Special Education Teacher Burnout: A Synthesis of

6SHFLDO(GXFDWLRQ7HDFKHU%XUQRXW$6\QWKHVLVRI5HVHDUFK IURPWR Nelson C. Brunsting, Melissa A. Sreckovic, Kathleen Lynne Lane

Education and Treatment of Children, Volume 37, Number 4, November 2014, pp. 681-711 (Article) 3XEOLVKHGE\:HVW9LUJLQLD8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV DOI: 10.1353/etc.2014.0032

For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/etc/summary/v037/37.4.brunsting.html

Access provided by Wake Forest University (17 Oct 2014 15:03 GMT)

EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 37, No. 4, 2014

Special Education Teacher Burnout: A Synthesis of Research from 1979 to 2013 Nelson C. Brunsting Melissa A. Sreckovic University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Kathleen Lynne Lane University of Kansas Abstract Teacher burnout occurs when teachers undergoing stress for long periods of time experience emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of personal accomplishment (Maslach, 2003). Outcomes associated with burnout include teacher attrition, teacher health issues, and negative student outcomes. Special educators are at high risk for burnout as their working conditions align with many factors associated with burnout. In this review, we updated the literature on special education teacher working conditions by reviewing studies (N = 23) that (a) included a quantitative measure of burnout and (b) focused on special education teachers as participants. An analysis of the studies reviewed provided a clear base of support for the association between burnout and a range of variables from the individual, classroom, school, and district levels. Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological Model supplied the organizational framework for the range of variables. Teacher experience, student disability, role conflict, role ambiguity, and administrative support were particularly salient factors in special education teacher burnout. Important gaps in the research are discussed, future directions for researchers are outlined, and implications for teachers and other practitioners are provided. Keywords: teacher burnout, special education, emotional disturbance, role conflict, role ambiguity, Maslach Burnout Inventory

D

ue to a national teacher shortage crisis in the 1990s and early 2000s, much of the research on special education teacher (SET) working conditions in the last two decades has focused on teacher supply and attrition (Boe & Cook, 2006; Ingersoll, 2003; Miller, Brownell, & Smith, 1999). However, recent research reports attrition of SETs as lower than attrition in other fields of employment (e.g., healthcare; Boe, Cook, & Sunderland, 2008). In addition, a substantial portion of the purported SET shortage appears to have been due to a Address correspondence to Nelson C. Brunsting, 201C Peabody Hall, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; email: [email protected]

Pages 681–712

682

Brunsting et al.

methodological issue wherein teachers who transferred within their district were counted as having left the profession (Boe, et al, 2008; Edgar & Pair, 2005). These findings, coupled with the increased access to entry into teaching special education through fast-tracked alternative-route teacher preparation programs permitted by No Child Left Behind (2001), have led researchers to refocus their efforts from increasing SET supply to developing teacher capacity and commitment (Sindelar, Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010). While teacher supply is still an important responsibility, they argue the focal question is no longer how do we recruit more teachers? but rather how can we best train and support our teachers? One promising approach for building SET capacity and supporting teacher commitment is to alleviate teacher burnout. At one point or another almost all teachers become frustrated with their job or harbor negative feelings toward the profession. Yet, some teachers experience these emotions more acutely or with greater frequency (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Teachers are described as experiencing burnout when the stress they encounter overcomes their resources and abilities to cope adequately, leading them to feel exhausted, cynical, or unaccomplished in their work (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001). Although stress and dissatisfaction correlate highly with teacher burnout (Martin, Sass, & Schmitt, 2012), the current review follows Maslach (2003) in differentiating stress and dissatisfaction from burnout, which is composed of three components: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization/ cynicism, and (lack of) personal accomplishment. This delineation between stress and burnout is both conceptually necessary and practically important, as individuals respond differently to stress: some thrive, others are indifferent to stress, and others experience burnout over time (Farber, 2000). Similarly, job satisfaction and burnout are separate constructs, as one can be dissatisfied with multiple aspects of one’s job (e.g., salary, hours, support from colleagues) without experiencing emotional exhaustion, cynicism, or lack of personal accomplishment (Farber, 2000). The special education literature has traditionally focused on stress or burnout in terms of attrition (Billingsley, 2004; Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff, & Harniss, 2001). Yet, attrition may be the least worrisome correlate of burnout. Results of recent studies found teacher burnout to impact a range of variables, including teacher health and student outcomes. More specifically, burnout is associated with physical symptoms, such as chronic fatigue and colds, recurrent flu, and musculoskeletal pain (Armon, Melamed, Shirom, & Shapira, 2010; Cordes & Dougherty, 1993). Further, depression is highly related to burnout, as teachers with burnout experience

SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT

683

eight out of nine symptoms of depression (Bianchi, Boffy, Hingray, Truchot, & Laurent, 2013). Unfortunately, students are not spared the negative influence of teacher burnout. Students of disengaged or exhausted teachers are frequently disruptive, struggle socially and emotionally, and attain their Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals less frequently—all of which impact academic development (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Ruble & McGrew, 2013). Thus, teacher burnout presents a problem for students, their families, and school systems as they attempt to respond to students’ academic, behavioral, and social struggles. In short, the effect of teacher burnout is far-reaching, impacting more than solely the teacher experiencing its effects. Teacher Burnout in Special Education There is a range of factors associated with the onset of teacher burnout, including: lack of administrative support (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), paperwork (Billingsley, 2004), challenging student behaviors (Hastings & Brown, 2002), role overload (i.e., the experience of too many unique demands on one’s time and resources; Adera & Bullock, 2010), and expectation-reality mismatch, which occurs when the pre-service expectation of teaching does not align with the reality of what the teacher experiences in the classroom (Zabel, Boomer, & King, 1984). Unfortunately, these are all factors that many SETs face daily, putting them at increased risk of burnout. Many SETs do not feel they have the support of their principals and may lack the resources needed to manage or alleviate their overload of responsibilities (Kaff, 2004). In addition, SETs often use their time performing noninstructional tasks (e.g., IEP meetings, paperwork; Vannest & Hagan-Burke, 2010). Although pre-service special educators’ expectations of the classroom are relatively accurate, they overestimate the amount of support SETs receive from administrators and general educators (Wasburn-Moses, 2009). Because the factors associated with burnout align closely with the realities of their daily work experiences, it is critical to provide SETs with ways to alleviate burnout before it leads to negative outcomes. Challenging Student Behaviors and SET Burnout Wisniewski and Gargiulo (1997) conducted a comprehensive review of studies on stress and burnout for practitioners in special education from 1969 to 1996. Results linked all SETs with high risk for burnout; however, Wisniewski and Gargiulo found that SETs working with students with emotional disturbance (ED) were experiencing burnout at “crisis proportions.” Indeed, a range of studies

