College and Career Readiness Teacher Expectation Survey (CCR-TES)

Abstract

The College and Career Readiness Teacher Expectation Survey (CCR-TES) is a 33-item psychometric assessment instrument developed by Monahan et al. (2023) designed to systematically quantify the postschool expectations that secondary educators hold for students with disabilities (SWD). Prior to the introduction of the CCR-TES, the psychometric literature on college and career readiness (CCR) predominantly focused on general adolescent populations, individual student competencies, or objective academic milestones, frequently overlooking the profound systemic influence of educator expectations on postschool outcomes for exceptional learners. Originating from an initial 54-item conceptual pool derived from evidence-based CCR frameworks, the instrument synthesizes five core operational domains: Academic Engagement, Interpersonal Engagement, Process-Oriented Skills, Ownership of Learning, and Transition Competencies. Following content validation by an expert panel of transition researchers and practicing educators, the scale was administered to national samples of general and special education teachers across the United States. Although exploratory factor analysis initially identified a five-factor structure, marked factor intercorrelations and subsequent confirmatory factor analyses supported a parsimonious, robust unidimensional (one-factor) model comprising 33 retained items. The CCR-TES demonstrates exceptional internal consistency, yielding a McDonald’s omega coefficient of 0.99 for the single-factor solution. Furthermore, multigroup confirmatory factor invariance testing substantiated configural, metric, and scalar invariance across both special education and general education instructional cohorts. The CCR-TES offers researchers, school psychologists, and secondary transition specialists an empirically validated, theoretically grounded measure to evaluate educator beliefs, benchmark intervention efficacy, and illuminate systemic expectations affecting secondary transition trajectories for students with disabilities.

Keywords

College and Career Readiness, Teacher Expectations, Students with Disabilities, Transition Competencies, Special Education Teachers, Academic Engagement, Interpersonal Engagement, Ownership of Learning, Process-Oriented Skills, Psychometrics

Authors

The College and Career Readiness Teacher Expectation Survey (CCR-TES) was developed and validated through a collaborative scholarly initiative based primarily at the University of Connecticut’s Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability and collaborating institutions:

• Jessica L. Monahan, Ph.D. (Corresponding Author) — Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States. (ORCID: 0000-0001-7910-3667; Contact: [email protected]). Formerly affiliated with the Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability, University of Connecticut.
• Allison Lombardi, Ph.D. — Department of Educational Psychology, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States. (ORCID: 0000-0002-7254-8820).
• Joseph Madaus, Ph.D. — Department of Educational Psychology, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States. (ORCID: 0003-0248-0629).
• Jennifer Freeman, Ph.D. — Department of Educational Psychology, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States.
• Nicholas Gelbar, Ph.D. — Department of Educational Psychology, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States. (ORCID: 0000-0002-7734-2207).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the CCR-TES is to quantitatively evaluate secondary educators’ expectations regarding the postschool potential and functional readiness of students with disabilities (SWD) as they exit high school and transition into postsecondary education, vocational training, and integrated employment settings. A substantial body of educational research indicates that high educator expectations operate as a catalyst for student academic achievement, self-determination, and longitudinal postsecondary success. However, historically, students with identified educational disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have frequently encountered lowered educator expectations, deficit-oriented transition paradigms, and limited exposure to rigorous academic curricula.

The CCR-TES addresses a major psychometric gap in educational and transition measurement. Existing instruments in secondary transition typically assess student-reported self-determination, objective transition planning compliance, or standardized academic milestones. What was noticeably absent was a psychometrically sound, standardized inventory explicitly capturing educator attitudes toward the multidimensional competencies necessary for adult readiness. Measuring teacher expectations is of critical practical importance because teachers directly shape individualized education programs (IEPs), course placement decisions, instructional adaptations, work-based learning referrals, and pedagogical rigor. When general or special education teachers hold low postschool expectations, they may unintentionally limit transition opportunities, reinforce learned helplessness, and restrict access to general education curricula.

