1 s2.0 S0022440513000411 Main

Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of School Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jschpsyc
Studentteacher relationship quality and academic adjustment in upper

elementary school: The role of student personality
Marjolein Zee, Helma M.Y. Koomen , Ineke Van der Veen
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 13 April 2012
Received in revised form 4 May 2013
Accepted 8 May 2013
Keywords:
Studentteacher relationships
Upper elementary school
Big Five
Personality
Motivation
Academic adjustment
a b s t r a c t
This study tested a theoretical model considering students' personality traits as predictors of
studentteacher relationship quality (closeness, conflict, and dependency), the effects of
studentteacher relationship quality on students' math and reading achievement, and the
mediating role of students' motivational beliefs on the association between studentteacher
relationship quality and achievement in upper elementary school. Surveys and tests were
conducted among a nationally representative Dutch sample of 8545 sixth-grade students and
their teachers in 395 schools. Structural equation models were used to test direct and indirect
effects. Support was found for a model that identified conscientiousness and agreeableness as
predictors of close, nonconflictual relationships, and neuroticism as a predictor of dependent
and conflictual relationships. Extraversion was associated with higher levels of closeness and
conflict, and autonomy was only associated with lower levels of dependency. Students'
motivational beliefs mediated the effects of dependency and student-reported closeness on
reading and math achievement.
2013 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The upper elementary school years bring many new challenges and risks to young students' social, emotional, and academic lives.
During this grace period between the securities of infancy and the stresses of puberty, students gradually become more
independent from their teacher (Ang, Chong, Huan, Quek, & Yeo, 2008; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997), establish a sense of personal
identity and competence (Baker, 1999), and face increasingly demanding academic tasks and social competition (Eccles et al., 1993).
Many students negotiate this period without too many problems. For others, however, the challenges of upper elementary school
may cause the onset of a downturn in competence-related behaviors and motivation that may prevent them from succeeding
academically (Fredricks & Eccles, 2002).
Recent research suggests that the quality of studentteacher relationships may play a crucial role in helping students to
navigate the challenges of the upper elementary school years (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Malecki & Demaray, 2006; Roorda, Koomen,
Spilt, & Oort, 2011; Wang & Eccles, 2012). This quality is characteristically operationalized as a three-dimensional construct
reflecting the level of closeness (encompassing warmth, support, and open communication), conflict (including discordance and
negativity), and dependency (including possessiveness and overreliance on the teacher) in the studentteacher relationship (see
Pianta, 1994; Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995). When there are high levels of closeness and low levels of conflict and
dependency, students are more likely to be motivated to succeed, to feel successful in educational pursuits and, consequently, to
perform better than students without such supports (Baker, 2006; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996;
Wentzel, 1998). Additionally, positive studentteacher relationships may render older students far less vulnerable to antisocial
Corresponding author at:v Research Institute of Child Development and Education, Universiteit van Amsterdam, PO Box 94208, NL-1090 Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tel.: +31 20 5251524; fax: +31 20 5251200.
E-mail address: h.m.y.koomen@uva.nl (H.M.Y. Koomen).
ACTION EDITOR: Kathy Moritz Rudasill.
0022-4405/$ see front matter 2013 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.003
518
M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533
behavior, low self-esteem, and adjustment problems in later life (Herrero, Estevez, & Musitu, 2006; Wentzel, 2002). Student
teacher relationships may thus be protective against declines in both academic and socio-emotional functioning during this
critical transition period.
Despite the importance of the studentteacher relationship quality for upper elementary students' school adjustment,
relatively little is known about its predictors and consequences during this period. Thus far, studies investigating the link between
studentteacher relationship quality and older students' academic adjustment have been typically focusing on teacher support.
Less emphasis has been placed, however, on the myriad factors involved in studentteacher conflict and dependency, and the
potential effects of these negative relationship patterns on students' academic success. This lack of research is unfortunate, given
that the quality of studentteacher relationships seems to be deteriorating by the time students reach the upper elementary
grades (e.g., Baker, 2006; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997; Spilt, Hughes, Wu, & Kwok, 2012). To address this lack
of evidence, the present study explored the contributions of student characteristics to the studentteacher relationship quality,
the additive power of high- and low-quality studentteacher relationships as sources that may advance or hamper students'
achievement, and the indirect effect of studentteacher relationship quality on students' achievement via the direct effect on their
motivational beliefs in upper elementary school.
1.1. Theoretical framework
There are a variety of perspectives, models, and approaches used in research on the effects of studentteacher relationship quality
on students' academic adjustment. The host of those, including transactional, developmental-systems, and self-determination
theories, share the assumption that neither individual nor environmental factors exclusively determine students' developmental
outcomes. Rather, these outcomes are assumed to be the product of bidirectional interactions between students and their social
environment (Pianta, Hamre, & Stuhlman, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2002; Sameroff & Fiese, 2000). In examining processes that affect
students' academic adjustment, this assertion is fundamental, as it points to the potential significance of the role that student features
play in modifying the social context, which, in turn, may also adjust students' behavior. Some of these student features are known to
be innate, such as personality traits that drive students' psychological needs for, among other things, relatedness (cf., Ryan & Deci,
2002). Others, including students' motivational beliefs, values, and goals, may be more internalized through the influence of social
forces in the classroom, such as the studentteacher relationship. In concert, these student resources may promote or restrain
students' active engagement and academic adjustment in the classroom. A comprehensive examination of such inherent and
internalized resources may thus advance understanding of how specific student characteristics interface with supports provided by
the teacher to make opportunities for learning available.
Guided by the tenets of transactional and self-determination theories, this study proposes a model within which research on
the effects of students' inner resources (i.e., personality) on social forces in the classroom (i.e., studentteacher relationship
quality), on the one hand, are combined with research on the association between studentteacher relationship quality and
internalized student resources (i.e., motivational beliefs) and achievement, on the other (see Fig. 1). Theoretical and empirical
justification for each piece of the overarching model is given in the next sections.
1.2. Studentteacher relationships and academic adjustment in upper elementary school
The value of warm, high-quality studentteacher relationships for students' concurrent and subsequent motivation and academic
functioning is fairly well-established in prior research (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Roorda et al., 2011). Studies
show that a sense of relatedness between students and teachers may provide students with internalized resources that enable them
to regulate their own academic behavior, and to develop positive beliefs and attitudes about the self as learner (Baker, 1999, 2006;
Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999; Roeser et al., 1996). Such internalized resourcesor motivational beliefsinclude, among many others,
students' self-efficacy, goal orientation, perceived competence, and task value. In the early elementary school grades, high-quality
studentteacher relationships have been connected to a range of positive outcomes that underlie students' motivation to learn, such
as school connectedness, perceived autonomy, and self-efficacy (Baker, 2006; Colwell & Lindsey, 2003; McWilliam, Scarborough, &
Kim, 2003; Pianta, La Paro, Payne, Cox, & Bradley, 2002). Low-quality studentteacher relationships characterized by high levels of
conflict or dependency have, in contrast, consistently been associated with school adjustment problems in the cognitive, emotional,
and behavioral domain (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Mantzicopoulos, 2005; Palermo, Hanish, & Martin, 2007).
Mean levels of studentteacher relationship quality are likely to decline across the elementary school years. Typically, both
students and teachers tend to report gradual increases in conflict, and decreases in closeness by the time students reach the upper
elementary grades (Baker, 2006; Jerome, Hamre, & Pianta, 2009; Spilt, Hughes et al., 2012; Spilt, Koomen, & Jak, 2012). A small
number of studies make it clear, however, that high-quality studentteacher relationships continue to play an important part in
older students' motivational beliefs and academic success (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Jerome et al., 2009; Roorda et al., 2011).
Empirical evidence indicates that students' need for relatedness increases during middle childhood, and that high levels of
Students
Personality
Student-Teacher
Relationship Quality
Motivational
Beliefs
Academic
Achievement
Fig. 1. Conceptual model predicting studentteacher relationship quality and academic adjustment.
519
teacher support may diminish feelings of stress associated with increasing school complexity, changes in learning goals, and social
comparison (Roeser et al., 1996; Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Students who feel that their efforts and skills are recognized by the
teacher have been found to be more eager to explore and learn, to have higher self-esteem and confidence in their ability to learn
(Herrero et al., 2006; Wang & Holcombe, 2010), and to have better achievement scores (DiLalla, Marcus, & Wright-Phillips, 2004;
Roeser et al., 1996). When older students believe that their teachers care for them, they are also more likely to respond with
greater effort, to set numerous goals for themselves, and to exhibit greater compliance with teachers' behavioral and academic
expectations (e.g., Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Wang & Holcombe, 2010; Wentzel, 2002; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996). In a study by
Goodenow (1993), over one third of the variance in sixth-to eighth-grade students' interest in and expectations of their academic
work was explained by teacher support.
A small but growing number of studies have included tests of the hypothesis that students' motivation-related attitudes and
beliefs may mediate associations between studentteacher relationship quality and academic achievement (e.g., Ladd et al., 1999;
Woolley, Kol, & Bowen, 2009). Furrer and Skinner (2003), for example, showed that students' beliefs about their effort, attention,
and persistence were maintained through their sense of relatedness to teachers from third to sixth grade. In addition,
Zimmer-Gembeck, Chipuer, Hanisch, Creed, and McGregor (2006) revealed that the emotional quality of students' involvement in
middle school mediated the association between studentteacher relationship quality and their school achievement. Similar
results were reported by Hughes, Wu, Kwok, Villarreal, and Johnson (2012) in a longitudinal study of children from third through
fifth grades. These researchers found that teacher-rated behavioral engagement and students' math competence beliefs mediated
the effect of students' perceptions of closeness on math achievement. In addition, teacher-rated engagement was also found to
function as a mediator in the relationship between student-perceived conflict and reading and math achievement. Collectively,
this evidence implies that upper elementary students who feel securely connected to teachers are more likely to internalize
positive motivational beliefs about their schoolwork. These internalized resources, in turn, are expected to lead to greater
academic success.
1.3. Predictors of studentteacher relationship quality in upper elementary school
The odds of students having a high-quality studentteacher relationship with their teacher appear to be determined, at least in
