Teacher Role Survey

Abstract

The Teacher Role Survey (TRS), developed by educational psychologists Wayne R. Maes and Darrell E. Anderson (1985), is an established domain-specific psychometric instrument designed to assess generalized control expectancies—specifically, internal versus external locus of control—within the professional roles and occupational environments of elementary and secondary school teachers. Drawing theoretically from Julian B. Rotter’s social learning theory, the TRS addresses the psychometric limitations of generalized locus of control measures (such as the Rotter I-E Scale) when applied to complex institutional educational settings. The instrument operationalizes teacher locus of control across critical facets of professional practice, capturing whether educators attribute occupational outcomes, classroom dynamics, professional recognition, and institutional governance to their own personal agency, pedagogical skill, and effort (internal locus of control) or to administrative whim, systemic bureaucracy, societal hostility, uncooperative parents, or inherent student intractability (external locus of control).

The finalized revision of the instrument comprises 24 forced-choice dyadic items, derived from an initial 75-item pool and subsequent 32-item experimental iterations across 14 theoretical occupational categories. In each item dyad, respondents are presented with two contrasting statements: one reflecting an internal control belief and the other reflecting an external control belief. Psychometric validation studies demonstrate robust internal consistency, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .86 in cross-validation samples of practicing classroom educators, alongside two-week test-retest reliability of .75 among graduate education students and three-week test-retest reliability of .62 among preservice student teachers and clinical supervisors. Exploratory factor analyses with orthogonal varimax rotation revealed four primary, structurally sound latent factors: Recognition, Teaching/Learning Process, Relations with Teachers, and Attitudes of Parents and Society. This article provides a comprehensive academic review of the TRS, covering its theoretical foundation, psychometric operationalization, empirical validity, reliability metrics, structural dimensionality, diagnostic utility in teacher retention and burnout research, scoring procedures, and the complete verbatim instrument.

Keywords

Teacher Role Survey, locus of control, teacher efficacy, internal-external expectancies, Rotter social learning theory, psychometrics, educational measurement, teacher burnout, occupational stress, teacher empowerment

Authors

The Teacher Role Survey was authored and psychometrically validated by Wayne R. Maes, Ph.D., and Darrell E. Anderson, Ph.D.

• Wayne R. Maes, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Counseling Psychology and Educational Foundations in the College of Education at the University of New Mexico (Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States). Dr. Maes focused his scholarship on psychological assessment, locus of control, educational counseling, and institutional dynamics affecting educator well-being.
• Darrell E. Anderson, Ph.D.: Educational researcher and psychometrician affiliated with the College of Education at the University of New Mexico. Dr. Anderson contributed extensively to statistical modeling, scale construction, and empirical investigations examining the intersection between educator personality characteristics, structural school environments, and instructional effectiveness.

Inquiries regarding historical technical reports and development documentation are cataloged under ERIC Document Reproduction Service (e.g., ED 240 153), with primary validation literature published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Educational Research.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Teacher Role Survey (TRS) is to measure the extent to which primary and secondary school educators perceive reinforcements, professional outcomes, and classroom conditions as contingent upon their own personal behavior, competencies, and effort, versus the degree to which they view these realities as determined by external forces outside their control, such as administrative directives, sociopolitical scrutiny, uncooperative parents, socioeconomic barriers, or student dispositions. By providing a calibrated, context-sensitive psychometric index, the TRS addresses an enduring challenge in educational psychology: the inadequacy of broad, context-free personality scales in explaining role-specific teacher behaviors and psychological states.

Theoretical Rationale and Educational Context

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, organizational psychologists and educational researchers increasingly identified educator morale, retention, and instructional effectiveness as vital determinants of educational quality. Early research frequently utilized generalized locus of control scales, particularly the Internal-External (I-E) scale formulated by Julian Rotter. However, broad personality scales often accounted for only modest variance in classroom settings because teaching takes place within a heavily bureaucratic, socially scrutinized institution. In real-world educational institutions, an educator might exhibit an internal locus of control regarding personal interpersonal relationships or health, yet feel powerless when confronting state-mandated testing, administrative micromanagement, collective bargaining disputes, or institutional inertia.

Recognizing that perceived control is inherently contextualized within role-specific expectations, Maes and Anderson (1985) engineered the TRS to capture the full spectrum of professional teacher roles. Unlike instruments focused exclusively on classroom instructional successes or failures (such as Thomas R. Guskey’s Responsibility for Student Achievement scale or Rose and Medway’s Teacher Locus of Control scale), the TRS captures broader structural dimensions: school governance, collegial networks, public perception, supervisory surveillance, and policy negotiation. It aims to clarify why some teachers maintain proactive, resilient pedagogies, while others succumb to learned helplessness, psychological alienation, and professional cynicism.

