The Relationship Between Student Behaviour

Patterns and Teacher Burnout

RICHARD P. HASTINGSa and MOHAMMED S. BHAMb

a
School of Psychology, University of Wales, Bangor, UK and
b
Solihull Education Authority, UK

ABSTRACT A wide range of factors have been proposed as antecedents of

burnout in teachers, including student behaviour in the classroom.
Several studies have shown associations between student misbehaviour
and teacher burnout. However, researchers have rarely incorporated a
direct measure of teachers’ perceptions of student behaviour in their
own classroom. The main aims of the present study of 100 British
primary school teachers were: (a) to explore the properties of a measure
of student behaviour in the classroom (the Pupil Behaviour Patterns
scale – PBP; Friedman, 1995) and (b) to test the prediction of burnout
dimensions from dimensions of student behaviour assessed by the PBP.
An exploratory factor analysis confirmed the PBP domains of
disrespectful behaviour, sociability and attentiveness. Furthermore,
reliability analyses supported the internal consistency of the scales.
Regression analysis of teacher burnout showed differential prediction
by PBP sub-domains: disrespect predicted emotional exhaustion and
depersonalization burnout, and lack of sociability predicted deperson-
alization and personal accomplishment burnout. Methodological
problems are discussed along with suggestions for future theoretical
and empirical development. In particular, we focus on the potential role
of psychological variables such as teacher self-efficacy and coping
strategies in explaining how teacher well-being is affected by student
behaviour in the classroom.

Introduction
As with many human service occupations, teaching in the modern world
is associated with significant levels of stress. The print and broadcast
media are also replete with stories of misbehaviour among school
students including, at the extreme, violent assault against teachers. The

Please address correspondence to: Dr Richard Hastings, School of Psychology,

University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2AS, Wales, UK. Email:
r.hastings@bangor.ac.uk
School Psychology International Copyright © 2003 SAGE Publications (London,
Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), Vol. 24(1): 115–127. [0143–0343 (200302)
24:1; 115–127; 027905]

115
 School Psychology International (2003), Vol. 24(1)
relationship between these two phenomena; teacher well-being and
student behaviour in the classroom, is the focus of the present article.
Teacher well-being has most often been studied from the perspective
of models of burnout. Thus, teachers are considered to be burnt out if
they evidence feelings of emotional exhaustion, attitudes that tend to
depersonalize students, and low levels of personal accomplishment in
their work (Farber, 1991; Friedman, 2000; Maslach et al., 1996). This
collection of symptoms has serious implications for teachers themselves,
and for school systems. Teachers who are experiencing burnout are also
at risk of increased physical and mental health problems and even
problems outside of work such as in their marital relationships (e.g.
Guglielmi and Tatrow, 1998; Kyriacou and Sutcliffe, 1978; Pierce and
Molloy, 1990). School systems suffer because of increased teacher absen-
teeism and because stress contributes to teachers’ wish to leave the
profession (Weisberg and Sagie, 1999). Thus, maintaining consistency
and quality in the educational environment is a major organizational
problem. Although many of these data are correlational, studies with a
longitudinal element also show that burnout predicts teacher problems
and absenteeism over time (Burke and Greenglass, 1995).
Due to these consequences of teacher burnout, there has been
considerable research attention given to understanding salient risk
factors. One factor found in many studies to be associated with teacher
burnout is the extent of student misbehaviour. Several researchers have
found that teachers spontaneously identify student misbehaviour as a
source of stress (e.g. Blase, 1982). Furthermore, there is often a significant
association between student misbehaviour and teacher burnout in
correlational studies (e.g. Borg and Riding, 1991; Byrne, 1994; Lamude et
al., 1992; Whiteman et al., 1985), and comparisons between high and low
burnout teachers have also shown that pupil misbehaviour is associated
with high levels of teacher-reported burnout (Pierce and Molloy, 1990).
However, in studies where other potential sources of teacher stress
(especially organizational variables such as support from managers, role
ambiguity and administrative pressures) are included alongside student
variables in regression analyses, student misbehaviour rarely emerges as
the strongest predictor (e.g. Hart et al., 1995; Kyriacou, 1987).
These research findings suggest that the relationship between student
misbehaviour and teacher burnout needs to be explored in more detail.
In particular, research to date has rarely considered the direct relation-
ship between student misbehaviour and teacher well-being. Typically,
research addressing a putative relationship between student
misbehaviour and teacher burnout has included misbehaviour as one of
a range of student-related stressors. Thus, teachers are asked to report
on how stressful they find disruptive behaviour in the classroom and also
to report their feelings of burnout. Teachers who find misbehaviour more

