Buric 2017

Educational Psychology
An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology
ISSN: 0144-3410 (Print) 1469-5820 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20
A mixed-method approach to the assessment of

teachers’ emotions: development and validation of
the Teacher Emotion Questionnaire
Irena Burić, Ana Slišković & Ivana Macuka
To cite this article: Irena Burić, Ana Slišković & Ivana Macuka (2017): A mixed-method approach
to the assessment of teachers’ emotions: development and validation of the Teacher Emotion
Questionnaire, Educational Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2017.1382682
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1382682
Published online: 27 Sep 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedp20
Download by: [Pepperdine University] Date: 28 September 2017, At: 00:19

Educational Psychology, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1382682
A mixed-method approach to the assessment of teachers’

emotions: development and validation of the Teacher
Emotion Questionnaire
Irena Burić, Ana Slišković and Ivana Macuka
Department of Psychology, University of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia
Downloaded by [Pepperdine University] at 00:19 28 September 2017
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Existing research indicates that emotions are integral components of Received 14 September 2016
teachers’ jobs and lives, but knowledge regarding functional relations Accepted 18 September 2017
between teachers’ emotions, their antecedents and their effects on
KEYWORDS
teachers, teaching and students is still quite scarce. One possible reason Teacher; emotion;
for this knowledge gap is the lack of adequate operationalisation of mixed-method approach;
the teacher-emotion construct. Thus, the aim of this research was instrument development and
to develop a psychometrically grounded and contextually specific validation
multidimensional self-report instrument aimed at assessing the
specific emotions teachers experience in relation to their work
and profession. Based on the contemporary component definition
of emotion, and using a mixed-method approach (qualitative and
quantitative), through a series of five empirical studies (N1 = 25,
N2 = 300, N3 = 315, N4 = 391 and N5 = 1314), the Teacher Emotion
Questionnaire (TEQ) has been developed. The instrument contains
scales assessing emotions of joy, pride, love, fatigue, anger and
hopelessness. All scales have adequate psychometric characteristics
and are theoretically meaningfully related to the criterion variables
examined. Added value of the TEQ scales over the more general
measures of affect is also demonstrated.
Emotions are constituent components of teachers’ jobs and lives. Teachers’ emotions are
frequent and diverse in their nature and occurrence, and have important influence on teach-
ers, teaching and students. Teachers’ emotions can shape their cognition, motivation and
relationships with students (Sutton & Wheatley, 2003); affect teachers’ instructional effec-
tiveness in terms of cognitive and motivational stimulation, classroom management and
support, and consequently students’ learning and achievement (Frenzel, 2014; Frenzel, Goetz,
Stephens, & Jacob, 2009; Hagenauer & Volet, 2014); play an important role in forming teach-
ers’ sense of professional identity, commitment, effectiveness and well-being (Day & Qing,
2009); and, it has been proposed, lead to emotional exhaustion and burnout (Chang, 2009),
and possibly to turnover and dropout from the teaching profession (Macdonald, 1999). Thus,
it seems justified to state that teachers’ emotions are of great importance for the quality of
education in general. These emotions seem an especially important topic of research in light
CONTACT Irena Burić buric.irena@gmail.com, inekic@unizd.hr

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 I. BURIĆ ET AL.
of contemporary social, technological and educational trends such as changes in family

structure, parents’ long working hours, rapid development of information and communica-
tion technology and increasing demands for performance and accountability.
Despite its salience and relevance, research on teachers’ emotions, especially large-scale
quantitative studies on functional relations between teachers’ emotions and their anteced-
ents and effects, has slowly begun to emerge only in the last few years. Teachers’ emotions
have recently mostly been studied from the perspective of student misbehaviour and burn-
out (e.g. Chang, 2013; Keller, Chang, Becker, Goetz, & Frenzel, 2014) and with respect to the
occurrence (at both intra- and inter-individual level) of emotions experienced while teaching,
its antecedents (e.g. perceptions of student behaviour and congruence of classroom goals)
and effects on instructional behaviour (e.g. Frenzel, Becker-Kurz, Pekrun, & Goetz, 2015;
Frenzel et al., 2009; Goetz et al., 2015). To further expand these efforts and empirically test
the complex relations between teachers’ emotions, their sources and their effects on a wide
variety of relevant outcomes, instruments aimed at assessing a wide variety of potentially

important teachers’ emotions are required. Bearing that in mind, the aim of this multi-study
and mixed-method research was to develop and validate a self-report instrument that is
both theoretically and empirically based, and that captures the most important teachers’
emotions experienced in relation to students.
Definition of teachers’ emotions

Even though a clear consensus on the definition of emotions still does not exist, according
to the appraisal perspective, an emotion can be seen as an episode of interrelated, synchro-
nised changes in the states of five subsystems in response to the appraisal of an external or
internal stimulus important to the person (Scherer, 2005). First, emotions can be triggered
by a variety of stimuli that need to be appraised as relevant to one’s goals (Scherer, 2009).
For example, teachers may be proud about their students’ success, since it is appraised as
personally relevant and congruent in relation to teachers’ professional goals. Second,
researchers generally agree that emotion consists of several components: a subjective feeling
component, a motor component (expressive), a physiological component, an action-ten-
dency component (motivational), and an appraisal component (cognitive) (Schuman &
Scherer, 2014). For instance, an angry teacher may feel upset (subjective), raise the pitch of
his voice (expressive), experience an increase in his heart rate (physiological), have an urge
to shut the classroom door (motivational), and ponder on his students’ violating classroom
rules and showing disrespect to him (cognitive). In order to fully capture teachers’ emotional
experiences, all components (or at least most of them) should be addressed and encom-
passed in attempts to measure them.
Third, although emotions are generally seen as relatively short and intense episodes that
undergo constant modification due to rapid changes of events and their appraisals (Scherer,
2005), they can also be conceptualised as relatively stable in time, or in a more trait-like
manner. In other words, emotions can be described both at state and trait levels (Rosenberg,
1998). At the state level, emotions involve relatively short episodes, which may be accom-
panied by thought and action tendencies. At the trait level, emotions are conceptualised as
individual differences in the typical frequency with which they are experienced in everyday
life (Wood, Maltby, Stewart, & Joseph, 2008). Therefore, emotional traits are individual dis-
positions to frequently experience emotions of a given kind. Translated to the teachers’ work
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 3
arena, a teacher may feel proud of a student because of the excellent essay that he or she
writes on a particular school day, or a teacher may feel generally proud of his/her students’
accomplishments. Even though both emotional states and traits are worthy of investigation,
measures addressing contextualised trait-like emotions can be more useful to explain their
influence on the teachers’ work performance and well-being. For example, repeated expe-
rience of unpleasant emotions may eventually erode teachers’ well-being and cause burnout
(Carson, 2006). Moreover, emotional states which are intense and short-lived may be prob-
lematic to operationalise through typical survey methods and thus require more complicated
administration of techniques such as the experience sampling method (Csikszentmihalyi &
Larson, 1987) or diary studies (Grandey, Tam, & Brauburger, 2002).
And fourth, two contrasting approaches to emotions can be differentiated: discrete emo-
tions vs. the dimensional approach. The dimensional approach focuses on identification of
a minimum number of dimensions (e.g. activation, pleasure) that can account for the greatest
amount of emotion variance (e.g. Tellegen, Watson, & Clark, 1999; Russell, 1980). In contrast,
the discrete-emotion approach tries to classify emotion into a number of discrete categories
which can be differentiated according to their specific cognitions, behaviour, and physio-
logical responses (e.g. Lench, Flores, & Bench, 2011; Roseman, Spindel, & Jose, 1990). Different
theorists propose different numbers of basic discrete emotions (such as anger, joy, fear, and
sadness) that play an important role in human adaptation to frequently occurring and typical
events. However, Scherer (2005) pointed out that a small number of such basic emotions
cannot be representative of human emotionality and that ‘there are as many different emo-
tions as there are distinguishably different profiles of appraisal with corresponding response
patterning’ (p. 707). Among the commonly mentioned emotions of teachers are love and
caring, joy, satisfaction, pleasure, pride, excitement, frustration, anger, shame, anxiety, help-
lessness, guilt and sadness (see Sutton & Wheatley, 2003). Among these emotions, excitement
and anxiety are more typical of novice teachers (Huberman, 1993; Tickle, 1991), who are
uncertain of achieving teaching and learning goals, while love and caring are more common
among women and teachers of younger children (Woods & Jeffrey, 1996).
Assessing teachers’ emotions via self-report

