Special Education Teacher Burnout: A Synthesis of Research from 1979 to 2013

Abstract

Teacher burnout occurs when teachers undergoing stress for long periods of time experience emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of personal accomplishment (Maslach, 2003). Outcomes associated with burnout include teacher attrition, teacher health issues, and negative student outcomes. Special educators are at high risk for burnout, as their working conditions align with many factors associated with burnout. In this review, we updated the literature on special education teacher working conditions by reviewing studies (N = 23) that (a) included a quantitative measure of burnout and (b) focused on special education teachers as participants. An analysis of the studies reviewed provided a clear base of support for the association between burnout and a range of variables from the individual, classroom, school, and district levels. Bronfenbrenner's (1977) Ecological Model supplied the organization framework for the range of variables. Teacher experience, student disability, role conflict, role ambiguity, and administrative support were particularly salient factors in special education teacher burnout. Important gaps in the research are discussed, future directions for researchers are outlined, and implications for teachers and other practitioners are provided.

Full text

6SHFLDO(GXFDWLRQ7HDFKHU%XUQRXW$6\QWKHVLVRI5HVHDUFK
IURPWR
Nelson C. Brunsting, Melissa A. Sreckovic, Kathleen Lynne Lane
Education and Treatment of Children, Volume 37, Number 4, November
2014, pp. 681-711 (Article)
3XEOLVKHGE\:HVW9LUJLQLD8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
DOI: 10.1353/etc.2014.0032
For additional information about this article
Access provided by Wake Forest University (17 Oct 2014 15:03 GMT)
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/etc/summary/v037/37.4.brunsting.html

EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 37, No. 4, 2014
Pages 681–712
Special Education Teacher Burnout: A Synthesis
of Research from 1979 to 2013
Nelson C. Brunsting
Melissa A. Sreckovic
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Kathleen Lynne Lane
University of Kansas
Abstract
Teacher burnout occurs when teachers undergoing stress for long periods of
time experience emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of person-
al accomplishment (Maslach, 2003). Outcomes associated with burnout in-
clude teacher arition, teacher health issues, and negative student outcomes.
Special educators are at high risk for burnout as their working conditions
align with many factors associated with burnout. In this review, we updated
the literature on special education teacher working conditions by review-
ing studies (N = 23) that (a) included a quantitative measure of burnout and
(b) focused on special education teachers as participants. An analysis of the
studies reviewed provided a clear base of support for the association between
burnout and a range of variables from the individual, classroom, school, and
district levels. Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological Model supplied the orga-
nizational framework for the range of variables. Teacher experience, student
disability, role conict, role ambiguity, and administrative support were par-
ticularly salient factors in special education teacher burnout. Important gaps
in the research are discussed, future directions for researchers are outlined,
and implications for teachers and other practitioners are provided.
Keywords: teacher burnout, special education, emotional disturbance, role
conict, role ambiguity, Maslach Burnout Inventory
Due to a national teacher shortage crisis in the 1990s and early
2000s, much of the research on special education teacher (SET)
working conditions in the last two decades has focused on teach-
er supply and arition (Boe & Cook, 2006; Ingersoll, 2003; Miller,
Brownell, & Smith, 1999). However, recent research reports arition
of SETs as lower than arition in other elds of employment (e.g.,
healthcare; Boe, Cook, & Sunderland, 2008). In addition, a substantial
portion of the purported SET shortage appears to have been due to a
Address correspondence to Nelson C. Brunsting, 201C Peabody Hall, University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; email: brunnc3@live.unc.edu

682 Brunsting et al.
methodological issue wherein teachers who transferred within their
district were counted as having left the profession (Boe, et al, 2008;
Edgar & Pair, 2005). These ndings, coupled with the increased access
to entry into teaching special education through fast-tracked alterna-
tive-route teacher preparation programs permied by No Child Left
Behind (2001), have led researchers to refocus their eorts from in-
creasing SET supply to developing teacher capacity and commitment
(Sindelar, Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010). While teacher supply is still
an important responsibility, they argue the focal question is no longer
how do we recruit more teachers? but rather how can we best train and sup-
port our teachers? One promising approach for building SET capacity
and supporting teacher commitment is to alleviate teacher burnout.
At one point or another almost all teachers become frustrated
with their job or harbor negative feelings toward the profession. Yet,
some teachers experience these emotions more acutely or with greater
frequency (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Teachers are described
as experiencing burnout when the stress they encounter overcomes
their resources and abilities to cope adequately, leading them to
feel exhausted, cynical, or unaccomplished in their work (Hakanen,
Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001). Although stress and
dissatisfaction correlate highly with teacher burnout (Martin, Sass,
& Schmi, 2012), the current review follows Maslach (2003) in dif-
ferentiating stress and dissatisfaction from burnout, which is com-
posed of three components: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization/
cynicism, and (lack of) personal accomplishment. This delineation
between stress and burnout is both conceptually necessary and prac-
tically important, as individuals respond dierently to stress: some
thrive, others are indierent to stress, and others experience burnout
over time (Farber, 2000). Similarly, job satisfaction and burnout are
separate constructs, as one can be dissatised with multiple aspects of
one’s job (e.g., salary, hours, support from colleagues) without expe-
riencing emotional exhaustion, cynicism, or lack of personal accom-
plishment (Farber, 2000).
The special education literature has traditionally focused on
stress or burnout in terms of arition (Billingsley, 2004; Gersten,
Keating, Yovano, & Harniss, 2001). Yet, arition may be the least
worrisome correlate of burnout. Results of recent studies found
teacher burnout to impact a range of variables, including teacher
health and student outcomes. More specically, burnout is associ-
ated with physical symptoms, such as chronic fatigue and colds,
recurrent u, and musculoskeletal pain (Armon, Melamed, Shirom,
& Shapira, 2010; Cordes & Dougherty, 1993). Further, depression
is highly related to burnout, as teachers with burnout experience

683SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
eight out of nine symptoms of depression (Bianchi, Boy, Hingray,
Truchot, & Laurent, 2013).
Unfortunately, students are not spared the negative inuence
of teacher burnout. Students of disengaged or exhausted teachers are
frequently disruptive, struggle socially and emotionally, and aain
their Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals less frequently—all
of which impact academic development (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009;
Ruble & McGrew, 2013). Thus, teacher burnout presents a problem for
students, their families, and school systems as they aempt to respond
to students’ academic, behavioral, and social struggles. In short, the
eect of teacher burnout is far-reaching, impacting more than solely
the teacher experiencing its eects.
Teacher Burnout in Special Education
There is a range of factors associated with the onset of teach-
er burnout, including: lack of administrative support (Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2007), paperwork (Billingsley, 2004), challenging student
behaviors (Hastings & Brown, 2002), role overload (i.e., the experience
of too many unique demands on one’s time and resources; Adera &
Bullock, 2010), and expectation-reality mismatch, which occurs when
the pre-service expectation of teaching does not align with the real-
ity of what the teacher experiences in the classroom (Zabel, Boomer,
& King, 1984). Unfortunately, these are all factors that many SETs
face daily, puing them at increased risk of burnout. Many SETs do
not feel they have the support of their principals and may lack the
resources needed to manage or alleviate their overload of responsi-
bilities (Ka, 2004). In addition, SETs often use their time perform-
ing noninstructional tasks (e.g., IEP meetings, paperwork; Vannest
& Hagan-Burke, 2010). Although pre-service special educators’ ex-
pectations of the classroom are relatively accurate, they overestimate
the amount of support SETs receive from administrators and general
educators (Wasburn-Moses, 2009). Because the factors associated with
burnout align closely with the realities of their daily work experienc-
es, it is critical to provide SETs with ways to alleviate burnout before
it leads to negative outcomes.
Challenging Student Behaviors and SET Burnout
Wisniewski and Gargiulo (1997) conducted a comprehensive
review of studies on stress and burnout for practitioners in special
education from 1969 to 1996. Results linked all SETs with high risk
for burnout; however, Wisniewski and Gargiulo found that SETs
working with students with emotional disturbance (ED) were expe-
riencing burnout at “crisis proportions.” Indeed, a range of studies

