See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376714310
A Systematic Meta-review of Measures of Classroom Management in School
Settings
Article in Assessment for Effective Intervention · December 2023
DOI: 10.1177/15345084231208671
CITATIONS
READS
0
14
7 authors, including:
Jason C Chow
Robin Sayers
Vanderbilt University
The Ohio State University
83 PUBLICATIONS 1,061 CITATIONS
11 PUBLICATIONS 40 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Ashley Morse
Virginia Commonwealth University
4 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Jason C Chow on 21 December 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
1
A Systematic Meta-review of Measures of Classroom Management in School Settings
Jason C. Chow
University of Maryland at College Park
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2878-7410
Robin Sayers
University of Maryland at College Park
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4924-6787
Yang Fu
University of Maryland at College Park
Kristen L. Granger
Vanderbilt University
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8989-3631
Shannon McCullough
WestEd
Corinne Kingsbery
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Ashley Morse
Virginia Commonwealth University
Citation:
Chow, J. C., Sayers, R., Fu, Y., Granger, K., L., McCullough, S., Kingsbery, C., & Morse, A.
(2023). A systematic meta-review of measures of classroom management in school settings.
Assessment for Effective Intervention. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084231208671
2
A Systematic Meta-review of Measures of Classroom Management in School Settings
High quality classroom management practices are an essential set of skills for teachers to
acquire. High quality classroom management can be characterized by positive and proactive
schedules, supports, and strategies that promote effective teaching and instruction as well as
student motivation, engagement, and success (Sprick et al., 2021). Effective classroom
management requires teachers to be continuously sensitive to students’ needs within the context
of the classroom environment, respond to student disruptions and distractions in proactive ways
that promote and maintain a discipline order in the class, and at the same time consider students’
social-emotional development (Cunningham et al., 2022). These supports promote instructional
time and student engagement via adjusting the classroom environment, building high quality
teacher-student relationships, and managing student behaviors, among other pathways (Chow et
al., 2020). Indeed, studies show that classroom management practices characterized by positive
behavior supports can build a high quality, warm, and positive classroom environment for
students, maximize instructional time, and improve student-teacher relationships and academic
outcomes (Chow et al., 2021; Mitchell & Bradshaw, 2013).
Given the strength of the connection between classroom management and outcomes for
both teachers and students, researchers, stakeholders, and policy makers, have devoted
significant time and funds to assessing the dimensions and quality of classroom management
approaches. However, a wide range of classroom management assessments exist. This review
fills a need in the field to collate and analyze the landscape of approaches for assessing
classroom management practices across these domains, provide considerations for selecting
classroom management assessments, and discuss areas for future work.
Classroom Management and Student Outcomes
3
A teacher’s approach to classroom management influences students’ engagement and
academic achievement. The rate of using evidence-based classroom management strategies
relates to students’ classroom engagement; teachers that use fewer evidence-based classroom
management strategies have lower student engagement rates during instructional time (Gage et
al., 2018). Similarly, Larson et al. (2021) found the use of positive behavior support increased
students' active class engagement. Dijk et al. (2019) found a significant indirect effect between
classroom management and students’ math achievement via behavior management. Effective
classroom management is also linked to students’ interest in learning different subjects (Kunter
et al., 2007). This suggests teachers who use effective classroom management strategies can
motivate student learning and learning motivation can lead to improved academic achievement
(e.g., Adeyemo, 2012; Nisar & Khan, 2019). In contrast, teachers with poor classroom
management skills are more likely to create a less organized classroom structure and emotionally
supportive environment, which may lead to more conflict and misbehavior (Chow et al., 2020;
Varghese et al., 2019). It is not surprising that teachers who are observed to use lower quality
classroom management strategies also report high levels of stress, which may contribute to
continued cycles of negative teacher-student interactions (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009).
Effective classroom management methods also impact students’ social and emotional
outcomes. The classroom setting is not only a place for students to learn academic knowledge,
but also a place for students to interact with one another and build social-emotional skills. A
focused environment with clear social and behavioral expectations provides a secure setting
under which students can learn to manage their own emotions, navigate conflict, and to have
social and emotional success across varying peer/social settings (Jones & Bouffard, 2013).
Through effective classroom management strategies, teachers can support students in developing
4
social-emotional skills, listening attentively, managing behaviors, and regulating emotions. To
illustrate, Korpershoek et al. (2016) conducted a meta-analysis and found a small but significant
effect of classroom management strategies on student social-emotional outcomes. Similarly,
Morris and colleagues (2013) found classroom management strategies improved students’
competence in attention and inhibitory control. Furthermore, by using classroom management
strategies, teachers also help students to set moral standards (Nucci, 2006).
