2020 Mathews Leslie Dissertation
2020 Mathews Leslie Dissertation
GRADUATE COLLEGE
A DISSERTATION
Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
By
LESLIE A. MATHEWS
Norman, Oklahoma
2020
SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS: AN EVALUATION OF STRESS, COPING
STRATEGIES, AND THE IMPACT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
Ellen, Becca, and Natalie Mathews. You have all sustained me on this difficult journey
and cheered me to success. I love you with all my heart. This work is for you.
iv
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not be possible without the exceptional faculty at the
personally by these fine men and women throughout my entire degree program. I would
first like to acknowledge my dissertation committee, Dr. Corey Peltier, Dr. Maeghan
Hennessey, Dr. Ben Heddy, and Dr. John Jones, for their significant contributions of
deal about scientific research and life, in general, from these excellent faculty members. I
especially want to thank my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Corey Peltier, for his
guidance through each stage of this process. He has answered countless emails late at
night and on weekends, helped me understand data, and edited my work quickly and
carefully. He has provided perspective I have desperately needed when this process has
seemed overwhelming. Most of all, he has seen me through to the finish line.
University of Oklahoma, thank you for sharing the journey of hard work, dedication, and
the pursuit of knowledge with me. A special thanks to my dear friends, Kim Osmani and
Joshua Pulos, for providing an example of the highest level of academic rigor which has
administration and colleagues at Grove School, thank you giving me the opportunity to
pursue my dream of a Ph.D. It has truly been a joy to be a member of the Grove family
for the past four years. Thank you for supporting me by participating in one of my many
v
me out the door when the afternoon bell rang so I would get to class on time. My
experiences as a special education teacher and administrator at Grove School have been
both rewarding and challenging, yet for better or worse, they have shaped me into the
educator and advocate for students with disabilities that I am today. For these things, I am
extremely grateful.
Becca, and Natalie for believing in me when I didn’t believe in myself. You have all
eaten endless amounts of take-out, cleaned the house, and been understanding when I had
to miss events for the pursuit of my Ph.D. You have been a constant source of
encouragement and love, helping me more than I could possibly give you credit for here.
I also want to thank my parents, Bob and Bonnie Seifert, and in-laws, Richard and Sue
Dobbs, for faithfully praying for me and supporting all of my endeavors, no matter how
crazy they seem. You have each given me guidance, advice, and encouragement just
Above all, thanks be to my God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who has given me all
the gifts, abilities, and resources I have needed to finish this work. May I be found
faithful in giving Him glory for any of my accomplishments, for apart from Him I can do
vi
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... v
vii
Survey Development .......................................................................................... 43
Limitations....................................................................................................... 103
viii
Appendix D: Paquette and Rieg (2016) Original Survey .............................................. 142
ix
List of Tables
Tables Page
x
List of Figures
Figures Page
xi
Abstract
which may induce stress. Stress is identified as a significant predictor for negative
outcomes for special education teachers including poor teacher performance, negative
teacher attrition. A survey of 854 special education teachers in Oklahoma reported job-
related stressors, coping strategies, and level and importance of administrative support.
Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the frequency in which teachers reported job-
related stressors, coping strategies, and level and importance of administrative support.
Special education teachers rated their overall job-related stress on a Likert-type scale with
elevated stress levels. Survey respondents reported job stressors, coping strategies, and
greatest extent. Results indicated: top job-related stressors were “excessive workload” (M
= 3.77) and “required paperwork” (M = 3.75); top coping strategies were “support from
family, friends, and colleagues” (M = 3.41) and “relaxing after school hours” (M = 2.88);
top extent of administrative support were “provides materials and resources needed to do
top importance of administrative support were “provides materials and resources needed
to do my job” (M = 4.67) and “shows genuine concern for my program and students” (M
confirmatory factor analysis. The resulting fit indicated: CFI (0.991), RMSEA (0.055),
xii
Chapter 1
Introduction
Special education teachers face a variety of demands and challenges on the job
which increases the likelihood of stress (Wheeler & LaRocco, 2009). Evidence suggests
stress is correlated with a decrease in job performance for special education teachers by
reducing teaching quality and student engagement (Wong, Ruble, Yu, & McGrew, 2017).
from excessive stress including depletion, fatigue, decreased confidence, and even
increased health problems (Embich, 2001; Matheny, Gfroerer, & Harris, 2000;
Wisniewski & Gargiulo, 1997). It is crucial to recognize the malleable factors that impact
stress (i.e., either increase or reduce) for special education teachers. In doing so, experts
in the field can design systems and allocate job responsibilities that reduce stress, and
provide support in building effective coping skills for the overall well-being of special
education teachers and the success of their students. Special education teachers who
prioritize coping strategies, such as self-care, have increased retention rates and improved
Individualized Education Program (IEP) goal attainment for their students with
disabilities (Brunsting, Sreckovic, & Lane, 2014; Irvin, Hume, Boyd, McBee, & Odom,
2013; Ruble & McGrew, 2013). Once job-related stressors and appropriate coping
strategies are identified, administrators are empowered to best support their special
education teachers and thereby, increase positive outcomes for both teachers and
students.
1
Statement of the Problem
For decades, stress has been identified as a major predictor for negative outcomes
for special education teachers (Farber, 1984; Zabel & Zabel, 1983). Yet job-related stress
(Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Due to special education teacher attrition, school district
leadership unfortunately must turn their focus on teacher recruitment and induction, often
being put in the position to hire unqualified personnel (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008).
According to Billingsley (2004), “One of the most important challenges in the field of
that sustain special educators’ involvement and commitment” (p. 39). The challenges
associated with working conditions and teacher attrition have been a source of concern
for scholars for several decades (e.g., Billingsly, 2004); however, they continue to be
significant problem areas in the field of special education (Bettini et al., 2016; Bettini et
al., 2020). The work environment of special education teachers plays an important role in
job satisfaction and retention (Billingsley, 2004), yet teachers consistently report highly
stressful working conditions (Leithwood & McAdie, 2007). When stress exceeds the
special education teachers’ available resources and ability to adequately cope, it leads to
burnout and teacher attrition (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006). It is detrimental to
the school systems and students with disabilities when special education teachers leave
the profession due to chronic job-related stress (Wong et al., 2017). Retaining special
education teachers is more difficult because the duties involved in their jobs are more
stressful than duties of general education teachers (Bettini et al., 2017c). Special
2
education teachers who expressed the highest intent to leave the profession were those
with higher levels of education because they have better career alternatives; those with
minimal experience because they have less invested in their careers, and are, therefore,
more mobile; and those from minority groups since teachers of color are more likely to
teach in urban settings where teaching conditions are often more stressful (Cross &
Billingsley, 1994).
Special education teachers are more likely to leave the field of education than
their general education teacher counterparts. The attrition rate for special education
teachers is 17.1%. (Goldring, Taie, & Riddles, 2014), which is 46% higher than attrition
Administrators in school systems are faced with a significant problem of retaining highly
qualified special education teachers in the classroom because special education teachers
are unsatisfied with their work and often have preconceived intentions to leave their
positions (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Conroy, Alter, Boyd, & Bettini, 2014). The special
education teachers who are not highly qualified and certified, and a shortage of
Brownell, & Smith, 1999). Administrators will have a higher rate of retention if they can
employ special education teachers who are highly qualified and experienced, however,
due to high levels of stress in the job, these types of teachers are particularly difficult to
recruit and hire (Billingsley, 2004). This study aims to determine the stress-related factors
special education teachers experience as a direct result of their job and how they cope
with these job stressors. This information can help administrators improve working
3
conditions for special education teachers and increase special education teacher retention
rates.
The work of a special education teacher is stressful (Wheeler & La Rocco, 2009).
Special education teachers often go to work each day facing difficult situations and
2010). The stressors they encounter come in a wide variety of demands and
working conditions (Bettini et al., 2017c). Stress negatively affects teacher performance
by using either active or palliative coping strategies (Carton & Fruchart, 2014). When
these coping strategies are inadequate to manage the stress, special education teachers
experience emotional exhaustion, then ultimately burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter,
2001). This has led to approximately 17% of special education teachers leaving the field
annually (Goldring et al., 2014), which negatively impacts the academic and behavioral
teachers surveyed had intentions to leave their jobs to escape job-related demands (Kaff,
2004). These job-related demands are often variables which can be influenced by
strategies to special education teachers, stress levels can be decreased (Cancio et al.,
2018). Administrators and special education teachers can work together to minimize the
4
impact of stress to improve retention rates of highly qualified and experienced educators.
The long-term implications are that reducing stress will produce positive outcomes for
Research Purpose
This study investigated how job-related stress impacts special education teachers.
This was determined by identifying job stressors, coping strategies, and the level and
are vital to understand because excessive job-related stress can lead to special education
leave their jobs, because the knowledge and skills of highly qualified special education
teachers are extremely difficult to replace. The purpose of this study was to expand upon
current literature by addressing three distinct areas that impact overall special education
First, this study aimed to evaluate how special education teachers experience
stress in their work environment. This was determined as special education teachers rated
their overall level of stress and identified the job-related stress factors they experienced at
work. Special education teachers then identified how this stress manifested itself in their
lives either physically or emotionally. According to Bettini et al. (2017c), the demanding
nature of a special education teacher’s job is more difficult and stressful than that of
Next, the study investigated active and palliative coping strategies special
education teachers use to manage stress. Special education teachers identified the coping
5
strategies in which they currently and independently practice to address their own stress.
In a recent literature review of teacher attrition and retention by Billingsley & Bettini
(2019), it is documented that while the relationship between stress and teacher attrition
has been sufficiently studied (Billingsley, 2004), coping strategies have been mostly
overlooked.
This study also evaluated the extent and importance of administrative support on
special education teacher stress. Special education teachers identified the level of support
they received from their administrators along with how important that support was to
them. This current study identified the areas of administrative support which aid special
them manage their jobs and cope with the stress caused by the excessive demands of the
job.
factors (i.e., workload manageability, student behavior, working conditions, active coping
strategies, palliative coping strategies, accessibility, respect and appreciation, social and
determine if the items on the survey measured the latent factors included in the
theoretical model.
(2013), Cancio et al. (2018), and Paquette and Rieg (2016) on either special education
teacher stress, coping strategies, and administrative support were combined and adapted
to collect data on the types of stress special education teachers are experiencing, along
with coping strategies they find useful in managing the stress. Specific areas of stress
6
explored included issues with workload manageability, working conditions, and student
behavior. Active and palliative coping strategies were identified along with an
could potentially reduce job-related stress. Results from the adapted scale provided
Reducing stress can improve teacher wellness, working conditions, attrition rates,
and student outcomes (Ansley, Houchins, & Varjas, 2016). In order to retain qualified
understand how stress impacts teachers and identify key areas administrators can address
Research Questions
c. the active and palliative coping strategies they employ to reduce job-
related stress?
7
strategies, accessibility, social and emotional support, respect and appreciation,
(Figure 1)?
8
Figure 1
Theoretical Model
Role
Workload Working
Materials
Overload Manageability Conditions
Work/Life Time
Available
Balance
Admin
Approachable Lesson Support
Plans Student Discipline
decisions
Attentive IEPs, Behavior
FBAs, BIPs Working with
EBD students
Data
Sense of Managing
Collection
Importance Accessibility classroom
Shows Meetings
Appreciation Professional
Development
Clear job Coping
responsibilities Skills COPING
Legal
STRATEGIES
Policies
ADMINISTRATIVE Instruction
Respect and SUPPORT Behavior
Appreciation Techniques Active Palliative
Coping Coping
Strategies Strategies
Prescription
Problem Provisions Hobbies
Time Medication
Solve Social and
Dispute
Emotional Music
Eating or
Resources Sleeping
Resolution Support
Classroom Support/Trust Exercise Counseling
Management
9
Research Hypotheses
experience at work. It was hypothesized that the findings from the current study would
align with research literature which identified job-related stressors associated with
workload manageability, working conditions, and student behavior (Bettini et al., 2017c;
manifests itself in them personally. It was hypothesized that the findings from the current
study would align with research literature which identified physical and/or emotional
Hypothesis 3. Coping strategies will fall into two categories: active and palliative
(Carton & Fruchart, 2014). Active strategies are used to eliminate stress before it starts
(Carton & Fruchart, 2014). Palliative strategies are used primarily to avoid the effects of
stress and have been shown to be ineffective in stress reduction (Austin, Shah, & Muncer,
2005; Cancio et al., 2018; Carton & Fruchart, 2014). It was hypothesized special
education teachers often implemented palliative coping strategies due to highly stressful
Hypothesis 4. Special education teachers will report the extent of support they
received from their administrator and how important each type of support is to them and
their job. Administrators play an active role in reducing special education teacher stress
and promoting teacher retention (Albrecht et al. 2009; Leithwood & McAdie, 2007). In
10
similar studies, support from administrators has been found to decrease stress and
attrition, and offset the negative effects of stress caused by unmanageable workloads
(Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Miller, 1997; Cancio et al., 2013). It was hypothesized
special education teachers would report a difference in their perceived level of support
Hypothesis 5. Survey items were selected from existing surveys, current research
respect and appreciation, social and emotional support, professional development, and
provisions.
Definitions of Terms
The following definitions are provided for frequently used terms in this study.
2004).
before it starts, thereby relieving the pain by understanding the cause (Carton &
Fruchart, 2014).
11
• Burnout – Stress that exceeds a special education teacher’s resources and abilities
• Coping Strategies - Tools special education teachers use to manage the daily
pressures of their jobs. These strategies come in two categories: active and
constructed, personally enacted ways of being that emerge from conscious and/or
2006)
• Job-Related Stress - Feelings of stress which are associated with the necessary
responsibilities which can lead to chronic and persistent stress (Ansley et al.,
2016; Conderman & Katsiyannis, 2002). This can include job responsibilities
12
• Palliative Coping Strategies - Reactive strategies used to avoid the effects of
stress after it starts, thereby relieving the pain without dealing with the cause
• Role Ambiguity – Job responsibilities which are not well defined by supervisors
• Role Conflict – Competing demands and limited resources which prohibit special
education teachers from accomplishing the necessary work associated with their
tasks such as direct instruction in multiple subjects and grade levels, assessments,
Behavior Intervention Plans, lesson plans, and data collection. Special education
teachers often feel overwhelmed and exhausted by the excessive paperwork which
is labor intensive, time consuming and has limited perceived value (Kaff, 2004;
Mehrenberg, 2013).
13
• Stress - The accepted definition of stress used in this study is “an unpleasant
discipline decisions, and working with students with emotional and behavioral
disorders (Chaplain, 2008; Paquette & Rieg, 2016). Managing challenging student
behavior can often lead to special education teachers feeling overwhelmed and
meet the needs of a wide range of students with disabilities (Billingsley, 2004).
education teachers.
contribute to excessive stress levels for special education teachers (Austin et al.,
2005). These expectations can produce negative outcomes and problems with
14
overall wellness, mental health, job performance, attrition, and student outcomes
adequately accomplish the necessary tasks within the time allotted for the job
15
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
Teaching and learning involve complex emotions (Schutz & Lanehart, 2002).
Schutz et al. (2006) define emotions as “socially constructed, personally enacted ways of
being that emerge from conscious and/or unconscious judgments regarding perceived
of social-historical contexts” (p. 344). Schutz et al. (2006) describe these goals,
standards, and beliefs as a guide for teachers’ thoughts and activities in the educational
environment which serve as judgment points for determining their level of success.
parents, and students bring about a wide variety of emotions within the school setting
(Cross & Hong, 2012). According to Sutton and Wheatley (2003), these emotional
demands include the dichotomy of positive emotions (e.g., joy, pride, and excitement)
and negative emotions (e.g., anger, sadness, and stress). In order to successfully deliver
instruction, teachers must adequately manage the fluid emotions present in the learning
environment (Lee & Yin, 2011). Stress is considered an achievement emotion related to
the success and failure of an activity (Pekrun, 2006). Achievement emotions impact
demands at work, the emotion of stress they experience is correlated with their perception
of attaining goals and maintaining standards for their job (Schutz et al., 2006).
LaRocco, 2009), and stress has long been determined to be directly related to special
16
education teachers’ intention to leave the profession (Billingsley, 2004; Billingsley &
Cross, 1992; Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff, & Harniss, 2001; Miller et al., 1999; Morvant,
Gersten, Gillman, Keating, & Blake, 1995; Singh & Billingsley, 1996). When comparing
occupational stress across 25 diverse professions on three stress related variables (i.e.,
psychological well-being, physical health, and job satisfaction), teaching was identified
in the top six most stressful occupations (Johnson et al., 2005). Special education teachers
experience higher levels of stress than general education teachers (Lazuras, 2006). A
long-standing definition for stress from the field is “an unpleasant emotional experience
associated with elements of fear, dread, anxiety, irritation, annoyance, anger, sadness,
grief, and depression” (Motowidlo et al., 1986, p. 618). In a study by Cancio, et al.
(2018), the two highest indicators of special education teacher stress were work-related
teachers (Cancio et al., 2018). Wong and colleagues (2017) examined the effects of
teacher stress on students and found increased teacher stress reduced teaching quality and
student engagement. Other negative consequences of teacher stress included: (a) feelings
their ability to perform their job (Wisniewski & Gargiulo, 1997); (c) neglect of
responsibilities (George, George, Gersten & Grosenick, 1995); (d) loss of motivation; and
(e) increased health problems resulting in a higher occurrence of sick leave (Matheny et
al., 2000). The phenomenon of work-related stress includes the negative or painful
emotions (e.g., tension, anger, and depression) that are a direct result of the work of a
teacher (Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1977). Since stress is as an immediate reaction to specific
17
adverse or demanding events, stress that occurs on the job negatively influences teaching
academic success of students (Master, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2014). This is especially true
for special education teachers who work with students with disabilities (Rothstein, 2010).
the utmost importance to have an adequate supply of highly qualified special education
teachers (Boe, 2014; Conroy, et al., 2014). Regardless of the efforts to increase this
supply over the years (i.e., teacher preparation programs and professional development),
a chronic shortage of special education teachers still exists (Boe, 2014). Losing teachers
from the profession is even more troubling when compounded with the shortage of
qualified and experienced special education teachers because they are so difficult to
replace (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Special education teacher shortages, affected by the
low supply of qualified graduates and alarming attrition rates, can be attributed to stress
(Bergert & Burnette, 2001). Pre-service teacher candidates should receive instruction
during their teacher preparation programs in stress management to reduce burnout and
Boe & Cook (2006) indicated approximately 13% of special education teachers
leave the classroom each year; however, this attrition rate had risen to 17.1% only eight
years later. (Goldring et al., 2014). Due to teacher attrition, schools are forced to fill
Cook, and Sunderland (2007) indicates a decline in special education teachers with
18
degrees in special education between 1999-2000 and 2003-04. This decline is likely
attributed to special education teachers entering the field through an alternative teaching
route (Boe et al., 2007). Up to 10% of special education teachers in public schools are
lacking the necessary certification (Bettini, Cheyney, Wang, & Leko, 2015; Boe & Cook,
2006), and, in a study in 2003-2004, more than 55% of special education teachers in the
first five years of teaching did not hold a degree in special education (Boe et al., 2007).