Clinical, Research, and Administrative Applications

The applications of the TRS span several distinct domains in empirical research, school administration, and professional development:

• Occupational Stress and Burnout Research: An external locus of control, as operationalized by the TRS, represents a notable vulnerability factor for teacher burnout, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization. Educational psychologists utilize the TRS to model how external control orientations moderate or mediate the effects of intense workload on psychological distress and premature occupational attrition.
• Evaluation of Teacher Empowerment Interventions: School districts and researchers use the TRS to assess whether institutional restructuring initiatives—such as site-based management, participatory action research, collaborative professional learning communities (PLCs), or shared governance models—shift teachers’ perceptions from external alienation toward internal professional agency.
• Preservice Teacher Education and Induction Mentoring: In teacher preparation programs, the TRS provides diagnostic insight into student teachers’ vulnerability to “reality shock” during their transition from university coursework to structured school environments. Clinical supervisors can identify candidates with high external orientations and implement targeted mentoring to reinforce proactive problem-solving strategies.
• Predictive Modeling of Instructional Innovation: Research confirms that internal teachers are significantly more inclined to adopt innovative curricula, tailor instruction for differentiated learning, engage resistant students, and pursue constructive dialogue with parents. The TRS serves as an explanatory variable in instructional design studies investigating why curricular reforms succeed or stall in specific school cultures.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the Teacher Role Survey is teacher locus of control, characterized as a domain-specific cognitive expectancy framework concerning the locus of causality for professional events, instructional results, and workplace interactions. Rather than conceptualizing teacher agency as a unidimensional or purely classroom-centric phenomenon, the TRS captures control expectancies across four distinct, interrelated latent dimensions identified through factor analytic procedures.

1. Recognition

The Recognition dimension evaluates whether an educator believes that professional acknowledgment, esteem, praise, and supervisory appreciation are direct consequences of high-quality instructional performance, dedication, and professional competence (internal expectancy), or whether recognition is arbitrary, neglected, or systematically withheld regardless of merit (external expectancy). Teaching has historically been described as an isolated profession conducted behind “closed doors,” where effective pedagogy may go unobserved by administrative supervisors. Consequently, educators are susceptible to developing external attributions regarding institutional recognition.

An internal belief on this subscale reflects confidence that personal excellence will be validated by administrators, colleagues, and the wider community (e.g., “To get duly recognized, a teacher needs only exert the effort to perform well”). Conversely, an external belief reflects resignation to systemic neglect, administrative favoritism, or institutional indifference (e.g., “I find that principals and superintendents base their support of a teacher more on whim and hearsay than on quality of work”). Elevated external scores on Recognition correlate strongly with depersonalization, occupational alienation, and cynicism.

2. Teaching/Learning Process

The Teaching/Learning Process dimension targets the core pedagogical and behavioral interactions between the educator and their students. This construct captures the teacher’s subjective belief regarding their capacity to meaningfully influence student academic achievement, engagement, and behavioral regulation, versus viewing student learning outcomes as immutable functions of innate intelligence, home dysfunction, or peer deviance.

An internal orientation in this domain affirms the educator’s proactive agency: confident that systematic instructional planning, creative curriculum design, and empathetic persistence can spark intellectual growth and manage classroom behavior (e.g., “If teachers really put themselves into the task, it is possible for them to exert meaningful influence on students”). In contrast, an external orientation attributes classroom disruption and academic failure to insurmountable pupil pathology or bureaucratic constraints (e.g., “Students are becoming increasingly independent and unruly” or “More and more learning experiences are ‘canned’ and mandated for the teacher”). This dimension is conceptually adjacent to Albert Bandura’s construct of instructional self-efficacy, yet framed explicitly through the lens of causal attribution and reinforcement expectancies.

3. Relations with Teachers

The Relations with Teachers dimension measures control expectancies regarding collegial socialization, informal professional hierarchies, and peer acceptance within the school organization. Healthy workplace functioning requires constructive collaboration, emotional support, and shared pedagogical discourse among faculty members. However, institutional politics can foster climates of division, factionalism, or cliquish isolation.

Teachers with an internal locus regarding peer relationships believe that acceptance, mutual respect, and collegial camaraderie stem from their own proactive social behavior, openness, empathy, and professional integrity (e.g., “Being ‘a part of the group’ of teachers in a building depends on one’s behavior”). Those with an external locus attribute collegial dynamics to entrenched social cliques, structural favoritism, and arbitrary administrative casting, viewing school climates as exclusionary systems beyond an individual’s interpersonal influence (e.g., “Every school has its pecking order which determines those teachers who are accepted and those who are not”).

