identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: a preliminary...

14
Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 47(8), 2010 C 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com DOI: 10.1002/pits.20507 IDENTIFYING PREDICTORS OF EMOTIONAL EXHAUSTION AMONG SPECIAL EDUCATION PARAEDUCATORS: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION ERIC SHYMAN Dowling College The purpose of this preliminary study was to identify predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators. A sample of 100 paraeducators in public and specialized alter- native setting schools was used to determine whether self-reported levels of emotional exhaustion and other job-related factors were reported. Using hierarchical regression analysis, the researcher investigated whether predictors of emotional exhaustion could be determined. Results indicated that a notable level of emotional exhaustion was reported among the sample and that role conflict, emotional demand, sense of efficacy, and supervisor support were significant predictors of emo- tional exhaustion. The results of this study are intended to be used to guide future studies to further investigate this topic. C 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Paraeducators, otherwise known as paraprofessionals, teaching assistants, teacher aides, inter- vention assistants, and various other titles, have begun to form an increasingly important part of the special education structure in recent years (Giangreco, Yuan, McKenzie, Cameron, & Fialka, 2005; Warger, 2002). The National Resource Center (NRC) for Paraprofessionals in Education and Related Services at the City University of New York characterizes paraeducators as (a) staff members whose positions are either instructional in nature and/or who provide other direct services to children, youth, and/or their parents or (b) staff members who work under the direct supervision of teachers or other professional practitioners who are responsible for determining educational needs for indi- viduals and groups of students, designing and implementing programs and services, and assessing student performance and progress (NRC, 1998). This definition is reflective of how the roles of paraeducators in the area of special education have distinctly changed in the last few years. Whereas, historically, paraeducators mainly served clerical roles, carrying out such tasks as material making, taking attendance, running errands, and assisting in grading, the paraeducators of today provide a more direct role in service delivery and instruction. In a study by Giangreco and Broer (2005) it was found that 70% of paraeducators across 12 inclusive schools indicated that they participated in making programmatic and curricular decisions without direct consultation from a supervisor. Their study is indicative of the trend that paraeducators are not only important supports in special education settings, but are, more likely, commonly being used as de facto teachers to provide direct instruction to students (French, 2003; Friend & Cook, 2005). The increase in the instructional use of paraeducators is not accidental, however. In a 1997 amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which is maintained in the current law (IDEA, 2004), the roles of paraeducators were included in the language of the Federal legislation for the first time (New York State Department of Education, 2008). In the section delineating personnel standards, it states “paraprofessionals and assistants who are appropriately trained and supervised . . . [may be used] to assist in the provision of special education and related services to children with disabilities” [20 U.S.C. §1412]. The use of paraeducators, when appropriately implemented, can be a distinctly positive resource for a classroom needing extra assistance. According to Warger (2002), when a well-conceived and appropriately designed paraeducator model is used it can substantially benefit students and teachers. Correspondence to: Eric Shyman, Dowling College, Education North Building, 150 Idle Hour Blvd., Oakdale, NY 11769. E-mail: [email protected] 828

Upload: eric-shyman

Post on 06-Jul-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: A preliminary investigation

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 47(8), 2010 C© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com DOI: 10.1002/pits.20507

IDENTIFYING PREDICTORS OF EMOTIONAL EXHAUSTION AMONG SPECIALEDUCATION PARAEDUCATORS: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

ERIC SHYMAN

Dowling College

The purpose of this preliminary study was to identify predictors of emotional exhaustion amongspecial education paraeducators. A sample of 100 paraeducators in public and specialized alter-native setting schools was used to determine whether self-reported levels of emotional exhaustionand other job-related factors were reported. Using hierarchical regression analysis, the researcherinvestigated whether predictors of emotional exhaustion could be determined. Results indicatedthat a notable level of emotional exhaustion was reported among the sample and that role conflict,emotional demand, sense of efficacy, and supervisor support were significant predictors of emo-tional exhaustion. The results of this study are intended to be used to guide future studies to furtherinvestigate this topic. C© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Paraeducators, otherwise known as paraprofessionals, teaching assistants, teacher aides, inter-vention assistants, and various other titles, have begun to form an increasingly important part of thespecial education structure in recent years (Giangreco, Yuan, McKenzie, Cameron, & Fialka, 2005;Warger, 2002). The National Resource Center (NRC) for Paraprofessionals in Education and RelatedServices at the City University of New York characterizes paraeducators as (a) staff members whosepositions are either instructional in nature and/or who provide other direct services to children,youth, and/or their parents or (b) staff members who work under the direct supervision of teachersor other professional practitioners who are responsible for determining educational needs for indi-viduals and groups of students, designing and implementing programs and services, and assessingstudent performance and progress (NRC, 1998). This definition is reflective of how the roles ofparaeducators in the area of special education have distinctly changed in the last few years. Whereas,historically, paraeducators mainly served clerical roles, carrying out such tasks as material making,taking attendance, running errands, and assisting in grading, the paraeducators of today provide amore direct role in service delivery and instruction. In a study by Giangreco and Broer (2005) itwas found that 70% of paraeducators across 12 inclusive schools indicated that they participatedin making programmatic and curricular decisions without direct consultation from a supervisor.Their study is indicative of the trend that paraeducators are not only important supports in specialeducation settings, but are, more likely, commonly being used as de facto teachers to provide directinstruction to students (French, 2003; Friend & Cook, 2005).