684 Brunsting et al.
documented signicantly higher burnout for SETs teaching students
with ED than those working with students with other disabilities
(e.g., Banks & Necco, 1990; Nichols & Sosnowsky, 2002). The impact
of the challenging behavior of students with ED is corroborated by
the general education literature as challenging student behavior corre-
lated with burnout for general education teachers (Hastings & Brown,
2002). Further, classroom management mediated the behavior-burn-
out relationship for general educators (Tsouloupas, Carson, Mahews,
Grawitch, & Barber, 2010). As Wisniewski and Gargiulo were the last
to comprehensively review SET burnout, there is a need for an up-
dated review of teacher burnout, specically one focused exclusively
on SETs to identify gaps in the research, make recommendations for
practitioners, and improve teacher health, teacher working conditions,
and student outcomes. Although all SETs are at risk for burnout, those
who teach students with ED appear to be especially at risk. Therefore
we conducted the current review with particular aention to the im-
pact of challenging student behavior and SETs working with students
with ED.
Purpose
As the understanding of the importance of burnout has grown, the
need for a review focused on burnout for SETs has increased. We con-
ducted the current review to update the knowledge base on burnout by
reviewing all empirical studies examining one or more of the compo-
nents of burnout delineated by Maslach (i.e., emotional exhaustion, de-
personalization, and lack of personal accomplishment) for SETs in the
United States (US). To structure the review we used Bronfenbrenner’s
(1977) Ecological Model as an organizational framework to order the
variables associated with teacher burnout from proximal (e.g., teacher
characteristics) to distal (e.g., district policy)—a point we will explain in
more detail in the method section. The timing of the review is germane
as the eld is shifting focus from teacher supply to teacher quality and
working conditions, and the last review focused on SET burnout was
published in 2002. As such, we conducted this review to synthesize re-
search on SET burnout, identify gaps in the literature on SET burnout
for future research, and oer recommendations for practitioners.
Method
To identify studies measuring SET burnout, we conducted a sys-
tematic search using a multiple-gated process, which included elec-
tronic, hand, and ancestral searches. To determine eligible articles to be
included in the review, a set of inclusion criteria was identied by all au-
thors. During the article selection process, potential articles were coded

685SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
independently by the rst and second authors to determine inclusion
eligibility. A binary coding scheme of met/not met was used. To calcu-
late the inter-rater agreement the number of total agreements was multi-
plied by 100 and divided by number of agreements plus disagreements.
Electronic Search
First, we completed an electronic search of the following databases:
Academic Search Complete, Education Full Text, ERIC, and PsycINFO.
All possible combinations, derivations, and previous iterations (e.g.,
mental retardation and intellectual disability [ID]) of the following
search terms were used: (Field 1) emotional exhaustion, cynicism,
depersonalization, personal accomplishment, or burnout; (Field 2)
special education, exceptionality, disability, autism, emotional and/or
behavioral disorder, emotional disturbance, other health impaired, or
oppositional deant disorder; and (Field 3) teacher or educator. The
search yielded 147 articles (excluding duplicates). All titles and abstracts
were read independently by the rst and second authors to determine if
the article met inclusion criteria (described below). Inter-rater reliability
was 90%. Fifty-nine articles were retained to be read in entirety to: (a)
verify the article met inclusion criteria; (b) supplement information in
the abstract to determine whether the article met inclusion criteria; or
(c) resolve situations when the authors disagreed (n = 15). The rst and
second authors read all 59 articles in full to determine inclusion eligibility
and coded them using the met/not met system. Inter-rater agreement
was 95%; authors used a consensus model to reach nal agreement.
Second, the rst and second authors conducted hand searches of any
journal publishing more than one of the included articles by reviewing
the titles and authors of each article published between 1979 and 2013
(i.e., Exceptional Children, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
and Teacher Education and Special Education). Inter-rater agreement was
100% for the hand searches, with no additional articles identied for
inclusion. Finally, the reference lists of all included articles as well as
the reference list of other reviews on SET burnout (e.g., Wisniewski &
Gargiulo, 1997) were searched for additional articles. One additional
article (Zabel & Zabel, 2002) was located through the ancestral search.
Twenty-three articles met the inclusion criteria described below.
Application of Inclusion Criteria
Articles selected for inclusion in this review needed to meet all
of the following criteria: (a) contain a quantitative measure of emo-
tional exhaustion, depersonalization/cynicism, or lack of personal ac-
complishment, (b) include SETs working at a public or private school
seing, (c) dierentiate the outcomes for SETs if general education

686 Brunsting et al.
teachers also participated in the study, (d) present data and explain the
analyses in a clear and interpretable manner, and (e) occur in the US
and be published in a peer-reviewed journal between 1979 and 2013.
Quantitative measure of burnout. As the review was organized
around Maslach’s conceptualization of burnout, all included studies
needed to measure at least one of the three components of burnout. Of
the 59 initially read, one study with variables similar to, yet dierent
from, the components of burnout was excluded (Cancio, Albrecht, &
Johns, 2013).
Special education teacher participants. Included studies had partici-
pants who were SETs working in a public or private school seing. We
did not dierentiate between certied and noncertied SETs in terms
of inclusion criteria (a limitation later discussed).
Dierentiated outcomes for special education teachers. If a sample
had fewer than 50% SETs, then the outcomes for each variable needed
to be dierentiated for SETs. This was done in order to avoid misap-
propriation of the results of a study to SETs if they represented a small
portion of the sample. Of the 59 initially read in full, one study with
fewer than 50% SETs in the sample used special education status as
a predictor variable for burnout but did not dierentiate burnout for
SETs and therefore was not included (Jones & Youngs, 2012).
Present the data and analyses in a clear and interpretable manner.
Included articles featured a dened data analytic plan. The Zabel and
Zabel (1982) study was excluded because the authors were unable to
determine the analysis procedures used to interpret the data.
Occur in the United States between 1979 and 2013. The rst version
of the Maslach Burnout Inventory was published in 1979 and repre-
sents the starting date for the literature search (Maslach & Jackson,
1979). Results were restricted to the US as other countries operational-
ize special education dierently and we wanted to focus on what was
understood for SETs in the US.
Analysis of Included Articles
The current review draws its organizational framework from
Brownell and Smith (1993), who used Bronfenbrenner’s (1977)
Ecological Model to organize variables associated with teachers’ career
decisions. Bronfenbrenner posited the importance of processes and
contexts on an individual’s development, using the Ecological Model
to illustrate the proximal and distal systems of contexts impacting
the individual. The Ecological Model is well suited for analyzing SET
burnout, because burnout develops over time and in multiple seings
(e.g., classroom, school). In contrast to Brownell and Smith, we do not
aempt to place each variable associated with burnout into a certain

687SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
system within the model (e.g., microsystem). The included studies
primarily examined variables associated with the SET or the people
and seings with which the SET has direct interaction. Therefore, the
organizational framework in this study focuses on the proximity of
certain variables to the SET experiencing burnout. Studies are syn-
thesized by the variables associated with burnout, beginning with
the most proximal to the most distal: individual level variables (e.g.,
age, gender), classroom level variables (e.g., student disability, chal-
lenging behaviors), school level variables (e.g., administrative sup-
port, workload), and state and district level variables (e.g., pre-service
training, salary). Next, studies with SET burnout as an independent
variable are reviewed and studies investigating interventions for SET
burnout are described. Finally, the overall impact of burnout on SETs
is discussed, implications for practitioners are provided, and limita-
tions and future directions are considered.
Results
A total of 23 studies met inclusion criteria, which yields a pub-
lishing rate from 1979 to 2013 of 0.66 studies per year. The included
studies are described in table 1 and are denoted in the reference list
with an asterisk.
Individual Level Variables Associated with Burnout
Teacher age and gender. Five studies reported teacher age as nega-
tively correlated with burnout, meaning older teachers experienced
less emotional exhaustion and depersonalization while having greater
personal accomplishment (Banks & Necco, 1990; Carlson & Thompson,
1995; Crane & Iwanicki, 1986; Weber & Toer, 1989, Zabel & Zabel,
1983). In a model including SETs’ classroom and school experiences,
age did not make a signicant contribution to burnout, suggesting the
impact of age on burnout may be mediated and moderated by other
variables (Embich, 2001). Carlson and Thompson (1995) reported gen-
der made a signicant contribution to depersonalization, with males
experiencing higher rates of depersonalization. Similarly, Crane and
Iwanicki (1986) found being male positively correlated with burnout.
Teaching experience and level of education. Teaching experience as
measured in total number of years teaching either special education
or general education was negatively correlated with burnout (Coman
et al., 2013; Crane & Iwanicki, 1986). Coman and colleagues also
found years teaching special education correlated negatively with
burnout. Interestingly, years of general education teaching experi-
ence was inversely correlated with burnout in one study (Zabel &
Zabel, 1983). Zabel and Zabel (2001) partially replicated this nding

688 Brunsting et al.
Table 1
Studies meeting inclusion criteria
Study Research
Design
Participants Variables of Interest Results
Beck & Gargiulo,
1983
Cross-Sectional 997 SETs in Ohio
463 teaching ID
534 GE teachers
SE Category
Teaching GE
Teaching ID
lower DP and higher PA than GE teachers and those
teaching mild ID.
McIntyre, 1983 Correlational 684 SETs in SC settings in
the Northeast
Class Size
burnout was found.
Zabel, & Zabel,
1983
Correlational
and Cross-
Sectional
601 SETs in Kansas Teacher Age
Teaching Experience
Training
Previous regular education teaching experience was
bachelor’s degree.
McIntyre, 1984 Correlational 684 SETs in SC settings in
the Northeast
Locus of Control
less teachers felt in control of their personal outcomes, the
more burnout teachers experienced.
Zabel, Dettmer, et
al., 1984
Descriptive 601 SETs in Kansas Delivery Model/Setting
SETs of students with hearing impairments, teaching in SC
-
ing high school students reported the highest EE. High
school SETs and those teaching students with ED reported
the
highest DP.
Note: ASD = autism spectrum disorder; AWC = adult word count (i.e., the number of adult words children are exposed to in a classroom setting); BD =
Behavioral Disorder; DD = developmental delays; DP = depersonalization; ED = Emotional Disturbance; EE = emotional exhaustion; GE = general education;
ID =
Intellectual Disability; IEP = individualized education plan; PA = personal accomplishment; SC = self-contained classroom, SE = special education; SET
= special education teacher; TD = typically developing; TEACCH = Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication Handicapped Children.

689SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
Table 1
Studies meeting inclusion criteria
Study Research
Design
Participants Variables of Interest Results
Crane & Iwanic-
ki, 1986
Correlational 443 SETs in Connecticut,
teaching students with ED,
ID, and LD
Role Ambiguity
Teacher
Demographics
-
age, gender, training, and experience.
Fimian & Blan-
ton,
1986
Correlational
and Cross-Sec-
tional
415 Alumnae or students
at Appalachian State
University
379 SE trainees
36 SETs
Academic and
Organizational Variables
Role Ambiguity
First year teachers did not report higher levels of burnout
Teacher Exam, Role Ambiguity, and Total Stress Frequen-
Cherniss, 1988 Cross-sectional
students with ID
23 SETs
Principal Function
Principal Interaction
Content
Frequency Mode
Principal at the school with lower burnout interacted
engaged in more personal and work-related dialogue
and less on administrative dialogue; and provided more
Note: ASD = autism spectrum disorder; AWC = adult word count (i.e., the number of adult words children are exposed to in a classroom setting); BD =
Behavioral Disorder; DD = developmental delays; DP = depersonalization; ED = Emotional Disturbance; EE = emotional exhaustion; GE = general education;
ID =
Intellectual Disability; IEP = individualized education plan; PA = personal accomplishment; SC = self-contained classroom, SE = special education; SET
= special education teacher; TD = typically developing; TEACCH = Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication Handicapped Children.

690 Brunsting et al.
Table 1
Studies meeting inclusion criteria
Study Research
Design
Participants Variables of Interest Results
1989
Correlational 68 SETs (51 F, 17 M) of
students with ID, random-
ly selected from a national
organization for ID
Classroom Demographics
Financial Support
Support from
Colleagues
Support from Parents
Student age predicted an increase in teacher EE. Super-
visory Support was associated with a decrease in EE.
Education and Collegial Support predicted decreases in
DP. Financial Support and Teacher age predicted increas-
es in PA.
Banks & Necco,
1990
Correlational 181 SETs in two school
districts: one in the Great
Lakes and one in the
Southeast
Age
Experience
SE Category
Training
Age was inversely correlated with burnout. Teachers in re-
source rooms or of students with BD had higher burnout
teachers reported less burnout than those with a degree.
Frank & McKen-
zie, 1993
Longitudinal 41 SETs (38 F, 3 M) who
taught for 5 years upon
graduating
Age of Students
Delivery Model/Setting
Disabilities of Students
teaching students above age 12 and students with BD
experienced the most EE.
Note: ASD = autism spectrum disorder; AWC = adult word count (i.e., the number of adult words children are exposed to in a classroom setting); BD =
Behavioral Disorder; DD = developmental delays; DP = depersonalization; ED = Emotional Disturbance; EE = emotional exhaustion; GE = general education;
ID =
Intellectual Disability; IEP = individualized education plan; PA = personal accomplishment; SC = self-contained classroom, SE = special education; SET
= special education teacher; TD = typically developing; TEACCH = Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication Handicapped Children.

691SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
Table 1
Studies meeting inclusion criteria
Study Research
Design
Participants Variables of Interest Results
Carlson & Correlational 490 SETs in Hawaii Needs Satisfaction
SET Survey
Needs satisfaction, lack of resources, busywork, class
composition, and teacher age predicted variance in teach-
er burnout. EE was the strongest predictor of intention to
leave teaching.
Cooley & Yova- Intervention
Cross-over
design
92 special education ser-
vice providers (51% SETs,
other roles)
Job Satisfaction
Organizational Commit-
ment
Peer Collaboration
Stress Management
increases in EE, PA, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment. Intervention eect size for EE was large (h2
= 0.15), as was follow-up (h2 = 0.20).
Embich,
2001
Correlational 300 SETs serving students
with LD in a mid-Atlantic
school district
Co-Teaching
Perceived Workload
Principal Support
Role Ambiguity
SETs co-teaching one period had higher EE and DP than
teachers co-teaching more than one period. Team teach-
and Principal Support predicted burnout.
Zabel & Zabel,
2001
Correlational
and Cross-Sec-
tional
301 SETs in Kansas (95%
Caucasian, 86% F)
Delivery Model/Setting
Teacher Demographics
GE teaching experience was correlated with PA. SE teach-
ers with a Master’s Degree reported higher PA than those
who only had a Bachelor’s.
Note: ASD = autism spectrum disorder; AWC = adult word count (i.e., the number of adult words children are exposed to in a classroom setting); BD =
Behavioral Disorder; DD = developmental delays; DP = depersonalization; ED = Emotional Disturbance; EE = emotional exhaustion; GE = general education;
ID =
Intellectual Disability; IEP = individualized education plan; PA = personal accomplishment; SC = self-contained classroom, SE = special education; SET
= special education teacher; TD = typically developing; TEACCH = Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication Handicapped Children.

