Content uploaded by Bruce Johnson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bruce Johnson on Nov 06, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://epm.sagepub.com
Measurement
Educational and Psychological
DOI: 10.1177/0013164406299102
online Jun 6, 2007;
2007; 67; 833 originally publishedEducational and Psychological Measurement
Bruce Johnson, Joseph J. Stevens and Keith Zvoch
From the Revised School Level Environment Questionnaire
Teachers' Perceptions of School Climate: A Validity Study of Scores
http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/67/5/833
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
at:
can be foundEducational and Psychological Measurement Additional services and information for
http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://epm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/67/5/833
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
(this article cites 20 articles hosted on the Citations
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at UNIV OF OREGON on January 26, 2008 http://epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Teachers’ Perceptions
of School Climate
A Validity Study of Scores From the
Revised School Level Environment Questionnaire
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
Joseph J. Stevens
University of Oregon
Keith Zvoch
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Scores from a revised version of the School Level Environment Questionnaire (SLEQ)
were validated using a sample of teachers from a large school district. An exploratory
factor analysis was used with a randomly selected half of the sample. Five school
environment factors emerged. A confirmatory factor analysis was run with the remain-
ing half of the sample. Goodness-of-fit indices indicated that the factor structure fit the
data reasonably well. Further analyses using structural equation modeling techniques
revealed that the Revised SLEQ worked equally well for all samples. Invariance testing
showed that the fitted model and the estimated parameter values were statistically
equivalent across all samples. Internal consistency estimates provided further evidence
of the reliability of factor scores. In addition, an analysis of variance indicated that the
instrument discriminated climate differences between schools. Results suggest that
the Revised SLEQ provides a good tool for studying teachers’ perceptions of school
climate.
Keywords: confirmatory factor analysis; exploratory factor analysis; school climate;
School Level Environment Questionnaire (SLEQ); structural equation modeling;
teacher perceptions
S
chool climate has a variety of meanings, including the social system of shared
norms and expectations (Brookover et al., 1978), the set of norms and expecta-
tions that others have for students (West, 1985), teachers’ morale (Brown & Henry,
1992), level of teachers’ empowerment (Short & Rinehart, 1992), students’ per-
ceptions of the ‘‘personality of a school’’ (W. L. Johnson, Johnson, & Zimmerman,
1996, p. 64), or the environment for students as indicated by the amount of negative
Educational and
Psychological Measurement
Volume 67 Number 5
October 2007 833-844
Ó 2007 Sage Publications
10.1177/0013164406299102
http://epm.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Authors’ Note: Please address correspondence to Bruce Johnson, University of Arizona, P. O. Box
210069, Tucson, AZ 85721-0069; e-mail: brucej@email.arizona.edu.
833
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at UNIV OF OREGON on January 26, 2008 http://epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
student behavior in the school (Bern stein, 1992). In the present study, past concep-
tions of school climate are integrated with the widely used view of school climate
as the psychosocial context in which teachers work and teach (Fisher & Fraser,
1990a).
One commonly used instrument for measuring teachers’ perceptions is the
School Level Environment Questionnaire (SLEQ). First reported in 1982 (Burden
& Fraser, 1994; Fraser & Rentoul, 1982), the SLEQ has been used to measure
school climate in several studies of schools in Australia (Cresswell & Fisher, 1998;
Fisher & Fraser, 1990b; Fisher & Grady, 1998; Fisher, Grady, & Fraser, 1995;
Rentoul & Fraser, 1983; Williamson, Tobin, & Fraser, 1986), South Africa
(Mailula & Laugksch, 2003), and the United States (Blose & Fisher, 2003; Henson,
2001a; B. Johnson & Stevens, 2000; C. E. Johnson & Templeton, 1998).
The original development of the SLEQ began with a review of existing school
environment instruments (Rentoul & Fraser, 1983). The review identified several
limitations with the school climate measures utilized by researchers and system
stakeholders. First, some of the instruments were developed without a great deal
of awareness of relevant literature about school environments. Second, some were
developed without checking the applicabili ty and importance of the dimensions to
classroom teachers. Third, some were designed for non–school environments and
contained item s not relevant to schools and teachers. Fourth, many instruments
combined school-level and classroom-level environments. Finally, some of the
instruments required too much time for teachers to respond adequately to the items.