116
 Hastings and Bham: Student Behaviour and Teacher Burnout
stressful also report more burnout. In such research, a more direct
measure of student misbehaviour is not included.
Friedman (1995) developed such a direct measure in order to overcome
a difficult methodological problem. This problem relates to the fact that
teachers come into contact with a whole classroom of children rather
than a single child. Therefore, the extent of misbehaviour needs to be
measured at the classroom level. Friedman developed the Pupil Behaviour
Patterns scale (PBP) via which teachers rate the behaviour of the
children in their classroom on three dimensions: disrespect, attentiveness
and sociability. Disrespectful student behaviour was the strongest
predictor of burnout in the two samples reported by Friedman.
Interestingly, students themselves also identified disrespectful
behaviours as the most likely to disturb or irritate their teachers
(Friedman, 1995). Thus, there is some more direct evidence that negative
classroom behaviour is associated with teacher burnout.
Friedman (1995) used an adapted version of the Maslach Burnout
Inventory (Maslach et al., 1996) that included the exhaustion and
accomplishment components but not the depersonalization component.
For the sample of Israeli primary school teachers in Friedman’s study,
data were presented on the differential relationships between dimensions
of burnout and dimensions of student classroom behaviour. Specifically,
emotional exhaustion burnout was predicted by disrespect and sociability,
and accomplishment was predicted by disrespect and attentiveness.
The purpose of the present study was a partial replication of Fried-
man’s (1995) research. Specifically, three issues were addressed. First,
Friedman did not report construct validity data for the PBP. Thus, we
conducted a factor analysis for the scale in a sample of primary school
teachers. Second, we explored which dimensions of student behaviour
were related to burnout dimensions in British teachers. These relation-
ships may well vary across cultures and thus differences could be seen
between British and Israeli teachers. In addition, Friedman’s study did
not include the depersonalization domain of burnout and these feelings
may or may not also be related to dimensions of student behaviour in
the classroom. Finally, in exploring these relationships we also included
some demographic and work variables in order to elucidate more
clearly the unique contribution of student behaviour to teacher burn-
out.

Methods

Participants
One hundred regular classroom teachers participated in the research.
These teachers all worked in state-funded schools for children between

117
 School Psychology International (2003), Vol. 24(1)
the ages of four and 11 years (‘Primary’) in the south of England. The
majority of the teachers were female (88 percent), were on average 35.9
(SD = 8.4) years of age and had been working as teachers in primary
education for an average of 110 months (SD = 92.4). In addition to
primary responsibility for a class of children, the sample had an average
of 1.4 (SD = 1.1) other responsibilities within the school (e.g. leading the
management of an aspect of the curriculum, being part of the school
management team, serving as the deputy headteacher, co-ordination of
special educational needs, sports coach).

Materials
Teachers completed a questionnaire with three main sections. The first
section focused on demographic details (see Participants), and the
remaining two addressed the key study variables.

Student behaviour in the classroom. The nature of student behaviour

in the teacher’s classroom was measured using the PBP questionnaire
(Friedman, 1995). This questionnaire was originally designed to consist
of three sub-scales. The disrespect scale contains 11 items that focus on
typical student negative behaviour patterns as observed by the teacher
(e.g. ‘Students in my class answer me back’, ‘Students in my class pick
on one another’). The attentiveness scale contains eight items and
includes a number of positive behaviours (e.g. ‘Students are co-operative
and enthusiastic during my class’, ‘Students in my class concentrate and
work quietly’). The sociability scale also contains eight items focusing on
positive behaviours (e.g. ‘Students in my class talk to me about what
worries them and what makes them happy’, ‘Students in my class help
weaker, less popular students on their own initiative’). Teachers are
asked to respond to each item by indicating the frequency (on a four-point
scale from ‘never’ to ‘very frequently’) with which each behaviour is
displayed by the children in their classroom. In the original report on this
scale (Friedman, 1995), reliability for these three scales was good
(Cronbach’s alpha for disrespect = 0.87; sociability = 0.81; attentiveness
= 0.85).