692 Brunsting et al.
Table 1
Studies meeting inclusion criteria
Study Research
Design
Participants Variables of Interest Results
Nichols & Sos-
nowsky, 2002
Correlational 77 SETs in SC classrooms
in Michigan
Caseload
Disabilities Served
% of Students with ED burnout.
Zabel & Zabel,
2002
Correlational 301 SETs in Kansas Support from Admin,
Colleagues, and Parents
Support from Administration, Colleagues, and Parents
were all inversely correlated with burnout.
Jennett et al.,
2003
Correlational 64 SETs working with
students with ASD
Autism Philosophy
Level of Commitment
Teacher commitment to TEACCH philosophy was in-
versely correlated with both EE and PA. Commitment to
a philosophy predicted an increase in PA.
Ruble et al., 2011 Correlational 35 SETs of children with
ASD
Admin. Support
Mastery Experience inversely correlated with burnout.
Biglan et al., 2013 Correlational
DD (30 teachers and 12
consultants)
Experiential Avoidance
Mindful Awareness
Valued Living
Mindful Awareness and Valued Living inversely correlat-
ed with burnout. Experiential Avoidance correlated with
burnout.
Note: ASD = autism spectrum disorder; AWC = adult word count (i.e., the number of adult words children are exposed to in a classroom setting); BD =
Behavioral Disorder; DD = developmental delays; DP = depersonalization; ED = Emotional Disturbance; EE = emotional exhaustion; GE = general education;
ID =
Intellectual Disability; IEP = individualized education plan; PA = personal accomplishment; SC = self-contained classroom, SE = special education; SET
= special education teacher; TD = typically developing; TEACCH = Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication Handicapped Children.

693SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
Table 1
Studies meeting inclusion criteria
Study Research
Design
Participants Variables of Interest Results
Coman et al.,
2013
Correlational 53 preschool teachers of
students with ASD from
North Carolina, Colorado,
Florida, and Minnesota
Commitment to model
Students in class
# with ASD
# TD
Teacher Experience
implemented. Teacher Experience, Experience Teaching
Students with ASD, and Number of TD Students in Class
correlated negatively with burnout. Number of Students
with ASD correlated with burnout.
Irvin et al., 2013 Correlational 21 classroom teachers of
students with ASD in pre-
schools in the Southeast
Adult Word Count
Child Vocalizations
Conversational Turns
to students with ASD present, and correlated negatively
Ruble & McGrew,
2013
Correlational
(Intervention
does not target
burnout)
79 SETs responsible for the
IEPs of students with ASD
in grades 3-8
IEP Goal Attainment
IEP Quality
Intervention
Adherence
Intervention
Satisfaction
Coaching Satisfaction
Teacher Engagement
Teacher EE was inversely correlated with IEP Goal
Attainment, Administrative Support, IEP Quality, and
Teacher Intervention Adherence. Teacher DP was inverse-
ly correlated with Intervention Satisfaction and Coaching
Satisfaction. Teacher EE predicted a decrease in IEP Goal
Attainment.
Note: ASD = autism spectrum disorder; AWC = adult word count (i.e., the number of adult words children are exposed to in a classroom setting); BD =
Behavioral Disorder; DD = developmental delays; DP = depersonalization; ED = Emotional Disturbance; EE = emotional exhaustion; GE = general education;
ID =
Intellectual Disability; IEP = individualized education plan; PA = personal accomplishment; SC = self-contained classroom, SE = special education; SET
= special education teacher; TD = typically developing; TEACCH = Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication Handicapped Children.

694 Brunsting et al.
almost two decades later, as they reported years teaching general
education students was correlated with personal accomplishment
for SETs. With regard to the relative contributions of teacher age and
experience to burnout, Carlson and Thompson (1995) found even
though teacher age accounted for a signicant amount of variance
of emotional exhaustion, teacher experience did not make a signi-
cant unique contribution to the model. The evidence supporting the
relationship between level of education of SETs and burnout is rela-
tively strong, with higher levels of education associated with lower
emotional exhaustion (Embich, 2001), depersonalization (Weber &
Toer, 1989; Zabel & Zabel, 1983), and higher personal accomplish-
ment (Zabel & Zabel, 1983; 2001). Interestingly, SETs with alternative
licensure experienced less burnout than those with either a bach-
elor’s or master’s degree in one study (Banks & Necco, 1990).
Teacher traits and self-perceptions. Biglan, Layton, Jones, Hankins,
and Rusby (2013) found three variables to be associated with SET
burnout: experiential avoidance, mindful awareness, and valued liv-
ing. Experiential avoidance, or an individual’s desire to avoid dis-
agreeable situations, thoughts, or feelings, correlated positively with
burnout. However, mindful awareness (the ability to stay present
and aware of surroundings) and valued living (the perception of liv-
ing in accord with one’s surroundings) correlated negatively with
burnout. Ruble, Usher, and McGrew (2011) examined self-ecacy
of SETs for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), report-
ing self-ecacy of classroom management to be inversely correlated
with burnout. However, no relationship was found between self-ef-
cacy for obtaining colleagues’ or principals’ support and burnout.
Lastly, McIntyre (1984) found SET burnout correlated with locus of
control, which meant teachers with higher burnout perceived their
outcomes to be controlled by others. This is not surprising, as locus
of control and teacher ecacy are associated constructs (Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
Classroom Level Variables Associated with Burnout
Beyond the characteristics and perceptions of individual SETs,
the next most proximal seing is the place they spend the majority of
their working hours: the classroom (Vannest & Hagan-Burke, 2010).
Studies meeting inclusion criteria reported evidence supporting the
relationship between burnout and the following classroom-level fac-
tors: student age, student special education category, student special
education composition, and the service model/seing.
Student age. The association between student age and SET burn-
out was consistent across three studies. In a ve-year longitudinal

695SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
sample of SETs, teachers of students aged 13–19 had higher mean
burnout scores than teachers of other age groups (Frank & McKenzie,
1993). Carlson and Thompson (1995) reported teachers of older stu-
dents experienced higher levels of depersonalization and lower levels
of personal accomplishment, and Weber and Toer (1989) found stu-
dent age predicted increases in emotional exhaustion.
Student special education category. Multiple studies investigated
the relation between teacher burnout and the special education cat-
egory of the students they taught. Two descriptive studies found
teachers of students with ED to have the highest or second highest
mean levels of burnout (Frank & McKenzie, 1993; Zabel, Demer,
& Zabel, 1984). Further, in another study the proportion of students
with ED in a classroom correlated with SET burnout in self-contained
classrooms serving students with varying special education needs
(Nichols & Sosnowsky, 2002). In yet another study, Banks and Necco
(1990) found SETs of students with ED experienced higher burnout
than those of students with ID. With regard to teaching students with
ID, teachers of students with moderate ID experienced lower burnout
than general education teachers and teachers of students with mild ID
(Beck & Gargiulo, 1983).
Classroom composition. Carlson and Thompson (1995) reported
an aggregated variable comprised of student age range, class size,
and special education categories served, accounted for a signi-
cant increase in SET emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.
Coman et al. (2013) provided further detail regarding these multiple
factors. In their sample of 53 SETs of preschool students with ASD,
the number of students with ASD in a teacher’s class correlated with
burnout, and the number of typically developing students was in-
versely correlated with burnout. In addition, Irvin, Hume, Boyd,
McBee, and Odom (2013) reported the ratio of adults in a classroom
to students with ASD correlated with an increase in burnout, mean-
ing the more adults present in a classroom, the higher the level of
teacher burnout.
Service model and seing. The research ndings on the relation-
ship between burnout and service model are in slight disagreement.
SETs in self-contained seings experienced higher mean levels of
burnout than those in other seings, yet this dierence was not test-
ed for signicance (Zabel, Demer, et al., 1984). Crane and Iwanicki
(1986) reported teaching in a self-contained seing was correlated
with burnout. In contrast, Banks and Necco (1990) found teaching in
resource rooms to correlate signicantly with burnout. Findings sug-
gested the impact of service model on burnout may be moderated by
other factors.