684

Brunsting et al.

documented significantly higher burnout for SETs teaching students with ED than those working with students with other disabilities (e.g., Banks & Necco, 1990; Nichols & Sosnowsky, 2002). The impact of the challenging behavior of students with ED is corroborated by the general education literature as challenging student behavior correlated with burnout for general education teachers (Hastings & Brown, 2002). Further, classroom management mediated the behavior-burnout relationship for general educators (Tsouloupas, Carson, Matthews, Grawitch, & Barber, 2010). As Wisniewski and Gargiulo were the last to comprehensively review SET burnout, there is a need for an updated review of teacher burnout, specifically one focused exclusively on SETs to identify gaps in the research, make recommendations for practitioners, and improve teacher health, teacher working conditions, and student outcomes. Although all SETs are at risk for burnout, those who teach students with ED appear to be especially at risk. Therefore we conducted the current review with particular attention to the impact of challenging student behavior and SETs working with students with ED. Purpose As the understanding of the importance of burnout has grown, the need for a review focused on burnout for SETs has increased. We conducted the current review to update the knowledge base on burnout by reviewing all empirical studies examining one or more of the components of burnout delineated by Maslach (i.e., emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of personal accomplishment) for SETs in the United States (US). To structure the review we used Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological Model as an organizational framework to order the variables associated with teacher burnout from proximal (e.g., teacher characteristics) to distal (e.g., district policy)—a point we will explain in more detail in the method section. The timing of the review is germane as the field is shifting focus from teacher supply to teacher quality and working conditions, and the last review focused on SET burnout was published in 2002. As such, we conducted this review to synthesize research on SET burnout, identify gaps in the literature on SET burnout for future research, and offer recommendations for practitioners. Method To identify studies measuring SET burnout, we conducted a systematic search using a multiple-gated process, which included electronic, hand, and ancestral searches. To determine eligible articles to be included in the review, a set of inclusion criteria was identified by all authors. During the article selection process, potential articles were coded


685

independently by the first and second authors to determine inclusion eligibility. A binary coding scheme of met/not met was used. To calculate the inter-rater agreement the number of total agreements was multiplied by 100 and divided by number of agreements plus disagreements. Electronic Search First, we completed an electronic search of the following databases: Academic Search Complete, Education Full Text, ERIC, and PsycINFO. All possible combinations, derivations, and previous iterations (e.g., mental retardation and intellectual disability [ID]) of the following search terms were used: (Field 1) emotional exhaustion, cynicism, depersonalization, personal accomplishment, or burnout; (Field 2) special education, exceptionality, disability, autism, emotional and/or behavioral disorder, emotional disturbance, other health impaired, or oppositional defiant disorder; and (Field 3) teacher or educator. The search yielded 147 articles (excluding duplicates). All titles and abstracts were read independently by the first and second authors to determine if the article met inclusion criteria (described below). Inter-rater reliability was 90%. Fifty-nine articles were retained to be read in entirety to: (a) verify the article met inclusion criteria; (b) supplement information in the abstract to determine whether the article met inclusion criteria; or (c) resolve situations when the authors disagreed (n = 15). The first and second authors read all 59 articles in full to determine inclusion eligibility and coded them using the met/not met system. Inter-rater agreement was 95%; authors used a consensus model to reach final agreement. Second, the first and second authors conducted hand searches of any journal publishing more than one of the included articles by reviewing the titles and authors of each article published between 1979 and 2013 (i.e., Exceptional Children, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, and Teacher Education and Special Education). Inter-rater agreement was 100% for the hand searches, with no additional articles identified for inclusion. Finally, the reference lists of all included articles as well as the reference list of other reviews on SET burnout (e.g., Wisniewski & Gargiulo, 1997) were searched for additional articles. One additional article (Zabel & Zabel, 2002) was located through the ancestral search. Twenty-three articles met the inclusion criteria described below. Application of Inclusion Criteria Articles selected for inclusion in this review needed to meet all of the following criteria: (a) contain a quantitative measure of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization/cynicism, or lack of personal accomplishment, (b) include SETs working at a public or private school setting, (c) differentiate the outcomes for SETs if general education

686

Brunsting et al.

teachers also participated in the study, (d) present data and explain the analyses in a clear and interpretable manner, and (e) occur in the US and be published in a peer-reviewed journal between 1979 and 2013. Quantitative measure of burnout. As the review was organized around Maslach’s conceptualization of burnout, all included studies needed to measure at least one of the three components of burnout. Of the 59 initially read, one study with variables similar to, yet different from, the components of burnout was excluded (Cancio, Albrecht, & Johns, 2013). Special education teacher participants. Included studies had participants who were SETs working in a public or private school setting. We did not differentiate between certified and noncertified SETs in terms of inclusion criteria (a limitation later discussed). Differentiated outcomes for special education teachers. If a sample had fewer than 50% SETs, then the outcomes for each variable needed to be differentiated for SETs. This was done in order to avoid misappropriation of the results of a study to SETs if they represented a small portion of the sample. Of the 59 initially read in full, one study with fewer than 50% SETs in the sample used special education status as a predictor variable for burnout but did not differentiate burnout for SETs and therefore was not included (Jones & Youngs, 2012). Present the data and analyses in a clear and interpretable manner. Included articles featured a defined data analytic plan. The Zabel and Zabel (1982) study was excluded because the authors were unable to determine the analysis procedures used to interpret the data. Occur in the United States between 1979 and 2013. The first version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory was published in 1979 and represents the starting date for the literature search (Maslach & Jackson, 1979). Results were restricted to the US as other countries operationalize special education differently and we wanted to focus on what was understood for SETs in the US. Analysis of Included Articles The current review draws its organizational framework from Brownell and Smith (1993), who used Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological Model to organize variables associated with teachers’ career decisions. Bronfenbrenner posited the importance of processes and contexts on an individual’s development, using the Ecological Model to illustrate the proximal and distal systems of contexts impacting the individual. The Ecological Model is well suited for analyzing SET burnout, because burnout develops over time and in multiple settings (e.g., classroom, school). In contrast to Brownell and Smith, we do not attempt to place each variable associated with burnout into a certain