Zembylas (2003) pointed out that researchers have avoided studying teachers’ emotions,
since they are elusive and difficult to objectively measure. Indeed, in attempting to fully and
accurately grasp affective experiences, researchers have developed multiple methodological
perspectives. Teachers’ emotions can be assessed using an observational approach, neuro-
imaging techniques and peripheral physiological measures of emotion-related arousal of
peripheral systems, or simply by employing self-report methodology (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-
Garcia, 2014). Assessing emotions via self-report methods has several shortcomings, such
as dependence on verbal understanding of questions, willingness or ability of people to
accurately report their emotions, limitations to only those emotions that are consciously
represented in one’s mind, and reliance on one-shot recall (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia,
2014). Assessment of emotions via self-report is even more complicated when it comes to
measuring the emotions of teachers, whose profession is strongly bounded by strict emotion
rules (Zembylas, 2005). However, self-report methods remain the dominant tool for assessing
emotions in an academic context. As Pekrun and Bühner (2014) pointed out, self-report is
the most economical method of emotion assessment and, in some situations, is the only
4 I. BURIĆ ET AL.
method that can be applied. Furthermore, self-report is the most useful and precise tool for
assessing cognitive and subjective components of emotion. And not only does self-report
fairly accurately measure these two components of emotion, it also allows assessment of
the other components (i.e. motivational, physiological, and expressive), since all of these
processes can be available to human consciousness. Finally, self-report remains the exclusive
method for measuring emotional traits.
Very recently, two self-report instruments for assessment of teachers’ emotions have been
developed, namely Teacher Emotions Scales (TES; Frenzel et al., 2016) and the Teacher
Emotion Inventory (TEI; Chen, 2016). TES contains three scales measuring emotions that are
considered relevant in the context of teaching: enjoyment, anger and anxiety. Across three
independent studies, the authors have demonstrated that TES is a reliable and valid self-re-
port instrument and that both German- and English-language versions operate equivalently
in terms of measurement. Even though TES is a promising tool for further investigation of
the antecedents and effects of teachers’ emotions experienced while teaching, it encom-
passes only three discrete emotions. However, it is reasonable to assume that teaching,
dealing and interacting with students, which are the most frequent and important job activ-
ities in the teaching profession, trigger other kinds of emotions as well, such as love, pride,
sadness, disappointment etc. On the other hand, the TEI comprises five unidimensional
scales measuring joy, love, sadness, anger and fear, which teachers may experience not only
in relation to teaching and students, but also to more distal factors such as colleagues, school,
family, policy and society (Chen, 2016). Even though the TEI covers a greater number of
emotions, evidence regarding its criterion validity is almost completely lacking. Moreover,
an instrument that captures a mix of sources under the umbrella of the same emotion may
lack the necessary precision in predicting relevant teacher behaviour in the classroom.
The present research

The aim of this research was to develop a psychometrically grounded multidimensional
self-report instrument – the Teacher Emotion Questionnaire (TEQ) – which will measure a
variety of theoretically relevant and empirically salient teachers’ emotions, defined as rela-
tively stable traits, in relation to teaching, dealing and interacting with students. In order to
reach this goal, we have adopted a theoretical-empirical approach. First, a contemporary
multi-component definition of emotion and the conceptual relevance of different emotions
served as a solid basis for planning and conducting empirical research. Second, while con-
ducting our multi-study empirical research (Studies 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), we employed not only
qualitative and quantitative, but also exploratory and confirmatory approaches.
Study 1: exploring the sources and structure of teachers’ emotions

In order to provide a closer look at the most relevant emotions that teachers experience in
relation to their students, along with their main sources (i.e. triggering events and situations)
and components, we conducted a qualitative study based on a semi-structured interview
technique. Also, statements delivered by teachers were used to construct an item pool for
the TEQ. We believe that such statements could appear more authentic and have greater
face validity than those created by researchers who rely primarily on theoretical
considerations.
Method
Participants
A total of 25 middle-school teachers (i.e. subject teachers who teach children in grades 5 to
8, or 11- to 15-year-old students), employed at 12 different schools located in three different
towns in Croatia, voluntary participated in the study. On average, teachers were 43.4 years
old (SD = 7.5) and had 13.8 years of teaching experience (SD = 7.2) (2 of them had less than
5 years of teaching experience). Only two teachers were male, which reflects the usual female
dominance in the teaching profession in Croatia. We chose middle-school teachers since
they teach and interact with a great number of children with diverse socio-emotional and
academic characteristics in an especially sensitive period of life, i.e. early adolescence. This
makes the practice of teaching and the teacher’s role challenging, with great potential for
experiencing many work-related emotions of significant intensity.
Procedure
Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews, which were
moderated by an external expert specialised in conducting qualitative research on emotional
processes. The teachers were asked to report their views and experiences regarding the most
frequent and/or personally important emotions they experience in school settings and in
relation to students, colleagues and school personnel, parents, and the educational system
and policy in general. More precisely, they were asked to describe the situations that trigger
those emotions, their related thoughts and interpretations of situations, subjective feelings,
behaviour, the bodily changes they experience, and their action tendencies associated with
particular emotions. The interviews lasted between 61 and 100 min and were audio-taped
with the informed consent of the participants. After the verbatim transcription of the audio-
taped data, we conducted thematic analysis following guidelines proposed by Braun and
Clarke (2006). After familiarising with the data, three researchers independently generated
initial codes in the data. Next, to control the reliability of the findings (Willig, 2008), two
researchers analysed the data for emergent themes (through processes of searching, review-
ing, defining and labelling themes). Finally, the researchers reached a consensus on each
disagreement in defining and labelling themes.
Results and discussion

The teachers reported a range of emotions experienced in relation to various aspects of their
professional activities. Emotions such as happiness, contentment, excitement, curiosity,
enthusiasm, pride, love, relief, anger, frustration, rage, disappointment, hurt, sadness, exhaus-
tion, anxiety and hopelessness were triggered by events and situations involving students,
their parents, members of school staff, and the educational system in general. For the pur-
poses of the present research we focused on and analysed only those emotions that teachers
experience with regard to their students, since we were aiming at developing an instrument
that would specifically measure this set of emotions. The rationale for such an approach was
twofold: first, teachers spend half of their working day in teaching and interacting with
students, e.g. in activities that are viewed as core elements of the teachers’ profession; and
second, emotions experienced in relation to other sets of emotional sources could be less
6 I. BURIĆ ET AL.
specific and more akin to general affective experiences in the workplace, which have previ-
ously been extensively studied. (There is, for example, no particular reason to assume that
the emotion of enjoyment when interacting with other teachers in school substantially differs
from the enjoyment that any other employee experiences with respect to his/her
colleagues).
In general, teachers most frequently experience joy, happiness, contentment, satisfaction
and pleasure in relation to teaching and interacting with students. These emotions were
reported as the most important and frequent, arising from the teaching activity itself, inter-
action with students, and students’ motivation, satisfaction, contentment and academic
progress. Pride, also described as a sense of personal accomplishment and growth, is expe-
rienced mostly when students succeed and strive academically and when this progress, at
least in part, can be attributable to the teacher’s efforts. Only a few teachers talked about
love, affection and care, which probably resulted from the fact that we interviewed mid-
dle-school subject teachers, who do not spend so much time with each student on a daily
basis. These results support previous findings (Hargreaves, 1998; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003).
However, situations involving students are also a great source of unpleasant emotions
such as anger, frustration, fatigue and exhaustion, hopelessness or resignation. Anger, along
with feelings of frustration and even rage, was the second-most frequently mentioned emo-
tion. This finding is aligned with previous research that underscores anger as the most fre-
quent unpleasant emotion (Chang, 2009; Frenzel, 2014; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003). Teachers
feel anger due to factors such as students’ misbehaviour, violation of classroom discipline,
rudeness or laziness. Hopelessness, also described as feelings of despair and sometimes even
resignation, was mentioned most in relation to students’ reluctance to learn or to get moti-
vated and interested, or to their poor life and family circumstances. This emotion probably
emerges due to the limits of teachers’ professional efficacy in relation to situations or out-
comes that are not determined by teachers’ actions (Kelchtermans, 2011). Finally, feelings
described as psychological, emotional and physical fatigue, tiredness, numbness or exhaus-
tion appeared salient and frequent as well in qualitative analysis. Such feelings related mostly
to the core nature of teaching activity itself, which is dynamic, sometimes unpredictable,
but almost always psychologically demanding and draining.
Finally, most of the emotional states that formed distinct themes, i.e. emotions, reflected
the multi-component definition of emotional experience. For example, teachers’ anger
evoked by students’ misbehaviour is found to be represented by: (1) feelings of dissatisfac-
tion, tension and restlessness (subjective component); (2) thinking about losing control over
the situation or evaluating the situation as unfair (cognitive component); (3) blushing and
sweating, rise in blood pressure (physiological component); (4) arguing, yelling or taking a
deep breath to cool down (expressive component); and (5) an urge to hit something, leave
the classroom or quit the job (motivational component).
In conclusion, the results of this study supported previous qualitative findings on the
richness of teachers’ emotions, and served as an empirical guide for the selection and oper-
ationalisation of teachers’ emotions in subsequent studies with respect to specificities of
the Croatian context of investigation.
Study 2: creating items and exploring the factor structure of the TEQ
Inclusion of emotions in the TEQ
In spite of the obvious richness of teachers’ emotional lives, in order to keep the TEQ parsi-
monious and easy to administer, in the first phase of its development we focused only on
emotions that: (1) are theoretically considered relevant for teachers’ effectiveness, job sat-
isfaction, motivation and well-being, (2) are reported by teachers as frequent and/or per-
sonally important, and (3) had rich descriptions of their components, and of the situations
and events that provoked them, in our qualitative study.
Since the emotions under study are work-related, we aimed at including those that are
seen as generally relevant for organisational settings. Lazarus and Cohen-Charash (2001)
discussed several such discrete emotions: anger, anxiety, guilt/shame, envy/jealousy, hope,
happiness/joy, pride, love and compassion. Even though many of these emotions are also
experienced by teachers, for the sake of parsimony, in this initial phase of instrument devel-
opment, three such emotions were included: joy, pride and anger. Joy and anger were chosen
as the two most dominant emotions both in classrooms (Carson, 2006) and in life in general
(Scherer, Wranik, Sangsue, Tran, & Scherer, 2004). Pride is an emotion that makes teachers
feel good about themselves and enhances their social and personal identity (Lazarus &
Cohen-Charash, 2001), and as such is important for consideration in the status-centred and
competitive world of work. The next emotion that met our criteria for inclusion was hope-
lessness. And although hopelessness is not usually viewed as a basic human emotion, it
clearly has its place in the educational context (Pekrun, 2006). At the student level, hope-
lessness is viewed as a negative deactivating emotion that is related to health problems,
low self-esteem, shallow learning strategies, reduced self-regulation of learning, and poorer
academic performance (Pekrun et al., 2004). Due to its potential detrimental effect on teach-
ers’ performance, motivation and well-being, we view hopelessness as an emotion that is
worthy of investigation. The last emotional state that we included was fatigue/exhaustion,
which can best be described as an affective state of tiredness, physical and emotional exhaus-
tion, and numbness, resulting from the speedy, dynamic and demanding character of the
teaching job and dealing with children. Although fatigue is primarily considered as core
affect, i.e. a component of discrete emotional episodes but not the whole of them (Yik,
Russell, & Steiger, 2011), we included it in the TEQ anyway. There were two reasons for such
a decision: (1) fatigue described as above probably conceptually overlaps with emotional
exhaustion, a core element of burnout, which can be described as fatigue, debilitation, loss
of energy, and wearing out (Schwarzer, Schmitz, & Tang, 2000), and (2) these feelings were
often spontaneously mentioned and richly described by teachers in our qualitative study.
Due to the conceptual importance and empirical relevance of this affective state, we rea-
soned that it should not be omitted when examining the emotional lives of teachers.
After the final decision on inclusion of emotions (namely joy, pride, anger, fatigue/exhaus-
tion, and hopelessness), we attempted to operationalise them by constructing self-report
statements covering both different triggering situations or events, and components of emo-
tional experience. In reaching this goal, we relied both on qualitative data obtained in pre-
vious study and on the theoretical considerations outlined above. In total, the initial item
pool consisted of 92 items. On the basis of independent sorting of each item under the
umbrella of intended emotion by three researchers (with research experience in studying
emotional processes), we selected only those items that were unambiguously chosen to
8 I. BURIĆ ET AL.
represent an intended emotion. This procedure resulted in retaining 68 items distributed

