported
herein.
4
An important consideration in these tests of invariance across groups is the
test of factor variance-covariance invariance in bifactor models. In a typical
Bifactor CFA model, the invariance of the factor covariances cannot be ex-
amined given the orthogonality constraints on covariances typically imposed
(Perera & Ganguly, 2016). However, for the BESEM with orthogonal bifactor
target rotation, orthogonality is a function of rotation, and, as such, invariance
constraints may be imposed on the unrotated solution, thereby allowing the
invariance of the factor covariances in the BSEM to be tested. However, as
Arens and Morin (2017) note, the value of this test is questionable in light of the
orthogonality of the final (rotated) solution. Nevertheless, the current oper-
ationalization of ESEM models requires invariance constraints to be simulate-
naouly imposed on factor variances and covariances.
5
We also estimated alternative models specifying the free estimation of
192
Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203
Phrase 3 of the analyses involved tests of profile solution general-
izability across teaching levels. These tests were conducted in line with
the taxonomy of LPA similarity tests proposed by Morin, Meyer,
Creusier, and Biétry (2016), comprising sequential and comparative
tests of configural similarity, structural similarity, dispersion similarity,
and distributional similarity. Configural similarity can be inferred from
the single-sample LPA tests to the degree that the sample-specific
analytic solutions converge in the number of profiles identified. How-
ever, configural similarity also requires the simultaneous estimation of
the retained k-profile model in both groups, which serves as a baseline
model against which the more restrictive profile similarity models are
compared. From configural similarity, the model of structural similarity
can be tested via constraining the within-profile indicator means to
equality across the groups. Conditional on support for structural simi-
larity, dispersion similarity can be examined by imposing equality
constraints on the indicator variances across groups, thereby providing
tests of the equality of the within-profile variability of the indicators
across samples. Finally, the model of distributional similarity requires
additive equality restrictions imposed on the class probabilities across
group, testing whether the relative sizes of the profiles are equal across
groups (Morin, Meyer, et al., 2016).
Finally, we tested the postulated outcomes and predictors of profile
membership across teaching level. For the outcome tests, per Morin,
Meyer et al.’s (2016) taxonomy of profile similarity tests, two models
were examined. An initial model was estimated in which the outcomes
were incorporated into the most-invariant model retained in Phase 3 of
the analysis. In this model, mean level differences across pairs of pro-
files within the teaching level groups were tested via the multivariate
delta method operationalized using the MODEL CONSTRAINT com-
mand in Mplus (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2004). This model was com-
pared against a more parsimonious model of explanatory similarity in
which the within-profile means on the outcomes were constrained to
equality across groups. Support for the model of explanatory similarity
indicates that mean levels on the outcomes in specific profiles are equal
across the teaching levels. An important assumption of LPA is that the
unconditional LPA solutions remain unchanged by the inclusion of
covariates (Marsh et al., 2009). To ensure the profiles remained un-
changed by the inclusion of distal outcomes, these models were esti-
mated using start values from the most-invariant model retained in
Phase 3 of the analysis. Furthermore, the observed distal outcomes
incorporated herein were generated as factor scores from the most-in-
variant measurement models of the outcomes across teaching level (see
Appendix B).
For the tests of the predictors of profile membership, per the profile
similarity taxonomy (Morin, Meyer et al., 2016), we tested two models.
First, a categorical latent variable multinomial logistic regression model
was tested in which the predictors were incorporated into the most-
invariant latent profile solution retained in Phase 3 of the analyses. In
this model, the relations of the predictors with profile membership were
freely estimated. Second, a model of predictive similarity was estimated
in which the multinomial logistic regression coefficients were con-
strained to equality across teaching levels, and compared to the less
restrictive model in which the predictor-profile relations were freely
estimated. These models were also estimated using start values from the
most invariant model retained in Phase 3 of the analysis.
The LPA analyses were performed using robust maximum likelihood
(MLR) estimation in Mplus 7.4 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2015). The
single-group models were estimated using 5000 random sets of start
values with 500 iterations each and the 200 best solutions retained for
final stage optimization. These values were increased to 10,000, 500,
(footnote continued)
indicator variances; however, these models tended to converge on inadmissible
solutions or failed to converge altogether, suggesting over-parameterization of
the models (Bauer & Curran, 2003).
H.N. Perera, et al.
and 500, respectively, for the multiple-group models (Morin, Meyer
et al., 2016). In all models, (a) the nesting of teachers within schools
was accounted for using the complex design-based correction of stan-
dard errors in Mplus and (b) TCHWGT was incorporated to account for
different selection probabilities in the sampling of schools and teachers.
An inclusive approach to single-group model selection was used, in-
volving an evaluation of the theoretical consistency of the solutions and
information criteria (Henson, Reise, & Kim, 2007; Nylund, Asparouhov,
& Muthén, 2007). Specifically, the Bayesian Information Criterion
(BIC), the sample-adjusted BIC (SaBIC), and the consistent Akaike In-
formation Criterion (CAIC) were used with lower values on the criteria
indicative of a better-fitting model (Henson et al., 2007). We also report
the Akaike Information Criteria for information purposes. Although
simulation research has found that the BIC, SaBIC, and CAIC are useful
in deciding on the optimal number of profiles (Nylund et al., 2007;
Tofighi & Enders, 2008), in large samples, these criteria continue to
improve with the addition of profiles without reaching a minimum.6 In
this case, “elbow plots” of the information criteria can be useful in
detecting the point at which the information criteria plateau (Morin,
Meyer et al., 2016). In addition to these statistical indices, we report the
entropy values for the models tested, with higher values indicative of
greater classification precision. Finally, for comparative tests of the
multiple-group models of LPA similarity, the BIC, SaBIC, and CAIC were
used (Lubke and Neale, 2008; Morin, Meyer et al., 2016), with lower
values indicating better fit. Profile similarity is inferred if at least two
information criteria suggest support for a more parsimonious model
(Morin, Meyer et al., 2016).
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary measurement model
Tests of the BESEM model resulted in a good fit in both the lower
secondary, χ2 (24) = 120.872, p < .001, CFI = 0.995, TLI = 0.987,
RMSEA = 0.046 (90% CI = 0.038, 0.054), and upper secondary, χ2
(24) = 139.859, p < .001, CFI = 0.994, TLI = 0.984, RMSEA = 0.052
(90% CI = 0.043, 0.060) samples. For both groups, the general factor
was well-defined with uniformly moderate to strong standardized
loadings (lower secondary: |λ| = 0.607–0.784, M = 0.693; upper sec-
ondary: |λ| = 0.514–0.802, M = 0.672). Target loadings on the specific
classroom management (SE-CM) (lower secondary: |λ| = 0.279–0.634,
M = 0.488; upper secondary: |λ| = 0.362–0.692, M = 0.561) and stu-
dent engagement (SE-SE) (lower secondary: |λ| = 0.238–0.663,
M = 0.494; upper secondary: |λ| = 0.220–0.671, M = 0.474) factors
were uniformly significant and largely moderate to strong in magni-
tude. The specific self-efficacy for instructional strategies (SE-IS) factor
was also relatively well-defined, with three of the four target loadings
not-trivial and statistically significant in both samples (lower sec-
ondary: |λ| = 0.020–0.515, M = 0.324; upper secondary:
|λ| = 0.015–0.600, M = 0.308). The complete loadings matrices for the
sample-specific solutions are provided in Appendix C.
Next, the multiple-group BESEM models were examined. The con-
figural invariance model resulted in an excellent fit to the data (see
Table 1). Support was also found for the invariance of factor loadings,
thresholds, uniquenesses, factor variance-covariance matrix, and factor
means. Taken together, these results support complete factorial in-
variance. Factor scores from this final solution were saved and used as
the LPA indicators. Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and
correlations for the teacher self-efficacy factor scores as well as the
predictors and outcomes for each subsample.
6
Note: The Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT), which has been shown to
be a consistent indicator of profiles across a range of mixture models, is not
available in Mplus when the design-based correction of standard errors for
clustered sampling is used.
193
Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203
3.2. Teacher self-efficacy profiles
Fit indices for the LPA solutions estimated separately in the lower
and upper secondary samples are shown in Table 3. For both samples,
the AIC, BIC, SaBIC, and CAIC continued to decrease with the addition
of profiles. Plots of the information criteria as a function of the k-profile
solutions showed that decreases in the BIC, CAIC, and SaBIC perma-
nently flattened at about six profiles for both groups (see Appendix D).
The six-profile solutions and adjacent five-and-seven profile solutions
were statistically admissible. Notably, in the six profile solutions, pro-
files were well-defined with non-trivial class sizes and clear shape dif-
ferences whereas estimating a seventh profile yielded solutions char-
acterized by profiles with small class proportions or an additional
profile that could not easily be discriminated from the existing profiles.
Classification accuracy of the six-profile solutions was reasonable for
both samples as indexed by entropy (see Table 3). Average posterior
probabilities of membership in the assigned profile ranged from 0.765
to 0.894 (M = 0.835), with generally low cross probabilities
(0.000–0.103; M = 0.033), in lower secondary teachers. For upper
secondary teachers, these average posterior probabilities ranged from
0.794 to 0.901 (M = 0.856) with systematically lower cross prob-
abilities (0.000–0.079; M = 0.026). The six-profile solution was re-
tained in each sample for further analysis.
3.3. Latent profile similarity
Fit indices for the profile similarity tests across teaching level are
shown in Table 3. First, a multiple-group six-profile model was esti-
mated to serve as the configural similarity model against which the
more restrictive similarity models were compared. Relative to this
baseline model, the more restrictive structural similarity model resulted
in lower BIC, SaBIC, and CAIC values. Support was also found for the
model of dispersion similarity, with lower values on the BIC, SaBIC, and
CAIC relative to the structural similarity solution. Finally, the dis-
tributional similarity model had lower values on the information cri-
teria relative to the dispersion similarity model. Together, the profile
similarity tests support the equality of (a) the number of latent profiles,
(b) within-profile mean levels of the mixture indicators, (c) within-
profile interindividual variability, and (d) the relative sizes of the latent
profiles, respectively. Classification accuracy of the retained distribu-
tional similarity model is reasonable with an entropy value of 0.839 and
average posterior probabilities of membership in the assigned profile,
ranging from 0.767 to 0.898 (M = 0.840) and low cross probabilities
(0.000–0.101, M = 0.015).
The profiles from the retained distributional similarity solution are
shown in Fig. 2, and Table 4 shows mean levels of the profile indicators
as a function of profiles and provides a brief description of each profile.
Profile 1 (9.3%) was characterized by well-below average scores on
both general teacher confidence and self-efficacy for student engage-
ment and slightly below average scores on self-efficacy for classroom
management and instructional strategies. This profile was labeled
“Highly-Inefficacious”. The second profile (18.9%) was characterized
by moderately above average levels of general teacher confidence and
specific self-efficacy for instructional strategies, slightly lower but still
above average classroom management self-efficacy, and well-below
average student engagement self-efficacy. This profile was labeled
“Moderate Globally-and-Instructionally Confident”. Profile 3 (26.2%)
was characterized by very high levels of general teacher confidence,
moderately high levels of specific self-efficacy for student engagement,
and slightly above average levels of specific self-efficacy for classroom
management and instructional strategies. This profile was labeled
“Highly-Efficacious”. Profile 4 (26.6%) was characterized by well-
below average general teacher confidence, approximately average
specific classroom-management self-efficacy, slightly-below average
specific instructional strategies self-efficacy, and slightly above-average
specific student engagement self-efficacy. This profile was labeled
H.N. Perera, et al. Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203