687

system within the model (e.g., microsystem). The included studies primarily examined variables associated with the SET or the people and settings with which the SET has direct interaction. Therefore, the organizational framework in this study focuses on the proximity of certain variables to the SET experiencing burnout. Studies are synthesized by the variables associated with burnout, beginning with the most proximal to the most distal: individual level variables (e.g., age, gender), classroom level variables (e.g., student disability, challenging behaviors), school level variables (e.g., administrative support, workload), and state and district level variables (e.g., pre-service training, salary). Next, studies with SET burnout as an independent variable are reviewed and studies investigating interventions for SET burnout are described. Finally, the overall impact of burnout on SETs is discussed, implications for practitioners are provided, and limitations and future directions are considered. Results A total of 23 studies met inclusion criteria, which yields a publishing rate from 1979 to 2013 of 0.66 studies per year. The included studies are described in table 1 and are denoted in the reference list with an asterisk. Individual Level Variables Associated with Burnout Teacher age and gender. Five studies reported teacher age as negatively correlated with burnout, meaning older teachers experienced less emotional exhaustion and depersonalization while having greater personal accomplishment (Banks & Necco, 1990; Carlson & Thompson, 1995; Crane & Iwanicki, 1986; Weber & Toffler, 1989, Zabel & Zabel, 1983). In a model including SETs’ classroom and school experiences, age did not make a significant contribution to burnout, suggesting the impact of age on burnout may be mediated and moderated by other variables (Embich, 2001). Carlson and Thompson (1995) reported gender made a significant contribution to depersonalization, with males experiencing higher rates of depersonalization. Similarly, Crane and Iwanicki (1986) found being male positively correlated with burnout. Teaching experience and level of education. Teaching experience as measured in total number of years teaching either special education or general education was negatively correlated with burnout (Coman et al., 2013; Crane & Iwanicki, 1986). Coman and colleagues also found years teaching special education correlated negatively with burnout. Interestingly, years of general education teaching experience was inversely correlated with burnout in one study (Zabel & Zabel, 1983). Zabel and Zabel (2001) partially replicated this finding

Correlational

Correlational and CrossSectional

Correlational

Descriptive

McIntyre, 1983

Zabel, & Zabel, 1983

McIntyre, 1984

Zabel, Dettmer, et al., 1984

601 SETs in Kansas

684 SETs in SC settings in the Northeast

601 SETs in Kansas

684 SETs in SC settings in the Northeast

997 SETs in Ohio 463 teaching ID 534 GE teachers

Participants

Delivery Model/Setting

Locus of Control

Teacher Age Teaching Experience Training

Class Size

SE Category Teaching GE Teaching ID

Variables of Interest

SETs of students with hearing impairments, teaching in SC ing high school students reported the highest EE. High school SETs and those teaching students with ED reported the highest DP.

less teachers felt in control of their personal outcomes, the more burnout teachers experienced.

bachelor’s degree.

Previous regular education teaching experience was

burnout was found.

lower DP and higher PA than GE teachers and those teaching mild ID.

Results

Note: ASD = autism spectrum disorder; AWC = adult word count (i.e., the number of adult words children are exposed to in a classroom setting); BD = Behavioral Disorder; DD = developmental delays; DP = depersonalization; ED = Emotional Disturbance; EE = emotional exhaustion; GE = general education; ID = Intellectual Disability; IEP = individualized education plan; PA = personal accomplishment; SC = self-contained classroom, SE = special education; SET = special education teacher; TD = typically developing; TEACCH = Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication Handicapped Children.

Cross-Sectional

Research Design

Beck & Gargiulo, 1983

Study

Table 1 Studies meeting inclusion criteria

688 Brunsting et al.

Correlational and Cross-Sectional

Cross-sectional

Fimian & Blanton, 1986

Cherniss, 1988

students with ID 23 SETs

415 Alumnae or students at Appalachian State University 379 SE trainees 36 SETs

443 SETs in Connecticut, teaching students with ED, ID, and LD

Participants

Principal Function Principal Interaction Content Frequency Mode

Academic and Organizational Variables Role Ambiguity

Teacher Demographics

Role Ambiguity

Variables of Interest -

engaged in more personal and work-related dialogue and less on administrative dialogue; and provided more

Principal at the school with lower burnout interacted

Teacher Exam, Role Ambiguity, and Total Stress Frequen-

First year teachers did not report higher levels of burnout

age, gender, training, and experience.

Results


Correlational

Research Design

Crane & Iwanicki, 1986

Study



689

Longitudinal

Frank & McKenzie, 1993

41 SETs (38 F, 3 M) who taught for 5 years upon graduating

181 SETs in two school districts: one in the Great Lakes and one in the Southeast

68 SETs (51 F, 17 M) of students with ID, randomly selected from a national organization for ID

Participants

Age of Students Delivery Model/Setting Disabilities of Students

Age Experience SE Category Training

Classroom Demographics Financial Support Support from Colleagues Support from Parents


teaching students above age 12 and students with BD experienced the most EE.

teachers reported less burnout than those with a degree.

Age was inversely correlated with burnout. Teachers in resource rooms or of students with BD had higher burnout

Student age predicted an increase in teacher EE. Supervisory Support was associated with a decrease in EE. Education and Collegial Support predicted decreases in DP. Financial Support and Teacher age predicted increases in PA.

Results


Correlational

Correlational

Research Design

Banks & Necco, 1990

1989

Study



490 SETs in Hawaii

Correlational

Intervention Cross-over design

Correlational

Correlational and Cross-Sectional

Carlson &

Cooley & Yova-

Embich, 2001

Zabel & Zabel, 2001

Delivery Model/Setting Teacher Demographics

Co-Teaching Perceived Workload Principal Support Role Ambiguity

Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Peer Collaboration Stress Management

Needs Satisfaction SET Survey


GE teaching experience was correlated with PA. SE teachers with a Master’s Degree reported higher PA than those who only had a Bachelor’s.

and Principal Support predicted burnout.

SETs co-teaching one period had higher EE and DP than teachers co-teaching more than one period. Team teach-

increases in EE, PA, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Intervention effect size for EE was large (h2 = 0.15), as was follow-up (h2 = 0.20).

Needs satisfaction, lack of resources, busywork, class composition, and teacher age predicted variance in teacher burnout. EE was the strongest predictor of intention to leave teaching.

Results


301 SETs in Kansas (95% Caucasian, 86% F)

300 SETs serving students with LD in a mid-Atlantic school district

other roles)

92 special education service providers (51% SETs,

Participants

Research Design

Study



691

Correlational

Correlational

Correlational

Correlational

Zabel & Zabel, 2002

Jennett et al., 2003

Ruble et al., 2011

Biglan et al., 2013

DD (30 teachers and 12 consultants)

35 SETs of children with ASD

64 SETs working with students with ASD

301 SETs in Kansas

77 SETs in SC classrooms in Michigan

Participants

Experiential Avoidance Mindful Awareness Valued Living

Admin. Support Mastery Experience

Autism Philosophy Level of Commitment

Support from Admin, Colleagues, and Parents

Caseload Disabilities Served % of Students with ED


Mindful Awareness and Valued Living inversely correlated with burnout. Experiential Avoidance correlated with burnout.

inversely correlated with burnout.