part, by (parents' and teachers' perceptions of) students' inner dispositions and behaviors in the classroom, such as temperament
and personality (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1998; Rudasill & Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Saft & Pianta, 2001; Stuhlman & Pianta, 2002;
Wentzel, 2002). Longitudinal studies on studentteacher relationship quality show that from preschool to upper elementary
grades, teacher-reported measures of closeness, and especially conflict for individual students, are fairly stable across teachers
(e.g., Baker, 2006; Jerome et al., 2009; Spilt, Hughes et al., 2012; Spilt, Koomen et al., 2012). Moreover, Jerome et al. (2009) noted
that conflictual studentteacher relationships are more determined by student features than any other fluctuating aspects of
teachers or the school environment. These findings call attention to the need for further exploration of fairly stable resources that
students bring to their relationships with teachers.
Recently, the idea that genetically-based traits may lead to differences among students in the quality of their relationships with
teachers has attracted increasing research interest (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1998; Koenig, Barry, & Kochanska, 2010; Rudasill &
Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Saft & Pianta, 2001; Shiner & Caspi, 2003; Stuhlman & Pianta, 2002). The handful of researchers interested in
personality differences in relation to studentteacher relationship quality and academic adjustment have described these differences
according to common tenets of temperament, such as effortful control, shyness, and anger (Justice, Cottone, Mashburn, &
Rimm-Kaufman, 2008; Rudasill & Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Rudasill, Rimm-Kaufman, Justice, & Pence, 2006). Personality traits have, by
tradition, been distinguished from temperamental aspects, as personality traits are assumed to be rooted in temperamental variations
in emotion, motor reactivity, and attention that are already present from birth onward (De Pauw & Mervielde, 2010; Mervielde, De
Clercq, De Fruyt, & Van Leeuwen, 2005; Rothbart, 2007). Temperamental variations are biologically-based, and largely determine
children's reaction to the environment and the processes that regulate them (Rothbart, 2007). The dynamic interplay between
children's temperament and their environmental experiences forms the basis of children's personality. Compared to temperament,
personality is considered wider in scope, focusing more on comprehensive, higher-order traits that account for behavioral variations
among children and adolescents (Mervielde et al., 2005). In addition, whereas temperament mainly comprises a child's emotional
and attentional capacities, personality also involves cognitive and motivational aspects. These aspects of personality include a child's
developing cognitions about self, others, and the physical and social world, as well as his or her values, attitudes, and coping
strategies (Rothbart, 2007, p. 207). Following this line of reasoning, it may thus be assumed that students' personality traits not only
predispose them to engage in and value studentteacher relationships differently. These inner resources may, in turn, also have an
influence on differences in students' internalized motivational beliefs.
Despite the apparent contrast between temperament and personality, there is accumulating evidence that the common tenets
of temperament show evident correspondence with personality traits of children aged 3 to 12 (Goldberg, 2001; Mervielde, Buyst,
& De Fruyt, 1995). An overview of temperament and personality of Mervielde et al. (2005) and De Pauw and Mervielde (2010)
reveals that at least three factors of the Big Five Model of Personality (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992), including extraversion,
neuroticism, and conscientiousness, are evidently complementary to dimensions of temperament. As Mervielde et al. (2005)
contend, however, autonomy and agreeableness have largely failed to be recognized by temperament models, while emerging as
key dimensions in personality research, both for youngsters and for grown-ups. To our knowledge, comprehensive research on
factors of the Big Five model has not yet been integrated with studies conducted on studentteacher relationships. A
simultaneous exploration of all Big Five personality traits in relation to studentteacher relationship quality may help to integrate
520
evidence from different lines of research, as well as move the field forward by generating new hypotheses about the yet unclear
roles of personality factors such as autonomy and agreeableness.
1.3.1. Contributions of the Big Five to studentteacher relationship quality
Given its leading role in psychological and educational research (Costa & McCrae, 1992; De Pauw & Mervielde, 2010), this study
focuses on the factors of the Big Five model. Including this model in our study may offer valuable insights into both the variation in the
quality of studentteacher relationships, and students' academic adjustment, as it encompasses both interpersonal (i.e., extraversion,
agreeableness, and neuroticism) and cognitive (i.e., conscientiousness and autonomy) capacities. Of these, interpersonal aspects of
students' personality seem to be the most relevant for the quality of studentteacher relationships (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, &
Hair, 1996). Extraverted persons, for instance, are viewed as effective in social interactions and display friendly, assertive, and
gregarious behavior. Evidence has shown that students high in extraversion are more likely to experience positive affect during
interactions with their teacher, are ready to seek help when needed, and engage more actively in joint activities (Bidjerano & Yun Dai,
2007. By spending more time with others, extraverts may actively create opportunities for warm and cooperative studentteacher
relationships in the course of achieving success (Diener, Larsen, & Emmons, 1984; LePine & Van Dyne, 2001).
Extraversion has been shown to be correlated with several distinct temperamental lower-order traits, such as shyness,
sociability, dominance, and activity level (Mervielde et al., 2005). There is some evidence from studies on the link between
shyness and studentteacher relationship quality suggesting that teachers experience their relationship with shy children as less
close and more dependent than those with more extraverted behaviors (e.g., Arbeau, Coplan, & Weeks, 2010; Thijs & Koomen,
2009). Moreover, results from Rudasill and Rimm-Kaufman (2009) indicate that socially inhibited children are less likely to
initiate interactions from teachers than their more sociable peers. Other research (e.g., Saft & Pianta, 2001; Wentzel, 1991) has
also found that teachers generally seem to favor students who display extraverted, spontaneous, and companionable behaviors,
relative to students with more introverted or shy conduct.
Agreeable persons are commonly perceived as friendly, compliant, courteous, and tolerant (Barrick & Mount, 1991). They tend
to be more cooperative and generally have higher quality interpersonal interactions, as they minimize interpersonal conflict by
being less hostile, or by provoking less aggression from others (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1997; Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002;
Graziano et al., 1996). In so doing, agreeable students may experience more satisfying social environments themselves, which in
turn initiates higher levels of motivation to work on school-related tasks, and may better prepare them for the academic
challenges they face over the course of development (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Hair & Graziano, 2003).
Whereas both agreeable and extraverted persons are commonly perceived as effective in social interactions, neurotic individuals
tend to reflect poor emotional adjustment in the form of stress, anxiety, and depression and are prone to negative affect (Koenig et al.,
2010). A number of temperamental lower-order traits, including anxious distress (i.e., self-directed anxiety, guilt, and fear) and
irritable distress (i.e., externally-directed irritability, anger, and hostility), have been associated with neuroticism (Mervielde et al.,
2005). Such temperamental traits may act as catalysts for poor studentteacher relationships by hindering positive interactions,
expressing negative attitudes towards the teacher, and limiting teachers' ability to be sensitive and responsive to students' signals
(Little & Hudson, 1998). Previous research on temperament has shown, for instance, that irritable and hostile behaviors are associated
with less warm and more forceful and over-dependent studentteacher relationships, concurrently and prospectively (Birch & Ladd,
1998; Howes, Phillipsen, & Peisner Feinberg, 2000; Ladd & Burgess, 1999; Little & Hudson, 1998), and lower achievement scores
(e.g., Laidra, Pullmann, & Allik, 2007). Furthermore, in a study of Graziano, Reavis, Keane, and Calkins (2007) it was found that
neurotic, emotionally unstable students are likely to be rated by teachers as difficult to handle, requiring more energy from the
teacher to control their behavior and to assist them with engaging in classroom activities. Students scoring high in neuroticism may
therefore have lower quality studentteacher relationships in the classroom. Thus, whereas extraversion and agreeableness may have
a prominent position in sustaining high-quality studentteacher relationships, neuroticism will probably result in more conflictual
and dependent studentteacher relationships.
Compared to interpersonal aspects, cognitive aspects of students' personality are most often linked with motivational aspects
in relation to student learning. Conscientiousness, which comprises temperamental capacities such as orderliness, responsibility,
attention and self-control (Mervielde et al., 2005), has, for example, been found to be positively correlated with motivation
(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003), self-regulation (Bidjerano & Yun Dai, 2007), and perceived competence for learning
(Ntalianis, 2010) across all educational levels. Although links between conscientiousness and studentteacher relationships
quality have hardly been established, there is some evidence connecting this trait to high-quality studentteacher relationships.
Because highly conscientious students are meticulous and achievement-oriented, they tend to accomplish their goals by being
more caring and sociable towards others, adapt more easily to implicit and explicit social norms, and invest more in long-term
relationships than their less conscientious peers do (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998; Noftle & Shaver, 2006). This pattern is likely to
result in enhanced self-esteem, motivation, and appreciation by teachers and peers, which may in turn engender reciprocation in
the form of increased achievement (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Laidra et al., 2007; Steinmayr & Spinath, 2008).
Autonomy has been associated with tendencies towards seeking novel academic experiences, independence, originality, and
also with intelligence (McCrae & Costa, 1987; McCrae & John, 1992). This trait has been marked by self-determination theorists as
a crucial psychological need that is essential for facilitating students' social and academic adjustment (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000,
2008). Empirical work of Verschueren, Buyck, and Marcoen (2001), for instance, has revealed that students are more likely to
initiate positive and conflict-free studentteacher relationships when they have dispositions towards curiosity, classroom
exploration, and self-determination. Because persons higher in autonomy seem to be more open to change, and willing to transfer
new skills and behaviors learned in one domain to benefit another, they tend to be more creative in developing solutions when
521
conflict arises (Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). Conflict in the classroom is thereby likely to be reduced, resulting in better
studentteacher relationships and higher achievement scores (e.g., Laidra et al., 2007; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). Students'
autonomy may therefore not only contribute to the development of high-quality studentteacher relationships. Also, it might
initiate the kind of teacher support that children need to become motivated to succeed.
1.4. Present study
To summarize, the purpose of the present study was to explore student features predicting the studentteacher relationship
quality, as well as the additive power of high- and low-quality relationships as sources that may advance or hamper students'
adjustment during upper elementary school. Specifically, a model (see Fig. 1) was tested positing that (a) students' inner resources
(i.e., Big Five personality traits) predict the quality of studentteacher relationships, and (b) studentteacher relationship quality
indirectly affects students' achievement via the direct effect on their internalized resources (i.e., motivational beliefs).
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The current study was conducted using data from the first wave of the national COOL-cohort study, which started in the
