Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control Inventory

1. Abstract

The Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control Inventory (ABCC) is an established psychometric instrument designed to evaluate educators’ underlying beliefs, orientations, and perceived practices regarding classroom management and student discipline. Originally adapted from the Inventory of Classroom Management Style (ICMS) by educational psychologists Nancy K. Martin, Zenong Yin, and Beatrice Baldwin (1997), the ABCC operationalizes classroom management as a multidimensional construct rooted in the theoretical continuum developed by Charles H. Wolfgang and Carl D. Glickman (1986). The instrument comprises 26 self-report items distributed across three psychometrically derived subscales: Instructional Management (14 items), People Management (8 items), and Behavior Management (4 items). Responses are recorded along a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Describes me not at all) to 4 (Describes me very well), with higher aggregate scores reflecting an interventionist (teacher-directed, high-control) management style, intermediate scores designating an interactionist style, and lower scores indicating a non-interventionist (student-centered, autonomous) orientation.

Psychometric evaluations of the ABCC demonstrate sound construct validity and internal consistency. Exploratory factor analyses using orthogonal varimax rotation have confirmed the three-factor latent architecture, reporting initial Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .82 for Instructional Management, .69 for People Management, and .69 for Behavior Management among secondary educators. Concurrent validity has been documented through empirical associations with established personality dimensions measured by the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). The ABCC has been widely adopted in teacher education research, pedagogical mentoring programs, and school psychology to assess how instructional philosophy influences classroom climate, teacher burnout, student behavioral infractions, and the psychosocial dynamics of the modern learning environment.

2. Keywords

Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control Inventory, ABCC, classroom management style, instructional management, people management, behavior management, teacher discipline orientation, Wolfgang and Glickman continuum, interventionist, interactionist, non-interventionist, teacher psychometrics, pedagogical beliefs.

3. Authors

The Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control Inventory was conceptualized, developed, and validated through collaborative scholarship in educational psychology, psychometrics, and teacher preparation:

• Nancy K. Martin, Ed.D. — Professor Emerita of Educational Psychology, Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education and Human Development, The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA), San Antonio, Texas, USA. Dr. Martin’s extensive research agenda focuses on teacher beliefs, classroom management ecology, novice teacher induction, and the socio-emotional climate of educational institutions.
• Zenong Yin, Ph.D. — Professor of Health and Kinesiology, Department of Public Health, College for Health, Community and Policy, The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA), San Antonio, Texas, USA. Dr. Yin specializes in research methodology, advanced applied psychometrics, biostatistics, structural equation modeling, and behavioral measurement in educational and community settings.
• Beatrice Baldwin, Ph.D. — Professor of Educational Research and Statistics, School of Education, University of Louisiana at Monroe (formerly Northeast Louisiana University), Monroe, Louisiana, USA. Dr. Baldwin’s scholarship centers on measurement theory, scale development, educational assessment, and quantitative analytics in school leadership.

4. Purpose

Classroom management has consistently been identified as one of the most pressing concerns for preservice, novice, and veteran educators, directly affecting instructional efficacy, teacher retention, job-related psychological distress, and student academic achievement. The primary purpose of the Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control Inventory (ABCC) is to provide an empirically grounded, psychometrically sound diagnostic tool capable of identifying an educator’s implicit and explicit orientation toward classroom control and pedagogical governance.

Historically, educational systems often treated classroom discipline as a unidimensional craft or a set of ad-hoc behavioral reactions. The ABCC shifts this paradigm by recognizing that instructional actions are manifestations of deeply ingrained pedagogical attitudes, philosophical worldviews, and psychological beliefs. Grounded in the conceptual framework of Wolfgang and Glickman (1986), the ABCC quantifies where an individual falls along a continuum of control spanning three distinct archetypes:

• Non-Interventionist Orientation: Characterized by the humanistic assumption that children possess an innate drive toward constructive self-actualization and moral development. Teachers holding this view emphasize student autonomy, self-regulation, cooperative boundary-setting, and minimal external adult coercion.
• Interactionist Orientation: Characterized by an ecological perspective in which students and teachers share responsibility for classroom governance. The interactionist paradigm focuses on mutual respect, collaborative problem-solving, situational negotiation, and joint establishment of norms.
• Interventionist Orientation: Characterized by behavioral and operant conditioning principles asserting that children develop through external societal conditioning and structured environmental control. Educators operating from this stance emphasize explicit teacher-mandated rules, swift behavioral consequences, systematic reinforcement schedules, and total teacher orchestration of physical and temporal space.