Teacher commitment to TEACCH philosophy was inversely correlated with both EE and PA. Commitment to a philosophy predicted an increase in PA.

Support from Administration, Colleagues, and Parents were all inversely correlated with burnout.

burnout.

Results


Correlational

Research Design

Nichols & Sosnowsky, 2002

Study



Correlational

Correlational (Intervention does not target burnout)

Irvin et al., 2013

Ruble & McGrew, 2013

79 SETs responsible for the IEPs of students with ASD in grades 3-8

21 classroom teachers of students with ASD in preschools in the Southeast

53 preschool teachers of students with ASD from North Carolina, Colorado, Florida, and Minnesota

Participants

IEP Goal Attainment IEP Quality Intervention Adherence Intervention Satisfaction Coaching Satisfaction Teacher Engagement

Adult Word Count Child Vocalizations Conversational Turns

Commitment to model Students in class # with ASD # TD Teacher Experience


Teacher EE was inversely correlated with IEP Goal Attainment, Administrative Support, IEP Quality, and Teacher Intervention Adherence. Teacher DP was inversely correlated with Intervention Satisfaction and Coaching Satisfaction. Teacher EE predicted a decrease in IEP Goal Attainment.

to students with ASD present, and correlated negatively

implemented. Teacher Experience, Experience Teaching Students with ASD, and Number of TD Students in Class correlated negatively with burnout. Number of Students with ASD correlated with burnout.

Results


Correlational

Research Design

Coman et al., 2013

Study



693

694

Brunsting et al.

almost two decades later, as they reported years teaching general education students was correlated with personal accomplishment for SETs. With regard to the relative contributions of teacher age and experience to burnout, Carlson and Thompson (1995) found even though teacher age accounted for a significant amount of variance of emotional exhaustion, teacher experience did not make a significant unique contribution to the model. The evidence supporting the relationship between level of education of SETs and burnout is relatively strong, with higher levels of education associated with lower emotional exhaustion (Embich, 2001), depersonalization (Weber & Toffler, 1989; Zabel & Zabel, 1983), and higher personal accomplishment (Zabel & Zabel, 1983; 2001). Interestingly, SETs with alternative licensure experienced less burnout than those with either a bachelor’s or master’s degree in one study (Banks & Necco, 1990). Teacher traits and self-perceptions. Biglan, Layton, Jones, Hankins, and Rusby (2013) found three variables to be associated with SET burnout: experiential avoidance, mindful awareness, and valued living. Experiential avoidance, or an individual’s desire to avoid disagreeable situations, thoughts, or feelings, correlated positively with burnout. However, mindful awareness (the ability to stay present and aware of surroundings) and valued living (the perception of living in accord with one’s surroundings) correlated negatively with burnout. Ruble, Usher, and McGrew (2011) examined self-efficacy of SETs for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), reporting self-efficacy of classroom management to be inversely correlated with burnout. However, no relationship was found between self-efficacy for obtaining colleagues’ or principals’ support and burnout. Lastly, McIntyre (1984) found SET burnout correlated with locus of control, which meant teachers with higher burnout perceived their outcomes to be controlled by others. This is not surprising, as locus of control and teacher efficacy are associated constructs (TschannenMoran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Classroom Level Variables Associated with Burnout Beyond the characteristics and perceptions of individual SETs, the next most proximal setting is the place they spend the majority of their working hours: the classroom (Vannest & Hagan-Burke, 2010). Studies meeting inclusion criteria reported evidence supporting the relationship between burnout and the following classroom-level factors: student age, student special education category, student special education composition, and the service model/setting. Student age. The association between student age and SET burnout was consistent across three studies. In a five-year longitudinal


695

sample of SETs, teachers of students aged 13–19 had higher mean burnout scores than teachers of other age groups (Frank & McKenzie, 1993). Carlson and Thompson (1995) reported teachers of older students experienced higher levels of depersonalization and lower levels of personal accomplishment, and Weber and Toffler (1989) found student age predicted increases in emotional exhaustion. Student special education category. Multiple studies investigated the relation between teacher burnout and the special education category of the students they taught. Two descriptive studies found teachers of students with ED to have the highest or second highest mean levels of burnout (Frank & McKenzie, 1993; Zabel, Dettmer, & Zabel, 1984). Further, in another study the proportion of students with ED in a classroom correlated with SET burnout in self-contained classrooms serving students with varying special education needs (Nichols & Sosnowsky, 2002). In yet another study, Banks and Necco (1990) found SETs of students with ED experienced higher burnout than those of students with ID. With regard to teaching students with ID, teachers of students with moderate ID experienced lower burnout than general education teachers and teachers of students with mild ID (Beck & Gargiulo, 1983). Classroom composition. Carlson and Thompson (1995) reported an aggregated variable comprised of student age range, class size, and special education categories served, accounted for a significant increase in SET emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Coman et al. (2013) provided further detail regarding these multiple factors. In their sample of 53 SETs of preschool students with ASD, the number of students with ASD in a teacher’s class correlated with burnout, and the number of typically developing students was inversely correlated with burnout. In addition, Irvin, Hume, Boyd, McBee, and Odom (2013) reported the ratio of adults in a classroom to students with ASD correlated with an increase in burnout, meaning the more adults present in a classroom, the higher the level of teacher burnout. Service model and setting. The research findings on the relationship between burnout and service model are in slight disagreement. SETs in self-contained settings experienced higher mean levels of burnout than those in other settings, yet this difference was not tested for significance (Zabel, Dettmer, et al., 1984). Crane and Iwanicki (1986) reported teaching in a self-contained setting was correlated with burnout. In contrast, Banks and Necco (1990) found teaching in resource rooms to correlate significantly with burnout. Findings suggested the impact of service model on burnout may be moderated by other factors.

696

Brunsting et al.