across 5 scales, each measuring a different emotion. Finally, the content validity and wording
of the final item set were evaluated by two additional scholars with experience in research
on emotion and motivation.
Method
Participants and procedure
The sample consisted of 300 middle-school subject teachers employed at 27 schools in
Croatia. Of the teachers, 216 were female, 69 were male, and 15 did not indicate their gender.
On average, teachers were 41.11 years old (SD = 11.03) and had 11.33 years of teaching
experience (SD = 10.42) (25.1% of teachers had 5 years of experience or less). The study was
conducted at the beginning of spring 2015 via postal service and after the informed consent
of school principals and teachers. Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous.
Besides demographic questions (gender, age, working experience, subject taught), teachers
were asked to indicate their agreement with each of the 68 items of the TEQ on a 5-point
Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly disagree, 2 is disagree, 3
is neither agree nor disagree, 4 is agree, and 5 is strongly agree.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to demonstrate preliminary evidence on the factor
structure of the TEQ and to reveal the latent dimensions assessed by this questionnaire. We
ran 5 EFAs (a separate analysis for each scale, i.e. emotion) in order to identify a single latent
dimension per scale which best explains the variability of most of its items. Principal-axis
factoring and promax rotation were utilised. In order to determine the final number of factors
and items, four distinct criteria were used: (1) Kaiser-Guttman rule, (2) Cattell scree-plot test,
(3) simple structure, and (4) conceptually interpretable factors with no fewer than three
items as indicators per factor (Brown, 2006).
The results of the EFA indicated that the variability of items in all scales was explained by
either two underlying dimensions (pride, anger and distress) or three (joy and hopelessness).
However, across all scales, only the first extracted factor met the proposed criteria for factor
retention, indicating that the second and third factors should be discarded. Finally, in order
to make the TEQ a parsimonious but reliable measure, only items with factor loadings greater
than .50 were retained for further investigation and analysis. This decision resulted in 34
items in total being retained.
In the following step, we ran another exploratory factor analysis on the whole set of 34
remaining items. Five factors that accounted for 53.37% of the variance of items were
extracted and had the following eigenvalues: 10.29 (fatigue/exhaustion), 5.26 (joy), 2.09
(anger), 1.53 (hopelessness) and 1.27 (pride). All factor loadings were greater than .40. Initial
exploration of the latent structure of the TEQ managed to differentiate five distinct emotions
that teachers experience in relation to their students. Based on the content of the items that
loaded on each of them, we initially labelled the five factors in the following manner: joy
(comprising 5 items that relate to feelings of happiness, contentment and satisfaction
aroused by students’ motivation to learn, pleasant class atmosphere, achieving one’s teaching
goals, etc.), pride (comprising 6 items that relate to feelings of pride, personal accomplish-
ment and confidence triggered by students’ success and accomplishment, interest and
motivation to learn), anger (comprising 7 items that describe feelings of frustration and
anger caused by students’ bad behaviour or obstructed lesson plans), hopelessness (com-
prising 7 items that describe helplessness, discouragement and defencelessness due to the
misbehaviour of some students, lack of motivation to learn, etc.), and fatigue (comprising 9
items describing subjective feelings of tiredness, numbness and draining caused by core
features of the teaching activity).
Study 3: establishing the latent structure and psychometric properties

Once we reduced the initial item pool to a more applicable level, our goal was to confirm
the factor structure and examine the psychometric characteristics of the TEQ on a new
sample of teachers.
Method
Participants and procedure
The third sample consisted of 315 middle-school subject teachers employed in 21 schools
in Croatia. Of these teachers, 248 were female, 53 were male and 14 did not indicate their
gender. On average, the teachers were 41.20 years old (SD = 10.21) and had 14.15 years of
teaching experience (SD = 10.92) (24.2% of teachers had 5 years of experience or less). The
study was conducted one and a half months after Study 2, using the same method of data
collection, but involved teachers from completely different schools and locations. Besides
answering demographic questions (gender, age, working experience, subject taught), teach-
ers were asked to indicate their agreement with each of the 34 items selected in Study 2
using the same 5-point Likert scale.