4. Attitudes of Parents and Society

The Attitudes of Parents and Society dimension measures an educator’s expectancies regarding the broader socio-ecological ecosystem surrounding the school. This includes interactions with parents, community stakeholders, media representations, and public policy trends. As public education faces ongoing societal critique and political debate, teachers must navigate external expectations that can evoke feelings of professional vulnerability.

An internal perspective on this dimension posits that negative societal perceptions can be overcome through professional competence, and that parent cooperation is achievable through skilled, empathetic communication (e.g., “Parents will cooperate with teachers if teachers put forth skillful effort” and “I have never met a parent who couldn’t be won over by a sincere approach”). Conversely, an external perspective views parental antagonism and societal hostility as fixed, intractable realities that teachers must passively endure (e.g., “Parents are easily incited to discontent toward teachers” and “The negative attitude of society toward teaching is something that just has to be endured”).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Teacher Role Survey is rooted in Social Learning Theory, formulated by Julian B. Rotter in 1954 and expanded in his seminal 1966 monograph on generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. The integration of Rotter’s framework into teacher occupational research, along with subsequent cognitive attribution and self-efficacy paradigms, provides the conceptual foundation for the TRS.

Rotter’s Social Learning Theory and the Locus of Control Paradigm

Rotter’s foundational formula asserts that Behavior Potential ($BP$) is a joint function of Expectancy ($E$)—the subjective probability held by the individual that a particular reinforcement will occur following a specific behavior—and Reinforcement Value ($RV$)—the subjective desirability of that outcome:

$$BP_{x, s1, R_a} = f(E_{x, R_a, s1} \times RV_{a, s1})$$

When individuals confront novel or complex situations, their specific expectancies are supported by generalized expectancies learned across prior life experiences. One of the most critical generalized expectancies is the Locus of Control of Reinforcement:

• Internal Locus of Control: The generalized belief that reinforcements, life outcomes, successes, and failures are contingent upon one’s own behavioral choices, effort, capacities, and intrinsic qualities.
• External Locus of Control: The generalized belief that reinforcements and life outcomes are governed by forces outside the self, such as chance, luck, systemic fate, administrative authority, or unpredictable environmental complexities.

Rotter noted that while generalized locus of control predicts behavior effectively across ambiguous, cross-situational environments, its predictive power attenuates in specialized settings governed by unique social norms and institutional constraints. In educational settings, teachers navigate complex expectations involving school boards, state education departments, building principals, parents, and students. Consequently, researchers such as Maes and Anderson recognized that a domain-specific measure was essential to capture the operational realities of educational practice.

Comparison with Alternative Educational Control Instruments

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, psychometricians sought to contextualize locus of control specifically for instructional settings. Two prominent instruments emerged alongside the Teacher Role Survey: the Teacher Locus of Control (TLC) questionnaire developed by Rose and Medway (1981), and the Responsibility for Student Achievement (RSA) scale developed by Thomas R. Guskey (1981).

As demonstrated above, the theoretical contribution of the Teacher Role Survey lies in its comprehensive scope. Where the TLC and RSA evaluate classroom-specific outcomes, the TRS addresses both the internal instructional space and external organizational realities, such as collective bargaining, supervisory evaluations, school climates, and societal status.

Attribution Theory and Social Cognitive Connections

The TRS also interfaces with Bernard Weiner’s attribution theory of achievement motivation and Albert Bandura‘s social cognitive theory. Weiner’s taxonomy classifies causal attributions along three primary axes: Locus (Internal vs. External), Stability (Stable vs. Unstable), and Controllability (Controllable vs. Uncontrollable). When applied to the TRS, an external orientation often aligns with attributing difficulties to stable, uncontrollable external barriers, such as bureaucratic mandates or societal antipathy, which can foster learned helplessness. Conversely, an internal orientation reflects an active cognitive framing, aligning with Bandura’s efficacy expectancies: the belief that one can organize and execute the actions needed to attain designated pedagogical goals.

Validity

During its initial psychometric construction and subsequent independent empirical studies, the Teacher Role Survey demonstrated adequate construct validity, content validity, convergent validity, and criterion-related predictive validity.