School Level Factors Associated with Burnout Work hindrances. Teacher report of busywork and teacher report of lack of resources were associated with an increase in emotional exhaustion (Carlson & Thompson, 1995). Similarly, teacher report of overall workload, which included paperwork, parent conferences, and extracurricular responsibilities, predicted an increase in burnout for SETs (Embich, 2001). Emotional experiences in school. The degree to which five aspects of teacher needs (security, social, esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization) were met in their work environment was a significant predictor of burnout (Carlson & Thompson, 1995). Also, the frequency of stress experienced by teachers accounted for 14% of the variance in the intensity of burnout for first-year SETs (Fimian & Blanton, 1986). Role ambiguity and role conflict. Role ambiguity is used to describe situations wherein the job description and expectations for the role are not made clear. When the work responsibilities and tasks expected of an individual are conflicting or are impossible to complete in a reasonable time and manner, an individual is described as experiencing role conflict. The included studies provided strong support for the relationship between these two variables and burnout. Both role conflict and role ambiguity contributed significantly to burnout for SETs, controlling for teacher age, gender, experience, and training (Crane & Iwanicki, 1986). Embich (2001) replicated the Crane and Iwanicki study and found similar results for SETs in both self-contained settings and in team-teaching settings. Role ambiguity, in particular, was found to account for 31% of the variance in first-year SETs’ burnout (Fimian & Blanton, 1986). Support from coworkers and parents. In an observational cross-sectional study, Cherniss (1988) explored the interaction of principals and teachers at two schools for students with ID. The mean level of SET burnout at one school was low, while the mean level at the other school was moderate. The principal with low burnout interacted more with staff and teachers, engaged in more personal dialogue, provided more support, and observed others doing their jobs significantly less than the principal at the school with moderate burnout. The importance of administrative support was corroborated by four studies, each of which found relations between principal support and burnout in the expected direction (Embich, 2001; Ruble & McGrew, 2013; Weber & Toffler, 1989; Zabel & Zabel, 2002). The support SETs received from fellow teachers was inversely correlated with burnout (Weber & Toffler, 1989; Zabel & Zabel, 2002). While students’ parents do not interact as often with teachers, support SETs perceived from their students’ parents was also associated with less burnout (Zabel & Zabel, 2002).


697

State or District Level Factors Associated with Burnout Weber and Toffler (1989) reported that financial support correlated with personal accomplishment in a national sample of teachers of students with ID. This was the only included study to investigate factors associated with burnout in a context with which the individual had no direct person-to-person interaction. Burnout and Student Outcomes Two studies, both published in 2013, investigated the relationship between burnout and student outcomes (Irvin et al., 2013; Ruble & McGrew, 2013). Unlike the previously reviewed studies that investigated burnout as a dependent variable, these two studies included burnout as the independent variable. Irvin et al. (2013) reported SET burnout to be inversely correlated with the number of adult words children with ASD were exposed to in that teacher’s classroom setting. Also investigating outcomes for students with ASD, Ruble and McGrew (2013) found inverse correlations between teacher emotional exhaustion and student IEP goal attainment and IEP quality. Further, they found emotional exhaustion accounted for 9.3% of the variance in IEP goal attainment. Burnout may also have an indirect effect on student outcomes, as Ruble and McGrew also found an association between teacher emotional exhaustion and adherence to the intervention targeting student IEP goal attainment. Intervention for Burnout Although only one included study tested an intervention targeting burnout, the results were promising. Cooley and Yovanoff (1996) designed an intervention to impact two of the main correlates of burnout: teacher stress and collegial support. The intervention lasted ten weeks, with weekly sessions lasting two hours apiece. Five weeks were dedicated to coping with stress and focused on the following three skills: (a) problem identification and solution development, (b) physiological coping (e.g., muscle relaxation), and (c) cognitive coping (e.g., recognition and redirection of self-negativity). The second five weeks teachers paired together to practice solving school-related problems by a four-step process: (a) clarifying the problem, (b) summarizing the problem, (c) designing an intervention, and (d) evaluating the intervention outcome. Participants in the intervention experienced significant positive differences in emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment, as well as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In contrast, teachers in the control group experienced no differences. The effect size of the intervention for emotional exhaustion was considerable (h2 = 0.15) as was follow-up (h2 = 0.20),

698

Brunsting et al.

which occurred two, five, or seven months post-intervention, depending on cohort. In a separate study, Jennett, Harris, and Mesibov (2003) found teachers’ commitment to an intervention philosophy was inversely correlated with both emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment. Commitment also explained 17.8% of the variance in personal accomplishment, which suggests teachers who commit to an intervention may have greater success alleviating their burnout. Discussion The purpose of this review was to update the literature on SET burnout as conceptualized by Maslach in order to solidify the research base for future inquiry. Using Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological Model as an organizational framework, we investigated a range of variables associated with teacher burnout. It is critical for SETs to receive better support to alleviate burnout due to the health risks and negative student outcomes associated with teacher burnout. To this end, we first discuss the impact of variables within certain settings on SET burnout while also indicating gaps for further research. Second, we note implications for teachers and practitioners and provide recommendations for mitigating burnout. Lastly, we discuss limitations of the study as well as the most pressing future directions for research. Teacher Characteristics and Perceptions Biglan et al.’s (2013) finding of the relation between burnout and teacher mindful awareness, valued living, and experiential avoidance provides a useful starting point for further research into other emotions, traits, and perceptions that may interact with burnout for SETs. Because burnout occurs in the interaction between prolonged stress and individuals’ traits and coping mechanisms (Maslach et al., 2001), research in special educator burnout may find certain traits, emotions, or perceptions as important targets or aspects for interventions. A recent review analyzed the literature on general educator emotionality and burnout and suggested emotional regulation as a fruitful target for interventions (Chang, 2009). Given the results of the Cooley and Yovanoff (1996) intervention concerning teacher task-focused coping and emotional regulation, we suggest further research into teacher emotional regulation with the goal of improving the one current intervention targeting SET burnout. Future treatment-outcome studies should be conducted to explore the generalizability of these outcomes to inform pre-service teacher preparation as well as professional development activities for in-service teachers. These findings will also be important to inform training new and supporting existing administrators who serve as instructional leaders at the school-site level.


699

Principals and assistant principals may benefit from this information as it relates to supporting novice and experienced teachers. Beyond stress management and emotional regulation, another factor associated with a decrease in burnout is teacher efficacy for dealing with students’ behavioral challenges (O’Neill & Stephenson, 2011; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). This is unsurprising, as challenging behavior has been documented to lead to teacher burnout (Hastings & Brown, 2002), and the percentage of students with ED—who by definition exhibit challenging behaviors—in a teacher’s class was associated with higher intensity of burnout (Nichols & Sosnowsky, 2002). However, Pullis (1992) documented that SETs working with students with ED did not consider their students’ challenging behavior as a primary source of their stress. According to Ruble et al. (2011) self-efficacy for classroom management correlated with burnout for SETs working with students with ASD, but self-efficacy for obtaining support from their administration or colleagues did not. Due to differences in these findings, it is imperative additional inquiry be conducted to understand burnout relative of other variables such as student-level variables (e.g., type of disability) and environmental variables (e.g., perceived administrative support, focus on inclusive programing). Classroom Factors Two findings regarding classroom factors deserve further attention. First, multiple studies documented a relationship between student age and teacher burnout, but none explored the process or mechanisms by which student age may account for increases in burnout. Because it is necessary for students of all ages to receive access to strong academic support from their teacher, it is particularly important for secondary schools to be aware of the risk for burnout and to support their SETs. It is also important for researchers to illuminate the processes by which student age is related to an increase in burnout, in order to provide SETs with information and interventions targeting their unique needs. The second noteworthy finding was the relationship between the adult-to-student with ASD ratio and burnout, with higher total burnout associated with a higher adult-to-student with ASD ratio (Irvin et al., 2013). One might expect an increased number of adults to help decrease demands on the teacher and provide emotional support, but it is possible the ratio of adults-to-students with ASD is higher due to students with greater needs or greater behavioral issues. However, Embich (2001) found the highest mean level of burnout to be among teachers who co-taught one period a day, which suggests the increase in burnout may stem from issues between SETs and other adults in