Structural validity
To establish the factor structure of the TEQ, we first tested the five-factor model, in which
the 34 items were set to load onto five factors by the same pattern that was obtained in the
final exploratory factor analysis in the previous study. CFA was conducted using Mplus 6
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2010) and by the maximum-likelihood robust (MLR) estimation
method (this method was chosen due to relatively high kurtosis values of some items).
Quality of model fit was assessed by comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI),
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardised root-mean-square
residual (SRMR). Values of CFI and TLI greater than .90, and RMSEA and SRMR between .05
and .08 indicate a good model fit, and values of CFI and TLI greater than .95, RMSEA and
SRMR less than .05, indicate a very good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In order to identify
the better fitting model, ∆CFI index was utilised – if ∆CFI exceeds 0.01, the difference in
model fit is considered substantial (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) – as well as AIC and BIC values:
the model with smaller AIC and BIC values is considered better fitting.
10 I. BURIĆ ET AL.
Since some CFI demonstrated the poorer fit of the initial five-factor model (χ² = 988.10,
df = 517, p < .001; AIC = 21,431.415, BIC = 21,846.238, CFI = .892, RMSEA = .055 (90% C.I.
.050–.060), and SRMR = .059), we examined the proposed modification indices as well as the
size of the factor loadings for each item. We dropped items which had: (1) factor loadings
less than 0.50, (2) one (redundant) item in a pair of items with high residual covariance (mostly
due to similar wording or content), and (3) items with relatively high proposed cross-loadings.
This procedure resulted in omitting 5 items. We again performed the same analysis on the
remaining 29 items in order to test the fit of the trimmed model, which resulted in a general
improvement of the model fit. (See the fit indices of Model 1 in Table 1).
In order to further investigate the factor structure of the TEQ, we tested two additional
CFA models: a more general two-factor model, in which items designed to measure joy and
pride were set to load onto a factor labelled positive affect, while items designed to measure
anger, hopelessness and fatigue were set to load onto a factor called negative affect (Model
2); and a hierarchical model, in which the factors that relate to joy and pride were set to load
onto a second-order factor labelled positive emotions, and the factors that relate to anger,
fatigue and hopelessness were set to load onto a second-order factor labelled negative
emotions (Model 3). As can be seen in Table 1, Model 2 demonstrated poorer fit than either
Model 1 (∆CFI = .074.; greater AIC and BIC values) or Model 3 (∆CFI = .073; greater AIC and
BIC values), while there was minor difference between Model 1 and Model 2 (∆CFI = .001,
but smaller AIC and BIC values in Model 1). The results of the best-fitting five-factor model
are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.
Even though standardised factor loadings of all indicators were large enough (>0.50;
Brown, 2006) and the pattern of latent correlations was theoretically meaningful, due to
moderate-to-high correlations between emotions of the same valence, it was decided to
further test the latent structure of this instrument via exploratory structural-equation mod-
elling (ESEM). There were three reasons for such a decision. First, it has been suggested that
the independent cluster model typical of CFA, in which all items are set to load onto only
one factor with cross-loadings constrained to zero, is too restrictive for many multidimen-
sional instruments (Marsh, Liem, Martin, Morin, & Nagengast, 2011). Second, even if such a
CFA model fits the data well, factor correlations tend to be inflated, thus undermining the
Table 1. Model fit indices.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
5F/6F CFA model 2F CFA model Hierarhical CFA model 5F/6F ESEM model
χ2 (df) 634.627 (367)/ 890.486 (376)/ 643.762 (371)/ 427.439 (271)/
2102.342 (579) 5291.595 (559) 2079.972 (553) 1023.235 (400)
AIC 18052.966/ 18324.281/ 20749.569/ 1798.969/
87227.596 91443.142 87285.586 86183.060
BIC 18412.233/ 18650.214/ 21098.558/ 18696.799/
87849.295 91992.310 87865.839 87555.981
CFI .919/ .845/ .918/ .953/
.927 .764 .924 .969
TLI .911/ .832/ .910/ .930/
.920 .749 .918 .954
SRMR .058/ .071/ .058/ .028/
.051 .086 .057 .017
RMSEA (90% CI) .049 (.043–.056)/ .068 (.062–.073)/ .048 (.042–.055)/ .044 (.036–.052)/
.045 (.043–.047) .080 (.078–.082) .046 (.044–.048) .034 (.032–.037)
Note: Model fit indices in Study 3/model fit indices in Study 5.
Table 2. Factor solution from CFA and ESEM of the TEQ in studies 3 (N = 315) and 5 (N = 1314).
CFA ESEM
Item J P L A F H J P L A F H
J1 .58/.68 .50/.67 .06/.04 /−.02 −08/.02 .04/−.03 −.06/−.08
J2 .68/.82 .62/.87 −.01/−.07 /.02 .01/.03 −.11/.02 .14/−.02
J3 .80/.80 .74/.82 −.03/.02 /−.02 −.05/.06 .05/−.01 .04/.00
J4 .72/.78 .48/.67 .22/.08 /.08 .05/−.09 .04/−.03 −.14/.09
J5 .70/.74 .38/.58 .39/.18 /.03 −.01/−.11 .00/.02 −.01/.05
P1 .66/.64 .33/.29 .41/.48 /−.01 −.03/.05 −.04/.02 .24/−.06
P2 .65/.70 .12/.10 .65/.46 /.20 .09/.00 −.01/.05 −.02/−.11
P3 .75/.73 .35/.03 .47/.74 /.00 .16/−.03 −.01/.01 −.08/.05
P4 .73/.80 .02/−.04 .70/.79 /.11 −.15/.10 .01/−.02 .19/−.03
P5 .68/.71 −.04/.22 .69/.54 /.03 .10/−.01 .03/−.04 .02/.04
P6 .67/.70 .02/.09 .68/.66 /−.03 −.06/−.06 .04/−.01 −.01/−.02
L1 /.79 /.06 /−.04 /.79 /−.03 /−.04 /.00
L2 /.77 /.20 /−.06 /.72 /−.02 /.01 /−.03
L3 /.86 /−.03 /.04 /.86 /−.01 /.03 /−.01
L4 /.79 /.02 /.16 /.66 /−.01 /.03 /.00
L5 /.76 /−.07 /.13 /.73 /.16 /−.05 /.04
L6 /.66 /.12 /.16 /.46 /−.07 /.00 /−.07
A1 .61/.56 .02/−.03 .10/.09 /.08 .55/.52 .15/.29 .03/.33
A2 .70/.71 −.08/−.04 −.15/−.08 /−.05 .53/.39 .03/.20 .17/.19
A3 .78/.60 −.02/.04 −.01/.00 /.00 .63/.60 .13/.03 .08/.20
A4 .70/.72 −.07/.04 −.01/−.02 /.00 .70/.38 .00/.15 −.01/.36
A5 .66/.77 −.04/−.11 .11/−.05 /.03 .48/.62 .08/.07 .24/.12
F1 .69/.66 −.05/.07 .03/−.03 /−.03 −.14/−.13 .74/.76 .00/−.03
F2 .76/.80 −.02/−.07 −.06/.01 /−.02 .01/−.05 .54/.82 .28/.02
F3 .79/.80 −.02/.04 −.03/−.04 /−.01 .03/.01 .58/.75 .25/.07
F4 .72/.77 .06/−.00 .05/.05 /.02 .04/.01 .55/.80 .23/−.03
F5 .79/.78 .03/−.03 .02/.02 /−.04 .35/.12 .56/.62 −.04/.12
F6 .81/.84 .01/−.01 .01/.00 /.04 .05/.10 .78/.80 .07/.00
F7 69/.76 .01/−.02 −.04/−.02 /.02 .25/.04 .60/.56 −.03/.24
H1 .63/.73 .04/.01 −.17/.00 /−.04 .28/−.02 .01/.02 .37/.72
H2 .73/.70 −.06/.05 −.04/.00 /−.11 −.04/−.10 .12/.04 .68/.72
H3 .77/.79 −.01/00 −.01/.04 /−.04 .26/.35 .13/.02 .57/.57
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
H4 .70/.80 −.04/.01 .10/.01 /−.07 .13/.−.01 .06/−.02 .61/.80

H5 .71/.72 .08/−.01 −.13/−.03 /.08 .30/.02 .03/.02 .53/.72
H6 .64/.71 .02/−.01 .18/−.01 /.07 .37/.02 −.09/−.08 .48/.79
Note: J – joy, P – pride, L – love, A – anger, F – fatigue/exhaustion, H – hopelessness; factor loadings in Study 3/factor loadings in Study 5. Values presented in bold are statistically significant at p <
11
.001.
12 I. BURIĆ ET AL.
Table 3. Latent correlations between TEQ scales in studies 3 (N = 315) and 5 (N = 1314).
Joy Pride Love Anger Fatigue Hopelessness
Joy – .73**/.74** /.49** −.10/−.22** −.01/−.07* −.05/−.15**
Pride .41**/.59** – /.76** −.02/−.23** −.04/−.09** .06/−.20**
Love /.38** /.67** – /−.25** /−.11** /−.28**
Anger −.08/−.14** −.01/−.07 /−.11* – .70**/.79** .75**/.82**
Fatigue −.02/−.04 −.01/−./07 /−.09* .38**/.49** – .73**/.70**
Hopelessness −.03/−.14** .06/−.17** /−.25** .41**/.48** .43**/.63** –
Note: Latent correlations obtained by CFA are shown above the diagonal, and latent correlations obtained by ESEM are
shown below it; latent correlations in Study 3/latent correlations in Study 5.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
discriminant validity of the factors (Marsh, Lüdtke, et al., 2010). And third, ESEM is considered
to be an appropriate analytical tool for resolving these issues (Morin, Marsh, & Nagengast,
2013). Since the TEQ is clearly a multidimensional instrument, and testing of its latent struc-
ture via CFA has resulted in lower CFI and TLI indices than desired (<.95) and relatively strong
latent correlations among emotions of the same valence, an ESEM seemed a reasonable
approach. Indeed, an ESEM model (based on geomin rotation) in which 29 items loaded
onto 5 factors, each representing one emotion (Model 4), fits the data much better (see Table
2), outperforming the best-fitting CFA model (Model 1)((∆CFI = .034 and smallest AIC and
BIC values). As can be seen in Table 2, the vast majority of the items had substantial loadings
on their a priori designated factors, as well as small cross-loadings. Finally, the size of the
latent correlations between emotions of the same valence reduced substantially in compar-
ison to the CFA solution (Table 3).
Internal construct validity: relationships between TEQ scales

As can be seen in Table 3, latent correlations between hopelessness, anger and fatigue, and
between joy and pride, were positive in their direction, while correlations between emotions
of the opposite valence approached zero. These results were largely similar to those obtained
in previous studies on emotions in an educational context (Pekrun et al., 2004; Frenzel et al.,
2016). On one hand, such findings indicate the convergent validity of the five TEQ scales and
demonstrate a common unpleasant subjective component of emotions of the same valence
and, in part, their shared emotional antecedents, i.e. the situations and events that evoked
them. For instance, trying to discipline a rude student can, at the same time, make a teacher
feel angry, hopeless and exhausted. On the other hand, correlations that are moderate to
high in magnitude, as obtained by CFA, can raise the question of divergent validity. However,
the size of these latent correlations significantly reduced in less restrictive ESEM analysis,
indicating that separate emotions can be differentiated from each other even if they share
the same valence. In conclusion, the initial test of internal validity of the TEQ indicates a
sufficient degree of convergent and divergent validity of its scales.
Score distributions, scale statistics and reliability of TEQ scales

