Competencies and Capabilities of a Good Teacher Measure

Abstract

The Competencies and Capabilities of a Good Teacher Measure (Martín-Pastor et al., 2023) is an empirical psychometric instrument designed to evaluate preservice teachers’ perceptions regarding the fundamental professional competencies, personal dispositions, and instructional capabilities defining effective teaching. Grounded in the structural dimensions identified by Carrasco, Hernández, and Iglesias (2012), the instrument operationalizes the multi-faceted profile of contemporary educators undergoing training within the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Developed and validated among prospective teachers enrolled in Early Childhood Education and Primary Education degree programs at the University of Salamanca in Spain, the instrument comprises 22 observed items structured across four correlated latent dimensions: Personal Qualities, Training (Disciplinary and Theoretical Formation), Pedagogical Aptitude, and Interaction (Relational and Communicative Competence).

Psychometric evaluation through structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrates robust construct validity, establishing a four-factor structural model with exceptional parameter estimation across observed variables, factor loadings, six inter-factor correlations, and six methodologically justified error covariances. Internal consistency reliability across the subscales and the total composite scale is strong, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .750 to .924. Utilizing a four-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (Total Disagreement) to 4 (Total Agreement), the instrument provides teacher educators, researchers, and academic policymakers with a reliable, diagnostic, and theoretically anchored tool. It serves to examine the evolution of professional teaching identities, identify curriculum deficits in initial teacher education, and assess the developmental trajectory of prospective educators during clinical practicum experiences.

Keywords

Competencies and Capabilities of a Good Teacher Measure, Preservice Teachers, Teacher Competencies, Pedagogical Aptitude, Teacher Education, Psychometrics, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Structural Equation Modeling, Professional Teacher Identity, Educational Measurement, Teacher Personality, Interaction Competence

Authors

The Competencies and Capabilities of a Good Teacher Measure was developed and validated by a multidisciplinary team of educational researchers from the Faculty of Education at the University of Salamanca (Universidad de Salamanca), Spain:

• Elena Martín-Pastor, Ph.D.: Associate Professor, Department of Didactics, School Organization and Research Methods, Faculty of Education, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain. Email: [email protected]. Research focus: Initial teacher training, educational inclusion, teaching competencies, and pedagogical organization.
• Beatriz Sánchez-Barbero, Ph.D.: Assistant Professor, Department of Didactics of Mathematics Education and Experimental Sciences Education, Faculty of Education, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain. Email: [email protected]. Research focus: STEM teacher training, instructional methodologies, and didactic competencies.
• Diego Corrochano, Ph.D.: Associate Professor (Corresponding Author), Department of Didactics of Mathematics Education and Experimental Sciences Education, Faculty of Education, University of Salamanca, 37008 Salamanca, Spain. ORCID: 0000-0002-6085-9744. Email: [email protected]. Research focus: Science education, teacher development, educational assessment, and empirical psychometric modeling.
• Alejandro Gómez-Gonçalves, Ph.D.: Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Faculty of Education, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain. ORCID: 0000-0002-4988-4623. Email: [email protected]. Research focus: Didactics of social sciences, geographic education, teacher cognitive representations, and curriculum design.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Competencies and Capabilities of a Good Teacher Measure is to systematically investigate, assess, and monitor prospective educators’ mental models, subjective perceptions, and implicit theories regarding the attributes, skills, and values required to be an effective teacher. In the modern educational landscape, teacher preparation is undergoing a profound paradigm shift. Driven by international competency frameworks established by the OECD, UNESCO, and the European Higher Education Area, contemporary pedagogy has moved beyond the unidirectional transmission of factual information toward complex, multidimensional models of teacher professional competence.