The increase in the instructional use of paraeducators is not accidental, however. In a 1997amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which is maintained inthe current law (IDEA, 2004), the roles of paraeducators were included in the language of theFederal legislation for the first time (New York State Department of Education, 2008). In the sectiondelineating personnel standards, it states “paraprofessionals and assistants who are appropriatelytrained and supervised . . . [may be used] to assist in the provision of special education and relatedservices to children with disabilities” [20 U.S.C. §1412].

The use of paraeducators, when appropriately implemented, can be a distinctly positive resourcefor a classroom needing extra assistance. According to Warger (2002), when a well-conceived andappropriately designed paraeducator model is used it can substantially benefit students and teachers.

Correspondence to: Eric Shyman, Dowling College, Education North Building, 150 Idle Hour Blvd., Oakdale,NY 11769. E-mail: [email protected]

828

Page 2: Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: A preliminary investigation

Predictors of Emotional Exhaustion 829

In general, the benefit that paraeducators can add when their roles are well-defined is distinctlysupported in the literature (French, 2003; Giangreco et al., 2005; Pickett & Gerlach, 2003).

Emotional Exhaustion and the Field of Education

Occupational stress has been measured using a variety of constructs. One of the most citedmeans of measuring occupational stress is emotional exhaustion (Crane & Iwanicki, 1986; Deery,Iverson, & Walsh, 2002; Houkes, Janssen, De Jonge, & Bakker, 2003). Emotional exhaustion isdefined as feelings of being “emotionally spent” and overextended by one’s work (Maslach &Jackson, 1981). According to Schaufeli, Maslach, and Marek (1996), of the components of burnout(the other two being depersonalization and personal accomplishment), emotional exhaustion is theclosest to an orthodox stress variable.

Increased emotional exhaustion has been shown to be a significant contributor to overall burnout,which is a significant threat to the field of special education. Although most studies are composedof full-time teachers, research indicates that between 30% and 40% of teachers leave the fieldcompletely within 5 years of teaching, with emotional exhaustion being one of the key componentsto make this ultimate decision (Darling-Hammond, 2001; Plash & Piotrowski, 2006). This trendmay be an implicit threat for paraeducators as well. Increased occupational stress and burnout alsohave been shown to have a deleterious effect on the physical and mental health of the individual(McEwen, 2003; Winwood & Lushington, 2006). Studies have shown that individuals who reporthigh rates of occupational stress are more at risk to develop serious physical conditions such asheart disease, stroke, and certain cancers, among other serious diseases (Schnall & Landsbergis,1994). Concerns regarding employee health should be of utmost importance to any organization andare, therefore, applicable to the school’s concern for their employee’s physical and psychologicalwell-being.

Establishing Predictors of Occupational Stress

Determining predictors of emotional exhaustion presents distinct challenges. The extant litera-ture has defined some clear constructs that have been demonstrated to be associated with emotionalexhaustion. The following constructs have been shown to be commonly reported as significantcontributors to the development of emotional exhaustion in a variety of occupational fields.

Job Demand. Job demand refers to the specific demands of a job that are expected to becompleted on a regular basis. Job demand is most commonly divided into three distinct components:(1) quantitative demand, (2) cognitive demand, and (3) emotional demand (Kristensen, Hannerz,Høgh, & Borg, 2005). Quantitative demand refers to the amount of work that individuals per-ceive is expected of them (Farber, 1991). For paraeducators, quantitative demand can be regardedas tasks including organizing homework, preparing curricular materials, implementing curricularmodifications, and creating supplementary materials for their students. Some research suggests thatquantitative demand specifically is a factor in occupational stress and, ultimately, teacher attritionand turnover (Chaplain, 2008; Easthope & Easthope, 2000). Cognitive demand refers to the amountof intellectual effort one must expend to satisfactorily complete work tasks (Kristensen et al., 2005).For paraeducators, cognitive demand takes the form of having to “keep an eye” on several students atonce, being aware of various content-specific curriculum standards, and having to be simultaneouslyaware of individual learning differences and necessary curricular modifications for several students.Research indicates that cognitive demand is a factor in occupational stress and employee turnoveracross a variety of human service fields (Garcia, Moreno, Diaz, & Valdehita, 2007; Qin, Marshall,Mazrall, & Marschark, 2008). Emotional demand refers to the personal feeling and emotion that one

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Page 3: Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: A preliminary investigation

830 Shyman

invests in his or her students (Kristensen et al., 2005). Professionals working in the field of specialeducation may be likely to develop emotional attachments to students as well as emotional responsesto the pervasive difficulties that their students face as a result of distinct learning challenges. Theconnection between emotional demand and occupational stress and turnover in teaching and theoverall field of human services has been well-documented in the literature (Muntaner et al., 2005;Winwood & Lushington, 2006).

Role Conflict. Role conflict is a job characteristic that has been shown to be a significant factorin the development of emotional exhaustion. Role conflict occurs when there is a lack of clarityregarding an individual’s rights, responsibilities, methods, goals, status, or accountability (Farber,1991). For paraeducators, role conflict often manifests as an inability to distinguish between theirexpected roles in different classes and with multiple students in different grades and with differingsupportive needs. Furthermore, paraeducators may be under the supervision of multiple teachers,many of whom may have different expectations of what the paraeducators’ roles should be. Forparaeducators, the supervisory hierarchy and the distinction between direct supervisors and indirectsupervisors may also be unclear and yield a feeling of uncertainty as to whom they should go for roleclarification and professional support (Shyman, 2008). Research indicates a plausible connectionbetween role conflict and occupational stress (Crane & Iwanicki, 1986; Gmelch & Torelli, 1994;Koustelios, Theodorakis, & Goulimaris, 2004).

