Psychometric properties of the successful school leadership survey

Abstract

Purpose

This study extends research on one of the most frequently cited school leadership frameworks by examining the psychometric properties of the instrument designed to assess many of the practices included in that framework.

Design/methodology/approach

Using data collected from 1,401 teachers the study examined the instrument’s measurement invariance, score reliabilities, as well as construct and predictive validities. Polytomous latent trait models (Many-Facet Rasch model), scale and principal component analysis using second-order Confirmatory Factor Analysis, and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)-Path modelling were used for these purposes.

Findings

Findings report levels of score reliability and valid score inferences. Results concerning the predictive validity of the instrument indicate a complex set of relations among the domains of leadership practices measured by the instrument, variables selected as mediators of leaders’ influence, and their direct and indirect effects on student learning.

Research limitations/implications

This study provides researchers with a reliable and valid instrument for use in their future research. Data for the study were provided by elementary teachers in one US state. The extent to which results of the instrument are valid across different cultural and organizational settings remains to be determined.

Practical implications

Leadership developers may find the instrument useful for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of those participating in their programs while leaders themselves many find the instrument useful for self-diagnosis.

Originality/value

This study contributes to the development of school leadership measures by including Rasch modeling among the methods used for examining the instrument’s psychometric properties.

Citation

Leithwood, K., Sun, J., Schumacker, R. and Hua, C. (2023), "Psychometric properties of the successful school leadership survey", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 385-404. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2022-0115