Table 1
Fit statistics for the multiple-group models of invariance across the teaching levels.
Model χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA 90% CI MD χ2 ΔCFI ΔRMSEA

***
MGM1 (Configural IN) 260.693 48 0.995 0.986 0.049 0.043, 0.055
MGM2 (IN FL) 205.939*** 80 0.997 0.995 0.029 0.024, 0.034 36.627 (32) +0.002 -0.020
MGM3 (IN FL + Th) 207.594*** 100 0.997 0.997 0.024 0.019, 0.029 26.388 (20) 0.000 -0.005
MGM4 (IN FL + Th + Uniq) 233.886*** 112 0.997 0.996 0.024 0.020, 0.028 36.730 (12)*** -0.001 0.000
MGM5 (IN FL + Th + Uniq + FVCV) 194.566*** 122 0.998 0.998 0.018 0.013, 0.022 14.886 (10) +0.001 -0.006
MGM6 (IN FL + Th + Uniq + FVCV + FM) 208.323 126 0.998 0.998 0.019 0.014, 0.023 11.984 (4)* 0.000 +0.001

Note. df = degrees of freedom; MD χ2 = change in χ2 relative to a more complex model computed using the Mplus DIFFTEST function; ΔCFI = change in com-
parative fit index; ΔRMSEA = change in root mean square error of approximation; MGM = multiple-group model; IN = invariance; FL = factor loadings;
TH = thresholds; Uniq = Uniquenesses; FVCV = factor variances and covariances; FM = factor means.
* p < .05, ** p < .01.
*** p < .001.

Table 2
Means/proportions, standards deviations, and correlations for the self-efficacy indicators, predictors, and outcomes.
Variable Ma SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. GTC −0.082/0.026 0.888/0.864 – 0.133 0.167 0.184 0.098 −0.184 0.071 −0.249 −0.044
2. SE-CM −0.017/-0.030 0.716/0.777 0.157 – −0.069 −0.142 −0.030 0.025 0.064 −0.048 0.020
3. SE-IS 0.001/-0.014 0.629/0.632 0.172 −0.109 – −0.159 −0.045 −0.024 0.039 −0.069 −0.010
4. SE-SE −0.002/-0.016 0.706/0.701 0.165 −0.136 −0.170 – −0.003 0.024 −0.042 −0.084 −0.024
5. Years’ Experience 16.745/17.471 11.151/11.220 0.172 0.057 0.026 0.043 – 0.090 0.336 −0.199 0.065
6. Gender 0.586/0.585 – −0.162 −0.008 −0.075 −0.031 0.083 – 0.010 −0.051 0.047
7. Mentee 0.164/0.140 – 0.095 0.046 −0.050 −0.017 0.268 0.002 – 0.127 0.193
8. Mentor 0.278/0.305 – −0.222 −0.089 −0.103 −0.073 −0.233 0.017 0.087 – 0.096
9. PD-Subject Field 0.778/0.804 – −0.084 0.057 −0.046 −0.066 0.034 0.114 −0.059 0.061 –
10. PD-Pedagogical Competencies 0.656/0.659 – −0.076 0.085 −0.152 −0.016 0.057 0.166 0.102 0.094 0.524
11. PD-Assessment Practices 0.584/0.655 – −0.149 0.038 −0.047 −0.005 −0.003 0.061 0.013 0.157 0.298
12. PD-Classroom management 0.349/0.347 – −0.034 0.021 −0.030 −0.041 −0.008 −0.025 0.074 0.111 0.084
13. PD-Individualized Learning 0.523/0.467 – −0.105 0.093 −0.101 −0.012 −0.019 0.078 0.052 0.094 0.220
14. PDN-Subject Field 1.854/1.857 0.772/0.744 −0.171 −0.061 −0.026 0.012 −0.199 0.080 −0.063 0.081 −0.074
15. PDN-Pedagogical Competencies 1.962/1.914 0.770/0.744 −0.277 −0.066 −0.051 −0.006 −0.195 0.090 −0.129 0.100 −0.072
16. PDN-Assessment Practices 2.087/2.048 0.795/0.777 −0.171 −0.048 −0.027 −0.012 −0.162 0.069 −0.130 0.056 −0.009
17. PDN-Classroom Management 1.879/1.778 0.804/0.773 −0.345 −0.256 −0.006 −0.025 −0.233 0.060 −0.081 0.147 −0.085
18. PDN-Individualized Learning 2.293/2.195 0.826/ −0.154 −0.054 −0.052 −0.057 −0.117 0.023 −0.132 0.011 −0.090
19. Job Satisfaction −0.092/0.029 0.883/0.830 0.193 0.129 −0.003 0.072 0.030 −0.004 −0.127 −0.073 −0.097
20. Classroom Climate −0.019/0.0444 0.888/0.838 0.318 0.157 −0.053 0.070 0.149 −0.093 0.048 −0.160 −0.106
21. Teacher Collaboration −0.023/-0.005 0.870/0.864 0.253 0.020 0.114 0.039 −0.010 −0.109 −0.053 −0.210 −0.085

Variable 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

1. GTC −0.049 −0.118 −0.020 −0.103 −0.161 −0.193 −0.155 −0.261 −0.163 0.188 0.252 0.244
2. SE-CM 0.014 −0.013 −0.032 0.041 0.011 −0.057 −0.019 −0.195 0.004 0.074 0.062 −0.018
3. SE-IS −0.017 −0.050 −0.047 −0.099 −0.035 −0.034 −0.043 0.044 −0.035 0.020 −0.064 0.058
4. SE-SE −0.031 0.000 −0.063 −0.052 0.000 0.005 0.006 −0.070 −0.055 0.125 0.082 0.106
5. Years’ Experience 0.012 −0.041 −0.012 0.027 −0.137 −0.176 −0.168 −0.217 −0.099 0.020 0.179 −0.079
6. Gender −0.046 0.070 −0.004 0.009 0.062 0.043 0.038 0.001 0.029 −0.071 −0.081 −0.180
7. Mentee 0.098 0.196 0.176 0.191 −0.072 −0.107 −0.118 −0.138 0.008 −0.063 0.108 −0.120
8. Mentor 0.120 0.139 0.036 0.142 0.055 0.096 0.047 0.150 0.069 −0.040 −0.053 −0.143
9. PD-Subject Field 0.509 0.292 0.067 0.253 −0.162 −0.123 −0.065 −0.066 −0.046 −0.039 0.001 −0.091
10. PD-Pedagogical Competencies – 0.368 0.202 0.431 −0.107 −0.180 −0.141 −0.158 −0.150 −0.050 0.041 −0.149
11. PD-Assessment Practices 0.419 – 0.320 0.497 0.001 −0.008 −0.071 −0.042 −0.060 −0.071 0.024 −0.148
12. PD-Classroom management 0.202 0.305 – 0.402 −0.050 −0.075 −0.078 −0.161 −0.055 −0.033 0.119 −0.168
13. PD-Individualized Learning 0.395 0.483 0.331 – −0.041 −0.098 −0.050 −0.086 −0.112 −0.017 0.021 −0.129
14. PDN-Subject Field −0.029 0.047 −0.085 −0.004 – 0.683 0.495 0.406 0.333 −0.040 −0.142 −0.023
15. PDN-Pedagogical Competencies −0.092 0.028 −0.059 −0.031 0.679 – 0.591 0.531 0.501 −0.067 −0.147 −0.009
16. PDN-Assessment Practices −0.033 −0.004 −0.091 −0.008 0.490 0.600 – 0.477 0.508 −0.050 −0.091 0.019
17. PDN-Classroom Management −0.092 0.015 −0.176 −0.022 0.384 0.504 0.474 – 0.443 −0.169 −0.292 −0.009
18. PDN-Individualized Learning −0.088 0.005 −0.083 −0.025 0.294 0.464 0.505 0.473 – −0.067 −0.074 0.023
19. Job Satisfaction −0.023 −0.082 0.026 −0.066 −0.006 −0.014 −0.027 −0.151 −0.087 – 0.192 0.192
20. Classroom Climate 0.021 −0.050 0.089 −0.025 −0.130 −0.170 −0.172 −0.334 −0.142 0.299 – 0.052
21. Teacher Collaboration −0.199 −0.198 −0.098 −0.181 −0.009 −0.032 −0.035 −0.050 −0.044 0.198 0.089 –

Note. N = 3735 (nISCED2 = 1915; nISCED3 = 1820). Estimates before the forward slash and correlations below the diagonal are for the ISCED 2 sample. aFor di-
chotomous items, this value is the proportion of observations in the first category. GTC = general teacher confidence; SE-CM = self-efficacy for classroom man-
agement; SE-IS = self-efficacy for instructional strategies; SE-SE = self-efficacy for student engagement. PD = professional development; PDN = professional de-
velopment needs. Correlations above 0.045 are significant at p < .05 for ISCED 2 teachers, and correlations above 0.046 are significant at p < .05 for ISCED 3
teachers.