Teachers that are under-prepared to work with students with disabilities are often
overwhelmed and tend to leave their jobs after short periods of time due to job demands
and stress (Adera & Bullock, 2010). Teacher turnover in special education has a negative
impact on students with disabilities because under-qualified teachers lack the necessary
educational background, training, and specialized skill sets when they enter their jobs
(Williams & Dikes, 2015). The combination of under-qualified personnel and high
emotional, and behavioral outcomes for students with disabilities and causes great
concern (Bettini et al., 2020; Leko & Smith, 2010; Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013).
negative outcomes for students with disabilities (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008; Wong et
al., 2017).
Stress in the workplace is prevalent at alarmingly high levels for special education
teachers, leading nearly 50% of surveyed teachers to express intentions to leave their
occupation to escape the demands of the job (Kaff, 2004). In a similar study by Morvant
et al. (1995) as many as 80% of the urban special education teachers who intended to
19
leave the field reported the source of the problem as experiencing high levels of stress on
a weekly or daily basis (Morvant et al., 1995). In 2012-13, the attrition rate for special
education teachers was 46% higher than attrition of elementary school general education
teachers are more likely to leave the field than veteran special educators (Billingsley,
2004). In a study of attrition in Illinois from 1987-2001, 75% of special educators within
the first five years of teaching exited their jobs to either leave the profession or transition
in the United States (McLeskey et al., 2004) with approximately 98% of the nation’s
school districts reporting a shortage of special education teachers (Fideler, Foster, &
Schwartz, 2000). Trends in special education teacher shortages have fluctuated over time;
with disabilities (Zabel & Zabel, 2001) coupled with a disproportionately smaller
increase of qualified special education teachers (McLeskey et al., 2004). According to the
disabilities has risen from 13% of the total student enrollment in 2000-01 to 14% in
responsible for more students than a general education teacher with a 1:17 teacher-to-
student ratio as compared to a 1:16 ratio for general education teachers (U.S. Department
of Education, 2020a). This is significant due to the increased workload per student for
20
Burnout in Special Education Teachers
In many cases, chronic and persistent stress for special education teachers leads to
burnout (Wong et al., 2017). Burnout occurs at the intersection of prolonged stress,
personality traits, and coping skills (Maslach et al., 2001). Burnout is most likely to occur
when job-related stress surpasses a teacher’s resources and ability to cope with the
situation (Hakanen et al., 2006; Mashlach et al., 2001). Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter
(1996) describe burnout as not only exhaustion, but cynicism and reduced job
performance. All teachers respond differently to stress; while some manage under the
pressure, others will experience burnout over time (Brunsting, et al., 2014; Farber, 2000).
Special education teachers need to be aware of the ill-effects of burnout to their career,
health, and students (Brunsting et al., 2014). Teachers who experience burnout and
remain in their current teaching positions are at risk for negative personal and student
outcomes (Williams & Dikes, 2015). Multiple factors are associated with job stress for
special education teachers that can lead to burnout, including lack of administrative
support, excessive paperwork, challenging student behavior, and role overload (Brunsting
et al., 2014).
There are multiple components that impact special education teacher stress. A
theoretical model was formulated to incorporate the major researched areas of the sources
of stress. These job stressors are divided into three main categories: workload
21
student behavior, addresses stress caused by student behavior including areas of
classroom management, discipline decisions, and working with students with emotional
and behavioral disorders (EBD). The last category is working conditions. The areas that
and diverse job responsibilities which must be managed on a daily basis (Ansley et al.,
2016; Emery & Vandenberg, 2010). Workload (e.g., required job tasks such as managing
emotional exhaustion. When special education teachers experience stress, they have a
declining sense of accomplishment due to the work associated with trivial, demanding,
and non-essential tasks (Embich, 2001; Zabel & Zabel, 1982). Workload manageability is
a teacher’s perception of his or her ability to adequately accomplish these necessary tasks
within the time allotted for the job (Bettini et al., 2017c). Work overload occurs when
there are excessive and varied responsibilities which must be accomplished, such as
direct instruction in multiple subjects and grade levels, assessments, paperwork, and
Special education teachers face unrealistic expectations when they encounter role
Unrealistic and overwhelming workloads are the most significant factor that contributes
to high stress for special education teachers (Austin et al., 2005). The high job demands
of a special education teacher can lead to problems with overall wellness, mental health,
job performance, attrition, and poor student outcomes (Ansley et al., 2016; Emery &
Vandenberg, 2010). While all teachers have to manage a significant workload, special
22
education teachers reported a higher level of stress associated with their workload than
general education teachers (Bettini et al., 2017c). According to Dean (2000), more than
40% of special education teachers report significant and serious symptoms of stress due
to their unrealistic workload, which led to chronic absences from work (Dean, 2000).
Role ambiguity and conflict. Role ambiguity and role conflict have been
identified as two significant types of role-related stressors for special education teachers
(Brunsting et al., 2014; Garwood, Werts, Varghese, & Gosey, 2018). Role ambiguity
occurs when a job is not well defined and the special education teacher is not sure of his
or her role (Brunsting et al., 2014). Role ambiguity includes confusion about job
conflict occurs when work cannot get accomplished because there are competing
demands and limited resources (Brunsting et al., 2014). These differing expectations,
goals, and directives make it challenging for special education teachers to have clarity in
personal accomplishment are common outcomes for special education teachers who
experience stress due to role ambiguity and role conflict (Reetz, 1987). Role confusion
along with role ambiguity and conflict, tend to overwhelm and frustrate special education
teachers, which can lead to attrition (Billingsley, 2004). Special education teachers need
to identify uncertainties in their roles and seek clarity in conflicts that occur within their
Special education teacher job duties have evolved and expanded over time (e.g.,
inclusive education and team teaching) creating a sense of role conflict in which special
education teachers are engaging in tasks that are very different from their expectations or
23
training (Singh & Billingsley, 1996). The instructional, curricular, and clerical
expectations that are placed upon special education teachers are larger and more
ambiguous than those of general education teachers (Zabel & Zabel, 2001). This makes
the job of a special education teacher more complex and overwhelming. Nearly one-third
of special education teachers reported high levels of stress from conflicting goals,
expectations, and directives (Morvant, 1995). Teachers need clarity when their positions
Role overload. The phenomenon of role overload occurs when the responsibilities
and expectations of a special education teacher outweigh the teacher’s available time,
abilities, or limitations (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). Special education teachers’
roles quickly become overloaded when their jobs become too diverse (Kaff, 2004). Job
satisfaction decreases when teacher roles are overloaded and teachers feel like their
Billingsley (2004) indicates overload often occurs for special education teachers in
regards to role problems, paperwork, plus student and caseload issues. Jobs become more
stressful when special education teachers are expected to perform duties beyond their
capacity, often tasks for which they are unprepared or which cannot be completed within
typical working hours (Garwood, et al., 2018). They struggle with feelings of inadequacy
when other teachers expect them to be an expert in too many areas particularly when they
are required to manage resource, inclusive, and consultative service delivery options
associated with the lack of perceived success, it can lead to high levels of stress and
negative outcomes for both the teacher and students (Johnson, 1990).
24
One aspect of role overload for special education teachers is managing large or
diverse caseloads (Billingsly, 2004). Large student caseloads have a significant impact on
stress for special education teachers due to the wide range of academic needs, complex
classroom teachers (Morvant et al., 1995). These overwhelming caseloads are reported to
make special education teachers feel less effective (Bettini, Park, Benedict, Kimerling, &
Leite, 2016). In a study on teacher attrition, 33% of special education teachers indicated
they left the profession due to a class size or caseload that was too large (Billingsley,
Pyecha, Smith-Davis, Murray, & Hendricks, 1995). Special education teachers also
struggle with diversity in caseloads. Teachers were reported to be 42% more likely to
leave their profession if they taught a caseload of students with four or more primary
and teacher retention is increased (Bettini et al., 2020). Administrators who provide more
such as paperwork and meetings, is a commonly reported problem (Zabel & Zabel,
2001). If teachers have adequate time allotted for paperwork, they have increased job
satisfaction (Albrecht et al., 2009). However, in a study conducted by Kaff (2004), 40%
of surveyed special education teachers indicated the feeling of being overwhelmed and
exhausted by the required paperwork associated with their jobs including individualized
plans, and data collection. Special education teachers have a negative perception of
25
required paperwork because it is labor intensive, time consuming, and has limited
perceived value (Mehrenberg, 2013). Suter and Giangreco (2009) report special
education teachers spend an average of five hours per week on paperwork. This leads
special education teachers to be greatly concerned that their students are cheated because
paperwork often has to take priority over teaching responsibilities (Kaff, 2004).
with the job of a special education teacher that are not related to teaching. Often, for
special education teachers, this includes tasks beyond classroom teaching responsibilities
which can lead to chronic and persistent stress (Ansley et al., 2016; Conderman &
Katsiyannis, 2002). This phenomenon creates frustration for special education teachers
when non-teaching assignments take priority over teaching (Mehrenberg, 2013). Non-
education teacher’s clear understanding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) and the ability to interpret these foundational tenets to parents and families
(Mandic, Rudd, Hehir, & Acevedo-Garcia, 2012). To ensure compliance with federal
law, special education teachers must fully adhere to the six principles: zero reject,
environment, procedural due process, and parent participation (Turnbull, Stowe, &
Huerta, 2007). When teachers are not fully informed of these principles and/or
26
inaccurately convey them to families, there is an increase of parents who file due process
complaints with the state department of education (Zirkel & Gischlar, 2008). According
to the 41st Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (2019), in 2016-17 a total of 18,490 due process complaints
were filed through the dispute resolution process. Stress for special education teachers
associated with the IEP process is compounded due to the many legal ramifications of
non-compliance.
Many times, parents feel unsupported and uninvolved in the IEP process because
special education teachers often prepare documents in advance leaving parents feel like
they do not have a voice in the outcomes of meetings (Stoner et al., 2005). Special
scheduling meetings, drafting documents, and conducting meetings which make special
education teachers appear rushed to parents (Stoner et al., 2005). Communication with
parents is a vital part of student achievement; however, it can be very demanding and
stressful for special education teachers (McGrath, Houghton, & Reid, 1989). Special
education teachers have elevated stress when they deal with parents who are verbally and
play a vital role in distributing the excessive workload of special education teachers by
behavior management, data collection, and instructional activities (Sharma & Salend,
27
2016; Mueller, 1997). Since these job tasks are so critical to student outcomes, it is
part of the responsibilities of a special education teacher, few training opportunities exist
in pre-service or in-service settings to prepare teachers for this role (Wallace, Shin,
workload, it also creates a new level of skill sets that special education teachers are
higher stress levels, emotional exhaustion, and reduces the likelihood of retention (Bettini
et al., 2020). This additional role and responsibility compounds stress for special
education teachers.
relationships with other teachers and service providers serve as an encouragement and
can even increase teacher retention (Gersten et al., 2001). A team approach where special
and job satisfaction (Berry, 2012). Special education teachers are required to coordinate
than any other teacher in the public school system. Some of the collaborative
relationships include (a) multiple general education teachers, (b) paraprofessionals, (c)
other special education teachers, (d) school counselors, (e) principals, (f) school
28
psychologists, (g) occupational therapists, (h) physical therapists, (i) speech language
pathologists, (j) nurses, (k) nutrition managers, (l) reading and/or math specialists, and
themselves and lack social support from their coworkers (Maslach & Jackson, 1984;
Maslach et al., 2001). Collaborative relationships reduce stress, clarify roles, and provide
supportive social context can have positive outcomes including decreased stress, job
satisfaction, and intention to stay (Bettini et al., 2017b; Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Singh
& Billingsley, 1996). Supportive interpersonal relationships among special education and
general education teachers can even increase teacher retention rates (Garwood et al.,
special education.
been sources of stress for teachers (Chaplain, 2008; Paquette & Rieg, 2016). In a survey
management and discipline. When working with students with emotional and behavioral
disorders, 65% of special education teachers were stressed some or most of the time
(Paquette & Rieg, 2016). Teachers report abusive students as also being a significant
source of stress (Dean, 2000). Stressors associated with student behavior have been
determined as the primary antecedent to teacher burnout and intention to leave the
profession (Chang, 2009). Special education teachers are often overwhelmed and feel
29
incapable of dealing with multiple students with behavioral problems simultaneously
teacher job satisfaction and increased motivation to produce high quality instruction
(Leithwood & McAdie, 2007). When special education teachers perceive their jobs as
low stress, there is an increase in positive outcomes including effective teaching, student
achievement, and job satisfaction (Cancio et al., 2018). Bettini and colleagues (2017a)
identified six working conditions which lead to improved outcomes: school culture,
However, working conditions, such as low salary, poor school climate, and lack
2004). Stress continues to escalate for special education teachers who experience
mistreatment from students, parents, and teachers, plus, they are expected to work outside
of school hours without additional compensation (Kaff, 2004). When working conditions
are unsatisfactory, problems begin to interact and overlap, which creates unmanageable
special education teachers reported they have inadequate time to complete their work.
teachers. Findings from their study indicated 40% of a special education teacher’s day is
spent in instructional activities, and 12% of each day was spent solely completing
paperwork. Special education teachers identified excessive workloads along with time
30
management problems in the top sources of job stressors (Adera & Bullock, 2010;
Paquette & Rieg, 2016; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2015). In a survey conducted by Paquette
and Rieg (2016), 83% of teachers were stressed by their workload, while 85% were
education teachers are forced to neglect responsibilities due to either a lack of time or
difficulty managing time (George et al., 1995). One of the key responsibilities special
education free of cost to all students with a disability, releasing their parents of the
financial burden for educating their child. Financial responsibility for providing the
special education and related services outlined in the IEP to the student with a disability
rests on the local education agency. Services and supports may not be denied because of
the financial burden to the school district (Yell, 2016). According to the National Center
additional 40% of the average per pupil expenditure (APPE) for each student with a
disability to cover the additional costs of special education, yet they have never met that
goal. The additional 40% goal was determined based on the assumption that the cost of a
specialized education for students with disabilities was on average double that of a non-
disabled student (National Education Association, 2018). When the federal government
does not fully fund special education programs, state agencies and local districts are
forced to cover the additional expenses incurred from educating students with disabilities
31
According to the National Education Association (2018), IDEA has never been
fully funded, plus there has been a consistent decline in the percentage of APPE
designated for special education students since 2009. In fiscal year 2009, public schools
received an additional 17.2% of the APPE for each eligible special education student,
however, that percentage has slowly declined to 14.6% in fiscal year 2017. When the
federal government and local education agencies fail to fully fund special education, the
burden for providing appropriate materials is often left to special education teachers.
Many teachers use personal funds to meet the needs of their students when the local
needs of a wide range of students with disabilities (Billingsley, 2004), which requires
by the lack of sufficient time allotted during the school day for planning lessons
(Albrecht et al., 2009). Inadequate planning time adds to special education teacher stress
and increases the likelihood many teachers will leave the profession (Bettini et al.,
2017b). Almost half (43%) of the teachers surveyed wanted more time to plan, consult,
and collaborate with the general education teachers (Kaff, 2004). Adequate planning time
is directly related to career intentions for special education teachers (Albrecht et al.,
2009; Bettini et al., 2017b), along with the continual demands of high stakes assessments,
which result in increased scrutiny and criticism of their job performance (Lambert &
McCarthy, 2006).
32
Manifestations of Stress
Physical. High job demands can lead to problems in the overall wellness of
special education teachers (Ansley et al., 2016; Waltz, 2016), including negative impacts
on the body from stressful events (Brackenreed, 2011). Special education teachers are
often physically fatigued and struggle to find sufficient coping resources to deal with
their stress (Matheny et al., 2000). Excessive workload, increased behavioral problems,
and large class sizes have also been shown to cause adverse physical symptoms in special
education teachers (Kunkulol et al., 2013). The symptoms include difficulties with blood
pressure, cholesterol, and muscle tension which can lead to significant health problems
(Brackenreed, 2011). On average teachers report a higher rate of sick day absences than
other professions in the public sector (Dean, 2000). The physical manifestations of stress
stress (Matheny et al., 2000) and described by Hakanen and colleagues (2006) as a
feeling of strain or chronic fatigue when one encounters overtaxing work. This state of
feeling emotionally drained is often a component of teacher burnout (Maslach & Jackson,
exhaustion over a period of five years (Frank & McKenzie, 1993). When a special
education teacher experiences long-term stress, it can lead to chronic mental health issues
which could, in turn, impact career intentions (Bettini et al., 2017c) and can also
negatively impact students’ social, emotional and academic outcomes (Brunsting et al.,
33
2014). Working conditions predict emotional exhaustion and the special education
Coping Strategies
Having adequate tools to manage the intensity of stressful events is important for
special education teachers (Griffith, Steptoe, & Cropley, 1999). Stressors cannot be
imperative that teachers learn strategies to help them manage their daily pressures (Waltz,
2016). The process of coping describes the means by which teachers react and deal with
daily challenges and problems (Parker & Martin, 2009). Coping strategies have been
found to help compensate for stress, and, thereby, maintain better overall health (Billings
& Moos, 1984; Ansley et al., 2016). Without adequate coping resources to deal with
enthusiasm for their jobs (Matheny et al., 2000) and may even experience a lack of
purpose associated with their work (Matheny et al, 2000). Special education teachers
need strategies of self-care and self-advocacy to better serve students and increase the
likelihood retention and success socially, emotionally, and academically (Brunsting et al.,
2014). Carton and Fruchart (2014) described coping strategies in two distinct categories:
Active coping strategies. Active coping strategies involve (a) the elimination of
the source of stress, (b) proactive strategies to avoid stress before it starts, and (c)
relieving the pain of stress by understanding the cause (Carton & Fruchart, 2014).
Teachers have been observed searching for solutions, seeking social support,
implementing time management strategies, and prioritizing work as active coping skills.
34
Other positive coping strategies identified include positive appraisal and planful problem
solving (Chan & Hui, 1995). Austin and colleagues (2005) recommend active coping
relaxing activity.
Often support can be found within the school setting, but special education
teachers must also prioritize self-care. In a survey conducted by Cancio et al. (2018), the
top ranked coping strategy for special education teachers was seeking support from
family, friends, and colleagues. Pullis (1992) identified 96% of special education teachers
used talking with colleagues as an effective approach for relieving stress. Similarly, early
career teachers found they coped with the stress of their jobs by engaging in relaxing
activities after school and depended on their friends for social support (Paquette & Rieg,
2016). Physical activities such as exercise (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2015), yoga, meditation,
and deep breathing have also been reported as successful coping skills for stress
reduction (Carton & Fruchart, 2014; Csaszar & Buchanan, 2015). In a study of work-
related stress reduction, physical exercise and stress management skills training were
both shown to decrease stress with the best results from the participants who received
both physical exercise and stress management training (Eriksen et al., 2002).