Sense of Efficacy. Sense of efficacy, also known as self-efficacy, first proposed by Bandura(1977) is defined as people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of per-formance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. Self-efficacy beliefs can be adetermining factor in how people feel, think, motivate themselves, and behave (Bandura, 1994).Researchers have suggested that teachers with high levels of self-efficacy also possess high levels ofplanning and organizational ability (Bembenutty, 2006; Milner & Woolfolk Hoy, 2003). Addition-ally, high levels of sense of efficacy are directly correlated with their professional commitment tothe education of their students (Bembenutty, 2006). Research has shown that there is a connectionbetween sense of efficacy and the development of occupational stress (Evers, Brouwers, & Tomic,2002; Hutchinson, 1998; Ross, 1994).

Perceived Supervisor Support. Perceived supervisor support is likely to vary between schoolsdependent on the particular supervisory structure of that school (Shyman, 2008). In general, perceivedsupervisor support refers to the level of support that an individual receives from supervisory teachers,principals, and central administrators (Farber, 1991). By law, paraeducators are required to besupervised by a certified teacher (New York State Department of Education, 2008). If the supervisoryhierarchy is unclear, unsupportive, or non-existent, however, the paraeducator may feel that he orshe has no guidance, sense of support, or any recourse for role clarification. Combined with the otherfactors, this lack of supervision may be a component of increased stress levels by creating an unstableor unsupportive environment. Studies show that perceived supervisor support can be connected tothe development of occupational stress (Burke, Greenglass, & Schwarzer, 1996; Schonfeld, 2001).

Rationale for the Current Study

The purpose of this study is to explore the variables cited in the teacher stress literature as theymay apply to the special education paraeducator experience. As a preliminary study, its main goalis to provide foundational information on which more structured and well-designed research can bebuilt. As this is an area with little extant research, the information gathered from this study shouldbe used to direct future studies as to which directions may be worthy of further investigation andwhich are more unlikely to be productive. Part of the value of the research will be the relevance and

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Page 4: Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: A preliminary investigation

Predictors of Emotional Exhaustion 831

appropriateness both of the variables chosen as well as the instrumentation used to investigate. Aswith any preliminary study, the findings presented must be taken with caution and used as directionalfor future research only.

This study will investigate the following research questions:

• What are the inter-correlations among demographic variables, the measures of job demand,role conflict, sense of efficacy, supervisor support, and emotional exhaustion?

• What is the best set of predictors of emotional exhaustion?

Hypotheses

Although it is difficult to hypothesize results from research that has scarce precedents, theauthor suggests that, because paraeducators appear to be serving an increasingly instructional role,perhaps comparable to that of a teacher, the constructs connected to emotional exhaustion as citedby the teacher literature will be reflected in this study. Specifically, the researcher hypothesizes thatrole conflict and all aspects of job demand will be the most significantly predictive of emotionalexhaustion and that the remaining variables will play less of a predictive role.

METHOD

As aforementioned, this study was intended to be exploratory in nature, and therefore useda sample concentrated in close proximity to the researcher, resulting in a somewhat homogenoussampling. Also, it is important to note that the researcher did not gather responses from specialeducation paraeducators working in an urban setting. Finally, the study used nonrandom sampling asthe research sought to analyze responses specifically of special education paraeducators who servedan instructional role.

Participants and Setting

A sample of 100 special education paraeducators from the Northeastern United States wasused. Inclusion criteria specified that paraeducators were to be employed by a school (specializedalternative setting or mainstream public school) servicing individuals with any type or severity ofdisabilities and to serve a direct role in instructional or academic service delivery. Direct serviceroles were verified by building administrators. Paraeducators who did not serve an academic servicedelivery function (e.g., mobility monitors for children who are blind and/or have physical disabilities)were not included in the sample. The researcher recruited participants through personal contact withthe districts, schools, and agencies that participated. Surveys were distributed to the participants bymail, distribution in school mailboxes, and personal contact. One hundred sixty-seven surveys weredistributed, and 100 were returned, yielding a 62% response rate.

A public mainstream school was defined as a publicly funded school that serves both childrenwith disabilities who receive special education services in an integrated or self-contained setting andchildren receiving no special education services. A specialized alternative school setting was definedas a school that served only children with disabilities in a separate environment from a public schoolsetting. Fifty-two participants (52%) were employed by a public mainstream school, and 48 partici-pants (48%) were employed by a school classified as an alternative setting. Eighty-nine participants(89%) were female, and 11 participants (11%) were male. Eighty-eight participants (88%) identifiedthemselves as White, 4 participants (4%) identified themselves as Black, 4 participants (4%) iden-tified themselves as Asian/Asian American, and 4 participants (4%) identified themselves as other.The age of the participants ranged from 21 to 71 years. Regarding the amount of time in their current

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Page 5: Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: A preliminary investigation

832 Shyman

Table 1Demographic and Job-Specific Characteristics

f %

Type of SchoolPublic 52 52Alternative setting 48 48

GenderFemale 89 89Male 11 11

Race/EthnicityWhite 88 88Black 4 4Asian American 4 4Other 4 4

Time in Current Position>3 years 32 322–3 years 25 251–2 years 20 20<1 year 20 20

Type of SettingSelf-contained classroom 53 53Mainstream classroom 17 17More than one setting 30 30