“Globally-Unconfident”. Profile 5 (11.6%) was characterized by very efficacy for classroom management and instructional strategies and
high levels of specific student engagement self-efficacy and moderately- thus was labeled “Student-Engagement-Efficacious”. Finally, Profile 6
below average levels of general teaching confidence and specific self- (7.4%) was characterized by very low levels of specific student

194
H.N. Perera, et al. Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203

Table 3
Fit indices and classification accuracy for the LPA models.
Lower Secondary (n = 1915) k LL #fp AIC BIC SaBIC CAIC Entropy

One profile 1 −8448.724 8 16913.447 16957.907 16932.491 16965.908 –

Two Profiles 2 −8382.356 13 16790.712 16862.959 16821.658 16875.959 0.503
Three Profiles 3 −8288.608 18 16613.215 16713.250 16656.063 16731.251 0.553
Four Profiles 4 −8200.908 23 16447.815 16575.637 16502.566 16598.638 0.677
Five Profiles 5 −8149.155 28 16354.310 16509.919 16420.963 16537.919 0.700
Six Profiles 6 −8092.750 33 16251.501 16434.897 16330.056 16467.897 0.768
Seven Profiles 7 −8039.522 38 16155.043 16366.227 16245.501 16404.228 0.772
Eight Profiles 8 −7997.283 43 16080.566 16319.538 16182.926 16362.537 0.752
Upper Secondary (n = 1820)
One profile 1 −8123.360 8 16262.719 16306.772 16281.357 16314.773 –
Two Profiles 2 −8015.506 13 16057.013 16128.598 16087.298 16141.598 0.921
Three Profiles 3 −7910.419 18 15856.837 15955.956 15898.771 15973.957 0.735
Four Profiles 4 −7832.044 23 15710.087 15836.739 15763.669 15859.739 0.636
Five Profiles 5 −7785.946 28 15627.892 15782.077 15693.122 15810.077 0.712
Six Profiles 6 −7701.577 33 15469.154 15650.871 15546.032 15683.872 0.794
Seven Profiles 7 −7631.159 38 15338.318 15547.568 15426.844 15585.568 0.812
Eight Profiles 8 −7588.047 43 15262.093 15498.877 15362.268 15541.877 0.818
Tests of Profile Similarity
Configural – −18382.024 67 36898.048 37315.157 37102.263 37382.157 0.842
Structural – −18439.771 43 36965.542 37233.238 37096.605 37276.239 0.839
Dispersion – −18444.412 39 36966.823 37209.618 37085.695 37248.619 0.839
Distributional – −18449.237 34 36966.475 37178.142 37070.106 37212.141 0.839
Explanatory Similarity
Profile-outcome relations freely estimated – −31845.649 73 63837.299 64291.760 64059.802 64364.759 0.843
Profile-outcome relations invariant – −31982.967 55 64075.933 64418.336 64243.572 64473.337 0.842
Predictive Similarity
Predictor-profile relations freely estimated – −16354.100 174 33056.200 34122.265 33569.387 34313.4375 0.847
Predictor-profile relations invariant – −16405.258 104 33018.516 33655.705 33325.248 33769.968 0.844

Note. k = number of profiles; #fp = number of free parameters; LL = mode log-likelihood; AIC = Akaike information criteria; BIC = Bayesian information criteria;
SaBIC = sample-size adjusted BIC; CAIC = Consistent Akaike information criteria.

Fig. 2. Graphical depiction of the final six-profile solution.

engagement self-efficacy, moderately low levels of general teacher profile.

confidence, approximately average specific classroom management
self-efficacy, and slightly above-average specific instructional strategies
self-efficacy. “Student-Engagement-Inefficacious” was used to label this

195
H.N. Perera, et al. Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203

3.4. Explanatory similarity

Moderately below average GTC; approximately-average CMSE; slightly above-average ISSE; well-below average SESE
Well-below average GTC; approximately average CMSE; slightly below-average ISSE; slightly above-average SESE
Moderately above-average GTC and ISSE; slightly lower, but still above-average, CMSE; well-below-average SESE
The teacher outcomes were added to the retained distributional si-
milarity model to examine the equality of profile-outcome relations
across teaching levels. As shown in Table 3, the model of explanatory

Note. GTC = General teacher confidence; CMSE = Specific classroom management self-efficacy; ISSE = Specific instructional strategies self-efficacy; SESE = specific student engagement self-efficacy.
similarity resulted in higher values on the BIC, SaBIC, and CAIC relative
Well-above average GTC; slightly above-average CMSE and ISSE; moderately above-average SESE

to a model in which the within-profile levels of the outcomes were

freely estimated across the teacher samples, providing evidence against
explanatory similarity. Thus, the more complex model was retained for
interpretation. Mean levels of each outcome across the profiles within
the lower and upper secondary teacher samples, and tests of between-
profile differences, are reported in Table 5. For lower secondary tea-
Moderately below-average GTC, CMSE, and ISSE; Well-above average SESE
Well below-average GTC and SESE; slightly below average CMSE and ISSE

chers, job satisfaction was lowest in Profile 1 (Highly-Inefficacious) and

significantly lower than in all other profiles, excepting Profile 6 (Stu-
dent-Engagement-Inefficacious). In contrast, Profile 3 (Highly-Effica-
cious) had the highest job satisfaction, which was significantly higher
than in all profiles other than Profile 2 (Moderate Globally-and-In-
structionally-Confident). Levels of job satisfaction in Profile 2 (Mod-
erate Globally-and-Instructionally-Confident) significantly exceeded
levels in Profile 4 (Globally-Unconfident) and Profile 6 (Student-En-
gagement-Inefficacious) but not Profile 5 (Student-Engagement-Effica-
cious). Profiles 4, 5, and 6 did not significantly differ on job satisfaction.
A comparable pattern of results was observed for (positive) classroom
climate and teacher collaboration. Both outcomes were lowest in Profile
1 (Highly-Inefficacious) and significantly lower in this profile than in all
other profiles. The highest levels of classroom climate and teacher
collaboration were observed in Profile 3 (Highly-Efficacious), followed
by Profile 2 (Moderate Globally-and-Instructionally-Confident), and
Profile Description

though these two subgroups did not differ from each other on the
outcomes, they significantly differed from levels observed in the re-
maining profiles. Profiles 4, 5, and 6 did not significantly differ on
climate and collaboration.
For upper secondary teachers, levels of job satisfaction were sig-
nificantly lower in Profile 1 (Highly-Inefficacious) than in all other
−0.602
−0.552

−1.402

profiles. No significant differences were observed between Profile 4

0.403
0.109
1.054
SESE

(Globally-Unconfident) and Profile 6 (Student-Engagement-

Inefficacious) on job satisfaction, though levels of the outcomes in these
profiles were significantly lower than in Profiles 2, 3, and 5, which
Mean levels on the profile indicators as a function of latent profiles and profile description.

−0.096

−0.175
−0.299

themselves were not significantly different. Classroom climate for upper

0.213
0.113

0.184
ISSE

secondary teachers was lowest in Profile 1 (Highly-Inefficacious) and

significantly lower than in all other profiles. There were no significant
differences between Profile 4 (Globally-Unconfident) and Profile 6
−0.148

−0.042
−0.494
CMSE

(Student-Engagement-Inefficacious) on classroom climate; however,

0.158
0.103

0.024

these profiles had significantly lower levels of the outcome than tea-
chers in Profiles 2 and 3. In addition, levels of classroom climate were
significantly lower in Profile 4 (Globally-Unconfident) than Profile 5
−1.236

−0.541
−0.323
−0.339
0.213
0.961

(Student-Engagement-Efficacious) and in Profile 5 (Student-

GTC

Engagement-Efficacious) relative to Profile 3 (Highly-Efficacious). No

significant differences on climate were observed between Profiles 2 and
3. Finally, for teacher collaboration, the highest levels were observed in
Moderate Globally and Instructionally Confident

Profile 3 (Highly-Efficacious), which significantly exceeded levels in all

profiles, excepting Profile 2 (Moderate Globally-and-Instructionally-
Confident). Profile 2 (Moderate Globally-and-Instructionally-Confident)
and Profile 5 (Student-Engagement-Efficacious) had higher collabora-
Student-Engagement-Inefficacious
Student-Engagement-Efficacious

tion than Profiles 1, 4, and 6, and did not significantly differ from one
another on the outcome. No significant differences on collaboration
were observed among Profiles 1, 4, and 6.
Globally-Unconfident
Highly Inefficacious

Highly-Efficacious

3.5. Predictive similarity

Predictors were added to the final distributional similarity model to

examine the equality of predictor-profile relations across lower and
upper secondary teachers. As shown in Table 3, the model of predictive
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:

similarity resulted in lower values on the BIC, SaBIC, and CAIC, relative
Table 4