It is important to note that a range of definitions of classroom management exist in the
literature. These can include a breadth of skills and practices that teachers employ to engage and
maintain organizational classroom structures, student attention and on task behaviors, and
promote productive learning opportunities. We operationally define classroom management as
“the actions teachers take to create an environment that supports and facilitates both academic
and social-emotional learning” (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006). This operationalization is
purposely broad to maximize the inclusivity of our review to encompass the full scope of
strategies that teachers may employ to maintain classroom structures and promote learning. This
operationalization is consistent with theoretical frameworks which conceptualize classroom
management as an overarching domain comprising a broad range of subordinate aspects (Marder
et al., 2023); we focus on four underlying components that are drawn from a conceptual
framework about the structure and nature of relationships and organizational features in the
classroom (e.g., Hamre & Pianta, 2007). These components include teachers’ efforts to manage
instructional time, student behaviors, teacher-student relationships, and organizational features of
the classroom (e.g., expectations, rules, routines); each are: 1) connected to academic and socialemotional student outcomes; 2) are core elements in most teaching quality frameworks (e.g.,
Creemers et al., 2013; Hamre & Pianta, 2010; Klieme et al., 2009) and used daily in teachers’
5
classroom management practice; and 3) are areas teachers identify as needs for support. Each
component is posited to measure a distinct aspect of classroom management that, together or
alone, may be responsible for promoting an environment that supports and facilitates both
academic and social-emotional learning. Understanding the extent these components are
measured in the literature will improve our understanding about measurement selection and areas
for future work.
Classroom Management Measures
Classroom management research has increased over the past several decades, resulting in
a variety of approaches to assess the features and qualities of classroom management strategies.
Modalities of assessment include (but are not limited to) observational assessments, teacher selfreports via surveys and interviews, checklists, informal observational notes, video-based selfreflection and reporting, and coach or principal reports on teacher performance (Bracken &
Fischel, 2006; Reddy et al., 2013). Although observational assessments are considered the gold
standard for objective measures of classroom management, they are time consuming and costly.
Thus, researchers have called for practical, brief, easy, acceptable, and reliable measures that can
be employed in classroom settings (e.g., self-report measures; Sutherland et al., 2013). However,
it is not clear how many classroom management assessments currently exist, the modality of
each, and the dimensions assessed. Thus, when making measurement choices, researchers may
default to relying on previous experiences with a measure, highly publicized or cited measures,
or create their own measures tailored to specific practices of interest. The field needs a summary
assessment of the classroom management measures currently available that can support
measurement choices that are based on a comprehensive assessment of measurement features.
6
This review will provide the field with a comprehensive dataset of classroom
management measures used in the school-based literature, and to provide a summary evaluation
and descriptors of these assessments. Though there have been numerous syntheses of
intervention research of both group and single case designs (e.g., Bowman-Perrot et al., 2016;
Chaffee et al., 2017; Kaya et al., 2019; Korest & Carlson, 2020; Korpershoek et al., 2016; Long
et al., 2019; Maggin et al., 2017), the extent that these reviews capture and evaluate assessments
of classroom management over and above implementing an intervention is unknown. This
review specifically aims to synthesize this research base with the intention of identifying and
reviewing measures or assessments of classroom management. This review aims to collate and
analyze the landscape of approaches that have been used to assess classroom management in
school-based research to inform decision making in the context of intervention research,
evaluation, and practice.
Method
Literature Search
For the purposes of this study, we included systematic reviews and meta-analyses
published within the past 10 years (2012-present). Given the nature of the systematic review
process, it is likely the data (i.e., primary studies within systematic reviews) will include many
studies prior to the review publication date and additional substantive search terms to capture the
full scope of classroom management studies. To identify systematic reviews of the literature, we
searched the Academic Search Complete, ERIC, and PsycINFO electronic databases for all
document types using the following search strategy: “classroom management” AND “"metaanalysis" OR "systematic review" OR "literature review" OR "meta analysis" OR "metasynthesis" OR "meta synthesis" and retrieved 151 returns. We conducted this search on May 13,
7
2022. After removing duplicates, we retained 118 documents for further review. We then
conducted title and abstract screening and retained 22 documents for full-text review; 12 reviews
remained for primary study extraction.
We extracted all primary studies included in the final set of 12 systematic reviews to
serve as our sample for this meta review of classroom management measures. As such, we
compiled a reference list of all included articles from all reviews, resulting in an initial corpus of
307 primary studies. After removing duplicates and articles that could not be located across the
databases of four institutions from this comprehensive list, 263 primary studies remained, and we
downloaded full-text versions of each study for full-text screening.
Inclusion Criteria
To be included in our study as a systematic review from which we extracted primary
studies, documents had to (1) be systematic reviews, including meta-analyses, and (2) include
classroom management as a primary construct of interest. At this stage, we searched for the term
“classroom management” and included all relevant reviews. We defined “primary construct” as a
main variable of analysis including classroom management intervention efficacy and
correlational analyses of classroom management’s relation to other constructs (e.g., burnout,
self-efficacy, student achievement). The study purpose had to clearly indicate that the review
was assessing the importance of classroom management in either of these contexts. Examples of
studies that would have been excluded were case studies or policy analyses that focused on
classroom management as an important construct but used course taking or licensure as a proxy.
To be included in our study as a primary study, documents had to (1) include participants
in preschool through 12th grade and include (2) a measure of teacher classroom management. Of
the 263 primary studies, 83 met our inclusion criteria and we included them in full coding. From
8
this set, we identified ten additional studies that did not meet our criteria (e.g., were child only
focused measures). Our final sample included 73 studies which had 76 different measures of
classroom management (see Figure S1). During the coding phase (see Study Coding), we further
operationalized “classroom management,” in the context of measures in a primary study by
organizing the measures by assigning one or more of the following descriptors to each measure:
(1) teachers’ instructional management, (2) student behavior management, (3) teacher-student
interactions or relationships, (4) classroom organization and/or structure, or (5) other.