From an applied perspective, the CCR-TES serves multiple educational, diagnostic, and research functions:

• School Climate and Systems Benchmarking: Secondary school districts and state educational agencies can administer the CCR-TES to evaluate baseline educator beliefs and identify school-wide patterns of lowered or disparate expectations across instructional departments.
• Professional Development Evaluation: The scale enables school districts to assess the impact of professional learning interventions focused on inclusive practices, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and evidence-based transition planning by executing pre- and post-intervention evaluations of teacher attitudes.
• Cross-Disciplinary Comparative Research: Given that students with disabilities are increasingly educated alongside their non-disabled peers in inclusive general education classrooms, the CCR-TES facilitates meaningful comparisons between the expectations held by general education content specialists and those held by special education personnel.
• Longitudinal Outcome Modeling: In transition research, the CCR-TES provides an empirically robust covariate that can be integrated into structural equation models tracking how educator beliefs predict post-high school enrollment, employment retention, and independent living outcomes for exceptional youth.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the CCR-TES is the educator’s cognitive appraisal of student capability across postsecondary readiness domains. In the context of secondary special education and transition science, teacher expectations represent predictive mental representations and evaluative judgments regarding an adolescent’s capacity to acquire, sustain, and generalize the comprehensive cognitive, social, and functional behaviors required in college and vocational environments.

Although the definitive psychometric validation demonstrated that the CCR-TES functions best as an omnibus, unidimensional construct, its operational formulation is grounded in five interconnected developmental domains defined by contemporary CCR models (Lombardi et al., 2018; Morningstar et al., 2017):

1. Academic Engagement

This operational domain captures educators’ expectations regarding a student’s cognitive investment, persistence, and functional execution of high school and postsecondary coursework. It encompasses cognitive self-regulation during instructional tasks, homework completion, active participation in class discussions, receptive language processing during lectures, and the capacity to synthesize complex textual and technical information. In the context of teacher expectations, it reflects whether an educator perceives a student with disabilities as capable of handling postsecondary academic rigor and meeting the cognitive demands of credit-bearing collegiate classes or specialized occupational training.

2. Interpersonal Engagement

Interpersonal engagement involves the socio-emotional mechanisms necessary to build and maintain professional and academic relationships. Key facets include cooperative collaboration in group settings, respectful interactions with faculty and workplace supervisors, peer negotiation, conflict resolution, and the understanding of implicit social norms. Within the CCR-TES construct, educator expectations of interpersonal engagement gauge the perceived capacity of SWD to function appropriately within social networks in adult environments, advocate for themselves socially, and exhibit professional communication decorum.

3. Process-Oriented Skills

Process-oriented skills represent cognitive and metacognitive executive functions, including time management, organization of physical and digital learning materials, prioritization of tasks, long-term project planning, task-switching, and adaptive problem-solving. Educators evaluate whether students with disabilities are expected to independently organize their study environments, manage unstructured collegiate schedules, and systematically navigate workplace challenges without continuous external adult prompting.

4. Ownership of Learning

Grounded in the constructs of self-determination and autonomous motivation, ownership of learning measures an educator’s assessment of a student’s self-efficacy, internal locus of control, educational goal-setting, self-monitoring, and active request for reasonable accommodations. High expectations in this domain indicate an educator’s belief that a student can independently recognize when they require assistance, take initiative to seek out disability service offices or academic tutors, and sustain intrinsic motivation despite academic setbacks.

5. Transition Competencies

Transition competencies encompass the applied ecological skills required to bridge secondary environments with postsecondary life. These include career awareness, understanding the differences between secondary entitlement laws (IDEA) and postsecondary civil rights legislation (ADA Section 504), functional community navigation, financial literacy, and the practical application of vocational skills in community-based work experiences.

Theoretical Framework

The CCR-TES is anchored in an integration of social-psychological expectancy theory, educational self-determination theory, and contemporary ecological models of college and career readiness.

Teacher Expectancy Theory and the Pygmalion Paradigm

The conceptual foundation rests firmly upon Teacher Expectancy Theory, historically pioneered by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) and refined by Jussim and Harber (2005). This theoretical perspective posits that teacher expectations do not exist in a vacuum; rather, they function as cognitive schemas that directly determine teacher instructional behavior, the emotional climate of the classroom, the frequency of feedback, and the level of intellectual challenge extended to students. When educators hold high expectations for an individual student, they provide more rigorous instructional input, allow longer response latencies, offer higher-level corrective feedback, and provide more extensive opportunities for independent inquiry. Conversely, when low expectations are held—a phenomenon historically documented among educators working with students carrying disability labels—teachers often deliver simplified curricula, limit instructional autonomy, and emphasize basic compliance over critical thinking.

Self-Determination Theory and Social Cognitive Theory

Complementing expectancy theory is Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) and Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Bandura’s triadic reciprocal determinism underscores that personal cognitive factors (e.g., educator beliefs), environmental factors (e.g., inclusive school structures, IEP goals), and actual behaviors (e.g., student task engagement) mutually reinforce one another. Within the CCR-TES framework, teacher expectations are viewed as a key environmental input that shapes a student’s emerging self-efficacy and agency. Concurrently, Self-Determination Theory emphasizes that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fundamental psychological needs; when teachers possess expectations that recognize and nurture these needs, students with disabilities are afforded the psychological freedom and developmental scaffolding required to develop autonomous ownership over their transition goals.