In educational research, the ABCC enables scholars to investigate the interaction between managerial philosophies and critical outcome variables, including teacher burnout, secondary traumatic stress, emotional exhaustion, teacher-student relational quality, and disproportionate disciplinary referrals. In applied and supervisory settings, such as clinical teacher preparation, preservice practicum coursework, and school district induction programs, the inventory serves as a metacognitive instrument. Mentors and school psychologists employ the ABCC to assist novice teachers in identifying discrepancies between their stated humanistic philosophies and their actual controlling behaviors, fostering deliberate pedagogical alignment and proactive behavior support systems.

5. Psychological Construct

The central construct assessed by the ABCC is Classroom Management Style, defined as a multi-faceted belief system that directs how teachers structure learning environments, establish behavioral expectations, interact interpersonally with students, and respond to disruption. Rather than conceptualizing classroom management as a single monolithic trait, the authors derived three interrelated, structurally distinct latent dimensions through comprehensive psychometric factor extraction:

1. Instructional Management (14 Items)

The Instructional Management dimension evaluates an educator’s attitudes regarding the organization and execution of learning activities, the pacing and sequencing of curriculum, the physical spatial layout of the room, and the delegation of classroom tasks. This subscale measures the degree to which an educator centralizes instructional authority or delegates cognitive and procedural ownership to learners.

Interventionist beliefs within this domain assert that the educator is the supreme orchestrator of cognitive time and resource allocation. Sample behaviors include strictly managing transitional periods between activities (Item 1), continuously monitoring seatwork to eliminate disengagement (Item 2), unilaterally dictating curricular topics and assignments (Item 5), controlling the distribution of supplies and materials (Item 7), rigidly allocating minutes per learning task (Item 24), and conceptualizing homework exclusively as teacher-directed drill and practice (Item 21). Conversely, non-interventionist perspectives endorse student-selected tasks, self-paced transitional intervals (Item 12), open access to materials (Item 23), and pupil self-evaluation of academic output (Item 17).

2. People Management (8 Items)

The People Management dimension captures an educator’s fundamental beliefs regarding students as human beings, the development of socio-emotional competencies, and the nature of the interpersonal teacher-student relationship. This subscale gauges whether the educator views classroom socialization as an organic, experiential phenomenon or as an adult-engineered process predicated on institutional compliance.

High scorers (interventionists) on People Management believe that school success requires students to subordinate their autonomy to adult authority (Item 18) and that obedience to institutional law and order is non-negotiable (Item 11). Low scorers (non-interventionists) advance a developmental stance, asserting that students foster authentic responsibility only when given the latitude to formulate their own routines (Item 3), pursue individual interests (Item 4), and discover courtesy, friendliness, and mutual respect firsthand through uncoerced peer interaction (Item 25). Furthermore, non-interventionist beliefs hold that external, imposed behavioral codes can stifle the development of an internal moral compass (Item 9).

3. Behavior Management (4 Items)

The Behavior Management dimension targets explicit attitudes toward classroom discipline, student misconduct, rule formulation, and behavioral consequences. This construct focuses on the locus of control in setting and enforcing behavioral standards.

Interventionists approach behavior management through structured operant contingencies, maintaining that teachers must unilaterally establish classroom behavioral contracts and systematically dispense formal rewards (such as points, material reinforcers, or free time) to shape desirable behaviors (Item 16). In contrast, educators with low interventionist scores advocate for democratic governance, actively involving students in co-constructing classroom rules during the opening week of school (Item 20) and demonstrating a willingness to revise, renegotiate, or discard rules that students mutually perceive as inequitable or counterproductive (Item 13).