Content Validity

Content validity was established through systematic, deductive scale construction. Maes and Anderson generated an initial item pool of 75 items across 14 theoretical categories representing teachers’ professional responsibilities, working conditions, and social interactions: (1) work with students, (2) relations with teachers, (3) sense of achievement, (4) curriculum and program freedom, (5) responsibility, (6) recognition, (7) attitudes of society and parents, (8) administration, (9) personnel policies, (10) salary, (11) working conditions, (12) workload, (13) security, and (14) social service. Expert review panels of educational specialists evaluated each item for construct representation, semantic clarity, and distinct polarity between internal and external statements. Items exhibiting ambiguity, multidimensionality, or weak relevance were iteratively refined or eliminated, establishing strong logical representation of the occupational domain.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was evaluated through exploratory factor analysis and correlation matrices. Item-total correlations guided the reduction from the 75-item exploratory pool to a 32-item version, retaining only items with discrimination indices between .30 and .50, and ultimately yielding the concise 24-item forced-choice operational survey. Principal components factor analysis confirmed that the latent dimensions underlying responses reflected recognizable theoretical domains (Recognition, Teaching/Learning Process, Relations with Teachers, and Attitudes of Parents and Society), demonstrating that the scale validly captures differentiated facets of control expectancies.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

In convergent validity investigations, the TRS showed moderate-to-strong correlations with general locus of control measures, including Rotter’s I-E Scale ($r \approx .42$ to $.55$), supporting the conceptual premise that while the TRS is anchored in general locus of control theory, its domain-specific nature accounts for substantial unique variance ($>70%$) unexplained by generalized personality inventories. Furthermore, the TRS demonstrated significant positive correlations with Guskey’s Responsibility for Student Achievement (RSA) measure and the Teacher Locus of Control (TLC) questionnaire, particularly along the Teaching/Learning Process factor ($r = .51, p < .001$).

Discriminant validity was established through low correlations with measures of general cognitive intelligence and non-convergent personality constructs, such as social desirability. By utilizing a forced-choice dyadic format, the TRS actively controls for acquiescence response bias, ensuring that variance reflects underlying cognitive expectancies rather than general agreement tendencies.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The TRS demonstrated strong predictive utility regarding teacher behavioral patterns, institutional attitudes, and psychological well-being:

• Predicting Teacher Stress and Burnout: Studies examining occupational stress revealed that teachers scoring high in external locus of control on the TRS exhibited significantly elevated scores on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), especially on the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization subscales ($p < .01$).
• Predicting Retention and Attrition: Longitudinal tracking of novice educators indicated that teachers with higher internal orientations on the TRS had lower voluntary turnover rates over a three-year period, as well as higher administrator ratings of instructional perseverance and adaptability.
• Instructional Innovation: Teachers demonstrating internal control expectancies on the TRS engaged significantly more often in self-initiated professional development, implemented differentiated instructional techniques, and maintained more frequent, collaborative contact with parents.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Teacher Role Survey was evaluated through internal consistency analyses and temporal stability assessments across several distinct educator samples.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Internal consistency was calculated via Cronbach’s alpha and Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20), appropriate for dichotomously scored forced-choice items:

• Development Sample: In the initial validation study involving a heterogeneous sample of 321 practicing teachers and graduate students in education, the scale demonstrated solid internal consistency.
• Cross-Validation Sample: An independent cross-validation sample comprising 166 full-time classroom teachers yielded an overall reliability coefficient of $\alpha = .86$. This level of internal consistency exceeds standard psychometric thresholds ($lpha ge .80$) for research instrumentation, confirming reliable response covariance across the item pool.
• Subscale Alpha Coefficients: The four individual subscale factors typically yield alpha coefficients ranging between .68 and .81, which is adequate given the brief item count across individual factors.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Temporal stability assessments demonstrate that the TRS measures enduring cognitive expectancies rather than transient emotional states, while remaining sensitive to sustained changes in professional environments:

• Short-Term Stability (Two Weeks): A stability coefficient of $r = .75$ ($p < .001$) was established over a two-week test-retest interval among a sample of 43 graduate education students. This confirms adequate stability over brief test intervals without significant test sensitization effects.
• Intermediate Stability (Three Weeks): Over a three-week interval evaluated among 34 student teachers and student teacher supervisors, the test-retest reliability coefficient was calculated at $r = .62$ ($p < .01$). The modest reduction in stability in this subgroup reflects the dynamic, often stressful environment of student teaching practica, where clinical field experiences frequently provoke realignments in perceived personal agency.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Teacher Role Survey was investigated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal components extraction followed by orthogonal varimax rotation.

Initial Extraction and Structural Deliberations

In the initial principal components extraction, 12 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were identified, accounting for substantial variance across the original 75-item pool. However, examination of the scree plot alongside interpretive evaluation showed that eigenvalues dropped sharply after the fourth factor. Factors 5 through 12 captured fragmented variance, characterized by low item loadings and minimal conceptual coherence.