The TEQ scales were found not to depart drastically from a normal distribution, with skewness
levels ranging from -1.41 (joy) to + 0.05 (hopelessness), and kurtosis values ranging from
-0.44 (hopelessness) to + 1.5 (joy). However, it should be noted that mean values on the joy
scale were quite high (4.72–4.82 on a 5-point scale) indicating poorer power of differentiation
between teachers with respect to joy. And although a restricted variation of scores on the
scale of joy can undermine the size of its relations to variables of interest, it may simply be
an important indicator of reality: most of the teachers are intensely happy and pleased when
children make progress, when they are motivated and behave well in the classroom. Also,
pleasant emotions were generally experienced as more pronounced in intensity than
unpleasant emotions. Internal consistency analysis indicated that each scale was reliable,
with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .81 to .90.
Study 4: establishing the criterion validity of the TEQ

After establishing the internal structure of the TEQ, we aimed at providing initial evidence
of the criterion validity of its scales. In order to achieve this goal, we examined associations
between TEQ scales and external variables such as demographics, job satisfaction, emotional
labour, emotional exhaustion and measures of psychological well-being.
Teachers’ emotional experiences are often driven by prescribed and implicit emotional
rules of the teaching profession (Chang, 2009; Winograd, 2003; Zembylas, 2002, 2005). In
order to follow these rules, teachers try to control their emotions by surface and deep acting.
Thus, it can be expected that teachers’ emotions will be related to emotional labour. Since
teachers must employ an extensive degree of emotional labour in order to regulate such
emotions, which consequently leads to burnout, it is expected that unpleasant emotions
will be positively related to emotional exhaustion. Furthermore, due to the fact that the
definition of job satisfaction contains an emotional dimension (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996),
teachers’ emotions should be related to their job satisfaction. Finally, teachers’ emotions
should be related to subjective well-being, since emotional process is at the core of this
construct (Larsen, 2009).
Method
Participants
The fourth sample consisted of 391 Croatian middle-school subject teachers employed in
32 schools. Of these, 297 were female, 82 were male, and 12 did not indicate their gender.
On average, the teachers were 41.73 years old (SD = 10.31) and had 15.05 years of teaching
experience (SD = 10.92) (18.5% of teachers had 5 years of experience or less). The study was
conducted at the end of the school year in 2015.
Measures
Besides answering demographic questions (gender, age, working experience, and subject
taught), teachers were asked to fill out the following self-report measures:
Teachers’ emotions were assessed by the newly developed Teacher Emotion Questionnaire
(TEQ). Alpha reliability coefficients are shown in Table 4, and content of items in Appendix 1.
Job satisfaction was assessed by the Job Satisfaction Scale (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, &
Patton, 2001), consisting of 5 items measuring overall job satisfaction on a 7-point
14 I. BURIĆ ET AL.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and Cronbach alpha reliabilities of TEQ scales across studies 3, 4 and 5.
Study 3 Study 4 Study 5
(N = 315) (N = 391) (N = 1314)
Joy
M 4.73 4.82 4.73
SD .41 .38 .49
α .81 .80 .87
Pride
M 4.29 4.52 4.38
SD .64 .59 .53
α .84 .87 .86
Love
M – – 4.01
SD – – .68
α – – .90
Anger
M 2.17 2.41 2.34
SD .84 .79 .75

α .82 .77 .80
Fatigue
M 2.91 2.89 2.83
SD .91 .86 .85
α .90 .89 .91
Hopelessness
M 2.90 2.77 2.58
SD .79 .75 .76
α .86 .84 .88
Likert-type scale (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). Sample item: ‘I feel fairly
satisfied with my present job’ (α = .82).
Emotional labour experienced by teachers in relation to their job was assessed by two
subscales of the Emotional Labour Scale (Brotheridge & Lee, 2003), namely Surface Acting
(e.g. ‘On the average day at work, how frequently do you resist expressing your true feelings?’
(α = .63)), and Deep Acting (e.g. ‘On the average day at work how frequently do you try to
actually experience the emotions that you must show?’ (α = 0.81)). Participants responded
on a Likert-type format ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Emotional exhaustion experienced at work was assessed by the Job-Related Emotional
Exhaustion scale (Wharton, 1993) consisting of six items and a six-point Likert-type scale
(1 = never, 6 = every day). Sample item: ‘I feel emotionally drained from my work’ (α = .90).
Subjective well-being was measured by two indicators: (a) the Satisfaction with Life Scale
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), consisting of 5 items measuring global life satis-
faction. Sample item: ‘In most ways my life is close to my ideal’ (α = 0.87); and (b) the Scale
of Positive and Negative Experience (Diener et al., 2009), which is a 12-item questionnaire
including six items to measure positive feelings (e.g. ‘positive’ and ‘joyful’) and six items to
measure negative feelings (e.g. ‘negative’ and ‘sad’) a person has experienced in the last four
weeks. Participants responded on a Likert-type format ranging from 1 (very rarely or never)
to 5 (very often or always). Cronbach α for the Positive Experiences subscale was .88, and for
the Negative Experience subscale .86.
Table 5. Correlations of the TEQ scales to external variables in Study 4 (N = 391).

Emo- Neg-
Working tional Job Life Positive ative
experi- Surface Deep exhaus- satisfac- satisfac- experi- experi-
Scale Gender ence acting acting tion tion tion ences ences
Joy .11* .03 −.10 .23** −.06 .24** .12* .25** −.13*
Pride .25** .07 −.03 .31** −.06 .24** .19** .21** −.08
Fatigue .11* .13* .32** −.05 .67** −.51** −.25** −.39** .42**
Anger .04 .04 .30** −.09 .54** −.43** −.22** −.31** .42**
Hopelessness .04 .02 .34** −.17** .53** −.44** −.17** −.33** .36**
*p < .05; **p < .01.

Criterion validity of TEQ scales: relations to external variables
To provide initial evidence of the criterion validity of the TEQ, we calculated Pearson corre-
lation coefficients between its scales and the external variables examined. The results are
presented in Table 5.
In general, female teachers reported experiencing slightly higher levels of joy, pride and
fatigue, while teachers with more working experience in education generally reported expe-
riencing more fatigue. Furthermore, teachers who experience unpleasant emotions to a
greater extent also use more surface acting in order to manage their emotions. In contrast,
deep acting is used by teachers who experience pleasant emotions of joy and pride to a
greater extent, but also less hopelessness. These results are in line with the general agree-
ment in the literature that teaching involves emotional labour (Chang, 2009; Zembylas, 2005).
Next, the experience of unpleasant emotions was mostly moderately correlated to emo-
tional exhaustion, a core component of burnout, which supports some previous findings
(Carson, 2006; Chang, 2009). As is evident from Table 5, the correlation between fatigue and
emotional exhaustion was moderate, indicating the overlapping nature of these two con-
structs. Emotions were also associated with teachers’ overall job satisfaction. Pleasant emo-
tions were related to higher levels of job satisfaction. Conversely, higher levels of unpleasant
emotions were correlated to less job satisfaction. These results are supported by previous
research on the relationship between affect experienced at work and job satisfaction among
other professions (Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Liu, Prati, Perrewé, & Brymer, 2010).
Finally, teachers’ emotions were related to indicators of subjective well-being in a con-
ceptually meaningful way. Teachers who experience higher levels of unpleasant emotions
at work are less satisfied with their lives. Conversely, experiencing pleasant emotions at work
was modestly, but positively, related to life satisfaction. The same patterns of association
were found for the variable of positive affective experiences. Negative affective experiences
experienced in the last four weeks were negatively but modestly associated with positive
emotions, and positively and moderately with negative ones. To conclude, the patterns of
correlation obtained should provide initial evidence of the criterion validity of the TEQ scales.
Study 5: further development of the TEQ and its added value