Comprehensive College and Career Readiness Frameworks

Historically, educational accountability under federal legislation concentrated heavily on academic content standards (e.g., reading and mathematics proficiencies). However, comprehensive frameworks pioneered by Morningstar et al. (2017) and expanded by Lombardi et al. (2018, 2020, 2022) established that college and career readiness for diverse learners, specifically students with high- and low-incidence disabilities, requires an expanded, multidimensional framework. These models assert that true postsecondary readiness encompasses a matrix of cognitive strategies, content knowledge, learning skills, and transition knowledge. The CCR-TES translates these ecological frameworks into an operational psychometric architecture, enabling researchers to measure the degree to which teachers endorse readiness expectations across this integrated continuum.

Validity

The psychometric validation of the CCR-TES followed an established, multi-stage developmental and analytical sequence to ensure content and construct validity:

Content Validity

The initial content pool for the CCR-TES comprised 54 candidate items generated directly from established CCR theoretical models and empirical transition literature (Morningstar et al., 2017; Lombardi et al., 2018, 2022). To ensure high content validity, the authors convened an expert panel comprising nine nationally recognized researchers specializing in secondary transition, special education, and educational measurement, alongside an active practicing secondary educator serving as a target population representative. The expert panel conducted qualitative and quantitative reviews, evaluating each item for domain representativeness, clarity, relevance to postsecondary success, and absence of deficit-oriented linguistic bias. Based on panel feedback, items exhibiting conceptual overlap, ambiguous phrasing, or weak theoretical alignment were revised, retained, or systematically deleted, establishing strong content validity prior to empirical field testing.

Construct Validity

Construct validity was evaluated using a large-scale national sample of secondary educators across the United States, representing both general education and special education disciplines. Construct validation proceeded through consecutive exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) paradigms:

• Exploratory Factor Validation: Initial EFA supported the theoretical grouping across five foundational areas, but revealed extensive multicollinearity among the underlying latent factors (inter-factor correlations ranged widely from .60 to .85). These high correlations indicated that instead of measuring distinct, isolated constructs, the items were largely manifestations of a single, higher-order latent construct representing generalized teacher expectations for postsecondary readiness.
• Confirmatory Factor Validation: A subsequent CFA was conducted to compare the competing structural representations. The five-factor model demonstrated poor to marginal overall model fit, marked by severe empirical under-identification and redundancy. In contrast, a streamlined one-factor model, achieved after systematically removing 21 psychometrically redundant or low-loading items to retain 33 optimal items, demonstrated acceptable and stable fit with the observed data, confirming the presence of a single, unifying construct.

Measurement Invariance

A central psychometric requirement for any cross-disciplinary educational measure is the demonstration of measurement invariance across diverse respondent subgroups. Monahan et al. (2023) evaluated whether the CCR-TES functions equivalently across special education teachers and general education teachers using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis. Invariance was tested hierarchically according to the methodological criteria outlined by Cheung and Rensvold (2002):

• Configural Invariance: The unconstrained single-factor baseline model was simultaneously estimated across both teacher groups, demonstrating adequate equivalent structural configuration (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = .857).
• Metric (Weak) Invariance: Equal factor loadings were constrained across both groups. The resulting model demonstrated a CFI of .858, producing a change in CFI (ΔCFI) of +.001. Because ΔCFI was well below the conservative methodological threshold of .01, metric invariance was established, confirming that the scale items assess the latent construct with equal psychometric weight across special and general educators.
• Scalar (Strong) Invariance: Both factor loadings and item intercepts were constrained across groups. The resulting scalar model yielded a CFI of .856, representing a ΔCFI of .002 compared to the metric model. This negligible shift confirmed scalar invariance, establishing that cross-group mean comparisons of CCR-TES scores between general and special education teachers are meaningful and free from measurement bias.

Reliability

The reliability of the CCR-TES was rigorously analyzed within a contemporary modern psychometric framework. Rather than relying solely on Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (α)—which has documented limitations when applied to non-tau-equivalent, multidimensional item sets, and can artificially inflate when scales contain more than 20 items—the investigators computed McDonald’s omega (ω) to measure composite internal consistency reliability.

For the final 33-item unidimensional CCR-TES, the latent construct yielded an omega value of:

ω = 0.99

This internal consistency statistic indicates high true-score variance and minimal measurement error across the 33 items. It confirms that the retained items converge reliably on the underlying dimension of teacher expectations. Such a high reliability coefficient supports the use of the CCR-TES not only for aggregated group-level educational research, but also for institutional diagnostic benchmarking and program evaluation where precise measurement is essential.