Burnout Inventory. The educator version of the Maslach Burnout

Inventory (MBI – Maslach et al., 1996) was used as the measure of
teacher distress in the present study. This was chosen in preference to
other measures of stress mainly because the MBI addresses specifically
the feelings of teachers working in education settings. Using seven-point
fully-anchored scales ranging from ‘never’ to ‘every day’, teachers rate 22
statements addressing their feelings about their job which contribute to
three sub-scale scores: depersonalization (development of negative and
cynical attitudes toward children – e.g. ‘I treat some students as if they

118
 Hastings and Bham: Student Behaviour and Teacher Burnout
were impersonal objects’); emotional exhaustion (teachers feeling that
they have little left to give, at a psychological level, to their work – e.g.
‘I feel emotionally drained from my work’), and lack of personal
accomplishment (teachers evaluate themselves and their accomplish-
ments negatively – e.g. not feeling that ‘I have accomplished many
worthwhile things in this job’).
These three burnout dimensions in educators have been confirmed in
factor analytic studies (Gold, 1984; Iwanicki and Schwab, 1981), and
reliability data also indicate high levels of internal consistency for the
three sub-scales (Maslach et al., 1996). A note on the interpretation of
scores on the MBI is worthwhile at this point. Burnout would be defined
as the presence of high scores on the emotional exhaustion and
depersonalization scales but as the presence of low scores on the personal
accomplishment scale. That is, burnout is related to a lack of feelings of
personal accomplishment in one’s work.

Procedure
Teachers were recruited by approaching headteachers in primary schools
in a number of areas across the south of England. In total, teachers from
33 schools were invited to participate in the research. Of the 320
questionnaires distributed by headteachers to their staff, 105 were
returned (a response rate of 33 percent). Five questionnaires were
incomplete and were not included in the analyses reported below. No
data are available on non-responders, although the demographic data
appear to be reasonably representative of the teachers working in the
schools sampled.

Results

Level of burnout in the sample

Before the main analyses, mean scores for the present sample of teachers
on the scales of the MBI were compared with data from the MBI manual
(Maslach et al., 1996), and with data from a recent study of British
teachers in special education (Hastings and Brown, 2002) (see Table 1).
Levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization burnout were
slightly higher than teachers and teaching assistants in British special
education contexts, but personal accomplishment scores were much
higher indicating more positive feelings and less burnout. Burnout
scores from the present sample were similar to those obtained from US
teachers in the MBI normative data, although depersonalization burnout
was much lower in the present sample. Although direct comparisons are
difficult, these data suggest that the present sample had neither
particularly high or low levels of burnout.

119
 School Psychology International (2003), Vol. 24(1)
Table 1 Mean burnout scores
Present Special MBI Teacher
Sample Education Norms

MBI Scale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Emotional Exhaustion 23.42 10.29 18.82 11.35 21.25 11.01

Depersonalization 4.57 4.33 4.07 4.53 11.00 6.19
Personal Accomplishment 37.22 6.37 17.69 14.03 33.54 6.89

Factor analysis of the PBP

Although the present data did not quite meet a widely accepted criterion
of five cases to each item for factor analysis (Floyd and Widaman, 1995),
several experts have argued that a cases:items ratio of as low as 2:1 can
be sufficient for a robust analysis (Kline, 1994). Therefore, the items of
the PBP were subject to factor analysis in order to explore dimensions of
student behaviour in the classroom as perceived by British teachers.
Before analysis, positively phrased items were reverse-scored so that
higher scores on each item related to misbehaviour.
The data were first examined to establish their suitability for factor
analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was
good at 0.837. The Bartlett Test of Sphericity was highly significant (test
value = 1433.54, p < 0.001), indicating that the correlation matrix was
not an identity matrix. Initial statistics from a principal components
analysis were used to draw a scree plot. This indicated a clear change in
the steepness of the curve at three factors. This scree test method
(Cattell, 1978) for the selection of an appropriate number of factors for
extraction is generally considered to be the most suitable technique
(Kline, 1994). The analysis then proceeded using principal component
analysis with extraction of three factors, and rotation using the varimax
procedure. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2.
The three factors that emerged from the analysis represented essen-
tially the same three dimensions of student behaviour suggested by
Friedman (1995): disrespect (11 items, accounting for 20 percent of the
variance); lack of sociability (eight items, accounting for 16.4 percent of
the variance) and lack of attentiveness (eight items, accounting for 15.8
percent of the variance). Items loading at 0.45 or above on the three
factors were considered as contributing to domains of student behaviour
as long as they did not load above this level on another factor. Two items
from Friedman’s original disrespect scale loaded in this sample on the
lack of attentiveness factor (‘I demand silence in class and students go
on making noise’, and ‘Students in my class all speak at the same time,
which makes a lot of noise’). Two items from Friedman’s attentiveness

