Special Education Teacher Stress: Coping Strategies

EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 41, No. 4, 2018

Special Education Teacher Stress: Coping Strategies Edward J. Cancio The University of Toledo

Ross Larsen Brigham Young University

Sarup R. Mathur Arizona State University

Mary Bailey Estes University of North Texas

Bev Johns MacMurray College

Mei Chang University of North Texas Abstract Little is known about stress perception and perceived coping mechanisms used by special educators. This article presents a study with 211 special educators to determine how they deal with stress. Participants completed a survey reporting stressors and coping skills. Special educators reported stress in their positions. Increased caseloads, multiple roles, pressures for student achievement, student behavior, and worries about the existence of their positions can cause this stress. In general, the findings indicate that special educators experience work-related stress that interferes with their quality of work. Most special educators employ adaptive strategies in dealing with stress. In addition to presenting the study results, this article presents implications for school administrators and teacher educators that can increase special educators’ understanding about job stress and its relationship with work manageability. Keywords: Teacher stress, coping strategies, special educators, teachers, stress Correspondence should be addressed to: Edward J. Cancio, Department of Early Childhood, Higher, and Special Education, Judith Herb College of Education, University of Toledo, 2801 W. Bancroft Street, Mail Stop 954, Toledo, OH 43606 – 3390. Email: [email protected]

Pages 451–476

WVU_ETC_41.4_04Cancio_1pp.indd 451

8/15/18 3:40 PM

452

CANCIO, LARSEN, MATHUR, ESTES, JOHNS, AND CHANG

I

n line with the overall decline in teacher employment, the field of special education is still facing shortages and unfilled teaching positions (Dewey et al., 2017). As reported by the U.S. Department of Education, roughly 8.4% of the nation’s teachers left the field in the academic year of 2003 – 2004 (Dillion, 2007; Westervelt, 2016). More recently, Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2017) reported that teacher attrition in the United States is about twice as high as in highachieving countries such as Finland, Singapore, and Canada. They further pointed out that 90% of open teaching positions in California were created by teachers who left the profession, with about twothirds of them leaving due to dissatisfaction with teaching. Another study that differentiated teachers who planned to stay from those who planned to leave found that participants who planned to stay had higher job satisfaction and adequate time and energy to complete paperwork. Teachers who planned to depart indicated they left to pursue another career, or because they were dissatisfied (Albrecht, Johns, Mounsteven, & Olorunda, 2009). The problem with teacher retention goes far beyond aging out through retirement, as nearly onethird of all new teachers leave the field after just three years due to dissatisfaction, acceptance of better paying jobs (e.g., administrative positions), or career diversion (Dillion, 2007; Ingersoll & Perda, 2007). Unfavorable working conditions and/or school climate are cited as reasons for attrition and difficulty filling open positions in highneeds schools (Berry, Rasberry, & Williams, 2007). Workload Manageability and Stress Despite working hard, teachers are not finding job satisfaction (Watson, Harper, Ratliff, & Singleton, 2010), and as a result are leaving the profession (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Ingersoll, 2012). Research indicates that the job of the special educator is difficult, demanding, and more stressful than that of general educators (Bettini et al., 2017). Special educators face increasing or large caseloads, lack of clarity in their roles, lack of administrative support, excessive paperwork, feelings of isolation and loneliness, and minimal collaboration with colleagues (Albrecht et al., 2009; Cancio & Conderman, 2008; Futernick, 2007; Kaff, 2004; Katsiyannis, Zhang, & Conroy, 2003; Prather-Jones, 2011; Schlichte, Yssel, & Merbler, 2005). In a study with novice teachers, Bettini et al. (2017) found that workload manageability influenced the teachers’ career intentions and predicted emotional exhaustion, indicating a relationship between job commitment and stress. Using the conservation of resources (COR; Hobfoll, 2011) theoretical framework, their study suggested that overwhelming workloads may reduce the energy level of new teachers, reduce