6. Theoretical Framework

The intellectual foundations of the Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control Inventory synthesize three major paradigms within developmental, educational, and cognitive psychology. The inventory directly operationalizes the theoretical continuum articulated by Wolfgang and Glickman (1986), which maps classroom discipline models along a spectrum of teacher power, student autonomy, and behavioral psychology.

Behaviorist and Operant Theory (Interventionist Framework)

The theoretical anchor for the interventionist pole is rooted in operant conditioning and radical behaviorism, pioneered by B. F. Skinner, and translated into educational practice through Lee and Marlene Canter’s Assertive Discipline and James Dobson’s behavioral paradigms. Under this theoretical model, environmental stimuli shape human development. The classroom teacher must structure the environment using explicit antecedent cues, continuous behavioral monitoring, clear boundaries, and predictable reinforcement or punishment schedules. Noncompliance is framed as an environmental failure to establish adequate stimulus control and accountability. The teacher operates as the benevolent director, shaping student comportment toward academic productivity through direct instruction and behavior modification.

Humanistic, Phenomenological, and Constructivist Theory (Non-Interventionist Framework)

At the opposite pole, the non-interventionist framework is derived from the humanistic psychology of Carl Rogers, the developmental theories of Jean Piaget, and the relationship-centered communication models of Thomas Gordon (Teacher Effectiveness Training). This paradigm assumes that children possess innate, intrinsic strivings toward intellectual curiosity, social harmony, and self-actualization. Misbehavior is interpreted not as an act of malice or defiance requiring suppression, but as a symptom of unmet basic psychological needs, developmental dissonance, or emotional distress. In this view, external behavioral manipulation produces external compliance while impairing intrinsic motivation, autonomy, and moral maturation. The educator acts as an empathetic facilitator, providing an emotionally safe, non-judgmental environment that empowers students to resolve their own interpersonal and instructional conflicts.

Social-Cognitive and Adlerian Theory (Interactionist Framework)

Occupying the center of the Wolfgang and Glickman continuum is the interactionist orientation, grounded in the individual psychology of Alfred Adler, as adapted for education by Rudolf Dreikurs, alongside the Choice Theory of William Glasser. Interactionism posits that human behavior is inherently goal-directed, purposeful, and embedded in social contexts. Discipline is not imposed from without, nor does it emerge purely from within; rather, it is co-constructed through mutual respect, egalitarian dialogue, and social problem-solving. Teachers operating within this theoretical framework do not dictate rules unilaterally, nor do they abdicate leadership; instead, they establish natural and logical consequences in collaboration with students, fostering democratic participation and shared civic responsibility.

Teacher Belief Systems and Cognitive Schemata

The ABCC also aligns with the broader cognitive framework of teacher belief systems articulated by M. Frank Pajares (1992). Pajares demonstrated that teachers’ beliefs operate as an organizing cognitive filter through which instructional dilemmas are perceived, interpreted, and acted upon. Because personal beliefs are resistant to change, identifying an educator’s implicit beliefs regarding power, authority, and control is essential for transforming actual classroom behaviors.

7. Validity

The psychometric integrity of the ABCC has been established through structural, construct, concurrent, and predictive validation studies across diverse educational environments.

Construct and Structural Validity

Initial construct validation was executed by Martin, Yin, and Baldwin (1997) utilizing an empirical sample of 282 secondary school teachers spanning three diverse school districts in the southwestern United States. Teachers represented both urban (57.1%) and rural (42.9%) environments, with a balanced distribution across biological sex (46.8% male, 53.2% female). Structural validity was initially evaluated via exploratory factor analytic procedures, which confirmed that classroom management attitudes resolve into three distinct, interpretable latent dimensions rather than a single global factor.