academic year of 20072008 in the Netherlands. COOL is a prospective longitudinal research project in which about 38,000
students from kindergarten, grade 3, and grade 6 are tested every three years in language, reading, and mathematics. Extensive
information about a number of attitudinal, motivational, and background characteristics is collected as well (Driessen, Mulder,
Ledoux, Roeleveld, & Van der Veen, 2007). In the Netherlands, elementary educationintended for 4- to 12-year-old studentsis
organized by eight age-level cohorts, or groups, in which students typically have the same teacher throughout the school day.
Most students are 11 or 12 years old when they enter grade 6 (group 8), the final year of primary school. Grade 6 in particular
marks the beginning of a challenging and important transition period for Dutch students. During this period, students are
frequently undergoing profound changes in their sense of self and are struggling with dense curricular demands (Lynch &
Cicchetti, 1997; Resnick et al., 1997). Teacher support may have protective benefits for this age group of students, as teachers may
serve as a safe haven and transmit important values and personal advice to students (Rhodes, Grossman, & Resch, 2000; Roeser &
Eccles, 1998). In addition, as it is the last year before students shift to junior high school, their teachers have to make important
decisions about the type and level of secondary education most suited to them. Generally, teachers make such recommendations
on the grounds of an aptitude test called the Final Elementary Education Test, developed by the Dutch National Institute for
Educational Measurement (CITO), which is taken by the vast majority of Dutch students. Students' concerns about aptitude,
evaluation, and teachers' expectations are likely to be enhanced by issues such as the pressure of this aptitude test, making good
quality studentteacher relationships even more important in upper elementary classrooms (e.g., Ang et al., 2008). The present
study, therefore, made use of a subset of the nationally representative sample, to examine studentteacher relationships with
sixth-graders. A total of 8545 students from 1001 classes in 395 schools were included for analyses.
Demographics of the sample indicated that 50.7% of the students were boys, and the mean age was 11.6 years at the start of
the study (range = 8.0 to 13.0 years, SD = 0.6 years). Teachers indicated that 20.1% of the students had special educational
needs. For 6.9% of the students, the teachers did not indicate whether their students had special needs or not. Information from
the school administrators about student ethnicity was available for 96.8% of the children. A total of 78.8% of the students were of
Dutch origin, and 18.1% were of non-Dutch origin. Mothers' educational background, in terms of the highest level of education
completed, was available for 93.3% of the cases. In total, 9.0% of the mothers had finished primary school, 23.9% finished
pre-vocational secondary education, 41.7% finished senior vocational education, and 18.6% finished higher education.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Studentteacher relationship quality
Both teachers and students completed rating scales measuring their perceptions of studentteacher relationship quality.
2.2.1.1. Teacher's perspective of studentteacher relationship quality. Teachers' perceptions of the quality of their relationship with
each of their students were estimated using an authorized Dutch translated and slightly adapted version of the StudentTeacher
Relationship Scale (STRS; Koomen, Verschueren, & Pianta, 2007). This instrument was especially developed to assess relationship
quality for 3- to 12-year-old students. Like its original, the adapted STRS has shown to be represented by three distinct factors that
are referred to as the Closeness, Conflict, and Dependency subscales (Koomen, Verschueren, van Schooten, Jak, & Pianta, 2012).
Closeness measures the extent to which teachers feel their relationship with a student to be characterized by warmth, openness,
and proximity, with items such as I share an affectionate and warm relationship with this child. Conflict and Dependency
measure negative aspects of studentteacher relationships, which are those in which teachers observe the relationship with
students to be overly conflictual, or in which teachers experience the child to show clingy and demanding behavior. Example
items are This child and I always seem to be struggling, and This child reacts strongly to separation from me, respectively.
In the COOL cohort-study (Driessen et al., 2007), 5 items for each subscale were selected on the basis of the highest factor
loadings reported in earlier research (Koomen et al., 2012). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert type scale, ranging from 1
522
(definitely does not apply) to 5 (definitely applies). Investigators using the adapted STRS have reported satisfactory reliability and
construct validity evidence for the STRS, from preschool to upper elementary school, and across gender and age (e.g., Doumen,
Koomen, Buyse, Wouters, & Verschueren, 2012; Koomen et al., 2007, 2012). In these studies, Cronbach's alphas ranged between
.88 and .93 for Closeness, .88 and .91 for Conflict, and .77 and .82 for Dependency. Internal consistency scores in the present study
were .86 for Closeness, .93 for Conflict, and .91 for Dependency, respectively, and therefore indicate good reliability.
2.2.1.2. Students' perspective of studentteacher relationship quality. Considering that the studentteacher relationship is a dyadic
construct, its quality was also measured from the perspective of the student. Accordingly, students answered 7 questions
concerning well-being with respect to the relationship with their teacher which primarily measure positive aspects of the
studentteacher relationship (Peetsma, Wagenaar, & De Kat, 2001). This student-reported Closeness scale was rated on a 5-point
Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (definitively not true) to 5 (definitively true). Items that made up this scale included statements
such as Usually, my teacher knows how I feel and I have a good relationship with my teacher. Cronbach's alpha of this scale
was satisfactory ( = .78).
2.2.2. Outcome variables
Students' academic achievement was obtained from their performance on individually administered multiple-choice tests for
reading comprehension and mathematics. Both instruments, developed by the Dutch assessment institute CITO, are nationally
normed achievement tests, designed to screen and determine the current level of reading comprehension and mathematics in grade
6. The reading comprehension test, which consists of 35 multiple-choice items, gives an indication of proficiency in the areas of
conceptual reasoning and practical reading ability. The math test, which consists of 32 multiple-choice items, was designed to tap
important aspects of mathematics taught in mainstream classrooms, such as geometry, multiplication, and addition (Driessen et al.,
2007). The reading comprehension test ( = .91) and math test ( = .92) had excellent reliability. Moreover, van Boxtel, Engelen,
and de Wijs (2011) evaluated construct validity among several versions of the Final Elementary Education Test, of which the math
and reading comprehension test are part. They concluded that the test content and structure were consistent across different test
versions, and that the tests were highly predictive of children's IQ (correlations between .72 and .78).
According to the guidelines required by the CITO (CITO, 2008), students' answers were first calculated into raw scores. Using
proper tables for students' age, the raw scores were then converted into age-standard ability scores. These ability scores are based
on Item Response Theory and take the number and complexity of items of the reading comprehension and math test into account.
In the present study, these ability scores were used to indicate students' achievement in both subjects.
2.2.3. Predictor variables
Students completed rating scales measuring their self-perceptions of their personality traits.
2.2.3.1. Personality traits. Students' personality traits were measured using the Five Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI; Hendriks,
Hofstee, & De Raad, 1999; Hendriks, Kuyper, Offringa, & Van der Werf, 2008). The FFPI is a 100-item self-report questionnaire
developed to evaluate a person's position on the psycho-lexically based facets of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
Neuroticism, and Autonomy. Items that made up this measure were rated by students on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1
(not at all applicable) to 5 (entirely applicable), with higher scores indicating higher values on the five personality dimensions. Some
slight adjustments were made to the FFPI to make its items more suitable for upper elementary students. In two items, references to
people were substituted by other children. Additionally, all 100 items were rephrased from the third person into first-person
singular (Hendriks et al., 2008). Example items for each respective dimension are I like to chat (Extraversion), I respect others'
feelings (Agreeableness), I do things according to a plan (Conscientiousness), I can't take my mind off my problems
(Neuroticism), and I can easily link facts together (Autonomy). The psychometric properties of this slightly adapted version of the
FFPI have been demonstrated to be sufficiently suited for use in this specific age group of students. In a sample of 12- to 13-year old
students, Hendriks et al. (2008) reported sufficient reliability (the mean across the five factors was .70), and showed that the
structure of the adapted FFPI was construct-valid across gender and educational level. In the present sample, Cronbach's alpha values
were as follows: Extraversion, .76; Agreeableness, .80; Conscientiousness, .79; Neuroticism, .74; Autonomy, .65. Composite scores for
the five FFPI subscales were used to represent students' placement on the five personality factors.
2.2.4. Mediator variables
Students completed rating scales measuring their perceptions of both their motivational goals and expectancies.
2.2.4.1. Motivational beliefs. To capture the multifaceted nature of students' motivation-related beliefs, both their goals and
expectancies were considered as motivators of academic achievement. The Task Motivation Scale (Seegers, Van Putten, & De
Brabander, 2002) was used to evaluate students' motivational goals. This instrument is a self-report instrument composed of 5
items, which measure the extent to which students focus on mastering learning tasks and on learning opportunities in the context
of school. All items were rated on 5-point Likert scales that range from 1 (definitively not true) to 5 (definitively true). Examples of
items are I feel satisfied when I have learned something in school that makes sense to me, and I feel satisfied when I have
learned something new in school. Support for the construct validity of the Task Motivation Scale has been provided by Hornstra,
Van der Veen, Peetsma, and Volman (2013), who found that the Task Motivation Scale reflected the same construct over time and
across gender, ethnicity, and students' socioeconomic status. In the present sample, the Cronbach's alpha of this measure was .75.
523
Students rated their expectancies about their capability to perform academic tasks in the classroom using a translated version of
the Academic Efficacy subscale from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS; Midgley et al., 2000). The 6 items of this
self-report measure were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (definitively not true) to 5 (definitively true). Statements such
as I'm certain I can figure out how to do the most difficult class work and I can do almost all the work in class if I don't give up were
included in this scale. The Academic Efficacy subscale from PALS has been widely applied and there are some studies to suggest that
the Academic Efficacy subscale from PALS shows adequate construct validity. For example, the negative association between
Academic Efficacy and personal performance-avoidance goals found in a study of Middleton and Midgley (1997) implies that the
Academic Efficacy subscale is related in expected ways to other measures from PALS. Moreover, in previous studies (e.g., Midgley et
al., 2000), the Academic Efficacy subscale displayed sufficient reliability ( = .78). In the present sample, the Cronbach's alpha of this
measure was also .78, and therefore sufficient as well.
2.2.5. Covariates
The effects of student gender, ethnicity, special education needs (SEN), and socioeconomic status (SES) were controlled for in the
hypothesized model, given their associations with the studentteacher relationship quality and academic adjustment (e.g., Baker,
2006; Rudasill et al., 2006; Saft & Pianta, 2001). Because maternal education has previously been demonstrated to be a good indicator
of a number of school-related outcomes (e.g., Magnuson, 2007; Saft & Pianta, 2001), this variable was used as a proxy of students' SES.
Maternal education comprised four categories: no more than primary education, secondary prevocational education, senior
secondary vocational education, and higher education. Information about ethnicity was collected from the school administrators, and