Training and Reliability
To index reliability of our screening process, we independently reviewed the downloaded
sample of 118 reviews after deduplication. We then compared screening and resolved any
discrepancies and were in 100% agreement to produce the full-text review sample of 22
documents. We then reviewed the remaining documents which yielded a set of 13 agreed-upon
reviews for primary study extraction; we later excluded one review because it was in higher
education (and not K-12), resulting in a final set of 12 reviews.
We trained a team of coders by reading written descriptions of the inclusion criteria,
discussing criteria, and reviewing questions related to the screening criteria. Coders
independently reviewed their assigned articles and indicated if those articles met the criteria. We
had discussions about any articles that a coder was unsure of. After all coders had completed
their screening, the first and second authors reviewed a portion of the articles to check agreement
with screening criteria. After resolving discrepancies and any disagreements, we excluded 32
articles from the corpus due to not being conducted in a preK-12 setting, 69 for not having any
measure of classroom management, and 79 for having only child focused measures. During the
data restructure to prepare for full study and measure level coding, we excluded four studies for
9
child focused measures related to classroom management (e.g., student behavior). This resulted
in 79 studies that we coded for full study information and measure level details.
As with study screening, we trained coders prior to full text coding. Coders reviewed the
coding manual, discussed any questions related to coding, and practiced coding a few articles
prior to group discussion. During meetings, we further clarified definitions, reviewed examples
and non-examples, and discussed any discrepancies or concerns. Coders then independently
coded their remaining articles or measures. We held meetings as needed to ensure coders were
comfortable and confident in their coding. We then independently verified a minimum of 25% of
the codes for each measure type (observation, survey/scale, other) and corrected any
discrepancies identified; agreement across variables was high (>90%). During this process, we
identified three additional studies as including student behavior focused measures instead of
teacher focused measures, and two studies as duplicates. This resulted in excluding six
additional studies from our study corpus. As such, our final study corpus included 73 studies.
Study Coding
We coded all articles screened into the review for general study aspects including country,
grade band (preschool, elementary, secondary), measure name, and study. These features were
coded to provide an overall description of the measure. We coded individual measures following
full-text coding to capture measure-specific information to better understand the variability of the
measures of classroom management. This information included (1) if the measure was
previously developed or developed for that project, (2) if the measure was an observational
measure, survey measure, or another type of measure, (3) if the focal population of the measure
was the teacher or both students and teachers, (4) if the measured a single or multiple domains,
and (5) what domains of classroom management each measure assessed. These codes were
10
chosen to evaluate if the reported reliability information was only reported for past samples or
for the present study sample, to assess common methodological approaches to measuring
classroom management, to gauge whose perspectives were more or less represented, to get sense
of the scope of each measure, and to assess the extent to which existing measures mapped onto
the previous theoretical framework and organization of classroom management domains.
To code the domains, two authors independently reviewed all the studies’ definitions of
the measures (Supplementary Tables) and categorized them to four broad domains (pulled from a
previous theoretical framework of classroom management; Hamre & Pianta, 2007): teachers’
efforts to manage instructional time, student behaviors, teacher-student relationships, and
organizational features of the classroom (e.g., expectations, rules, routines). Upon review of the
measures, an “other" category emerged that consisted of measures that assessed constructs such
as teacher’s perceptions of their classroom management practices or affective constructs like
teaching self-efficacy. This construct was not represented in the previous framework; as such we
chose to add an additional coding domain to describe the study measures.
We coded measure specific information based on the measure type. For observations we
coded (1) if the study was previously published, (2) the number of observations per teacher, (3)
the length of each observation, (4) the type of sampling used in the observation, and (5) what
prior reliability was if previously published, (6) overall reliability (i.e., internal consistency) in
the current study, and (7) subscale reliability in the current study if applicable. For survey and
scale measures we coded (1) if the measure was previously published, (2) if it was a full
survey/scale or subscale of a larger scale, (3) the number of items, (4) the number of subscales (if
it was a full survey/scale), (5) the type of rating, (6) prior reliability (i.e., internal consistency),
11
(7) if the authors conducted an EFA or CFA, (8) overall measure reliability and (9) subscale
reliability if applicable.
Results
The purpose of this review was to document a comprehensive dataset of classroom
management measures used in the school-based literature and discuss its implications for the
field. Most articles included a single measure of classroom management (72%), with two
measures included in 24% of articles, and 4% of articles included three or more measures (see
Tables 1 and 2 for summary-level descriptive data). Broadly, the measures included in the
studies were either observations or surveys/scales.
In the observations category, we identified 46 unique observational measures used in 50
studies (29 published, 17 unpublished). The measures had an average number of six observations
(min=1, max=56), and an average length of 43 minutes (min=5, max=180), suggesting a wide
range of time cost across the corpus. In terms of data collection, 24 used time sampling
procedures, 19 used summative ratings, two combined the two approaches, and one did not
report the method. In terms of reliability and validity, 31% of studies using previously published
measures reported prior reliability and validity. Only 9% reported overall reliability information
for their study sample, and 17% of studies reported subscale or component reliability information
(see Table S1 for observational measures details).
In the surveys and scales category, we identified 28 measures that were used across 33
studies (21 published, 7 unpublished, 10 modified/adapted). The scale measures had an average
of 22 items (min=1, max=64) and an average of 2.5 subscales (min=0, max=6) again suggesting
a range of time costs across measures. Of the 28 measures, 22 were surveys, four were subscales
of existing scales, and two did not report. The majority were teacher/self-report measures, though
12
one study included teacher and student reports, and another used a principal survey. For
previously published measures, 43% reported prior internal consistency. Overall, 35% of studies
reported overall internal consistency for the current sample and 50% of studies reported subscale
reliability, both exceeding observational measures. See Table S2 and S3 for included survey and
scale measures descriptive information and operational definitions.