120
 Hastings and Bham: Student Behaviour and Teacher Burnout
Table 2 Factor analysis of the pupil behaviour patterns scale
Factor Loadings

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Derisive of one another 0.731 –0.006 0.329

Answer me back 0.728 0.114 0.106
Pick on one another 0.695 –0.045 0.154
Do not treat me with respect 0.664 0.225 0.037
Pleased if another student fails 0.663 0.039 0.106
When I reprimand, students interrupt 0.643 0.083 0.317
Students are indifferent 0.618 0.171 0.176
Students complain about me ignoring them 0.602 0.008 –0.153
Quarrel with one another 0.594 –0.062 0.440
Interrupt one another 0.569 –0.028 0.364
Co-operative and enthusiastic* 0.507 0.367 0.393
Students miss me* 0.251 0.798 –0.045
Students say school is fun* 0.285 0.736 0.087
Parents say that children enjoy my classes* 0.169 0.723 0.149
Students volunteer to clean the classroom* 0.020 0.699 –0.053
Talk to me about what worries them* –0.020 0.676 0.226
Discuss their personal problems with me* –0.136 0.666 0.087
Help weaker students on own initiative* 0.180 0.564 0.346
Students volunteer to work in the library etc* –0.173 0.465 0.222
Concentrate and work quietly* 0.233 –0.020 0.751
Students understand what I am teaching* 0.114 0.333 0.718
Show good command of material I give* 0.144 0.322 0.657
Listen to one another* 0.417 0.163 0.644
Give interesting and original answers* 0.031 0.439 0.605
Work independently at school and home* 0.024 0.307 0.593
Talk at the same time 0.439 –0.145 0.565
Students make noise when I ask for silence 0.419 –0.056 0.511

*Reverse-scored items
Items loading significantly onto each factor shown in bold type.

scale instead loaded on the disrespect factor in the present sample

(‘Students are co-operative and enthusiastic during my class’, and
‘Students in my class are indifferent, and I have to work hard to get them
interested’.
The reliability of the scales formed as a result of the factor analysis was
explored using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient as a measure of internal
consistency. These values were all high and very similar to those found
in Friedman’s study (disrespect = 0.88; lack of sociability = 0.84; lack of
attentiveness = 0.85). Scores on the three dimensions were derived by
summating the ratings on constituent individual items. Correlations
between the three scales created also confirmed that the dimensions
identified were relatively independent of each other, although there was

121
 School Psychology International (2003), Vol. 24(1)
Table 3 Results of regression analysis of burnout scores
Emotional Depersonalization Personal
exhaustion accomplishment

Predictor variable β p β p β p

Teacher gender –0.091 0.361 0.093 0.339 0.076 0.438

Teacher age 0.043 0.667 0.183 0.063 0.001 0.994
Length of teaching
experience –0.100 0.393 –0.110 0.336 –0.081 0.481
Number of additional
responsibilities 0.327 0.006 0.093 0.413 –0.104 0.362
Student disrespect 0.256 0.037 0.315 0.009 –0.137 0.250
Student lack of
sociability 0.126 0.250 0.232 0.031 –0.308 0.005
Student lack of
attentiveness 0.027 0.833 0.001 0.995 –0.084 0.505
2
Total R 0.18 0.22 0.21

Significant effects shown in bold type.

a moderate relationship between disrespect and lack of attentiveness (r

= 0.60; lack of attentiveness – lack of sociability = 0.41; lack of sociabilty
– disrespect = 0.24).