The objectives of the fifth study were numerous. First, we wanted to further examine the
psychometric properties of existing TEQ scales. Second, we aimed to test the measurement
invariance of the TEQ across two educational levels – middle school (subject teachers) and
16 I. BURIĆ ET AL.
elementary (class teachers) – in order to prove that TEQ items function equivalently in dif-
ferent educational settings. Third, we aimed at expanding the TEQ by including an additional
scale that would measure teachers’ love towards their students. Although the results of our
qualitative study showed that feelings of love, affection and caring are not as important as
some other emotions for middle-school teachers, we eventually decided to include this
emotion, too. There were two reasons for such a decision. First, we hoped that the inclusion
of love in the TEQ could make it more suitable for the assessment of typical teachers’ emo-
tions at educational levels other than middle school, primarily of the emotions of class teach-
ers. And second, love and caring, which belongs to the category of primary discrete emotions,
is often discussed in the literature on teachers’ emotions (Hargreaves, 1998; Nias, 1996; Woods
& Jeffrey, 1996).
Finally, in the fifth study we wanted to empirically demonstrate the added value of the
TEQ in predicting teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and value of the teaching job, and their
intention to leave the profession, over and above the existing measure of affect experienced
in work settings. Teacher self-efficacy can be explained as a situation-specific confidence of
being able to assist students while learning and to impact their performance and motivation
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001). And although the empirical evidence linking
self-efficacy and teachers’ emotions is scarce, self-efficacy is considered to be a source of
positive emotions for teachers (Frenzel, 2014). However, if measured more in a trait-like
manner, emotions can be hypothesised as precursors of self-efficacy. Similarly, value of teach-
ing can be influenced by teachers’ emotions, since most organisational research shows that
affective states can influence judgements and attitudinal responses (Brief & Weiss, 2002).
Moreover, positive and negative moods at work have predicted withdrawal behaviours such
as absenteeism and turnover intentions (Cropanzano, James, & Konovsky, 1993; George &
Jones, 1996). Thus, we expected that the TEQ scales would predict these constructs over and
above the more general measure of affective experiences at work.
Method
Participants
The fifth sample consisted of 1314 Croatian teachers employed in 87 different schools. Of
these, 584 were elementary class teachers teaching children aged from 6 to 10, and 730 of
them were subject teachers teaching children aged 11 to 15 at middle-school level.
Furthermore, 1163 teachers were female, 147 were male, and 4 of them did not indicate their
gender. On average, the teachers were 42.40 years old (SD = 10.03) and had 16.40 years of
teaching experience (SD = 10.59) (18.3% of teachers had 5 years of experience or less). The
study was conducted in spring 2016.
Measures
Besides answering demographic questions (gender, age, working experience, educational
level, and subject taught), teachers were asked to fill out the following self-report
measures:
Teacher emotions of joy, pride, anger and fatigue were measured by the Teacher Emotion
Questionnaire (TEQ). In addition to these emotions, we included six extra items that relate
to feelings of care, love and affection towards their students. Teachers responded to the
items of all emotion scales by indicating their level of agreement on a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Descriptive statistics and reliability coeffi-
cients are shown in Table 4, while the content of all TEQ items is presented in Appendix 1.
Self-efficacy was measured by the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer, Schmitz, &
Daytner, 1999) which contains 10 items that assess one’s perceived efficacy in relation to job
accomplishment, skill development, and interaction with students, parents and colleagues,
and coping with job stress. Participants responded on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not
at all true) to 4 (exactly true). Cronbach alpha was .83. Sample item: ‘When I try really hard,
I am able to reach even the most difficult students’.
Value of teaching was measured by 4 items that assess the perceived personal importance
of the teaching job and performing well in it. Teachers responded to the items of all emotion
scales by indicating their level of agreement on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach alpha was .86; sample item: ‘My job is very important
to me’.
Intention to leave the teaching profession was assessed by a single item which stated: ‘If
you had the opportunity, would you quit this profession?’ Teachers responded by choosing
one of four possible answers: 4 = definitely yes, 3 = probably yes, 2 = probably not, and
1 = definitely not.
Affect experienced at work was measured by the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Each scale contains 10 items which describe neg-
ative affective states (sample items: ‘distressed, hostile, irritable’) and positive affective states
(sample items: ‘excited, active, proud’). Teachers rated, on a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely), the extent to which they had felt like that at work
in the past week. Cronbach alphas were .91 and .90, respectively.

Since a new scale, namely love, had been added to the TEQ, the first step in the analysis was
a test of the latent structure of the revised TEQ. In the same manner as in Study 3, we tested
and compared four models. The results of these tests are presented in Table 1. Again, Model
1 fitted the data better than Model 2 (∆CFI = .163, smaller AIC and BIC values) and slightly
better than Model 3 (∆CFI = .003, but somewhat smaller AIC and BIC values), but worse than
Model 4 (∆CFI = .042, greater AIC and BIC values), pointing out that the ESEM model should
be preferred. As can be seen in Table 2, items (including items of the love scale) were ade-
quately saturated by its presumed latent dimensions in both the 6-factor CFA model and
the 6-factor ESEM model. Furthermore, latent correlations between emotions of the same
valence, obtained by ESEM, were positive and moderate in size, while the correlations
between emotions of the opposite valence were insignificant or negative and small in mag-
nitude (Table 3). All TEQ items are shown in Appendix 1.
Next, in order to test the measurement equivalence of the TEQ across the two groups of
teachers, namely class teachers and subject teachers, multi-group CFA and multi-group
ESEM were conducted. Prior to conducting multi-group CFA and ESEM, we tested the fit of
the 6-factor model on subsamples of class and subject teachers and obtained the following
results: (a) CFA class teachers: χ² = 1204.92, df = 545, p < .001; AIC = 36,727.560,
BIC = 37,251.948, CFI = .926, TLI = .920, RMSEA = .046 (90% C.I. .042–.049), SRMR = .052; (b)
CFA subject teachers: χ² = 1526.01, df = 545, p < .001; AIC = 49,915.723, BIC = 50,466.888,
CFI = .914, TLI = .906, RMSEA = .050 (90% C.I. .047–.053), SRMR = .056; (c) ESEM class teachers:
18 I. BURIĆ ET AL.
Table 6. Model fit indices for the multi-group CFA and ESEM analyses across educational levels in Study
5 (N = 1314).
Model χ2 (df ) AIC BIC CFI TLI ∆CFI SRMR RMSEA (90% CI)
Configural
CFA 2732.16 (1090) 86643.283 87886.683 .919 .912 – .055 .048 (.046–.050)
ESEM 1592.373 (800) 85654.095 88399.935 .961 .942 – .020 .039 (.036–.042)
Metric
CFA 2772.41 (1119) 86637.888 87731.043 .919 .914 .00 .060 .048 (.045–.051)
ESEM 1774.380 (974) 85640.373 87484.749 .961 .952 .00 .037 .036 (.033–.038)
Scalar
CFA 2872.31 (1148) 86688.014 87630.926 .915 .912 .004 .060 .048 (.046–.050)
ESEM 1836.612 (1103) 85650.846 87344.978 .959 .951 .002 .038 .036 (.033–.038)
χ² = 696.127, df = 400, p < .001; AIC = 36,333.490, BIC = 37,491.513, CFI = .967, TLI = .951,

RMSEA = .036 (90% C.I. .031–.040), SRMR = .020; and (d) ESEM subject teachers: χ² = 898.629,
df = 400, p < .001; CFI = .956, TLI = .935, RMSEA = .041 (90% C.I. .038–.045), SRMR = .020.

Three competing models, within both CFA and ESEM approaches, were subsequently
tested and compared: (1) configural invariance, i.e. the same number of factors and the same
patterns of free and fixed factor loadings across the groups of class teachers and subject
teachers, which also served as a baseline model for subsequent testing of increasingly restric-
tive nested models, (2) metric invariance, i.e. invariance of factor loadings across groups,
and (3) scalar invariance, i.e. invariance of factor loadings and indicator intercepts across
groups. The results of the measurement invariance testing are shown in Table 6.
As presented in Table 6, imposing restrictions on factor loadings did not lead to substantial
loss of fit, since ∆CFI equals zero in both analyses, which clearly demonstrates the metric
invariance of the TEQ. Moreover, the difference in fit between ‘configural’ and ‘scalar invari-
ance’ models was not substantial either (∆CFI = .004 in CFA and ∆CFI = .002 in ESEM), con-
firming that both the factor loadings and intercepts of TEQ items are equal across the two
groups of teachers. To conclude, these results demonstrate strong measurement invariance
of the TEQ across the two educational levels.
Finally, in order to demonstrate the added value of the TEQ over and above the PANAS
in predicting self-efficacy, value of teaching, and desire to leave the profession, we conducted
three hierarchical regression analyses (HRA) – the PANAS scales were introduced in the model
in the first step, and the TEQ scales were introduced in the second step. The statistically
significant ∆R² statistic, after controlling the contribution of PANAS scales in the first step,
demonstrates the additional value of the TEQ in explaining criterion variables above the
existing more general measures of affect. The results of the HRAs are presented in Table 7,
and a correlation of TEQ scales with other variables included in the HRAs is shown in
Appendix 2.
It can be seen that the TEQ scales made unique contribution to the explanation of the
variability of criterion variables over the PANAS scales. The percentage of variance addition-
ally explained by the TEQ was 9% for self-efficacy, 19% for value of teaching, and 10% for
intention to leave the profession. Teachers who experience more pride in their students, and
who feel less hopeless in the classroom, also have higher levels of self-efficacy. Teachers who
experience more joy, love and pride towards their students, but less anger, value their job
more. Lastly, teachers who feel more love towards their students, and who are less exhausted
by their work, are less likely to quit the teaching job. These results are in line with the
Table 7. Results of hierarchical regression analyses in Study 5 (N = 1314).

