Teacher Team Effectiveness and Teachers Well-being

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between how teachers rate the effectiveness of their 'teacher-teams' as well as the experience of their own well-being. Team effectiveness was measured using the Group Development Questionnaire and well-being was assessed through responses on scales derived for estimating emotional exhaustion and work satisfaction. Data were collected from 521 Swedish teachers and preschool teachers belonging to 105 teacher-teams, the response rate was 100%. The results indicate a strong relationship between the effectiveness of the teacher-teams and teachers' well-being, both with regard to levels of emotional exhaustion and work satisfaction. More effective teamwork was associated with lower levels of emotional exhaustion and higher levels of work satisfaction. The practical implications of these observations are discussed with regard to future research.

Full text

Teacher Team Effectiveness and Teachers Well-being
Christian Jacobsson*, Maria Åkerlund, Elisabet Graci, Emma Cedstrand and Trevor Archer
Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
*Corresponding author: Christian Jacobsson, Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, Tel: +46708431266; E-mail:
christian.jacobsson@psy.gu.se
Received date: June 07, 2016; Accepted date: June 14, 2016; Published date: June 21, 2016
Copyright: © 2016 Jacobsson C, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between how teachers rate the effectiveness of
their ‘teacher-teams’ as well as the experience of their own well-being. Team effectiveness was measured using the
Group Development Questionnaire and well-being was assessed through responses on scales derived for
estimating emotional exhaustion and work satisfaction. Data were collected from 521 Swedish teachers and
preschool teachers belonging to 105 teacher-teams, the response rate was 100%. The results indicate a strong
relationship between the effectiveness of the teacher-teams and teachers’ well-being, both with regard to levels of
emotional exhaustion and work satisfaction. More effective teamwork was associated with lower levels of emotional
exhaustion and higher levels of work satisfaction. The practical implications of these observations are discussed with
regard to future research.
Keywords: Teacher team eectiveness; Well-being; Emotional
exhaustion; Work satisfaction
Introduction
Team-based work as an organizational structure in schools and pre-
schools is widespread internationally and currently presents the
standard syllabus in Sweden. Nevertheless, team-based work may be
more or less eective. ere is substantial support for the link between
eectiveness of cooperation in teams and task-related results such as
goal attainment in general [1,2]. Regarding schools, Wheelan and
colleagues [3,4] found a link between how eective teacher teams
cooperates and their pupils’ performance on standardized tests, the
better cooperation among teachers – the higher performance among
pupils. us, the quality of cooperation among teacher teams exerts a
signicant inuence with regard to outcome measures, such as pupils’
performance, in schools as well as in other industries. is study will
address another important topic connected to teacher teams, the
relationship between teacher team eectiveness and teachers’
wellbeing. By teacher team eectiveness we mean to what degree the
teams could be described as eective in their cooperation, e.g. having
shared goals and clear roles.
Teaching is generally considered a stressful occupation [5,6]. For
instance, according to the national social insurance agency in Sweden
[7] teachers have a high relative risk for sleeping disorders and also
sick-absenteeism due to psychiatric diagnoses such as burnout. us,
well-being, which implies the positive condition of an individual or a
group, entails a necessary ingredient within this context.
e main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship
between teacher-team eectiveness and members’ levels of emotional
exhaustion and work satisfaction as signs of well-being. Emotional
exhaustion, a chronic state of physical and emotional depletion
accruing from excessive job and/or personal demands and continuous
sometimes referred to as ‘burnout’ [8], is part of the Common Mental
Disorders [9], thereby posing an ever-increasing area of concern for
society. With regard to both individuals’ health and social costs, eorts
eliminate emotional exhaustion are necessary. Ancilliary to the main
purpose it was deemed important to ascertain whether or the ndings
of the present study may t with those of an earlier study wherein the
same research design in a dierent organizational setting,
manufacturing industry was employed [10].
e relationship between the quality of team work and team
members well-being has been relatively in schools and pre-schools
although not in other occupations [11]. Kivimäki et al. [12] found that
poor team climate is associated with depressive disorders in a
nationally representative sample [13] and absence due to sickness of
hospital physicians [12]. So et al. [14] showed that quality of team work
was associated signicantly with greater employee satisfaction and
lower stress in the health services. Finally, Jacobsson et al. [10] found
that eectiveness of team work was positively related to work
satisfaction and negatively related to emotional exhaustion for team
members in manufacturing industry.