Regression analysis of teacher burnout

Demographic and work variables (teacher gender, age, experience, and
additional responsibilities) were entered simultaneously into regression
analyses alongside the three dimensions of student classroom behaviour
to predict each of the dimensions of burnout. The results of these
analyses are summarized in Table 3. There was little impact of
demographic and work variables, with only the number of additional
responsibilities emerging as a significant independent predictor for
emotional exhaustion burnout. The three domains of student classroom
behaviour differentially predicted the burnout scores. Emotional
exhaustion burnout was predicted by disrespect, depersonalization
scores were also predicted by student disrespect but also by the lack of
sociable student behaviour, and personal accomplishment was predicted
by the lack of sociable behaviour in the classroom (i.e. the absence of
sociable behaviour was related to less personal accomplishment).

Discussion
In the present study, we found evidence supportive of good psycho-
metric properties for the PBP (Friedman, 1995). Although Friedman

122
 Hastings and Bham: Student Behaviour and Teacher Burnout
did not develop the scale using factor analysis techniques, our explora-
tory factor analysis identified three factors that had a very high degree
of overlap with the PBP sub-scales. Furthermore, scales derived from
the factor analysis had high levels of internal consistency and repres-
ented relatively independent dimensions of student behaviour in the
classroom. Due to the lack of other factor analytic studies allowing
more direct comparison, it is not possible to conclude unequivocally
that student behaviour in the classroom as perceived by teachers has
a similar dimensional structure across cultures. However, our data
suggest that this may be the case in relation to British and Israeli
teachers. Further cross-cultural studies of this issue are needed.
The regression analyses also supported the findings of previous
research suggesting an association between student behaviour and
teacher burnout. These data represent one of a small number of studies
where direct measurement of student behaviour is made. There was also
further support for Friedman’s (1995) findings that dimensions of
student behaviour in the classroom are differentially related to dimensions
of burnout. However, the pattern of prediction for British teachers’
burnout was different to that found in Friedman’s research. Again, it is
tempting to conclude that this may indicate a cross-cultural difference:
that teachers in the UK and Israel are affected by different dimensions
of student behaviour. However, there are at least two key methodological
differences between the studies that make this conclusion somewhat
premature. First, the burnout measure used was not identical in each
study. Second, in our analysis we also controlled for a small number of
demographic and work variables. The effects of student behaviour on
teacher burnout are thus independent of these variables as well as the
remaining dimensions of student behaviour. In Friedman’s analysis, the
effect of one dimension of student behaviour was analysed only as
independent of the remaining dimensions of student behaviour. However,
the results of our research and Friedman’s are suggestive of cross-
cultural differences that should be addressed in future research.
There are a number of further methodological issues that should be
borne in mind when interpreting the results of the present research.
First, there are no data on the validity of the PBP. In particular, it is
unclear whether the behaviours rated by teachers reflect actual student
behaviour in the classroom. Given the encouraging reliability data,
further psychometric studies of the PBP are warranted. Second, the
response rate in the present study was not high. Thus, the sample may
have been biased perhaps towards teachers experiencing lower levels of
burnout. This has implications for the representativeness of the findings.
Third, teachers reported both on their students’ behaviour and on their
burnout leading to the problem of shared method variance. Thus, studies
with independent measurement of student behaviour are needed. This