Special education teachers should actively seek support from their administrators
al., 2018). Pre-service teachers found it relieved stress of workload and time management
to organize, plan, create to-do lists, and keep a daily schedule (Paquette & Rieg, 2016).
35
education teachers provided coping skills and improved job satisfaction (Cooley &
Yovanoff, 1996).
the effects of stress (Carton & Fruchart, 2014). These involve reactive strategies which
are used to avoid the effects of stress after it starts. In essence, people attempt to relieve
the pain of stress without dealing with the actual cause (Carton & Fruchart, 2014). These
types of negative coping strategies are more likely to be used by teachers with high levels
of stress (Austin et al., 2005). Some palliative strategies are detrimental to physical and
emotional health (Chan & Hui, 1995). Examples of avoidance activities include activities
such as drinking alcohol or expressing negative emotions following stressful events have
been shown to be ineffective in reducing stress (Austin et al., 2005; Cancio et al., 2018)
and have even been significantly correlated with high levels of emotional exhaustion and
low personal achievement (Chan & Hui, 1996). In fact, some coping mechanisms, such
as eating, prescription medications, alcohol, and recreational drugs, have been found to
predict an increase in stress (Cancio et al., 2018; Pullis, 1992). According to Chan and
Hui (1996), teachers who use palliative strategies to escape stress are more prone to
burnout.
Administrative Support
special education teachers, it can positively impact their decision to stay in special
special education teacher attrition (Kaff, 2004). Early identification of stressors by school
36
administrators can help to minimize emotional exhaustion over time (Frank & McKenzie,
1993); therefore, administrators need to actively search for strategies to reduce stress on
working conditions to decrease stress for special education teachers (Kenyeri, 2002). The
areas of support special education teachers identified include time to adequately complete
paperwork, clear definition of job roles, and the provision of quality mentoring (Garwood
et al., 2018). Administrators must prioritize ways to relieve the workload of special
education teachers, especially those that are new to the field (Bettini et al., 2017c). The
highest level of support is attained when administrators monitor job satisfaction of their
special education teachers so they can continually adjust working conditions to relieve
acts of respect and appreciation, such as words of affirmation, professional treatment, and
Skill development. Special education teachers must receive targeted skill training
to be highly qualified and meet the demands of their jobs (Billingsley, Carlson, & Klein,
2004). Administrators must support skill development in their teachers to reduce stress
(Bettini et al., 2017a), and one way districts could address issues of stress in the
37
workplace is through quality professional development (Cancio et al., 2018). Targeted
training should be provided to teachers on how to manage their daily stress through
districts do not provide adequate training on self-care and stress, teachers can often apply
for outside professional development to help address these critical skills. Other skills
(Brunsting et al., 2014) to help increase special education teachers’ confidence when they
school (Bettini et al., 2015). Administrators can develop a schoolwide climate which
and personally developing relationships with their special education teachers (Bettini et
al., 2015). Teachers who work in environments that lack appropriate social interaction are
prone to increased stress (Engelbrecht, Oswald, Swart, & Eloff, 2003), because social
interactions amongst peers have been found to relieve symptoms of stress (Gillespie,
areas of student discipline is a key element to special education teachers feeling support
38
Purpose of the Study
There is a need to further investigate the increasing challenges associated with the
sequence of special education teacher stress, which can lead to emotional exhaustion,
then ultimately, burnout. This pattern often results in special education teachers leaving
the field, and, when coupled with the increasing shortage of qualified and experienced
special education teachers in the classroom, it can have a highly detrimental impact on
the success of special education programs across the nation. This study will expand upon
the current literature in the field of special education teacher stress by leading researchers
including Bettini and Cancio. Research by Bettini et al. (2020) focused on the impact of
teacher stress on a special education teachers’ intent to stay in the field and workload
education teacher stress and coping strategies, while Cancio et al. (2013) focused on
administrative support for teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders.
The purpose of this study was to investigate job-related stress for special
education teachers. First, this study aimed to identify how special education teachers
experienced stress in their workplace. This was determined by (a) how special education
teachers rated their level of stress and identified the stress-related factors they
experienced at work, (b) how this stress manifested itself in their lives, (c) the types of
coping strategies they personally employed to address the stress, and (d) the extent and
level of support which they received from their administrators. More specifically, it was
negatively impact special education teachers’ ability to perform required job duties. Both
39
active and palliative coping strategies were explored to identify ways in which stress is
being addressed.
factors (i.e., workload manageability, student behavior, working conditions, active coping
strategies, palliative coping strategies, accessibility, respect and appreciation, social and
determine if the items on the survey measured the latent factors included in the
theoretical model.
support was adapted from Cancio et al. (2018) and Cancio et al. (2013) to collect data on
the types of stress that special education teachers were experiencing, coping strategies
they found useful in managing the stress, and extent and importance of administrative
support.. The survey from Paquette & Rieg (2016) was adapted to collect information
regarding specific job stressors. Specific areas of job-related stress were explored
including issues with workload manageability, student behavior, and working conditions.
support, which could potentially reduce job-related stress. Results from the adapted scale
40
Chapter 3
Methodology
Prolonged and excessive stress is known to cause negative outcomes for special
education teachers and their students (Cancio et al, 2018). However, reducing stress can
improve teacher wellness, working conditions, attrition rates, and student outcomes
(Ansley et al. 2016). To retain qualified and experienced special education teachers in the
remain in the field. The purpose of this study was to determine how job stressors, coping
Research Questions
research questions.
c. the active and palliative coping strategies they employ to reduce job-related
stress?
41
strategies, accessibility, social and emotional support, respect and appreciation,
(Figure 1)?
Research Hypotheses
experience at work. It was hypothesized that the findings from the current study would
align with research literature which identifies job-related stressors associated with
workload manageability, working conditions, and student behavior (Bettini et al., 2017c;
manifests itself in them personally. It was hypothesized that the findings from the current
study would align with research literature which identifies physical and/or emotional
Hypothesis 3. Coping strategies will fall into two categories: active and palliative
(Carton & Fruchart, 2014). Active strategies are used to eliminate stress before it starts
(Carton & Fruchart, 2014). Palliative strategies are used primarily to avoid the effects of
stress and have been shown to be ineffective in stress reduction (Austin et al., 2005;
Cancio et al., 2018; Carton & Fruchart, 2014). It was hypothesized special education
teachers often implement palliative coping strategies due to highly stressful situations
42
Hypothesis 4. Special education teachers will report the extent of support they
received from their administrator and how important each type of support is to them and
their job. Administrators play an active role in reducing special education teacher stress
and promoting teacher retention (Albrecht et al., 2009; Leithwood & McAdie, 2007). In
similar studies, support from administrators was found to decrease stress and attrition,
and offset the negative effects of stress caused by unmanageable workloads (Brownell,
Smith, McNellis, & Miller, 1997; Cancio et al., 2013). It was hypothesized special
education teachers would report a difference in their perceived level of support and the
Hypothesis 5. Survey items were selected from existing surveys, current research
respect and appreciation, social and emotional support, professional development, and
provisions.
Survey Development
permission from the first author from each of the original studies. A flowchart was
developed to indicate how many items were used from each survey, including original
items used (Appendix A). The first survey (Cancio et al., 2013) focused on administrative
support for special education teachers and contained 96 items (Appendix B). The second
survey (Cancio et al., 2018) focused on special education teacher stress plus coping
strategies and contained 50 items (Appendix C). Since the Cancio et al. (2018) survey
43
was a modified version of the Cancio et al. (2013) survey, many items overlapped. The
third survey (Paquette & Rieg, 2016) identified pre-service teacher job stressors and
contained 28 items (Appendix D). This list was significantly modified to include job
responsibilities which were specific to special education teachers. Drawing from the total
of 174 survey items, along with information from the research literature and the author’s
personal experiences, a modified survey of 101 items was developed. The survey for the
current study included the following items: 30 items from Cancio et al. (2013); 14 items
from Cancio et al. (2018); 27 items that were present in both Cancio et al. (2013) and
Cancio et al. (2018); 13 items from Paquette & Rieg (2016); and 17 original items created
Changes were made to the original three surveys to narrow down the focus of
questions, remove repetitive items, and maintain a reasonable length for the survey. It
was important to ensure the final survey was at a length which encouraged participants to
complete the entire survey to reduce missing data and fatigue which both impact
reliability and generalization of findings. Survey items which were removed from the
Cancio et al. (2013), Cancio et al. (2018), and Paquette and Rieg (2016) instruments
when creating the final survey are detailed in Table 1. Each survey item was given full
44
Table 1
Survey Items Removed from Cancio et al. (2013), Cancio et al. (2018), and Paquette &
Rieg (2016)
45
There is a district inclusion plan Different
construct
Opportunity for promotion and Different
advancement construct
Opportunity to use past training Different
and education construct
*Job security and permanence Different
construct
Supervisor(s) Different
construct
Opportunity for developing Different
new skills construct
*Pride/respect I receive for Different
being in this profession construct
*Relationships with colleagues Different
construct
Part 4: Views about School
I am willing to give effort Different
beyond what is expected construct
I talk up this school to my Different
friends as a great school construct
I feel very little loyalty to this Different
school construct
I find that my values and the Different
school’s values are very similar construct
I am proud to tell others that I Different
am part of this school construct
This school really inspires the Different
best in me construct
It would take very little change Different
to leave this school construct
I am glad that I was Different
assigned/work at this school construct
Often, I find it difficult to agree Different
with this school’s policies construct
I really care about this school Different
construct
This is the best of all possible Different
schools in which to work construct
46
Delivering the lesson Different
construct
Managing group work Different
construct
Managing seat work Different
construct
Establishing a rapport with Different
students construct
Giving appropriate feedback Different
construct
Helping students with learning Different
difficulties construct
Communicating concepts to Different
students construct
High expectations of my Different
teaching performance construct
Selecting appropriate content Different
for my lessons construct
Being observed by my Different
university supervisor construct
Being evaluated by my Different
university supervisor construct
Communicating with/relating to Different
university supervisor construct
Communicating with/relating to Different
teachers in the school construct
Being observed by my Different
cooperating teacher construct
Being evaluated by my Different
cooperating teacher construct
Communicating with my Different
cooperating teacher construct
Communicating with/relating to Different
principal/school administrator construct
Note. A total of 39 items were removed from the Cancio et al. (2013) survey. A
total of 7 items were removed from the Cancio et al. (2018) survey. Six items were
removed from both surveys. An * indicates the item was present in both surveys.
A total of 17 items were removed from the Paquette & Rieg (2016) survey.
Modifications to Cancio et al. (2013). From part one of the Cancio et al. (2013)
survey, extent and importance of administrative support, 13 items were removed and two
47
items were combined. Items which were considered redundant were removed in
consideration of the length of the survey. Nine items were removed because they were
considered redundant including (a) “considers my ideas,” (b) “treats me as one of the
faculty,” (c) “provides standards for my performance,” (d) “during my interview was
honest about school climate,” (e) “encourages professional growth,” (f) “provides
suggestions for me to improve instruction,” (g) “identifies resource personnel for specific
includes a column displaying a similar item retained in the study to show the construct
was still measured. The four items removed because they did not align with constructs
from the current study included (a) “assists with proper identification of students with
EBD,” (b) “works with me to plan goals and objectives for my program and students,” (c)
“equally distributes resources and unpopular chores,” and (d) “name the gender of your
supervisor.” The two items which were combined included (a) “offers constructive
feedback after observing my teaching” and (b) “provides frequent feedback about my
performance,” which was modified to “offers constructive and frequent feedback about
my performance.” Items in part one were measured on a 4-point Likert-type scale in the
original survey; however, this was changed to a 6-point scale to increase variability in
responses.
Part two of the Cancio et al. (2013) survey included items regarding job
satisfaction. Since this construct was not measured in the survey, all 14 items were
removed. These included (a) “salary and fringe benefits,” (b) “importance of my
position,” (c) “classroom is sufficient in size,” (d) “challenge of my position,” (e) “there
48
is a location to remove students during crisis situations,” (f) “there is a systematic
“regular education teachers are willing to take your students into their classroom when
appropriate,” (h) “opportunity for promotion and advancement,” (i) “opportunity to use
past training and education,” (j) “job security and permanence,” (k) “supervisors,” (l)
“opportunity for developing new skills,” (m) “pride and respect I receive from family and
friends for being in this profession,” and (n) “relationships with colleagues.”
No items were removed from part three of the Cancio et al. (2013) survey
regarding feelings people experience concerning their jobs. However, the Likert-type
scale was adjusted from a 5-point scale to a 6-point scale. This change removes the
From part four of the Cancio et al. (2013) survey, views about your school, 12
items were removed because they did not measure constructs associated with the goals of
the current study. These items included (a) “I am willing to provide the effort beyond
great school to work in,” (c) “I feel very little loyalty to this school,” (d) “I find that my
values and the school’s values are very similar,” (e) “I am proud to tell others that I am
part of this school,” (f) “this school really inspires the best in me in the way of job
performance,” (g) “it would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause
me to leave this school,” (h) “I am glad that I was assigned/work at this school,” (i)
“often I find it difficult to agree with the school’s policies,” (j) “I really care about this
school,” (k) “for me this is the best of all possible schools in which to work,” and (l)
49
No items were removed from part five of the Cancio et al. (2013) survey, items
that describe you. However, the Likert-type scale was adjusted from a 5-point scale to a
6-point scale. This change removes the neutral option and increases variability of
responses.
Modifications to Cancio et al. (2018). The Cancio et al. (2018) survey was
largely a replication of the Cancio et al. (2013) survey. While a total of seven items were
removed from the survey, only one item was unique to the Cancio et al. (2018) survey. In
part four, coping with stress, the item removed was “use of recreational drugs.” This item
was removed since similar items were listed in the coping section (e.g., “use of alcohol
and tobacco”). It is also believed teachers might have difficulty honestly answering this
question due to the illegal nature of recreational drugs. Four items were combined in this
survey. In part four of coping strategies “listening to music” and “dancing” were
combined into one item (e.g., “listening to music/dancing”) and “use of tobacco
products” and “use of alcohol” were combined into one item (e.g., “tobacco
products/alcohol”).
Paquette & Rieg (2016) survey were early childhood special education student teachers;
therefore, all items included on this survey were related to pre-service teacher duties and
job stressors. The Likert-type scale of the original survey was 1-4; however, this was
removed from the Paquette and Rieg (2016) survey. The removed items included (a)
“delivering the lesson,” (b) “managing group work,” (c) “managing seat work,” (d)
“establishing a rapport with students,” (e) “giving appropriate feedback,” (f) “helping
50
students with learning difficulties,” (g) “communicating concepts to students,” (h) “high
class and enforcing discipline,” was separated into two individual items (a) “managing
Additions by the study author. The final component of the survey was the
addition of 17 items created by the author of the study. These additions include 10 job
stressors specific to special education teachers found in literature. The job stressors added
include (a) “teaching similar ability groups,” (b) “communicating with parents,” (c)
“excessive caseload,” (d) “required paperwork (IEPs, FBAs, etc.),” (e) “data
overload (wear too many hats),” (i) “role confusion (no clear guidance of my
were added (a) “I have difficulty focusing on my job” and (b) “my stomach hurts when I
think of returning to work after a weekend or hard day.” Three coping strategies were
added (a) “reading for pleasure,” (b) “relaxing after school hours,” and (c) “excessive
sleeping.” Two demographic questions were added (a) “how do you rate your overall
stress as a special education teacher” and (b) “the students in my caseload have similar
51
Theoretical Model
ensure all areas of investigation were addressed. Items were aligned with the primary
aims of the current study which was to investigate the impact of job stressors, coping
strategies, and administrative support on special education teacher stress. Using current
literature on special education teacher stress as a guide, each latent variable was divided
Job stressors. The three main factors of job stressors were workload
manageability was sub-divided into excessive workload, role overload, work/life balance,
lesson plans, IEPs/FBAs/BIPs, data collection, and meetings. Student behavior was sub-
divided into discipline decisions, working with students with emotional and behavioral
Coping strategies. The two main factors of coping strategies were active coping
strategies and palliative coping strategies (Figure 3). Active coping strategies was sub-
divided into hobbies, music, and exercise. Palliative coping strategies were further
development, and provisions (Figure 4). Accessibility was sub-divided into available,
approachable, and attentive. Respect and appreciation was sub-divided into sense of
importance, shows appreciation, and clear job responsibilities. Social and emotional
52
support was sub-divided into problem solve, dispute resolution, and classroom
management. Professional development was sub-divided into coping skills, legal policies,
and instruction in behavior techniques. Provisions was sub-divided into time, resources
and support/trust.
However, it was later removed when the confirmatory factor analysis indicated the
survey items should be loaded onto other factors or removed. The factors from this
53
Figure 2
Work/Life
Balance
Workload Working
Manageability Conditions
Mixed ability
Lesson
groups
Plans
IEPs, Materials
FBAs, BIPs Student
Behavior
Data Time
Collection
Admin
Meetings Support
Discipline
decisions
Working with
EBD students
Managing
classroom
54
Figure 3
COPING
STRATEGIES
Active Palliative
Coping Coping
Strategies Strategies
Prescription
Hobbies
Medication
Eating or
Music Sleeping
Exercise Counseling
55
Figure 4
Coping
Available Skills
Legal
Approachable Policies
Accessibility Professional
Instruction
Attentive Development Behavior
Techniques
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT
Sense of
Importance Respect and Time
Shows Appreciation Provisions
Appreciation Resources
Clear job
responsibilities Support/Trust
Social and
Problem Emotional
Solve Support
Dispute
Resolution
Classroom
Management
56
Pilot Test
Although two of the original surveys were pilot tested and revised based on
feedback (Cancio et al., 2013; Cancio et al., 2018), a new pilot test was deemed necessary
due to the transformed nature of the new questionnaire. The adapted survey of 101 items
was pilot tested with a small group of six special education teachers who were
representative of the respondents in the study (Martella, Nelson, Morgan & Marchand-
Martella, 2013). This sample of teachers was obtained through personal connections with
the researcher. Sample participants received an email with the survey link in Qualtrics©
including directions to take the survey and record the amount of time it takes to complete
it. They were asked to set a stopwatch upon beginning the survey, take it at a typical
pace, and record the elapsed time. Once they emailed me their recorded time, a
subsequent email requested feedback on the following questions: Did the survey feel too
long? Was the format (matrix) difficult to take or frustrating? Did any items or sections
seem confusing? Sample participants responded to the questions, gave feedback on the
items and length of the survey, and suggested improvements. All feedback from the
sample participants were considered, and changes were suggested to improve the survey
experience, including clarifying directions, describing rating scales, and improving the
format. As a result, modifications were made to the survey and the finalized
questionnaire was ready for distribution. This process increased the likelihood of
obtaining reliable and valid data from the instrument. The final questionnaire contained
101 items divided into five sections (Appendix E). These five sections were designed to
probe special education teachers to reflect on their work experiences in regards to (a) job
57
stressors, (b) manifestations of stress, (c) coping strategies, (d) administrative support,
Survey Content
Section one. The first section of the survey asked special education teachers to
consider 23 various aspects of job stressors (e.g., “teaching mixed ability groups,”
Participants were asked to indicate how often they experience stress based on a 6-point
forced Likert-type scale ranging from zero (never) to five (all of the time). A 6-point
Section two. The second section focused on 15 manifestations of stress and the
extent to which it impacts the work and life of special education teachers (e.g., “I have
frequent headaches,” “I do not sleep well,” and “the amount of work I have to get done
interferes with how well it gets done”). In this section, participants indicated the extent to
which the items described their stress based on the 0-5 Likert-type scale ranging from
Section three. Section three of the survey contained a list of 16 coping strategy
professional organization”) used to reduce stress. Special education teachers were asked
to indicate how often they engaged in these activities to decrease their job-related stress.
