Development and Validation of a Teacher Innovation Behavior Assessment Scale (EECI-E): Confirmation by Bifactorial Modeling
Article Sidebar
Page Numbers:
814-838
Digital Object Identifier:
10.58578/ijemt.v3i3.7343
Viewed: 144 times
Downloaded: 91 times
LYAS Publisher cordially invites qualified professionals to serve as Editors or Reviewers. Your expertise will make an important contribution to maintaining and strengthening the academic quality of our publications. Interested applicants are kindly requested to complete the application form at the following link: Editors & Reviewers
Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information about the submission process or if you have any additional questions.
Authors:
Radouane Aboufirass1*, Said Lotfi2 
Copyright :
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aimed to develop and validate the Échelle d’Évaluation du Comportement Innovant chez les Enseignants (EECI-E), a scale for evaluating innovation behavior in teachers using bifactor modeling within five Moroccan secondary schools and universities with regulated access. Drawing on Churchill’s model of scale development and measurement theory, the research followed a multi-step process involving item generation, selection, scaling, field testing, and refinement. An initial pool of items was assessed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a sample of 290 teachers recognized for their innovative pedagogical practices across 17 institutions in five Moroccan cities. The construct validity of each emergent factor was subsequently evaluated. The results yielded a 24-item scale comprising four distinct dimensions: Design and Evaluation, Objects, Conditions of Achievement, and Intervention Strategy. These four dimensions accounted for 77.178% of the total variance, with strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.961) and high test-retest reliability (r = 0.922). Confirmatory factor analysis supported a bifactor structure, identifying a general factor that captures a teacher’s overall capacity to drive innovative instructional change. Model fit indices indicated satisfactory levels, supporting the robustness of the proposed scale. Despite minor limitations, the EECI-E scale demonstrates strong psychometric properties and can be applied in similar educational contexts to support ongoing quality improvement in teaching innovation.
Downloads
Article Details
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
References
Arbuckle, J. (2013). IBM SPSS Amos 4.0 User’s Guide. Amos Development Corporation.
Bailey, J. E., & Pearson, S. W. (1983). Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Science, 29(5), 530–545.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS: Manuel du programme d’équations structurelles, version du programme 5.0. [Missing Publisher].
Bertrand, R., & Blais, J. (2004). Modèles de mesure : L’apport de la théorie des réponses aux items. Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Bloch, C., & Bugge, M. (2013). Public sector innovation – From theory to measurement. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 133–145.
Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 256–259. [Missing DOI/URL].
Borsboom, D., & Markus, K. A. (2013). Truth and evidence in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 110–114.
Bourque, J., Poulin, N., & Cleaver, A. F. (2006). Évaluation de l’utilisation et de la présentation des résultats d’analyses factorielles et d’analyses en composantes principales en éducation. Revue des Sciences de l'Éducation, 32(2), 325–344.
Brennan, R. L. (2006). Educational Measurement (4th ed.). Praeger.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
Conseil Supérieur de l’Éducation, de la Formation et de la Recherche Scientifique. (2015). Vision stratégique de la réforme 2015-2030 : Pour une école de l’équité, de la qualité et de la promotion. Conseil Supérieur de l’Éducation, de la Formation et de la Recherche Scientifique.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7). [Missing Pages] [Missing DOI/URL].
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.
Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement (2nd ed., pp. [Missing Pages]). American Council on Education. [Missing Pages].
Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Fortin, M. F. (2010). Fondements et étapes du processus de recherche : Méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives (2ème éd.). Chenelière Éducation.
Gorsuch, R. (1983). Factor Analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates.
Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric Methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Guttman, L. (1954). A note on Sir Cyril Burt's factorial analysis of qualitative data. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 6, 21–24.
Haelermans, C. (2010). Innovative power of Dutch secondary education. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 12, 154–165.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Halász, G. (2018). Measuring innovation in education: The outcomes of a national education sector innovation survey. European Journal of Education, 1–17. [Missing Volume(Issue)] [Missing DOI/URL].
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications (pp. 1–15). Sage Publications.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares methods. Scientific Software.
Kieffer, K. M. (1998). Orthogonal versus oblique factor rotation: A review of the literature regarding the pros and cons. Communication presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Kivunja, C. (2014). Do you want your students to be job-ready with 21st century skills? Change pedagogies: A paradigm shift from Vygotskyian social constructivism to critical thinking, problem solving and Siemens' digital connectivism. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(3), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v3n3p81
Kline, P. (1999). The Handbook of Psychological Testing (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Lagrosen, S., Sayyed-Hashemi, R., & Leitner, M. (2004). Examination of the dimension of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(2), 61–69.
Laveault, D., & Grégoire, J. (2014). Introduction aux théories des tests en psychologie et en sciences de l’éducation (3ème éd.). De Boeck.
Laura, L., Laflotte, L., & Wanlin, P. (2015). Actes du 3ème colloque du 2 au 4 septembre 2015. HEP Vaud. [Missing Publisher].
Narang, R. (2012). How do management students perceive the quality of education in public institutions? Quality Assurance in Education, 20(4), 357–371.
Neuville, S., & Frenay, M. (2010). La persévérance des étudiants de 1er baccalauréat à la lumière du modèle expectancy-value. In C. Michaut & M. Romainville (Eds.), Réussite, échec et abandon dans l’enseignement supérieur [sous presse]. De Boeck. [Missing Pages].
Newton, P., & Shaw, S. (2014). Validity in Educational and Psychological Assessment. Sage.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill.
OECD. (2014). Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective. OECD Publishing.
Paillé, P., & Mucchielli, A. (2012). [Missing Title]. [Missing Journal/Book Title]. [Missing Publisher]. [Missing DOI/URL].
Plano Clark, V. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (2015). Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field. SAGE Publications.
Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional Item Response Theory. Springer.
Roussel, P. (2005). Méthodes de développement d’échelles pour questionnaires d’enquête. In P. Roussel & F. Wacheux (Eds.), Management des Ressources Humaines : Méthodes de Recherche en Sciences Humaines et Sociales (pp. 245–276). De Boeck.
Satin, A., & Shastry, W. (1993). L’échantillonnage : Un guide non mathématique. Statistique Canada, Ministère de l’Industrie, des Sciences et de la Technologie.
Silvia, E. S. M., & MacCallum, R. C. (1988). Some factors affect the success of specification searches in covariance structure modelling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 297–326.
Sneyers, R. (1974). Sur les tests de normalité. Revue de Statistique Appliquée, 22, [Missing Pages].
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 214–212.
Thode, H. C. Jr. (2002). Testing for Normality. Marcel Dekker.
Thorndike, R. L. (1971). Educational Measurement (2nd ed.). American Council on Education.
Vincent-Lancrin, S., et al. (2019). Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?. OECD Publishing.
Zerrouqi, Z. (2015). Les performances du système éducatif marocain. Revue Internationale d’Éducation de Sèvres, 70, 22–28.