Based on these findings, a set of six criteria were followed in constructing the
SLEQ: consistency with literature, coverage of Moos’s 1974 general categories of
environments (discussed below), sal ience to practicing teachers, specific relevance
to schools, minimal overlap with classroom environment instruments, and economy
in administration (Rentoul & Fraser, 1983).
Scales were chosen based on Moos’s three general dimensions for all human
environments—relationships, personal development, and system maintenance and
system change (Rentoul & Fraser, 1983). After initial testing, one of the original
scales, Achievement Orientation, was dropped and another, Work Pressure, was
added. In addition, the names of two scales were changed; Formalization was chan-
ged to Staff Freedom, and Centralization was changed to Participatory Decision
Making. The resulting SLEQ consisted of 56 items arranged in eight scales:
Student Support, Affiliation, Professional Interest, Staff Freedom, Participatory
Decision Making, Innovation, Resource Adequacy, and Work Pressure.
Results associated with the SLEQ in a previous study (B. Johnson & Stevens,
2001) suggested the feasibility of a shortened, revised version of the SLEQ.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses in that study suggested retaining
only five (Student Support, Affiliation, Part icipatory Decision Making, Innovation,
and Resource Adequacy) of the original eight factors. Professional Interest, Staf f
834 Educational and Psychological Measurement
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at UNIV OF OREGON on January 26, 2008 http://epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Freedom, and Work Pressure were dropped from the revised instrument, leaving
35 of the original 56 items. In preparation for the present study, the authors further
modified the instrument by renaming the five scales and eliminating an additional
14 items. Scale names were changed to reflect better the items in each scale. In
addition, because the Revised SLEQ was to be used as part of a longer survey,
items were eliminated to reduce instrument length and minimize item redundancy;
the authors attempted to create a school climate instrument that contained only
those items that clearly reflected the intent of the scale. The resulting Revised
SLEQ consisted of 21 items in five scales: Collabor ation (replacing Affiliation)
with 6 instead of 11 items, Decision Making (formerly called Participatory Deci-
sion Making) with 3 rather than 8 items, Instructional Innovation (formerly called
Innovation) with all 4 items retained, Student Relations (formerly called Student
Support) with 4 instead of 7 items, and School Resources (formerly called
Resource Adequacy) with 4 rather than 5 items. The purpose of the present study
was to validate scores from this revised version of the SLEQ.
Method
Participants
The Revised SLEQ was sent to all 4,920 teachers in a large urban school district
in the southwestern United States as part of a larger survey. The 21 SLEQ items
were interspersed with 21 other items dealing with teachers’ perceptions of aca-
demic press, leadership, job satisfaction, and school quality. Completed surveys
were obtained from 2,558 teachers in 119 schools, a 52% response rate. About half
(49.7%) came from 80 elementary schools, with 25.9% from 26 middle schools
and 24.3% from 13 high schools. The number of completed surveys from each
school ranged from 6 at one small elementary school to 65 from a large high
school. After eliminating 9 cases in which there were large numbers of missing
items, the responses of 2,549 teachers were analyzed. The majority (81.0%) of the
participating teachers were females. Most teachers (72.2%) were Caucasian, while
23.5% were Hispanic, 1.8 % Native American, 1.1% African American, 0.5 % Asian
American, and 3.7% Other.
Analyses
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using teacher respon-
ses from a randomly chosen half of the sample (N ¼ 1; 275), and the remaining
responses were saved for a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). For the EFA, prin-
cipal axis factoring and oblimin rotation (d ¼ 0) were used. These methods were
chosen because an underlying theoretical structure was hypothesized and because
Johnson et al. / Validity of the Revised SLEQ 835
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at UNIV OF OREGON on January 26, 2008 http://epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
it was assumed that the dimensions or factors describing the structure might be
intercorrelated. The CFA was used to determine whether the factor structure
obtained using EFA could be confirmed on teacher responses from the remainder
of the sample. Stru ctural equation modeling methods (Arbuckle, 1997; Bollen,
1989) were used to estimate the CFA models.
Several further analyses were also conducted. Invariance testing was used to
determine if the Revised SLEQ worked equally well for teachers in each of the
three school levels (i.e., elementary, middle, and high school). Internal consistency
of the scores for the entire Revised SLEQ and of each of its factors was investi-
gated through an a reliability analysis. Finally, analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
were run to examine if the instrument as a whole and each of its factors could
discriminate climate score differences between schools.