based on the country of birth of student's mothers. Given the small proportions of ethnic groups other than Dutch in the sample,
preliminary analyses of variance were performed to determine whether these minority groups differed with regard to student
teacher relationship quality, motivational beliefs, and academic achievement. The results showed no significant differences (p > .05).
Therefore, ethnic minorities were treated as one group and contrasted with the Dutch majority group. Information about students
with SEN was obtained from the teachers. Following Pijl, Frostad, and Flem (2008), SEN refers to various (combinations of)
impairments and/or difficulties in participating in education (p. 389). In the present study, students with SEN were operationalized
as those who received some sort of special education based on an individual education plan (IEP). Eligibility criteria for IEPs were
visual and hearing impairments, mental and physical handicaps, behavioral problems, and developmental disorders, such as autism.
Accordingly, a dichotomous single-indicator variable was used, requesting the teacher to indicate whether or not the student was
admitted to an individual education plan. Gender was dummy coded, such that girls were assigned a value of 1 and boys a value of 0.
2.3. Procedures
Data from the first wave of COOL were collected in three phases. First, between April and September 2007, 2800 schools received a
formal letter of invitation to take part in the COOL cohort-study. Of these schools, 550 were ultimately recruited. After gaining the
school's agreement to research participation, informed consent was obtained from the parents by providing them with a written
account of the study's purposes and a permission form in their native language that could be returned to the student's school. In the
second phase (September 2007), extensive data about students' background characteristics were obtained from the school
administrators. In the third and last phase (JanuaryApril 2008), students' scores on mathematics and reading comprehension were
gathered by e-mail from the teachers. During that same period, questionnaires regarding personality, studentteacher relationship
quality, and motivational beliefs were administered to teachers and students by research assistants. Both students and teachers
completed these questionnaires in their own classrooms. The response rate of the student-completed questionnaires was 94.9% and
completed teacher-reported questionnaires were available for 94.3% of the sample. Nonparticipation of students and teachers was
due to absences or sickness at the time of data collection.
2.4. Statistical analyses
The data were not independent, as they were nested within classrooms and corresponding teachers. 1 To avoid underestimation of
standard errors, structural equation modeling (SEM) procedures for complex survey data were warranted in examining the
hypothesized theoretical model (Muthn & Muthn, 2007). Unlike traditional linear modeling techniques, SEM procedures for
complex survey data are quite flexible in that they allow for the simultaneous estimation of direct and indirect influences in
hierarchically clustered data, and the adjustment of measurement errors by using latent constructs (Kline, 2011; Preacher, Zyphur, &
Zhang, 2010). Model fitting was performed in Mplus, version 6.11, using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors,
and a mean-adjusted chi-square statistic test (MLR; Muthn & Muthn, 2007). A check of the data for statistical assumptions showed
no problems.2 Missing data on the continuous variables (b6%) were handled by use of the EM algorithm, after finding that Little's
MCAR test was not statistically significant, p = .901 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
1
Intraclass correlation coefcients at level two (class level) were in the range of .04.24 and intraclass correlations at level three (school level) were in the
range of .00.02. Given the relatively small proportion of variance associated with the third level of hierarchy, a two-level model was estimated in the present
study.
2
Tests of skewness and kurtosis were nonsignicant for all variables included in the study. Data were found to meet assumptions regarding multivariate
normality and linearity.
524
Given the relatively large sample size and the exploratory nature of the study, models were fitted using a cross-validation
procedure, involving randomly selecting calibration and validation samples, 3 estimating the hypothesized model with the
calibration sample and then refitting the model to the validation sample. In order to determine whether the hypothesized model
holds across the two samples, the fit indices and beta-coefficients of the two samples were compared (e.g., Yuan, Marshall, &
Weston, 2002).
2.4.1. Measurement model
Prior to analyzing the hypothesized structural model, a measurement model was tested in two steps to evaluate the fit of the
hypothesized latent variables and to find evidence for the internal validity and common factor structure of the measures (Kline, 2011).
First, a model was estimated that only contained items that were used as indicators of the five latent constructs (i.e., Motivational Beliefs,
student-reported Closeness, and the three teacher-reported constructs of studentteacher relationship quality). Secondly, after evidence
was found supporting the factor structure for the latent constructs, the remaining single indicator variables (i.e., students' personality
traits, their reading and math scores, and covariates) were included in the model. To achieve model identification, the first
unstandardized factor loading of each construct was fixed to equal 1.0, and all latent variable variances and covariances were allowed to
be freely estimated. The error variances of the single indicators were set to zero, as perfect measurement of each variable was assumed.
2.4.2. Structural model
The hypothesized structural model was evaluated in three steps. The first step involved fitting the hypothesized structural model
with main effects only. Covariates and additional parameters were added stepwise. The second step entailed a cross-validation of this
model. Cross-validation of complex structural models is acknowledged to be essential, given that model respecification in the initial
sample might have been capitalized on chance aspects of the data (e.g., Yuan et al., 2002). Multiple group analyses were performed to
test the correspondence between the two samples. Equality constraints were gradually imposed on both the measurement and
regression coefficients. In the third step, two alternative models were estimated to test for mediation. First, a direct effects model was
fitted, in which the effects of the studentteacher relationship quality on math and reading comprehension were freely estimated and
the effects of the mediators constrained to equal zero. Second, a partial mediation model was fitted, in which the Motivational Beliefs
factor was inserted back in the model. For ease of interpretation, reading and math achievement were centered around their grand
mean, and their error variances were allowed to covary. Because aspects of the studentteacher relationship were assumed to be
indicators of a similar construct (i.e., studentteacher relationship quality) and were generally reported by the same source, their
factor covariances were freely estimated as well.
2.4.3. Model goodness-of-t
The overall goodness-of-fit of the models was evaluated by the mean-adjusted 2 test, with nonsignificant chi-squares indicating
satisfactory fit. Given the large sample size and statistical power of the test, however, even a trivial discrepancy between the expected
and the observed model may lead to rejection of the model (Chen, 2007). Therefore, additional fit indices were calculated, including
the root mean square of approximation (RMSEA). Values .05 reflect a close fit, and .08 a satisfactory fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).
The comparative fit index (CFI) was also obtained, with values .90 indicating satisfactory fit, and values .95 indicating close fit
(Bentler, 1992). The fit of the measurement components of the model was evaluated by inspecting the modification indices, residual
correlations, and their associated summary statistic SRMR (standardized root mean square residual). Values .08 indicate relatively
good fit of the model to the data (Kline, 2011).
Differences in model fit were tested with the SatorraBentler scaled chi-square difference test (TRd; Satorra, 2000; Satorra &
Bentler, 2010), with nonsignificant chi-squares indicating equivalent fit, and the CFI-difference, with CFI changes .02 being
indicative of model nonequivalence (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Additionally, the RMSEA-based root deterioration per restriction
(RDR), and expected cross-validation index (ECVI)-differences were calculated using the computer program NIESEM (Dudgeon,
2003), along with their corresponding 90% confidence intervals. When RDR-values do not exceed .05, they indicate an essentially
equivalent fit. ECVI-differences between two hierarchically nested models are considered equal when their 90% confidence
interval does not include zero (e.g., Oort, 2009).
3. Results
3.1. Measurement model
The first measurement model with latent constructs did not reach a satisfactory fit to the data, 2 (485) = 7446.92, p b .001,
RMSEA = .058 (90% CI [.057, .059]), CFI = .87, SRMR = .053. In order to diagnose potential sources of misfit, the correlations
between the residuals and modification indices were inspected. Six residuals appeared to be over-predicted by the model.
Stepwise addition of these correlation residuals resulted in a more satisfactory model: 2 (479) = 3718.47, p b .001, RMSEA =
.040 (90% CI [.038, .041]), CFI = .94, SRMR = .048. In the second iteration of the measurement model that included single
indicators as well as the latent constructs, the model also yielded a good fit to the data, 2 (787) = 5549.27, p b .001, RMSEA =
.037 (90% CI [.037, .038]), CFI = .93, SRMR = .044. In this model, no systematic patterns of misfit were identified, and the factor
3
Calibration (n = 4,308) and validation (n = 4237) samples did not signicantly differ in gender, 2(1) = 3.65, p = .06; age, t(8543) = 1.10, p = .23; SES,
t(8543) = 0.30, p = .76; SEN, t(8543) = 0.04, p = .97; and distribution of ethnicity, 2 (1) = 1.15, p = .28.
525
loadings, standard errors and interfactor correlations were of the appropriate sign and magnitude. All standardized factor
loadings were considered relatively high (>.50), except for one item for Motivational Beliefs (.36). These results provide evidence
that the factors, when specified, correspond to the hypothesized structure and provide support for the internal validity and
common factor structure of the measures.
3.2. Structural model
3.2.1. Hypothesized model
The initial structural model tested was the hypothesized model with main effects only. The model provided acceptable overall
fit: 2 (818) = 6488.62, p b .001, RMSEA = .040 (90% CI [.039.041]), SRMR = .053, CFI = .92. To diagnose potential sources of
misfit in the model, the modification indices were inspected. Based on these indices, three theoretically supported modifications
were made and maintained in the model. These were direct paths from Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Autonomy to
students' Motivational Beliefs. The test results demonstrated a satisfactory fit of the final model to the data, 2 (815) = 5828.54,
p b .001, RMSEA = .038 (90% CI [.037.039]), SRMR = .047, CFI = .93.
3.2.2. Cross-validation
The fit indices suggested that the structural model fitted the validation sample quite well: 2 (815) = 6093.79, p b .001,
RMSEA = .039 (90% CI [.038, .040]), CFI = .92, SRMR = .049. The results for the multiple group analysis investigating differences
between the calibration and validation sample are presented in Table 1. Results showed sufficient equivalence to speak of an
adequate attempt of cross-validation, thereby generally supporting the validity of the final model. The final structural model and
standardized regression coefficients are shown in Table 2 and in Fig. 2. Dashed lines represent the three paths added post hoc.
3.3. Predictors of studentteacher relationship quality and motivational beliefs
The structural model largely reflected the hypothesized effects of students' personality traits on the studentteacher
relationship quality. Assessment of path coefficients in the model pointed to significant paths from teacher-rated studentteacher
Dependency to students' Agreeableness ( = .05, p = .003), Neuroticism ( = .14, p b .001), and Autonomy ( = .05, p =
.003). Thus, while controlling for other personality traits, a level of Neuroticism one standard deviation above the mean predicts
teacher-reported Dependency .15 standard deviation above the mean. This indicates that the magnitude of the positive path
coefficient between Neuroticism and teacher-reported Dependency is almost three times greater than the negative paths from
Agreeableness and Autonomy to teacher-reported Dependency (Kline, 2011). The hypothesized paths between teacher-reported
Dependency and other student personality traits were not supported. In addition, the paths from student Extraversion ( = .11,
p b .001), Agreeableness ( = .16, p b .001), Conscientiousness ( = .07 p b .01), Neuroticism ( = .08, p b .001), and
Autonomy ( = .05, p = .005) to teacher-reported Conflict were statistically significant.