123
 School Psychology International (2003), Vol. 24(1)
could be accomplished using observations of student behaviour or the
reports of another person familiar with the teacher’s class (e.g. a
teaching assistant).
A fourth methodological issue relates to the cross-sectional nature of
the data. Although our discussion has implied that student behaviour is
a causal factor in teacher burnout, the data are not appropriate for
drawing such a conclusion. Prospective studies of student behaviour and
teacher burnout are a priority for the future. It is possible that poor
behaviour in the classroom is caused by teacher burnout which is driven
by other variables. The salience of other variables also points to the final
methodological issue to be discussed. Only relatively small amounts of
the variance in teachers’ burnout self-reports were accounted for by their
perceptions of student behaviour in the classroom and the demographic
and work variables included in the present study. The potential impact
of student behaviour needs to be explored in more detail alongside other
variables that have been found to predict teacher burnout, especially
personality and organizational factors.
Practically and theoretically speaking, the significant question is not
so much whether student behaviour predicts teacher burnout but if it
does, then how or why does this occur. More focused theory and research
is needed to address this question. For example, recent data suggest that
teacher self-efficacy in their ability to manage the classroom and student
behaviour is an important factor. A number of studies have found
general associations between teacher self-concept variables and teacher
burnout (e.g. Anderson and Iwanicki, 1984; Chwalisz et al., 1992;
Friedman and Farber, 1992; Lunenburg and Cadavid, 1992; Parkay et
al., 1988), and the discrepancy between teachers’ perceptions of their
competence and satisfaction in the work role appears strongly predictive
of burnout (Friedman, 2000; Friedman and Farber, 1992). Furthermore,
longitudinal data show that teacher self-efficacy may play a causal role
in the development of burnout, especially depersonalization (Brouwers
and Tomic, 2000). However, few studies have explored teacher self-
efficacy and its impact on the putative relationship between student
behaviour and teacher burnout.
Recent data from the special education field may be especially relevant
to this discussion. In a sample of British teachers and teaching assistants,
Hastings and Brown (2002) found that the impact of teachers’ recent
exposure to aggressive student behaviour on burnout was moderated by
the strategies they used to cope with student behaviour. Those exposed
to more severe behaviour problems were at increased risk of emotional
exhaustion burnout if they also tended to use emotion-focused strategies
to cope with the effects of student behaviour.
Taken together, the research on teacher self-efficacy and coping
suggests that a number of psychological variables may be important in

124
 Hastings and Bham: Student Behaviour and Teacher Burnout
understanding how and why student behaviour affects teacher burnout.
More comprehensive theoretical models need to be developed that
include further salient factors such as teacher attributions (Bibou-
Nakou et al. 1999), and it is likely that these models will then identify
implications for practice in supporting teachers who work with difficult
children in the classroom. For example, boosting teacher self-efficacy in
training situations may help protect them against psychological problems
at work. Similarly, reducing teachers’ reliance on emotion-focused
coping strategies, perhaps by improving the social support available,
may help to alleviate stress and burnout for teachers dealing with the
most difficult student behaviour.
In terms of specific recommendations for the work of school
psychologists, there are three salient issues. First, the PBP appears to
be a reasonably robust measure and may have uses in the evaluation of
school-based interventions focusing on student behaviour. Second, a link
(albeit a fairly weak one) between student behaviour and teachers’ well-
being has been confirmed. Thus, teachers will benefit from support
interventions that enable them to cope better with this aspect of their
work. This said, it is clear that factors other than student behaviour
affect teacher burnout (little of the variance in burnout scores was
accounted for by student behaviour patterns). Therefore, it is important
to address organizational variables that impact upon teacher well-being.
Finally, if support interventions for teachers focused on coping with
student behaviour are to be developed, key psychological variables may
be important targets for change. In particular, methods for boosting
teachers’ self-efficacy and encouraging problem-focused coping efforts
may have beneficial effects in reducing the negative impact of student
behaviour on teachers.

References
Anderson, M.B. and Iwanicki, E.F. (1984) ‘Teacher Motivation and Its Relation-
ship to Burnout’, Educational Administration Quarterly 20: 94–132.
Bibou-Nakou, I., Stogiannidou, A. and Kiosseoglou, G. (1999) ‘The Relation
Between Teacher Burnout and Teachers’ Attributions and Practices Regard-
ing School Behaviour Problems’, School Psychology International 20: 209–17.
Blase, J.J. (1982) ‘A Social-Psychological Grounded Theory of Teacher Stress
and Burnout’, Educational Administration Quarterly 18: 93–113.
Borg, M.G. and Riding, R.J. (1991) ‘Towards a Model for the Determinants of
Occupational Stress among Schoolteachers’, European Journal of Psychology
of Education 6: 355–73.
Brouwers, A. and Tomic, W. (2000) ‘A Longitudinal Study of Teacher Burnout
and Perceived Self-Efficacy in Classroom Management’, Teaching and Teacher
Education 16: 239–53.
Burke, R.J. and Greenglass, E. (1995) ‘A Longitudinal Study of Psychological
Burnout in Teachers’, Human Relations 48: 187–202.