Answers were given based on the 0-5 Likert-type scale ranging from zero (never) to five
(all of the time). Section three ends with a scale for teachers to rate their overall stress
level as a special education teacher. This item was presented on a scale ranging from zero
58
(no stress) to nine (highest level of stress). This scale allows for increased variability of
responses.
Section four. In section four, special education teachers were asked to make two
separate judgments about 26 statements regarding the level of support from their direct
administrator: the extent of administrative support and the level of importance each type
of support is to the them personally and to their job (e.g., “shows genuine concern for my
program and students,” “allows input into decisions that affect me,” and “notices my
effort and shows appreciation for my work”). If there is more than one supervising
administrator, the directions ask the respondent to consider the one to whom they usually
report or the one with whom they have the greatest amount of contact. Both scales are
based on the forced Likert-type scale of 0-5. The first response measured the extent of
support from the administrator and was represented by one (no support) to five (full
support). The second response measured the importance of each type of support and was
represented by one (not important) to five (significantly important). Two additional items
were included in this section to indicate the frequency of interaction with the
administrator and the title of the administrator for whom the responses related.
Section five. The final section asked special education teachers to provide
information, teaching assignment, certification, and intent to stay. This section contained
17 items. Response choices were offered for all demographic items, and the participant
chose the answer which best represented their personal information. Demographic
information was gathered to increase external validity of the study so the results can be
59
Survey Items
Job stressors. Twenty-three items evaluated the latent variable job stressors. This
construct was divided into three main areas: workload manageability, student behavior,
“communicating with parents,” (b) “excessive workload,” (c) “excessive caseload,” (d)
“developing lesson plans,” (e) “writing IEPs, FBAs, etc.,” (f) “data collection and
(l) “others expecting me to perform tasks beyond my competency,” (m) “fear of failing,”
and (n) “collaborating with general education teachers.” Student behavior included three
survey items (a) “classroom management,” (b) “student discipline,” and (c) “helping
students with emotional and behavioral problems.” Working conditions included six
items (a) “teaching mixed ability groups,” (b) “teaching similar ability groups,” (c)
“assessments,” (d) “necessary materials and resources,” (e) “time to complete work,” and
Coping strategies. Sixteen items evaluated the latent variable coping strategies.
This construct was divided into two main areas: active coping strategies and palliative
coping strategies. Active coping strategies contained eleven survey items (a) “reading for
hours,” (h) “support from family, friends, and colleagues,” (i) “involvement in a
development.” Palliative coping strategies contained five survey items (a) “counseling,”
60
(b) “prescription medication,” (c) “eating,” (d) “excessive sleeping,” and (e) “tobacco
products/alcohol.”
administrative support. This construct was divided into five categories: accessibility,
respect and appreciation, social and emotional support, provisions, and professional
development. Accessibility included five items (a) “is easy to approach,” (b) “gives me
undivided attention when I am talking,” (c) “is honest and straightforward with the staff,”
(d) “is available to help when needed,” and (e) “participates in eligibility/IEP
meetings/parent conferences.” Respect and appreciation included six items (a) “gives me
a sense of importance that I make a difference,” (b) “shows genuine concern for my
program and students,” (c) “notices my effort,” (d) “shows appreciation for my work,” (e)
“gives clear guidelines regarding my job responsibilities,” and (f) “offers constructive
and frequent feedback about my performance.” Social and emotional support includes
three items (a) “helps me solve problems and conflicts that occur,” (b) “helps me with
classroom management problems,” and (c) “helps me during parent conflicts, when
information for improving personal coping skills,” (b) “provides information on up-to-
date instructional and behavioral techniques,” and (c) “provides knowledge of current
legal policies and administrative regulations.” Provisions includes ten items (a) “provides
materials and resources needed to do my job,” (b) “provides mentors for new teachers,”
(c) “provides opportunities to learn from other special education teachers,” (d) “provides
me with adequate planning time,” (e) “provides opportunities for me to attend workshops
61
reasonable decisions,” (h) “trusts my judgment in making classroom decisions,” (i)
“allows input into decisions that affect me,” and (j) “shows confidence in the decisions I
make.”
Study Participants
Oklahoma. Data were collected through a survey which was distributed to special
education teachers serving students in public schools ranging from birth through
study. A convenience sample was obtained through the certified staff email database on
the Oklahoma State Department of Education website. This publicly available list
contained the 2019-2020 contact information for all certified staff in public schools in
Any personally identifiable information (including names and email addresses) obtained
through the Oklahoma State Department of Education website was digitally saved and
protected with a password. This email database was stored separately from the data
gathered in the survey and could not be associated with the participant responses. No
participants.
Inclusion criteria. The last update to the Oklahoma certified staff directory was
completed in January 2020. It is noted that some of the email addresses on the database
might no longer be valid due to teacher turnover however, this was the most
the time. The database was downloaded in February 2020, then sorted based on special
62
education programs. The inclusion list for the study was comprised of special education
teachers designated with state job codes 213 (resource teacher), 210 (teacher, special
education program), and 239 (teacher, special education program). There was a total of
6,710 special education certified staff entries, many of which were duplicate entries. A
total of 1,920 duplicates were identified and removed. The finalized list included 4,790
E) was distributed to the list of special education teachers in Oklahoma via Qualtrics©
increase response rates (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009). The email invitations were
modeled after the samples provided in Dillman et al. (2009). The first contact provided
essential information needed to complete the survey and was sent on a Monday morning
for the highest potential response rate (Dillman et al., 2009). The second email was sent
exactly one week following the initial invitation and served as a thank you to those who
had chosen to participate. It was also a friendly reminder to those who had not yet
completed the survey and included a new link for easy access. The final email was sent
only days later and detailed the importance of completing the survey. The third contact
included a brief reminder of the short amount of remaining time in which to complete the
survey and another link to the web-based questionnaire. Survey protection settings in
Qualtrics© were enabled to prevent participants from repeating the survey; therefore,
data were not skewed by reminding participants to respond and sending multiple links to
63
Once a participant clicked on the Qualtrics© link to the survey, they were
regarding the study’s purpose. Contact information for the lead researcher was included
on the initial page. Participants were asked to indicate they were over 18 years old and if
they were a current special education teacher. No personally identifiable information was
collected. When the survey period closed, all responses were extracted from Qualtrics©
respondents (Appendix H). A total of 288 emails (6%) were returned as undeliverable.
survey. The survey data were cleaned to ensure quality data for analysis. Responses were
identified and removed if they were incomplete or if the participants did not respond
thoughtfully (e.g., used the same number on the Likert scale for all responses, completed
an inconsequential amount of the survey) All 925 responses were analyzed with
descriptive statistics and chi-square goodness of fit tests. After cleaning the data, 854
quality responses remained. The 854 special education teachers who completed the online
survey with fidelity reflects a 19% response rate. Although no minimum standard
response rate is required, the higher the response rate, the less likely any potential bias
Data Analysis
64
1. What is the frequency in which special education teachers rate:
c. the active and palliative coping strategies they employ to reduce job-
related stress?
Descriptive statistics. The data for research question 1 were analyzed with
statistical methods prevalent in survey research. Quantitative data were collected from the
of central tendency, and measures of dispersion were used to organize data collected on
required only one answer per item were used to capture special education teacher
perceptions on the survey. All descriptive data were analyzed with the use of jamovi©
software. The quantitative data were examined for potential variables that may influence
the level of stress for special education teachers. An evaluation of the descriptive
the participants.
65
2. Do survey items measure the 10 latent factors (i.e., workload manageability,
(Figure 1)?
Measurement model. The data for research question 2 were analyzed using a
multivariate analysis used to assess the extent to which a measured variable represents a
construct (Kline, 2013). The goal of a CFA is to determine if the data fit a hypothesized
measurement model, which is based on previous research and theory (Brown, 2015). A
CFA does not determine causality, but, instead, is a correlational method. The model
provides evidence relationships exist between variables (Kline, 2013). This type of
procedure was chosen for this research study to determine if a relationship existed
between the survey items and the 10 latent factors of the proposed theoretical model.
Job stressors. The three latent variables for job stressors included (a) workload
included (a) excessive workload, (b) role overload, (c) work/life balance, (d) lesson plans,
Student behavior. The level-1 measurement model was tested for student
behavior. The three observable variables for student behavior included (a) discipline
66
decisions, (b) working with students with emotional and behavior disorders, and (c)
Working conditions. The level-1 measurement model was tested for working
conditions. The four observable variables for working conditions included (a) teaching
mixed ability groups, (b) materials, (c) time, and (d) administrative support.
Coping strategies. The two latent variables for coping strategies included (a)
Active coping strategies. The level-1 measurement model was tested for active
coping strategies. The three observable variables included (a) hobbies, (b) music, and (c)
exercise.
Palliative coping strategies. The level-1 measurement model was tested for
palliative coping strategies. The three observable variables for palliative coping strategies
included (a) prescription medication, (b) eating or sleeping, and (c) counseling.
included (a) accessibility, (b) respect and appreciation, (c) social and emotional support,
Accessibility. The level-1 measurement model was tested for accessibility. The
three observable variables included (a) available, (b) approachable, and (c) attentive.
Respect and appreciation. The level-1 measurement model was tested for respect
and appreciation. The three observable variables included (a) sense of importance, (b)
67
Social and emotional support. The level-1 measurement model was tested for
social and emotional support. The three observable variables included (a) problem solve,
professional development. The three observable variables included (a) coping skills, (b)
Provisions. The level-1 measurement model was tested for provisions. The three
observable variables included (a) time, (b) resources, and (c) support/trust.
between observable items and latent variables. Data for the CFA were analyzed with the
use of two easily accessible online statistical programs: jamovi© and R package© with
lavaan. A CFA was conducted in R package© to further determine the fit for each factor
using the diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) method. The DWLS method was
chosen to analyze the study data because this method makes no distributional
Items were coded in the survey so that a higher score (3-5) indicated a more
positive experience, and a lower score (0-2) indicated a less positive experience. Before
running the CFA to determine model fit, correlations were run on each of the 10 factors.
Items correlated between 0.3 and 0.8 were kept, while items outside of that range were
removed to improve model fit. Using only the acceptable correlated items, each CFA was
run in R package©.
All hypotheses could not be tested at one time in the full model; therefore, the
larger model was broken into three individual models and tested in stages. First, the job
68
stressors model was tested to investigate relationships among workload manageability,
student behavior, and working conditions (Figure 2). Next, the coping strategies model
was tested to investigate a relationship among active coping strategies and palliative
coping strategies (Figure 3). Then, the administrative support model was tested to
combined model was tested with all predictors that were significant in prior models
(Figure 1). Modification indices recommended ways to adjust the model parameters to
make the model fit better. These indices were used to identify factors; however, changes
were only made if they were theoretically sound. This allowed testing of complex
indicators were considered. Each model was evaluated using a chi-square test (i.e., set
alpha = 0.05), which evaluated the null hypothesis of perfect fit. The three goodness of fit
indices used were (a) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA),
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI).
The RMSEA and SRMR are similar in that they compare the current model fit to a model
with perfect model fit (i.e., saturated model). This study used suggested benchmarks
when interpreting model fit from estimates. Standard fit indices to assess model fit for
RMSEA and SRMR included: RMSEA < 0.10 (Kline, 2016); SRMR < 0.08 (Brown,
2015; Kline 2016). CFI differs in that it compares the current model fit to the worst
model fit. Standard fit indices to assess model fit for CFI included: CFI > .90 (Kline,
69
Justification of Data Analysis
Data analysis in this study was systematically chosen to increase reliability and
validity of the study, precisely summarize the details of the study, and directly answer the
research questions. Pilot testing the compiled and adapted survey increased the likelihood
the administered survey would produce reliable and valid data. Reporting descriptive
statistics including frequency distributions and measures of central tendency were chosen
to organize and accurately categorize data. Descriptive statistics provide clear, concise
summaries of data, can be displayed graphically, and present data in a meaningful way.
The use of confirmatory factor analysis allowed the researcher to (a) investigate how the
observable variables related to one another through factor loadings of survey items, and
(b) evaluate the theory of the composition of the observable variables on latent factors
strategies, palliative coping strategies, accessibility, respect and appreciation, social and
70
Chapter 4
Results
Oklahoma. Data were collected through a survey which was distributed to special
education teachers serving students in public schools ranging from birth through
regarding personal background, teacher career and experience, and current teaching
position.
Table 2
Variable n %
Age
20-29 62 7.7
30-39 117 14.5
40-49 209 26.0
50-59 255 31.7
60-69+ 162 20.1
Missing 49 -
Ethnic Background
White 689 85.8
Black 26 3.2
Hispanic 16 2.0
Asian 4 0.5
Native American 48 6.0
Other 20 2.5
Missing 51 -
Gender
Male 69 8.6
Female 733 91.1
Binary/Other 3 0.3
Missing 49 -
Total Years in Field of Education
0-5 years 154 19.2
6-10 years 124 15.4
71
11-15 years 99 12.3
16-20 years 130 16.2
21-25 years 121 15.1
26+ years 175 21.8
Missing 51 -
Years at Present Position
1 year 175 22.0
2 years 104 13.0
3 years 95 11.9
4 years 65 8.2
5 years 56 7.0
6-10 years 144 18.1
11-14 years 48 6.0
15-19 years 45 5.6
20-25 years 36 4.5
26+ years 29 3.6
Missing 57 -
Intent to Remain in Field
Leave as soon as I can 72 9.2
Until something better 167 21.3
Until early retirement 283 36.1
Until forced to retire 262 33.4
Missing 70 -
Teaching Assignment
Inclusion 215 26.9
Co-Teacher 325 40.7
Resource Teacher 76 9.5
Self-Contained Teacher 58 7.3
Separate School 119 14.9
Homebound/Hospital 0 0.0
Other 5 0.6
Missing 56 -
School Type
Public School 767 96.1
Public Alternative School 8 1.0
Charter 13 1.6
Separate Facility 3 0.4
Other 7 0.9
Missing 56 -
District Socioeconomic Level
Low 539 67.7
Middle 246 30.9
High 11 1.4
Missing 58 -
Grade Level of Assignment
Early Childhood (PreK-K) 45 5.7
72
Elementary (Grades 1-5) 336 42.2
Middle School (Grades 6-8) 198 24.9
High School (Grades 9-12) 215 27.0
Adult Education 2 0.3
Missing 58 -
Caseload Size
0-5 10 1.3
6-10 120 15.0
11-15 107 13.4
16-20 145 18.1
21-25 174 21.8
26-30 114 14.3
31+ 129 16.1
Missing 55 -
Paraprofessionals under Supervision
0 300 37.5
1-5 474 59.4
6-10 23 3.0
11-15 2 0.2
Missing 55 -
Caseload Type
Similar disabilities/needs 204 25.6
Varying disabilities/needs 593 74.4
Missing 57 -
Special Education Certification
Traditional 586 73.0
Alternative 209 26.0
Emergency 6 0.7
Not Certified 2 0.2
Missing 51 -
Hold Special Education License
Yes 783 97.6
No 19 2.4
Missing 52 -
Note. Responses were included from 854 participants in the study. Missing
collected included age, ethnic identification, and gender identification. Participant age
distributions were reported as: 62 (7.7%) 20-29 years old; 117 (14.5%) 30-39 years old;
209 (26.0%) 40-49 years old; 255 (31.7%) 50-59 years old; 162 (20.1%) 60-69+ years
73
old. The age demographics indicate 77.6% of the respondents were over the age 40, while
only 22.2% were under 39 years old. Ethnic identification was reported as: 689 (85.8%)
American; and 20 (2.5%) other ethnicity. Special education teacher gender identification
was reported as: 69 (8.6%) male; 733 (91.1%) female; 2 (0.2%) binary; and 1 (0.1%)
other.
demographic information was also collected including total years of experience in the
field of education, years in present position, teacher certification, license, and how long
the participant planned to teach. Total years of experience in the field of education were
reported in five-year increments: 154 (19.2%) 0-5 years; 124 (15.4%) 6-10 years; 99
(12.3%) 11-15 years; 130 (16.2%) 16-20 years; 121 (15.1%) 21-25 years; and 175
(21.8%) 26+ years. Years spent in the present special education position was reported as:
175 (22.0%) 1 year experience; 104 (13.0%) 2 years; 95 (11.9%) 3 years; 65 (8.2%) 4
years; 56 (7.0%) 5 years; 144 (18.1%) 6-10 years; 48 (6.0%) 11-14 years; 45 (5.6%) 15-
19 years; 36 (4.5%) 20-25 years; and 29 (3.6%) 26+ years. Participants reported
certification as: 586 (73.0%) traditional special education certification; followed by 209
as: 783 (97.6%) yes and 19 (2.4%) no. Participants reported how long they planned to
teach as: 72 (9.2%) definitely plan to leave teaching as soon as I can; 167 (21.3%) will
probably continue until something better comes along; 283 (36.1%) until I am eligible for
early retirement; and 262 (33.4%) until forced to retire at any age.