Profile

Profile
Profile
Profile
Profile
Profile
Profile

to the model in which the predictor-profile relations were freely esti-

mated across teaching level, thereby supporting the equality of

196
H.N. Perera, et al.
Table 5
Associations of profile membership with job satisfaction, classroom disciplinary climate, and teacher collaboration.
Outcomes Profile 1 (a) Profile 2 (b)
Satisfaction
ISCED 2 −0.629bcde 0.127adf
ISCED 3 −0.540bcdef 0.166adf
Climate
ISCED 2 −0.734bcdef 0.284adef
ISCED 3 −0.182bcdef 0.628adf
Collaboration
ISCED 2 −0.532bcdef 0.138adef
ISCED 3 −0.393bce 0.127adf
Note: ISCED 2 = lower secondary; ISCED 3 = upper secondary. Subscripts denote profiles that differ significantly at p < .05.
predictor-profile relations. Table 6 shows the results from the catego-
rical latent variable multinomial logistic regressions for the relations of
the predictors with the probability of profile membership. Teachers
with greater years of experience were significantly more likely to be in
Profile 1 (Highly-Inefficacious) and Profile 3 (Highly-Efficacious) re-
lative to Profile 6 (Student-Engagement-Inefficacious). No other sig-
nificant relations of years of experience were obtained. For gender,
males had a significantly greater likelihood of membership into Profile
1 (Highly-Inefficacious) relative to Profile 2 (Moderate Globally-and-
Instructionally-Confident), Profile 3 (Highly-Efficacious), Profile 5
(Student-Engagement-Efficacious), and Profile 6 (Student-Engagement-
Inefficacious). Females were significantly more likely to be in Profile 2
(Moderate Globally-and-Instructionally-Confident) and Profile 3
(Highly-Efficacious) than Profile 4 (Globally-Unconfident) and Profile 5
(Student-Engagement-Efficacious).
Some significant relations of mentoring and professional develop-
ment involvement with profile membership were observed. Teachers
who had an assigned mentor (i.e., mentees) had a significantly greater
likelihood of membership into Profile 4 (Globally-Unconfident) relative
to Profile 2 (Moderate Globally-and-Instructionally-Confident) and
Profile 3 (Highly-Efficacious). No other relations of being a mentee with
profile membership were observed. Teachers who served as a mentor
were less likely to be in Profile 1 (Highly-Inefficacious) than in all other
profiles. Contrariwise, these mentor teachers had a greater likelihood of
membership in Profile 3 (Highly-Efficacious) than in Profile 4
(Globally-Unconfident), Profile 5 (Student-Engagement-Efficacious),
and Profile 6 (Student-Engagement-Inefficacious), and were more likely
to be in Profile 2 (Moderate Globally-and-Instructionally-Confident)
than in Profile 4 (Globally-Unconfident). Teachers who participated in
professional development in individualized learning in the prior
12 months had a significantly greater likelihood of membership in
Profile 3 (Highly-Efficacious) and Profile 5 (Student-Engagement-
Efficacious) relative to Profile 4 (Globally-Unconfident).
Several significant associations of perceived professional develop-
ment needs with profile membership were found. Teachers who per-
ceived a greater need for professional development in subject field
knowledge had a significantly greater likelihood of membership in
Profile 2 (Moderate Globally-and-Instructionally-Confident) relative to
Profile 6 (Student-Engagement-Inefficacious). Those who perceived
that they required more professional development in pedagogical
competencies were significantly less likely to be in Profile 2 (Moderate
Globally-and-Instructionally-Confident) and Profile 3 (Highly-
Efficacious) relative to Profile 4 (Globally-Unconfident) and Profile 5
(Student-Engagement-Efficacious). For teachers who perceived a
greater need for professional development in assessment practices,
there was a significantly reduced likelihood of membership in Profile 1
(Highly-Inefficacious) relative to Profile 3 (Highly-Efficacious).
Teachers who perceived a need for professional development in class-
room management had a greater likelihood of membership in Profile 1
(Highly-Inefficacious) relative to all other profiles. These teachers were
also approximately half as likely to be in Profile 2 (Moderate Globally-
Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203
Profile 3 (c) Profile 4 (d) Profile 5 (e) Profile 6 (f)
0.129adef −0.155abc −0.141ac −0.340bc
0.223adf −0.070abce 0.158adf −0.213abce
0.339adef −0.130abc −0.206abc −0.279abc
0.713adef 0.241abce 0.534acd 0.348abc
0.271adef −0.101abc −0.196abc −0.143abc
0.281adef −0.238bce 0.054acdf −0.192bce
and-Instructionally-Confident) and Profile 3 (Highly-Efficacious) re-
lative to Profile 4 (Globally-Unconfident), Profile 5 (Student-
Engagement-Efficacious), and Profile 6 (Student-Engagement-
Inefficacious). Finally, teachers who perceived a greater need for pro-
fessional development in the areas of individualizing student learning
were significantly less likely to be in Profile 3 (Highly-Efficacious) than
Profile 6 (Student-Engagement-Inefficacious). These teachers had a
greater likelihood of membership in Profile 2 (Moderate Globally-and-
Instructionally-Confident) relative to Profile 1 (Highly-Inefficacious),
Profile 3 (Highly-Efficacious), Profile 4 (Globally-Unconfident), and
Profile 5 (Student-Engagement-Efficacious).
4. Discussion
Drawing on social cognitive perspectives, we investigated profiles of
teacher self-efficacy. Additionally, we investigated theoretically plau-
sible outcomes and predictors of profile membership and examined the
extent to which the profiles and their relations generalized across
teaching levels. Although no prior work has examined unobserved
heterogeneity with respect to teacher self-efficacy, per RQ#1, we
identified six profiles of teacher self-efficacy, which, notably, align with
teacher self-efficacy theory. A central tenet of the multidimensional
perspective of teacher self-efficacy is that teachers may not be equally
efficacious across all domains (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998); instead,
they may simultaneously possess multiple capability beliefs at varying
levels as they navigate their professional roles. To the authors’ knowl-
edge, this is the first study to obtain evidence showing that teachers
simultaneously possess multiple teaching self-efficacy beliefs with
varying configurations, manifested as the six teacher self-efficacy pro-
files. As teachers’ work spans multiple domains that consistently
overlap, the distinct configurations may serve as an integrated system
of confidence beliefs that guides their interactions with the learning
environment. The simultaneous operation of these teacher self-efficacy
beliefs suggests that each self-efficacy belief may serve as a context for
other self-efficacy beliefs (Litalien, Morin, & McInerney, 2017). For
instance, take the Student-Engagement-Inefficacious profile, char-
acterized by, inter alia, above-average specific self-efficacy for instruc-
tional strategies. Although teachers in this profile may be somewhat
confident about their capability to implement instructional strategies,
any advantages in the classroom conferred by this belief will likely be
diminished when combined with doubts about capabilities to engage
students in the learning process as well as low general confidence for
performing their professional role.
Notably, the profiles comprise both general teacher confidence and
domain-specific teacher self-efficacy beliefs. This generality and speci-
ficity is consistent with the view that teacher self-efficacy reflects an
integration of perceptions of personal teaching capability with judg-
ments about the requirements of domain-specific roles and tasks
(Goddard et al., 2000; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Zee & Koomen,
2016). The generality and specificity also align with the view that
teacher self-efficacy may reside on a continuum incorporating both
197
H.N. Perera, et al. Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203

Table 6
Results from the multinomial logistic regression models of the effects of the predictors on latent profile membership.
1 Vs 6 2 Vs 6 3 Vs 6 4 Vs 6 5 Vs 6

Predictors Coef. (SE) OR Coef. (SE) OR Coef. (SE) OR Coef. (SE) OR Coef. (SE) OR

* **
Years’ Experience 0.029 (0.013) 1.029 0.018 (0.011) 1.018 0.026 (0.009) 1.026 0.017 (0.010) 1.017 0.010 (0.010) 1.010
Gender 0.729 (0.295)* 2.073 −0.235 (0.224) 0.790 −0.296 (0.209) 0.744 0.401 (0.225) 1.493 0.180 (0.222) 1.197
Mentee −0.385 (0.435) 0.680 0.204 (0.361) 1.227 0.117 (0.345) 1.124 −0.432 (0.315) 0.649 0.028 (0.363) 1.028
Mentor 1.050 (0.364)** 2.858 −0.315 (0.235) 0.730 −0.549 (0.200)** 0.577 0.211 (0.213) 1.235 −0.041 (0.295) 0.959
PD-Subject Field −0.109 (0.346) 0.897 −0.375 (0.274) 0.688 −0.313 (0.295) 0.731 −0.256 (0.248) 0.774 −0.462 (0.328) 0.630
PD-Pedagogical Competencies 0.188 (0.291) 1.207 0.061 (0.288) 1.063 −0.224 (0.243) 0.799 0.017 (0.237) 1.017 0.179 (0.215) 1.195
PD-Assessment Practices 0.033 (0.304) 1.034 −0.186 (0.233) 0.831 −0.239 (0.219) 0.787 0.002 (0.237) 1.002 0.141 (0.219) 1.151
PD-Classroom management −0.086 (0.339) 0.917 −0.024 (0.230) 0.976 −0.350 (0.203) 0.704 −0.080 (0.223) 0.923 −0.175 (0.266) 0.839
PD-Individualized Learning 0.207 (0.287) 1.229 −0.036 (0.215) 0.965 −0.129 (0.173) 0.879 0.269 (0.186) 1.308 −0.225 (0.206) 0.798
PDN-Subject Field 0.288 (0.276) 1.334 0.453 (0.198)* 1.573 0.296 (0.212) 1.345 0.321 (0.190) 1.379 0.275 (0.259) 1.316
PDN-Pedagogical Competencies 0.104 (0.316) 1.110 −0.316 (0.208) 0.729 −0.247 (0.184) 0.782 0.178 (0.204) 1.194 0.152 (0.187) 1.164
PDN-Assessment Practices −0.193 (0.200) 0.825 0.011 (0.161) 1.011 0.170 (0.163) 1.186 0.033 (0.146) 1.034 −0.106 (0.251) 0.900
PDN-Classroom Management 0.929 (0.244)*** 2.533 −0.649 (0.181)*** 0.523 −0.654 (0.163)*** 0.520 0.036 (0.166) 1.037 −0.046 (0.224) 0.955
PDN-Individualized Learning −0.383 (0.240) 0.682 −0.015 (0.178) 0.985 −0.335 (0.168)* 0.716 −0.241 (0.197) 0.786 −0.303 (0.196) 0.739