In terms of Closeness, paths from teacher-reported Closeness to Extraversion ( = .09, p b .001), Agreeableness ( = .11,
p b .001), and Conscientiousness ( = .06, p = .001), and paths from student-reported Closeness to Extraversion ( = .11,
p b .001), (Agreeableness: = .24, p b .001), Conscientiousness ( = .23, p b .001), and Neuroticism ( = .07, p = .001)
appeared to be statistically significant. Paths from Conscientiousness ( = .28, p b .001), Neuroticism ( = .21, p b .001), and
Autonomy ( = .27, p b .001) to students' Motivational Beliefs were also found to be statistically significant. Overall, students'
personality traits accounted for 7.2% of the variance in teacher-reported Dependency, 11.3% of the variance in teacher-reported
Conflict, 5.8% of the variance in teacher-reported Closeness, and 16.9% of the variance in student-reported Closeness.
3.4. Covariates of studentteacher relationship quality and school success
Given their potential influence on studentteacher relationship quality and academic adjustment, the effects of student
gender, ethnicity, SEN, and SES were controlled for in the final model. With regard to these background characteristics, inspection
Table 1
Fit indices for multiple-group invariance analyses of the validation and calibration sample.
Model
2(df)
RMSEA (90% CI)
CFI
SRMR
TRd (df)
CFI
RDR (90% CI)
ECVI (90% CI)
Baseline model
(Equal form)
Model 1
(Equal factor loadings)
Model 2
(Equal path coefficients)
Model 3
(Equal residual variances and covariances)
11,978.49
(1658)
11,985.17
.038
(.038,
.038
(.037,
.037
(.037,
.037
(.036,
.92
.048
.92
.048
23.64 (28)
.00
.92
.048
43.91 (49)
.00
.92
.049
43.04
(39)
.001
.00
(.00, .009)
.00
(.00, .008)
.005 (.00, .012)
.003
(.003, .002)
.006
(.006, .004)
.004
(.004, .002)
(1686)
12,062.75
(1735)
11,969.08
(1774)
.039)
.038)
.038)
.037)
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; TRd = SatorraBentler
scaled chi-square difference test; RDR = root deterioration per restriction; ECVI = expected cross-validation index.
p b .001.
526
Table 2
Maximum likelihood estimates for the final structural model of antecedents and consequences of the studentteacher relationship quality.
Dependency
Extrav.
Agree.
Consc.
Neur.
Auton.
Depend.
Conflict
CloseT
CloseS
Motiv.
Read.
Math
Gender
SEN
Ethnicity
SES
Conflict
Closenessteacher
Closenessstudent
Motivational
beliefs
Reading
Math
dir.
ind.
total
dir.
ind.
total
dir.
ind.
total
dir.
ind.
total
dir.
ind.
total
dir.
ind.
total
dir.
ind.
total
.03
-.05
.01
.14
-.05
.18
-.09
.03
-.05
.01
.14
-.05
.18
-.09
.11
-.16
-.07
.08
.05
-.14
.13
.05
-.07
.11
-.16
-.07
.08
.05
-.14
.13
.05
-.07
.09
.11
.06
.02
.00
.09
.11
.06
.02
.00
.11
.24
.23
-.07
-.01
.28
-.21
.27
-.11
.09
.02
.04
.06
.33
-.24
.28
-.11
.09
.02
-.12
.26
.11
-.24
-.11
.29
.01
.02
.01
.01
.00
-.03
.02
.01
.01
.02
.01
.01
.00
-.15
.02
.01
.01
.02
.02
-.01
.00
-.03
.03
.01
-.15
.03
.01
.07
.07
.26
.11
-.24
-.11
.29
-.12
.29
-.12
-.27
-.10
.20
.01
.02
.02
-.01
.00
.04
.11
.24
.23
-.07
-.01
.04
.04
.06
.05
-.03
.01
.12
-.06
.08
.08
.29
-.12
-.27
-.10
.20
.12
-.06
.27
-.05
-.12
.09
.27
-.05
-.12
.09
Note. Standardized regression coefficients () are reported. Direct effects of the alternative mediation models are not presented in the table. Gender, ethnicity,
and special educational needs (SEN) were coded as binary variables (0 = boys and 1 = girls; 0 = native Dutch and 1 = non-Dutch; 0 = without SEN and 1 =
with SEN). Dir. = direct effects; Ind. = total indirect effects; Total = total effects. *p > .05. For all other standardized regression coefficients, p b .05.
of the path coefficients in the model indeed revealed statistically significant paths from SEN, gender, ethnicity and SES to student
teacher relationship quality and academic adjustment. First, students with SEN had more teacher-reported Conflict ( = .13,
p b .001) and teacher-reported Dependency ( = .18, p b .001) and had lower Motivational Beliefs ( = .12, p b .01), and
lower reading and math scores ( = .24; = .27, p b .001) than students without such needs. Teachers generally
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
Confl.
Extrav.
D
Consc.
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
Depend.
M ath
Agree.
Motiv.
Close T
Read
Neurot.
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
Auton.
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
Close S
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
Note. Dashed lines represent paths added post hoc. For reasons of parsimony, the freely estimated factor covariances are not displayed. Extrav. = Extraversion; Agree. = Agreeableness; Neurot. =
Neuroticism; Auton. = Autonomy; Close T = Teacher-reported Closeness; Confl. = Conflict; Depend. = Dependency; Close S = Student-reported Closeness; Motiv. = Motivational Beliefs; Math = Math
test; Read = Reading Comprehension test.
Fig. 2. Final structural model.
527
experienced less Conflict ( = .14, p b .001) and more Closeness ( = .12, p b .001) in the relationship with girl students.
Moreover, girls appeared to have lower Motivational Beliefs ( = .05, p = .001) and math scores ( = .12, p b .001) than
boys, but they had better reading comprehension skills ( = .11, p b .001). Dutch students and students from higher-SES
backgrounds performed better on reading ( = .11; = .29, p b .001) and math ( = .10; = .20, p b .001) than did
non-Dutch students and students from lower-SES backgrounds. Ethnic minority students had higher Motivational Beliefs ( =
.09, p b .001) and more teacher-reported Conflict ( = .05, p b .001) and less teacher-reported Closeness ( = .06, p b .001)
in relationships with teachers than their Dutch peers. Jointly, students' background characteristics, their personality traits, and the
studentteacher relationship quality accounted for 38.4% of the variance in students' Motivational Beliefs, 27.1% of the variance in
math achievement, and 27.4% of the variance in reading comprehension.
3.5. Consequences of studentteacher relationship quality and motivational beliefs
Model results for the quality of studentteacher relationships and students' Motivational Beliefs were not all according to
expectations. First, as expected, positive coefficients were found for the path from student-reported Closeness to students'
Motivational beliefs ( = .27, p b .001), and negative coefficients were found for the path from teacher-reported Dependency to
students' Motivational Beliefs ( = .11, p b .001). With other aspects of the studentteacher relationship in the model, the
path coefficient between teacher-reported Closeness and Motivational Beliefs was not statistically significant ( = .02).
Most unexpectedly, a significant positive path from teacher-reported Conflict to Motivational Beliefs ( = .09, p b .001) was
revealed in the model. It seems as if teacher-reported Conflict functioned as a suppressor variable for the effects of other aspects
of the relationship quality on Motivational Beliefs. Specifically, teacher-reported Conflict correlated substantially with
teacher-reported Dependency (r = .54), whereas it had only modest negative correlations with students' Motivational Beliefs
(r = .10). In the structural model, however, the coefficient of the path from teacher-reported Conflict to Motivational Beliefs
was opposite in sign, and the coefficient of the path from Dependency to Motivational Beliefs became somewhat stronger. When
entered alone, the path coefficient from teacher-reported Dependency to Motivational Beliefs decreased significantly ( = .06,
p b .001) and the path from teacher-reported Conflict to Motivational Beliefs reached zero ( = .02). This pattern may indicate
that teacher-reported Conflict has much more in common with teacher-reported Dependency, than with the variance of students'
Motivational Beliefs. Thus, by controlling for irrelevant variance that is shared with teacher-reported Dependency, but not with
Motivational beliefs, teacher-reported Conflict improves Dependency as a predictor of Motivational Beliefs. The effects of
teacher-reported Conflict and Dependency are therefore better interpreted in combination with each other, rather than
separately (Maassen & Bakker, 2001; Pedhazur, 1982).
3.5.1. Mediation effects
The positive paths between students' Motivational Beliefs and their academic achievement suggest that, after controlling for
students' background characteristics, Motivational Beliefs did positively add to both their reading ( = .26, p b .001) and math
achievement ( = .29, p b .001). To investigate whether Motivational Beliefs also functioned as a mediator between the student
teacher relationship quality and academic achievement, a series of alternative models was tested (but not reported in Fig. 2). First, a
direct effects model was fitted in which the effects of the studentteacher relationship quality factors on math and reading
achievement were freely estimated and the mediator constrained to equal zero. This model fitted the data relatively well: 2
(811) = 5994.39, p b .001, RMSEA = .039 (90% CI [.038.039]), SRMR = .055, CFI = .92. When eliminating Motivational Beliefs
from the model, the paths from teacher-reported Dependency to math ( = .14, p b .001) and reading achievement ( = .14,
p b .001) appeared to be negative and statistically significant. The direct paths from teacher-reported Conflict and teacher-reported
Closeness to the two measures of achievement were not supported by the model. The combined predictors accounted for 21.6% of the
variance in math and 23.6% of the variance in reading comprehension.
Secondly, a partially mediated model was fitted, in which students' Motivational Beliefs were inserted back into the model.
The resulting model (not reported in Fig. 2) had a satisfactory fit to the data: 2 (807) = 5718.83, p b .001, RMSEA = .038 (90%
CI [.037.039]), SRMR = .044, CFI = .93. The presence of Motivational Beliefs in the model did not considerably reduce the
coefficient of the direct paths from teacher-reported Dependency to students' reading ( = .12, p b .001 and math
achievement ( = .12, p b .001). Indirect effects were estimated using the Delta method (see MacIntosh & Hashim, 2003).
Results showed that the indirect paths from teacher-reported Dependency to math ( = .03, p b .001) and reading ( = .03,
p b .001) and from student-reported Closeness to math ( = .08, p b .001) and reading ( = .07 p b .001), though very small,
were statistically significant. The indirect paths from teacher-reported Conflict and student-reported Closeness to the
achievement scores were not statistically significant. These results suggest that teacher-reported Dependency is not only directly
related to students' academic achievement, but also indirectly, through their Motivational Beliefs. The relationship between
student-reported Closeness and students' reading and math achievement, in addition, was fully mediated by their Motivational
Beliefs.
4. Discussion
In this study, a theoretical model was tested hypothesizing that upper elementary school students' personality traits predict the
quality of studentteacher relationships, and that studentteacher relationship quality indirectly affects students' achievement via
528
the direct effect on their motivational beliefs. In general, the findings provided only modest support for the study's propositions, but
they contributed to the existing literature on studentteacher relationships in several ways.
4.1. Predictors of studentteacher relationship quality in upper elementary school
Students' personality traits appeared to be associated with the degree of closeness, conflict, and dependency in the student
teacher relationship. Notably, interpersonal aspects of students' personality (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism)
seemed to contribute more than cognitive aspects (i.e., conscientiousness and autonomy) to explaining the studentteacher
relationship quality. Students who reported higher levels of agreeableness and lower levels of neuroticism were more likely to
have closer and less dependent or conflictual relationships with their teachers. These findings are largely consonant with those of
Martin, Watson, and Wan (2000), who identified a lower-order Cynical Cognition trait that represents a combination of neurotic
and disagreeable characteristics. Persons scoring high on this trait seem to be more likely to mistrust others, and to feel
mistreated and insecure in social relationships (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Other work (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1998; Howes et al., 2000;
Ladd & Burgess, 1999; Rudasill & Rimm-Kaufman, 2009) has also pointed to the association between low levels of student
teacher relationship quality and aspects of temperament, such as a lack of effortful control and anger.
Students with dispositions towards neuroticism were also less likely to display positive motivational beliefs. Typically,
emotionally unstable students are described as vulnerable to stress and lacking in confidence, and seem to focus more on their
emotional state than on their school work (De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996). Such traits are likely to produce students who
believe that they are not fully able to cope with academic tasks and responsibilities (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002). Thus,
for highly neurotic students who are already less likely to profit from close relationships with teachers, poorer motivational