Teacher Team Eectiveness
is study uses the Integrated Model of Group Development
(IMGD) and the linked instrument Group Development
Questionnaire (GDQ) [3] as a way of describing and measuring team
eectiveness. e integrated model is an integration of earlier theory
and research on group development across time [15-19]. e validity
of the IMGD and GDQ has been established in a number of studies
[20-23]. IMGD is a model describing four stages of group
development. e stages in are (I) dependency and inclusion, (II)
counter-dependency and ght, (III) trust and structure, and (IV) work
and productivity.
e rst stage is characterized by team member dependency on the
leader, safety concerns, and inclusion issues. e second stage is
distinguished by team members having opposing perspectives,
counter-dependency toward the leader, and tensions in the team. e
third stage is marked by increased trust and focus on nding better
structure and strategies for goal achievement in the team. Finally, the
fourth stage is characterized by the intense focus of team members on
Clinical and Experimental Psychology Jacobsson et al., Clin Exp Psychol 2016, 2:2
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2471-2701.1000130
Research Article Open access
Clin Exp Psychol
ISSN:2471-2701 cep, an open access journal Volume 2 • Issue 2 • 1000130

achieving the goal(s). Stage IV groups have also established a team
climate of openness and cohesion that facilitates eective work. Stage I
groups spend about 40% working eectively and Stage IV groups about
80%. e remaining time is used for maintenance, and dealing with
interpersonal issues that arise and the like [23]. Available data on
distribution across stages based on 764 groups’ representative of
Swedish working life shows that 29% are in stage I, 21% in stage II,
30% in stage III and 20% in stage IV [24]. Teams in schools and pre-
schools seems to be comparatively well functioning, 20% are in stage I,
17% in stage II, 34% in stage III and 29% in stage IV [24].
Emotional exhaustion and work satisfaction
In the present study, we have chosen to investigate two well-being
related aspects of working life, emotional exhaustion and work
satisfaction.
According to Maslach, emotional exhaustion is considered to be the
key component of burnout [25,26]. In a longitudinal study of
predictors of burnout among teachers, Burke and Greenglass [27]
found that both the role stressors of conict and ambiguity, and lack of
social support were predictors of emotional exhaustion. Not only for
teachers but in general, lack of support from the leader and from
colleagues is associated with burnt out [28,29]. Eective teams are
characterized by the opposite; they are unambiguous and supportive.
High participation in decision making is another key feature of
eective team work. Likewise, low degree of participation is associated
with burnout. Similar to participation, low degree of control is also
associated with stress related problems [28]. Jacobsson and Pousette
[30] found that teachers who coordinated their work with others by
common goals, as eective teams does, had lower levels of burnout
than teachers who were working more alone and focused on
coordinating their own work. On the basis of literature, the following
hypothesis was formulated.
Hypotheseis 1: e more eective the team work, the lower the
levels of emotional exhaustion among teachers
Teachers’ work satisfaction is important because it inuences
teachers’ performance and wellbeing [31,32]. Some of these conditions
that correlate with work satisfaction are constructs that are
characteristics of more or less developed groups. For instance,
Roberson [33] found a relation between goal clarity, which is an aspect
of eective teamwork, and work satisfaction. Parker et al. [34] found in
their meta-analytic review a positive correlation of 0.48 between a
general appreciation of an individual’s work group and work
satisfaction. Based on this research, we formulated the second
hypothesis.
Hypotheseis 2: e more eective the team work, the higher the
levels of work satisfaction amomg teachers
Method
Participants and procedure
is study included teams in pre-schools and comprehensive
schools in a municipally controlled school district and was carried out
using a questionnaire. e questionnaire was distributed to team
members during working hours on their regular work-meetings. e
study covered all team members, belonging to 105 teams, the response
rate was 100%, n=521 respondents. 66 of the team worked in pre-
schools and 39 in schools. e number of team member varied
between 3 and 11, with an average of 5.0 team members/team. e
teams in pre-schools were smaller in size (M=4.2 members) than teams
in schools (M=6.2 members). Gender and age was not examined,
however schools and especially pre-schools are markedly female
dominated. e age of the teams, how long they had been working
together varied much, from 1 month to 192 months (16 years). On
average, the teams had been working together for 20.2 months,
somewhat shorter time in schools (M=18.1) than in pre-schools (21.5).
e team age was calculated from the starting point, how long at least
50% of the members had worked together in the same team.
