ESP-3570

Published

2025-11-20

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 11 (2025): published

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 PANELA, Teody Lester V.*

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

PANELA, & Teody Lester V.*. (2025). Gender-based analysis of teacher empowerment scale: Examining factor structure and rasch model fit in higher education. Environment and Social Psychology, 10(11), ESP-3570. https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i11.3570

Gender-based analysis of teacher empowerment scale: Examining factor structure and rasch model fit in higher education

PANELA

Northwest Samar State University, Philippines

Teody Lester V.*

Northwest Samar State University, Philippines


DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i11.3570


Keywords: measurement invariance; item response theory; construct validity; faculty development; organizational climate

Abstract

This study examined the measurement invariance and psychometric properties of the Teacher Empowerment Scale across gender groups in higher education. Using Rasch analysis, 86 items spanning three factors (fostering continuous improvement, teaching ownership and freedom, and work climate and conditions) were analyzed with data from 968 faculty members. Results demonstrated excellent model fit (mean infit/outfit MNSQ ≈1.00) and high reliability (α=0.90-0.93) across all factors. Differential item functioning analysis revealed minimal gender-based variations, with only 5 items in factor 1, 4 items in factor 2, and none in factor 3 showing significant differences. The scale provides fair assessment of teacher empowerment constructs for both male and female educators, supporting previous research findings. Recommendations include implementing the scale confidently while attending to items with differential functioning; refining these items to enhance gender neutrality; extending validation research to additional demographic variables; conducting longitudinal studies; and utilizing the three-factor structure for designing targeted interventions. This research addresses existing gaps regarding gender considerations in scale development, advancing equitable assessment instruments for higher education settings.

References

[1]. 1.Celik, O. T., Sari, T., & Karagozoglu, A. A. (2024). A Systematic Literature review of research on teacher Empowerment. Urban Education, 60(10), 2728–2763. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859241301073

[2]. 2.Arta, N. G. Y. (2024). Asesmen dalam Pendidikan: Konsep, Pendekatan, Prinsip, Jenis, dan Fungsi. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Dan Budaya, 3(3), 170–190. https://doi.org/10.55606/jpbb.v3i3.3925

[3]. 3.Akpan, W. M., & Ayinmoro, A. D. (2024). Age Difference between Spouses and Women Empowerment in Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, VIII(II), 996–1011. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2024.802070

[4]. 4.Berhanu, K. Z. (2023). Development and validation of teachers’ psychological empowerment scale in Ethiopian context. Management in Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206231215264

[5]. 5.Kabat, M. (2024). Empowerment jako usprawnienie aktywności nauczyciela. Kultura I Edukacja, 2024(2 (144)), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.15804/kie.2024.02.07

[6]. 6.Ahmadi, R., & Arief, N. F. (2022). Teacher empowerment to improve the quality of education and school progress. EDUTEC Journal of Education and Technology, 6(2), 431–439. https://doi.org/10.29062/edu.v6i2.498

[7]. 7.Golle, J., Schils, T., Borghans, L., & Rose, N. (2022). Who is considered gifted from a teacher’s perspective? A representative Large-Scale study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 67(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862221104026

[8]. 8.Gomes, C. M. A., Farias, H. B., & Jelihovschi, E. G. (2024). Invariance across sex, school, and educational level to Learning Approaches Scale (EABAP). Psico-USF, 29. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-827120242901e262990

[9]. 9.Webber, C., & Nickel, J. (2022). A vibrant and empowering context for teacher leaders. International Journal for Leadership in Learning, 22(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.29173/ijll2

[10]. 10.Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). School Participant Empowerment Scale: Assessment of Level of Empowerment within the School Environment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 951–960. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004018

[11]. 11.Van Woerden, R., Van Goch, M. M., Schruijer, S. G. L., & Van Der Tuin, I. (2025). Students’ teamwork behaviour in multidisciplinary student teams: an ethnographic case study. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(5), 1259–1274. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2468394

[12]. 12.Hibdon, J., Schafer, J., & Kyle, M. (2023). Introduction to the special issue on measurement and methodology: addressing challenges and exploring opportunities. Journal of Crime and Justice, 47(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648x.2023.2211561

[13]. 13.Katsikeas, C. S., Madan, S., Brendl, C. M., Calder, B. J., Lehmann, D. R., Baumgartner, H., Weijters, B., Wang, M., Huang, C., & Huber, J. (2022). Commentaries on “Scale use and abuse: Toward best practices in the deployment of scales.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(1), 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1319

[14]. 14.Pan, L., Lu, L., & Zhang, T. (2020). Destination gender: Scale development and cross-cultural validation. Tourism Management, 83, 104225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104225

[15]. 15.Svetina, D., Rutkowski, L., & Rutkowski, D. (2019). Multiple-Group Invariance with Categorical Outcomes Using Updated Guidelines: An Illustration Using Mplus and the lavaan/semTools Packages. Structural Equation Modeling a Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1602776

[16]. 16.Panela, T. L. V. (2023). Development and validation of teacher empowerment scale: Examining factor structure and Rasch model fit in higher education [PhD Dissertation]. Leyte Normal University.