74
Participant current teaching position. Participant demographic information was
also collected regarding current teaching position including public school type, teaching
assignments, grade level, caseload size, and socioeconomic level of the students at their
school formats including: 767 (96.1%) public schools; 8 (1.0%) public alternative school;
13 (1.6%) public charter school; 3 (0.4%) public separate facility for students with severe
respondents were reported as: 325 (40.7%) co-teacher; 215 (26.9%) inclusive classroom;
other; and 0 (0.0%) homebound/hospital. Students in their caseloads were reported as:
204 (25.6%) similar disabilities/educational needs and 593 (74.4%) had varying
including: 45 (5.7%) early childhood; 336 (42.2%) elementary; 198 (24.9%) middle
school; 215 (27.0%) high school; and 2 (0.3%) adult education. These participants
managed a variety of caseload sizes including: 10 (1.3%) 0-5 students; 120 (15.0%) 6-10
students; 107 (13.4%) 11-15 students; 145 (18.1%) 16-20 students; 174 (21.8%) 21-25
students; 114 (14.3%) 25-30 students; and 129 (16.1%) 26+ students. The socioeconomic
status of the students attending their school included: 539 (67.7%) low; 246 (30.9%)
the sample of special education teachers were compared to the population of all
Oklahoma teachers. Statewide data were reported for age, experience, and qualification
75
included: ≤ 31 years old (11.2%); 32-53 years old (23.7%); 54-59 years old (28.6%); 60-
61 years old (24.2%); and ≥ 62 years old (12.3%). Statewide teacher experience
distributions in 2017-18 included: 0 years (10.7%); 1-3 years (17.3%); 4-9 years (21.2%);
10-14 years (14.7%); and 15+ years (36.1%). Statewide teacher qualification distributions
for certified and active teachers in 2017-18 included: standard certificate (77.3%);
special education teachers were compared to the population of Oklahoma teachers for
distributions for ethnic identification included: Hispanic (1.1%); White (82.0%); Black
What is the frequency in which special education teachers rate the stress-
related factors they experience as a direct result of their job? Various descriptive
statistics regarding job stressors were considered. This included a close examination of
the 0-5 Likert-type scale items in section one of the questionnaire. Items which were
identified as the top five job stressors from participant ratings in descending order were:
Items which were identified as the lowest five job stressors from participant
ratings in ascending order were: “teaching similar ability groups” (M = 1.47, SD = 1.20);
76
(M = 2.10, SD = 1.69); “role confusion” (M = 2.41, SD = 1.65); and “collaborating with
Table 3
Survey Scale 0 1 2 3 4 5
# Survey Item Mean SD (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)
and % and % and % and % and % and %
8 Excessive 3.77 1.30 (10) (52) (95) (137) (228) (330)
workload 1.2% 6.1% 11.2% 16.1% 26.8% 38.7%
11 Required 3.75 1.33 (9) (62) (97) (134) (214) (337)
paperwork 1.1% 7.3% 11.4% 15.7% 25.1% 39.5%
12 Data collection 3.69 1.29 (10) (60) (87) (156) (248) (289)
documentation 1.2% 7.1% 10.2% 18.4% 29.2% 34.0%
22 Inadequate time to 3.46 1.50 (32) (79) (127) (132) (186) (295)
complete work 3.8% 9.3% 14.9% 15.5% 21.9% 34.7%
9 Excessive 3.44 1.50 (25) (101) (112) (140) (181) (293)
caseload 2.9% 11.9% 13.1% 16.4% 21.2% 34.4%
3 Helping students 3.27 1.26 (13) (71) (143) (230) (239) (156)
with EBD 1.5% 8.3% 16.8% 27.0% 28.1% 18.3%
15 Role overload 3.20 1.53 (41) (102) (145) (158) (173) (233)
4.8% 12.0% 17.0% 18.5% 20.3% 27.3%
4 Teaching mixed 3.20 1.51 (37) (111) (128) (169) (184) (223)
ability groups 4.3% 13.0% 15.0% 19.8% 21.6% 26.2%
19 Fear of failing 3.06 1.68 (67) (128) (133) (137) (135) (252)
7.9% 15.0% 15.6% 16.1% 15.8% 29.6%
21 Lack of materials 3.05 1.57 (48) (141) (118) (163) (179) (204)
and resources 5.6% 16.5% 13.8% 19.1% 21.0% 23.9%
13 Meetings 3.02 1.39 (23) (121) (159) (214) (181) (154)
2.7% 14.2% 18.7% 25.1% 21.2% 18.1%
17 Work/life balance 2.95 1.49 (47) (120) (166) (182) (172) (165)
5.5% 14.1% 19.5% 21.4% 20.2% 19.4%
2 Student discipline 2.88 1.26 (20) (114) (187) (241) (204) (85)
2.4% 13.4% 22.0% 28.3% 24.0% 10.0%
6 Assessments 2.81 1.37 (40) (118) (194) (217) (180) (103)
4.7% 13.8% 22.8% 25.5% 21.1% 12.1%
1 Classroom 2.71 1.33 (32) (153) (178) (237) (170) (82)
management 3.8% 18.0% 20.9% 27.8% 20.0% 9.6%
10 Developing lesson 2.59 1.48 (72) (159) (167) (207) (143) (106)
plans 8.4% 18.6% 19.6% 24.2% 16.7% 12.4%
7 Communicating 2.48 1.45 (70) (183) (169) (205) (138) (84)
with parents 8.2% 21.6% 19.9% 24.1% 16.3% 9.9%
18 Others 2.47 1.59 (103) (173) (167) (164) (124) (122)
expectations 12.1% 20.3% 19.6% 19.2% 14.5% 14.3%
77
20 Collaborating 2.45 1.40 (66) (184) (185) (211) (133) (73)
with gen ed 7.7% 21.6% 21.7% 24.8% 15.6% 8.6%
16 Role confusion 2.41 1.65 (118) (184) (162) (147) (105) (137)
13.8% 21.6% 19.0% 17.2% 12.3% 16.1%
23 Lack of admin 2.10 1.69 (177) (215) (121) (132) (98) (110)
support 20.8% 25.2% 14.2% 15.5% 11.5% 12.9%
14 Supervising 2.04 1.63 (198) (167) (158) (148) (90) (89)
paraprofessionals 23.3% 19.6% 18.6% 17.4% 10.6% 10.5%
5 Teaching similar 1.47 1.20 (189) (303) (202) (109) (27) (21)
ability groups 22.2% 35.6% 23.7% 12.8% 3.2% 2.5%
Note. Job Stress Factors sorted by Mean. All survey items included on this table Min = 0, Max =
5; SD = Standard Deviation.
What is the frequency in which special education teachers rate the physical
identified the survey items which were manifestations of stress for special education
teachers measured on the 0-5 Likert-type scale ratings. Items which were identified as the
top five manifestations of stress from participant ratings in descending order included:
“my work causes me to have stress” (M = 3.45, SD = 1.30); “I feel tired” (M = 3.18, SD =
1.58); “I carry my school problems home with me” (M = 3.18, SD = 1.48); “I feel
Items which were identified as the lowest five manifestations of stress from
participant ratings in ascending order included: “I miss a lot of time from work” (M =
1.65); “I find myself seeking medical care often” (M = 1.30, SD = 1.50); “I have high
blood pressure” (M = 1.62, SD = 1.93); and ”my stomach hurts when I think of returning
to work after a weekend or hard day” (M = 1.66, SD = 1.67). Table 4 details respondents’
78
Table 4
Manifestations of Stress
Survey Scale 0 1 2 3 4 5
# Survey Item Mean SD (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)
and % and % and % and % and % and %
24 My work causes 3.45 1.30 (15) (62) (116) (206) (235) (219)
me to have stress 1.8% 7.3% 13.6% 24.2% 27.5% 25.7%
34 I feel tired 3.18 1.58 (57) (108) (103) (169) (186) (228)
6.7% 12.7% 12.1% 19.9% 21.9% 26.8%
25 I carry school 3.18 1.48 (30) (115) (136) (161) (208) (202)
problems home 3.5% 13.5% 16.0% 18.9% 24.4% 23.7%
26 I feel frustrated 3.12 1.42 (30) (108) (143) (196) (204) (172)
3.5% 12.7% 16.8% 23.0% 23.9% 20.2%
27 I feel tense 3.12 1.45 (40) (91) (158) (187) (193) (184)
4.7% 10.7% 18.5% 21.9% 22.6% 21.6%
28 Work amount 3.03 1.52 (44) (121) (146) (182) (165) (191)
impacts quality 5.2% 14.3% 17.2% 21.4% 19.4% 22.5%
30 I do not sleep well 2.88 1.68 (93) (134) (105) (160) (167) (192)
10.9% 15.7% 12.3% 18.8% 19.6% 22.6%
29 Work impacts my 2.81 1.71 (116) (121) (109) (151) (176) (180)
eating habits 13.6% 14.2% 12.8% 17.7% 20.6% 21.1%
31 I have difficulty 2.05 1.51 (148) (206) (181) (159) (89) (69)
focusing 17.4% 24.3% 21.2% 18.6% 10.4% 8.1%
33 I have frequent 1.98 1.78 (250) (165) (118) (102) (105) (112)
headaches 29.3% 19.4% 13.8% 12.0% 12.3% 13.1%
32 My stomach hurts 1.66 1.67 (299) (180) (114) (105) (79) (75)
35.1% 21.1% 13.4% 12.3% 9.3% 8.8%
37 I have high blood 1.62 1.93 (404) (116) (69) (59) (67) (136)
pressure 47.5% 13.6% 8.1% 6.9% 7.9% 16.0%
35 I seek medical 1.30 1.50 (364) (192) (101) (104) (45) (43)
care often 42.9% 22.6% 11.9% 12.2% 5.3% 5.1%
36 I have sought 1.09 1.65 (518) (98) (56) (70) (39) (70)
psychological help 60.9% 11.5% 6.6% 8.2% 4.6% 8.2%
38 I miss a lot of time 0.53 1.07 (611) (135) (41) (29) (18) (14)
from work 72.1% 15.9% 4.8% 3.4% 2.1% 1.7%
Note. Manifestations of Stress sorted by Mean. All survey items included on this table
What is the frequency in which special education teachers rate the active and
statistics identified survey items which special education teachers use to cope with job-
related stress on a 0-5 Likert-type scale rating. Items which were identified as the top five
79
coping mechanisms from participant ratings in descending order included: “support from
family, friends, and colleagues” (M = 3.41, SD = 1.37); “relaxing after school hours” (M
Items which were identified as the lowest five coping strategies from participant
Table 5
Coping Strategies
Survey Scale 0 1 2 3 4 5
# Survey Item Mean SD (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)
and % and % and % and % and % and %
47 Support from 3.41 1.37 (27) (64) (112) (202) (223) (224)
family and friends 3.2% 7.5% 13.1% 23.7% 26.2% 26.3%
46 Relaxing after 2.88 1.43 (55) (105) (158) (221) (188) (123)
school hours 6.5% 12.4% 18.6% 26.0% 22.1% 14.5%
41 Listening to 2.85 1.50 (61) (124) (159) (182) (196) (132)
music/dancing 7.1% 14.5% 18.6% 21.3% 23.0% 15.5%
42 Outdoor 2.72 1.49 (80) (114) (167) (207) (174) (111)
activities/Gardening 9.4% 13.4% 19.6% 24.3% 20.4% 13.0%
52 Eating 2.49 1.60 (132) (115) (171) (191) (127) (117)
15.5% 13.5% 20.0% 22.4% 14.9% 13.7%
45 Exercise 2.39 1.50 (93) (166) (210) (175) (105) (100)
11.0% 19.6% 24.7% 20.6% 12.4% 11.8%
39 Reading for 2.18 1.61 (148) (208) (140) (146) (121) (90)
pleasure 17.4% 24.4% 16.4% 17.1% 14.2% 10.6%
50 Professional 2.00 1.37 (135) (195) (229) (163) (92) (38)
development 15.8% 22.9% 26.9% 19.1% 10.8% 4.5%
51 Prescription 1.95 2.11 (388) (76) (46) (74) (67) (201)
medication 45.5% 8.9% 5.4% 8.7% 7.9% 23.7%
49 Talking with my 1.71 1.43 (202) (234) (176) (126) (78) (37)
supervisor 23.7% 27.4% 20.6% 14.8% 9.1% 4.3%
80
53 Excessive sleeping 1.40 1.62 (375) (158) (102) (88) (70) (56)
44.2% 18.6% 12.0% 10.4% 8.2% 6.6%
48 Professional 1.23 1.40 (352) (227) (110) (90) (42) (32)
organization 41.3% 26.6% 12.9% 10.6% 4.9% 3.8%
43 Yoga/Meditation 1.09 1.38 (415) (184) (107) (71) (49) (24)
48.8% 21.6% 12.6% 8.4% 5.8% 2.8%
40 Writing/Journaling 1.01 1.30 (419) (208) (104) (61) (42) (19)
49.1% 24.4% 12.2% 7.2% 4.9% 2.2%
54 Tobacco 0.79 1.34 (561) (102) (79) (49) (32) (28)
products/alcohol 65.9% 12.0% 9.3% 5.8% 3.8% 3.3%
44 Counseling 0.69 1.32 (599) (110) (39) (40) (32) (30)
70.5% 12.9% 4.6% 4.7% 3.8% 3.5%
Note. Coping Strategies sorted by Mean. All survey items included on this table Min = 0, Max =
5. SD = Standard Deviation.
What is the frequency in which special education teachers rate the extent of
statistics identified survey items in which special education teachers rated the extent of
support they received from their administrator. On a Likert-type scale rating of 0-5, the
top five survey items regarding extent of support from administrators identified by
= 1.37); “provides me with adequate planning time” (M = 3.90, SD = 1.48); and “helps
Items which were identified by participant ratings in ascending order as the lowest
five survey items regarding extent of support from administrators included: “shows
improving personal coping skills” (M = 2.69, SD = 1.71); “provides mentors for new
2.88, SD = 1.75); and “helps me solve problems and conflicts that occur” (M = 3.15, SD
81
= 1.63). Table 6 details respondents’ answers to extent of administrative support (items
Table 6
Survey Scale 0 1 2 3 4 5
# Survey Item Mean SD (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)
and % and % and % and % and % and %
66 Provides materials 4.12 1.34 (31) (30) (33) (82) (168) (455)
and resources 3.9% 3.8% 4.1% 10.3% 21.0% 56.9%
67 Trusts my 3.95 1.38 (31) (35) (57) (89) (190) (395)
judgment 3.9% 4.4% 7.2% 11.2% 23.8% 49.6%
60 Supports me on 3.94 1.37 (28) (39) (54) (97) (192) (388)
decisions 3.5% 4.9% 6.8% 12.2% 24.1% 48.6%
77 Adequate planning 3.90 1.48 (34) (53) (56) (92) (144) (416)
time 4.3% 6.7% 7.0% 11.6% 18.1% 52.3%
75 Classroom 3.89 1.45 (31) (56) (45) (95) (177) (389)
management 3.9% 7.1% 5.7% 12.0% 22.3% 49.1%
61 Shows genuine 3.81 1.54 (48) (44) (65) (94) (150) (399)
concern 6.0% 5.5% 8.1% 11.8% 18.8% 49.9%
55 Is easy to approach 3.79 1.37 (23) (51) (57) (151) (178) (344)
2.9% 6.3% 7.1% 18.8% 22.1% 42.8%
57 Is honest and 3.70 1.50 (39) (58) (61) (126) (175) (341)
straightforward 4.9% 7.2% 7.6% 15.8% 21.9% 42.6%
81 Provides 3.69 1.56 (54) (51) (62) (100) (179) (350)
paraprofessionals 6.8% 6.4% 7.8% 12.6% 22.5% 44.0%
56 Gives me attention 3.67 1.43 (28) (52) (88) (135) (186) (311)
3.5% 6.5% 11.0% 16.9% 23.3% 38.9%
73 Is available to help 3.62 1.42 (33) (49) (79) (155) (192) (289)
when needed 4.1% 6.1% 9.9% 19.4% 24.1% 36.3%
58 Gives me a sense of 3.61 1.58 (59) (54) (57) (130) (169) (331)
importance 7.4% 6.8% 7.1% 16.3% 21.1% 41.4%
62 Notices my effort 3.53 1.62 (56) (71) (70) (126) (145) (331)
7.0% 8.9% 8.8% 15.8% 18.1% 41.4%
72 Allows me to 3.51 1.45 (31) (61) (100) (150) (184) (270)
attend conferences 3.9% 7.7% 12.6% 18.9% 23.0% 34.0%
71 Legal and admin 3.44 1.65 (61) (75) (82) (125) (144) (310)
policies 7.7% 9.4% 10.3% 15.7% 18.1% 38.9%
59 Allows input into 3.31 1.60 (61) (78) (93) (139) (179) (250)
decisions 7.6% 9.8% 11.6% 17.4% 22.4% 31.3%
80 Sped mentor 3.29 1.78 (97) (74) (71) (108) (146) (297)
teachers 12.2% 9.3% 9.0% 13.6% 18.4% 37.5%
63 Appreciates my 3.20 1.54 (49) (85) (109) (185) (150) (216)
work 6.2% 10.7% 13.7% 23.3% 18.9% 27.2%
74 Solves problems 3.15 1.63 (69) (83) (111) (151) (154) (226)
and conflicts 8.7% 10.5% 14.0% 19.0% 19.4% 28.5%
82
78 Participates in 3.14 1.81 (102) (89) (75) (121) (119) (274)
meetings 13.1% 11.4% 9.6% 15.5% 15.3% 35.1%
64 Clear guidelines 3.13 1.57 (54) (101) (109) (159) (175) (201)
regarding my job 6.8% 12.6% 13.6% 19.9% 21.9% 25.2%
65 Constructive and 2.99 1.64 (84) (93) (104) (167) (160) (189)
frequent feedback 10.5% 11.7% 13.0% 21.0% 20.1% 23.7%
70 Instructional 2.97 1.74 (107) (92) (92) (147) (146) (213)
methods 13.4% 11.5% 11.5% 18.4% 18.3% 26.7%
76 Helps me during 2.88 1.75 (106) (110) (95) (151) (127) (205)
parent conflicts 13.4% 13.9% 12.0% 19.0% 16.0% 25.8%
79 Provides mentors 2.81 1.78 (112) (121) (100) (129) (128) (200)
for new teachers 14.2% 15.3% 12.7% 16.3% 16.2% 25.3%
69 Provides info on 2.69 1.71 (129) (96) (111) (165) (145) (149)
coping skills 16.2% 12.1% 14.0% 20.8% 18.2% 18.7%
68 Shows confidence 2.48 1.74 (147) (127) (110) (158) (111) (141)
in my decisions 18.5% 16.0% 13.9% 19.9% 14.0% 17.8%
Note. Extent of Administrative Support sorted by Mean. All survey items included on this
What is the frequency in which special education teachers rate the perceived
Likert-type scale rating of 0-5, the top five survey items regarding importance of support
genuine concern for my program and students” (M = 4.66, SD = 0.75); “is honest and
4.57, SD = 0.80).