Factor Analysis

The structural development of the CCR-TES utilized advanced latent variable modeling, progressing from exploratory structural identification to confirmatory validation and multi-sample invariance testing.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial exploratory factor analysis was executed on the preliminary item draft using oblique rotation techniques (e.g., Promax/Geomin) to account for anticipated correlations among educational readiness competencies. The initial EFA suggested an empirical five-factor structure reflecting the five theoretical framework components: Academic Engagement, Interpersonal Engagement, Process-Oriented Skills, Ownership of Learning, and Transition Competencies. However, mathematical examination of the factor correlation matrix revealed high inter-factor correlations across all five latent variables, frequently approaching or exceeding .80. These empirical findings indicated substantial shared variance, suggesting that a parsimonious single-factor model would provide a more coherent psychometric representation.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To statistically evaluate whether a multidimensional or unidimensional representation was superior, the investigators tested competing models in a confirmatory framework using robust maximum likelihood estimation procedures:

• Competing Five-Factor Model: The multi-factor model exhibited poor overall model fit, parameter redundancy, and severe multicollinearity between latent constructs, indicating that educators do not distinguish cleanly between individual sub-domains when assessing overall readiness.
• Parsimonious One-Factor Model: The single-factor model was tested and refined through systematic item-reduction procedures. Items exhibiting poor primary factor loadings (< .40), significant cross-loadings, or excessive residual error covariances were pruned. The resulting 33-item one-factor structure exhibited acceptable fit with the empirical data, confirming that a single underlying latent variable—general educator expectations for college and career readiness—underpins the questionnaire.

Measurement Invariance Fit Indices Across Educator Groups

The table below summarizes the multi-group confirmatory factor analysis results comparing general education teachers and special education teachers:

Following Cheung and Rensvold’s (2002) benchmark that changes in CFI of less than .01 indicate equivalence, these psychometric data verify that the CCR-TES functions with structural and measurement equivalence across both general education and special education instructional personnel.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Original standardized inventory/questionnaire; self-report educator expectation rating scale.
• Respondent Population: Secondary educators, including general education high school teachers, special education transition specialists, resource specialists, and co-teaching instructional staff.
• Target Student Reference Group: Secondary-aged students with disabilities (SWD) receiving special education services or accommodations prior to high school completion.
• Age Group of Respondents: Adulthood (18 years and older).
• Language Available: English.
• Item Count: 33 finalized items (reduced from an initial 54-item developmental pool).
• Response Format: Respondents rate their level of agreement for each item.
• Scoring Format: Items are keyed positively toward higher postschool college and career readiness expectations. Responses across the 33 items are aggregated (either by mean scoring or sum scoring) to produce an overall Teacher Expectation composite index. Higher total or average scores reflect higher educator expectations regarding the postsecondary capabilities of students with disabilities.
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes to complete.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Year: 2023.
• Copyright & Intellectual Property: Monahan, Lombardi, Madaus, Freeman, and Gelbar (2023). Published under the auspices of the Division on Career Development and Transition of the Council for Exceptional Children via SAGE Publications.
• Fee: There is no fee associated with the educational and academic research use of the CCR-TES.
• Permissions Information: Researchers, institutional administrators, and clinical transition specialists wishing to administer, reproduce, or integrate the CCR-TES into digital assessment platforms must contact the primary corresponding author for formal authorization and research usage approval:

Dr. Jessica L. Monahan
Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Delaware
125 Academy Street, Room 105, Newark, DE, 19716, United States
Email: [email protected]

References

• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
• Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(2), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3
• Lombardi, A., Monahan, J. L., & Morningstar, M. E. (2020). Conceptual framework for college and career readiness: A guide for practitioners and policymakers. University of Kansas.
• Lombardi, A., Monahan, J. L., & Morningstar, M. E. (2022). College and career readiness: A comprehensive framework for students with disabilities. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
• Lombardi, A., Morningstar, M. E., & Monahan, J. L. (2018). College and career readiness for students with disabilities: A practitioner’s guide. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
• Monahan, J. L., Lombardi, A., Madaus, J., Freeman, J., & Gelbar, N. (2023). Developing and validating the College and Career Readiness Teacher Expectation Survey for students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 46(2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/21651434221116311
• Morningstar, M. E., Lombardi, A., & Monahan, J. L. (2017). College and career readiness for all: A comprehensive framework. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
• Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02322211
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Items of the Scale