Subsequent psychometric investigations, including the extensive construct re-validation by Martin, Yin, and Mayall (2007–2008) involving 664 certified educators, applied structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). These structural models verified that the three-factor specification provided a defensible fit to observed covariance matrices across diverse grade levels, demonstrating acceptable comparative fit indices (CFI > .90), standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR < .06), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < .05) when accounting for subscale modifications.

Concurrent Validity

Concurrent validity was examined by correlating scores on the ABCC with the well-validated Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF, Form A) developed by Raymond Cattell. The findings demonstrated statistically significant, theoretically aligned correlations between personality dimensions and classroom control orientations:

• Rule-Consciousness and Conformity (Factor G): Positively correlated with high scores on Instructional Management and Behavior Management ($r = .28, p < .001$), confirming that educators with higher personal conformity endorse more interventionist classroom structures.
• Dominance and Assertiveness (Factor E): Positively correlated with interventionist Behavior Management ($r = .31, p < .001$), supporting the theoretical link between interpersonal dominance and high-control disciplinary approaches.
• Warmth and Empathy (Factor A): Negatively correlated with interventionist People Management ($r = -.26, p < .01$), corroborating the hypothesis that highly empathetic educators endorse non-interventionist, student-centered interpersonal models.
• Emotional Stability (Factor C): Positively associated with interactionist managerial scores, reflecting a balanced, adaptive regulatory style rather than rigid interventionist control.

Known-Groups and Predictive Validity

Known-groups validity has been supported by empirical comparisons across teacher demographics. In their 1997 investigation, Martin, Yin, and Baldwin identified statistically significant differences in classroom control beliefs between male and female teachers, as well as between urban and rural school contexts:

• Sex Differences: Male educators scored significantly higher than female educators on the Instructional Management subscale ($F(1, 278) = 11.45, p < .001, \eta^2 = .04$), exhibiting a greater preference for teacher-directed control over tasks, time allocations, and materials. Differences on Behavior Management and People Management were comparatively less pronounced, though males trended higher in authoritarian discipline.
• Geographic Location Differences: Rural educators demonstrated significantly more interventionist scores on People Management ($F(1, 278) = 8.92, p < .01$) than their urban counterparts. Rural teachers placed higher emphasis on compliance, formal authority, and adult guidance, whereas urban educators endorsed more developmental and autonomy-supportive perspectives, likely reflecting cultural and demographic adaptations to urban schooling dynamics.
• Teaching Experience: Comparative studies utilizing the ABCC (e.g., Martin & Baldwin, 1996) revealed that novice and student teachers frequently exhibit more interventionist attitudes on behavior management compared to seasoned veterans, who migrate toward interactionist and flexible governance paradigms as instructional self-efficacy matures.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal stability of the Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control Inventory have been evaluated across various educational research cohorts.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the original validation study of the 26-item inventory by Martin, Yin, and Baldwin (1997) ($N = 282$), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated for each of the three derived subscales:

• Instructional Management (14 items): $lpha = .82$ — Indicating high internal consistency and strong item-homogeneity. Items within this subscale reliably measure unified beliefs regarding instructional orchestration, curriculum control, and temporal planning.
• People Management (8 items): $lpha = .69$ — Indicating acceptable reliability for an eight-item affective scale measuring multifaceted socio-emotional beliefs and peer interaction dynamics.
• Behavior Management (4 items): $lpha = .69$ — Indicating acceptable reliability, particularly given that Cronbach’s alpha is sensitive to test length; a four-item instrument obtaining $lpha pprox .70$ exhibits high inter-item correlation and practical diagnostic utility.

Subsequent administrative samples involving larger cohorts (such as Martin, Yin, & Mayall, 2007–2008, with $N = 664$) reported comparable reliability estimates, ranging from .70 to .84 across dimensions. The full 26-item composite scale yields overall internal consistency estimates consistently exceeding $lpha = .80$.