Total No. of Students1 10 102–4 16 165–10 39 39>10 35 35

position, 32 participants (32%) indicated that they had been in their current position for more than3 years; 25 participants (25%) indicated that they had been in their current position for 2–3 years; 20participants (20%) indicated that they had been in their current position for 1–2 years; 20 participants(20%) indicated that they had been in their current position for less than 1 year; and 3 participants(3%) did not respond. Fifty-three participants (53%) indicated that their main setting of service wasa self-contained classroom, 17 participants (17%) in an inclusion classroom, and 30 participants(30%) indicated that they served students in more than one setting. Regarding student caseload,10 (10%) participants indicated that they served only 1 student, 16 participants indicated that theyserved between 2 and 4 students, 39 participants (39%) served between 5 and 10 students, and 35 par-ticipants (35%) indicated that they served more than 10, ranging from 11 to 100. In total, 11 schoolswere represented, although there may have been as few as one representative per school. All schools,however, met the definition of either public mainstream or specialized alternative school setting.

A summary of the demographic characteristics is in Table 1.

Instrumentation

Instrumentation chosen for this study was determined by those most well-represented and usedin the reviewed research. None of the instruments was designed by the researchers of the current

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Page 6: Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: A preliminary investigation

Predictors of Emotional Exhaustion 833

study, with the exception of the demographic information sheet, and all had available reliability andvalidity information in the peer-reviewed literature.

The Emotional Exhaustion subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach &Jackson, 1981) was used to measure emotional exhaustion. Items on the inventory are written inthe form of statements and are rated on a 7-point scale (0 = never; 6 = every day). Scores forthe Emotional Exhaustion subscale can range from 0 to 54. Reliability for this test reported in theliterature was strong, with a Cronbach’s alpha score of .87 (Hastings, Horne, & Mitchell, 2004).For this study, Cronbach’s alpha for the measure of emotional exhaustion was .61. Three minoradaptations were made to the test battery. First, descriptors were added to the point scale of 0–6,respectively, as “Never,” “Very Little,” “Little,” “Some Days,” “Many Days,” “Most Days,” and“Everyday” to give individuals a qualitative reference point for the scaling. Because it was unknownhow familiar these individuals would be with research, the qualitative labels were added as an attemptto ensure more accurate responding. Second, the term “recipients” was replaced with the word“students” to better fit the educational context of the sample. Third, the term “fatigued” in Question3 was replaced by “extremely tired” as a precaution for misunderstanding or incomprehension ofthe term “fatigued.” Sample items for this instrument include “I feel used up at the end of the workday” and “I feel emotionally drained from my work” (Maslach & Jackson, 1981).

The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ; Kristensen et al., 2005) subscaleswere used to measure four variables: quantitative demand, cognitive demand, emotional demand,and role conflict. The maximum score on each subscale was 400. Each subscale had 4 questionsand a universal scoring of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100. Response choices are qualitatively labeledas “Never,” “Seldom,” “Sometimes,” “Often,” and “Always,” respectively, to the aforementionedvalues. Reliability for the COPSOQ reported in the literature was high (α = .70; Kristensen et al.,2005). Cronbach’s alpha for this study regarding the measures of demand and role conflict was .61.Sample items from the COPSOQ include “Do you have to work very fast?” (quantitative demand);“Do you have to keep your eyes on a lot of things while you work?” (cognitive demand); “Do you getemotionally involved in your work?” (emotional demand); and “Are contradictory demands placedon you at work?” (role conflict; Kristensen et al., 2005).

Sense of efficacy was measured using the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TES, short form;Tshchannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 1990), which is a 12-item instrument developed to measure ateacher’s sense of self-efficacy toward teaching. The TES uses a 9-point scale corresponding to thequalitative labels of “Nothing,” “Very Little,” “Some Influence,” “Quite a Bit,” and “A Great Deal.”The researcher adjusted the Likert scale to 7 points (0–6, respectively, to the aforementioned labels)to ensure consistency in responses with the MBI. Both the short and long forms of the TES areadaptations of the older Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). No specific Cronbach’salpha measures were available in the literature. Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .49. Althoughthis test is not ideal in terms of reliability (and may be deemed absolutely unreliable accordingto statistical standards), it is the strongest measure available for measuring teaching efficacy inparticular (Henson, Kogen, & Vacha-Haase, 2001) and does possess face validity. Sample itemsfrom the TES include “How much can you motivate students who have a low interest in work?” and“How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies?” (Tshchannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,1990).

Perceived supervisor support was measured using the Social Support Subscale of the JobContent Questionnaire (JCQ; Karasek & Theorell, 1990), which totals 2 questions, and was cho-sen to preserve the length of the questionnaire. Reliability and validity data of the JCQ revealedCronbach’s alpha coefficients of .73 and .74 for men and women, respectively (Karasek et al.,1998). Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .62. This scale has not been adapted in any way for thisstudy.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Page 7: Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: A preliminary investigation

834 Shyman

Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were run in an attempt to answer the research questions. Descriptive statisticswere carried out to gauge self-reported levels of each of the variables. Pearson correlations werethen calculated for all variables to determine which variables were entered into the hierarchicalregression analysis. Tolerance values were examined to determine any collinearity issues. Finally,hierarchical regression analysis was performed to determine which independent variables were thebest predictors of emotional exhaustion. To determine a sufficient N value, the principle of a baseof 50 participants plus 8 participants per predictor was employed (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1996). TheN value was thus deemed sufficient for analysis.