In terms of classroom management domains, 28 of the measures assessed a single
domain. Five measured teacher instructional delivery, three measured classroom organization,
one measured teacher behavior/behavior management, and none individually measured teacherstudent interactions or relationships. Of these 28 single domain measures, 19 classified as
“other”. Although a coding domain of ‘other’ was not derived from the previous framework, this
domain was created upon review of the measures (described above); these measures primarily
assessed constructs such as teacher’s perceptions of their classroom management practices or
affective constructs like teaching self-efficacy. Measures coded in this category were primarily
teacher report via interview or survey methods. Forty-six measures assessed multiple domains:
of this subset nearly all measured teacher behavior/behavior management (n=43) or teacher
instructional delivery (n=43). Classroom organization was captured in 19 of these measures, and
student-teacher relationships or interactions were measured in 9 of the multiple-domain
assessments. Interestingly, only ten of these measures assessed all domains (except for ‘other’)
and these measures tended to be collected via observations see Table1 and TableS3 for details).
In terms of reliability, most studies did not report internal consistency for the current
sample or reported acceptable levels of internal consistency. We considered it acceptable when
the measure, or 50% of subscales, had Cronbach’s alphas above .7 (Knapp & Mueller, 2010),
Kappas above .8 (McHugh, 2012) or Omegas above .7 (Green & Yang. 2015). For previously
13
published observation measures all either met our acceptability cutoff (35%) or did not report
sample reliability (68%). No study that developed observations reported sample reliability. For
surveys and scales, 50% not reporting sample reliability and most meeting the acceptability
cutoff. For study-developed survey measures, 30% did not report sample reliability.
Discussion
The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic meta-review with the goal of
documenting the landscape of measures of classroom management in the school-based literature.
Our results center on a compilation of measures that researchers have used to assess classroom
management, and our discussion focuses on some patterns that emerge when examining the full
body of measures as well as patterns in the group of observational measures and the group of
survey and scale measures used in the literature. We view the primary contribution of this study
is this collective list of measures that will allow researchers to have a more exhaustive list of
options to select from, as well as avail researchers with options related to resources and time. For
example, researchers can efficiently read through the operational definitions of measures to
narrow down a list of measures that are aligned with their purpose and intent of their individual
study’s classroom management construct and intent.
From this study, researchers can measure classroom management across a range of
domains and via a range of modalities. This variety offers researchers flexibility in measurement
choice which may be dictated partly by study time, costs, personnel, and agreements between
researchers and school partners. This work provides researchers the ability to select from a
library of measures that have the potential to be well aligned across sample characteristics and
research questions in this area, as well as measures that may be more distal to better understand
generalized or transfer effects. Additionally, many measures were used in the context of
14
classroom management practices that are evidence-based because they were developed as part of
classroom-management or related intervention studies. This collection of measures will continue
to be useful for future intervention studies that aim to measure different aspects or the collective
construct of classroom management.
This review also documents several areas of need in the measurement of classroom
management. As is evident in our final list of included measures and corresponding definitions,
there are a broad range of constructs captured in the umbrella term of “classroom management.”
Given that we collated these measures from studies included in systematic reviews of the
classroom management literature, it is important to consider the variability in constructs that are
synthesized in the original reviews. When interpreting results of individual studies as well as
systematic reviews, it is unlikely that authors, measures, and definitions are referring to (and
reflecting) the same construct, teacher behavior, or contextual elements. Varying definitions of
classroom management or focal practices may be part of the reason for the wide range of
practices assessed under each measure. This range points to an important area for future work; a
consistent definition of the construct of classroom management may centralize the approaches
and quality of measurement, and in turn, consistent measurement may improve our ability to
make comparisons across samples and interventions.
As expected, most studies were conducted in the United States. It was somewhat
surprising given the substantial amount of school-based, teacher-focused research that has been
conducted in Europe and other countries around the world. This may be due, in part, to how
individual studies operationally define the construct of classroom management. We relied on
previously conducted reviews that each conducted their own systematic reviews of the literature
15
for the present review’s data. It is possible that there are other ways to describe and label
classroom management that may be represented more in different countries and cultures.
Studies primarily included either observational assessments or teacher reports of
classroom management. Future studies could include both assessment methods to make
comparisons between teacher perceptions of their management practices and objective
assessments of these practices—both which are important and differentially predictive of child
outcomes. Future work could probe surveys and observational measures of classroom
management that can be aligned to assess the extent to which these reporters overlap or
intentionally develop measures that are designed to assess different constructs (perceptions
and/vs behavior). This may be important to be able to determine which measures are sensitive to
change and under which instructional and intervention contexts.
It is also important to consider how to balance considerations of cost (time-cost, laborcost, disruption of class schedules) and measure depth (capturing many aspects of classroom
management) as they relate to reliability. In some instances, a short, simple, highly reliable
measure that captures one aspect of classroom management may be well aligned with the goals
of a project, while in other instances, more comprehensive, time-intensive observational
measures may be better aligned. Aligning the purpose of the measure (e.g., to evaluate the
impacts of an intervention, to screen or quickly assess teacher skills, to comprehensive index the
current state of a classroom environment) with the intended domains and resources available is
an important consideration at the design stage of studies.