Initial teacher education (ITE) plays a foundational role in shaping future educators. However, preservice teachers do not enter training programs as blank slates; rather, they bring over twelve years of the “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975), having internalized deeply ingrained beliefs about what teaching entails. Without structured diagnostic assessment, these latent beliefs often remain unexamined, occasionally conflicting with research-based, constructivist, and inclusive pedagogical models taught in university lecture halls. The scale serves several critical academic and institutional functions:

• Curriculum Design and Diagnostic Auditing: The tool enables faculties of education to audit and refine their teacher preparation curricula. By establishing baseline measurements of students’ pedagogical beliefs upon university entrance and comparing them at program completion, educators can determine whether university coursework effectively shifts students’ priorities from simplistic technical execution toward reflective, ethical, and collaborative professionalism.
• Formative Assessment during the Practicum: Practical internships (field experiences) represent the most transformative yet volatile phase of teacher preparation. This instrument can be administered before and after the practicum to quantify shifts in student teachers’ conceptualizations of teaching. It helps reveal whether field immersion broadens their socio-relational awareness or leads to operational burnout and conservative survival strategies.
• Research on Professional Identity Formation: The scale enables comparative educational researchers to investigate how gender, degree specialization (e.g., early childhood vs. primary education), prior educational background, and institutional contexts moderate preservice teachers’ pedagogical belief systems.
• Reflective Self-Assessment: In clinical seminars, the instrument acts as a metacognitive stimulus. By reviewing their responses across the 22 indicators, prospective teachers are encouraged to engage in systematic self-reflection (Schön, 1983), exploring their areas of strength and identifying competencies requiring further theoretical study or clinical practice.

Psychological Construct

The construct measured by this instrument—Perception of the Competencies and Capabilities of a Good Teacher—is operationalized as a multidimensional psychological and professional schema comprising cognitive knowledge, instructional skills, relational dispositions, and ethical attitudes deemed essential for high-quality pedagogical practice. Drawing heavily from the theoretical taxonomy established by Carrasco, Hernández, and Iglesias (2012), the construct posits that an educator’s professional efficacy cannot be reduced to isolated cognitive competencies or personality traits alone. Instead, it constitutes an integrated dynamic system captured across four distinct yet interconnected subscales:

1. Personal Qualities (Cualidades Personales)

The Personal Qualities subscale captures the axiological, socio-emotional, ethical, and dispositional foundation of the educator. In contemporary educational psychology, teaching is understood as an inherently moral, relational, and emotional endeavor. This dimension assesses the extent to which prospective teachers view humanistic values, democratic principles, a social justice mindset, emotional equilibrium, leadership, and group management skills as critical to professional effectiveness. Items in this domain examine whether the candidate prioritizes establishing constructive peer relationships among pupils, displays the leadership necessary to guide learning communities, and maintains an unwavering commitment to equity and democratic citizenship in diverse classrooms.

2. Training (Formación / Academic & Disciplinary Preparation)

The Training subscale measures perceptions regarding the academic, technical, disciplinary, and conceptual preparation an educator must possess. Grounded in the epistemology of teacher expertise, this subscale assesses the necessity of deep subject-matter knowledge (Shulman, 1986), thorough understanding of child developmental stages and psychoeducational curriculum cycles, and command over modern informational and communication technologies (TPACK). Furthermore, it evaluates the respondent’s recognition of the need for ongoing professional development, lifelong learning, and adaptability to teach in a modern society characterized by complexity, hyper-connectivity, rapid innovation, and social diversity.

3. Pedagogical Aptitude (Aptitud Pedagógica)

The Pedagogical Aptitude subscale reflects the operational and methodological core of instructional practice. It measures the prospective teacher’s valuing of curriculum planning, contextualization, differentiated instruction, student mentoring, and educational assessment. This dimension operationalizes the teacher as an active instructional designer and cognitive mediator who does not simply deliver content, but carefully tailors learning experiences to students’ individual developmental levels and contextual needs. Specific capabilities include organizing interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary projects, establishing formative and shared assessment practices, providing continuous pastoral care and tutoring, and serving as a mediator to ensure every learning activity holds genuine personal meaning for students.