1 Vs 5 2 Vs 5 3 Vs 5 4 Vs 5 1 Vs 4

Predictors Coef. (SE) OR Coef. (SE) OR Coef. (SE) OR Coef. (SE) OR Coef. (SE) OR

Years Experience 0.018 (0.011) 1.018 0.008 (0.011) 1.008 0.016 (0.010) 1.016 0.006 (0.010) 1.006 0.012 (0.011) 1.012
Gender 0.549 (0.240)* 1.732 −0.416 (0.166)* 0.660 −0.476 (0.187)* 0.621 0.221 (0.201) 1.247 0.328 (0.225) 1.389
Mentee −0.413 (0.366) 0.661 0.176 (0.257) 1.193 0.089 (0.238) 1.093 −0.460 (0.270) 0.632 0.046 (0.292) 1.047
Mentor 1.092 (0.325)** 2.979 −0.274 (0.226) 0.761 −0.508 (0.227)* 0.602 0.252 (0.234) 1.287 0.839 (0.303)** 2.315
PD-Subject Field 0.353 (0.277) 1.423 0.087 (0.244) 1.091 0.149 (0.230) 1.160 0.206 (0.227) 1.229 0.147 (0.265) 1.158
PD-Pedagogical Competencies 0.010 (0.245) 1.010 −0.117 (0.242) 0.889 −0.403 (0.211) 0.669 −0.162 (0.194) 0.851 0.172 (0.275) 1.187
PD-Assessment Practices −0.107 (0.230) 0.898 −0.327 (0.227) 0.721 −0.380 (0.221) 0.684 −0.138 (0.239) 0.871 0.031 (0.289) 1.031
PD-Classroom management 0.089 (0.343) 1.093 0.151 (0.214) 1.163 −0.175 (0.212) 0.839 0.095 (0.197) 1.100 −0.006 (0.286) 0.994
PD-Individualized Learning 0.432 (0.255) 1.540 0.190 (0.177) 1.209 0.096 (0.170) 1.101 0.494 (0.185)** 1.639 −0.062 (0.228) 0.940
PDN-Subject Field 0.013 (0.202) 1.013 0.178 (0.172) 1.195 0.021 (0.175) 1.022 0.046 (0.168) 1.047 −0.033 (0.192) 0.968
PDN-Pedagogical Competencies −0.048 (0.307) 0.953 −0.468 (0.176)** 0.626 −0.399 (0.151)** 0.671 0.026 (0.205) 1.026 −0.074 (0.235) 0.929
PDN-Assessment Practices −0.087 (0.219) 0.917 0.117 (0.195) 1.124 0.276 (0.196) 1.318 0.139 (0.230) 1.149 −0.226 (0.156) 0.798
PDN-Classroom Management 0.976 (0.178)*** 2.653 −0.602 (0.182)** 0.548 −0.608 (0.160)*** 0.545 0.082 (0.159) 1.086 0.893 (0.169)*** 2.443
PDN-Individualized Learning −0.081 (0.161) 0.922 0.288 (0.116)* 1.333 −0.032 (0.120) 0.969 0.061 (0.117) 1.063 −0.142 (0.155) 0.868

2 Vs 4 3 Vs 4 1 Vs 3 2 Vs 3 1 Vs 2

Predictors Coef. (SE) OR Coef. (SE) OR Coef. (SE) OR Coef. (SE) OR Coef. (SE) OR

Years Experience 0.001 (0.008) 1.001 0.009 (0.008) 1.009 0.003 (0.011) 1.003 −0.008 (0.007) 0.992 0.011 (0.011) 1.011
Gender −0.636 (0.189)** 0.529 −0.697 (0.153)*** 0.498 1.025 (0.228)*** 2.787 0.061 (0.148) 1.062 0.965 (0.227)*** 2.624
Mentee 0.636 (0.234)** 1.889 0.549 (0.214)* 1.731 −0.503 (0.313) 0.605 0.087 (0.201) 1.091 −0.590 (0.337) 0.554
Mentor −0.526 (0.188)** 0.591 −0.760 (0.135)*** 0.468 1.599 (0.289)*** 4.950 0.234 (0.171) 1.264 1.365 (0.310)*** 3.916
PD-Subject Field −0.119 (0.200) 0.888 −0.057 (0.206) 0.944 0.204 (0.265) 1.226 −0.061 (0.183) 0.941 0.265 (0.282) 1.304
PD-Pedagogical Competencies 0.045 (0.178) 1.046 −0.241 (0.154) 0.786 0.412 (0.267) 1.511 0.285 (0.154) 1.330 0.127 (0.276) 1.135
PD-Assessment Practices −0.188 (0.161) 0.829 −0.242 (0.153) 0.785 0.272 (0.268) 1.313 0.053 (0.164) 1.055 0.219 (0.308) 1.245
PD-Classroom management 0.056 (0.187) 1.058 −0.270 (0.155) 0.763 0.264 (0.316) 1.302 0.326 (0.175) 1.386 −0.062 (0.319) 0.940
PD-Individualized Learning −0.304 (0.169) 0.738 −0.398 (0.156)* 0.672 0.336 (0.230) 1.399 0.094 (0.157) 1.098 0.242 (0.255) 1.274
PDN-Subject Field 0.132 (0.127) 1.141 −0.025 (0.131) 0.975 −0.008 (0.195) 0.992 0.157 (0.125) 1.170 −0.165 (0.209) 0.848
PDN-Pedagogical Competencies −0.493 (0.192)* 0.611 −0.424 (0.164)* 0.654 0.350 (0.265) 1.420 −0.069 (0.160) 0.933 0.420 (0.306) 1.521
PDN-Assessment Practices −0.022 (0.139) 0.979 0.137 (0.114) 1.147 −0.363 (0.151)* 0.696 −0.159 (0.111) 0.853 −0.204 (0.165) 0.816
PDN-Classroom Management −0.685 (0.153)*** 0.504 −0.690 (0.25)*** 0.501 1.584 (0.181)*** 4.872 0.006 (0.144) 1.006 1.578 (0.201)*** 4.846
PDN-Individualized Learning 0.226 (0.113)* 1.254 −0.093 (0.125) 0.911 −0.049 (0.175) 0.952 0.320 (0.088)*** 1.377 −0.368 (0.168)* 0.692

Note. PD = professional development; PDN = professional development needs; Coeff = logit coefficient; SE = standard error of the coefficient; OR = Odds Ratio.
Gender (0 = female, 1 = male); Mentee (0 = yes, 1 = no); Mentor (0 = yes, 1 = no); Professional development (PD) participation (0 = yes, 1 = no).
* p < .05,
** p < .01,
*** p < .001.

confidence beliefs pertaining to a broad domain (i.e., teaching) and
increasingly task-specific capability judgments (e.g., developing a
classroom management system) (Lent and Brown, 2006). Here the
general teacher confidence dimension may reflect a gestalt of capability
self-beliefs spanning their professional roles as distinct from the do-
main-specific capability beliefs that emerge from both judgments of
capability and the evaluation of task-or-role-specific requirements
(Perera et al., 2019). The failure to account for teachers’ general con-
fidence beliefs may obscure the multidimensional teacher self-efficacy
profiles insofar as unmodeled generality typically leads to less struc-
tural differentiation on the specific teacher self-efficacy beliefs (Morin
and Marsh, 2015). Such differentiation of teacher self-efficacy beliefs is
critical insofar as it accords with the theoretical view that teachers can
be more or less efficacious in different domains (Tschannen-Moran
et al., 1998; Zee & Koomen, 2016).
Per RQ#2, the six-profile solution replicated across lower and upper
secondary teachers. Specifically, support was found for the configural,
structural, dispersion, and distributional similarity of the profiles. These
findings suggest, respectively, that across lower and upper secondary
teachers (a) the same number of profiles were identified, (b) the six
profiles were characterized by similar mean levels of the general and
specific teacher self-efficacy dimensions, (c) there is equivalent within-