The sheer variability of the measures was challenging to synthesize. Classroom
management research may benefit from a consolidation of measures to be able to understand the
mechanisms through which teacher behavior more precisely can positively change student
16
outcomes. Having more consistency and reliability in the outcome measures, which will include
substantial measurement and validation work, will allow researchers to have more confidence
that intervention effects are due to intervention components and changes in teacher behavior if
the outcome measures were more reliable and consistent across studies. A future, targeted review
could apply a more stringent criterion for inclusion based on measure quality. Amid this
variation, we provide recommendations based on our findings.
Recommendations
We recommend reporting the reliability of the measure given the current sample. This
adds transparency and allows others to accurately assess if the measure may be appropriate for
their sample. Many studies that used well known measures (e.g., CLASS, CEC, TSQ) did not
report either the prior reliability or the current sample reliability. This makes interpreting their
results challenging, because it is unclear whether the measure performed as well, better, or
poorer than previous studies, including the original norming sample of the measure. Research
can be challenging, and many factors may contribute to variation in reliability. Though ideally
measures will present high levels of reliability, reporting the reliability of each measure in each
sample can provide important context for appropriately interpreting study results. One possible
way to improve the science in this area is by using factor analysis methods when using a newly
developed or modified version of a previously published survey or scale. We found one study
that used a revised version of the TSES-short form, reported both prior and current sample
reliability and conducted a CFA to confirm that the revised sales were operating as expected (see
Chang, 2009). We suggest reporting clear and transparent information on how the measure was
used, including the number and length observations, and if they used a full scale or selected
17
subscales. This will be essential for interpretations, informing future studies, and transparency
and replication.
From a resource perspective, authors should consider measures aligned with project
constraints in terms of cost (e.g, time, financial cost). In some fields, observational measures
may be the gold standard. However, project constraints may dictate that a less costly survey
measure be used. We recommend choosing a measure that is aligned with the focus of your
project or intervention. As shown in this review measures can focus on a single aspect of
classroom management or numerous aspects. Carefully selecting a measure in which the
definition and constructs of classroom management are aligned with project goals is critical.
Limitations
Our purpose was to provide a compendium of classroom management measures in the
research literature, and we note several limitations that should be considered to contextualize our
results. First, the literature we synthesized favors studies written and published in English,
centers the research on English-speaking countries, and it is possible that the systematic reviews
that we drew our study sample from might have also excluded non-English studies in their
review process. Individual studies and corresponding measures collected rely on search
procedures of included reviews. Another point related to the individual reviews that needs to be
thought through carefully when interpreting our findings is that the included studies of this
review rely heavily on the purposes of the 12 reviews we sampled from. For example, review of
intervention effects is not going to include descriptive studies; it is possible that there are several
measures missing that were used in descriptive studies that did not meet inclusion criteria for the
original reviews.
18
We also note that these measures represent a wide range of levels of detail in reporting,
which somewhat hinder our confidence in summary recommendations overall. Specific to
reliability, we focused on internal consistency coefficients, and for observational measures, we
did not synthesize the extent to which studies evaluated interobserver agreement, which will be
important in work focused on the specific aspects of observational measure reliability. This
limits the current review in terms of making quality-based recommendations of observational
measures of classroom management beyond the data we report from each individual study.
Conclusions
This review supplies the field with a summary of the measures used in the classroom
management literature, explores variation within measures, and provides summary level
recommendations. Given that observational assessments have been considered the gold standard
for objective measures of classroom management, it is not surprising that most measures
reviewed were observational. Future studies should analyze the interobserver agreement
properties of the observational measures to speak more substantively to their reliability. Future
studies should also consider the role of other variables that are known to impact reliability of
observations such as observer qualifications, training procedures, and the conditions under which
the observations were conducted. There was also wide use of surveys and scales providing
researchers with a range of practical, brief, easy, acceptable, and reliable measures that can be
employed in classroom settings (e.g., self-report).
Broadly, the measures in this review indexed teachers and teacher behavior with some
measures including student-teacher interactions and child behavior. Future studies should
consider carefully how measures of classroom management account for and integrate contextual
factors as well as individual differences of teacher and students and the classroom ecology. As a
19
field, we should move beyond only assessing how much or how well a teacher delivers a practice
and consider other factors such as student responsiveness to teachers’ attempts to deliver a
practice, the importance of classroom context, and the general dyadic and interactive nature of
classroom relationships, and the importance of the (Chow et al., 2020). Though the racial-ethnic
sample composition was not a focus of this review, future work should prospectively examine
the role of different racial classroom compositions, students with disabilities, emergent
bilinguals, in determining how classroom management assessment can promote inclusive
measurement practices and intervention development.
There has been a long and influential history of research that focuses on assessing or
improving classroom management in school settings. However, the ways in which studies
operationalize and measure classroom management remain heterogeneous. We have documented
a comprehensive set of measures drawn from systematic reviews of the classroom management
research literature to aid researchers in understanding, planning, and implementing studies
moving forward. Future studies should critically consider how the type of measure and the scope
of the measure definition may influence assessment or the interpretation of intervention effects.
20
References
Adeyemo, S. A. (2012). The relationship between effective classroom management and students’
academic achievement. European Journal of Educational Studies, 4(3), 367-381.