Items which were identified by participant ratings in ascending order as the lowest
five survey items regarding importance of support from administrators included: “shows
for improving personal coping skills” (M = 3.71, SD = 1.34); “provides mentors for new
83
teachers” (M = 3.90, SD = 1.33); “helps me solve problems and conflicts that occur” (M =
Table 7
Survey Scale 0 1 2 3 4 5
# Survey Item Mean SD (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)
and % and % and % and % and % and %
93 Provides materials 4.67 0.68 (1) (2) (11) (41) (135) (600)
and resources 0.1% 0.3% 1.4% 5.2% 17.1% 75.9%
88 Shows genuine 4.66 0.75 (3) (6) (13) (31) (126) (613)
concern 0.4% 0.8% 1.6% 3.9% 15.9% 77.4%
84 Is honest and 4.63 0.78 (3) (8) (4) (55) (119) (598)
straightforward 0.4% 1.0% 0.5% 7.0% 15.1% 76.0%
87 Supports me on 4.60 0.74 (1) (3) (16) (44) (159) (562)
decisions 0.1% 0.4% 2.0% 5.6% 20.3% 71.6%
94 Trusts my 4.57 0.80 (2) (4) (20) (50) (149) (558)
judgment 0.3% 0.5% 2.6% 6.4% 19.0% 71.3%
82 Is easy to 4.55 0.87 (5) (8) (16) (56) (142) (568)
approach 0.6% 1.0% 2.0% 7.0% 17.9% 71.4%
99 Allows me to 4.47 0.83 (3) (5) (10) (81) (192) (496)
attend conferences 0.4% 0.6% 1.3% 10.3% 24.4% 63.0%
102 Classroom 4.46 0.97 (8) (7) (27) (64) (143) (533)
management 1.0% 0.9% 3.5% 8.2% 18.3% 68.2%
86 Allows input into 4.46 0.91 (7) (7) (18) (63) (184) (511)
decisions 0.9% 0.9% 2.3% 8.0% 23.3% 64.7%
108 Provides 4.44 0.97 (5) (11) (31) (62) (157) (524)
paraprofessionals 0.6% 1.4% 3.9% 7.8% 19.9% 66.3%
85 Gives me a sense 4.41 0.97 (5) (11) (26) (79) (161) (512)
of importance 0.6% 1.4% 3.3% 9.9% 20.3% 64.5%
83 Gives me 4.39 0.98 (6) (13) (21) (82) (171) (497)
attention 0.8% 1.6% 2.7% 10.4% 21.6% 62.9%
100 Is available to 4.39 0.92 (5) (6) (23) (86) (192) (476)
help when needed 0.6% 0.8% 2.9% 10.9% 24.4% 60.4%
104 Adequate 4.37 1.12 (13) (19) (32) (66) (131) (528)
planning time 1.6% 2.4% 4.1% 8.4% 16.6% 66.9%
103 Helps me during 4.36 1.06 (11) (13) (32) (65) (171) (490)
parent conflicts 1.4% 1.7% 4.1% 8.3% 21.9% 62.7%
89 Notices my effort 4.32 1.06 (6) (19) (31) (87) (160) (486)
0.8% 2.4% 3.9% 11.0% 20.3% 61.6%
90 Appreciates my 4.28 1.04 (6) (15) (35) (93) (186) (454)
work 0.8% 1.9% 4.4% 11.8% 23.6% 57.5%
84
92 Constructive and 4.28 1.04 (7) (15) (34) (86) (198) (449)
frequent feedback 0.9% 1.9% 4.3% 10.9% 25.1% 56.9%
107 Sped mentor 4.26 1.28 (31) (16) (35) (55) (144) (501)
teachers 4.0% 2.0% 4.5% 7.0% 18.4% 64.1%
105 Participates in 4.14 1.26 (19) (24) (46) (102) (138) (448)
meetings 2.4% 3.1% 5.9% 13.1% 17.8% 57.7%
91 Clear guidelines 4.07 1.09 (5) (20) (43) (147) (207) (366)
regarding my job 0.6% 2.5% 5.4% 18.8% 26.2% 46.4%
98 Legal and admin 3.97 1.26 (12) (31) (64) (137) (160) (386)
policies 1.5% 3.9% 8.1% 17.3% 20.3% 48.9%
97 Instructional 3.96 1.32 (19) (39) (53) (119) (171) (386)
methods 2.4% 5.0% 6.7% 15.1% 21.7% 49.0%
101 Solves problems 3.96 1.32 (20) (34) (62) (111) (174) (386)
and conflicts 2.5% 4.3% 7.9% 14.1% 22.1% 49.0%
106 Provides mentors 3.90 1.33 (21) (36) (62) (124) (179) (361)
for new teachers 2.7% 4.6% 7.9% 15.8% 22.9% 46.1%
96 Provides info on 3.71 1.34 (20) (39) (90) (154) (186) (299)
coping skills 2.5% 4.9% 11.4% 19.5% 23.6% 37.9%
95 Shows confidence 3.30 1.55 (52) (64) (113) (159) (160) (238)
in my decisions 6.6% 8.1% 14.4% 20.2% 20.4% 30.3%
Note. Importance of Administrative Support sorted by Mean. All survey items included on
Overall stress rating. Participants in the survey were also asked to rate the
overall stress level they experience as a special education teacher on a Likert-type scale
Factor loadings. The factor loadings for the measurement model include standard
latent variable, standard error, and p-value. Factor loadings are a data reduction method
construct. Items with the largest estimate on factor loading are the strongest predictors of
the latent construct, while items with the lowest estimate on factor loading are less strong
predictors.
85
Workload manageability. The strongest predictors for workload manageability
were “excessive workload” (0.831) and “required paperwork” (0.794). The lowest item in
Student behavior. The strongest predictors for student behavior were “student
discipline” (0.875) and “classroom management” (0.854). The lowest item in the set was
“inadequate time to complete work” (0.803) and “lack necessary materials and resources”
(0.654). The lowest item in the set was “teaching mixed ability groups” (0.574).
Active coping strategies. The strongest predictors for active coping strategies
were “outdoor activities/gardening” (0.730) and “exercise” (0.632). The lowest item in
strategies were “eating” (0.719) and “prescription medication” (0.661). The lowest item
Accessibility. The strongest predictors for accessibility were “is available to help
when needed” (0.922) and “is easy to approach” (0.844). The lowest item in the set was
Respect and appreciation. The strongest predictors for respect and appreciation
were “gives me a sense of importance that I make a difference” (0.904) and “gives clear
guidelines regarding my job responsibilities” (0.831). The lowest item in the set was
86
Social and emotional support. The strongest predictors for social and emotional
support were “helps me solve problems and conflicts when they occur” (0.878) and
“helps me with classroom management problems” (0.871). The lowest item in the set was
The lowest item in the set was “provides me with adequate planning time” (0.671).
were “provides helpful information for improving personal coping skills” (0.861) and
The lowest item in the set was “provides knowledge on current legal policies and
Table 8
Factor Loadings
87
Mixed ability groups 0.574 - -
Active Coping
Strategies
Outdoor activities 0.730 0.206 0.000
Exercise 0.632 0.157 0.000
Music/dancing 0.482 - -
Yoga/meditation 0.423 0.130 0.000
Palliative Coping
Strategies
Eating 0.719 0.120 0.000
Prescription medication 0.661 0.100 0.000
Counseling 0.657 - -
Excessive sleeping 0.636 0.105 0.000
Accessibility
Available to help 0.922 0.016 0.000
Easy to approach 0.844 - -
Honest and straightforward 0.832 0.018 0.000
Undivided attention 0.792 0.018 0.000
Participates in meetings 0.700 0.025 0.000
Respect and
Appreciation
Sense of importance 0.904 - -
Clear job responsibilities 0.831 0.015 0.000
Shows appreciation 0.815 0.016 0.000
Social/Emotional
Support
Solve problems 0.878 - -
Classroom management 0.871 0.017 0.000
Parent conflicts 0.688 0.025 0.000
Provisions
Trusts judgment 0.930 0.012 0.000
Reasonable decisions 0.904 0.012 0.000
Materials and resources 0.903 - -
Workshops/Conferences 0.884 0.014 0.000
Mentors 0.743 0.022 0.000
Adequate planning time 0.671 0.026 0.000
Professional
Development
Coping strategies 0.861 - -
Instruction and behavior 0.823 0.025 0.000
Legal and admin policies 0.704 0.030 0.000
Note. Std. lv = Standardized latent variable. Std. Error = Standard Error.
stressors, coping strategies, and administrative support. Correlation tests were run in
jamovi© to evaluate the association between the observable variables. Examining the
correlation matrices for bivariate correlations helped determine which items were either
88
too highly or too poorly correlated prior to running the CFA. This study sought to retain
as many items as possible which were correlated between 0.3 and 0.8 for the best fit. An
initial CFA was conducted to determine fit for the individual models. The lowest item
was dropped from each latent variable based on standardized factor loading. A
subsequent CFA was conducted on the full 10-factor model. Items were removed or
remapped based on the information provided in the modification indices. This study used
suggested benchmarks when interpreting model fit from estimates. Standard fit indices to
assess model fit included: RMSEA < 0.10 (Kline, 2016); SRMR < 0.08 (Brown, 2015;
Kline 2016); and CFI > .90 (Kline, 2016; Bentler, 1990).
Job stressors. Twenty-three items measured job stressors (Figure 5). Fourteen
items measured workload manageability, three items measured student behavior, and six
items measured working conditions. One item was removed for low correlation including
initial low factor loadings including “teaching similar ability groups,” “assessments,”
teachers.” After these items were dropped, the remaining items were tested with a
resulting model fit: CFI (0.981), RMSEA (0.102), and SRMR (0.072). According to the
suggested benchmarks used for this study, the fit for the job stressors model indicated
CFI fit (>.90 acceptable), RMSEA fit (<.10 inadequate), and SRMR (<.08 acceptable).
89
Figure 5
Coping strategies. Sixteen items measured coping strategies (Figure 6). Eleven
items measured active coping strategies and five items measured palliative coping
strategies. Four items were removed for low correlations including “relaxing after school
supervisor” (0.269), and “tobacco products/alcohol” (0.183). Four additional items were
dropped based on initial low factor loadings including “reading for pleasure,”
development.” After these items were dropped, the remaining items were tested with a
resulting model fit: CFI (0.923), RMSEA (0.097), and SRMR (0.085). According to the
suggested benchmarks used for this study, the fit for the coping strategies model
indicated: CFI fit (>.90 acceptable), RMSEA fit (<.10 acceptable), and SRMR fit (<.08
inadequate).
90
Figure 6
(Figure 7). Five items measured accessibility, three items measured social and emotional
support, three items measured professional development, six items measured respect and
appreciation, and ten items measured provisions. One item was removed for high
correlation including “notices my effort” (0.834). Six additional items were dropped
based on initial low factor loadings including “allows input into decisions that affect me,”
“shows genuine concern for my program and students,” “offers constructive and frequent
After these items were dropped, the remaining items were tested with a resulting model
fit: CFI (0.995), RMSEA (0.079), and SRMR (0.050). According to the suggested
91
benchmarks used for this study, the fit for the administrative support model indicated:
CFI fit (>.90 acceptable), RMSEA fit (<.10 acceptable), and SRMR (<.08 acceptable).
Figure 7
further determine fit for the full model using DWLS method (Figure 8). The CFA
indicated a non-positive definite result. A non-positive definite result occurs when items
are too highly correlated producing multicollinearity. The Modification Indices (MI)
indicated some items should be removed or remapped. Survey items which were moved
to load on a different factor for better fit included (a) “supports me on reasonable
decisions,” and (b) “trusts my judgment in making classroom decisions.” The six
92
additional items which proved problematic for the fit included (a) “excessive caseload,”
(b) “lack of administrative support,” (c) “allows input into decisions that affect me,” (d)
“shows genuine concern for my program and students,” (e) “shows confidence in the
decisions I make,” and (f) “provides paraprofessionals, when necessary.” These items
were removed from the model. The resulting fit for the 10-factor model CFA included:
CFI (0.991), RMSEA (0.055), and SRMR (0.053). According to the suggested
benchmarks used for this study, the fit for the 10-factor model indicated: CFI fit (>.90
Figure 8
93
Chapter 5
Discussion
Participant Demographics
The participant personal background data would indicate the majority of special
education teachers who participated in the study identified as White (85.7%), female
(90.9%), and over the age 40 (77.6%). The data indicated a fairly even spread of total
years in the field of education with the highest percentage (21.8%) for teachers with 26+
years of experience followed by (19.2%) of teachers who had 0-5 years of experience.
Most teachers (61.9%) have spent between 1-5 years in their present position. The
public schools (96.1%) with various teaching assignments, the highest percentage of
which were co-teachers (40.7%). Participants’ responses were distributed across grade
levels; however, most responses were from teachers in early childhood/elementary school
teacher demographics, teacher ages were reported from the study as over the age 50
(51.7%) as compared to from the state of Oklahoma teachers over the age 53 (65.1%).
Special education teachers in the study who held a standard or alternative certificate
94
teacher ethnic identifications from the study were reported as White (85.7%), Native
American (6%), and Black (3.2%); as compared to White (82%), Native American
(8.6%), and Black (3.2%) for the overall Oklahoma teachers. The sample of special
education teachers from the study were similar to those of the state of Oklahoma.
Research Hypotheses
experience at work. It was hypothesized the findings from the current study would align
with research literature which identified job-related stressors associated with workload
manageability, working conditions, and student behavior (Bettini et al., 2017c; Cancio et
The hypothesis was verified regarding job stressors. Items which were rated
higher on the scale (3.06 < M < 3.77) indicated special education teachers had elevated
stress levels associated with workload manageability (i.e., “excessive workload,” “data
“inadequate time”), and student behavior (i.e., “helping students with emotional and
teachers become stressed when their workloads and/or caseloads are too large, they have
excessive paperwork, data documentation, and/or meetings. These tasks are closely
associated with the high stress rating of inadequate time to complete job-related tasks.
Student behavior when working with students with emotional and behavioral disorders
Items which were rated lower on the scale (1.47 < M < 2.95) were largely tasks
associated with instruction, such as “teaching similar ability groups,” “planning,” and
95
“collaboration with general education teachers.” This would indicate special education
manifests itself in them personally. It was hypothesized the findings from the current
study would align with research literature which identifies physical and/or emotional
The hypothesis was verified regarding manifestations of stress. Items which were
rated higher on the scale (2.81 < M < 3.45) indicated special education teachers reported
a higher incidence of how they experienced stress. The highest manifestations of stress
“having difficulty sleeping,” and “experiencing disruptions to their eating habits (either
Items which were rated lower on the scale (1.09 < M < 2.05) indicated special
education teachers reported a lower incidence of how they experienced stress. Almost all
manifestations of stress that were reported with lower incidence were physical
“stomachaches,” “high blood pressure,” and “seeking medical care for stress.” They also
One item was an outlier in the manifestations of stress section of the survey.
Special education teachers reported “missing a lot of time from work due to stress” as the
lowest rated item at M = 0.53. This would indicate stress levels do not interfere with a
96
special education teacher’s attendance to work. This may also suggest it is more stressful
for special education teachers to stay home than to come to work. Making lesson plans
for a substitute can be extremely difficult when working in special education classrooms,
Hypothesis 3. Coping strategies would fall into two categories: active and
palliative (Carton & Fruchart, 2014). Active strategies are used to eliminate stress before
it starts (Carton & Fruchart, 2014). Palliative strategies are used primarily to avoid the
effects of stress and have been shown to be ineffective in stress reduction (Austin et al.,
2005; Cancio et al., 2018; Carton & Fruchart, 2014). It was hypothesized special
education teachers often implement palliative coping strategies due to highly stressful
The hypothesis was not verified regarding coping strategies. Items which were
rated higher on the scale (2.00 < M < 3.41) indicated special education teachers reported
a higher incidence of using coping strategies. The coping strategy they used most often
was an active coping strategy, “support from family, friends, and colleagues.” This was
also the highest rated coping strategy in the study by Cancio et al. (2018). The second
most used coping strategy was “relaxing after school hours,” which Austin and
colleagues (2005) recommend as an effective active coping strategy. Of the top rated
coping strategies, all except one, “eating,” were active coping strategies, which was in
contrast to the hypothesis. Special education teacher survey participants indicated they
used active coping strategies more often than palliative coping strategies.
Items which were rated lower on the scale (0.69 < M < 1.95) indicated special
97
strategies. Many of the lower rated coping strategies were palliative including use of
“prescription medication,” “excessive sleeping,” and “the use of tobacco and alcohol.”
yoga/meditation,” and “writing”. The results from this survey were in contrast with
research literature suggesting teachers with higher stress levels engaged in palliative
coping strategies more often than active coping strategies (Austin et al., 2005).
Hypothesis 4. Special education teachers will report the extent of support they
receive from their administrator and how important each type of support is to their job.
Administrators play an active role in reducing special education teacher stress and
promoting teacher retention (Albrecht et al., 2009; Leithwood & McAdie, 2007). In
similar studies, support from administrators has been found to decrease stress and
attrition, and offset the negative effects of stress caused by unmanageable workloads
(Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Miller, 1997; Cancio et al., 2013). It was hypothesized
special education teachers would report a difference in their perceived level of support
administrative support versus importance of support. When comparing the top 10 items
of both lists, the number one item for both extent and importance was provides materials
and resources to do my job. Overall, eight items were present in the top 10 list of each
category with order slightly altered. While this may seem as though there were no
support, the marked difference was in the means. The range of means including 27 survey
98
items for extent of support was (2.48 < M < 4.12), as compared to the range of means for
importance of support was (3.30 < M < 4.67). Only the bottom six items for importance
of support dropped below a M < 4.00 on a Likert-type scale of 0-5. Respondents reported
all items in this section were important areas for administrators to support special
education teachers.
Hypothesis 5. Survey items were selected from existing surveys, current research
respect and appreciation, social and emotional support, professional development, and
provisions.
The hypothesis was verified regarding the alignment of survey items to the latent
variables. A CFA was conducted on the individual models (i.e., job stressors, coping
strategies, and administrative support) and the 10-factor model to determine if survey
items measured the latent constructs. Fit indices (i.e., CFI, RMSEA, SRMR) indicated
Special education teachers. Data from the study provides implications for
practice to special education teachers who struggle with negative effects of job-related
stress. Special education teachers need tools to manage the intensity of their stressful
events (Griffith, Steptoe, & Cropley, 1999). First, special education teachers would
active and palliative coping strategies for stress reduction. Carton and Fruchart (2014)
99
indicated active strategies reduce stress more effectively than palliative strategies. Study
participants indicated the top active coping strategies they used for reducing stress
included “support from family, friends, and colleagues,” “relaxing after school hours,”
these findings that when special education teachers actively pursue relaxing activities and
hobbies, it reduces job-related stress. Other commonly used active coping strategies
include regular exercise, yoga, meditation, and other relaxation activities. Another
effective proactive strategy includes determining the source of job-related stress in order
to eliminate it. For example, special education teachers should consider making changes
within their control such as adjusting their daily schedule, allotting designated time for
regularly talk with their supervisor in order to advocate for necessary changes, seek
beginning to engage in palliative coping skills to relieve the pain of stress (Carton &
Fruchart, 2014). Stress has a cumulative effect which special education teachers often
don’t recognize until its negative impact has exceeded their available resources or
abilities (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006). Study participants indicated the most
commonly used palliative coping strategies were “eating,” “prescription medication,” and
“sleeping.” While palliative coping strategies temporarily relieve the pain, they do not
address or remedy the source of stress. I speculate that when special education teachers
engage in palliative coping strategies, they only find short-term results. Chan and Hui
100
(1996) indicate teachers who engage in palliative coping strategies are more prone to
burnout.
administrators who supervise special education teachers. These implications are targeted
means in which administrators can practically reduce the negative effects of job-related
stress for special education teachers. Study participants indicated the job-related stressors
which cause the most stress included “excessive workload,” “required paperwork,” “data
These job-stressors are all related to workload manageability and working conditions in
findings, that job stress would be decreased if special education teachers’ workload
would decrease.
education staff with highly qualified teachers. While this is an expensive solution, the
workload of special education teachers would decrease if their caseloads were smaller
improved by increasing the special education staff. Other ways to decrease workload is to
professionals are certified and trained to support teachers in instructional duties, behavior
management, and general classroom assistance. A lesser expensive option would be for
101
assigning school-wide duties, committees, or other service activities. Freeing up
additional time for special education teachers would increase the amount of time they had
available during the school day to complete tasks such as paperwork, data collection and
Study participants indicated all of the items included on the survey were
important ways for administrators to support them, with the lowest observed mean at 3.30
on a Likert-type scale of 0-5. Items rated as the most important ways for administrators to
“shows genuine concern for my program and students,” “is honest and straightforward
with staff,” and “trusts my judgment in making classroom decisions.” I speculate that
highly qualified teachers feel capable of delivering effective instruction and managing
their jobs if they do not lack necessary materials. Once they have adequate resources, it is
most important to have supportive administrators who show genuine care and concern.