198
H.N. Perera, et al.
profile variability of the teacher self-efficacy indicators, and (d) the
relative sizes of the profiles are equal. The present research provides the
first evidence that multidimensional teacher self-efficacy belief com-
binations are equivalent across distinct teaching contexts. The profile
similarity results obtained support the cross-sample consistency of the
teacher self-efficacy profiles and underpin profile validity.
4.1. Outcomes of profile membership
Theoretically-informative differences in job satisfaction, classroom
climate, and collaboration as a function of profile membership were
found in investigating RQ#3a. Notably, in investigating the invariance
of these profile-outcome relations per RQ#3b, some observed relations
differed across teaching level, indicating context differentiation in the
outcomes of profile membership. The two profiles characterized by
above-average levels of general teacher confidence and specific self-
efficacy for classroom management and instructional strategies—the
Highly-Efficacious (Profile 3) and Moderate Globally-and-
Instructionally-Confident (Profile 2) profiles—generally had the most
positive outcomes across both lower and upper secondary teachers.
Lower and upper secondary teachers in these profiles reported greater
job satisfaction, positive classroom climate, and collaboration than
those in the Highly-Inefficacious (Profile 1), Globally-Unconfident
(Profile 4), and Student-Engagement-Inefficacious (Profile 6) profiles.
These results suggest that possessing a configuration of higher levels of
most of the teacher self-efficacy beliefs yields better outcomes than
possessing a configuration of capability beliefs that are uniformly or
largely below-average. These results converge with previous variable-
centered research showing that higher levels of teacher self-efficacy are
associated with greater job satisfaction (Caprara et al., 2006; Klassen
and Chiu, 2010), perceived positive classroom climate (Tsouloupas
et al., 2010), and collaboration (Caprara et al., 2003).
Across the teaching levels, Highly-Efficacious (Profile 3) teachers
did not significantly differ from Moderate Globally-and-Instructionally-
Confident (Profile 2) teachers on the outcomes. This is somewhat sur-
prising as Highly Efficacious teachers possess uniformly above-average
beliefs, including general teacher confidence at approximately one
standard deviation above the mean, whereas teachers in Profile 2 re-
ported comparatively lower levels of general teacher confidence and
below-average levels of specific self-efficacy for student engagement.
For Moderate Globally-and Instructionally-Confident teachers, slightly
higher levels of specific self-efficacy for classroom management and
implementation of instructional strategies may buffer the potentially
deleterious impact of comparatively lower levels of general teacher
confidence and specific self-efficacy for student engagement on the
teacher outcomes. This is consistent with the view that teachers’ dif-
ferential self-efficacy beliefs simultaneously operate as an integrative
system, such that one or another belief may serve as a context for the
operation of the remaining beliefs (Litalien et al., 2017; Perera et al.,
2019).
Although lower secondary teachers in the Moderate Globally-and-
Instructionally-Confident (Profile2) profile reported better classroom
climate than Student-Engagement-Efficacious (Profile 5) teachers, for
upper secondary teachers, no significant differences were found.
Efficacious teachers are better able to cope with problem behavior, use
more constructive behavior management strategies, and implement
more learner-centered teaching approaches (Almog and Shechtman,
2007; Morris-Rothschild & Brassard, 2006; Nie et al., 2013), all which
may be more important for maintaining a positive climate in lower
secondary classrooms typically characterized by greater teacher control
and discipline and fewer positive teacher-student relationships (Eccles
et al., 1993). This interpretation is supported by observed teaching level
differences in profile-membership-job satisfaction relations. Specifi-
cally, whereas Highly-Efficacious (Profile 3) lower secondary teachers
reported greater job satisfaction than Student-Engagement-Efficacious
teachers, for upper secondary teachers no significant difference on
199
Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203
satisfaction was observed. This moderating effect implies the greater
dependence of job satisfaction on general teacher confidence and spe-
cific self-efficacy for classroom management and instructional strate-
gies in teachers of lower secondary classes.
Although the most suboptimal profile for both lower and upper
secondary teachers is the Highly-Inefficacious subgroup (Profile 1) in
line with prior variable-centered work (Caprara et al., 2006; Skaalvik
and Skaalvik, 2010, 2014), the extent to which other profiles with a
configuration of mostly low teacher self-efficacy beliefs were deleter-
ious differed somewhat across the teaching levels. At the lower sec-
ondary level, teachers in the Globally-Unconfident (Profile 4), Student-
Engagement-Efficacious (Profile 5), and Student-Engagement-In-
efficacious (Profile 6) subgroups reported comparably low levels of
satisfaction, climate, and collaboration. Even though each of these
profiles is characterized by one teacher self-efficacy dimension ex-
ceeding average levels, higher-levels of one belief may not be sufficient
in lower secondary teachers to buffer the deleterious effects of posses-
sing a configuration of mostly low or average teacher self-efficacy be-
liefs. Contrariwise, at the upper secondary-level, whereas Globally-un-
confident and Student-Engagement-Inefficacious teachers did not
significantly differ on the outcomes, Student-Engagement-Efficacious
teachers reported greater satisfaction and collaboration than those in
the other two profiles, and better classroom climate than Globally-un-
confident teachers. The Student-Engagement-Efficacious profile is
characterized by below-average levels of general teacher confidence
and the lowest levels of specific self-efficacy for classroom management
and instructional strategies, but well-above-average levels of self-effi-
cacy for student engagement. In the upper secondary years, as classes
become more specialized and high-stakes and oftentimes smaller, sa-
tisfaction and positive climate may hinge more heavily on the devel-
opment of affective teacher-student relationships that provide crucial
emotional supports, which is theorized to be linked to self-efficacy for
student engagement in particular (Ryan, Kuusinen, & Bedoya-Skoog,
2015).
4.2. Predictors of profile membership
We examined predictors of profile membership in RQ#4a and the
generalizability of these relations in RQ#4b. There were some sig-
nificant associations between mentoring involvement and profile
membership, which were found to generalize across the lower and
upper secondary teachers. Teachers with an assigned mentor had a
greater likelihood of membership in the Globally-Unconfident profile
(Profile 4) than in the Moderate-Globally-and-Instructionally-Confident
(Profile 2) and Highly-Efficacious (Profile 3) profiles. These results may
seem somewhat inconsistent with not only the theoretical perspective
that mentoring serves as a learning experience that fosters the devel-
opment of self-efficacy but also prior work that has found positive as-
sociations of mentoring with mentee teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
(LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2012; Richter et al., 2013). One possibility is
that, after accounting for years of teaching experience, having an as-
signed mentor may be indicative of teacher underperformance. Indeed,
mentoring may be a part of remediation activities initiated by admin-
istrators for underperforming teaching staff (Goldstein, 2007). These
teachers may have existing doubts about their teaching capabilities, and
the assignment of a mentor may lead to further doubts about cap-
abilities. Teachers who served as a mentor were more likely to be in the
Highly-Efficacious profile than in the Globally-Unconfident, Student-
Engagement-Efficacious (Profile 5), and Student-Engagement-In-
efficacious (Profile 6) profiles, and were more likely to be in the
Moderate-Globally-and-Instructionally-Confident profile than the
Globally-Unconfident profile. These teachers were also less likely to be
in the Highly-Inefficacious (Profile 1) profile than in all other profiles.
Taken together, these findings are consistent with the results of prior
variable-centered research showing positive associations of mentoring
with mentor teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, &
H.N. Perera, et al.
Tomlinson, 2009; Yost, 2002). Notably, we extend this existing vari-
able-centered work by showing that serving as a mentor is predictive of
teachers’ possession of varying configurations of teaching self-efficacy
beliefs. For mentor teachers, the experience of mentoring may serve as
a crucial learning experience through self-and-critical-reflection
(Hobson et al., 2009), which may enhance their confidence beliefs
(Bandura, 1997).
Relations of teachers’ professional development participation in
most domains with profile membership were non-significant. One
reason for the absence of significant relations is that mere exposure to
professional development may not reflect the mastery experiences
posited by Bandura (1997) to influence self-efficacy beliefs. Instead, as
research has shown, teachers may need to use the new knowledge
learned during professional development in their classrooms to allow
for sufficient experiences of success, constituting mastery experiences
(Ross & Bruce, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009; Ross, 1994).
Future research would do well to examine teachers’ fidelity of im-
plementation and perceptions of mastery in implementing professional
domain knowledge as potential moderators of the professional devel-
opment-profile membership relation (Ross & Bruce, 2007). Only the
relation of individualized learning professional development with pro-
file membership was significant. Results showed that teachers who
participated in this professional development domain were about one
and half times as likely to be in Profile 3 (Highly-Efficacious) and
Profile 5 (Student-Engagement-Efficacious) than in Profile 4 (Globally-
Unconfident), and these relations were found to be invariant across
lower and upper secondary teachers. Notably, Profile 3 and Profile 5 are
those with the highest levels of specific self-efficacy for student en-
gagement. The findings suggest that teachers who were involved in
professional development designed to strengthen adaptation of curri-
culum materials and activities to students’ skill levels and interests are
more likely to possess configurations of self-efficacy beliefs in which
beliefs about engaging students in the learning process are strong. This
is consistent with not only prior work that has shown that greater dif-
ferentiated instruction professional development is positively asso-
ciated with teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (Dixon, Yssel, McConnell, &
Hardin, 2014) but also the theorized domain-specificity of teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997) insofar as individualization of
learning is conceptually most relevant to the domain of student en-
gagement (Brophy, 1986; Connor et al., 2009; Davalos and Griffin,
1999). As cultivating student engagement has only recently been a
focus in mainstream teacher professional learning (Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2007), even exposure to individualized learning pro-
fessional development activities, which may allow for vicarious
learning experiences, may be important to teachers’ development of
confidence to engage students (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007).
Significant differences in profile membership as a function of tea-
chers’ perceived professional development needs were observed, and
these differences were found to generalize across teaching levels.
Teachers who perceived a greater need for classroom management
professional development were significantly more likely to be in the
Highly-Inefficacious profile (Profile 1) than all other profiles. These
teachers were also less likely to be in the Moderate-Globally-and-
Instructionally-Confident (Profile 2) and Highly-Efficacious (Profile 3)
profiles than the remaining profiles. Furthermore, teachers in the
Moderate-Globally-and-Instructionally-Confident and Highly-
Efficacious subgroups perceived less need for pedagogical competence
professional development than those in the Globally-Unconfident
(Profile 4) and Student-Engagement-Efficacious (Profile 5) profiles.
These results align with prior variable-centered research showing that
teachers who perceive the unavailability of resources report lower self-
efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). Given the primacy of class-
room management and pedagogical competencies to teachers’ profes-
sional practice (Ross & Bruce, 2007), it is unsurprising that those tea-
chers who perceived a greater need for development in these domains
were those in profiles generally characterized by the lowest levels of
200
Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203
general teacher confidence and specific self-efficacy for classroom
management and instructional strategies (Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2007).
Teachers’ perceived need for individualized learning professional
development was also implicated in profile membership. Teachers who
perceived a greater need for this professional development had a sig-
nificantly greater likelihood of membership in the Student-
Engagement-Inefficacious (Profile 6) profile than the Highly-Efficacious
(Profile 3) subgroup, and were also more likely to be in the Moderate-
Globally-and-Instructionally-Confident (Profile 2) profile than the
Highly-Efficacious (Profile 3), Globally-Unconfident (Profile 4), and
Student-Engagement-Efficacious (Profile 5) subgroups. Notably,
Student-Engagement-Inefficacious and Moderate-Globally-and-
Instructionally-Confident teachers reported among the lowest levels of
self-efficacy for student engagement. These results suggest that other-
wise efficacious teachers, who perceive that they require professional
development to better individualize student learning, are more likely to
doubt their specific capabilities to engage students in the learning
process (Dixon et al., 2014). More surprisingly, teachers who perceived
a greater need for individualized learning professional development
were more likely to be in the Moderate-Globally-and-Instructionally-
Confident profile (Profile 2) than the Highly-Inefficacious (Profile 1)