RESULTS

To determine the representation of emotional exhaustion in the sample, descriptive statisticswere analyzed. Of the 100 participants, 6 participants (6%) indicated that their level of emotionalexhaustion was Very High, 67 participants (67%) indicated that their level of emotional exhaustionwas Notably High to High, and 27 participants (27%) indicated that their level of emotional exhaus-tion was Mild to Moderate. The mean score was 16, with a standard deviation (SD) of 9. The totalpossible score was 54. A summary of dependent variable frequencies and distributions is presentedin Table 2.

Descriptive statistics for the job characteristics were also calculated. Of the 100 participants,with regard to Quantitative Demand, 3 participants (3%) indicated high levels, 22 participants(22%) indicated notable levels, 60 participants (60%) indicated moderate levels, and 15 participants(15%) indicated low levels. The mean score was 148 with an SD of 68. With regard to CognitiveDemand, 47 participants (47%) indicated high levels, 43 participants (43%) indicated notable levels,8 participants (8%) indicated moderate levels, and 2 participants (2.0%) indicated low levels. Themean score was 278 with an SD of 72. With regard to Emotional Demand, 2 participants (2%)indicated high levels, 31 participants (31%) indicated notable levels, 54 participants (54%) indicatedmoderate levels, and 12 participants (12%) indicated low levels. The mean score was 161 with anSD of 64. The maximum score was 400 for all Demand scales.

With regard to Role Conflict, 6 participants (6%) indicated high levels, 33 participants (33%)indicated notable levels, 38 participants (38%) indicated moderate levels, 20 participants (20%)indicated low levels, and 3 participants (3%) did not respond. The mean score was 159 with an SDof 82. The maximum score was 400 on the Role Conflict scale.

With regard to Sense of Efficacy, 35 participants (35%) indicated a high sense of efficacy, 57participants (57%) indicated a moderate sense of efficacy, and 6 participants (6%) indicated a lowsense of efficacy. The mean score was 68 with an SD of 5.

With regard to Supervisor Support, 22 participants (22%) indicated a high level of supervisorsupport, 51 participants (51%) indicated a moderate level of supervisor support, 9 participants (9%)indicated a low level of supervisor support, and 10 participants (10%) indicated that they did nothave a supervisor or know whom to consider a supervisor.

A summary of the distributions for the independent variables is in Table 2.Pearson correlations were tabulated among the dependent and independent variables to deter-

mine which variables would be entered into the hierarchical multiple regression. All independentvariables that were significantly correlated with each dependent variable were included in the hier-archical regression analysis. The correlations with the dependent variable of Emotional Exhaustionwere as follows: Quantitative Demand (r = .275; p <.01); Cognitive Demand (r = .257; p <.05);Emotional Demand (r = .511; p <.01); Role Conflict (r = .520; p <.01); Sense of Efficacy (r =−.272; p <.01); and Supervisor Support (r = .220; p <.05). Tolerance values were closely inspected

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Page 8: Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: A preliminary investigation

Predictors of Emotional Exhaustion 835

Table 2Descriptive Statistics for All Variables

Frequency

Variable f % Range Mean SD

Emotional Exhaustion∗ 1–47 15.52 8.91Very high 6 6High/notably high 67 67Moderate/mild 27 27

Quantitative Demand 0–325 148 68High 3 3Notable 22 22Moderate 60 60Low 15 15

Cognitive Demand 75–400 278 72High 47 47Notable 43 43Moderate 8 8Low 2 2

Emotional Demand 25–300 161 64High 2 2Notable 31 31Moderate 54 54Low 12 12

Role Conflict 0–350 158 82High 6 6Notable 33 33Moderate 38 38Low 20 20

Sense of Efficacy 5–70 68 7High 35 35Moderate 57 57Low 6 6

Supervisor Support 0–200 172 79High 22 22Moderate 51 51Low 9 9No supervisor 10 10

∗Indicates dependent variable.

to determine any potential collinearity issues. All variables indicated a high tolerance (>.7), indi-cating no major collinearity issues (Freund & Littell, 2000). A correlation matrix of variables is inTable 3.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis

All significant correlations were then entered into a hierarchical regression analysis separatelyfor each dependent variable. The construct variables were entered in the following order: RoleConflict, Emotional Demand, Quantitative Demand, Sense of Efficacy, Cognitive Demand, and

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Page 9: Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: A preliminary investigation

836 Shyman

Table 3Inter-Correlations between Emotional Exhaustion and Potential Independent Variables

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 – Emotional Exhaustion 1 .220∗ .275∗ .257∗ .511∗∗ .520∗∗ −.272∗∗

2 – Supervisor Support .220∗ 1 .279∗ .020 .051 .074 .0183 – Quantitative Demand .275∗ .279 1 .395∗∗ .044 .371∗∗ .0604 – Cognitive Demand .257∗ .020 .395∗∗ 1 .334∗∗ .170 .0875 – Emotional Demand .511∗∗ .051 .123 .334∗∗ 1 .343∗∗ .0966 – Role Conflict .520∗∗ .074 .371∗∗ .170 .343∗∗ 1 .0817 – Sense of Efficacy −.272∗∗ .018 .060 .087 .096 .081 1

∗p < .05; ∗∗p < .01.

Supervisor Support. The order of input was chosen based on highest to lowest correlation value inthe current study due to a lack of precedent for theoretically based placement, thus representing themost systematic means of decision making available.