[17]. 17.Piltz, L. M., Carpendale, E. J., & Laurens, K. R. (2023). Measurement invariance across age, gender, ethnicity, and psychopathology of the Psychotic‐Like Experiences Questionnaire for Children in a community sample. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 32(4), e1962. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1962

[18]. 18.Barbosa-Leiker, C., Burduli, E., Arias-Losado, R., Muller, C., Noonan, C., Suchy-Dicey, A., Nelson, L., Verney, S. P., Montine, T. J., & Buchwald, D. (2022). Testing gender and longitudinal measurement invariance of the SF-36 in American Indian older adults: The strong heart study. Psychological Assessment, 34(9), 870–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001153

[19]. 19.Schlechter, P., & Neufeld, S. a. S. (2024). Longitudinal and gender measurement invariance of the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) from adolescence to emerging adulthood. Assessment, 31(8), 1687–1701. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241229573

[20]. 20.Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013a). Sample size requirements for structural equation models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237

[21]. 21.Liu, X. (2023). Detecting differential item functioning with multiple causes: A comparison of three methods. International Journal of Testing, 24(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2023.2286381

[22]. 22.Kyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied Psychometrics: sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology, 09(08), 2207–2230. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126

[23]. 23.Reddy, K. G., & Khan, M. (2023). Constructing efficient strata boundaries in stratified sampling using survey cost. Heliyon, 9(11), e21407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21407

[24]. 24.Lohr, S. L. (2021). Sampling: Design and Analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429298899

[25]. 25.Sass, D. A. (2011). Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406661

[26]. 26.Andrade, C. (2020). The limitations of online surveys. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 42(6), 575–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620957496

[27]. 27.Daikeler, J., Bošnjak, M., & Manfreda, K. L. (2019). Web versus Other survey Modes: An updated and extended Meta-Analysis comparing response rates. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 8(3), 513–539. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smz008

[28]. 28.Ball, H. L. (2019). Conducting online surveys. Journal of Human Lactation, 35(3), 413–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334419848734

[29]. 29.Zakariya, Y. F. (2022). Cronbach’s alpha in mathematics education research: Its appropriateness, overuse, and alternatives in estimating scale reliability. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1074430. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1074430

[30]. 30.Taber, K. S. (2017). The use of Cronbach’s Alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

[31]. 31.Sijtsma, K. (2008). On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0

[32]. 32.McNeish, D. (2017). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144

[33]. 33.Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp031

[34]. 34.Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 4th Edition. Wiley. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565653

[35]. 35.Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 646–675. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl033

[36]. 36.Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020418619&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA

[37]. 37.Bedgood, D. R., Guisard, Y., Howitt, J., Prenzler, P., Barril, C., & Ryan, D. (2016). Rasch analysis of exams: A way to document graduate outcomes to employers? Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (Formerly UniServe Science Conference), 24. https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/IISME/article/download/10800/11342

[38]. 38.Hagquist, C., Bruce, M., & Gustavsson, J. P. (2008). Using the Rasch model in nursing research: An introduction and illustrative example. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(3), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.10.007

[39]. 39.Andrich, D. (2012). An expanded derivation of the threshold structure of the polytomous Rasch model that dispels any “Threshold disorder controversy.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 78–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412450877

[40]. 40.Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E., & Crane, P. K. (2011). lordif: AnRPackage for Detecting Differential Item Functioning Using Iterative Hybrid Ordinal Logistic Regression/Item Response Theory and Monte Carlo Simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39(8), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v039.i08

[41]. 41.Chalmers, R. P., Counsell, A., & Flora, D. B. (2015). It might not make a big DIF. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(1), 114–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415584576

[42]. 42.Penfield, R. D., & Camilli, G. (2006). 5 Differential item functioning and item bias. In Handbook of statistics (pp. 125–167). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-7161(06)26005-x

[43]. 43.Salfran, D., & Spiess, M. (2018). Generalized Additive Model multiple imputation by chained equations with package ImputeRobust. The R Journal, 10(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.32614/rj-2018-014

[44]. 44.Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best Test Design. Rasch Measurement. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED436552

[45]. 45.Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004

[46]. 46.Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling a Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

[47]. 47.Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(2), 261–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644

[48]. 48.Marsh, H. W., Guo, J., Dicke, T., Parker, P. D., & Craven, R. G. (2019). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM), and SET-ESEM: optimal balance between goodness of fit and parsimony. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 55(1), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1602503

[49]. 49.Pornprasertmanit, S., Lee, J., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Ignoring clustering in confirmatory Factor Analysis: Some consequences for model fit and standardized parameter estimates. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(6), 518–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.933762

[50]. 50.Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling a Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5

[51]. 51.Li, Z., Shin, J., Kuang, H., & Huggins-Manley, A. C. (2024). Exploring the evidence to interpret differential item functioning via response process data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 85(4), 783–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644241298975

[52]. 52.Goretzko, D., Siemund, K., & Sterner, P. (2023). Evaluating model fit of measurement models in confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 84(1), 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231163813

[53]. 53.Tesio, L., Caronni, A., Simone, A., Kumbhare, D., & Scarano, S. (2023). Interpreting results from Rasch analysis 2. Advanced model applications and the data-model fit assessment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 46(3), 604–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2023.2169772

[54]. 54.Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Buckman, M. M., Lane, N. A., Lane, K. S., Fleming, K., Romine, R. E. S., Sherod, R. L., Chang, C., Jones, J., Cantwell, E. D., & Crittenden, M. (2023). Examination of the factor structure and measurement invariance of the SRSS-IE. Remedial and Special Education, 45(3), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325231193147

[55]. 55.Doganaksoy, N., Meeker, W. Q., & Hahn, G. J. (2023). Product reliability: How statistics fits in. Significance, 20(2), 28–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrssig/qmad029

[56]. 56.Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013b). Sample size requirements for structural equation models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237

[57]. 57.Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best Test Design. Rasch Measurement. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED436552

[58]. 58.Zakariya, Y. F. (2022). Cronbach’s alpha in mathematics education research: Its appropriateness, overuse, and alternatives in estimating scale reliability. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1074430. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1074430



21 Woodlands Close #02-10, Primz Bizhub,Postal 737854, Singapore

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com