profile. Importantly, both profiles are characterized by self-efficacy for
student engagement well-below the sample average. However, for
Moderate-Globally-and-Instructionally-Confident teachers, confidence
in their capability to perform their professional role in general and
manage classrooms and implement instructional routines specifically
may preserve their investment in the profession (Klassen and Chiu,
2011), such that they seek to develop in areas of perceived weakness.
Contrariwise, Highly-Inefficacious teachers may be disenfranchised and
uncommitted (Rots, Aelterman, Vlerick, & Vermeulen, 2007; Ware &
Kitsantas, 2007), and proceed in their professional roles without con-
cern for professional development (Perera, Granziera, & McIlveen,
2018).
Teaching experience was also found to be linked with profile
membership, with the relations generalizable over teaching level. More
experienced teachers had a greater likelihood of being in the Highly-
Inefficacious (Profile 1) and Highly-Efficacious (Profile 3) profiles than
in Profile 6 (Student-Engagement-Inefficacious). Although these results
may seem paradoxical, they are in line with theoretical considerations.
The results indicate that increasing years of experience may be asso-
ciated with two distinct subpopulations of teachers: (a) those teachers
in the Highly-Inefficacious profile who experience uniformly low self-
efficacy beliefs in line with moving into a period of career disengage-
ment in later career stages as they withdraw from professional activities
and prepare for retirement (Huberman, 1989; Klassen and Chiu, 2010);
and (b) those teachers in the Highly-Efficacious profile who maintain
their occupational identity and remain confident in their ability to
perform their roles due, at least in part, to accumulated mastery ex-
periences and job characteristics (e.g., ongoing professional challenges)
(Bandura, 1997). This multi-sub-population perspective is consistent
with Bandura’s (1997) view that the ostensible decline in self-efficacy
beliefs in later career stages may not be universal. These findings also
align with Huberman’s (1989) teacher career development model,
which proposes that some teachers at later career stages may experi-
ence reinvigoration.
There were several associations of gender with profile membership,
which were found to generalize across lower and upper secondary
teachers. Female teachers were significantly less likely to be in the
Highly-Inefficacious profile (Profile 1) than in all other profiles except
the Globally-Unconfident Profile (Profile 4). In addition, females were
significantly more likely to be in the Moderate-Globally-and-
Instructionally-Confident (Profile 2) and Highly-Efficacious (Profile 3)
profiles than the Globally-Unconfident (Profile 4) and Student-
Engagement-Efficacious (Profile 5) profiles. These results are consistent
with early variable-centered studies that showed that females report
H.N. Perera, et al.
higher global teacher self-efficacy than males (Raudenbush et al.,
1992). The higher general confidence beliefs of female teachers have
been attributed to gender-role socialization experiences. Based on cul-
turally shared expectations about gender-appropriate professional roles
(Drudy, 2008), stakeholders may have more favorable expectations for,
and react more favorably to, female teachers’ performance attainments.
As Lent et al. (2002) note, the beliefs of these social agents have im-
plications for the development of self-efficacy beliefs as they may lead
to differential opportunities for skill development as well as the inter-
nalization of different performance standards. However, female tea-
chers were less likely to be in profiles characterized by high levels of
self-efficacy for student engagement where other levels of self-efficacy
beliefs were low. Although this may seem at odds with gender-sociali-
zation perspectives insofar as cultural-bound expectations for the
communal social roles of females should may lead them to have
stronger self-efficacy beliefs for engaging students (Ross et al., 1996),
given the primacy of caregiving to the performance of teaching roles
across domains, such expectations may have more relevance for self-
beliefs concerning teachers’ capability to carry out their roles in gen-
eral.
4.3. Limitations, implications, and conclusions
Limitations to this research merit attention. First, though we relied
on social cognitive perspectives to theorize predictors and outcomes of
teacher self-efficacy profile membership, data were cross-sectional,
thereby precluding directionality inferences. Research is required to
examine longitudinal relations of these predictors and outcomes.
Second, we did not account for the reasons for professional develop-
ment participation (mandated vs. voluntary) in examining the relations
of these provisions with profile membership. The reason for participa-
tion may affect how teachers engage with professional development
and, by implication, impact the effects of participation on profile
membership. Third, the study is limited by the use of the TSES-SF,
which is designed to reflect an intermediate level of domain-specificity.
However, it would seem reasonable that teacher self-efficacy may differ
as a function of the specific subjects or groups of student taught or the
specific tasks within a broad domain (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998;
Ross et al., 1996), and future research would do well to employ mea-
sures of teacher self-efficacy with a greater degree of specificity. An-
other possibility is examining profiles of collective teacher efficacy,
reflecting unobserved heterogeneity in the collective perceptions of
school capacity. A third limitation is our use of self-reported predictors
and outcomes of profile membership as well as self-reported teacher
self-efficacy. Although self-reports are the most common and arguably
the most appropriate method to assess teacher self-efficacy beliefs, job
satisfaction, and professional development needs, other constructs and
variables, such as classroom disciplinary climate and teacher colla-
boration as well as professional development participation and men-
toring activities, may be assessed using more objective indices. The
reliance on self-reports may have induced biases in ratings of these
variables and resulted in the inflation of observed relations due to
common-method biases. A final limitation concerns the generalizability
of the profiles obtained. Although findings support the replicability of
the teacher self-efficacy profiles across lower and upper secondary
teachers, this evidence should only be considered an initial step in
determining profile generalizability. Teacher self-efficacy theory would
be well served by examining the extent to which the configurations
generalize across (a) groups defined by different socio-demographic
characteristics, such as gender and stages of career development
(Klassen and Chiu (2010)), as well as (b) different educational (e.g.,
elementary vs. secondary; tertiary vs. secondary) and cultural (e.g.,
cross-country) contexts.
The results of this study have tentative implications for teacher
professional development. Support for the self-efficacy profiles suggests
that a “one-size-fits-all” approach to the professional development of
201
Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203
teachers’ capability beliefs may not be effective (Klassen and Chiu,
2010). Instead, principals and other administrators may use informa-
tion gleaned from the self-efficacy profiles to identify professional de-
velopment opportunities that are aligned with teachers’ specific self-
efficacy configurations. For instance, teachers who show a configura-
tion consistent with the Student-Engagement-Inefficacious profile may
be targeted for professional development related to strategies to moti-
vate students. What is clear is that tailoring interventions at the level of
latent teacher self-efficacy profiles is likely to be more feasible and
economically sustainable, especially when offered on a large-scale as a
part of statutory professional training, than individual interventions,
but much more targeted and precise than one-size-fits-all interventions
(Perera & McIlveen, 2017). Information about most-likely latent profile
membership may also be used by individual teachers in their voluntary
professional development. Moreover, such professional development is
typically required to be implemented over a sustained period of time to
be effective (Boyle, Lamprianou, & Boyle, 2005). However, these pre-
sent findings remain exploratory, and further work validating the pro-
files obtained is required, particularly with respect to observable tea-
cher behaviors and student outcomes, before they can be used to tailor
professional development provisions.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.02.006.
References
Aiken, L. H., Clarke, S. P., Sloane, D. M., Sochalski, J. A., Busse, R., Clarke, H., ... Shamian,
J. (2001). Nurses’ reports on hospital care in five countries. Health Affairs, 20(3),
43–53. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.20.3.43.
Almog, O., & Shechtman, Z. (2007). Teachers' democratic and efficacy beliefs and styles
of coping with behavioural problems of pupils with special needs. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 22(2), 115–129.
Arens, A. K., & Morin, A. J. (2017). Improved representation of the self-perception profile
for children through bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling. American
Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 59–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0002831216666490.
Asparouhov, T. (2005). Sampling weights in latent variable modeling. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(3), 411–434. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15328007sem1203_4.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397–438. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10705510903008204.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman &
Company.
Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2003). Distributional assumptions of growth mixture models:
Implications for overextraction of latent trajectory classes. Psychological Methods,
8(3), 338–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.338.
Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1992). Predictors of commitment, job satisfaction, and
intent to stay in teaching: A comparison of general and special educators. The Journal
of Special Education, 25(4), 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002246699202500404.
Boyle, B., Lamprianou, I., & Boyle, T. (2005). A longitudinal study of teacher change:
What makes professional development effective? Report of the second year of the study,
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09243450500114819.
Brennan, M. D., & Robison, C. (1995). Gender Comparison of Teachers' Sense of Efficacy.
Washington, DC: ERIC Digests [ED: 384288].
Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist,
41(10), 10691077. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1069.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as de-
terminants of teachers' job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4),
821–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.821.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy
beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A
study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473–490. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001.
Carney, M. B., Brendefur, J. L., Thiede, K., Hughes, G., & Sutton, J. (2016). Statewide
mathematics professional development: Teacher knowledge, self-efficacy, and beliefs.
Educational Policy, 30(4), 539–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814550075.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement in-
variance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
H.N. Perera, et al.
9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.
Connor, C. M., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C., Crowe, E., ...
Morrison, F. J. (2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child
by instruction interactions on first graders’ literacy development. Child Development,
80(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01247.x.
Darr, W., & Johns, G. (2008). Work strain, health, and absenteeism: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0012639.
Davalos, R., & Griffin, G. (1999). The impact of teachers’ individualized practices on
gifted students in rural, heterogeneous classrooms. Roeper Review, 21(4), 308–314.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199909553982.
Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction,
professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
37(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214529042.
Drudy, S. (2008). Gender balance/gender bias: The teaching profession and the impact of
feminisation. Gender and Education, 20(4), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09540250802190156.
Duffin, L. C., French, B. F., & Patrick, H. (2012). The Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale:
Confirming the factor structure with beginning pre-service teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28(6), 827–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.004.
Durksen, T. L., Klassen, R. M., & Daniels, L. M. (2017). Motivation and collaboration: The
keys to a developmental framework for teachers’ professional learning. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 67, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.011.
Dunn, K. E., & Rakes, G. C. (2011). Teaching teachers: An investigation of beliefs in
teacher education students. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 39–58. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10984-011-9083-1.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac
Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment
fit on young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist,
48(2), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2009). Examining the factor structure of the teachers’ sense of
efficacy scale. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(1), 118–134. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00220970903224461.
Goddard, Y. L., & Kim, M. (2018). Examining connections between teacher perceptions of
collaboration, differentiated instruction, and teacher efficacy. Teachers College
Record, 120(1), 1–24.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its
meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479.
Goldstein, J. (2007). Easy to dance to: Solving the problems of teacher evaluation with
peer assistance and review. American Journal of Education, 113(3), 479–508. https://
doi.org/10.1086/512741.
Granziera, H., & Perera, H. N. (2019). Relations among teachers' self-efficacy beliefs,