Predictors of Emotional Exhaustion

Results of the hierarchical regression revealed that 54.1% of the total variance could be ac-counted for at a statistically significant level (r2 = .541; p < .001). The best predictor was RoleConflict, accounting for 36.2% of the variance (r2� = .362; p < .001). The second best predictorwas Emotional Demand, accounting for 10.7% of the variance (r2� = .107; p < .001). The thirdbest predictor was Sense of Efficacy, accounting for 3% of the variance (r2� = .03; p < .001). Thefourth best predictor was Supervisor Support, accounting for 3.1% of the variance (r2� = .031;p <.05). The variables of cognitive demand and quantitative demand were not determined to be sig-nificant predictors in the model. A t test was conducted to ensure that there was not a preponderanceof emotional exhaustion in one type of school. Results revealed no difference between schools. Asummary of the results of the hierarchical regression is in Table 4.

Table 4Hierarchical Regression for Emotional Exhaustion

Source r2 r2� β B SS df MS F

Role Conflict .362 .059 .538 2,466.138 1 1,233.069 37.887∗∗∗

Role Conflict, Emotional Demand .469 .107 .054 .379 3,301.969 2 1,100.656 32.841∗∗∗

Role Conflict, Emotional Demand,Quantitative Demand

.479 .010 .014 .110 3,421.755 3 1,140.585 22.591

Role Conflict, Emotional Demand,Quantitative Demand, Sense of Efficacy

.510 .031 .013 .191 3,659.666 4 731.933 19.393∗∗

Role Conflict, Emotional Demand,Quantitative Demand, Sense of Efficacy,Cognitive Demand

.511 .001 .004 .031 3,716.449 5 743.290 15.385

Role Conflict, Emotional Demand,Quantitative Demand, Sense of Efficacy,Cognitive Demand, Supervisor Support

.541 .030 .006 .171 3,925.977 6 560.854 11.930∗

Notes. SS = sum of squares; MS = mean square.∗∗∗p < .001; ∗∗p < .01; ∗p < .05.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Page 10: Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: A preliminary investigation

Predictors of Emotional Exhaustion 837

DISCUSSION

The results of this study revealed that the best predictors of emotional exhaustion, in order ofsignificance, were Role Conflict, Emotional Demand, Sense of Efficacy, and Supervisor Support.These findings reflect those reported in both the teacher stress and general stress literature (Embich,2001; Gulgiemi & Tatrow, 1998; Koustelios et al., 2004; Kristensen et al., 2005; Tuttemann & Punch,1990). These findings, however, differ from those of the studies that suggest the significance ofquantitative and cognitive demand (Chaplain, 2008; Easthope & Easthope, 2000; Garcia et al., 2007;Qin et al., 2008). Just over 70% of the paraeducators in this study indicated at least a notably highlevel of emotional exhaustion, possibly indicating that the role of the paraeducator is becoming moreprone to occupational stress. This finding reflects the teacher stress literature (Center & Steventon,2001; Naylor, 2001; van Dick & Wagner, 2001). The finding that quantitative demand, in this case,was not predictive of emotional exhaustion reflects a departure from the extant literature. Perhapsthe homogenous response of quantitative demand in the sample can account for this, or the lackof perception by special education paraeducators that their jobs are quantitatively demanding mayaccount for such a difference. Further research is needed to determine the most likely explanation.

The significance of the variables shown to be predictive of emotional exhaustion appears tobe sound. Role conflict would seem likely to explain occupational stress, especially if there aredifferent expectations between settings. This finding is indicated among this sample in that 30% ofthe participants in this study indicated working in multiple settings throughout the day. Furthermore,because 90% of the participants indicated that they work with at least two students, and some wellover 10, it may be likely that the paraeducator has different expected responsibilities with differentstudents and between different environments. This may be a possible explanation of role conflictand its significance as a predictor of emotional exhaustion.

Role conflict also presents a distinct challenge in that roles cannot be clarified without externalassistance. Mixed perceptions of supervisor support in the sample may add to this inability toattain role clarification. Because paraeducators are generally not in direct positions of authority andcannot make their own decisions about what their job responsibilities are, they are dependent onsupervisors for clarification. It may be unclear as to whom the paraeducator should consider a directsupervisor, as 10% of the sample indicated that they do not have a direct supervisor. Understandingthe supervisory structure of a paraeducator to determine whether such support and assistance areeven available would allow greater understanding of how such support and supervisory availabilityaffect role conflict and, ultimately, emotional exhaustion.

Furthermore, the finding that emotional demand was also predictive of stress is logical, in thatthe character of special education personnel as well as the connection they may be likely to fosterwith their students is distinct, and they are likely to invest a significant amount of emotion intothose students’ well-being. Because it is generally the case that progress of students with disabilitiesis at least somewhat protracted, and behavior patterns inconsistent, the paraeducator may be morelikely to feel emotional strain. This strain may be a result of taking some personal responsibilityin the students’ progress (or lack thereof, in certain cases; Center & Steventon, 2001; Embich,2001). Particularly interesting regarding the predictive validity of Emotional Demand, though, isthat, despite the finding that participants primarily indicated a notable or moderate level of emotionaldemand (as opposed to a high level), it was more predictive of emotional exhaustion than were theother types of demand. This finding, too, suggests the distinct importance of emotional demand onthe development of emotional exhaustion.