4. Interaction (Interacción / Relational & Systemic Competence)

The Interaction subscale assesses prospective teachers’ understanding of the deeply collaborative, systemic, and social nature of education. Moving away from the traditional, isolated model of teaching (“the teacher behind closed doors”), this subscale measures the importance placed on three interconnected ecological layers of interaction: (a) Internal classroom dialogue, encompassing both dynamic teacher-student interactions and peer-to-peer (student-student) cooperative dialogue designed to co-construct knowledge; (b) Collegiate collaboration, reflecting the willingness to participate in professional learning communities, engage in peer coaching, and work in interdisciplinary teaching teams; and (c) Ecological-community partnerships, evaluating the perceived necessity of building active alliances with families, social associations, mental health professionals, and broader educational authorities to secure student academic and emotional success.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Competencies and Capabilities of a Good Teacher Measure is informed by an integration of four major theoretical paradigms within educational psychology and teacher education:

Socio-Constructivist Learning Theory

Rooted in the seminal works of Lev Vygotsky (1978) and Jerome Bruner (1966), socio-constructivism posits that knowledge is not passively absorbed but actively constructed through socially mediated, culturally situated dialogue. Within this framework, the teacher is conceived as a cognitive mediator who creates a supportive Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Martín-Pastor and colleagues embed this philosophy directly into the scale’s items, specifically examining whether preservice teachers view their role not as authoritative lecturers, but as mediators who stimulate latent developmental potential, facilitate cooperative peer learning, and scaffold complex problem-solving activities.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and the Knowledge Base for Teaching

The scale integrates Lee Shulman’s (1986, 1987) seminal conceptualization of the teacher knowledge base. Shulman argued that effective teaching requires an intersection of subject matter knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)—the capacity to transform disciplinary concepts into accessible, pedagogically powerful forms adapted to diverse student abilities. The Training and Pedagogical Aptitude subscales operationalize Shulman’s dimensions by measuring the balance between raw subject-matter expertise, understanding of developmental stages, and the didactic capability to design multidisciplinary units, integrate technology, and implement authentic assessments.

The Reflective Practitioner Model

Drawing on Donald Schön’s (1983) paradigms of “reflection-in-action” and “reflection-on-action,” alongside Fred Korthagen’s (2004) ALACT model of teacher reflection, the scale assumes that a “good teacher” is a lifelong, adaptive learner. Modern teaching requires navigating unpredictable, context-dependent classroom scenarios characterized by high uncertainty and cognitive flux. The scale evaluates whether preservice teachers recognize that professional competence requires continuous adaptation, curricular contextualization, self-critique, and active collaboration with collegiate teams, rather than the mechanical application of standardized recipes.

Social Cognitive Theory and Teacher Self-Efficacy

According to Albert Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory, human action is guided by internal beliefs regarding personal capabilities (self-efficacy) and outcome expectations. In teacher training, an educator’s implicit belief system serves as a cognitive filter through which instructional decisions are made. If preservice teachers believe that a good teacher is characterized solely by disciplinary knowledge, their clinical practice will skew toward teacher-centered lecture formats. Conversely, if their internal schema values social justice, emotional support, and collaborative networking, their instructional behavior will reflect student-centered, democratic, and inclusive methodologies. This scale provides the psychometric means to quantify these foundational belief systems.

Validity

The psychometric validation of the Competencies and Capabilities of a Good Teacher Measure was conducted rigorously following international testing guidelines established by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Educational Research Association (AERA).

Content and Face Validity

Content validity was established through a two-tiered development process. First, the items were derived from the extensively peer-reviewed competency framework of Carrasco, Hernández, and Iglesias (2012), ensuring complete theoretical coverage of the domains of modern educational practice. Second, an expert panel of university professors, teacher educators, and practicing school mentors evaluated the preliminary item pool for linguistic clarity, conceptual relevance, content representativeness, and absence of ambiguity. Items were revised iteratively to guarantee that the psychological formulation accurately captured the nuances of both Early Childhood Education and Primary Education teaching environments.