beliefs may place them at additional risk for performance decrements in upper elementary school (Fredricks & Eccles, 2002).
In addition, extraversion was not only associated with teacher- and student-reported closeness, but also with higher levels of
conflict between teachers and students. Thus, despite the fact that extraverted students are likely to display behavior that
increases the opportunity for studentteacher closeness, such as assertive and gregarious behavior, being extraverted may also
lead students to engage in more conflictual relationships. These results substantiate those of other studies in that extraverted
students may be more likely to experience simultaneously high conflict and closeness with teachers, whereas inhibited
dispositions such as shyness may function as a buffer against conflict in the classroom (e.g., Rudasill & Rimm-Kaufman, 2009;
Rydell, Bohlin, & Thorell, 2005). It may be that, because extraverted individuals frequently seek and enjoy the attention of others,
they occasionally exert behaviors that push teachers away from them. Indeed, in a study of Rudasill and Konold (2008), it was
found that withdrawn-oriented, introvert students typically display quiet and obedient behaviors and are therefore more unlikely
to engage in disrupting behaviors in the classroom.
In line with previous studies (e.g., Hair & Graziano, 2003), cognitive aspects of students' personality appeared to be more strongly
associated with students' academic adjustment than with studentteacher relationship quality. Both highly conscientious and highly
autonomous students were more likely to be motivated to succeed, compared with less autonomous or less conscientious peers. This
finding is consistent with motivational research indicating that when students' needs for academic support and autonomy are met,
their task motivation, self-efficacy beliefs, and locus of responsibility for their own learning are likely to be increased (Patrick,
Mantzicopoulos, Samarapungavan, & French, 2008; Reeve et al., 1999; Ryan & Powelson, 1991).
Of the cognitive Big-Five dimensions, conscientiousness was a better predictor of studentteacher relationship quality than
autonomy. Consistent with expectations, results suggest that higher conscientiousness prevented unfavorable relationships and
promoted warmth and security between teachers and students. Unlike conscientiousness, autonomy did not seem to be
associated with the degree of warmth and security experienced by teachers and students. A possible explanation is that highly
autonomous students, and older children in particular, may have a tendency to meet their own emotional needs (cf. Ang, 2005).
By doing so, they are likely to make fewer emotional demands on their teacher and, in turn, increase the psychological distance
between themselves and the teacher, possibly resulting in more negative studentteacher relationships (Ang et al., 2008).
Findings from Coplan, Prakash, O'Neil and Armer (2004) furthermore suggest that children who mainly operate on their own
show no sign of having anypositive or negativerelationship with their teacher at all. Thus, autonomous students may just not
be interested in social contact with their teacher, and, in turn, may be less demanding, and perfectly content to work alone.
Overall, the present results suggest that aspects of students' personality are associated with how well they relate to their teachers,
and perform academically.
4.2. Studentteacher relationship quality and academic adjustment in upper elementary school
Mediation models suggested that students' motivational beliefs, at least in part, acted as a mediator of the association between
studentteacher relationship quality and students' academic achievement. Regarding positive relationships, students' motivational
beliefs fully mediated the associations between student-reported closeness but not the associations between teacher-reported
closeness and math and reading achievement. One possible explanation for this difference is that some of the variance that is shared
between students' perceptions of closeness and their motivational beliefs might be attributed to source effects. This explanation is in
line with research indicating that student reports typically account for the largest proportion of method variance and that teacher
reports account for the largest proportion of trait variance (Li, Hughes, Hsu, & Kwok, 2011).
With respect to negative relationships, results demonstrated that the association between dependency and academic
achievement was partially mediated by students' motivational beliefs. Students having overly dependent relationships with
529
teachers were more likely to feel less confident in their ability to achieve academically, and these beliefs, in turn, were likely to be
associated with lower academic performance. Moreover, beyond this indirect association, there was a direct negative association
between dependency and students' math and reading achievement. It is noteworthy that conflict in the studentteacher
relationship did not independently predict variance in students' academic adjustment. Although conflict usually has the strongest
associations with school outcomes (e.g., Hamre & Pianta, 2001), in this study, it merely seemed to function as a correction factor
for predicting the negative association between dependency and students' academic success. Thus, contrary to previous beliefs
(e.g., Ang, 2005), inappropriate degrees of overreliance on the teacher may take a more important position than high levels of
conflict in predicting older elementary students' adjustment.
4.3. Limitations and future directions
Several limitations of this study that call for further research need to be considered. First, studentteacher relationships,
motivational beliefs, and student's academic achievement are part of complex processes that may not be fully captured by the
design of the current study. The direction of influences is difficult to establish, and there also may be reciprocal relations between
the quality of studentteacher relationships and the outcome variables in this study. Longitudinal designs could deepen the
understanding of how the quality of studentteacher relationships affects students' academic adjustment, especially for students
at risk of adjustment problems. To disentangle these effects, it is recommended to employ data from the forthcoming waves of the
COOL cohort-study in future studies.
Second, in this study a two-level model was tested, thereby ignoring the potential clustering of classrooms within schools
(Nezlek, 2008). In this study, however, it was found that only a very small proportion of variance (ICCs ranged from .00 to .02)
was associated with the third level of hierarchy (i.e., the school level). This small proportion of variance might be explained by the
fact that the number of classes per school was only 1.9 on average. This suggests that the hypothesized relationships between the
predictors and outcome variables in this study did not vary across schools. Despite this, the clustering of classrooms within
schools may warrant consideration in future studies, especially when the number of classes per school is generally large.
Third, the occurrence of a suppressor variable made the interpretation of some of the results difficult, and it has potentially
limited the generalizability of the findings (Maassen & Bakker, 2001). The complex set of associations between the student
teacher relationship variables suggests that, to better understand the links between studentteacher relationship quality and
academic adjustment, it may be advisable for future researchers to investigate the relationship qualities separately.
Fourth, the low reliability estimate of one of the Big Five personality subscales used in this study, measuring autonomy, might
have affected the meaningfulness of the results. There is some evidence to suggest that the inherently abstract nature of some of
the items of this scale may lead upper elementary students to misinterpret these items more frequently (e.g., Hendriks et al.,
2008). In relation to this, young students' self-reports of autonomy appear to be more reliable when their cognitive ability level is
generally high (Hendriks et al., 2008; Laidra et al., 2007). Although the FFPI has been shown to be psychometrically suited for
upper elementary students' self-perceptions of their personality (Hendriks et al., 2008) and cross-validation of the data was
employed, replication is needed to ensure the consistency of the results found in this study.
Fifth, the methods of data collection used in this study may also have influenced the findings. Although this study did not
exclusively rely on teacher-reports for characterizing the quality of studentteacher relationships, no student-reported measures of
conflict and dependency or observational data about students were available. Additionally, this study included only characteristics of
the students, whereas the quality of studentteacher relationships has also been found to be driven by characteristics of the teachers,
such as ethnicity, gender, and educational level (Kesner, 2000; Mashburn & Henry, 2004; Saft & Pianta, 2001; Spilt, Koomen et al.,
2012). Factors such as ethnic match between students and teachers have as well been found to have an impact on the extent to which
ethnicity affects studentteacher relationships (e.g., Murray, Murray, & Waas, 2008; Saft & Pianta, 2001; Thijs, Westhof, & Koomen,
2012). In any attempt to replicate the results, it is recommended that future researchers should take account of both teacher and
student characteristics, and the possible match between them, and use multiple data sources to elucidate the complexities of the
studentteacher relationship.
Lastly, it should be noted that the measure of SEN was based on a dichotomous single indicator. Although this item is
consistent with measures used in research on learning problems (e.g., Hamre & Pianta, 2005), it does not differentiate between
the various types of special needs that students have in the classroom. The use of a more comprehensive measure of students'
special educational needs is warranted to more specifically address the source of the differences between typically developing
students and students with special needs found in this study.
5. Conclusion
Despite its limitations, the current study contributes to the literature on studentteacher relationships in several ways. First,
this study has shown that students' inner resources, especially interpersonal aspects of personality, predict and may promote or
hamper the quality of relationships between teachers and upper elementary students. Students' personality traits can hardly be
altered. However, teachers' awareness of students' character may help them to shape a supportive learning environment that is
more in tune with students' social and academic needs in upper elementary school.
Second, both student perceptions of closeness and teacher perceptions of dependency in the relationship appear to be (at least
partially) associated with upper elementary students' achievement through their internalized resources (i.e., motivational
beliefs). The finding that dependency rather than conflict was the most relevant negative predictor of academic adjustment is
530
particularly important, given that previous issues of reliability and validity have prevented researchers to establish and verify its
significance (e.g., Doumen et al., 2009; Ewing & Taylor, 2009; Kesner, 2000). Future research could use the adapted and
psychometrically sound dependency scale (Koomen et al., 2007, 2012) to further investigate the ways in which conflict and
dependency uniquely and in combination affect elementary students' academic adjustment.
Acknowledgments
The collection of the data used for this research was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
(NWO-PROO).
References
Ang, R. P. (2005). Development and validation of the teacherstudent relationship inventory using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 74, 5574.
Ang, R. P., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Quek, C. L., & Yeo, L. S. (2008). Teacherstudent relationship inventory: Testing for invariance across upper elementary and
junior high samples. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 339349, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282908315132.
Arbeau, K. A., Coplan, R. J., & Weeks, M. (2010). Shyness, teacherchild relationships, and socio-emotional adjustment in grade 1. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 34, 259269, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025409350959.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 15311544.
Baker, J. A. (1999). Teacherstudent interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. The
Elementary School Journal, 100, 5770 (doi: 0013-5984/100/10001-0004$02.00).
Baker, J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacherchild relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 211229,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.02.002.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 126, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 4351, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.43.
Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 400404, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.112.3.400.
Bidjerano, T., & Yun Dai, D. (2007). The relationship between the Big-Five model of personality and self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual
Differences, 17, 6981, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.02.001.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children's interpersonal behaviors and the teacherchild relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34, 934946, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.934.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research
in Personality, 37, 319338, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00578-0.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464504,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233255, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.
CITO (2008). Omzetting Cijfer naar Standaardscore. Retrieved from. http://www.cito.nl
Colwell, M. J., & Lindsey, E. W. (2003). Teacherchild interactions and preschool children's perceptions of self and peers. Early Child Development and Care, 173,
249258, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443031000071888.
Coplan, R. J., Prakash, K., O'Neil, K., & Armer, M. (2004). Do you want to play? Distinguishing between conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early
childhood. Developmental Pyschology, 2, 244258, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.244.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 343359.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,
115, 74101.
De Pauw, S. W. S., & Mervielde, I. (2010). Temperament, personality and developmental psychopathology: A review based on the conceptual dimensions
underlying childhood traits. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41, 313329, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10578-009-0171-8.
De Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A review. European Journal of Personality, 10, 303336, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199612)10:5b303::AID-PER262>3.0.CO;2-2.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49, 182185,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012801.
Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). Person x situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 47, 580592, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.3.580.
DiLalla, L. F., Marcus, J. L., & Wright-Phillips, M. V. (2004). Longitudinal effects of preschool behavioral styles on early adolescent school performance. Journal of
School Psychology, 42, 385401, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2004.05.002.
Doumen, S., Koomen, H. M. Y., Buyse, E., Wouters, S., & Verschueren, K. (2012). Teacher and observer views on studentteacher relationships: Convergence across
kindergarten and relations with student engagement. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 6176, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.08.004.
Doumen, S., Verschueren, K., Buyse, E., De Munter, S., Max, K., & Moens, L. (2009). Further examination of the convergent and discriminant validity of the student
teacher relationship scale. Infant and Child Development, 18, 502520, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/icd.635.
Driessen, G., Mulder, L., Ledoux, G., Roeleveld, J., & Van der Veen, I. (2007). Cohortonderzoek COOL 5-18. Basisrapport basisonderwijs, eerste meting 2007/2008.
Nijmegen: ITS.
Dudgeon, P. (2003). NIESEM: A computer program for calculating noncentral interval estimates (andpower analysis) for structural equation modeling. Melbourne:
University of Melbourne, Department of Psychology.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). The impact of stageenvironment fit on young adolescents' experiences
of school and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90101.
Ewing, A. R., & Taylor, A. R. (2009). The role of child gender and ethnicity in teacherchild relationship quality and children's behavioral adjustment in preschool.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 92105, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.09.002.
Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children's competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male sex-typed
domains. Developmental Psychology, 38, 519533, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.38.4.519.
531
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,
148162, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148.
Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Analyses of Digman's childpersonality data: Derivation of Big-Five factor scores from each of six samples. Journal of Personality, 69,
709743, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.695161.
Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationship to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 2143,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431693013001002.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 820835, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.820.
Graziano, P. A., Reavis, R. D., Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2007). Do personality and learning climate predict competence for learning? An investigation in a Greek
academic setting. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 319, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.002.
Hair, E. C., & Graziano, W. G. (2003). Self-esteem, personality and achievement in high school: A prospective longitudinal study in Texas. Journal of Personality, 71,
971994, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7106004.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacherchild relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72,
625638, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00301.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure?
Child Development, 76, 949967, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-8624.2005. 00889. x.
Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & De Raad, B. (1999). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 307325, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00245-1.
Hendriks, A. A. J., Kuyper, H., Offringa, G. J., & Van der Werf, M. P. C. (2008). Assessing young adolescents' personality with the five-factor personality inventory.
Assessment, 15, 304316, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191107313761.
Herrero, J., Estevez, E., & Musitu, G. (2006). The relationships of adolescent school-related deviant behaviour and victimization with psychological distress:
Testing a general model of the mediational role of parents and teachers across groups of gender and age. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 671690, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.015.
Hornstra, L., Van der Veen, I., Peetsma, T., & Volman, M. (2013). Developments in motivation and achievement during primary school: A longitudinal study on
group-specific differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 195204, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.004.
Howes, C., Phillipsen, L. C., & Peisner Feinberg, E. (2000). The consistency of perceived teacherchild relationships between preschool and kindergarten. Journal of
School Psychology, 38, 113132, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(99)00044-8.
Hughes, J. N., Wu, J. Y., Kwok, I., Villarreal, V., & Johnson, A. Y. (2012). Indirect effects of child reports of teacherstudent relationship on achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104, 350365, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026339.
Jerome, E. M., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2009). Teacherchild relationships from kindergarten to sixth grade: Early childhood predictors of teacher-perceived
conflict and closeness. Social Development, 18, 915945, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00508.x.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a
common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693710, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.3.693.
Justice, L. M., Cottone, E. A., Mashburn, A., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2008). Relationships between teachers and preschoolers who are at risk: Contribution of
children's language skills, temperamentally based attributes, and gender. Early Education and Development, 19, 600621, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10409280802231021.
Kesner, J. E. (2000). Teacher characteristics and the quality of childteacher relationships. Journal of School Psychology, 28, 133149, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0022-4405(99)00043-6.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.)New York, NY: Guilford.
Koenig, J. L., Barry, R. A., & Kochanska, G. (2010). Rearing difficult children: Parents' personality and children's proneness to anger as predictors of future
parenting. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10, 258273, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2010.492038.
Koomen, H. M. Y., Verschueren, K., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). Leerling Leerkracht Relatie Vragenlijst. Handleiding. [Student Teacher Relationship Scale: Manual]. Houten:
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Koomen, H. M. Y., Verschueren, K., van Schooten, E., Jak, S., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Validating the studentteacher relationship scale: Testing factor structure and
measurement invariance across child gender and age in a Dutch sample. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 215234, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jsp.2011.09.001.
Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children's social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 13731400,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00101.
Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (1999). Relationship trajectories of aggressive, withdrawn, aggressive/withdrawn children during school. Child Development, 70,
910929, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00066.
Laidra, K., Pullmann, H., & Allik, J. (2007). Personality and intelligence as predictors of academic achievement: A cross-sectional study from elementary to
secondary school. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 441451, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.001.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big
Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326336, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.2.326.
Li, Y., Hughes, J. N., Hsu, H. Y., & Kwok, O. (2011). Evidence of convergent and divergent validity of child, teacher, and peer reports of teacherstudent relationship
support. Psychological Assessment, 24, 5465, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024481.
Little, E., & Hudson, A. (1998). Conduct problems and treatment across home and school: A review of the literature. Behaviour Change, 15, 213227.
Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children's relationships with adults and peers: An examination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School
Psychology, 35, 8199.
Maassen, G. H., & Bakker, A. B. (2001). Suppressor variables in path models: Definitions and interpretations. Sociological Methods & Research, 30, 241270, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124101030002004.
MacIntosh, R., & Hashim, S. (2003). Variance estimation for converting MIMIC model parameters to IRT parameters in DIF analysis. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 27, 372379, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146621603256021.
Magnuson, K. (2007). Maternal education and children's academic achievement during middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 43, 14971512, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1497.
Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2006). Social support as a buffer in the relationship between socioeconomic status and academic performance. School Psychology
Quarterly, 21, 375395.
Mantzicopoulos, P. (2005). Conflictual relationships between kindergarten children and their teachers: Associations with child and classroom context variables.
Journal of School Psychology, 43, 425442, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.09.004.
Martin, R., Watson, D., & Wan, C. K. (2000). A three-factor model of trait anger: Dimensions of affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality, 68, 869897.
Mashburn, A. J., & Henry, G. T. (2004). Assessing school readiness: Validity and bias in preschool and kindergarten teachers' ratings. Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 23, 1630, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2004.tb00165.x.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 8190, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175215, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.14676494.1992. tb00970.x.
McWilliam, R. A., Scarborough, A. A., & Kim, H. (2003). Adult interactions and child engagement. Early Education and Development, 14, 727, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1207/s15566935eed1401_2.
Mervielde, I., Buyst, V., & De Fruyt, F. (1995). The validity of the Big-five as a model for teachers' ratings of individual differences among children aged 412 years.
Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 525534, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)00175-R.
532
Mervielde, I., De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2005). Temperament, personality, and developmental psychopathology as childhood antecendents of
personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 171201, http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.19.2.171.62627.
Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An under-explored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,
710718.
Midgley, C., Meahr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., et al. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Michigan:
University of Michigan.
Murray, C., Murray, K. M., & Waas, G. A. (2008). Child and teacher reports of teacherstudent relationships: Concordance of perspectives and associations
with school adjustment in urban kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 4961, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.appdev.2007.10.006.
Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (1998-2007). Mplus user's guide (5th ed.)Los Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn.
Nezlek, J. B. (2008). An introduction to multilevel modeling for social and personality psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 842860.
Noftle, E. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the big five personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 179208, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.11.003.
Ntalianis, F. (2010). Do personality and learning climate predict competence for learning? An investigation in a Greek academic setting. Learning and Individual
Differences, 20, 664668, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.08.003.
Oort, F. J. (2009). Three-mode models for multitrait-multimethod data. Methodology, 5, 7887, http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.5.3.78.
Palermo, F., Hanish, L. D., & Martin, C. L. (2007). Preschoolers' academic readiness: What role does the teacherchild relationship play? Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 22, 407422, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.04.002.
Patrick, H., Mantzicopoulos, P., Samarapungavan, A., & French, B. F. (2008). Patterns of young children's motivation for science and teacherchild relationships.
The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 121144.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 7890, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1006/jrpe.2000.2309.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Peetsma, T. T. D., Wagenaar, E., & De Kat, E. (2001). School motivation, future time perspective and well-being of high school student in segregated and integrated
schools in the Netherlands and the role of ethnic self-description. In J. K. Koppen, I. Lunt, & C. Wulf (Eds.), Education in Europe, cultures, values, institutions in
transition, Vol. 14. (pp. 5474)Mnster/New York, NY: Waxmann.
Pianta, R. C. (1994). Patterns of relationships between children and kindergarten teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 1531, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(94)
90026-4.
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B., & Stuhlman, M. (2003). Relationships between teachers and children. In W. M. Reynolds, & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:
Educational psychology, Vol. 7. (pp. 199234)Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school
characteristics and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 225238.
Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacherchild relationships and deflections in children's classroom adjustment.
Development and Psychopathology, 7, 295312, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006519.
Pijl, S. J., Frostad, P., & Flem, A. (2008). The social position of pupils with special needs in regular schools. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 387405,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313830802184558.
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209233, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020141.
Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 537548.
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the national
longitudinal study on adolescent health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823832, http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03550100049038.
Rhodes, J. E., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. R. (2000). Agents of change: Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence adolescents' academic
adjustment. Child Development, 71, 16621671, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00256.
Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Adolescents' perceptions of middle school: Relation to longitudinal changes in academic and psychological adjustment. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 8, 123158, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0801_6.
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents' psychological and behavioral functioning in
school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408422, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.408.
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacherstudent relationships on students' school engagement and
achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81, 493529.
Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Temperament, development, and personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 207212, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-8721.2007.00505.x.
Rudasill, K. M., & Konold, T. R. (2008). Contributions of children's temperament to teachers' judgments of social competence from kindergarten through second
grade. Early Education and Development, 19, 643666, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/104092802231096.
Rudasill, K. M., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2009). Teacherchild relationship quality: The roles of child temperament and teacherchild interactions. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 24, 107120, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.12.003.
Rudasill, K. M., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Justice, L. M., & Pence, K. (2006). Temperament and language skills as predictors of teacherchild relationships quality in
preschool. Early Education and Development, 17, 271291, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1702_4.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. Deci, & R. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of
self-determination research (pp. 333). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Powelson, C. L. (1991). Autonomy and relatedness as fundamental to motivation and education. The Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 4966.
Rydell, A. M., Bohlin, G., & Thorell, L. B. (2005). Representations of attachment to parents and shyness as predictors of children's relationships with teachers and
peer competence in preschool. Attachment & Human Development, 7, 187204, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616730500134282.
Saft, E. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of their relationships with students: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children.
School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 125141, http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/scpq.16.2.125.18698.
Sameroff, A. J., & Fiese, B. H. (2000). Models of development and developmental risk. In C. H. ZeanahJr. (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (pp. 319) (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. In R. D. H. Heijmans, D. S. G. Pollock, & A. Satorra (Eds.),
Innovations in multivariate statistical analysis. A Festschrift for Heinz Neudecker (pp. 233247). London, UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243248, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11336-009-9135-y.
Seegers, G., Van Putten, C. M., & De Brabander, C. J. (2002). Goal orientation, perceived task outcome and task demands in mathematical tasks: Effects on students'
attitude in actual task settings. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 365384, http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709902320634366.
Shiner, R. L., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood and adolescence: measurement, development, and consequences. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 44, 232, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00101.
Spilt, J. L., Hughes, J. N., Wu, J. Y., & Kwok, O. M. (2012a). Dynamics of teacherstudent relationships: Stability and change across elementary school and the
influence on children's academic success. Child Development, 83, 11801195 (10.111/j.1467-8624.2012.01761.x).
Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Jak, S. (2012b). Are boys better off with male and girls with female teachers? A multilevel investigation of measurement invariance
and gender match in teacherstudent relationship quality. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 363378, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.12.002.
Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2008). Sex differences in school achievement: what are the roles of personality and achievement motivation? European Journal of
Personality, 22, 185209, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.676.
533
Stuhlman, M., & Pianta, R. (2002). Teachers' narratives about their relationships with children: Associations with behavior in classrooms. School Psychology
Review, 31, 148163.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.)Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Thijs, J., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2009). Toward a further understanding of teachers' reports of early teacherchild relationships: Examining the roles of behavior
appraisals and attributions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 186197, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.03.001.
Thijs, J., Westhof, S., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2012). Ethnic incongruence and the studentteacher relationship: The perspective of ethnic majority teachers. Journal of
Shool Psychology, 50, 257273, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.004.
van Boxtel, H., Engelen, R., & de Wijs, A. (2011). Wetenschappelijke verantwoording van de Eindtoets Basisonderwijs 2010. Arnhem: CITO.
Verschueren, K., Buyck, P., & Marcoen, A. (2001). Self-representations and socioemotional competence in young children: A 3-year longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 37, 126134, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.1.126.
Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high
school. Child Development, 8, 877895, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.x.
Wang, M. T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents' perceptions of classroom environment, school engagement, and academic achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 47, 633662, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361209.
Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the workfamily experience: Relationships of the big five to workfamily
conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108130, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00035-6.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Relations between social competence and academic achievement in early adolescence. Child Development, 62, 10661078, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01589.x.
Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,
202209.
Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73, 287301.
Wolters, C., Yu, S., & Pintrich, P. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students' motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and
Individual Differences, 8, 211238.
Woolley, M. E., Kol, K. L., & Bowen, G. L. (2009). The social context of school success for Latino middle school students: Direct and indirect influences of teachers,
family, and friends. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 4370, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431608324478.
Yuan, K. H., Marshall, L. L., & Weston, R. (2002). Cross-validation by downweighting influential cases in structural equation modelling. British Journal of
Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 55, 125143, http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000711002159734.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Chipuer, H. M., Hanisch, M., Creed, P. A., & McGregor, L. (2006). Relationships at school and stage-environment fit as resources for
adolescent engagement and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 911933, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.008.

1 s2.0 S0022440513000411 Main

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1 s2.0 S0022440513000411 Main

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of School Psychology

Studentteacher relationship quality and academic adjustment in upper

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

RMSEA (90% CI)

RDR (90% CI)

ECVI (90% CI)

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

Fig. 2. Final structural model.

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

M. Zee et al. / Journal of School Psychology 51 (2013) 517533

Вам также может понравиться