Because emotional demand may likely be a variable that will not necessarily be alleviatedwhen the paraeducator’s day ends, it seems likely that this would also be a pervasive factor. If suchnoticeable levels of conflict and confusion affect the quality of the paraeducator’s day, that individual

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Page 11: Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: A preliminary investigation

838 Shyman

is more likely to experience emotional distress. Because such distress may be likely to remain presentbeyond the workday, disallowing the individual to “turn off” the stress of the day, occupational stressmay translate to life stress (Winwood & Lushington, 2006). Furthermore, emotional demand canpresent itself and be maintained by several separate and sundry emotions both within and outside ofthe work environment. Emotional states such as anger, frustration, sadness, helplessness, and feelingoverwhelmed can all contribute to emotional reactions, thus increasing the emotional demand of thejob and the persistence of the emotional distress even after the individual has left work. It may belikely to surmise that the more emotions one experiences throughout the day, the more complex hisor her emotional state, which will ultimately yield a higher level of emotional demand (McEwen,2003; Winwood & Lushington, 2006).

The finding that sense of efficacy was predictive of emotional exhaustion is consistent with theextant literature. If an individual perceives more occupational aptitude, it follows that that individualis less likely to be affected by stressors such as role conflict and emotional demand, and may needmuch less supervisor support. Therefore, the negative correlation with emotional exhaustion appearsto be a predictable depiction of the relationship between the constructs. This finding must be takenwith extreme caution, however, because of the insufficient alpha value for this sample.

Implications for Practice

The main findings of this study are valuable to the field because they provide a foundation onwhich further research could be conducted. As there are a limited number of studies investigatingpsychological well-being among paraeducators, gaining fundamental understanding is vital to futuremeaningful research endeavors. The results of this study demonstrate that there are potential stressorspresent among special education paraeducators and that significant predictors can be assessed for themajor areas of emotional exhaustion and poor mental health and vitality. Understanding that theseissues are prevalent among special education paraeducators is an important step forward in being ableto support these vital educational personnel. The information should be considered when designingtraining protocols for paraeducators as well as designing professional support structures. Specificattention should be paid to strengthening supervisor supports and role clarification, with particularattention to coping and problem-solving strategies. Explicitly targeting the factors indicated by thestudy in the design of a training protocol could provide an important basis for teaching paraeducatorshow to handle such issues, as well as create more effective and able instructional agents. By lookingclosely at the psychological well-being of paraeducators, the organization will help foster a mentallyand occupationally healthy personnel and work environment.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

As this was a preliminary exploratory study several limitations exist, and it is important indirecting future research to identify these limitations. One potential weakness lies within the surveymethodology itself. Self-report scales are based solely on the honesty and accuracy of the individualreporter. This may challenge the integrity with which the actual construct is being measured.Furthermore, because the sample was relatively homogenous and did not represent urban responders,future research must gather data on larger and more diverse samples to further determine theappropriateness and significance of the variables identified in this study.

Also, it is possible that some of the constructs captured elements of each other within themeasurement. This study did not account for the interaction between the independent variablesthemselves. To better understand whether these variables are, indeed, separate variables or are bestregarded as interactional, future research should examine more closely the relationship between thechosen constructs.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Page 12: Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: A preliminary investigation

Predictors of Emotional Exhaustion 839

The suitability of the instruments chosen must also receive some attention. Although most ofthe instruments attained acceptable alpha scores in both the literature and the sample, it must beemphasized that such criteria for the current study were met by slim margins. Furthermore, theTeacher Efficacy Scale (Tshchannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 1990) did not meet acceptable alphacriteria by any means. Future research should seek to further validate these instruments for useamong this population, as well as investigate whether there are more reliable and valid instrumentsavailable.

Additionally, the supervisory structure of the particular schools was unclear, and not investigatedin detail; therefore, it should be further studied. Gaining a better understanding of how such structuresare designed will allow more insight into possible solutions for minimizing role conflict and allowingmore active and appropriate support for paraeducators.

Conclusion

Overall, the findings suggested by this preliminary study establish some strong future directionsfor research and suggest that particular job characteristics can be determined to be predictive ofemotional exhaustion in paraeducators. While the overall literature in the area of occupationalstress and paraeducators is lacking, the increased reliance on these individuals warrants a greaterunderstanding of their occupational experience. Findings from this study are consistent, in large part,with the findings from the greater teacher stress literature; however, they highlight some importantdistinctions and limitations that challenge the current state of the research. Therefore, it is intendedthat those elements that are unclear as a result of this study be further investigated in the future.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 23, 239 – 269.Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71 – 81). New

York: Academic Press.Bembenutty, H. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, self-regulation of learning, and academic performance. Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), New Orleans, LA.Burke, R. J., Greenglass, E. R., & Schwarzer, R. (1996). Predicting teacher burnout over time: Effects of work, stress, social

support, and self doubts of burnout and its consequences. Stress, Anxiety, & Coping, 9, 261 – 275.Center, D. B., & Steventon, C. (2001). The EBD teacher stressor questionnaire (EBD-TSQ). Education and Treatment of

Children, 1, 323 – 335.Chaplain, R. (2008). Stress and psychological distress among trainee secondary teachers in England. Educational Psychology,

28, 195 – 209.Crane, S. J., & Iwanicki, E. F. (1986). Perceived role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout among special education teachers.

Remedial and Special Education, 7(2), 24 – 31.Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The challenge of staffing our schools. Educational Leadership, 58, 12 – 18.Deery, S., Iverson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Work relationships in telephone call centres: Understanding emotional exhaustion

and employee withdrawal. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 471 – 496.Easthope, C., & Easthope, G. (2000). Intensification, extension and complexity of teachers’ workload. British Journal of

Sociology of Education, 21, 43 – 58.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.Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: A study on teachers’ beliefs when implementing

an innovative educational system in the Netherlands. British Psychological Society, 72, 227 – 243.Farber, B. A. (1991). Crisis in education: Stress and burnout in the American teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.French. N. K. (2003). Managing paraeducators in your school: How to hire, train, and supervise non-certified staff. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Freund, R. J., & Littell, R. C. (2000). SAS system for regression (3rd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2005). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (5th ed.). New York: Allyn &

Bacon.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Page 13: Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: A preliminary investigation

840 Shyman

Garcia, J. M., Moreno, L. L., Diaz, M. J., & Valhedita, S. R. (2007). Relation between adverse psychosocial risks, assessedby means of the DECORE multidimensional questionnaire, and deficient occupational health. Psicothema, 19, 95 – 101.

Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: Are we addressingsymptoms or causes? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disorders, 20, 10 – 26.

Giangreco, M. F., Yuan, S., McKenzie, B., Cameron, P., & Fialka, P. (2005). Be careful what you wish for: 5 reasons to beconcerned about the assignment of individual paraprofessionals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37, 28 – 34.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569 – 582.Gmelch, W. H., & Torelli, J. A. (1994). The association of role conflict and ambiguity with administrator stress and burnout.

Journal of School Leadership, 4, 341 – 356.Gugliemi, R. S., & Tatrow, K. (1998). Occupational stress, burnout, and health in teachers: A methodological and theoretical

analysis. Review of Education Research, 68, 61 – 99.Hastings, R. P., Horne, S., & Mitchell, G. (2004). Burnout in direct care staff in intellectual disability services: A factor

analytic study of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 48, 268 – 273.Henson, R. K., Kogen, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study of the Teacher Efficacy Scale and

other related instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 404 – 420.Houkes, I., Janssen, P. P. M., De Jonge, J., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Specific determinants of intrinsic work motivation, emo-

tional exhaustion and turnover intention: A multisample longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational and OccupationalPsychology, 76(4), 427 – 450.

Hutchinson, W. (1998). An investigation of teacher stress and efficacy. Retrieved October 24, 2007, fromhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (2004). [20 U.S.C. §1412].Karasek, R. A., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The Job Content Question-

naire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 3, 322 – 255.

Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work. New York: Basic Books.Koustelios, A., Theodorakis, N., & Goulimaris, D. (2004). Role ambiguity, role conflict and job satisfaction among physical

education teachers in Greece. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(2), 87 – 92.Kristensen, T. S., Hannerz, H., Høgh, A., & Borg, V. (2005). The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ): A tool

for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scandinavian Journal of Work EnvironmentHealth, 31, 438 – 449.

Maslach, C., & Jackson., S. E. (1981). The Maslach burnout inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists’ Press.McEwen, B. (2003). Mood disorders and allostatic load. Biological Psychiatry, 54, 200 – 207.Milner, H. R., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2003). A case study of an African American teacher’s self-efficacy, stereotype threat,

and persistence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 263 – 276.Muntaner, C., Li, Y., Xue, X., Thompson, T., O’Campo, P, Chung, H., et al. (2005). County-level, socioeconomic position,

work organization and depression disorder: A repeated measures cross-classified analysis of low-income nursing homeworkers. Health and Place, 12, 688 – 700.

National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals in Education and Related Services at the City University of New York.(1998). Issue: Paraeducators. Quick Turn Around Forum.

Naylor, C. (2001). Teacher workload and stress: An international perspective on human costs and systemic failure. BCTFResearch Report. (No. BCTF-RR-RT01-0043). Vancouver, BC: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation.

New York State Department of Education. (2008). Updated fact sheet with highlights of the NCLB’s and IDEA’s re-quirements for teachers and Title I paraprofessionals in New York State. Retrieved on September 5, 2008, fromwww.highered.nysed.gov/nclb032008.htm

Pickett, A. L., & Gerlach, K. (2003). Supervising paraeducators in school settings: A team approach (2nd ed.). Austin, TX:Pro-Ed.

Plash, S., & Piotrowski, C. (2006). Retention issues: A study of Alabama special education teachers. Education, 127,125 – 128.

Qin, J., Marshall, M., Mazrall, J., & Marshark, M. (2008). Effects of pace and stress on upper extremity kinematic responsesin sign language interpreters. Ergonomics, 51, 274 – 289.

Ross, J. A. (1994). Beliefs that make a difference: The origins and impacts of teacher efficacy. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Calgary, Alberta.

Schaufeli, W., Maslach, C., & Marek, T. (1996). Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research, BocaRaton, FL: CRC Press.

Schnall, P. L., & Landsbergis, P. A. (1994). Job strain and cardiovascular disease. Annual Review of Public Health, 15,381 – 411.

Schonfeld, I. (2001). Stress in 1st-year women teachers: The context of social support and coping. Genetic, Social, andGeneral Psychology Monographs, 127, 133 – 136.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Page 14: Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraeducators: A preliminary investigation

Predictors of Emotional Exhaustion 841

Shyman, E. (2008). Identifying predictors of occupational stress and assessing their relationship to mental health and vitalityin special education paraeducators: A correlational study. Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University,2008.

Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins.Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (1990). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 17, 783 – 805.Tutteman, E., & Punch, K. J. (1990). Stress levels among secondary school teachers. Educational Review, 42, 369 – 382.van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2001). Stress and strain in teaching: A structural equation approach. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 71, 243 – 259.Warger, C. (2002). Supporting paraeducators: A summary of current practices. ERIC/OSEP Digest.Winwood, P. C., & Lushington, K. (2006). Disentangling the effects of psychological and physical demands on sleep, recovery

and maladaptive chronic stress outcomes within a large sample of Australian nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56,679 – 689.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits