The descriptive statistics for the two dimensions (see Table 2) indicated that the conflict and closeness values varied dominicancupid chat between the maximum and minimum possible values of the scale (i.e. 40 and 8, and 35 and 7, respectively), while the STRS total score varied between the maximum and almost the minimum possible values of the scale (i.e. 75 and 15). Although the analysis of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test indicated that these scales do not have a normal distribution, the skewness and kurtosis values showed that they are not far from normality. In fact, the teachers reported significantly higher scores on the closeness subscale, than on the conflict subscale, F(1, 534) = , p < .001.
Cronbach’s leader conveyed large inner feel off argument and you may intimacy size ([alpha] = .87, and [alpha] = .86, respectively) as well as in new STRS complete rating ([alpha] = .84). The thing-total relationship ranged anywhere between .49 and .69 in all items in each other subscales, and you may inter-items correlations ranged ranging from .27 and you can .63, suggesting that all items are connected to these types of subscales.
Brand new exploratory factor analysis, having a main components extraction approach and you will Varimax rotation, offered the original a few-factor provider of the Pianta (1992). Which two-grounds provider taken into account % of total variance (select Dining table step three). The 2 facts shown Eigenvalues out-of cuatro.62 and 3.61, and taken into account % and you will % of one’s full difference, correspondingly to possess disagreement and you can closeness.
However, the fresh percentile thinking for every subscale and also for the overall get indicated that the brand new teachers often look at the college student-teacher dating absolutely
Throughout the confirmatory factor data, i checked the brand new design complement the 2-grounds model. Which basic design (Model Good) displayed high enough match list values (CFI = .92, GFI = .ninety, RMSEA = 0.07, [chi-square]/df = dos.32), but three sets off errors in identical dimensions got high amendment indicator. Ergo, we tested the second design incase correlations ones problems (Model B, Shape 1), and you will a great fit try attained (CFI = .96, GFI = .93, RMSEA = 0.05, [chi square]/df = step one.65; Hu Bentler, 1999).
The relation between the conflict and closeness subscales was weak but significant and negative (r = -.15, p < .001). The relation between the subscales and the STRS total score was also significant, but strong and negative with the conflict subscale (r = -.77, p < .001) and strong and positive with the closeness subscale (r = .74, p < .001).
The latest instructors which have youngsters in the 1st grades got nearer matchmaking ([beta] = –
The newest proportion out of female and male students chosen by coaches differed into the reason for the intercourse, we.age., female teachers chose more people than simply male college students and you will male teachers picked alot more men than simply people people, [chi-square](1) = 5.034, p = .025.
80, p < .001, and overall student-teacher relationship, t(525) = 3.67, p < .001, depending on the student's gender. Teachers reported less conflict in student-teacher relationships with the female students (M = , SD = 4.63) than male students (M = , SD = 5.75), and globally better student-teacher relationships with female students (M = , SD = 7.37) than male students (M = , SD = 8.34). There was no statistical evidence of a significant difference in closeness in student-teacher relationships by students' gender, t(525) = 1.76, p = .079.
The regression model indicated that the students’ grade level was significantly associated with the closeness subscale, F(1, 518) = , p < .001, and the STRS total scale, F(1, 518) = 9.23, p = .003, but not with the conflict subscale, F(1, 518) = 0.00, p = .991. 21, CI = -.83 - -.35) and better student-teacher relationships overall ([beta] = -.13, CI = -.97 -.21), than the teachers with students in the more advanced grades.