engagement, and work satisfaction: A social cognitive view. Contemporary Educational
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.02.003 (Advance online
publication).
Henson, R. K. (2001). The effects of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-
051X(01)00033-6.
Henson, J. M., Reise, S. P., & Kim, K. H. (2007). Detecting mixtures from structural model
differences using latent variable mixture modeling: A comparison of relative model fit
statistics. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(2), 202–226.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510709336744.
Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning
teachers: What we know and what we don't. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1),
207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.001.
Holloway, J. H. (2001). The benefits of mentoring. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 85–86.
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to
instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
105(3), 774. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032198.
Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record, 91,
31–57.
Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y., & Georgiou,
T. (2009). Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2008.08.001.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction:
Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102(3), 741756. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment and intention to quit
of practicing and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and
teaching context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(2), 114–129. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.01.002.
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching
effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001.
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2006). Integrating person and situation perspectives on work
satisfaction: A social cognitive view. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(2), 236–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.02.006.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In D.
Brown (Ed.). Career choice and development (pp. 225–311). (4th ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Litalien, D., Morin, A. J., & McInerney, D. M. (2017). Achievement goal profiles among
adolescent males and females. Developmental Psychology, 53(4), 731–751. https://doi.
org/10.1037/dev0000288.
LoCasale-Crouch, J., Davis, E., Wiens, P., & Pianta, R. (2012). The role of the mentor in
202
Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203
supporting new teachers: Associations with self-efficacy, reflection, and quality.
Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(3), 303–323. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13611267.2012.701959.
Lubke, G., & Neale, M. C. (2006). Distinguishing between latent classes and continuous
factors: Resolution by maximum likelihood? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(4),
499–532. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4104_4.
Lubke, G., & Neale, M. (2008). Distinguishing between latent classes and continuous
factors with categorical outcomes: Class invariance of parameters of factor mixture
models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43(4), 592–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00273170802490673.
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. J. (2009). Classical latent profile
analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of person-and variable-cen-
tered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling,
16(2), 191–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510902751010.
McLennan, B., McIlveen, P., & Perera, H. N. (2017). Pre-service teachers' self-efficacy
mediates the relationship between career adaptability and career optimism. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 63, 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.022.
Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical
measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(3), 479–515. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327906MBR3903_4.
Morin, A. J., Arens, A. K., & Marsh, H. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural
equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-
relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 116–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.
961800.
Morin, A. J., Boudrias, J. S., Marsh, H. W., McInerney, D. M., Dagenais-Desmarais, V.,
Madore, I., & Litalien, D. (2017). Complementary variable-and person-centered ap-
proaches to the dimensionality of psychometric constructs: Application to psycho-
logical wellbeing at work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(4), 395–419. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9448-7.
Morin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2015). Disentangling shape from level effects in person-
centered analyses: An illustration based on university teachers’ multidimensional
profiles of effectiveness. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
22(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919825.
Morin, A. J., Meyer, J. P., Creusier, J., & Biétry, F. (2016). Multiple-group analysis of
similarity in latent profile solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 231–254.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115621148.
Morris-Rothschild, B. K., & Brassard, M. R. (2006). Teachers' conflict management styles:
The role of attachment styles and classroom management efficacy. Journal of School
Psychology, 44(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.01.004.
Muthén, B. (2001). Latent variable mixture modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides, & R. E.
Schumacker (Eds.). New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling
(pp. 1–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide, 7th ed., Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Nie, Y., Tan, G. H., Liau, A. K., Lau, S., & Chua, B. L. (2013). The roles of teacher efficacy
in instructional innovation: Its predictive relations to constructivist and didactic in-
struction. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10671-012-9128-y.
Ning, H. K., Lee, D., & Lee, W. O. (2015). Relationships between teacher value orienta-
tions, collegiality, and collaboration in school professional learning communities.
Social Psychology of Education, 18(2), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-
9294-x.
Ning, B., Van Damme, J., Van Den Noortgate, W., Yang, X., & Gielen, S. (2015). The
influence of classroom disciplinary climate of schools on reading achievement: A
cross-country comparative study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(4),
586–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2015.1025796.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes
in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation
study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2014). TALIS 2013 technical
report. Paris: Author Available from: https://www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALIS-
technical-report-2013.pdf.
Perera, H. N. (2016). Construct validity of the social provisions scale: A bifactor ex-
ploratory structural equation modeling approach. Assessment, 23(6), 720–733.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115589344.
Perera, H. N., Granziera, H., & McIlveen, P. (2018). Profiles of teacher personality and
relations with teacher self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction.
Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2017.08.034.
Perera, H. N., & McIlveen, P. (2018). Vocational interest profiles: Profile replicability and
relations with the STEM major choice and the Big-Five. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.11.012.
Perera, H. N., McIlveen, P., Burton, L. J., & Corser, D. M. (2015). Beyond congruence
measures for the evaluation of personality factor structure replicability: An ex-
ploratory structural equation modeling approach. Personality and Individual
Differences, 84, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.004.
Perera, H. N., Vosicka, L., Granziera, H., & McIlveen, P. (2018). Towards an integrative
perspective on the structure of teacher work engagement. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 108, 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.006.
Perera, H. N., Wiens, P. D., McIlveen, P., Calkins, C., & McLennan, B. (2019). A unifying
perspective on the dimensionality of teacher self-efficacy: Evidence from Australian
and US teachers. [submitted for publication].
Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-
perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65(2), 150–167.
H.N. Perera, et al.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2004). Using the delta method for approximate interval
estimation of parameter functions in SEM. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(4), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15328007sem1104_7.
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom
emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027268.
Richter, D., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Klusmann, U., Anders, Y., & Baumert, J. (2013). How
different mentoring approaches affect beginning teachers' development in the first
years of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 166–177. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tate.2013.07.012.
Ross, J. A. (1994). The impact of an inservice to promote cooperative learning on the
stability of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 381–394. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(94)90020-5.
Ross, J., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results
of randomized field trial. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 50–60. https://
doi.org/10.3200/JOER.101.1.50-60.
Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher
efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0742-051X(95)00046-M.
Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (2001). Effects of teacher efficacy on
computer skills and computer cognitions of Canadian students in grades K-3. The
Elementary School Journal, 102(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1086/499697.
Rots, I., Aelterman, A., Vlerick, P., & Vermeulen, K. (2007). Teacher education, graduates’
teaching commitment and entrance into the teaching profession. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 23(5), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.012.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of re-
inforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0092976.
Rutkowski, D., Rutkowski, L., Belanger, J., Knowll, S., Weatherby, K., & Prusinski, E.
(2013). Teaching and learning international survey 2013: Conceptual framework. Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Available from http://
www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALIS%202013%20Conceptual%20Framework.pdf.
Ryan, A. M., Kuusinen, C. M., & Bedoya-Skoog, A. (2015). Managing peer relations: A
dimension of teacher self-efficacy that varies between elementary and middle school
teachers and is associated with observed classroom quality. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 41, 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.01.002.
Scherer, R., Jansen, M., Nilsen, T., Areepattamannil, S., & Marsh, H. W. (2016). The Quest
for Comparability: Studying the Invariance of the Teachers’ Sense of Self-Efficacy
(TSES) Measure across Countries. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0150829. https://doi.org/10.
1371/journal.pone.0150829.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations
with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.
611.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study
of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.
203
Contemporary Educational Psychology 58 (2019) 186–203
1016/j.tate.2009.11.001.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy:
Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion.
Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0.
Tofighi, D., & Enders, C. K. (2008). Identifying the correct number of classes in growth
mixture models. In G. R. Hancock, & K. M. Samuelsen (Eds.). Advances in latent
variable mixture models (pp. 317–341). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional
development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a
new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), 228–245. https://doi.
org/10.1086/605771.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543068002202.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0742-051X(01)00036-1.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-
efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education,
23(6), 944–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003.
Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2010).
Exploring the association between teachers’ perceived student misbehaviour and
emotional exhaustion: The importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion reg-
ulation. Educational Psychology, 30(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01443410903494460.
Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of
professional commitment. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 303–310.
https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.5.303-310.
Watson, G. (2006). Technology professional development: Long-term effects on teacher
self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 151–165.
Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers' sense of efficacy:
Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(1), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.
181.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early
years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21(4), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007.
Yost, R. (2002). “I think I can”: Mentoring as a means of enhancing teacher efficacy. The
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 75(4), 195–197.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650209604930.
Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom
processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40
years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015. https://doi.org/
10.3102/0034654315626801.
Zee, M., Koomen, H. M., Jellesma, F. C., Geerlings, J., & de Jong, P. F. (2016). Inter-and
intra-individual differences in teachers' self-efficacy: A multilevel factor exploration.
Journal of School Psychology, 55, 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.12.003.