Teacher self-efficacy Value of teaching Intention to quit
β β β
Step 1
Positive affect (.43**) .26** (.47**) .23** (−.23**) −.05
Negative affect (−.22**) −.11** (−.08**) .02 (−.21**) .09**
R .53** .50** .34**
R2adjusted .28** .25** .12**
Step 2
Joy .03 .23** .04
Pride .17** .20** .00
Love .00 .12** .24**
Anger .05 −.10* −.04
Fatigue .01 −.05 −.22**
Hopelessness −.32** −.01 −.03
R .61** .66** .48**
R2adjusted .37** .43** .22**
∆R2 .09** .19** .10**

Note: Beta weights from the first step are shown in parenthesis.
**p < .01; *p < .05.
hypotheses and with previous studies (Brief & Weiss, 2002; George & Jones, 1996; Kunter,
Frenzel, Nagy, Baumert, & Pekrun, 2011).
Conclusions
Through a series of five studies, using independent samples of teachers, and utilising a
mixed-method approach, we have developed a multidimensional self-report instrument
aimed at assessing emotions of joy, pride, love, fatigue, anger and hopelessness that teachers
experience in relation to teaching, dealing and interacting with students. In reaching this
goal, we have relied on a contemporary multi-component definition of emotion (Schuman
& Scherer, 2014), as well as on empirical (qualitative and quantitative) data.
The Teacher Emotion Questionnaire (TEQ) exhibits satisfactory psychometric properties.
All scales have shown good-to-excellent reliability coefficients and sufficient variations of
scores, as well as a sufficient and expected amount of convergent and divergent validity.
Furthermore, the TEQ scales relate in a meaningful way to external variables of gender,
working experience in education, emotional labour, emotional exhaustion, job satisfaction,
subjective well-being, teacher self-efficacy, value of teaching, and intention to quit, thus
supporting the criterion validity of the TEQ scales. Overall, teachers’ pleasant emotions
showed adaptive patterns of association with analysed variables, while for the unpleasant
emotions we found the opposite trend. These results underscore the importance of consid-
ering teachers’ emotions in relation to various aspects of their functioning. Even though the
findings of this study are based on cross-sectional research design, correlations of teachers’
emotions with external variables highlight the possibility of (un)desirable effects of (un)
pleasant work-related emotions on important personal life outcomes for teachers, such as
work-related stress, job satisfaction and well-being, which in turn can be reflected in their
job performance, job attitudes, relationships with students, and quality of education in gen-
eral. Perhaps even more importantly, the emotions under study were predictive for the
intention to leave the teaching profession. Finally, the fifth study demonstrated the added
value of the TEQ in predicting important teachers’ outcomes over and above the existing
20 I. BURIĆ ET AL.
and more general measure of affective experiences at work. These findings support the
scientific value of the TEQ and clearly indicate that teachers’ emotional lives should be studied
with a greater degree of specificity that goes beyond positive and negative affect.
Even though this research supports the psychometric quality of the TEQ, it has some
limitations. First, all five studies were conducted on convenient samples of teachers from
Croatian state-funded schools who voluntarily agreed to participate. This approach clearly
resulted in certain disadvantages such as a disproportionate number of female and male
teachers across the studies, and the unknown characteristics of those teachers who declined
to enrol in this research. Second, in order to make the TEQ economical to administer, we
included only a limited set of theoretically important and empirically salient emotions and
omitted emotions that might also be relevant (e.g. anxiety of novice teachers, or boredom
– an emotion that turned out to be surprisingly prevalent while teaching) (Goetz et al., 2015;
Keller, Frenzel, Goetz, Pekrun, & Hensley, 2014). Third, even though our intention was to
create items that would evenly describe the different components of each emotion, due to
the poor psychometric qualities of some of these items (e.g. poor factor loadings, correlated
residuals), this goal was not entirely met. Fourth, in spite of the fact that strict confidentiality
and anonymity were guaranteed (by teachers’ returning questionnaires in closed envelopes),
the possibility of socially desirable responses could not be completely eliminated. As already
mentioned, teaching is a profession bounded with strict emotional rules, i.e. norms and
standards of behaviour, which prescribe the appropriateness of certain emotions while
teaching and interacting with students (Oplatka, 2009). Fifth, the findings regarding criterion
validity are limited by the cross-sectional nature of the study design, which does not allow
the drawing of inferences about causal relations between teachers’ emotions and examined
variables. For example, the experience of unpleasant emotions at work can reduce one’s job
satisfaction, but also low job satisfaction can make a person more prone to experiencing
unpleasant emotions due to negative attitudes toward work. Next, even though we have
provided evidence demonstrating the added value of the TEQ, in future its scales should be
compared to newly developed instruments aimed at assessing teachers’ emotions specifi-
cally, such as TES (Frenzel et al., 2016). To date, the TEQ has been administered only on
Croatian samples of teachers. However, in order to become a widely used instrument across
different countries, its validation in English and on other samples of teachers is mandatory.
In order to make this goal more approachable, the TEQ items presented in Appendix 1 were
already translated following a back-translation procedure. Moreover, further investigation
of the measurement equivalence of TEQ scales across levels of teaching experience and
school types (e.g. private vs. public, low SES vs. high SES, regular vs. special education, etc.)
is strongly recommended. Finally, even though the TEQ was developed to measure emotions
as relatively stable traits, it would be interesting to investigate its suitability for capturing
more transient state emotions as well.
In spite of these shortcomings, we hope that the TEQ, as a psychometrically sound and
theoretically grounded measure, developed through a series of five studies (and the
responses of more than 2300 teachers) which employed different methodological and sta-
tistical approaches (e.g. qualitative and quantitative, exploratory and confirmatory), can be
a useful tool in discovering important relations between teachers’ emotions, their individual
and contextual antecedents, and important consequences on teachers’ cognition, motiva-
tion, job performance, stress, well-being, health, and relationships with students.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Croatian Science Foundation [grant number 5035] Hrvatska zaklada
za znanost.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 279–307. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135156
Brotheridge, C., & Lee, R. T. (2003). Development and validation of the Emotional Labour Scale. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 365–379.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Carson, R. L. (2006). Exploring the episodic nature of teachers’ emotions as it relates to teacher burnout.
West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Chang, M. L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of
teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21(3), 193–218. doi:10.1007/s10648-009-9106-y
Chang, M. L. (2013). Toward a theoretical model to understand teacher emotions and teacher burnout
in the context of student misbehaviour: Appraisal, regulation and coping. Motivation and Emotion,
37, 799–817. doi:10.1007/s11031-012-9335-0
Chen, J. (2016). Understanding teacher emotions: The development of a teacher emotion inventory.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 68–77. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.001
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement
invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of work
attitudes and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 595–606.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience sampling method.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9), 526–536. doi:10.1097/00005053-198709000-00004
Day, C., & Qing, G. (2009). Teachers’ emotions: Well-being and effectiveness. In P. A. Schutz, & M. Zembylas
(Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers’ lives (pp. 15–31). New York, NY:
Springer.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., & Oishi, S. (2009). New measures
of well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 247–266),
Social Indicators Research Series 39. doi 10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_12
Frenzel, A. C. (2014). Teacher emotions. In E. A. Linnenbrink-Garcia, & R. Pekrun (Eds.), International
Handbook of Emotions in Education (pp. 494–519). New York, NY: Routledge.
Frenzel, A. C., Becker-Kurz, B., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2015). Teaching this class drives me nuts! Examining
the person and context specificity of teachers emotions. PLoS One, 10, e0129630. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0129630
Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Stephens, E. J., & Jacob, B. (2009). Antecedents and effects of teachers’ emotional
experiences: An integrated perspective and empirical test. In P. A. Schutz, & M. Zembylas (Eds.),
Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers’ lives (pp. 129–151). New York, NY:
Springer.
Frenzel, A., Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Durksen, T. L., Becker-Kurz, B., & Klassen, R. M. (2016).
Measuring teachers’ enjoyment, anger, and anxiety: The Teacher Emotions Scales (TES). Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 46, 148–163. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.05.003
22 I. BURIĆ ET AL.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive effects
of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 318–325.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.318
Goetz, T., Becker, E. S., Bieg, M., Keller, M. M., Frenzel, A. C., & Hall, N. C. (2015). The glass half empty:
How emotional exhaustion affects the state-trait discrepancy in self-reports of teaching emotions.
PLoS One, 10(9), e0137441. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137441
Grandey, A., Tam, A., & Brauburger, A. (2002). Affective states and traits of young workers: A diary study.
Motivation and Emotion, 26(1), 31–55. doi:10.1023/A:1015142124306
Hagenauer, G., & Volet, S. E. (2014). “I don’t hide my feelings, even though I try to”: Insight into teacher
educator emotion display. Australian Educational Researcher, 41(3), 261–281. doi:10.1007/s13384-
013-0129-5.
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 835–
854. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00025-0
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Huberman, M. (1993). Steps toward a developmental model of teacher career. In L. Kremer-Hayon,
H. Vonk, & R. Fessler (Eds.), Teacher professional development: A multiple perspective approach (pp.
93–118). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multi-
level model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126–138. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.126
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance
relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376
Kelchtermans, G. (2011). Vulnerability in teaching: The moral and political roots of structural conditions.
In C. Day, & J. C. K. Lee (Eds.), New understanding of teachers’ work: Emotions and educational change
(pp. 65–82). New York, NY: Springer.
Keller, M. M., Chang, M. L., Becker, E. S., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2014). Teachers’ emotional experiences
and exhaustion as predictors of emotional labor in the classroom: An experience sampling study.
Frontiers in Psychology., 127, 376–407. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01442
Keller, M. M., Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Hensley, L. (2014). Exploring teacher emotions: A
literature review and an experience sampling study. In P. W. Richardson, S. Karabenick, & H. M. G.
Watt (Eds.), Teacher motivation: Theory and practice (pp. 69–82). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kunter, M., Frenzel, A. C., Nagy, G., Baumert, J., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Teacher enthusiasm: Dimensionality
and context specificity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 289–301. doi:10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2011.07.001
Larsen, R. (2009). The contributions of positive and negative affect to emotional well-being. Psychological
Topics, 18(2), 247–266.
Lazarus, R. S., & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2001). Discrete emotions in organizational life. In R. L. Payne, & G.
L. Cooper (Eds.), Emotions at work: Theory, research and applications for management (pp. 45–81).
Chichester: Wiley.
Lench, H. C., Flores, S. A., & Bench, S. W. (2011). Discrete emotions predict changes in cognition,
judgment, experience, behavior, and physiology: A meta-analysis of experimental emotion
elicitations. Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 834–855. doi:10.1037/a0024244.
Liu, Y. M., Prati, L. M., Perrewé, P. L., & Brymer, R. A. (2010). Individual differences in emotion regulation,
emotional experiences at work, and work-related outcomes: A two-study investigation. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1515–1538. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00627.x
Macdonald, D. (1999). Teacher attrition: A review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15,
835–848. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00031-1
Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Morin, A. J. S., & Nagengast, B. (2011). Methodological-
measurement fruitfulness of exploratory equation modelling (ESEM): New approaches to key
substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29,
322–346.
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Negengast, B., Morin, A. J. S., & Trautwein, U. (2011). A new look
at the big-five factor structure through Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Psychological
Assessment, 22, 471–491.
Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R.
Hancock, & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed.). (pp. 2–58).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus User’s Guide. 6th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén&Muthén.
Nias, J. (1996). Thinking about feeling: The emotions in teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3),
293–306. doi:10.1080/0305764960260301
Oplatka, I. (2009). Emotion management and display in teaching: Some ethical and moral considerations
in the era of marketization and commercialization. In P. A. Schutz, & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in
teacher emotion research (pp. 55–71). New York, NY: Springer.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and
implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341.
doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Pekrun, R., & Bühner, M. (2014). Self-report measures of academic emotions. In R. Pekrun, & L.
Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 561–579). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Perry, R. P., Kramer, K., Hochstadt, M., & Molfenter, S. (2004). Beyond test anxiety:
Development and validation of the test emotions questionnaire (TEQ). Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 17,
287–316. doi:10.1080/10615800412331303847
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2014). International handbook of emotions in education. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Rosenberg, E. L. (1998). Levels of analysis and the organization of affect. Review of General Psychology,
2, 247–270. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.247
Roseman, I. J., Spindel, M. S., & Jose, P. E. (1990). Appraisals of emotion-eliciting events: Testing a theory
of discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 899–915. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.59.5.899.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,
1161–1178. doi:10.1037/h0077714
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information,
44, 695–729. doi:10.1177/0539018405058216
Scherer, K. R. (2009). The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the component process model.
Cognition & Emotion, 23, 1307–1351. doi:10.1080/02699930902928969
Scherer, K. R., Wranik, T., Sangsue, J., Tran, V., & Scherer, U. (2004). Emotions in everyday life: Probability
of occurrence, risk factors, appraisal and reaction pattern. Social Science Information, 43(4), 499–570.
doi:10.1177/0539018404047701
Schuman, V., & Scherer, K. R. (2014). Concepts and structures of emotions. In R. Pekrun, & L. Linnenbrink-
Garcia (Eds.), International Handbook of Emotions in Education (pp. 13–35). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G. S., & Daytner, G. T. (1999). The Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale. [On-line publication].
Retrieved from https://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/skalen/t_se.htm
Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G. S., & Tang, C. (2000). Teacher burnout in Hong Kong and Germany: A cross-
cultural validation of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 13, 309–326.
doi:10.1080/10615800008549268
Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers’ emotions and teaching: A review of the
literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 327–358.
doi:10.1023/a:1026131715856
Tellegen, A., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). On the dimensional and hierarchical structure of affect.
Psychological Science, 10, 297–303.
Tickle, L. (1991). New teachers and the emotion of learning teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education,
21, 319–329. doi:10.1080/0305764910210306
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
24 I. BURIĆ ET AL.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive
and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure,
causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, Vol. 18
(pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wharton, A. S. (1993). The affective consequences of service work: Managing emotions on the job.
Work and Occupations, 20(2), 205–232. doi:10.1177/0730888493020002004
Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Winograd, K. (2003). The functions of teacher emotions: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Teachers
College Record, 105, 1641–1673. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9620.2003.00304.x
Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., Stewart, N., & Joseph, S. (2008). Conceptualizing gratitude and appreciation
as a unitary personality trait. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 619–630. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2007.09.028
Woods, P., & Jeffrey, B. (1996). Teachable moments: The art of creative teaching in primary school.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Yik, M., Russell, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2011). A 12-point circumplex structure of core affect. Emotion, 11,
705–731. doi:10.1037/a0023980
Zembylas, M. (2002). ‘Structures of feeling’ in curriculum and teaching: Theorizing the emotional rules.
Educational Theory, 52, 187–208.
Zembylas, M. (2003). Emotions and teacher identity: A poststructural perspective. Teachers and Teaching,
9(3), 213–238. doi:10.1080/13540600309378
Zembylas, M. (2005). Teaching with emotion: A postmodern enactment. Greenwich: Information Age
Publishing.
Appendix 1. TEQ scales*