Results
In the initial EFA, five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were extracted,
accounting for 63.0% of the variance of the orig inal items. Collaboration accounted
for 33.9% of the variance, Student Relations 10.4%, School Resources 8.0%,
Decision Making 5.9%, and Instructional Innovation 4.8%. Interfactor correlations
ranged from .29 to .63, sufficient to justify using an oblique rotation and analyzing
both pattern and structure matrices (see Tables 1 and 2; Henson & Roberts, 2006).
In addition to an examination of the scree plot and the number of factors meeting
Kaiser’s rule, parallel analysis and Velicer’s minimum average partial (MAP) test
were conducted (O’Connor, 2000). Results of the MAP test sugges ted retention of
three factors, and a parallel analysis using 1,000 replications suggested the use of
six components. Because the MAP test tends to err in the direction of underex-
traction and the parallel analysis tends to err in the direction of overextraction
(O’Connor, 2000), the use of five factors based on Kaiser’s rule and conceptual con-
siderations appeared to be well supported. This solution was consistent with the five
hypothesized SLEQ factors, and all 21 items fit into their hypothesized factors.
The CFA model used was a hierarchical model in which the 21 SLEQ items
were arranged in the five hypothesized factors, each of which was related to an
overall second-order general climate factor (see Figure 1). Results of commonly
used goodness-of-fit indices indicated that the model fit the data reasonably well.
Adjusted goodness-of-fit index (.93) and comparative fit index (CFI; .94) values
were close to the oft-recommended criterion value of .95, and root mean square
error of approximation (.052) was lower than the recommended level of .06 (Hu &
Bentler, 1999). w
2
was statistically significant, indicating that the model did not fit
the data exactly, but with a large sample size as in the present study (N ¼ 1; 274)
even minor differences between the observed and implied covariance matri x may
result in statistical significance (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996).
836 Educational and Psychological Measurement
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at UNIV OF OREGON on January 26, 2008 http://epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Table 1
Exploratory Factor Analysis Results—Pattern Matrix
Factor
No. Item I II III IV V
Collaboration
20. Classroom instruction is rarely coordinated across teachers. .687 .015 .045 .040 .063
11. I have regular opportunities to work with other teachers. .590 .014 .084 −.043 .001
6. There is good communication among teachers. .528 .117 .095 −.085 .061
21. Good teamwork is not emphasized enough at my school. .513 .050 .068 −.127 .153
16. I seldom discuss the needs of individual students with other teachers. .410 −.027 −.046 .013 .010
1. Teachers design instructional programs together. .388 .072 −.022 −.258 .194
Student Relations
2. Most students are well mannered or respectful of the school staff. −.020 .903 −.072 −.030 −.043
12. Students in this school are well behaved. −.062 .822 .013 −.067 .010
7. Most students are helpful and cooperative with teachers. .008 .800 −.025 .037 −.001
17. Most students are motivated to learn. .064 .611 .099 .049 .040
School Resources
18. The supply of equipment and resources is not adequate. .084 −.018 .794 −.054 −.053
3. Instructional equipment is not consistently accessible. .124 .031 .650 −.105 −.112
13. Video equipment, tapes, and films are readily available. .012 .034 .647 −.037 −.026
8. The school library has sufficient resources and materials. −.100 −.002 .551 .063 .161
Decision Making
4. Teachers are frequently asked to participate in decisions. −.067 .047 .012 −.772 .133
14. I have very little to say in the running of the school. .068 .017 .045 −.733 .037
9. Decisions about the school are made by the principal. .023
−.013 .019 −.613 −.039
Instructional Innovation
15. We are willing to try new teaching approaches in my school. .043 −.010 .007 −.045 .677
5. New and different ideas are always being tried out. .014 −.022 −.025 −.144 .670
19. Teachers in this school are innovative. .118 .122 .070 .081 .527
10. New courses or curriculum materials are seldom implemented. .179 .035 .046 −.063 .486
Note: Bold indicates values above .30.