125
 School Psychology International (2003), Vol. 24(1)
Byrne, B.M. (1994) ‘Burnout: Testing for the Validity, Replication, and Invari-
ance of Causal Structure across Elementary, Intermediate, and Secondary
Teachers’, American Educational Research Journal 31: 645–73.
Cattell, R.B. (1978) The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis. New York: Plenum
Press.
Chwalisz, K., Altmaier, E.M. and Russell, D.W. (1992) ‘Causal Attributions, Self-
Efficacy Cognitions, and Coping with Stress’, Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology 11: 377–400.
Farber, B.A. (1991) Crisis in Education: Stress and Burnout in the American
Teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Floyd, F. and Widaman, K.F. (1995) ‘Factor Analysis in the Development and
Refinement of Clinical Assessment Instruments’, Psychological Assessment
7: 286–99.
Friedman, I.A. (1995) ‘Student Behavior Patterns Contributing to Teacher
Burnout’, Journal of Educational Research 88: 281–89.
Friedman, I.A. (2000) ‘Burnout in Teachers: Shattered Dreams of Impeccable
Professional Performance’, Journal of Clinical Psychology 56: 595–606.
Friedman, I.A. and Farber, B.A. (1992) ‘Professional Self-Concept as a Predictor
of Teacher Burnout’, Journal of Educational Research 86: 28–35.
Gold, Y. (1984) ‘The Factorial Validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory in a
Sample of California Elementary and Junior High School Classroom Teach-
ers’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 44: 1009–16.
Guglielmi, R.S. and Tatrow, K. (1998) ‘Occupational Stress, Burnout, and Health
in Teachers: A Methodological and Theoretical Analysis’, Review of Educa-
tional Research 68: 61–99.
Hart, P.M., Wearing, A.J. and Conn, M. (1995) ‘Conventional Wisdom is a Poor
Predictor of the Relationship Between Discipline Policy, Student Misbehav-
iour and Teacher Stress’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 65: 27–
48.
Hastings, R.P. and Brown, T. (2002) ‘Coping Strategies and the Impact of
Challenging Behaviors on Special Educators’ Burnout’, Mental Retardation
40: 148–56.
Iwanicki, E.F. and Schwab, R.L. (1981) ‘A Cross-Validational Study of the
Maslach Burnout Inventory’, Educational and Psychological Measurement
41: 1167–74.
Kline, P. (1994) An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. London: Routledge.
Kyriacou, D. (1987) ‘Teacher Stress and Burnout: An International Review’,
Educational Research 29: 146–52.
Kyriacou, C. and Sutcliffe, J. (1978) ‘Teacher Stress: Prevalence, Sources, and
Symptoms’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 48: 159–67.
Lamude, K.G., Scudder, J. and Furno-Lamude, D. (1992) ‘The Relationship of
Student Resistance Strategies in the Classroom to Teacher Burnout and
Teacher Type-A Behavior’, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 7:
597–610.
Lunenburg, F.C. and Cadavid, V. (1992) ‘Locus of Control, Pupil Control
Ideology, and Dimensions of Teacher Burnout’, Journal of Instructional
Psychology 19: 13–22.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E. and Leiter, M.P. (1996) The Maslach Burnout
Inventory Manual, 3rd edn. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Parkay, F.W., Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S. and Proller, N. (1988) ‘A Study of the
Relationship among Teacher Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Stress’, Journal
of Research and Development in Education 21: 13–22.

126
 Hastings and Bham: Student Behaviour and Teacher Burnout
Pierce, C.M. and Molloy, G.N. (1990) ‘Psychological and Biographical Differ-
ences between Secondary School Teachers Experiencing High and Low Levels
of Burnout’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 60: 37–51.
Weisberg, J. and Sagie, A. (1999) ‘Teachers’ Physical, Mental, and Emotional
Burnout: Impact on Intention to Quit’, Journal of Psychology 133: 333–39.
Whiteman, J.L., Young, J.C. and Fisher, M.L. (1985) ‘Teacher Burnout and the
Perception of Student Behavior’, Education 105: 299–305.

127