700

Brunsting et al.

the classroom. The effect of team teachers and paraprofessionals on SET burnout constitutes an important area for future research, as SETs in a recent study supervised 3.32 paraprofessionals on average (Giangreco, Suter, & Hurley, 2013). School Factors Of all the factors associated with burnout, the three most supported by the included studies were school level factors: role ambiguity, role conflict, and administrative support. Unfortunately, we were unable to find intervention studies for role ambiguity or role conflict in the special education or general education literature, though Gersten et al. (2001) did document the relationship between job design and teacher intent to leave the profession. As noted by Cancio et al. (2013), educational research is needed to (a) further untangle interlocking processes of administrative support, role issues, and job design, and (b) design an intervention targeting role conflict and role ambiguity to decrease SET burnout. Such research would help provide principals and other school administrators with the most critical information for helping alleviate SET burnout. In addition, mentorship by experienced teachers is another possible avenue to alleviate burnout and has been heavily researched with regard to attrition but not examined with SET burnout (Billingsley, 2004; Wasburn, Wasburn-Moses, & Davis, 2012). Student Outcomes and Burnout Early research primarily investigated variables suspected to cause teacher burnout; only recently have studies conceptualized SET burnout as a predictor of student outcomes. Although the remediation of burnout is paramount, a better understanding of which student outcomes are associated with burnout may increase (a) teacher awareness of the importance of self-care, (b) press on administrators to prioritize alleviating SET burnout, and (c) willingness of researchers and funding agencies to provide more resources and interventions for burnout. With regard to teacher self-care, some teachers perceive burnout as a by-product to be endured in the process of putting their students first and can be unwilling to put their own emotional needs before those of their students (Farber, 2000). If these teachers come to understand the negative impact their emotional exhaustion has on their students’ social, emotional, and academic outcomes, they may increase their effort to replenish their own emotional resources in order to better serve their students. While it is alarming that burnout is related to poor student outcomes, this factor may provide the key to garnering greater support


701

from the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) for research and intervention due to the IES’s focus on student outcomes. Currently, the only documented student outcomes correlating with SET burnout are IEP goal attainment, IEP quality, and rate of adult words to which students with ASD were exposed. Does SET burnout impact student GPA, academic engagement, self-determined behaviors, work completion, or reading comprehension? There is a range of critical student outcomes future research needs to investigate and disseminate to current practitioners. Many teachers experiencing emotional exhaustion report they exhaust themselves for the better of their students and plan to continue to do so (Farber, 2000). The more the list of negative student outcomes associated with SET burnout grows, the more likely emotionally exhausted teachers may be to increase their self-care. Intervention Context Cooley and Yovanoff’s (1996) implementation of an intervention targeting teacher stress response and peer collaboration decreased SET burnout. Their success provides a solid foundation for future intervention research into interventions targeting other correlates of burnout, such as role conflict and ambiguity, principal support, and self-efficacy for classroom management. There is great need for this research as some teachers experiencing burnout may manage stressful situations well but feel unable to reconcile daily conflicting job demands. Equally as important as designing and testing interventions targeting burnout is the role burnout plays in teacher commitment and adherence to interventions. SETs with higher levels of emotional exhaustion were less likely to adhere to an intervention targeting students’ IEP quality, and teachers experiencing higher levels of depersonalization were dissatisfied with the intervention as well as the coaching they received during the treatment phase of the intervention (Ruble & McGrew, 2013). Although this study is the only instance in the special education literature, the results are corroborated by the finding that higher levels of depersonalization among general education teachers was inversely correlated with teacher self-report of their intervention treatment integrity (Oakes, Lane, Jenkins, & Booker, 2013). If similar results continue to be replicated, teacher burnout will need to be considered in the conceptualization and design of any intervention with teachers as participants or relevant stakeholders. Implications for Practitioners Based on the reviewed studies, we recommend SETs: (a) be aware of the risks of burnout to their career, their health, and to their

702

Brunsting et al.

students; (b) continue developing their classroom management skills and confidence in their use; (c) identify role conflict and ambiguity and problem-solve to alleviate issues; (d) seek support from colleagues and administrators; and (e) engage in self-care techniques such as stress management. Awareness of burnout. There is no quantitative evidence to support the adage knowing is half the battle when it comes to burnout. However, SET awareness of the risks of burnout to themselves and other practitioners working in special education, especially those working with students with ED or ASD, is an important prerequisite to mitigating the impact of burnout. We encourage teachers who feel overwhelmed trying to meet the often vast needs of their students to prioritize self-care with an understanding that their health, their longevity in teaching, and the academic and behavioral outcomes of their students are all impacted by burnout. Challenging behaviors. Due to the impact of challenging student behaviors on SET burnout, we urge both pre-service and in-service teachers to continue to increase their confidence in and knowledge about classroom management techniques. Indeed, self-efficacy for classroom management mediated the relationship between teacher burnout and challenging student behaviors (Tsouloupas et al., 2010)— an important finding considering SETs of students with ED have the highest rate of burnout among SETs (Banks & Necco, 1990; Nichols & Sosnowsky, 2002). Because the majority of current teacher preparation programs do not include courses on classroom management (Oliver & Reschly, 2010), professional development offerings may be the only way for some in-service teachers to become proficient in researchbased classroom and behavioral management techniques such as functional assessment-based interventions (FABIs). FABI is a tool designed to help teachers understand the reason for students’ behavior as well as how to decrease undesirable behaviors and increase behaviors that facilitate the instructional experience for all students (Umbreit, Ferro, Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007). Recent studies have shown professional development offerings to increase both in-service and pre-service teacher knowledge, confidence, and use of FABIs (Lane, Oakes, & Cox, 2011; Lane et al., 2014). We temper this recommendation by noting the need for research to investigate whether knowledge, confidence, and use of FABIs impacts SET burnout. Role conflict and ambiguity. Given the salience of role conflict and role ambiguity for teacher burnout, we suggest principals and other administrators provide detailed job descriptions and attend to situations when multiple teacher responsibilities are in conflict. In addition, principals will want to be especially attentive to teacher needs when they


