4.4 Article

Development of a dual school climate and school identification measure-student (SCASIM-St)

Journal

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue -, Pages 91-106

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.003

Keywords

School climate; School identification; Social identity; Scale development; Multilevel model; Reliability and validity

Funding

  1. Australian Capital Territory Directorate of Education and Training

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Extensive but separate bodies of research in education concern the constructs of school climate and school connectedness/belonging. In the interests of advancing a more integrated approach, a new measurement tool is developed- the School Climate and School Identification Measure-Student (SCASIMSt). This scale builds on the Moos (1973) framework which assesses relationships, personal growth, and system management in schools. The social identity approach to group processes (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) is used to extend work on school connectedness and belonging through the inclusion of a measure of social identification. A range of methods across three studies are designed to assess the reliability and validity of SCASIM-St (N = 7209, Australian grades 7-10 students). These include confirmatory factor analysis, test-retest analysis, and convergent validity (Study 1 and 2). Additionally measurement invariance tests for student sub-groups regarding gender, grade level, and non-English language, were employed in Study 3. It also included criterion validity analysis using multilevel models for the key outcome measures of students' academic achievement, well-being, and aggressive behaviors. All of these analyses indicate that SCASIM-St is an effective measure. Theoretical and practical implications as well as future directions are outlined. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available