Construct Validity

Construct validity was evaluated through structural equation modeling (SEM) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on a representative sample of Spanish preservice teachers completing their university practicum rotations. The empirical data provided strong statistical confirmation of the hypothesized four-dimensional latent structure. The final structural model exhibited outstanding goodness-of-fit indices:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2/df$): The ratio fell well within the acceptable threshold ($\chi^2/df < 3.0$), indicating acceptable parsimony and model fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) & Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Both incremental fit indices surpassed the recognized .90 benchmark, confirming that the four-factor model explains the observed covariance matrix substantially better than a null baseline model.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): The RMSEA point estimate was below .06, accompanied by a narrow 90% confidence interval, satisfying rigorous standards for close model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): The SRMR value remained below the .08 threshold, confirming minimal residual discrepancies between observed and model-implied covariance matrices.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity was demonstrated by statistically significant ($p < .001$) and substantial standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) across all 22 items onto their respective latent factors, with most loadings exceeding the .50 and .60 thresholds. This indicates that the observed indicators share substantial variance with their assigned latent constructs. Discriminant validity was corroborated by examining the inter-factor correlation matrix: while the six latent inter-factor correlations were positive and statistically significant (reflecting the holistic, unified nature of professional teaching competence), none approached collinearity ($r > .85$), confirming that Personal Qualities, Training, Pedagogical Aptitude, and Interaction measure empirically distinct components of the overarching construct.

Reliability

The internal consistency and precision of the Competencies and Capabilities of a Good Teacher Measure were evaluated using classical psychometric indices. Reliability analyses demonstrated high internal consistency across all subscales and for the global instrument:

• Overall Scale Reliability: Across the full 22-item composite measure, Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) reached an exceptional level of .924, indicating that the instrument possesses high internal consistency suitable for programmatic evaluation, comparative research, and individual diagnostic profiling.
• Subscale Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the four individual latent factors ranged from .750 to .880, surpassing the widely accepted psychometric criterion of .70 for academic research instruments in the social sciences. Specifically:
• Pedagogical Aptitude demonstrated the highest reliability ($lpha pprox .88$), reflecting strong internal coherence among items assessing instructional planning, learning evaluation, and curricular adaptation.
• Interaction exhibited solid internal consistency ($lpha pprox .83$), demonstrating that prospective teachers evaluate internal classroom communication, collegiate teamwork, and community networking as a coherent relational domain.
• Training and Personal Qualities achieved robust reliability coefficients ($lpha = .750 – .810$), confirming satisfactory homogeneity of items assessing subject-matter mastery, technological knowledge, ethical standards, and social justice mindsets.
• Composite Reliability: Evaluation via McDonald’s omega ($\omega$) further confirmed that factor saturation remained robust, avoiding the common underestimation biases occasionally associated with Cronbach’s alpha under conditions of varying factor loadings (tau-equivalence violations).

Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the measure was verified through rigorous Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) within a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) framework, executed using maximum likelihood estimation. The initial theoretical model was constructed around four primary latent variables reflecting the foundational dimensions proposed by Carrasco et al. (2012).

Structural Model Specification

The final, modified structural equation model comprised:

• 4 Latent Variables: Personal Qualities ($\xi_1$), Training ($\xi_2$), Pedagogical Aptitude ($\xi_3$), and Interaction ($\xi_4$).
• 22 Observed Variables ($X_1 – X_{22}$): Representing the 22 specific competencies formulated as questionnaire items.
• 22 Measurement Error Terms ($\delta_1 – \delta_{22}$): Capturing item-specific uniqueness and measurement error.
• 22 Standardized Factor Loadings ($\lambda_{x}$): Direct structural paths linking the latent dimensions to their designated observed indicators, each reaching statistical significance ($p < .001$).
• 6 Inter-Factor Correlations ($phi$): Fully parameterized covariance paths between the four latent constructs, confirming reciprocal associations among pedagogical expertise, disciplinary training, ethical dispositions, and relational networks.
• 6 Error Covariances ($ heta_{delta}$): Driven by modification indices and rigorous theoretical justification, six correlations between specific error terms were freed. These error covariances occurred exclusively between items sharing close semantic characteristics or micro-contextual overlap (e.g., pairing item pairs that evaluate peer-to-peer student dialogue with teacher-to-student instructional dialogue, or linking items assessing subject knowledge with cycle-specific curriculum knowledge).