8/15/18 3:40 PM

Stress and Coping

453

engagement in responsibilities, and leave them burnt out and less committed to the profession. COR theory assumes that individuals are faced with limited resources of time and energy, and in response to prolonged periods of high demands and low resources, they demonstrate reduced energy and do not complete responsibilities (Hobfoll, 2011). Consequences of Stress Wong, Ruble, McGrew, and Yu (2017) examined consequences of teacher stress and related burnout on teacher/student behavior and found that stress influenced teaching quality and student engagement. They reported that teachers who were stressed were more likely to leave the profession.When teachers were provided with enough instructional support to ensure high teaching quality and student engagement, as well as emotional support to monitor students’ longterm progress, they were more likely to experience reduced work-related stress (Wong et al., 2017). Additional consequences reported in the literature associated with special education teacher stress and burnout include: (a) decreased feelings of accomplishment (e.g., they are not meeting the needs of students, they feel less successful in dealing with crisis intervention; Embich, 2001; Pullis, 1992; Stiver, 1980; Zabel & Zabel, 1982), (b) difficulty with personal or professional relationships (e.g., they isolate themselves due to work overload, they do not collaborate with colleagues, they do not socialize with colleagues in or outside work; Maslach & Jackson, 1984; Pullis, 1992; Stiver, 1980; Sweeney & Townley, 1993; Wrobel, 1993), (c) neglect of other responsibilities, (e.g., they find inadequate time to complete paperwork, their management of skills lessens, their structure and consistency diminishes; George, George, Gersten, & Grosenick 1995; Zabel & Zabel, 1982), and (d) emotional exhaustion (e.g., they are extremely tired after work, they no longer participate in hobbies, they do not socialize with friends after work). When teachers do not find sufficient coping resources to deal with their stress, they may experience a loss of enthusiasm and motivation, and may no longer find meaning in their work (Matheny, Gfroerer, & Harris, 2000). Stress and Burnout According to Wong et al. (2017), burnout is often considered an outcome of chronic stress. In operationalizing the measures of these terms, stress is an immediate effect of specific stressors (e.g., difficult student), whereas burnout is a long-term natural consequence (McCarthy, Lambert, Lineback, Fitchett, & Buddouh, 2016). Maslach,


8/15/18 3:40 PM

454


Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) identified three dimensions of stress/ burnout: (1) emotional exhaustion, (2) depersonalization, and (3) lack of personal accomplishment. Emotional exhaustion occurs when an individual has depleted emotional resources and experiences a lack of energy and fatigue. Depersonalization means distancing oneself from others, particularly from students with whom teachers must interact in the performance of their jobs (Maslach et al., 2001). A decline in personal accomplishment results from a reduced sense of efficacy and devaluation of one’s work. Work overload, social conflict, and insufficient personal resources, including coping skills, are associated with these dimensions of burnout (Maslach et al., 2001). Most research has focused on identifying stressors for teachers and less on identifying coping strategies that may assist them in managing their stress productively so that they feel less burnt out. Recently, Brunsting, Sreckovic, and Lane (2014) updated the literature on special education teacher working conditions by reviewing 23 studies that included a quantitative measure of burnout. They found that limited teacher experience, student disability, role conflict, role ambiguity, and limited administrative support contributed to special education teacher burnout. The authors suggested that future research needs to provide a better understanding of interventions and coping strategies to alleviate teacher stress and burnout that result from these challenges. Coping Mechanisms The effectiveness of teachers’ coping techniques affects their health, well-being, and commitment to teaching. According to Betoret (2006), teachers who have access to coping resources are less likely to report burnout than those with fewer coping resources. Coping mechanisms can reduce the effects of stressors by changing one’s emotional state during a stressful situation, or by eliminating or reducing the source of stress (Lazarus, 1993). It is a process of constantly modifying cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are exceeding the capacity and resources of the person (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Stoeber and Rennert (2008) categorized various coping strategies into two types, active and avoidant coping. People who view potential stressors as challenges, not as threats and losses, show a preference for active coping, not avoidant coping. With effective coping strategies, teachers can problem solve, access social-emotional support, and gain mastery in teaching, which can further enhance the enjoyment of work (Parker & Martin, 2009). Since limited research exists on special educators and their coping, we drew from research that focused on how other helping professionals cope with their stress. Research on nurses