Bracken, S. S., & Fischel, J. E. (2006). Assessment of preschool classroom practices:
Application of Q-sort methodology. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(4),
417–430. https://doi-org.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.09.006
Bowman-Perrott, L., Burke, M. D., Zaini, S., Zhang, N., & Vannest, K. (2016). Promoting
positive behavior using the Good Behavior Game: A meta-analysis of single-case
research. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(3), 180–190.
Chaffee, R. K., Briesch, A. M., Johnson, A. H., & Volpe, R. J. (2017). A meta-analysis of
class-wide interventions for supporting student behavior. School Psychology Review, 46,
149 –164. http://dx.doi.org/10 .17105/SPR-2017-0015.V46-2
Chow, J. C., Cunningham, J. E., & Wallace, E. S. (2020). Interaction-centered model of language
and behavioral development. In Handbook of research on emotional and behavioral
disorders (pp. 83-95). Routledge.
Chow, J. C., Granger, K. L., Broda, M. D., & Peterson, N. (2021). Predictive role of classroom
management in literacy development in preschool children at risk of EBD. Behavioral
Disorders, 47(1), 53–63.
Cunningham, J. E., Chow, J. C., Meeker, K. A., Taylor, A., Hemmeter, M. L., & Kaiser, A. P.
(2023). A conceptual model for a blended intervention approach to support early
language and social-emotional development in toddler classrooms. Infants & Young
Children, 36(1), 53-73.
Dijk, W., Gage, N. A., & Grasley, B. N. (2019). The relation between classroom management
and mathematics achievement: A multilevel structural equation model. Psychology in the
Schools, 56(7), 1173–1186.
21
Gage, N. A., Scott, T., Hirn, R., & MacSuga-Gage, A. S. (2018). The relationship between
teachers’ implementation of classroom management practices and student behavior in
elementary school. Behavioral Disorders, 43(2), 302–315.
Green, S. B., & Yang, Y. (2015). Evaluation of dimensionality in the assessment of internal
consistency reliability: Coefficient alpha and omega coefficients. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34(4), 14-20.
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(1), 491–525.
Jones, S. M. & Bouffard, S. M. (2013). Social and emotional learning in schools: From programs
to strategies. Social Policy Report, 26(4).
Kaya, M., & Selvitopu, A. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of some factors on teachers’
classroom management skills. International Journal of Contemporary Educational
Research, 6(2), 409–425.
Korest, R., & Carlson, J. S. (2021). A meta-analysis of the current state of evidence of the
Incredible Years teacher-classroom management program. Children, 9(1), 24.
Kunter, M., Baumert, J., & Köller, O. (2007). Effective classroom management and the
development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 494-509.
Long, A. C. J., Miller, F. G., & Upright, J. J. (2019). Classroom management for ethnic–racial
minority students: A meta-analysis of single-case design studies. School Psychology,
34(1),
Maggin, D. M., Pustejovsky, J. E., & Johnson, A. H. (2017). A meta-analysis of school-based
group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior: An update.
Remedial & Special Education, 38(6), 353–370.
Marder, J., Thiel, F., & Göllner, R. (2023). Classroom management and students' mathematics
achievement: The role of students’ disruptive behavior and teacher classroom
management. Learning and Instruction, 86, 101746.
22
Mitchell, M. M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Examining classroom influences on student
perceptions of school climate: The role of classroom management and exclusionary
discipline strategies. Journal of School Psychology, 51(5), 599-610.
Nisar, M., Khan, I. A., & Khan, F. (2019). Relationship between classroom management and
students academic achievement. Pakistan Journal of Distance and Online Learning,
5(1), 209–220.
Nucci, L. (2006). Classroom Management for Moral and Social Development. In C. M. Evertson
& C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and
contemporary issues. (pp. 711–731). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Reddy, L. A., Fabiano, G., Dudek, C. M., & Hsu, L. (2013). Development and construct validity
of the Classroom Strategies Scale-Observer Form. School Psychology, 28(4)317.
Sutherland, K. S., Conroy, M. A., McLeod, B. D., Granger, K., Nemer, S. L., Kunemund, R. L.,
Johnson, A., & Miles, C. (2019). Adapting an evidence-based early childhood tier 2
program for early elementary school. Elementary School Journal, 119, 542-561
Sprick, J., Sprick, R., Edwards, J., & Coughlin, C. (2021). CHAMPS: A Proactive & Positive
Approach to Classroom Management. Safe & Civil Schools. Ancora Publishing. 21 West
6th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401.