837
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at UNIV OF OREGON on January 26, 2008 http://epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Table 2
Exploratory Factor Analysis Results—Structure Matrix
Factor
No. Item I II III IV V
Collaboration
20. Classroom instruction is rarely coordinated across teachers. .726 .256 .305 −.380 .499
11. I have regular opportunities to work with other teachers. .649 .241 .317 −.397 .427
6. There is good communication among teachers. .683 .362 .379 −.467 .508
21. Good teamwork is not emphasized enough at my school. .718 .325 .371 −.513 .575
16. I seldom discuss the needs of individual students with other teachers. .385 .084 .091 −.189 .237
1. Teachers design instructional programs together. .665 .329 .307 −.569 .574
Student Relations
2. Most students are well mannered or respectful of the school staff. .225 .864 .240 −.235 .256
12. Students in this school are well behaved. .241 .830 .313 −.280 .299
7. Most students are helpful and cooperative with teachers. .228 .783 .250 −.189 .265
17. Most students are motivated to learn. .288 .666 .336 −.216 .311
School Resources
18. The supply of equipment and resources is not adequate. .359 .288 .818 −.361 .297
3. Instructional equipment is not consistently accessible. .353 .293 .704 −.368 .253
13. Video equipment, tapes, and films are readily available. .258 .270 .668 −.278 .238
8. The school library has sufficient resources and materials. .165 .204 .548 −.157 .263
Decision Making
4. Teachers are frequently asked to participate in decisions. .452 .301 .334 −.813 .460
14. I have very little to say in the running of the school. .508 .279 .357 −.808 .432
9. Decisions about the school are made by the principal. .332 .164 .234 −.611 .254
Instructional Innovation
15. We are willing to try new teaching approaches in my school. .494 .261 .274 −.374 .724
5. New and different ideas are always being tried out. .498 .255 .260 −
.438 .727
19. Teachers in this school are innovative. .470 .349 .312 −.282 .633
10. New courses or curriculum materials are seldom implemented. .547 .299 .317 −.406 .656
Note: Bold indicates values above .30.
838
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at UNIV OF OREGON on January 26, 2008 http://epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Invariance Testing
To determine if the fitted model worked equally well for each of the three school
levels, a series of invariance hypotheses were tested (see Table 2). The first model
tested applied the same structural form of the CFA model to all three groups but left
all parameters unconstrained so that each group had parameters freely estimated.
This model served as the baseline for comparison with a series of increasingly con-
strained invariance tests. The second model involved imposing the elementary
school regression weights from each first-order latent variable to its respective
items on the middle school and high school samples. These constraints resulted in
Figure 1
Revised School Level Environment Questionnaire
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model
School
Resources
Student
Relations
Decision
Making
Collaboration
Instructional
Innovation
School Climate
5
6
1
4
9
14
18
13
8
3
12
7
2
.78
.53
.59
.95
.83
.81
.81
.87
.65
.52
.75
.80
.85
.77
.56
.76
.68
.71
.70
.72
.64
.36
.69
.77
17
.66
.65
10
15
19
11
16
20
21
Note: The coefficients are standardized regression weights.
Johnson et al. / Validity of the Revised SLEQ 839
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at UNIV OF OREGON on January 26, 2008 http://epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
an increase in w
2
of 47.94, p ¼ :011. Although statistically significant, the change
in fitted variance as indicated by the difference in the CFI index was about .001.
Cheung and Rensvold (2002) recommend a cutoff of 2% (.02) in incremental fit
indices such as the CFI as an indication of the presence of differences between
groups in testing measurement invariance.
To the constra ints imposed in Model 2, Model 3 added constraints on the path
coefficients from the second-order general school climate factor to the five first-
order factors. Model 4 constrained the variance of the second-order factor to be
equal across groups, and Model 5 constrained the residuals of the first-order latent
variables to be equal across groups. Model 6 constrained the residuals of the mea-
sured items to be equal across the three groups. Inspection of the changes in CFI
for each model shows that there were only minor changes in fit across the hierarchy
of invariance tests (see Table 3). For the last model (measurement residuals), the
change in CFI compared to the first model was about a 1.3% increase in unfitted
variance. In addition, the overall CFI value remained at a high level (.937) even
after all parameters were constrained across the three groups. These resu lts indicate
that the CFA model was essentially invariant across elementary, middle, and high
school teachers.
Internal Consistency
Internal consi stency was estimated by calculating a reliability coefficients.
Results are shown in Table 4. Scores for the instrument as a whole, measuring
overall school climate, had a relatively strong reliability coefficient in this sample
(.90; Henson, 2001b; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Scores for each of the five fac-
tors also had acceptable reliability coefficients, from .77 to .86. These coefficients
are in the same range as those reported in previous studies of the SLEQ (Fisher &
Fraser, 1990a; Fraser, Williamson, & Tobin, 1987).