Special education teachers feel most supported when their administrators are honest,
direct, and have confidence in their ability to make appropriate decisions. Other
implications for administrators include seeking out special education teachers to actively
listen to the sources of their stress and suggesting solutions. Administrators should
provide professional development opportunities related to the issues which are causing
stress for their teachers. Funds should also be allotted for special education teachers to
join professional organizations to receive access to the most recent research and
professional support.
102
Limitations
of the survey was limited since the survey instrument was not tested for test-retest
reliability prior to distribution and subsequent data collection. If this survey were to be
participants who are demographically similar. Generalizability was also limited due to the
Oklahoma special education teachers at all grade levels and working with all disability
study. Since the survey invitation was explicitly limited to special education teachers in
study should include a stratified random sample of special education teachers at all grade
levels working with all disability populations for comparison. Additional studies
targeting special education teachers of specific disability populations (e.g., emotional and
could be conducted to investigate a narrow focus of teacher stress, coping strategies, and
administrative support.
on a Likert-type scale regarding their job-related stress and coping strategies. Self-
103
perceptions can often be limited and respondents might have had difficulty labeling their
in the survey. In the future, a variety of methods could be used to increase participation
including monetary incentives such as a drawing for a chance to win popular gift cards or
disease (COVID-19) began in Wuhan, China. This highly contagious severe acute
continuously evolves (Liu, Kuo, & Shih, 2020). It was first reported in the United States
in January 2020 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). On March 11, 2020
mandatory closure of all Oklahoma public schools from March 17, 2020 through April 6,
instruction on April 6, 2020, all Oklahoma public schools were mandated to move
how distance learning must occur at each school site, guidelines required instruction must
occur outside the traditional school building to focus on the safety and health of the
students and school staff (Oklahoma State Department of Education, 2020c). School
104
districts across the state of Oklahoma had to quickly move instruction online where
possible, or provide paper/pencil materials with strict guidelines to prevent the spread of
COVID-19.
It was an uncertain time for school administrators, teachers, and staff. District
decisions were made quickly and teachers began a new model for delivering instruction
for the last six weeks of the academic year beginning April 6, 2020. Special education
teachers across the state had to teach their students without access to materials, face-to-
face time, or paraprofessionals. There was a digital learning curve for parents and
teachers as online programs began to replace best practices in which teachers were
accustomed to teaching.
Instruction quickly settled into a new normal; however, the survey for this study
was first distributed online on April 20, 2020, exactly two weeks after the distance
learning model began. It is possible the timing of the survey distribution impacted the
survey results in two ways: (1) Special education teacher stress ratings could have been
impacted by the change from a traditional teaching model to distance learning just weeks
before the survey was distributed. Significant consideration was given to postponing the
delivery of the survey; however, with the uncertain nature of the unprecedented time with
a pandemic, it was determined there was no way to predict if stress would be differently
impacted by COVID-19 at a later date if the survey were postponed. (2) The special
education teacher response rate was potentially impacted because they were working
from home without students face-to-face. For some special education teachers, there
would potentially have been more time to access email and take a 15-minute survey
regarding their job stress, while others time might have had less time for a 15-minute
105
survey, depending on their district and expectations. Under normal circumstances, mid-
April would have been a very busy season with end-of-year state assessments and
activities.
Future Research
As a continuation to this study, the next step of the CFA would be to measure
level-2 of the model. Factor coefficients of the 10 latent factors would indicate the degree
of strength in which the level-1 factors loaded on the level-2 constructions (i.e., job
stressors, coping strategies, and administrative support). Once the hierarchical model is
the latent variables of job stressors, administrative support, and coping strategies. A
hypothesized model was originally proposed in this study; however, the model did not
converge once the SEM was run in R package© (Figure 9). Future investigation of the
study variables and a new theoretical model could provide insight into the structural
A hypothesized model was also proposed to investigate job stressors and coping
strategies as mediators for special education teacher stress and administrative support
(Figure 10). Future research exploring the ways job-related stressors and coping skills are
106
Figure 9
Role
Workload Working
Materials
Overload Manageability Conditions
Work/Life Time
Available
Balance
Admin
Approachable Lesson Support
Plans Student Discipline
decisions
Attentive IEPs, Behavior
FBAs, BIPs Working with
EBD students
Data
Sense of Managing
Collection
Importance Accessibility classroom
Shows Meetings
Appreciation Professional
Development
Clear job Coping
responsibilities Skills COPING
Legal
STRATEGIES
Policies
ADMINISTRATIVE Instruction
Respect and SUPPORT Behavior
Appreciation Techniques Active Palliative
Coping Coping
Strategies Strategies
Prescription
Problem Provisions Hobbies
Time Medication
Solve Social and
Dispute
Emotional Music
Eating or
Resources Sleeping
Resolution Support
Classroom Support/Trust Exercise Counseling
Management
107
Figure 10
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT
COPING
JOB STRESSORS
STRATEGIES
SPECIAL
EDUCATION
TEACHER STRESS
108
The findings of this study suggest future research should include investigations on
stress. Prior research suggests these interventions should be determined based on special
Other research could include the association of special education teacher stress and
attrition as more qualitative research in this area could give insight into special education
teachers’ intent to leave their jobs and the role of job-related stress in attrition.
More research is needed to identify active coping strategies necessary for stressful
jobs, like those of special education teachers. Research-based strategies are needed for
coping under the pressures of working with students with disabilities and their families.
Other beneficial research for special education teachers include approaches to recognize
active and palliative coping strategies associated with their job-related stress. Special
education teachers need to understand the difference in palliative coping strategies which
might help relieve the pain without dealing with the cause versus active coping strategies
research-based strategies to decrease stress for special education teachers. They also need
reactive strategies to identify levels of increasing stress in their teachers and ways to
increase necessary supports and active coping strategies to help eliminate the source of
the problem. Additionally, research on the administrators’ perspective of the support they
109
education teachers from this survey to a future survey of administrators would provide
Conclusion
This study provided important information for special education teachers and their
administrators on how to identify and address job-related stress. Survey results provided
insight on the top job-related stress factors which need to be addressed by special
education teachers and their administrators to decrease stress at work. Decreasing job-
related stress could increase longevity in special educators’ careers and job satisfaction.
Personal coping strategies were identified to understand what teachers were currently
implemented, decrease stress and address the source of the stressful problems. The level
and importance of administrative support was also identified. The resulting data gives
insight into areas in which special education teachers perceived a need for support. An
examination of these factors provides a starting point for helping administrators address
110
References
Adera, B. A., & Bullock, L. M. (2010). Job stressors and teacher job satisfaction in
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632750903512365
Albrecht, S. F., Johns, B. H., Mounsteven, J., & Olorunda, O. (2009). Working
conditions as risk or resiliency factors for teachers of students with emotional and
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20440
Ansley, B. M., Houchins, D., & Varjas, K. (2016). Optimizing special educator wellness
Austin, V., Shah, S., & Muncer, S. (2005). Teacher stress and coping strategies used to
https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.16
commitment for special education teachers in rural areas. Rural Special Education
Bettini, E., Benedict, A., Thomas, R., Kimerling, J., Choi, N., & McLeskey, J. (2017a).
111
education administrators’ roles. Remedial and Special Education, 38(2), 111-126.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516664790
Bettini, E. A., Cheyney, K., Wang, J., & Leko, C. (2015). Job design: An administrator’s
Bettini, E. A., Cumming, M. M., Merrill, K. L., Brunsting, N. C., & Liaupsin, C. J.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466916674195
Bettini, E., Cumming, M. M., O’Brien, K. M., Brunsting, N. C., Ragunathan, M., Sutton,
R., & Chopra, A. (2020). Predicting special educators’ intent to continue teaching
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919873556
Bettini, E., Jones, N., Brownell, M., Conroy, M., Park, Y., Leite, W., … & Benedict, A.
Bettini, E., Park, Y., Benedict, A., Kimerling, J., & Leite, W. (2016). Situating special
educators’ instructional quality and their students’ outcomes within the conditions
https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2015.1107831
112
Bergert, S., & Burnette, J. (2001). Educating Exceptional Children: A Statistical Profile
Department of Education.
Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1984). Coping, stress, and social resources among adults
877. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.877
Billingsley, B., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004). The working conditions and induction
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000305
analysis of the research literature. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 39-55.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669040380010401
Billingsley, B. S., & Bettini, E. (2019). Special education teacher attrition research: A
Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1992). Predictors of commitment, job satisfaction, and
https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699202500404
Billingsley, B. S., Pyecha, J. N., Smith-Davis, J., Murray, K., & Hendricks, M. B. (1995).
Education.
113
Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage of fully certified
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200404
Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2007). The prevalence of various aspects of
development, and workload factors for beginning teachers in special and general
in Social Policy.
Boe, E. E. (2014). Teacher demand, supply, and shortage in special education. Handbook
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY:
Guilford publications.
Brownell, M., Smith, S., McNellis, J., & Miller, M. (1997). Attrition in special education:
Why teachers leave the classroom and where they go. Exceptionality, 7(3), 143-
155. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex0703_1
Brunsting, N. C., Sreckovic, M. A., & Lane, K. L. (2014). Special education teacher
114
Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Defining administrative support and
https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2013.0035
Cancio, E. J., Larsen, R., Mathur, S. R., Estes, M. B., Johns, B., & Chang, M. (2018).
Carlson, E., & Billingsley, B. (2001, July). Working conditions in special education:
Current research and implications for the field. In OSEP Project Directors
Carton, A., & Fruchart, E. (2014). Sources of stress, coping strategies, emotional
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.769937
and what we can do about it. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). CDC, Washington state reports first
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0229-COVID-19-first-death.html
Chan, D. W., & Hui, E. K. (1995). Burnout and coping among Chinese secondary school
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1995.tb01128.x
115
Chang, M. L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410701491858
Conderman, G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Instructional issues and practices in secondary
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325020230030501
Conroy, M. A., Alter, P. J., Boyd, B. A., & Bettini, E. (2014). Teacher preparation for
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299606200404
Cross, L. H., & Billingsley, B. (1994). Testing a model of special educators’ intent to stay
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299406000504
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.001
116
Csaszar, I. E., & Buchanan, T. (2015). Meditation and teacher stress. Dimensions of
Dean, C. (2000). Teaching can make you sicker for longer. Times Education
Supplement, 19(9).
DeAngelis, K. J., & Presley, J. B. (2011). Toward a more nuanced understanding of new
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124510380724
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, phone, mail, and
mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons.
Embich, J. L. (2001). The relationship of secondary special education teachers' roles and
Emery, D. W., & Vandenberg, B. (2010). Special education teacher burnout and
Engelbrecht, P., Oswald, M., Swart, E., & Eloff, I. (2003). Including learners with
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912032000120462
Eriksen, H. R., Ihlebaek, C., Mikkelson, A., Gronningsaeter, H., Sandal, G. M., & Ursin,
https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/52.7.383
117
Farber, B. A., (1984). Teacher burnout: Assumptions, myths, and issues. Teachers
Farber, B. A. (2000). Treatment strategies for different types of teacher burnout. Journal
4679(200005)56:5<675::AID-JCLP8>3.0.CO;2-D
Fideler, E. F., Foster, E. D., & Schwartz, S. (2000). The urban teacher challenge:
Teacher demand and supply in the great city schools. The Urban Teacher
Frank, A. R., & McKenzie, R. (1993). The development of burnout among special
https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649301600208
Garwood, J. D., Werts, M. G., Varghese, C., & Gosey, L. (2018). Mixed-methods
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517745270
George, N. L., George, M. P., Gersten, R., & Grosenick, J. K. (1995). To leave or to stay?
https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259501600406
Gersten, R., Keating, T., Yovanoff, P., & Harniss, M. K. (2001). Working in special
118
Gillespie, N. A., Walsh, M. H., Winefield, A. H., Dua, J., & Stough, C. (2001).
Goldring, R., Taie, S., & Riddles, M. (2014). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results
from the 2012-2013 teacher follow-up survey (NCES 2014-077; National Center
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001
Irvin, D. W., Hume, K., Boyd, B. A., McBee, M. T., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Child and
Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P., & Millet, C. (2005). The
119
Kaff, M. S. (2004). Multitasking is multitaxing: Why special educators are leaving the
and low and high socio-economic status schools (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest.
Education and the Social Sciences (171-207). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (4th ed.).
Kunkulol, R. R., Karia, R., Patel, P., & David, A. (2013). Levels of stress amongst the
https://doi.org/10.5958/j.2319-5886.2.4.145
www.air.org
Lambert, R. G., & McCarthy, C. J. (Eds.). (2006). Understanding teacher stress in an era
Publishing, Inc.
120
Lazarate Alcala, N. R. (2018). Oklahoma Educator Supply and Demand Report: Trends,
Education.
Lee, J. C. K., & Yin, H. B. (2011). Teachers’ emotions and professional identity in
25-46.
Leithwood, K., & McAdie, P. (2007). Teacher working conditions that matter. Education
Leko, M. M., & Smith, S. W. (2010). Retaining beginning special educators: What
should administrators know and do? Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(5),
321-325.
Li, C. H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust
Liu, Y. C., Kuo, R. L., & Shih, S. R. (2020). COVID-19: The first documented
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bj.2020.04.007
Mandic, C. G., Rudd, R., Hehir, T., & Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2012). Readability of special
203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910362774
121
Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., Morgan, R. L., & Marchand-Martella, N. E.
Guilford Press.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1984). Burnout in organizational settings. Applied Social
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Master, B., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2014). Learning that lasts: Unpacking variation in
website www.air.org
Matheny, K. B., Gfroerer, C. A., & Harris, K. (2000). Work stress, burnout, and coping at
McGrath, A., Houghton, D., & Reid, N. (1989). Occupational stress, and teachers in
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678378908256955
McLeskey, J., & Billingsley, B. S. (2008). How does the quality and stability of the
293-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932507312010
122
McLeskey, J., Tyler, N. C., & Saunders Flippin, S. (2004). The supply of and demand for
https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669040380010201
Mehrenberg, R. L. (2013). Red tape and green teachers: The impact of paperwork on
Miller, M. D., Brownell, M. T., & Smith, S. W. (1999). Factors that predict teachers
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299906500206
Morvant, M., & Gersten, R., Gillman, J., Keating, T., & Blake, G. (1995).
Research and Strategic Action Planning. (Final Performance Report, Volume 1).
Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: Its
Mueller, P. H. (1997). A study of the roles, training needs, and support needs of
National Center for Learning Disabilities (2018). IDEA Full Funding: Why should
123
Learning Disabilities website: https://www.ncld.org/archives/action-center/what-
we-ve-done/idea-full-funding-why-should-congress-invest-in-special-education
National Education Association (2018). Special education grants to states (IDEA Part B-
611): IDEA funding gap. Retrieved from National Education Association website:
https://www.nea.org/assets/docs/IDEA-Funding-Gap-FY-2017-with-State-
Table.pdf
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2019). 41st Annual Report to
https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2019/parts-b-c/41st-arc-for-
idea.pdf
https://sde.ok.gov/newsblog/2020-03-16/emergency-state-board-meeting-
expected-close-schools-until-april-6
https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/FAQS%20FOR%20PUBLIC%20SCHOOLS
%20-%20COVID-19.pdf
124
Paquette, K. R., & Rieg, S. A. (2016). Stressors and coping strategies through the lens of
Parker, P. D., & Martin, A. J. (2009). Coping and buoyancy in the workplace:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.009
students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The Clearing House: A Journal
https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2010.489387
Qualtrics© software, version XM of the Qualtrics Research Suite. (2020). Provo, UT.
125
R Core Team, version R package©. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical
from https://www.r-project.org.
Reetz, L. J. (1987). Conflict and stress among rural special educators. Rural Special
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391486
Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212463813
Rothstein, R. (2010). How to fix our schools: It’s more complicated, and more work, than
Policy Institute.
Ruble, L. A., & McGrew, J. H. (2013). Teacher and child predictors of achieving IEP
Schutz, P. A., Hong, J. Y., Cross, D. I., & Osbon, J. N. (2006). Reflections on
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_1
126
Sharma, U., & Salend, S. J. (2016). Teaching assistants in inclusive classrooms: A
Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T., & Billingsley, B. (2010). Special education teacher
education research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and
Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. S. (1996). Intent to stay in teaching: Teachers of students
with emotional disorders versus other special educators. Remedial and Special
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2015). Job Satisfaction, stress and coping strategies in
Stoner, J. B., Bock, S. J., Thompson, J. R., Angelí, M. E., Heyl, B. S., & Crowley, E. P.
of young children with ASD and education professionals. Focus on Autism and
https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576050200010401
Suter, J. C., & Giangreco, M. F. (2009). Numbers that count: Exploring special education
Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers' emotions and teaching: A review of
127
The jamovi© project, version 1.2. (2020). Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.jamovi.org.
Turnbull, H. R., Stowe, M. J., & Huerta, N. E. (2007). Free appropriate public
education: The law and children with disabilities (7th ed.). Denver, CO: Love
Publishing Company
https://nces.ed.gov
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508327459
Wallace, T., Shin, J., Bartholomay, T., & Stahl, B. J. (2001). Knowledge and skills for
520-533. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106700406
Wheeler, D. S., & LaRocco, D. J. (2009). Special education administrators: Who and
128
Williams, J., & Dikes, C. (2015). The implications of demographic variables as related to
345.