703

pertain to role conflict and ambiguity in order to protect teacher health, increase teacher retention, and increase student outcomes. We recommend pre-service teachers ask their mentor teacher or teacher educator program director for help (a) selecting positions where the job description is well detailed and (b) discussing potential conflicts in job responsibilities and time allotment prior to being hired. Future inquiry should study whether teacher-training programs can prepare pre-service teachers to decrease the chances of role conflict and ambiguity when interviewing for potential jobs. For in-service teachers, we recommend identifying possible role conflict or role ambiguity issues and then problem-solving with their department head or principal on ways to best resolve the issue. On the one hand, this may be difficult for teachers experiencing burnout due to a strained relationship with administrators. On the other hand, if SETs expect students to self-advocate during the IEP process, it is important for teachers to advocate for themselves when experiencing burnout. Yet, more inquiry as to how in-service teachers can resolve role conflict and role ambiguity is needed. Support from administration. Current research provides teachers with the evidence to reinforce their requests for greater support from administration, as teacher burnout is both a major health risk and a factor in negative student outcomes. Although some administrators may attempt to resolve teacher burnout by providing a paraprofessional, this solution may be insufficient, as the evidence suggests SET burnout increases as the adult-to-student ratio increases (Irvin et al., 2013). These results should not be interpreted to disparage the employment of paraprofessionals, who also experience moderate to high levels of burnout (Shyman, 2010); rather, the results highlight the complexity of teaching students with exceptionalities and show there is a need for other solutions beyond the addition of a paraprofessional. To ease the stress and burden on SETs, we agree with the recommendation of Wasburn-Moses (2005) for principals to provide teachers with both emotional and instrumental support (e.g., helping to secure resources, listening and attempting to resolve their concerns). Limitations and Future Directions We encourage the reader to interpret our findings in light of the following limitations. First, the use of a narrowly focused definition of burnout limited which articles were included in the literature review, as did the exclusion of studies on participants outside of the US. While efforts were made to discuss articles on special educator stress and job satisfaction and relevant international studies throughout the review, their exclusion from the results limits the generalizability of

704

Brunsting et al.

the study to SETs in the US. It is important for future inquiry to continue to examine issues of teacher burnout within and beyond the US, taking into account the varying models for supporting students with disabilities in different countries. Second, despite a systematic approach to identifying articles, it is possible some studies were either not located or mistakenly excluded from the review. We encourage future teams to continue to (a) conduct high-quality studies—particularly treatment-outcome studies—examining the nature of teacher burnout, with attention to longitudinal studies examining mediating and moderating variables on outcome variables and (b) synthesize existing literature through carefully constructed literature reviews attending to issues of reliability of article selection and article coding. Our hope is that as the intervention literature is developed, researchers will carefully attend to the recommended core quality indicators for treatment-outcomes studies using group (e.g., Gersten et al., 2005) and single case (e.g., Horner et al., 2005) designs according to guidelines specified in the literature and, more recently, by What Works Clearinghouse (Odom & Lane, in press). There is ample work needed in the area of intervention inquiry. For example, it would be wise to examine interventions for teachers targeting role conflict and role ambiguity as well as interventions for principals and administration targeting role conflict, role ambiguity, and supporting teachers to build upon the current knowledge base. Third, the use of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model as an organizational framework aligns well with burnout as it accounts for the salience of process and immediacy of social setting. In contrast, it would also have been fruitful to organize the studies around the individual components of burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment) to hone in on differential impact of different variables—particularly examining protective as well as risk factors—on each component. Similarly, this focus on the factors contributing to SET burnout does not address the impact that differences in special education certification credentials, training, and preparation might have on SET burnout. Considering the broad time range of publication dates of articles on SET burnout, we recommend future reviews and empirical studies to further explore the impact of teacher training, preparation programs, and certification as moderating and mediating variables that explain SET burnout. Summary Our intent in this review was to determine the number of empirical studies with a quantitative measure of burnout for SETs,


705

locate gaps for future research, and provide implications and recommendations for current practitioners based on the literature. Using Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model as an organizing framework, we investigated 23 included studies and discussed their findings pertaining to burnout. Role conflict, role ambiguity, and administrator support were found to be particularly salient factors in teacher burnout. Due to the impact of burnout on teacher attrition, teacher health, and student outcomes, it is critical for researchers to provide both a better understanding of the processes by which SETs experience burnout and more interventions to alleviate burnout based on challenges teachers experience. References Adera, B. A., & Bullock, L. M. (2010). Job stressors and teacher job satisfaction in programs serving students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 15, 5–14. Armon, G., Melamed, S., Shirom, A., & Shapira, I. (2010). Elevated burnout predicts the onset of musculoskeletal pain among apparently healthy employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 399–408. Banks, S. R., & Necco, E. G. (1990). The effects of special education category and type of training on job burnout in special education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13, 187–191. Beck, C. L., & Gargiulo, R. M. (1983). Burnout in teachers of retarded and nonretarded children. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 169–173. Bianchi, R., Boffy, C., Hingray, C., Truchot, D., & Laurent, E. (2013). Comparative symptomatology of burnout and depression. Journal of Health Psychology, 18, 782–787. Biglan, A., Layton, G. L., Jones, L. B., Hankins, M., & Rusby, J. C. (2013). The value of workshops on psychological flexibility for early childhood special education staff. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 32, 196–210. Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the research literature. Journal of Special Education, 38, 39–55. Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage of fully certified teachers in special and general education. Exceptional Children, 72, 443–460.

706

Brunsting et al.

Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2008). Teacher turnover: Examining exit attrition, teaching area transfer, and school migration. Exceptional Children, 75, 7–31. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. Brownell, M. T., & Smith, S. W. (1993). Understanding special education teacher attrition: A conceptual model and implications for teacher educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 270–282. Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Defining administrative support and its relationship to the attrition of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 71–94. Carlson, B. C., & Thompson, J. A. (1995). Job burnout and job leaving in public school teachers: Implications for stress management. International Journal of Stress Management, 2, 15–29. Chang, M. L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 193–218. Cherniss, C. (1988). Observed supervisory behavior and teacher burnout in special education. Exceptional Children, 54, 449–454. Coman, D., Alessandri, M., Gutierrez, A., Novotny, S., Boyd, B., Hume, K., & Odom, S. (2013). Commitment to classroom model philosophy and burnout symptoms among high fidelity teachers implementing preschool programs for children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 345–360. Cooley, E., & Yovanoff, P. (1996). Supporting professionals-at-risk: Evaluating interventions to reduce burnout and improve retention of special educators. Exceptional Children, 62, 336–355. Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18, 621–656. Crane, S., & Iwanicki, E. (1986). Perceived role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout among special education teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 24–31. Edgar, E., & Pair, A. (2005). Special education teacher attrition: It all depends on where you are standing. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 163–170.