Table 3
Invariance Tests Across Three School Levels
Model w
2
df CFI w
2
df
p CFI
1. Unconstrained 1,248.30 441 .955 — — — —
2. Measurement weights 47.94 28 .011 .001
3. Latent weights 70.02 36 .001 .002
4. Latent variances 75.75 38 < .001 .002
5. Latent residuals 139.88 48 < .001 .005
6. Measurement residuals 330.61 86 < .001 .013
840 Educational and Psychological Measurement
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at UNIV OF OREGON on January 26, 2008 http://epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Differentiation Between Schools
Following the approach of other researchers using the SLEQ (see Fisher et al.,
1995; Fisher & Fraser, 1990b; Fisher & Grady, 1998), ANOVAs were used to
investigate the ability of the Revised SLEQ to differentiate between schools (see
Table 5). These analyses are done because in order for the SLEQ to be useful for
most applications, it must be able to detect differences between schools. If the
instrument cannot do so, either there are no differences in climate among schools
and teachers’ perceptions of those climates, which is extremely unlikely, or the
instrument is not sensitive enough to pick up those differences. Significant differ-
ences between schools on each of the five climate factor scores as well as on the
overall climate factor score were found (all p values < .001). Strength of asso-
ciation as measured by Z
2
also showed that from 22% to 31% of the variation in
climate factor scor es was associated with school affiliation.
Discussion
Results from the current study demonstrated the factorial validity of the 21-item
Revised SLEQ. Five hypothesized factors emerged in the EFA, and this structure
was supported in the CFA. The factor analyses also confirmed the association of
items with their hypothesized factors. In addition, the structure and measurement
properties of the Revised SLEQ were found to apply equivalently for elementary,
middle, and high school teachers.
There are important limitations to this study. Participants were volunteers, and it
is not known if their perceptions of their schools’ climates were the same as those
of nonrespondents. Although there were no statistically significant differences
Table 4
Internal Consistency (Reliability) Results for the Revised SLEQ
Present Study
95% Confidence Interval Previous Studies
Factor a Lower Upper Factor a
Overall School Climate .90 .894 .905 Overall School Climate .90
Collaboration .82 .807 .829 Affiliation .87, .85, .84, .78
Decision Making .78 .765 .794 Participatory Decision
Making
.80, .69, .82, .78
Instructional Innovation .79 .773 .800 Innovation .84, .78, .81, .68
Student Relations .86 .849 .867 Student Support .70, .79, .85
School Resources .77 .759 .788 Resource Adequacy .81, .80, .65, .68
Note: Coefficients from previous studies are taken from Johnson & Stevens (2001).
Johnson et al. / Validity of the Revised SLEQ 841
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at UNIV OF OREGON on January 26, 2008 http://epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
between respondents and nonrespondents in ethnicity, years of teaching experience,
or educational level, it is possible those who responded chose to do so for a particu-
lar reason—that is, they felt particularly strongly about their schools’ climate—that
was different for nonresponde nts. In addition, these results were from one school
district in a southwestern U.S. city. Results may be different for schools in other
places.
The Revised SLEQ can be an important tool for other researchers int erested in
investigating issu es related to teachers’ perceptions of school climate. For those
interested in examining the relationships between this construct and other factors,
it is relatively easy to use with large numbers of teachers. For example, recent work
(Goddard, LoGerfo, & Hoy, 2004) has shown the link between teachers’ perceived
collective efficacy and student achievement. The SLEQ could be used to investi-
gate the relationship between school climate and collective efficacy. For more in-
depth studies of schools, the Revised SLEQ might be used, along with interviews
and observations, to assess how teachers’ perceptions of school climate change
over time. The Revised SLEQ is currently being used by the authors as part of a
longitudinal study of teachers’ perceptions of school climate and other factors such
as job satisfaction, school quality, professional development, and student achieve-
ment. The longitudinal nature of the larger study will provide an opportuni ty to
examine several important questions regarding school climate including the stabi-
lity of teachers’ perceptions of their schools’ climate over time; the relations hips
between school climate and other factors such as satisfaction, school quality, aca-
demic press, and leadership; and the relationship between all of these factors and
student achievement. The instrument can also be useful to those at a particular
school, providing data helpful to the teachers themselves in identifying elements of
school climate they wish to change (Fraser, 1999). The study of school climate is a
complicated endeavor. The Revised SLEQ is a tool that can help us in our attempts
to unravel its mysteries.