Measures
Teacher team eectiveness: Group development Questionnaire,
GDQ [21], was used for assessing eectiveness of the teams. e 60-
item GDQ contains four scales that correspond to the four stages of
group development according to IMGD. Each scale contains 15 items
and each item has a Likert-type response scale from 1 (
never true of
this group
) to 5 (
always true of this group
). erefore, the minimum
score on each scale is 15 and the maximum score is 75. is study was
conducted with the Swedish translation of GDQ, GDQ SE3. Cronbach’s
alphas for GDQ SE3 Scales 1, 2, 3 and 4 are 0.77, 0.90, 0.81, and 0.87,
respectively [35]. Sample items for the GDQ is shown in Table 1 and
norm data for GDQ SE3 are shown in Table 2. Norms are based on 764
groups that were representative for Swedish working life.
GDQ scale Sample items
GDQ 1 Members tend to go along with whatever the leader suggests.
There is very little conflict expressed in the group.
We haven’t discussed our goals very much.
GDQ 2 People seem to have very different views about how things should be done in this group.
Members challenge the leader’s ideas.
There is quite a bit of tension in the group at this time.
GDQ 3 The group is spending its time planning how it will get its work done.
We can rely on each other. We work as a team.
The group is able to form subgroups, or subcommittees, to work on specific tasks.
GDQ 4 The group gets, gives, and uses feedback about its effectiveness and productivity.
Citation: Jacobsson C, Åkerlund M, Graci E, Cedstrand E, Archer T (2016) Teacher Team Effectiveness and Teachers Well-being. Clin Exp
Psychol 2: 130. doi:10.4172/2471-2701.1000130
Page 2 of 5
Clin Exp Psychol
ISSN:2471-2701 cep, an open access journal Volume 2 • Issue 2 • 1000130

The group acts on its decisions.
This group encourages high performance and quality work.
Table 1: Sample items for GDQ.
Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4
Max. value 52.8 62.3 74.0 72.2
84 percentile 43.5 43.5 59.5 61.1
Mean. value 37.7 34.8 53.2 54.7
16 percentile 31.8 26.1 46.9 48.3
Min. value 20.3 16.0 30.0 30.0
Stand. dev. 5.8 8.6 6.3 6.3
Table 2: Norms for GDQ SE3 based on 764 Swedish groups.
A group’s overall stage is determined by considering the mean
scores of the four scales for a specic group and comparing them with
mean scores of normative data. During Stage I of group development,
the mean score on GDQ Scale 1 is at its highest, and scores on the
other three scales are relatively low. During Stage II, the mean score of
GDQ Scale 2 is at its highest, and scores on the other three scales
remain relatively low. At Stage III, mean scores on GDQ Scales 3 and 4
begin to increase, and mean scores on GDQ Scales 1 and 2 remain
relatively low. Finally, at Stage IV, mean scores on GDQ Scales 3 and 4
continue to increase, whereas mean scores on GDQ Scales 1 and 2
remain relatively low [36]. To summarize, groups with a low degree of
development have high values on Scales 1 and 2 but low values on
Scales 3 and 4. Groups with a high degree of development (i.e., being
eective team) have the opposite, low values on scales 1 and 2 but high
values on Scales 3 and 4.
Emotional exhaustion: It was measured with the personal burnout
subscale of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory [37]. However, aer
having a response-psychological test-panel use the scale in an earlier
study, it was reduced from six to ve items [30]. e excluded item was
about feeling receptive to sickness and was dicult to answer. Of the
remaining ve items, example items are as follows: “How oen do you
feel tired?” and “How oen are you emotionally exhausted?” Scale
responses range from 1 (never) to 5 (always); Cronbach’s alpha was
0.88 according to Jacobsson and Pousette [30].
