Teacher Victimization: Understanding Prevalence, Causation, and Negative Consequences in a Large Metropolitan Area in the Southwestern United States, 2016-2017 (ICPSR 37295)
Version Date: Feb 27, 2020 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Byongook Moon, University of Texas at San Antonio;
Roger Enriquez, University of Texas at San Antonio
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37295.v1
Version V1 (see more versions)
You are currently viewing an older version of this data collection. A more recent version may be available by selecting (see more versions)
Additional information about this collection can be found in Version History.
2020-02-27 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Summary View help for Summary
This two-year longitudinal research examined the prevalence of seven different types of teacher victimization, its negative consequences among victimized teachers, and predictors of aggression directed against teachers. The research, using a stratified multistage cluster sampling design, surveyed 1,628 middle and high school teachers in 14 school districts, located in a large metropolitan area in the southwest region of the United States. Two waves of the longitudinal research collected 1) teachers' socio-demographic factors, 2) teacher classroom management styles, and 3) school climate factors which are related to teacher victimization. Also, the data contained characteristics of victimization, school responses to teacher victimization, and negative consequences of teacher victimization.
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Smallest Geographic Unit View help for Smallest Geographic Unit
None
Restrictions View help for Restrictions
Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.
Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)
Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)
Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
The purpose of the study is to investigate teacher victimization in its scope, predictors, and negative consquences. Specifically, three gaps in the current literature are addressed: 1) the types of victimization and their frequencies, such as theft, physical assault, sexual harassment, verbal abuse, non-physical contact aggressive behaviors, and bullying (online and in-person); 2) causal predictors of teacher victimization, such as teacher sociodemographic factors, classroom behaviors, and school climate; and 3) the negative consequences of teachers' victimization, such as impact on job performance, trust of students, concern with school safety, and job turnover.
Study Design View help for Study Design
The study utilized a longitudinal design, collecting data across two waves (2016, 2017). Teachers selected for the sample were invited to participate through a Qualtrics survey link. Participants who initially responded (n = 1,628) were recontacted for follow-up one year later (n = 1,317).
Sample View help for Sample
To collect a representative sample of teachers in the region, a stratified multistage cluster sampling design was used. First, the sampling frame was constructed by obtaining the lists of middle and high school teachers provided by each school district and/or collected from publicly available school websites. Second, approximately 10 to 30 teachers in each school were randomly selected based on the number of teachers listed at the school. For example, up to 30 teachers were randomly selected in a high school with at least 100 faculty members, while around 10 teachers were selected in a middle school with approximately 30 to 40 teachers.
Time Method View help for Time Method
Universe View help for Universe
Middle and high school teachers in the region.
Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)
Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection
Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables
Variables for Waves 1 and 2 are grouped into the following categories.
- Respondent demographics and job-related items (age, gender, race, teaching experience, school level, subjects taught)
- Respondent's classroom management style ("I get angry quickly," "I explain things clearly," "My class is pleasant")
- Fulfillment of professional duties: able to provide alternative explanations when students are confused, help students value learning
- School climate: support from administration/colleagues, safety/security measures, knowledge of expectations, teacher autonomy
- Victimization incident details: frequency, offender demographics, how it was handled, physical and psychological health following event
- Feelings of being connected to one's school ("I care what my students think of me," "I get bored in school a lot")
- Job satisfaction and performance (fulfilling tasks, competency, proficiency, overall satisfaction)
Items unique to Wave 2 are adapted scales for depressive symptoms and job burnout. For respondents who are former teachers in Wave 2, a series of items asks about reasons why they left teaching, specifically if victimization was the cause.
Response Rates View help for Response Rates
Wave 1: 52 percent
Wave 2: 81 percent (retention)
Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales
None
HideOriginal Release Date View help for Original Release Date
2020-02-27
Version History View help for Version History
2020-02-27 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.