707

Embich, J. L. (2001). The relationship of secondary special education teachers’ roles and factors that lead to professional burnout. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 58–69. Farber, B. A. (2000). Treatment strategies for different types of teacher burnout. Psychotherapy in Practice, 56, 675–689. Fimian, M. J., & Blanton, L. P. (1986). Variables related to stress and burnout in special education teacher trainees and first-year teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 9, 9–21. Frank, A. R., & McKenzie, R. (1993). The development of burnout among special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 161–170. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164. Gersten, R., Keating, T., Yovanoff, P., & Harniss, M. K. (2001). Working in special education: Factors that enhance special educators’ intent to stay. Exceptional Children, 67, 549–567. Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Hurley, S. M. (2013). Revisiting personnel utilization in inclusion-oriented schools. Journal of Special Education, 47, 121–132. Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495–513. Hastings, R. P., & Brown, T. (2002). Coping strategies and the impact of challenging behaviors on special educators’ burnout. Mental Retardation, 40, 148–156. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidencebased practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179. Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? (A Research Report). Seattle, WA: The University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Irvin, D. W., Hume, K., Boyd, B. A., McBee, M. T., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Child and classroom characteristics associated with the adult language provided to preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 947–955.

708

Brunsting et al.

Jennett, H. K., Harris, S. L., & Mesibov, G. B. (2003). Commitment to philosophy, teacher efficacy, and burnout among teachers of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33, 583–593. Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79, 491–525. Jones, N., & Youngs, P. (2012). Attitudes and affect: Daily emotions and their association with the commitment and burnout of beginning teachers. Teachers College Record, 114, 1–36. Kaff, M. S. (2004). Multitasking is multitaxing: Why special educators are leaving the field. Preventing School Failure, 48, 10–17. Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., & Cox, M. (2011). Functional assessmentbased interventions: A university-district partnership to promote learning and success. Beyond Behavior, 20, 3–18. Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Powers, L., Diebold, T., Germer, K., Common, E. A., & Brunsting, N. C. (2014). Improving teachers’ knowledge of functional assessment-based interventions: Outcomes of a professional development series. Manuscript under review. Martin, N. K., Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2012). Teacher efficacy in student engagement, instructional management, student stressors, and burnout: A theoretical model using in-class variables to predict teachers’ intent-to-leave. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 546–559. Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 189–192. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1979). The measurement of experienced burnout. Berkeley, CA: University of California Department of Psychology. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. McIntyre, T. C. (1983). The effect of class size on perceptions of burnout by special education teachers. Mental Retardation and Learning Disability Bulletin, 11, 142–145. McIntyre, T. C. (1984). The relationship between locus of control and teacher burnout. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 235–238. Miller, M. D., Brownell, M. T., & Smith, S. W. (1999). Factors that predict teachers staying in, leaving, or transferring from the special education classroom. Exceptional Children, 65, 201–218.


709

Nichols, A. S., & Sosnowsky, F. L. (2002). Burnout among special education teachers in self-contained cross-categorical classrooms. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 71–86. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001). Oakes, W. P., Lane, K. L., Jenkins, A., & Booker, B. B. (2013). Threetiered models of prevention: Teacher efficacy and burnout. Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 95–126. Odom, S. L., & Lane, K. L. (in press). The applied science of special education: Quantitative approaches, the questions they address, and how they inform practice. In L. Florian (Ed.). The SAGE Handbook of Special Education (2nd Ed.). (Vol. 1 pp. 369–388). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. O’Neill, S. C., & Stephenson, J. (2011). The measurement of classroom management self-efficacy: A review of measurement instrument development and influences. Educational Psychology, 31, 261–299. Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2010). Special education teacher preparation in classroom management: Implications for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 188–199. Pullis, M. (1992). An analysis of the occupational stress of teachers of the behaviorally disordered: sources, effects and strategies for coping. Behavioral Disorders, 17, 191–201. Ruble, L. A., & McGrew, J. H. (2013). Teacher and child predictors of achieving IEP goals of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 2748–2763. Ruble, L. A., Usher, E. L., & McGrew, J. H. (2011). Preliminary investigation of the sources of self-efficacy among teachers of students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26, 67–74. Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T., & Billingsley, B. (2010). Special education teacher education research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 8–24. Shyman, E. (2010). Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education paraprofessionals: A preliminary investigation. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 828–841. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher selfefficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 611–625.

710

Brunsting et al.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2010). Exploring the association between teachers’ perceived student misbehavior and emotional exhaustion: The importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion regulation. Educational Psychology, 30, 173–189. Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C., & Lane, K. L. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment and function-based intervention: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Vannest, K. J., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2010). Teacher time use in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 126–142. Wasburn, M. H., Wasburn-Moses, L., & Davis, D. R. (2012). Mentoring special educators: The roles of national board certified teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 59–66. Wasburn-Moses, L. (2005). How to keep your special education teachers. Principal Leadership, 5, 35–38. Wasburn-Moses, L. (2009). An exploration of pre-service teachers’ expectations for their future roles. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32, 5–16. Weber, D. B., & Toffler, J. D. (1989). Burnout among teachers of students with moderate, severe, or profound mental retardation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 117–125. Wisniewski, L., & Gargiulo, R. M. (1997). Occupational stress and burnout among special educators: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 31, 325–346. Zabel, M. K., & Zabel, R. H. (1983). Burnout among special education teachers: The role of experience, training, and age. Teacher Education and Special Education, 6, 255–259. Zabel, M. K., Dettmer, P. A., & Zabel, R. H. (1984). Factors of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and sense of accomplishment among teachers of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 65–69. Zabel, R. H., Boomer, L. W., & King, T. R. (1984). A model of stress and burnout among teachers of behavioral disordered students. Behavior Disorders, 9, 215–221. Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, M. K. (1982). Factors in burnout among teachers of exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 49, 261–263.


711

Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, M. K. (2001). Revisiting burnout among special education teachers: Do age, experience, and preparation still matter? Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 128–139. Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, M. K. (2002). Burnout among special education teachers and perceptions of support. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 15, 67–73.