Joy
I am glad when I achieve teaching goals that are set.
I am joyful when the class atmosphere is positive.
I am happy when I manage to motivate students to learn.
I am happy when students understand the material.
Exerting a positive influence on my students makes me happy.
Pride
I feel like a winner when my students succeed.
Due to my students' achievements, I feel as if I am ‘growing’.
I am filled with pride when I make a student interested in my subject.
Meetings with successful former students of mine make me proud.
When I am proud of my students, I feel that my confidence is growing.
Pride due to my students' achievements confirms to me that I am doing a good job.
Love
I feel warmth when I just think about my students.
I love my students.
My students evoke feelings of love inside me.
I feel affection towards my students.
I wish to hug my students since I like them so much.
I honestly care about each of my student.
Anger
I sweat from frustration when the class is not carried in the way it is supposed to.
The reactions of some students frustrate me so much that I would rather just quit the job.
The frustration I feel while working with students undermines my job motivation.
Some students make me so angry that my face goes red.

I get an anger-caused headache from the behaviour of some students.
Fatigue/Exhaustion
At the end of my working day, I just want to rest.
When I finish classes, I feel numbed.
My job sometimes makes me so tired that all I want to do is ‘switch off’.
Due to the speedy pace of work, at the end of the day I feel as if I am going to fall down.
Sometimes I am so exhausted at work that I only think about how to endure.
When I finish my work, I feel drained.
Sometimes working with children makes me so tired that I can barely move.
Hopelessness
I feel I cannot do anything more to correct the behaviour of some students.
While working with completely unmotivated students, I feel there is no way out.
Because of the behaviour of some students, I feel completely helpless.
I feel hopeless when I think about the achievement of some students.
It seems to me that I cannot do anything to get through to some students.

I feel defenceless because I cannot help some of my students.
*The order of the items corresponds to the order of factor loadings in Table 2.
Appendix 2. Correlations between TEQ scales and other variables included in

HRA's in Study 5 (N = 1314)
Positive affect Negative affect Self-efficacy Value of teaching Intention to leave

Joy .32 −.18 .30 .52 −.21
Pride .46 −.18 .39 .55 −.27
Love .43 −.14 .33 .45 −.34
Anger −.35 .49 −.39 −.53 .33
Fatigue −.34 .46 −.33 −.51 .36
Hopelessness −.39 .45 −.48 −.50 .33
Note: All correlations were statistically significant at p < .001.

Buric 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buric 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational Psychology

An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology

ISSN: 0144-3410 (Print) 1469-5820 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

A mixed-method approach to the assessment of

Irena Burić, Ana Slišković & Ivana Macuka

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1382682

Published online: 27 Sep 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [Pepperdine University] Date: 28 September 2017, At: 00:19

A mixed-method approach to the assessment of teachers’

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Irena Burić buric.irena@gmail.com, inekic@unizd.hr

of contemporary social, technological and educational trends such as changes in family

variety of relevant outcomes, instruments aimed at assessing a wide variety of potentially

Definition of teachers’ emotions

Assessing teachers’ emotions via self-report

The present research

Study 1: exploring the sources and structure of teachers’ emotions

Results and discussion

represent an intended emotion. This procedure resulted in retaining 68 items distributed

Results and discussion

Study 3: establishing the latent structure and psychometric properties

Results and discussion

Table 1. Model fit indices.

H4 .70/.80 −.04/.01 .10/.01 /−.07 .13/.−.01 .06/−.02 .61/.80

Internal construct validity: relationships between TEQ scales

Score distributions, scale statistics and reliability of TEQ scales

Study 4: establishing the criterion validity of the TEQ

SD .84 .79 .75

Table 5. Correlations of the TEQ scales to external variables in Study 4 (N = 391).

Results and discussion

Study 5: further development of the TEQ and its added value

Results and discussion

χ² = 696.127, df = 400, p < .001; AIC = 36,333.490, BIC = 37,491.513, CFI = .967, TLI = .951,

df = 400, p < .001; CFI = .956, TLI = .935, RMSEA = .041 (90% C.I. .038–.045), SRMR = .020.

Table 7. Results of hierarchical regression analyses in Study 5 (N = 1314).

∆R2 .09** .19** .10**

Appendix 1. TEQ scales*

Some students make me so angry that my face goes red.

It seems to me that I cannot do anything to get through to some students.

Appendix 2. Correlations between TEQ scales and other variables included in

Positive affect Negative affect Self-efficacy Value of teaching Intention to leave

You might also like

∆R2 .09 .19 .10**