This study validated the Chinese version of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (C–QTI) with two samples (ns = 370 and 369) of primary school students in Hong Kong. The 48-item measure had acceptable internal consistency reliability, but the reliability coefficients of four of the scales were too low. The findings supported the validity of the circumplex model underlying the instrument and verified the ability of the measure to differentiate between students' perceptions in different classes. With the refinement of the measure based on reliability analysis and Principal Components Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted on the 35-item instrument to test its hypothesized factor structure. Findings on model fit indices were mixed, lending some support to the eight-factor structure of the questionnaire.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrownT. (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.
2.
Curriculum Development Council. (2001) Learning to learn: Life-long learning and whole-person development. Hong Kong, China: Printing Department.
3.
den BrokP.BrekelmansM.WubbelsT. (2004) Interpersonal teacher behaviour and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 407–442.
4.
den BrokP.FisherD.ScottR. (2005) The importance of teacher interpersonal behavior for student attitudes in Brunei primary science classes. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 765–779.
5.
den BrokP.FisherD.WubbelsT.BrekelmansM.RickardsT. (2006) Secondary teachers' interpersonal behavior in Singapore, Brunei and Australia: A cross-national comparison. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 26, 79–95.
6.
FisherD.den BrokP.WaldripB.DormanJ. (2011) Interpersonal behaviour styles of primary education teachers during science lessons. Learning Environments Research, 14, 187–204.
7.
GohS. C.FraserB. J. (1996) Validation of an elementary school version of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction. Psychological Reports, 79, 515–522.
8.
GohS. C.FraserB. J. (2000) Teacher interpersonal behavior and elementary students' outcomes. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14, 216–231.
9.
HambletonR. K. (2005) Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In HambletonR. K.MerendaP. F.SpielbergerC. D. (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 3–38.
10.
HornJ. L. (1965) A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.
11.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1995) Evaluating model fit. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp. 76–99.
12.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1998) Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
13.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
14.
KaiserH. (1970) A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415.
15.
KaiserH. (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.
16.
KimH. B.FisherD. L.FraserB. J. (2000) Classroom environment and teacher interpersonal behavior in secondary science classes in Korea. Evaluation and Research in Education, 14, 3–22.
17.
KokkinosC. M.CharalambousK.DavazoglouA. (2009) Interpersonal teacher behaviour in primary school classrooms: A cross-cultural validation of a Greek translation of the Questionnaire on Teacher interaction. Learning Environments Research, 12, 101–114.
18.
LearyT. (1957) An interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.
19.
ScottR. H.FisherD. L. (2004) Development, validation and application of a Malay translation of an elementary version of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction. Research in Science Education, 34, 173–194.
20.
ShultzK. S.WhitneyD. J. (2005) Measurement theory in action: Case studies and exercises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
SivanA.ChanD. W. K. (2013) Teacher interpersonal behaviour and secondary students' cognitive, affective and moral outcomes in Hong Kong. Learning Environments Research, 16, 23–36.
22.
SivanA.ChanD. W. K. (in press) Enhancing student-teachers' learning and reflection on their interpersonal classroom behaviour. In SivanA.ChanD. W. K.WongE. Y. M. (Eds.), Studies on teaching and learning. Vol. 3. Hong Kong, China: Pearson Education Asia Limited. Pp. 153–162.
23.
WeiM.den BrokP.ZhouY. (2009) Teacher interpersonal behaviour and student achievement in English as a Foreign Language classrooms in China. Learning Environments Research, 12, 157–174.
24.
WubbelsT.BrekelmansM.van TartwijkJ.AdmiraalW. (1997) Interpersonal relationships between teachers and students in the classroom. In WaxmanH. C.WalbergJ. J. (Eds.), New directions for teaching practice and research. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Pp. 151–170.
25.
WubbelsT.CrétonH.HooymayersH. P. (1985) Discipline problems of beginning teachers, interactional behavior mapped out. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED260040)
26.
WubbelsT.CrétonH. A.LevyJ.HooymayersH. P. (1993) The model for interpersonal teacher behaviour. In WubbelsT.LevyJ. (Eds.), Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education. London, UK: Falmer Press. Pp. 13–28.
27.
WubbelsT.LevyJ. (1991) A comparison of interpersonal behavior of Dutch and American teachers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 1–18.
28.
WubbelsT.LevyJ. (Eds.) (1993) Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education. London, UK: Falmer Press.