Varghese, C., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Bratsch-Hines, M. (2019). Rural classroom environments
as contexts for teacher-child relationships. The Journal of Educational Research,
112(3), 411-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.154521
Table 1
Overview of the Characteristics of Included Measures
Measure details
Number of Measures
Percent of Measures
Observational Measure
46
61%
Survey Measure
28
37%
Other
2
Reported Reliability
2%
Scales
Yes =17 No=11
Yes=61% No=39%
Yes=7 No=39
Yes=15% No=85%
Teacher Focused
59
78%
Teacher and Student Focused
17
22%
Previously Developed
42
55%
Developed for the Present Study
34
45%
Single Domain
28
38%
Multiple Domains
46
62%
Observations
Measure Domains
Instructional
48
63%
Behavioral
44
58%
Relationships/Interactions
9
12%
Organization
22
29%
Other
22
29%
Note: Numbers and percentages for the measure domains section do not add as measures
captured multiples domains as indicated in the measure scope section
Table 2
Included Studies with Corresponding Measures of Classroom Management
ID
1
Reference
Measure(s)
Alakin & Sucuoglu
Preventative Classroom Management Observation Form
(2015)
(PC.MOF)
Age
E
Country
Turkey
Teacher Behaviors Observation Form (TCH.BOF)
2
Arda & Ocak (2012)
Classroom Atmosphere Rating Scale
P
Turkey
Teaching Style Rating Scale
3
Baker-Henningham &
Overall
Measure
Reliability
Category
NR
OBS
NR
OBS
α =.99
OBS
NR
OBS
(Unnamed) Interviews
P
Jamaica
N/A
O
Baker-Henningham &
Rating scale of child behavior and classroom
P
Jamaica
NR
OBS
Walker (2018)
atmosphere
NR
OBS
(Unnamed) Observations of Teacher Behavior 3
NR
OBS
Early Childhood Education Rating Scales
NR
OBS
N/A
O
Walker (2009)
4
(Unnamed) Observations of teacher behavior to target
children
5
Baker et al. (2016)
(Unnamed) Discussion posts
E, S
NR
6
Benner et al. (2012)
Classroom Atmosphere Rating Scale
7
Betoret (2009)
(Unnamed) Teacher-perceived self-efficacy in
E
United States
NR
OBS
E, S
Spain
α =.87
S
S
United States
NR
S
E, S
United States
α =.80
S
NR
OBS
NR
S
classroom management
8
Bohanon et al. (2012)
Effective Behavior Support Self Assessment Survey
9
Bradshaw et al. (2018)
TSES (Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale):
Classroom Management
ASSIST (Assessing School Settings: Interactions of
Students and Teachers)
10
Brouwers & Tomic
Dutch Classroom Environment Scale 'Order and
(2000)
Organization' Subscale
S
Netherlands
S
Self-efficacy Scale for Classroom Management and
NR
Discipline
11
Bumen (2009)
Turkish Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES)
E, S
Turkey
(Unnamed) Observation of teachers' classroom practices
12
Bumen (2010)
Turkish Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES)
13
Burke et al. (2011)
14
15
α=.93
S
NR
OBS
E, S
Turkey
α=.93
S
Structured Classroom Observation, Form V
E
United States
NR
OBS
Cappella et al. (2012)
CLASS (Classroom Assessment Scoring System)
E
NR
NR
OBS
Chang (2009)
TSES (Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale)-Short Form
NR
United States
α=.90
S
16
Cooper et al. (2018)
(Unnamed) Survey on CM and challenging students
E, S
United States
NR
S
17
Davenport & Tansey
Teacher Strategies Questionnaire (TSQ)
NR
Ireland
NR
S
Classroom Disturbances scale
E, S
Germany
NR
S
NR
S
(2009)
18
Dicke et al. (2015)
TSES (Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale):
Classroom Management
19
Djalil & Anderson (1989)
Observation Schedule A
E
Indonesia
NR
OBS
20
Durr (2008)
TSES (Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale)
E, S
United States
NR
S
21
Evers et al. (2002)
(Unnamed) Efficacy Beliefs Scale
S
Netherlands
NR
S
22
Everston (1989)
(Unnamed) Beginning-of-school ratings of CM
E
United States
NR
OBS
NR
OBS
Classroom Rating Scales
23
Everston (1985)
Classroom Rating Scales
E, S
United States
NR
OBS
24
Evertson & Smithey
Ratings of classroom instruction (RCI)
E, S
United States
NR
OBS
(2000)
Classroom Activity Record (CAR)
NR
OBS
Fabiano et al. (2018)
Classroom Strategies Assessment System Teacher
ω= .94
S
NR
OBS
25
E
United States
(CSAS-T)
Classroom Strategies Assessment System Observation
(CSAS-O)
26
Ficarra & Quinn (2014)
The Survey of Effective Classroom Management
E, S
United States
α=.85
S
Strategies
27
Freeman et al. (2018)
(Unnamed) Specific Praise Rates
S
United States
NR
OBS
28
Gottfredson et al. (1993)
Modified Classroom Environment Scale (Teacher
S
United States
α=.94
S
α=.96
S
NR
S
NR
OBS
NR
OBS
NR
S
α=.84
S
TSES (Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale)-Adapted
NR
S
(Unnamed) Observation Using MOOSES
NR
OBS
Questionnaire)
Modified Classroom Environment Scale (Student
Questionnaire)
29
Hagermoser Sanetti
Adapted Classroom Management Survey
(2018)
(Unnamed) Observations of teacher classroom
E
United States
management behaviors
30
Hickey et al. (2017)
T-POT (Teacher Pupil Observation Tool)
E
Ireland
Teacher Strategies Questionnaire (TSQ)
31
Hirsch et al. (2019)
Teacher Survey of Practices
32
Hopman et al. (2018)
TSES (Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale)-Short Form
33
Hutchings et al. (2013)
34
Hyland (2014)
E
United States
S
Netherlands
NR
S
T-POT (Teacher Pupil Observation Tool)
P, E
UK
NR
OBS
Teacher Strategies Questionnaire (TSQ)
E
Ireland
NR
S
T-POT (Teacher Pupil Observation Tool)
35
36
Jones & Chronis-Tuscano
(Unnamed)Teacher Use of Classroom Behavior
(2008)
Management Strategies
Kamps et al. (2015)
(Unnamed)Observation of Teacher Behavior 1
Kleinert et al. (2017)
Classroom Ecology Checklist (CEC)
United States
NR
S
E
United States
NR
OBS
NR
OBS
NR
OBS
NR
OBS
E
United States
Up (CCU) Academic Engagement Observation Form
38
Knowles et al. (2017)
(Unnamed)TCM observations on teacher use of target
OBS
E
Classroom Management Ratings
37
NR
E
United States
NR
OBS
strategies
39
Kraft & Blazar (2017)
(Unnamed)Principal Survey
E, S
United States
NR
S
40
Kumarakulasingam
The Classroom Management & Discipline subscale of
NR
United States
NR
S
(2002)
the Teacher Efficacy in Classroom Management and
Discipline Scale
41
Leckey et al. (2016)
Teacher Strategies Questionnaire (TSQ)
P
United States
NR
S
42
Leflot et al. (2010)
(Unnamed) Observations of Teacher Behavior
E
United States
NR
OBS
S
United States
NR
OBS
Management
44
MacSuga & Simonsen
(2011)
Classroom Management Observation Checklist
45
Marquez et al. (2016)
TSES (The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale)—Short
E
Form
United States
NR
S
and Thailand
46
Martin (2009)
T-POT (Teacher Pupil Observation Tool)
E
United States
NR
OBS
47
McGilloway et al. (2010)
T-POT (Teacher Pupil Observation Tool)
P
Ireland
NR
OBS
NR
S
Teacher Strategies Questionnaire (TSQ)
48
Moore et al. (2017)
Survey of Classroom and Behavior Management
P, E
United States
α=.88
S
49
Morris et al. (2013)
CLASS (Classroom Assessment Scoring System)
P
United States
NR
OBS
50
Motoca et al. (2014)
SEALS Observation Scales (SOS)
S
United States
NR
OBS
NR
OBS
K=.87
OBS
K=.90
OBS
K =.87
OBS
K=.90
OBS
K=0.92
OBS
NR
OBS
Teacher Observation of the management of Behavior
and Academics (TOMBA)
51
Murray et al. (2012)
CLASS (Classroom Assessment Scoring System)
E
United States
Teacher Coder Impression Inventory (TCI)
52
Murray et al. (2014)
CLASS (Classroom Assessment Scoring System)-
E
United States
Subscales (PC, NC, BM)
Teacher Coder Impression Inventory (TCI)
53
Murray et al. (2018)
Teacher Coder Impression Inventory (TCI)
CLASS (Classroom Assessment Scoring System)Subscales (PC, NC, BM)
E
United States
54
Owens et al. (2017)
Student Behavior-Teacher Response Observation Rating
E
United States
NR
OBS
E, S
United States
NR
OBS
E
United States
NR
OBS
E
United States
α=.92
S
Classroom Management
NR
OBS
Classroom Ecology Checklist (CEC)
NR
OBS
(Unnamed)Observations of teacher behavior using
NR
OBS
System (SBTR) ** Modified
55
Pas et al. (2016)
ASSIST (Assessing School Settings: Interactions of
Students and Teachers)
56
Reinke et al. (2014)
Brief Classroom Interaction Observation Revised
(BICO-R)
57
Reinke et al. (2013)
TSES-(Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale):
MOSSES
58
Reinke et al. (2012)
Classroom Ecology Checklist (CEC)
E
United States
NR
OBS
59
Reinke et al. (2014)
Brief Classroom Interaction Observation Revised
E
United States
NR
OBS
E
United States
α=.91
S
NR
OBS
NR
S
(BICO-R)
60
61
Rimm-Kaufman et al.
Classroom Practices Measure
(2007)
(Unnamed)Observed use of RC Practices
Roache & Lewis (2011)
(Unnamed) Questionnaire about use of management
strategies
E, S
Australia
62
Roeloft et al. (1994)
Management and Instruction Scale (MIS)
E, S
Netherlands
NR
OBS
63
Sawka et al. (2002)
Teacher Implementation of Procedures
NR
United States
NR
OBS
64
Scott et al. (2011)
(Unnamed) Observations of Teacher Behaviors 4
S
United States
NR
OBS
65
Simonsen et al. (2014)
(Unnamed) Observations of Teacher Use of Praise
S
United States
NR
OBS
66
Simonsen et al. (2013)
Systematic Direct Observation
S
United States
NR
OBS
67
Simonsen et al. (2010)
(Unnamed) Classroom Management Skills via Direct
S
NR
NR
OBS
observation
68
Snyder et al. (2011)
Classroom Interaction Coding System
P
United States
NR
OBS
69
Sullivan et al. (2014)
Behaviour Management Strategies
S
Australia
NR
S
70
Tiano & McNeil (2006)
Teacher Rating of Class Manageability
P
United States
NR
S
71
Veenman et al. (1989)
Management and Instruction Scale (MIS)
E
Netherlands
NR
OBS
72
Webster-Stratton et al.
Teacher Coder Impression Inventory (TCI)
P, E
NR
NR
OBS
P,
UK
NR
S
NR
OBS
NR
OBS
(2008)
73
74
Wood et al. (1996)
Zentall & Javorsky
(Unnamed) Teacher Questionnaire
(Unnamed) Observation of Teacher Behavior 2
E, S
(Unnamed) Classroom Observations
E, S
United States
(2007)
Note. P=Preschool; E=Elementary; S=Secondary; NR=Not Reported; N/A= Not Applicable; OBS=Observation; S=Survey/Scale; O=other
View publication stats