Test-Retest Stability and Measurement Error

Stability across time has been demonstrated in preservice teacher training studies measuring baseline beliefs prior to student-teaching practica and follow-up assessments post-practicum. Over a four-to-six-month interval, test-retest correlations for stable in-service populations typically range between $r_{tt} = .74$ and $r_{tt} = .83$, reflecting stable underlying cognitive belief structures. The standard error of measurement (SEM) remains low across all three subscales, providing reliable confidence intervals for individual assessment, supervisory coaching, and pre-post longitudinal interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structure of the ABCC was empirically derived through rigorous factor analytic methods designed to reduce item redundancy and isolate the underlying constructs of classroom control.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

The original development of the instrument involved exploratory factor analysis conducted on teacher responses to an initial pool of items derived from classroom observations, expert panels, and the preceding Inventory of Classroom Management Style (ICMS). Martin, Yin, and Baldwin (1997) executed an orthogonal factor extraction with Varimax rotation on the 26 retained items:

• Extraction Criteria: Factor retention was governed by Kaiser’s eigenvalue-greater-than-one ($K1$) rule alongside examination of Cattell’s scree plot. Three primary factors emerged clearly above the scree break, explaining a substantial portion of the total variance.
• Factor 1: Instructional Management: Encompassed 14 items (Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 26). Factor loadings for these items ranged from .38 to .67 on the primary dimension, with minimal cross-loadings onto secondary factors. This factor captured the mechanics of running a classroom: instructional pacing, homework philosophy, rule delivery, and monitoring.
• Factor 2: People Management: Encompassed 8 items (Items 3, 4, 9, 12, 15, 17, 23, and 25). Factor loadings ranged from .36 to .64. These items coalesced around beliefs regarding student autonomy, personal moral codes, independent pacing, and peer relational dynamics.
• Factor 3: Behavior Management: Encompassed 4 items (Items 13, 16, 19, and 20). Factor loadings ranged from .42 to .71. This dimension accounted for rule modification, student co-creation of discipline, token reward systems, and collaborative governance.

Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In follow-up psychometric investigations (Martin, Yin, & Mayall, 2007–2008), the three-factor model was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation. The CFA confirmed the distinctness of the three latent traits, revealing that while the factors are correlated (inter-factor correlations ranging between $r = .25$ and $r = .48$), a single higher-order or unidimensional construct fails to match the goodness-of-fit of the three-factor specification:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2/df$): Yielded values < 2.5, indicating reasonable structural fit.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values fell between .046 and .054 (90% CI [.041, .060]), well below the standard .08 threshold for acceptable model fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) & Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Exceeded standard cutoffs (.91 to .94), supporting the multidimensional architecture of the ABCC across educator populations.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structured parameters, administration guidelines, and analytical scoring framework of the Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control Inventory (ABCC) are detailed below:

• Instrument Designation: Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control Inventory (ABCC); historically identified during early piloting as the Inventory of Classroom Management Style (ICMS).
• Authors / Developers: Nancy K. Martin, Ed.D., Zenong Yin, Ph.D., and Beatrice Baldwin, Ph.D. (1997).
• Test Category: Self-report pedagogical attitude inventory; educational psychometrics; teacher belief assessment.
• Target Population: Certified primary and secondary school educators, preservice student teachers, instructional coaches, and school administrators.
• Item Count: Exactly 26 self-report statements.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or digitized online survey. Self-administered individually or in group professional development settings.
• Completion Duration: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
• Response Scale: Four-point Likert-type response format:
  • 4 = Describes me very well
  • 3 = Describes me usually
  • 2 = Describes me somewhat
  • 1 = Describes me not at all
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • Instructional Management (14 items): Statements 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 26.
  • People Management (8 items): Statements 3, 4, 9, 12, 15, 17, 23, and 25.
  • Behavior Management (4 items): Statements 13, 16, 19, and 20.
• Scoring Protocol & Reverse Scoring:
  • Higher overall scores represent an Interventionist (high-control, teacher-centered) classroom management orientation. Lower scores reflect a Non-Interventionist (student-centered, developmental) orientation.
  • To ensure that higher values uniformly indicate interventionist control, student-centered (non-interventionist) items must be reverse-scored prior to calculating subscale sums:
    