Model Evaluation and Factor Loadings

The inclusion of the six methodologically justified error covariances yielded an optimal data-model fit, neutralizing localized residual strains without distorting the underlying theoretical dimensions. Standardized factor loadings across the four factors were uniformly positive, ranging from moderate ($lambda pprox .48$) to high ($lambda > .80$). The structural model successfully captures the multifaceted profile of teaching competence, demonstrating that prospective teachers conceptualize a “good teacher” not as someone with isolated traits, but through an integrated balance of personality, academic preparation, pedagogical execution, and relational capabilities.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Original psychometric self-report survey and diagnostic rating scale.
• Format: Paper-and-pencil or computer-assisted self-administered questionnaire. Items are evaluated on a standardized 4-point Likert scale.
• Response Scale Anchors:
  • 1 = Total Disagreement (Totalmente en desacuerdo)
  • 2 = Disagree (En desacuerdo)
  • 3 = Agree (De acuerdo)
  • 4 = Total Agreement (Totalmente de acuerdo)
• Number of Items: 22 items.
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.
• Target Population: Preservice teachers, student teachers, university students enrolled in Early Childhood Education, Primary Education, or Secondary Teacher Education degrees, and novice in-service educators.
• Language: Originally developed and validated in Spanish; available in professional English translation.
• Subscales:
  • Personal Qualities (Items: 4, 5, 21, 22)
  • Training (Items: 3, 6, 7, 9, 10)
  • Pedagogical Aptitude (Items: 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)
  • Interaction (Items: 14, 17, 18, 19, 20)
• Scoring and Interpretation Procedures:
  • Dimensional Scores: Computed by calculating the arithmetic mean or raw sum of the items corresponding to each subscale. Higher mean scores (approaching 4.00) reflect stronger perceived importance of that specific competency domain.
  • Global Score: A total composite score can be derived by summing all 22 items (range: 22 to 88) or computing the overall grand mean (range: 1.00 to 4.00).
  • Absence of Reverse-Scored Items: All 22 items are framed in a positive, competency-affirming direction; no reverse-coding is required.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Competencies and Capabilities of a Good Teacher Measure was developed and published in 2023 by Elena Martín-Pastor, Beatriz Sánchez-Barbero, Diego Corrochano, and Alejandro Gómez-Gonçalves. The original validation study was published in the peer-reviewed, open-access journal Education Sciences (MDPI).

• Cost / Fee: Free. There is no fee or royalty required for academic, clinical, or non-commercial research use.
• Permissions and Licensing: The instrument is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License. Under this open-access license, researchers, teacher educators, and institutions are permitted to copy, distribute, transmit, adapt, and translate the scale into other languages, provided that appropriate credit is given to the original authors and the primary 2023 publication is formally cited.
• Commercial Use: Commercial exploitation, inclusion in paid proprietary assessment batteries, or monetization without prior written consent from the copyright holders is strictly prohibited.
• Correspondence Contact: Inquiries regarding collaborative research, longitudinal tracking data, or cross-cultural adaptation may be addressed to Dr. Diego Corrochano, Department of Didactics of Mathematics Education and Experimental Sciences Education, University of Salamanca, Salamanca 37008, Spain. Email: [email protected].

References

• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
• Carrasco, V. C., Hernández, J. A., & Iglesias, C. P. (2012). ¿Qué competencias y capacidades identifican a un buen maestro? [What competencies and capabilities identify a good teacher?]. Revista de Educación, 359, 451–475. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2010-359-106
• Korthagen, F. A. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002
• Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press.
• Martín-Pastor, E., Sánchez-Barbero, B., Corrochano, D., & Gómez-Gonçalves, A. (2023). What competencies and capabilities identify a good teacher? Design of an instrument to measure preservice teachers’ perceptions. Education Sciences, 13(8), 789. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080789
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
• Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Items of the Scale