Table 5
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Tests of Ability
to Discriminate Between Schools
Between-Schools Factor F df MSE p Z
2
Overall School Climate 8.900 118, 2430 56.681 .001 .31
Collaboration 6.497 118, 2430 2.994 .001 .24
Decision Making 5.613 118, 2430 4.040 .001 .22
Instructional Innovation 5.494 118, 2430 2.570 .001 .22
Student Relations 8.004 118, 2430 3.997 .001 .29
School Resources 8.522 118, 2430 5.029 .001 .30
842 Educational and Psychological Measurement
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at UNIV OF OREGON on January 26, 2008 http://epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos users’ guide (Version 3.6) [Computer manual]. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Bernstein, L. (1992). Where is reform taking place? An analysis of policy changes and school climate.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 297-302.
Blose, R. J., & Fisher, D. (2003, April). Effects of teachers’ school level environment perceptions on
changing elementary mathematics classroom environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, P. K., & Wisenbaker, J. M.
(1978). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 15, 301-318.
Brown, G. J., & Henry, D. (1992). Using the climate survey to drive school reform. Contemporary
Education, 63, 277-280.
Burden, R., & Fraser, B. (1994). Examining teachers’ perceptions of their working environments:
Introducing the School Level Environment Questionnaire. Educational Psychology in Practice, 10,
67-71.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement
invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
Cresswell, J., & Fisher, D. (1998, April). A qualitative description of teachers’ and principals’ percep-
tions of interpersonal behavior and school environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Fisher, D., & Grady, N. (1998). Teachers’ images of their schools and perceptions of their work environ-
ments. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 334-348.
Fisher, D., Grady, N., & Fraser, B. (1995). Associations between school-level and classroom-level envir-
onment. International Studies in Educational Administration, 23, 1-15.
Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1990a). School climate: Assessing and improving school environments
(Set: Research Information for Teachers No. 2, Item 4). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council
for Educational Research.
Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1990b, April). Validity and use of the School-Level Environment Question-
naire. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Boston, MA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED318757)
Fraser, B. J. (1999). Using learning environment instruments to improve classroom and school climates.
In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning envir-
onments (pp. 65-83). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Fraser, B. J., & Rentoul, A. J. (1982). Relationships between school-level and classroom-level environ-
ment. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 28, 212-225.
Fraser, B. J., Williamson, J., & Tobin, K. (1987). Use of classroom and school climate scales in evaluat-
ing alternative schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 219-231.
Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). High school accountability: The role of perceived
collective efficacy. Educational Policy, 18, 403-425.
Henson, R. K. (2001a). The effects of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17, 819-836.
Henson, R. K. (2001b). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on
coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177-189.
Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research:
Common errors and some comments on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 66, 393-416.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-
tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Johnson et al. / Validity of the Revised SLEQ 843
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at UNIV OF OREGON on January 26, 2008 http://epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Johnson, B., & Stevens, J. J. (2000, April). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of school climate and
student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Johnson, B., & Stevens, J. J. (2001). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the School Level
Environment Questionnaire (SLEQ). Learning Environments Research, 4, 325-344.
Johnson, C. E., & Templeton, R. A. (1998, April). Promoting peace in a place called school. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Johnson, W. L., Johnson, A. M., & Zimmerman, K. (1996). Assessing school climate priorities: A Texas
study. Clearing House, 70, 64-66.
Mailula, E. M., & Laugksch, R. C. (2003, April). School-level environment and the implementation of
outcomes-based education in South Africa. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using
parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
32, 396-402.
Rentoul, A. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1983). Development of a school-level environment questionnaire. Journal
of Educational Administration, 21, 21–39.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). School Participant Empowerment Scale: Assessment of level
of empowerment within school environment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52,
951-960.
West, C. A. (1985). Effects of school climate and school social structure on student academic achieve-
ment in selected urban elementary schools. Journal of Negro Education, 54, 451-461.
Williamson, J. C., Tobin, K. G., & Fraser, B. J. (1986, April). Use of classroom and school environment
scales in evaluating alternative high schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED274693.
844 Educational and Psychological Measurement
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at UNIV OF OREGON on January 26, 2008 http://epm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