8/15/18 3:40 PM

Stress and Coping

455

indicates that their engagement and persistence in performing a specific behavior or task is dependent on their level of perceived capacity, which in turn influences their choice of activities and the amount of effort and time they will invest in the task, despite hurdles, opposition, and challenges (Jordan, Khubchandani, & Wiblishauser, 2016). These findings suggested that capacity can be increased by effective coping resources in a supportive environment that contributes to professional growth. As mentioned before, when special educators are overwhelmed with the stressors they face, they may choose to leave the field of special education (Katsiyannis, et al., 2003; Prather-Jones, 2011), which may be viewed as avoidant coping. Currently, researchers are interested in gauging the ways special educators engage in active and adaptive coping, while they are in the profession. Facilitators of Active Coping In addition to well-accepted methods of active (adaptive) coping (i.e., exercise, meditation, free-time activities) research shows that a support network of educators, particularly where mentoring is involved, can provide a mechanism by which new teachers cope productively with stress (Beltman, Mansfield, & Price, 2011; Castro, Kelly, & Shih, 2010). In addition to the emotional support that can emerge from a relationship with an understanding colleague, the sharing of vital teaching tips and behavioral management advice from an experienced educator can be critical. Networking with other professionals via membership in well-respected professional organizations can result in mentorship, emotional support, and effective training in teaching tips and behavioral management. While contrasting the roles of general and special educators, Jones, Youngs, and Frank (2013) suggested that colleagues can serve as important sources of support for special educators in navigating various responsibilities. Informal support from mentors and colleagues is associated with increased commitment among novice special educators. When special educators view themselves as a part of a professional community, they are more likely to access important resources (Jones et al., 2013). Professional organizations also provide a myriad of opportunities for professional growth by offering, among others, conference workshops, publications, networking, webinars and blogs. Such professional development, whereby teachers learn new techniques with which to impart academic knowledge and ways to effectively communicate that knowledge through behavior management, has been cited as an important contributor to teacher resilience and retention (Anderson & Olsen, 2006; Beltman et al., 2011). Membership in a professional organization, therefore, can provide a vital link to


8/15/18 3:40 PM

456


the support that is needed (Madsen, 2010) to help a special educator deal with stress, and thereby promote his or her retention in the field. An important issue to address, therefore, is how current special educators are dealing with pressures that accompany their jobs, and if they are adopting healthy or unhealthy ways for dealing with stress. The Study This article presents the findings of a survey designed to explore the ways in which special educators express and cope with their stress. The theoretical framework that guided this study was COR that assumes special educators work in demanding situations with limited resources; and without sufficient coping resources to deal with their stress, they may experience emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of personal accomplishment (Alarcon, 2011). Thus, it was important to examine ways in which special educators respond to work-related stress. Based on this framework, the following research questions were addressed: • How do special educators express their stress? • What are the strategies special educators utilize to cope with the stress they encounter in their educational settings? • Of these coping strategies, which ones are adaptive to lower the amount of stress while at the job? Method Participants The survey was sent by e-mail to special education teachers in Ohio, Illinois, Texas, and Arizona in the fall of the 2016 – 2017 academic school year. Four sets of emails were distributed to a sample pool of 512 special education teachers. For this pool of teachers, the lead author contacted four special education directors of urban school districts and asked them to send the e-mail to special educators in their districts. Survey responses were submitted by 211 special education teachers resulting in a response rate of 41%. One hundred and eighty-two (87%) who indicated they were endorsed or licensed in the area in which they were currently teaching, responded to the survey. Convenience sampling was used to secure participants for the study. Supervisors in school districts were asked to send e-mails to special educators in their district. Participants’ demographics are reported in Table 1.


8/15/18 3:40 PM

457

Stress and Coping Table 1 Participant Demographics Variable

N

%

Caucasian

160

75.8

African American

22

10.4

Hispanic

14

6.6

Asian

1

0.5

Other

4

1.8

Missing

10

4.7

Ethnic background

Average Socioeconomic Level of Students in School Low

160

75.8

Middle

39

18.5

High

2

0.9

Missing

10

4.7

86

40.8

Grade Level Elementary Middle/Jr. high

41

19.4

High

64

30.3

Other

12

5.7

Missing

8

3.8

Emotional and behavioral disorders

13

6.2

Intellectual disabilities

4

1.9

Learning disabilities

26

12.3

Mild/moderate

63

29.9

Moderate to severe

23

10.9

Other

74

35.0

Missing

8

3.8

Certification

(continued)


8/15/18 3:40 PM

458

CANCIO, LARSEN, MATHUR, ESTES, JOHNS, AND CHANG Table 1 (continued)

Variable

N

%

Self-contained

91

43.1

Open classroom

120

56.9

Female

182

86.3

Male

29

13.7

5 or less years (Inexperienced)

40

18.9

6 + years (Experienced)