Wisniewski, L., & Gargiulo, R. M. (1997). Occupational stress and burnout among
Wong, V. W., Ruble, L. A., Yu, Y., & McGrew, J. H. (2017). Too stressed to teach?
World Health Organization. (2020). Coronavirus disease 2019: Events as they happen.
2019/events-as-they-happen
Yell, M. L. (2016). The law and special education (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Zabel, M. K., & Zabel, R. H. (1983). Burnout among special education teachers. Journal
Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, M. K. (1982). Factors in burnout among teachers of exceptional
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298204900312
Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, M. K. (2001). Revisiting burnout among special education
teachers: Do age, experience, and preparation still matter? Teacher Education and
129
Zirkel. P. A., & Gischlar, K. (2008). Due process hearings under the IDEA: A
31.
130
Appendix A
Survey Development Flow Chart
Cancio et al. Cancio et al. Paquette & Rieg Total items after
(2013) (2018) (2016) duplicates removed
n = 0 items n = 27 items n = 0 items n = 147 items
Removed for
Redundancy
Cancio et al. Cancio et al. Paquette & Rieg Total items after
(2013) (2018) (2016) redundancy removed
n = 9 items n = 1 items n = 0 items n = 137 items
Removed for
Construct
Different
Cancio et al. Cancio et al. Paquette & Rieg Total items after
(2013) (2018) (2016) constructs removed
n = 30 items n = 6 items n = 6 items n = 85 items
131
Combined
Author’s original
Original
Final Survey
n = 101 items
132
Appendix B
Cancio et al. (2013) Original Survey
Impact of Administrative Support on the Stress, Burnout, and Attrition
of Teachers of Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
Part 1
Extent and Importance of Administrative Support
In this section we are asking you to make two judgments about each statement. We are
interested in knowing the extent of support you receive from your administrator and how
important each type of support is to you and your job. If there are two or more
administrators who supervise you, consider the one to whom you usually report to or the
one with whom you have the greatest amount of contact. Extent of support scale 1-4
scale, importance of support scale 1-4.
1. Is easy to approach
2. Gives me undivided attention when I am talking
3. Is honest and straightforward with the staff
4. Gives me a sense of importance that I make a difference
5. Considers my ideas
6. Allows input into decisions that affect me
7. Supports me on reasonable decisions
8. Shows genuine concern for my program and students
9. Notices my efforts
10. Shows appreciation for my work
11. Treats me as one of the faculty
12. Gives clear guidelines regarding my job responsibilities
13. Provides standards for my performance
14. Offers constructive feedback after observing my teaching
15. Provides frequent feedback about my performance
16. Provides materials and resources needed to do my job
17. Trusts my judgment in making classroom decisions
18. Shows confidence in the decisions I make
19. Provides helpful information for improving personal coping skills
20. Provides information on up-to-date instructional & behavioral techniques
21. Provides knowledge of current legal policies and administrative regulations
22. Provides opportunities for me to attend workshops and conferences
23. During my interview, was honest about school climate
24. Encourages professional growth
25. Provides suggestions for me to improve instruction
26. Identifies resource personnel for specific problems I am unable to solve
27. Assists with proper identification of students with EBD
28. Is available to help when needed
29. Helps me solve problems and conflicts that occur
30. Helps me with classroom management problems
31. Helps me during parent conflicts, when necessary
32. Provides time for various non-teaching responsibilities (e.g., IEP, meetings)
133
33. Provides adequate planning time
34. Participates in child study/eligibility/IEP meetings/parent conferences
35. Works with me to plan goals and objectives for my program and students
36. Provides resources when I become overloaded
37. Equally distributes resources and unpopular chores
38. Provides mentors for new teachers
39. Provides opportunities to learn from fellow special education teachers
40. Provides a paraprofessional for your program
41. Please identify the gender of the supervisor for whom your responses relate
42. Please indicate how often you interact with this supervisor
43. Title of supervisor for whom your responses relate:
a. Building Principal
b. Special Education Supervisor
c. Assistant Principal
d. Director of Special Education
e. Other
Part 2
Job Satisfaction
In this section please consider how satisfied you are with various aspects of your job.
Satisfaction scale 1-4 scale
Part 3
Feelings that People Experience Concerning their Jobs
The following statements express various “feelings” that people experience concerning
their jobs. Indicate how often you experience the feelings described in each statement.
Frequency scale 1-5.
134
58. You carry your school problems home with you
59. Your work makes you frustrated
60. Your work makes you tense
61. The amount of work you have to get done interferes with how well it gets done
62. Your work causes you a great deal of stress
Part 4
Views About School
In this section please indicate the degree to which each of the following statements
reflects your views about your school. Agreement (scale 1-5)
Part 5
Items that Describe You
In this section please indicate the extent to which each of the following items might
describe you. Frequency scale 1-5.
135
83. I miss a lot of time from work
Part 6
Demographics
Please provide the following information about yourself.
84. Gender
a. Male
b. Female
85. Age
a. 25 or less
b. 26 to 29
c. 30 to 35
d. 36 to 40
e. 41 to 45
f. 46 to 50
g. 51 to 55
h. 56 to 60
i. 60 plus
86. Ethnic background
a. White
b. Black
c. Hispanic
d. Asian
e. Native American
f. Other
87. How many years have you been present in your position?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
e. 5
f. 6 to 10
g. 11 to 14
h. 15 to 19
i. 20 to 25
j. 26 plus
88. How many years experience have you had in education all together?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
e. 5
f. 6 to 10
g. 11 to 14
136
h. 15 to 19
i. 20 to 25
j. 26 plus
89. Are you endorsed/licensed in the area you are currently teaching?
a. Yes
b. No
90. Certification
a. LBSI
b. BD/SED
c. LD
d. EMH
e. TMH
f. LBSII
91. Which grade level to do you at
a. Elementary
b. Middle School/Jr. High
c. High School
d. Other
92. Average socioeconomic level of the students attending my school is
a. Low
b. Middle
c. High
93. Number of teachers within your classroom
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. Other
94. Number of students within your classroom
a. 0-7
b. 8-10
c. 11-13
d. 14-20
e. 21-30
f. Other
95. Classroom type
a. EBD Self-Contained
b. EBD Resource
c. Cross-Categorical Self-Contained
d. Cross Categorial Resource
e. Other
96. Classroom is set with in a
a. Public School
b. Public EBD Alternative School
c. Private Therapeutic Day School
d. Other
137
Appendix C
Cancio et al. (2018) Original Survey
How Special Educators Cope with Stress
Part 1
Job Satisfaction
In this section, please consider how satisfied you are with various aspects of your job.
Participants answer on a forced Likert scale 1-4
1. I value my position
2. My classroom is sufficient in size
3. I have difficulty with my position
4. I have job security and permanence
5. I receive pride and respect from family and friends for being in my profession
6. I have positive relationships with colleagues.
Part 2
Feelings you Experience on the Job
The following statements express various “feelings” that people experience concerning
their jobs. Indicate how often you experience the feelings described in each statement.
Participants answer based on a Likert scale 1-5
Part 3
Descriptive Items
In this section please indicate the extent to which the following item might describe you.
Participants answer based on a Likert scale 1-5
Part 4
Coping Strategies
In this section please indicate how you are coping with your stress
Participants answer based on a Likert scale 1-5
138
20. Dancing
21. Writing
22. Listening to music
23. Gardening
24. Talking with your supervisor
25. Yoga
26. Exercise
27. Support from family, friends, and colleagues
28. Involvement in a professional organization
29. Counseling
30. Engaging in staff development
31. Eating
32. Prescription medication
33. Tobacco products
34. Alcohol
35. Recreational drugs
Part 5
Demographics
Please provide information about yourself
36. Gender
a. Male
b. Female
37. Age
a. 25 or less
b. 26 to 29
c. 30 to 35
d. 36 to 40
e. 41 to 45
f. 46 to 50
g. 51 to 55
h. 56 to 60
i. 61 plus
38. Ethnic background
a. White
b. Black
c. Hispanic
d. Asian
e. Native American
f. Other (specify)
39. How many years have you been at your present position?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
e. 5
139
f. 6 to 10
g. 11 to 14
h. 15 to 19
i. 20 to 25
j. 26 plus
40. How many years of experience have you had in education all together?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
e. 5
f. 6 to 10
g. 11 to 14
h. 15 to 19
i. 20 to 25
j. 26 plus
41. Are you endorsed/licensed in the area you are currently teaching?
a. Yes
b. No
42. Certification
a. Mild/Moderate
b. Moderate to Severe
c. EBD
d. LD
e. Intellectual Disabilities
f. Other (specify)
43. What grade level do you teach
a. Elementary
b. Middle School/Jr High
c. High School
d. Other (specify)
44. Average socioeconomic level of the students attending your school
a. Low
b. Middle
c. High
45. Number of teachers within your classroom
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. Other (specify)
46. Number of paraprofessionals within your classroom
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. Other (specify)
47. Number of students within your classroom
140
a. 0-7
b. 8-10
c. 11-13
d. 14-20
e. 21-30
f. Other (specify)
48. Classroom type
a. Self-contained
b. Resource
c. Cross-Categorical
d. Inclusive setting
e. Other (specify)
49. What type of students with disabilities do you teach?
a. Emotionally Disturbed/Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (ED/EBD)
b. Learning Disabled (LD)
c. Intellectual Disabilities/Cognitive Disabilities (ID/CD)
d. ED/EBD, LD, ID/CD
e. Other (specify)
50. Classroom is set within a
a. Public School
b. Public Alternative School
c. Private Therapeutic Day School
d. Separate Facility for Students with Severe Challenging Behavior
e. Other (specify)
141
Appendix D
Paquette and Rieg (2016) Original Survey
Stressors and Coping Strategies of Early Childhood/Special Education Pre-Service
Teachers
142
Appendix E
Dissertation Survey
Special Education Teacher Stress, Coping Strategies, and Administrative Support
Adapted from:
Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Defining administrative support and
its relationship to the attrition of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral
disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 71-94.
Cancio, E. J., Larsen, R., Mathur, S. R., Estes, M. B., Johns, B., & Chang, M. (2018).
Special Education Teacher Stress: Coping Strategies. Education and Treatment of
Children, 41(4), 457-481.
Paquette, K. R., & Rieg, S. A. (2016). Stressors and coping strategies through the lens of
early childhood/special education pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 57, 51-58.
Part 1
Job Stressors
The following statements express various aspects of a special education teacher’s jobs.
Indicate how often you experience stress in relation to the job aspect described in each
statement.
Participants answer based on a Likert-type scale 0-5 (0 – Never; 5 – All of the time)
1. Classroom management
2. Student discipline
3. Helping students with emotional/behavior problems
4. Teaching mixed ability groups
5. Teaching similar ability groups
6. Assessments (formative and summative)
7. Communicating with parents
8. Excessive workload
9. Excessive caseload
10. Developing lesson plans
11. Required paperwork (IEPs, FBAs, etc.)
12. Data collection and documentation
13. Meetings
14. Supervising paraprofessionals
15. Role overload (wear too many hats)
16. Role confusion (no clear guidelines of my responsibilities)
17. Work/life balance
18. Others expecting me to perform tasks beyond my competency
19. Fear of failing
20. Collaborating with general education teachers
21. Lack of necessary materials and resources
22. Inadequate time to complete work
143
23. Lack of administrative support
Part 2
Manifestations of Stress
In this section please indicate the extent to which the following items describe your
stress as a special education teacher.
Participants answer based on a Likert-type scale 0-5 (0 – Never; 5 – All of the time)
Part 3
Coping Strategies
In this section please indicate how you are coping with your stress. How often do you
engage in these activities to cope with your job-related stress?
Participants answer based on a Likert-type scale 0-5 (0 – Never; 5 – All of the time)
144
Part 4
Administrative Support
In this section you need to make two judgments about each statement: what is the extent
of support you receive from your administrator and how important is each type of
support to you and your job? If there are two or more administrators who supervise
you, consider the one to whom you usually report to or the one with whom you have the
greatest amount of contact.
Participants answer based on a Likert-type scale 0-5
0- No Support; 5- Full Support
0 – Not Important; 5 – Significantly Important
82. Please indicate how frequently you interact with your administrator.
a. Seldom
b. Occasionally
c. Frequently
83. What is the title of the administrator for whom your responses relate?
a. Principal
b. Assistant Principal
145
c. Special Education Coordinator/Department Chair
d. Special Education Director
e. Other
84. How do you rate your overall stress level as a special education teacher?
(Indicate level from 0-9 on a sliding scale bar)
0 – no stress; 9 – highest level of stress
Part 5
Demographic Information
In this section you will provide information about yourself.
85. What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
c. Binary
d. Other
86. Please indicate your age range.
a. 20-29
b. 30-39
c. 40-49
d. 50-59
e. 60-69+
87. How would you describe your ethnic background?
a. White
b. Black
c. Hispanic
d. Asian
e. Native American
f. Other (please specify)
88. How many total years of experience have you been in the field of education?
a. 0-5
b. 6-10
c. 11-15
d. 16-20
e. 21-25
f. 26+
89. How many years have you been at your present position?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
e. 5
f. 6-10
g. 11-14
h. 15-19
i. 20-25
j. 26+
146
90. How long do you plan to teach?
a. Definitely plan to leave teaching as soon as I can
b. Will probably continue until something better comes along
c. Until I am eligible for early retirement
d. Until forced to retire at any age.
91. Are you endorsed/licensed in the area you are currently teaching?
a. Yes
b. No
92. What type of special education certification do you hold?
a. Traditional
b. Alternative
c. Emergency
d. Not Certified
93. How many special education students are in your caseload?
a. 0-5
b. 6-10
c. 11-15
d. 16-20
e. 21-25
f. 26-30
g. 31+
94. What grade level do you primarily teach?
a. Early Childhood (PreK-K)
b. Elementary (Grades 1-5)
c. Middle School (Grades 6-8)
d. High School (Grades 9-12)
e. Adult Education (Beyond Grade 12)
95. How would you describe the student disabilities in your caseload? (Please mark
all that apply)
a. Emotionally Disturbed/Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
b. Specific Learning Disability
c. Intellectual Disability
d. Autism Spectrum Disorder
e. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
f. Multiple Disabilities
g. Visual Impairment (Blind)/Hard of Hearing (Deaf)
h. Other (please specify)
96. What is the description of your teaching assignment?
a. Inclusive classroom
b. Co-teacher
c. Resource
d. Self-contained
e. Separate school
f. Homebound/Hospital
g. Other (please specify)
147
97. Your classroom is set within a
a. Public School
b. Public Alternative School
c. Charter School
d. Separate Facility for Students with Severe Challenging Behavior
e. Other (please specify)
98. The students in your caseload have
a. Similar disabilities/educational needs
b. Varying disabilities/educational needs
99. What is the average socioeconomic level of the students attending your school?
a. Low
b. Middle
c. High
100. How many certified teachers work within your classroom? (i.e., Are you the
only teacher or do you co-teach with other certified teachers?) Please indicate
number of certified teachers ______
101. How many paraprofessionals do you supervise? Please indicate number of
paraprofessionals _____
148
Appendix F
Email Invitations to Participate in Survey
Adapted from sample contact strategy (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009)
If you are a current special education teacher in Oklahoma, I am writing to invite you to
participate in a survey entitled “Special Education Teachers: An Evaluation of Stress,
Coping Strategies, and the Impact of Administrative Support.” I am conducting this
survey as part of my dissertation research through the University of Oklahoma. This
survey will invite you to reflect on your experiences with stress in your job, how you
personally cope, and how administrative support impacts your job-related stress.
As you may know, there is a national shortage of qualified and experienced special
education teachers. This can be attributed to the stress involved when working with
special education populations. The purpose of this study is to provide information to
identify job-related stressors, develop strategies to help teachers cope with job-related
stress, and determine how administrators can best support special education teachers.
Your responses to this survey are very important and will help in advancing special
education teacher retention and research on special education teacher stress.
If you agree to participate in this study, please complete the online survey. Completing
the survey should take you no more than 15 minutes. Please click on the link below to go
to the survey website (or copy and paste the survey link into your internet browser).
I appreciate your time and consideration in completing the survey. Should you have any
further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].
149
First Reminder Email Invitation to Participate in Survey
Follow-up Email #1
I recently sent you an email asking you to respond to a survey entitled “Special Education
Teachers: An Evaluation of Stress, Coping Strategies, and the Impact of Administrative
Support.” Your response to this survey is important and will help in advancing special
education teacher retention and research on special education teacher stress, coping
strategies, and administrator support.
This survey is short and should take you approximately 15 minutes to complete. If you
have already completed the survey, I appreciate your participation. If you have not yet
responded to the survey, I encourage you to take a few minutes and complete the survey.
Please click on the link below to go to the survey website (or copy and paste the survey
link into your internet browser).
Your response is important. Getting direct feedback from special education teachers in
the classroom is crucial in improving job-related stress and teacher retention. Thank you
in advance for your help.
150
First Reminder Email Invitation to Participate in Survey
Final Email
Spring is a busy time for teachers and I understand how valuable your time is as we
approach the end of the school year. I sincerely hope you may be able to give about 15
minutes of your time to help me collect important information for the University of
Oklahoma by completing this short survey.
If you have already completed the survey, I truly appreciate your participation. If you
have not yet responded to the survey, I encourage you to complete the survey. I plan to
end this study next week, so I wanted to email everyone who has not responded to make
sure you had a chance to participate.
Please click on the link below to go to the survey website (or copy and paste the survey
link into your internet browser).
Thank you in advance for completing the survey. Your responses are important. Special
education teachers who are currently in the classroom are the best source of information
to help understand teacher stress and administrative support.
151
Appendix G
Consent to Participate in Research at the University of Oklahoma
[OU-NC IRB Number: 11922 Approval Date: 04/08/2020
You are invited to participate in research about the job-related stress for special education
teachers. This survey will investigate the level of special education teacher stress, specific
job-related stressors, manifestations of stress, coping strategies, and the level and
importance of administrative support.
If you agree to participate, you will complete this online survey. There are no risks or
benefits. You may experience discomfort talking about stressful events and can skip any
questions that they don’t feel comfortable answering. Your participation is voluntary and
your responses will be anonymous.
Even if you choose to participate now, you may stop participating at any time and for any
reason. In the future, after removing all identifiers, we might share your data with other
researchers or use it in future research without obtaining additional consent from you.
Data are collected via an online survey system that has its own privacy and security
policies for keeping your information confidential. No assurance can be made as to their
use of the data you provide. If you have questions about this research, please
contact: Leslie Mathews: [email protected] (731) 613-3276 or Corey Peltier:
[email protected] or (401) 487-0921.
You can also contact the University of Oklahoma – Norman Campus Institutional Review
Board at 405-325-8110 or [email protected] with questions, concerns or complaints about your
rights as a research participant, or if you don’t want to talk to the researcher.
Please print this document for your records. By providing information to the
researcher(s), I am agreeing to participate in this research.
152
Appendix H
Survey Distribution Flow Chart
153