Teacher/coach (T/C) role conflict is a form of interrole conflict that arises when individuals concurrently teach and coach. Time restraints often make it impractical for individuals to devote full attention to both teaching and coaching roles. Differences in accountability and reward structures predispose T/Cs to favor coaching over teaching. While T/Cs may be able to thrive in both roles by developing a sense of role balance evidence suggests that role conflict is common among T/Cs. Despite its prevalence, a valid and reliable instrument for measuring T/C role conflict is not currently available. The purpose of this study was to provide initial validation for Interrole Conflict Scale – Teacher/Coach (ICS-T/C).
Method:
Participants (N=215) were T/Cs from three school districts in the American Midwest. The teachers taught a variety of subjects with 63.3% teaching core classes (e.g., mathematics, science) and 36.7% teaching non-core subject (e.g., art, physical education). Participants had an average of 17.61 years of teaching experience (SD=11.16) and most had a master’s degree (59.1%). Twenty-four potential T/C role conflict items were included in the survey. Items were chosen from studies by Ryan (2008), Austell (2010), and Kopelman et al. (1983). Participants also completed the Teacher Role Stressors Scale (TRSS; Conley & You, 2009) which measures role conflict, overload, and ambiguity. The TRSS was used to evaluate the content validation of the ICS-T/C.
Analysis/Results:
Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify the factor structure of the ICS-T/CA single factor containing 10 of the original items was found to best fit the data. The factor had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α=0.89) and explained 45.52% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the unidimensional factor structure (RMSEA=0.10; CFI=0.97; GFI=0.90). The ICS-T/C correlated significantly with the subscales of the TRSS (Cronbach’s α=0.305 to 0.401). On a seven-point scale, respondents reported moderate levels of interrole conflict (M=3.60, SD=1.18). Scores on the ICS-T/C did not vary by subject taught, F(1,194)=0.160, p=0.690. Lower levels of administrative support were associated with higher levels of interrole conflict, t(205)=-2.083, p=0.038, as were lower levels of parental support, t(205)=-2.98, p=0.003.
Conclusions:
Results provide preliminary validation of the ICS-T/C as a measure of interrole conflict in T/Cs. As scholars continue to make strides in understanding role conflict among T/Cs, the ICS-T/C should prove meaningful in capturing an index related to the severity of role conflict. This identification is the first step in assisting T/Cs in developing a sense of role balance.
See more of: Research