Work satisfaction: Job satisfaction was measured with a three-item
scale of overall job satisfaction [38]. Sample items are “Based on an
overall assessment, how satised are you with your current work
situation?” and “How well does your company meet your expectations
for how you want it in your work?” e scale responses range from 1
(
not at all
) to 10 (
to the highest degree
). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91
[30].
Statistical analysis
Pearsons’ product–moment correlations were calculated in order to
analyze inter-correlations. All analyses were made on group-level,
based on mean-values for the 105 teams included, two-tailed tests were
used.
Results
Means (and standard deviations) for the 105 teams on GDQ scales
were for GDQ scale 1; M=34.5 (SD=6.9), for scale 2; M=31.0 (SD=8.7),
for scale 3; M=56.8 (SD=6.4), and for scale 4; M=57.8 (SD=6.0). Means
(and standard deviations) for emotional exhaustion was; M=2.8
(SD=0.5), for work satisfaction; M=5.7 (SD=1.4).
GDQ-scale 1 and 2 were below the mean compared with Swedish
GDQ norms and the means of GDQ-scale 3 and 4 were above the
Swedish GDQ norms presented in Table 2. e mean values of the 105
teams in the present study compared to Swedish norms, indicate that
the studied teams were somewhat more developed, more eective
working, as groups than the average Swedish team. Mean values for
emotional exhaustion and work satisfaction were at the same levels as
available reference data on Swedish employees [30].
e results presented in Table 3 provide support for hypothesis 1, as
expected, that less signs of emotional exhaustion among group
members should be shown when the team is more eective working
together. e eect sizes were moderately strong, according to Cohen
[39]. e strongest relationship was between GDQ scale 3, trust and
structure, and emotional exhaustion. e results also gave support to
hypothesis 2, that more eective team work is associated with higher
levels of work satisfaction. All four correlations were signicant and in
the same direction as the hypothesis, with eect sizes that were
moderately strong to strong, according to [39]. e strongest
correlation was between scale 4, the occurrence of eective and goal-
directed cooperation in the team, and work satisfaction.
Citation: Jacobsson C, Åkerlund M, Graci E, Cedstrand E, Archer T (2016) Teacher Team Effectiveness and Teachers Well-being. Clin Exp
Psychol 2: 130. doi:10.4172/2471-2701.1000130
Page 3 of 5
Clin Exp Psychol
ISSN:2471-2701 cep, an open access journal Volume 2 • Issue 2 • 1000130

Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4
Emotional exhaustion 0.31** 0.38** -0.41** -0.36*
Work satisfaction -0.20* -0.26** 0.42** 0.46**
Table 3: Correlations between GDQ scales 1-4 and work satisfaction and emotional exhaustion, N=105 teams. **Correlation is signicant at the
0.01 level *Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level.
Discussion
e purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship
between teacher team eectiveness and teachers’ well-being with
regard to emotional exhaustion and work satisfaction using a research
design employed previously. e main ndings indicated a
straightforward link between team eectiveness, as estimated by the
GDQ, both and emotional exhaustion and work satisfaction. us, the
association between the quality of team work and team members’
experience of well-being was evidenced. ese ndings are supported
by those of a previous one performed within the manufacturing
industry [10].
Hypothesis 1: at eective team work is negatively correlated with
emotional exhaustion was conrmed. ere were signicant
correlations with all four scales of the GDQ and the eect sizes were
medium strong to strong [39]. e correlation of 0.38 between scale 2
and emotional exhaustion implies that the greater the conict
dynamics in teacher teams, the greater the extent of emotional
exhaustion among teachers thereby conrming the link between team
work quality and emotional exhaustion/stress from previous ndings
[6,14]. Compared to the earlier study with the same research design
[10], the eect sizes were generally smaller with regard to emotional
exhaustion in manufacturing industry. ese estimations imply that
eectiveness of team work was more important with regard to
emotional exhaustion in schools and pre-schools than in
manufacturing industry.