Consequently, Maes and Anderson applied a retention criterion requiring factor loadings of at least .35 or higher on the primary factor, minimal cross-loadings (< .25 difference across multiple factors), and conceptual alignment with the scale’s theoretical framework. This reduction identified four stable, interpretatively meaningful factors.

The Four Rotated Factors and Factor Loadings

The four-factor orthogonal model yielded clear structural distinctions among the 24 items of the finalized instrument:

Subsequent psychometric reviews have supported this four-dimensional model, noting that while an overarching general external-internal composite score is analytically useful, examining the four individual subscales provides targeted diagnostic insights into specific facets of educator morale.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Teacher Role Survey (TRS)
• Primary Authors: Wayne R. Maes, Ph.D., and Darrell E. Anderson, Ph.D.
• Initial Publication Year: 1983 (ERIC technical release); 1985 (peer-reviewed publication)
• Construct Assessed: Teacher Locus of Control across institutional and classroom dimensions (Internal vs. External expectancies)
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or digital survey format; individual or group administration
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes
• Target Population: Elementary, middle, and secondary school educators, student teachers, and school-based instructional personnel
• Item Count: 24 forced-choice dyadic items (each item contains two paired statements: Statement ‘a’ and Statement ‘b’)
• Response Format: Forced-choice ipsative response format. For each numbered item, the respondent must select the single statement (either ‘a’ or ‘b’) that more closely reflects their personal belief or professional perspective.
• Scoring Directions:
  • The instrument is keyed such that one point (1) is assigned for each external locus of control statement chosen.
  • Statements receiving a score of 1: 1a, 2b, 3b, 4b, 5b, 6a, 7b, 8b, 9b, 10b, 11a, 12a, 13b, 14a, 15a, 16b, 17a, 18b, 19a, 20b, 21b, 22a, 23a, 24a.
  • Statements reflecting an internal locus of control receive a score of zero (0): 1b, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, 6b, 7a, 8a, 9a, 10a, 11b, 12b, 13a, 14b, 15b, 16a, 17b, 18a, 19b, 20a, 21a, 22b, 23b, 24b.
  • Total Score Range: 0 to 24 points.
  • Score Interpretation:
    • Scores 0 to 7: Strong Internal Locus of Control. The educator perceives their instructional effectiveness, professional relationships, and institutional standing as primarily determined by their own competence, proactive communication, and professional choices.
    • Scores 8 to 15: Moderate / Balanced Locus of Control. The respondent recognizes a mix of personal agency alongside institutional, societal, and bureaucratic constraints.
    • Scores 16 to 24: Strong External Locus of Control. The educator perceives their professional circumstances, student outcomes, and recognition as governed by systemic bureaucracy, arbitrary administration, hostile parents, or unyielding external forces. This profile represents elevated vulnerability to demoralization and burnout.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Teacher Role Survey was published in 1985 by Wayne R. Maes and Darrell E. Anderson in the Journal of Educational Research, preceded by technical documentation disseminated via the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) in 1983 under document accession number ED 240 153. As an academic psychometric instrument published in scholarly educational literature, the TRS was developed to advance empirical educational inquiry and school climate research.

The instrument is broadly accessible for non-commercial, academic, thesis, and research applications. Researchers and educational practitioners using the instrument must provide appropriate citation of the original authors (Maes & Anderson, 1985) and the Journal of Educational Research. Commercial organizations, test publishers seeking inclusion of the TRS in monetized diagnostic batteries, or software vendors incorporating the items into commercial applications must contact the copyright holders, the publisher (Taylor & Francis / Routledge), or the authors’ estates to secure appropriate licensing.

References

Anderson, D. E., & Maes, W. R. (1986). Teacher locus of control and teacher characteristics (Unpublished manuscript). Department of Counseling and Family Studies, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Guskey, T. R. (1981). Measurement of the responsibility teachers assume for academic successes and failures in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718103200310

Maes, W. R., & Anderson, D. E. (1983). The Teacher Role Survey: A measure of teacher locus of control. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 240 153. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED240153

Maes, W. R., & Anderson, D. E. (1985). A measure of teacher locus of control. The Journal of Educational Research, 79(1), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1985.10885645

Rose, J. S., & Medway, F. J. (1981). Measurement of teachers’ beliefs in their control over student outcome. The Journal of Educational Research, 74(3), 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1981.10885308

Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Prentice-Hall. https://doi.org/10.1037/11382-000

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)