696 Brunsting et al.
School Level Factors Associated with Burnout
Work hindrances. Teacher report of busywork and teacher report
of lack of resources were associated with an increase in emotional
exhaustion (Carlson & Thompson, 1995). Similarly, teacher report of
overall workload, which included paperwork, parent conferences,
and extracurricular responsibilities, predicted an increase in burnout
for SETs (Embich, 2001).
Emotional experiences in school. The degree to which ve aspects
of teacher needs (security, social, esteem, autonomy, and self-actual-
ization) were met in their work environment was a signicant predic-
tor of burnout (Carlson & Thompson, 1995). Also, the frequency of
stress experienced by teachers accounted for 14% of the variance in
the intensity of burnout for rst-year SETs (Fimian & Blanton, 1986).
Role ambiguity and role conict. Role ambiguity is used to describe
situations wherein the job description and expectations for the role
are not made clear. When the work responsibilities and tasks expected
of an individual are conicting or are impossible to complete in a rea-
sonable time and manner, an individual is described as experiencing
role conict. The included studies provided strong support for the re-
lationship between these two variables and burnout. Both role con-
ict and role ambiguity contributed signicantly to burnout for SETs,
controlling for teacher age, gender, experience, and training (Crane
& Iwanicki, 1986). Embich (2001) replicated the Crane and Iwanicki
study and found similar results for SETs in both self-contained set-
tings and in team-teaching seings. Role ambiguity, in particular, was
found to account for 31% of the variance in rst-year SETs’ burnout
(Fimian & Blanton, 1986).
Support from coworkers and parents. In an observational cross-sec-
tional study, Cherniss (1988) explored the interaction of principals and
teachers at two schools for students with ID. The mean level of SET
burnout at one school was low, while the mean level at the other school
was moderate. The principal with low burnout interacted more with
sta and teachers, engaged in more personal dialogue, provided more
support, and observed others doing their jobs signicantly less than
the principal at the school with moderate burnout. The importance
of administrative support was corroborated by four studies, each of
which found relations between principal support and burnout in the
expected direction (Embich, 2001; Ruble & McGrew, 2013; Weber &
Toer, 1989; Zabel & Zabel, 2002). The support SETs received from fel-
low teachers was inversely correlated with burnout (Weber & Toer,
1989; Zabel & Zabel, 2002). While students’ parents do not interact as
often with teachers, support SETs perceived from their students’ par-
ents was also associated with less burnout (Zabel & Zabel, 2002).

697SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
State or District Level Factors Associated with Burnout
Weber and Toer (1989) reported that nancial support corre-
lated with personal accomplishment in a national sample of teachers
of students with ID. This was the only included study to investigate
factors associated with burnout in a context with which the individual
had no direct person-to-person interaction.
Burnout and Student Outcomes
Two studies, both published in 2013, investigated the relation-
ship between burnout and student outcomes (Irvin et al., 2013; Ruble
& McGrew, 2013). Unlike the previously reviewed studies that inves-
tigated burnout as a dependent variable, these two studies included
burnout as the independent variable. Irvin et al. (2013) reported SET
burnout to be inversely correlated with the number of adult words
children with ASD were exposed to in that teacher’s classroom set-
ting. Also investigating outcomes for students with ASD, Ruble and
McGrew (2013) found inverse correlations between teacher emotional
exhaustion and student IEP goal aainment and IEP quality. Further,
they found emotional exhaustion accounted for 9.3% of the variance
in IEP goal aainment. Burnout may also have an indirect eect on
student outcomes, as Ruble and McGrew also found an association
between teacher emotional exhaustion and adherence to the interven-
tion targeting student IEP goal aainment.
Intervention for Burnout
Although only one included study tested an intervention target-
ing burnout, the results were promising. Cooley and Yovano (1996)
designed an intervention to impact two of the main correlates of burn-
out: teacher stress and collegial support. The intervention lasted ten
weeks, with weekly sessions lasting two hours apiece. Five weeks
were dedicated to coping with stress and focused on the following
three skills: (a) problem identication and solution development, (b)
physiological coping (e.g., muscle relaxation), and (c) cognitive cop-
ing (e.g., recognition and redirection of self-negativity). The second
ve weeks teachers paired together to practice solving school-related
problems by a four-step process: (a) clarifying the problem, (b) sum-
marizing the problem, (c) designing an intervention, and (d) evaluat-
ing the intervention outcome. Participants in the intervention expe-
rienced signicant positive dierences in emotional exhaustion and
personal accomplishment, as well as job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment. In contrast, teachers in the control group experi-
enced no dierences. The eect size of the intervention for emotional
exhaustion was considerable (h2 = 0.15) as was follow-up (h2 = 0.20),

698 Brunsting et al.
which occurred two, ve, or seven months post-intervention, depend-
ing on cohort. In a separate study, Jenne, Harris, and Mesibov (2003)
found teachers’ commitment to an intervention philosophy was in-
versely correlated with both emotional exhaustion and personal ac-
complishment. Commitment also explained 17.8% of the variance in
personal accomplishment, which suggests teachers who commit to an
intervention may have greater success alleviating their burnout.
Discussion
The purpose of this review was to update the literature on SET
burnout as conceptualized by Maslach in order to solidify the research
base for future inquiry. Using Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological
Model as an organizational framework, we investigated a range of
variables associated with teacher burnout. It is critical for SETs to re-
ceive beer support to alleviate burnout due to the health risks and
negative student outcomes associated with teacher burnout. To this
end, we rst discuss the impact of variables within certain seings on
SET burnout while also indicating gaps for further research. Second,
we note implications for teachers and practitioners and provide rec-
ommendations for mitigating burnout. Lastly, we discuss limitations
of the study as well as the most pressing future directions for research.
Teacher Characteristics and Perceptions
Biglan et al.’s (2013) nding of the relation between burnout and
teacher mindful awareness, valued living, and experiential avoidance
provides a useful starting point for further research into other emo-
tions, traits, and perceptions that may interact with burnout for SETs.
Because burnout occurs in the interaction between prolonged stress
and individuals’ traits and coping mechanisms (Maslach et al., 2001),
research in special educator burnout may nd certain traits, emotions,
or perceptions as important targets or aspects for interventions. A re-
cent review analyzed the literature on general educator emotionality
and burnout and suggested emotional regulation as a fruitful target
for interventions (Chang, 2009). Given the results of the Cooley and
Yovano (1996) intervention concerning teacher task-focused coping
and emotional regulation, we suggest further research into teacher
emotional regulation with the goal of improving the one current in-
tervention targeting SET burnout. Future treatment-outcome studies
should be conducted to explore the generalizability of these outcomes
to inform pre-service teacher preparation as well as professional de-
velopment activities for in-service teachers. These ndings will also
be important to inform training new and supporting existing admin-
istrators who serve as instructional leaders at the school-site level.

699SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
Principals and assistant principals may benet from this information
as it relates to supporting novice and experienced teachers.
Beyond stress management and emotional regulation, another
factor associated with a decrease in burnout is teacher ecacy for
dealing with students’ behavioral challenges (O’Neill & Stephenson,
2011; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). This is unsurprising, as challenging
behavior has been documented to lead to teacher burnout (Hastings &
Brown, 2002), and the percentage of students with ED—who by de-
nition exhibit challenging behaviors—in a teacher’s class was associ-
ated with higher intensity of burnout (Nichols & Sosnowsky, 2002).
However, Pullis (1992) documented that SETs working with students
with ED did not consider their students’ challenging behavior as a pri-
mary source of their stress. According to Ruble et al. (2011) self-eca-
cy for classroom management correlated with burnout for SETs work-
ing with students with ASD, but self-ecacy for obtaining support
from their administration or colleagues did not. Due to dierences
in these ndings, it is imperative additional inquiry be conducted to
understand burnout relative of other variables such as student-level
variables (e.g., type of disability) and environmental variables (e.g.,
perceived administrative support, focus on inclusive programing).
Classroom Factors
Two ndings regarding classroom factors deserve further at-
tention. First, multiple studies documented a relationship between
student age and teacher burnout, but none explored the process or
mechanisms by which student age may account for increases in burn-
out. Because it is necessary for students of all ages to receive access to
strong academic support from their teacher, it is particularly impor-
tant for secondary schools to be aware of the risk for burnout and to
support their SETs. It is also important for researchers to illuminate
the processes by which student age is related to an increase in burn-
out, in order to provide SETs with information and interventions tar-
geting their unique needs.
The second noteworthy nding was the relationship between the
adult-to-student with ASD ratio and burnout, with higher total burn-
out associated with a higher adult-to-student with ASD ratio (Irvin et
al., 2013). One might expect an increased number of adults to help
decrease demands on the teacher and provide emotional support, but
it is possible the ratio of adults-to-students with ASD is higher due to
students with greater needs or greater behavioral issues. However,
Embich (2001) found the highest mean level of burnout to be among
teachers who co-taught one period a day, which suggests the increase
in burnout may stem from issues between SETs and other adults in

700 Brunsting et al.
the classroom. The eect of team teachers and paraprofessionals on
SET burnout constitutes an important area for future research, as
SETs in a recent study supervised 3.32 paraprofessionals on average
(Giangreco, Suter, & Hurley, 2013).
School Factors
Of all the factors associated with burnout, the three most sup-
ported by the included studies were school level factors: role ambigu-
ity, role conict, and administrative support. Unfortunately, we were
unable to nd intervention studies for role ambiguity or role conict in
the special education or general education literature, though Gersten
et al. (2001) did document the relationship between job design and
teacher intent to leave the profession. As noted by Cancio et al. (2013),
educational research is needed to (a) further untangle interlocking
processes of administrative support, role issues, and job design, and
(b) design an intervention targeting role conict and role ambiguity to
decrease SET burnout. Such research would help provide principals
and other school administrators with the most critical information
for helping alleviate SET burnout. In addition, mentorship by expe-
rienced teachers is another possible avenue to alleviate burnout and
has been heavily researched with regard to arition but not exam-
ined with SET burnout (Billingsley, 2004; Wasburn, Wasburn-Moses,
& Davis, 2012).
Student Outcomes and Burnout
Early research primarily investigated variables suspected to
cause teacher burnout; only recently have studies conceptualized SET
burnout as a predictor of student outcomes. Although the remedia-
tion of burnout is paramount, a beer understanding of which stu-
dent outcomes are associated with burnout may increase (a) teacher
awareness of the importance of self-care, (b) press on administrators
to prioritize alleviating SET burnout, and (c) willingness of research-
ers and funding agencies to provide more resources and interventions
for burnout. With regard to teacher self-care, some teachers perceive
burnout as a by-product to be endured in the process of puing their
students rst and can be unwilling to put their own emotional needs
before those of their students (Farber, 2000). If these teachers come
to understand the negative impact their emotional exhaustion has on
their students’ social, emotional, and academic outcomes, they may
increase their eort to replenish their own emotional resources in or-
der to beer serve their students.
While it is alarming that burnout is related to poor student out-
comes, this factor may provide the key to garnering greater support

701SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
from the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) for research and inter-
vention due to the IES’s focus on student outcomes. Currently, the
only documented student outcomes correlating with SET burnout are
IEP goal aainment, IEP quality, and rate of adult words to which
students with ASD were exposed. Does SET burnout impact student
GPA, academic engagement, self-determined behaviors, work com-
pletion, or reading comprehension? There is a range of critical student
outcomes future research needs to investigate and disseminate to cur-
rent practitioners. Many teachers experiencing emotional exhaustion
report they exhaust themselves for the beer of their students and
plan to continue to do so (Farber, 2000). The more the list of negative
student outcomes associated with SET burnout grows, the more likely
emotionally exhausted teachers may be to increase their self-care.
Intervention Context
Cooley and Yovano’s (1996) implementation of an intervention
targeting teacher stress response and peer collaboration decreased
SET burnout. Their success provides a solid foundation for future
intervention research into interventions targeting other correlates of
burnout, such as role conict and ambiguity, principal support, and
self-ecacy for classroom management. There is great need for this
research as some teachers experiencing burnout may manage stress-
ful situations well but feel unable to reconcile daily conicting job de-
mands.
Equally as important as designing and testing interventions
targeting burnout is the role burnout plays in teacher commitment
and adherence to interventions. SETs with higher levels of emotion-
al exhaustion were less likely to adhere to an intervention targeting
students’ IEP quality, and teachers experiencing higher levels of de-
personalization were dissatised with the intervention as well as the
coaching they received during the treatment phase of the intervention
(Ruble & McGrew, 2013). Although this study is the only instance in
the special education literature, the results are corroborated by the
nding that higher levels of depersonalization among general educa-
tion teachers was inversely correlated with teacher self-report of their
intervention treatment integrity (Oakes, Lane, Jenkins, & Booker,
2013). If similar results continue to be replicated, teacher burnout will
need to be considered in the conceptualization and design of any in-
tervention with teachers as participants or relevant stakeholders.
Implications for Practitioners
Based on the reviewed studies, we recommend SETs: (a) be
aware of the risks of burnout to their career, their health, and to their

702 Brunsting et al.
students; (b) continue developing their classroom management skills
and condence in their use; (c) identify role conict and ambigu-
ity and problem-solve to alleviate issues; (d) seek support from col-
leagues and administrators; and (e) engage in self-care techniques
such as stress management.
Awareness of burnout. There is no quantitative evidence to sup-
port the adage knowing is half the bale when it comes to burnout.
However, SET awareness of the risks of burnout to themselves and
other practitioners working in special education, especially those
working with students with ED or ASD, is an important prerequisite
to mitigating the impact of burnout. We encourage teachers who feel
overwhelmed trying to meet the often vast needs of their students to
prioritize self-care with an understanding that their health, their lon-
gevity in teaching, and the academic and behavioral outcomes of their
students are all impacted by burnout.
Challenging behaviors. Due to the impact of challenging student
behaviors on SET burnout, we urge both pre-service and in-service
teachers to continue to increase their condence in and knowledge
about classroom management techniques. Indeed, self-ecacy for
classroom management mediated the relationship between teacher
burnout and challenging student behaviors (Tsouloupas et al., 2010)—
an important nding considering SETs of students with ED have the
highest rate of burnout among SETs (Banks & Necco, 1990; Nichols &
Sosnowsky, 2002). Because the majority of current teacher preparation
programs do not include courses on classroom management (Oliver
& Reschly, 2010), professional development oerings may be the only
way for some in-service teachers to become procient in research-
based classroom and behavioral management techniques such as func-
tional assessment-based interventions (FABIs). FABI is a tool designed
to help teachers understand the reason for students’ behavior as well
as how to decrease undesirable behaviors and increase behaviors that
facilitate the instructional experience for all students (Umbreit, Ferro,
Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007). Recent studies have shown professional de-
velopment oerings to increase both in-service and pre-service teacher
knowledge, condence, and use of FABIs (Lane, Oakes, & Cox, 2011;
Lane et al., 2014). We temper this recommendation by noting the need
for research to investigate whether knowledge, condence, and use of
FABIs impacts SET burnout.
Role conict and ambiguity. Given the salience of role conict and
role ambiguity for teacher burnout, we suggest principals and other ad-
ministrators provide detailed job descriptions and aend to situations
when multiple teacher responsibilities are in conict. In addition, prin-
cipals will want to be especially aentive to teacher needs when they

703SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
pertain to role conict and ambiguity in order to protect teacher health,
increase teacher retention, and increase student outcomes. We recom-
mend pre-service teachers ask their mentor teacher or teacher educator
program director for help (a) selecting positions where the job descrip-
tion is well detailed and (b) discussing potential conicts in job respon-
sibilities and time allotment prior to being hired. Future inquiry should
study whether teacher-training programs can prepare pre-service teach-
ers to decrease the chances of role conict and ambiguity when inter-
viewing for potential jobs.
For in-service teachers, we recommend identifying possible role
conict or role ambiguity issues and then problem-solving with their
department head or principal on ways to best resolve the issue. On the
one hand, this may be dicult for teachers experiencing burnout due to
a strained relationship with administrators. On the other hand, if SETs
expect students to self-advocate during the IEP process, it is important
for teachers to advocate for themselves when experiencing burnout. Yet,
more inquiry as to how in-service teachers can resolve role conict and
role ambiguity is needed.
Support from administration. Current research provides teachers
with the evidence to reinforce their requests for greater support from
administration, as teacher burnout is both a major health risk and a fac-
tor in negative student outcomes. Although some administrators may
aempt to resolve teacher burnout by providing a paraprofessional, this
solution may be insucient, as the evidence suggests SET burnout in-
creases as the adult-to-student ratio increases (Irvin et al., 2013). These
results should not be interpreted to disparage the employment of para-
professionals, who also experience moderate to high levels of burnout
(Shyman, 2010); rather, the results highlight the complexity of teaching
students with exceptionalities and show there is a need for other solu-
tions beyond the addition of a paraprofessional. To ease the stress and
burden on SETs, we agree with the recommendation of Wasburn-Moses
(2005) for principals to provide teachers with both emotional and instru-
mental support (e.g., helping to secure resources, listening and aempt-
ing to resolve their concerns).
Limitations and Future Directions
We encourage the reader to interpret our ndings in light of the
following limitations. First, the use of a narrowly focused denition
of burnout limited which articles were included in the literature re-
view, as did the exclusion of studies on participants outside of the US.
While eorts were made to discuss articles on special educator stress
and job satisfaction and relevant international studies throughout the
review, their exclusion from the results limits the generalizability of

704 Brunsting et al.
the study to SETs in the US. It is important for future inquiry to con-
tinue to examine issues of teacher burnout within and beyond the US,
taking into account the varying models for supporting students with
disabilities in dierent countries.
Second, despite a systematic approach to identifying articles,
it is possible some studies were either not located or mistakenly ex-
cluded from the review. We encourage future teams to continue to
(a) conduct high-quality studies—particularly treatment-outcome
studies—examining the nature of teacher burnout, with aention to
longitudinal studies examining mediating and moderating variables
on outcome variables and (b) synthesize existing literature through
carefully constructed literature reviews aending to issues of reli-
ability of article selection and article coding. Our hope is that as the
intervention literature is developed, researchers will carefully aend
to the recommended core quality indicators for treatment-outcomes
studies using group (e.g., Gersten et al., 2005) and single case (e.g.,
Horner et al., 2005) designs according to guidelines specied in the
literature and, more recently, by What Works Clearinghouse (Odom
& Lane, in press). There is ample work needed in the area of interven-
tion inquiry. For example, it would be wise to examine interventions
for teachers targeting role conict and role ambiguity as well as in-
terventions for principals and administration targeting role conict,
role ambiguity, and supporting teachers to build upon the current
knowledge base.
Third, the use of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model as an or-
ganizational framework aligns well with burnout as it accounts for
the salience of process and immediacy of social seing. In contrast,
it would also have been fruitful to organize the studies around the
individual components of burnout (emotional exhaustion, deperson-
alization, and personal accomplishment) to hone in on dierential
impact of dierent variables—particularly examining protective as
well as risk factors—on each component. Similarly, this focus on the
factors contributing to SET burnout does not address the impact that
dierences in special education certication credentials, training, and
preparation might have on SET burnout. Considering the broad time
range of publication dates of articles on SET burnout, we recommend
future reviews and empirical studies to further explore the impact of
teacher training, preparation programs, and certication as moderat-
ing and mediating variables that explain SET burnout.
Summary
Our intent in this review was to determine the number of em-
pirical studies with a quantitative measure of burnout for SETs,

705SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
locate gaps for future research, and provide implications and recom-
mendations for current practitioners based on the literature. Using
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model as an organizing framework, we
investigated 23 included studies and discussed their ndings pertain-
ing to burnout. Role conict, role ambiguity, and administrator sup-
port were found to be particularly salient factors in teacher burnout.
Due to the impact of burnout on teacher arition, teacher health, and
student outcomes, it is critical for researchers to provide both a bet-
ter understanding of the processes by which SETs experience burn-
out and more interventions to alleviate burnout based on challenges
teachers experience.
References
Adera, B. A., & Bullock, L. M. (2010). Job stressors and teacher job
satisfaction in programs serving students with emotional and
behavioral disorders. Emotional and Behavioral Diculties, 15,
5–14.
Armon, G., Melamed, S., Shirom, A., & Shapira, I. (2010). Elevated
burnout predicts the onset of musculoskeletal pain among
apparently healthy employees. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 15, 399–408.
Banks, S. R., & Necco, E. G. (1990). The eects of special education
category and type of training on job burnout in special edu-
cation teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13,
187–191.
Beck, C. L., & Gargiulo, R. M. (1983). Burnout in teachers of retarded
and nonretarded children. Journal of Educational Research, 76,
169–173.
Bianchi, R., Boy, C., Hingray, C., Truchot, D., & Laurent, E. (2013).
Comparative symptomatology of burnout and depression.
Journal of Health Psychology, 18, 782–787.
Biglan, A., Layton, G. L., Jones, L. B., Hankins, M., & Rusby, J. C.
(2013). The value of workshops on psychological exibility
for early childhood special education sta. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 32, 196–210.
Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Special education teacher retention and ari-
tion: A critical analysis of the research literature. Journal of
Special Education, 38, 39–55.
Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage
of fully certied teachers in special and general education.
Exceptional Children, 72, 443–460.

706 Brunsting et al.
Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2008). Teacher turnover:
Examining exit arition, teaching area transfer, and school
migration. Exceptional Children, 75, 7–31.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human
development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.
Brownell, M. T., & Smith, S. W. (1993). Understanding special educa-
tion teacher arition: A conceptual model and implications
for teacher educators. Teacher Education and Special Education,
16, 270–282.
Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Dening administra-
tive support and its relationship to the arition of teachers of
students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education
and Treatment of Children, 36, 71–94.
Carlson, B. C., & Thompson, J. A. (1995). Job burnout and job leav-
ing in public school teachers: Implications for stress manage-
ment. International Journal of Stress Management, 2, 15–29.
Chang, M. L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout:
Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational
Psychology Review, 21, 193–218.
Cherniss, C. (1988). Observed supervisory behavior and teacher burn-
out in special education. Exceptional Children, 54, 449–454.
Coman, D., Alessandri, M., Gutierrez, A., Novotny, S., Boyd, B., Hume,
K., & Odom, S. (2013). Commitment to classroom model phi-
losophy and burnout symptoms among high delity teachers
implementing preschool programs for children with autism
spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 43, 345–360.
Cooley, E., & Yovano, P. (1996). Supporting professionals-at-risk:
Evaluating interventions to reduce burnout and improve
retention of special educators. Exceptional Children, 62,
336–355.
Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an integration
of research on job burnout. Academy of Management Review,
18, 621–656.
Crane, S., & Iwanicki, E. (1986). Perceived role conict, role ambiguity,
and burnout among special education teachers. Remedial and
Special Education, 7, 24–31.
Edgar, E., & Pair, A. (2005). Special education teacher arition: It all
depends on where you are standing. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 28, 163–170.

707SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
Embich, J. L. (2001). The relationship of secondary special education
teachers’ roles and factors that lead to professional burnout.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 58–69.
Farber, B. A. (2000). Treatment strategies for dierent types of teacher
burnout. Psychotherapy in Practice, 56, 675–689.
Fimian, M. J., & Blanton, L. P. (1986). Variables related to stress and
burnout in special education teacher trainees and rst-year
teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 9, 9–21.
Frank, A. R., & McKenzie, R. (1993). The development of burn-
out among special educators. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 16, 161–170.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., &
Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experi-
mental and quasi-experimental research in special education.
Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.
Gersten, R., Keating, T., Yovano, P., & Harniss, M. K. (2001). Working
in special education: Factors that enhance special educators’
intent to stay. Exceptional Children, 67, 549–567.
Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Hurley, S. M. (2013). Revisiting per-
sonnel utilization in inclusion-oriented schools. Journal of
Special Education, 47, 121–132.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and
work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology,
43, 495–513.
Hastings, R. P., & Brown, T. (2002). Coping strategies and the impact
of challenging behaviors on special educators’ burnout.
Mental Retardation, 40, 148–156.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M.
(2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-
based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71,
165–179.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? (A Research
Report). Seale, WA: The University of Washington, Center
for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Irvin, D. W., Hume, K., Boyd, B. A., McBee, M. T., & Odom, S. L.
(2013). Child and classroom characteristics associated with
the adult language provided to preschoolers with autism
spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7,
947–955.

708 Brunsting et al.
Jenne, H. K., Harris, S. L., & Mesibov, G. B. (2003). Commitment to
philosophy, teacher ecacy, and burnout among teachers
of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 33, 583–593.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom:
Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to stu-
dent and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research,
79, 491–525.
Jones, N., & Youngs, P. (2012). Aitudes and aect: Daily emotions
and their association with the commitment and burnout of
beginning teachers. Teachers College Record, 114, 1–36.
Ka, M. S. (2004). Multitasking is multitaxing: Why special educators
are leaving the eld. Preventing School Failure, 48, 10–17.
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., & Cox, M. (2011). Functional assessment-
based interventions: A university-district partnership to pro-
mote learning and success. Beyond Behavior, 20, 3–18.
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Powers, L., Diebold, T., Germer, K., Common,
E. A., & Brunsting, N. C. (2014). Improving teachers’ knowl-
edge of functional assessment-based interventions: Outcomes
of a professional development series. Manuscript under review.
Martin, N. K., Sass, D. A., & Schmi, T. A. (2012). Teacher ecacy
in student engagement, instructional management, student
stressors, and burnout: A theoretical model using in-class
variables to predict teachers’ intent-to-leave. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28, 546–559.
Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and inter-
vention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 189–192.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1979). The measurement of experienced
burnout. Berkeley, CA: University of California Department
of Psychology.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.
McIntyre, T. C. (1983). The eect of class size on perceptions of burn-
out by special education teachers. Mental Retardation and
Learning Disability Bulletin, 11, 142–145.
McIntyre, T. C. (1984). The relationship between locus of control and
teacher burnout. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54,
235–238.
Miller, M. D., Brownell, M. T., & Smith, S. W. (1999). Factors that pre-
dict teachers staying in, leaving, or transferring from the spe-
cial education classroom. Exceptional Children, 65, 201–218.

709SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
Nichols, A. S., & Sosnowsky, F. L. (2002). Burnout among special edu-
cation teachers in self-contained cross-categorical classrooms.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 71–86.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425
(2001).
Oakes, W. P., Lane, K. L., Jenkins, A., & Booker, B. B. (2013). Three-
tiered models of prevention: Teacher ecacy and burnout.
Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 95–126.
Odom, S. L., & Lane, K. L. (in press). The applied science of spe-
cial education: Quantitative approaches, the questions they
address, and how they inform practice. In L. Florian (Ed.).
The SAGE Handbook of Special Education (2nd Ed.). (Vol. 1 pp.
369–388). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
O’Neill, S. C., & Stephenson, J. (2011). The measurement of classroom
management self-ecacy: A review of measurement instru-
ment development and inuences. Educational Psychology, 31,
261–299.
Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2010). Special education teacher prepa-
ration in classroom management: Implications for students
with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders,
35, 188–199.
Pullis, M. (1992). An analysis of the occupational stress of teachers of
the behaviorally disordered: sources, eects and strategies for
coping. Behavioral Disorders, 17, 191–201.
Ruble, L. A., & McGrew, J. H. (2013). Teacher and child predictors of
achieving IEP goals of children with autism. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 43, 2748–2763.
Ruble, L. A., Usher, E. L., & McGrew, J. H. (2011). Preliminary inves-
tigation of the sources of self-ecacy among teachers of stu-
dents with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 26, 67–74.
Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T., & Billingsley, B. (2010). Special edu-
cation teacher education research: Current status and future
directions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 8–24.
Shyman, E. (2010). Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion
among special education paraprofessionals: A preliminary
investigation. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 828–841.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-
ecacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective
teacher ecacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 611–625.

710 Brunsting et al.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher ecacy:
Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education,
17, 783–805.
Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Mahews, R., Grawitch, M. J., &
Barber, L. K. (2010). Exploring the association between teach-
ers’ perceived student misbehavior and emotional exhaus-
tion: The importance of teacher ecacy beliefs and emotion
regulation. Educational Psychology, 30, 173–189.
Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C., & Lane, K. L. (2007). Functional
behavioral assessment and function-based intervention: An eec-
tive, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Vannest, K. J., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2010). Teacher time use in special
education. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 126–142.
Wasburn, M. H., Wasburn-Moses, L., & Davis, D. R. (2012). Mentoring
special educators: The roles of national board certied teach-
ers. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 59–66.
Wasburn-Moses, L. (2005). How to keep your special education teach-
ers. Principal Leadership, 5, 35–38.
Wasburn-Moses, L. (2009). An exploration of pre-service teach-
ers’ expectations for their future roles. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 32, 5–16.
Weber, D. B., & Toer, J. D. (1989). Burnout among teachers of stu-
dents with moderate, severe, or profound mental retardation.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 117–125.
Wisniewski, L., & Gargiulo, R. M. (1997). Occupational stress and
burnout among special educators: A review of the literature.
Journal of Special Education, 31, 325–346.
Zabel, M. K., & Zabel, R. H. (1983). Burnout among special educa-
tion teachers: The role of experience, training, and age. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 6, 255–259.
Zabel, M. K., Demer, P. A., & Zabel, R. H. (1984). Factors of
emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and sense of
accomplishment among teachers of the gifted. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 28, 65–69.
Zabel, R. H., Boomer, L. W., & King, T. R. (1984). A model of stress and
burnout among teachers of behavioral disordered students.
Behavior Disorders, 9, 215–221.
Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, M. K. (1982). Factors in burnout among teachers
of exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 49, 261–263.

711SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, M. K. (2001). Revisiting burnout among special
education teachers: Do age, experience, and preparation still
maer? Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 128–139.
Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, M. K. (2002). Burnout among special educa-
tion teachers and perceptions of support. Journal of Special
Education Leadership, 15, 67–73.