Hypothesis 2: at eective team work is positively correlated with
work satisfaction was conrmed. We found signicant correlations
with all four scales of the GDQ, with eect sizes that were moderately
strong to strong, according to Cohen [39]. e strongest relationship
was between GDQ scale 4 and work satisfaction, the more eective the
team, the higher the levels of work satisfaction. is result is consistent
with earlier ndings with regard to employees in the health services
[14]. Compared to the other study with the same research design [10],
the eect sizes were generally stronger in manufacturing industry. For
instance, the correlation between GDQ scale 4 and work satisfaction in
manufacturing industry was 0.68, compared to 0.46 in the current
study. is implies that even though eectiveness of team work is
important with regard to work satisfaction in schools and pre-schools,
it is less important than in manufacturing industry.
e present study was limited by its’ cross-sectional design with
data from one municipally controlled school district. Despite not being
specically tested for, it is possible that teacher team eectiveness and
emotional exhaustion mutually reinforce each other, at least to some
degree. An interesting topic for future research should be designing a
longitudinal study that oer more of causal explanations of the links
between teacher team eectiveness, emotional exhaustion and work
satisfaction. An intervention study wherein interventions are focused
on teacher team development may be preferable, and besides this also
measures of emotional exhaustion and work satisfaction across time.
Even though there is only one sample from one school district in the
present study, there are reasons to believe the results are persistent
since they are replicated in a dierent organizational setting [10].
Earlier research has pointed out the link between teacher team
eectiveness and pupils achievements [3,4,40]. e major nding here
is the link between teacher team eectiveness and teacher well-being.
Eective team work is associated with low levels of emotional
exhaustion, a part of Common Mental Disorders, and high levels of
work satisfaction. A practical implication is the prospect that team
development is a relevant focus area, not only for enhancing team
eectiveness, but also enhancing teacher well-being and decreasing
Common Mental Disorder within occupational situations.
Conclusions
e present study examined teacher team eectiveness and its
relation to two aspects of well-being: work satisfaction and emotional
exhaustion. e results indicated that members of eective teacher
teams show higher levels of work satisfaction and lower levels of
emotional exhaustion. ese results imply that membership of an
eective team may promote health and psychological well-being
among teachers.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
1. Naumann SE, Bennett N (2002) e Eects of Procedural Justice Climate
on Work Group Performance. Small Group Research 33: 361-377.
2. Wallace C, Gilad C (2006) A Multilevel Integration of Personality,
Climate, Self-Regulation, and Performance. Personnel Psychology 59:
529-557.
3. Wheelan SA, Kesselring J (2005) e Link Between Faculty Group
Development and Elementary Student Performance on Standardized
Tests. e Journal of Educational Research 98: 223-230.
4. Wheelan SA, Tilin F (1999) e Relationship between Faculty Group
Development and School Productivity. Small Group Research 30: 59-81.
5. Chaplain RP (2008) Stress and psychological distress among trainee
secondary teachers in England. Educational Psychology 28: 195-209.
6. Jacobsson C, Pousette A (2001) Coordinating work in Swedish schools.
Journal of Educational Administration 39: 147-161.
7. Försäkringskassan (2014) Sjukfrånvaro i psykiska diagnoser (Sick-
absenteeism in psychiatric diagnoses) Socialförsäkringsrapport (Social
Insurance Report).
8. Wright TA, Cropanzano R (1998) Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of
job performance and voluntary turnover. J Appl Psychol 83: 486-93.
9. Krueger RF (1999) e structure of common mental disorders. Arch Gen
Psychiatry 56: 921-6.
Citation: Jacobsson C, Åkerlund M, Graci E, Cedstrand E, Archer T (2016) Teacher Team Effectiveness and Teachers Well-being. Clin Exp
Psychol 2: 130. doi:10.4172/2471-2701.1000130
Page 4 of 5
Clin Exp Psychol
ISSN:2471-2701 cep, an open access journal Volume 2 • Issue 2 • 1000130

10. Jacobsson C, Rydbo N, Börresen JE (2014) e Links Between Group
Development and Health in Manufacturing Industry. Small Group
Research 45: 400-415.
11. Wright TA, Cropanzano R, Bonett DG (2007) e moderating role of
employee positive well being on the relation between job satisfaction and
job performance. J Occup Health Psychol 12: 93-104.
12. Kivimäki M, Sutinen R, Elovainio M, Vahtera J, Räsänen K, et al. (2001)
Sickness absence in hospital physicians: 2 year follow up study on
determinants. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 58: 361-366.
13. Sinokki M, Hinkka K, Ahola K, Koskinen S, Klaukka T, et al. (2009) e
association between team climate at work and mental health in the
Finnish Health 2000 Study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine
66: 523–528.