    $ ext{Reverse Score} = 5 – ext{Original Value}$ (i.e., $4
    ightarrow 1, 3
    ightarrow 2, 2
    ightarrow 3, 1
    ightarrow 4$).
  • Reverse-Scored Items: The non-interventionist statements requiring reverse scoring are Items 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 25 (all items reflecting student autonomy, student rule-making, and student-paced routines). Psychometric Note: The original 1997 AERA conference text contains a minor typographic printing erratum in its narrative header citing “10, 13” twice; researchers must reverse score the authentic non-interventionist autonomy items (3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25) while preserving direct scoring for directive items like Item 10.
  • Metric Generation: Three separate subscale scores are generated by summing the item values (post-reversal) within each dimension, or by computing mean item scores ($1.00 – 4.00$) for comparative analysis across subscales of unequal length.
• Profile Classification (Typology):
  • Non-Interventionist: Mean score $1.00 – 2.33$ — Emphasizes student-centered autonomy, experiential learning, and minimal teacher control.
  • Interactionist: Mean score $2.34 – 2.99$ — Emphasizes shared governance, collaborative problem-solving, and mutual responsibility.
  • Interventionist: Mean score $3.00 – 4.00$ — Emphasizes teacher-directed structure, behavioral control, explicit rewards, and strict rule enforcement.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control Inventory was first presented in its standardized 26-item format at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in Chicago, Illinois in 1997, following initial exploratory investigations conducted in 1993–1996. The paper was subsequently archived and disseminated globally via the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404 738).

Licensing and Fee Structure: The ABCC was placed into the educational public domain for academic, non-commercial, and non-profit research purposes by its authors. As an open-access psychometric instrument, no licensing fees or commercial permissions are required for university researchers, doctoral candidates, educational psychologists, or public school personnel conducting academic studies or professional development evaluations. Researchers utilizing the instrument are expected to cite the original authors appropriately in all publications, dissertations, and presentations. For commercial deployment, inclusion in for-profit software suites, or large-scale corporate teacher-screening systems, written consent should be sought from the primary authors (Dr. Nancy K. Martin and colleagues) or their academic institution (The University of Texas at San Antonio).

12. References

The following foundational literature and psychometric validation studies inform the theory, development, and administration of the ABCC:

• Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1976). Assertive discipline: A take charge approach for today’s educator. Seal Beach, CA: Canter and Associates.
• Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
• Dreikurs, R., Grunwald, B. B., & Pepper, F. C. (1982). Maintaining sanity in the classroom: Classroom management techniques (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
• Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row.
• Gordon, T. (1974). T.E.T.: Teacher effectiveness training. New York: Peter H. Wyden.
• Martin, N. K., & Baldwin, B. (1993). Validation of an inventory of classroom management style: Differences between novice and experienced teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED359242
• Martin, N. K., & Baldwin, B. (1996). Helping beginning teachers foster healthy classroom management: Implications for elementary school counselors. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 31(2), 106–113. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42871239
• Martin, N. K., Yin, Z., & Baldwin, B. (1997). Attitudes and beliefs regarding classroom management style: Differences between male and female, urban and rural secondary level teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404 738. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED404738
• Martin, N. K., Yin, Z., & Baldwin, B. (1998). Classroom management training, teaching experience and gender: Do these variables impact teachers’ attitudes and beliefs? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Houston, TX. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED417167
• Martin, N. K., Yin, Z., & Mayall, H. (2007–2008). The Attitudes and Beliefs on Classroom Control Inventory—Revised and revisited: A continuation of construct validation. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 42(2), 11–20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/classroomintervention
• Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
• Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Wolfgang, C. H., & Glickman, C. D. (1986). Solving discipline problems: Strategies for classroom teachers (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)