14. So TTC, West MA, Dawson JF (2011) Team-based working and employee
wellbeing: A cross-cultural comparison of United Kingdom and Hong
Kong health services. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology 20: 305-325.
15. Bales RF (1965) e Equilibrium Problem in Small Groups.
16. Bales RF, Strodtbeck FL (1951) Phases in group problem-solving. e
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46: 485-495.
17. Bennis WG, Shepard HA (1956) A theory of group development. Human
Relations 9: 415-437.
18. Bion WR (1961) Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock.
19. Tuckman BW, Jensen MAC (1977) Stages in Small Group Development
Revisited. Group and Organization Management 2: 419-438.
20. Wheelan SA, Davidson B, Tilin F (2003) Group Development Across
Time: Reality or Illusion?. Small Group Research 34: 223-241.
21. Wheelan SA, Hochberger JM (1996) Validation Studies of the Group
Development Questionnaire. Small Group Research 27: 143-170.
22. Wheelan SA, Mckeage RL (1993) Developmental Patterns in Small and
Large Groups. Small Group Research 24: 60-83.
23. Wheelan SA, Williams T (2003) Mapping Dynamic Interaction Patterns
in Work Groups. Small Group Research 34: 443-467.
24. Wheelan SA, Jacobsson C (2014) A Descriptive Study of Work Groups in
the Swedish and US Economy.
25. Alharbi J, Wilson R, Woods C, Usher K (2016) e factors
inuencing burnout and job satisfaction among critical care nurses: a
study of Saudi critical care nurses. J Nurs Manag.
26. Maslach C, Jackson SE (1981) e measurement of experienced burnout.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 2: 99-113.
27. Burke RJ, Greenglass E (1995) A Longitudinal Study of Psychological
Burnout in Teachers. Human Relations 48: 187-202.
28. Nieuwenhuijsen K, Bruinvels D, Frings-Dresen M (2010) Psychosocial
work environment and stress-related disorders, a systematic review.
Occupational Medicine 60: 277-286.
29. SBU (2014) Arbetsmiljöns betydelse för symtom på depression och
utmattningssyndrom [Working Environment signicance for symptoms
of depression and burnout]: Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering
[Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment].
30. Jacobsson C, Pousette A (2012) Psykosocial arbetsmiljö i vård och
omsorg - Bakgrund till Indikators medarbetarenkät [Psychosocial work
environment in health care sector- background to Indikators employee
survey]. Institutet för kvalitetsindikatorer. Gothenburg, Sweden.
31. Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Borgogni L, Steca P (2003) Ecacy Beliefs as
Determinants of Teachers' Job Satisfaction. Journal of Educational
Psychology 95: 821-832.
32. Klassen RM (2010) Teacher Stress: e Mediating Role of Collective
Ecacy Beliefs. Journal of Educational Research 103: 342-350.
33. Roberson L (1990) Prediction of job satisfaction from characteristics of
personal work goals. Journal of Organizational Behavior 11: 29-41.
34. Parker CP, Baltes BB, Young SA, Hu JW, Altmann RA, et al. (2003)
Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work
outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24:
389-416.
35. Jacobsson C, Pousette A, ylefors I (2001) Managing Stress and Feelings
of Mastery among Swedish Comprehensive School Teachers.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 45: 37-53.
36. Wheelan SA (2005) Group processes: A developmental perspective.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
37. Kristensen TS, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Christensen KB (2005) e
Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of
burnout. Work & Stress 19: 192-207.
38. Wanous JP, Lawler EE (1972) Measurment and meaning of job
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 56: 95-105.
39. Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112: 155-159.
40. Ronfeldt M, Farmer SO, McQueen K, Grissom JA (2015) Teacher
Collaboration in Instructional Teams and Student Achievement.
American Educational Research Journal 52: 475-514.
Citation: Jacobsson C, Åkerlund M, Graci E, Cedstrand E, Archer T (2016) Teacher Team Effectiveness and Teachers Well-being. Clin Exp
Psychol 2: 130. doi:10.4172/2471-2701.1000130
Page 5 of 5
Clin Exp Psychol
ISSN:2471-2701 cep, an open access journal Volume 2 • Issue 2 • 1000130