171

81.0

Self-Contained Classroom

Gender

Experience

Stress Instrument Development The questionnaire consisted of 50 items in five clusters. The five clusters ascertained teachers’ responses regarding their work setting: (a) satisfaction with various aspects of the job, (b) feelings experienced concerning the job, (c) self-descriptive statements, (d) how the teachers cope with the stress of the job, and (e) demographic information. The development of the survey items was drawn from three sources. First, survey questions were adapted from a survey by Cancio, Albrecht, and Johns (2013) to assess the effects of administrative support of teachers of students with EBD related to stress. Second, items were developed by examining variables identified in the literature that contribute to stress, burnout, and attrition of teachers of students with disabilities (Maslach et al., 2001). Third, the authors drew from more than a hundred years of collective experience as special educators and 20 years as researchers on this topic. After the authors’ review, the survey was pilot tested with a group of 28 teachers of students with disabilities in Northwest Ohio in the following settings: elementary school, middle school/junior high school, high school, and separate facility schools for students with disabilities (Cancio, Mathur, Estes, Johns, & Larson, 2017). The teachers responded to the items, provided feedback on the clarity of the items and the time it took to complete the questionnaire, and made suggestions for improvements. As a result of the pilot study, wording and survey items were further modified and refined. A full text of the survey can be obtained from the first author.


8/15/18 3:40 PM

Stress and Coping

459

Instrument Content Part one. The first section of the survey, consisting of six questions, asked respondents to make judgments about various aspects of their jobs. The scale asked the respondents to respond on a fourpoint Likert-type scale ranging from “1” (very dissatisfied) to “4” (very satisfied). Representative items in this section included “I value my position”, “I have difficulty with my position,” and “I have positive relationships with colleagues.” Part two. The second section, consisting of five questions of the survey, asked respondents to express feelings about their jobs. The scale asked the participants to respond to the same four-point Likert-type scale as in part one. Representative items in this section included: “Does work make you tense?”, “The amount of work you must get done interferes with how well it gets done,” and “Your work causes you a great amount of stress.” Part three. The third section had eight questions and asked respondents the extent to which the following might describe them. The scale asked the respondents to respond to the same four-point Likert-type scale as in parts one and two. Representative items in this section included: “I do not sleep well,” “I have a lot of headaches,” “I feel tired,” and “I miss a lot of time from work.” Part four. The fourth section consisted of 16 questions and asked respondents what strategies they use to cope with stress at work. The scale asked them to respond to the same four-point Likert-type scale as in parts one through three. Representative items in this section included: “I listen to music,” “I talk to my supervisor when stressed,” “I exercise,” “I am involved in professional organizations,” “I use alcohol,” and “I use tobacco products.” Part five. The fifth section had 15 questions and asked for demographic information. Representative items in this section asked questions regarding gender, age, ethnic background, endorsement in area of teaching, grade level at which participants are teaching, numbers of students in their classroom, classroom type, and their students’ disabilities. Procedure The anonymous survey was available via the Internet through Survey Monkey, an online survey tool, from September 2016 to November 2016 through a link included in an email to potential respondents (described in the Participants section). The survey was completed only one time by participants. The setting in Survey Monkey did not allow the participants to repeat the survey. At the end of the posting


8/15/18 3:40 PM

460


period, the electronic collection of responses was imported to the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software program for statistical computations. Analytic Strategy Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) are data reduction techniques used to account for measurement error and extract latent variables. EFA tells how many latent factor(s) are in the data, and CFA shows how well the latent factor(s) fit the data. For an extended overview of these concepts, please refer to Wang and Wang (2012). The CFA of the data indicated that keeping the items Q7 – Q19 resulted in a unidimensional construct that fit the data well according to the fit statistics (RMSEA = 0.115, CFI = 0.972, TLI = 0.966, WRMR = 0.917), according to traditional cutoffs to a three out of the four fit statistics (RMSEA < .08, CFI > .9, TL I> .9, WRMR < 1; Wang & Wang, 2012). All analyses were done using Mplus 8.0 (Muthén, & Muthén, 1998 – 2017). The EFA was run on the data to determine the number of factors that can be extracted from the data and for isolating items that do not add to the overall factor, and thus are candidates for deletion. The general principles delimited in Worthington and Whittaker (2006) were followed while theoretical considerations were also used for decision making of item retention. Once an EFA was performed, a CFA was done to obtain fit statistics for the proposed model. Once the psychometric properties of the construct(s) were established, a structural equation model (SEM) was employed with the covariates that regressed on the latent variable. As we were interested in describing what was observed in the analysis, we employed simultaneous regression (where all the covariates are included at once) so we could see how the variables performed in the presence of each other (Wang & Wang, 2012). Multigroup analyses were also conducted to study the differential effects of the strategies across different types of teachers. The covariance coverage (the percentage of missing data for each pairwise comparison between variables) is quite low in this analysis especially with the indicators of the construct (< 5% missing), making missing data less of a concern in this analysis. Missing data is handled in Mplus by the Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) technique that has been shown to be more effective in dealing with missing data than other techniques such as listwise deletion (Little & Rubin, 2014).


8/15/18 3:40 PM

461

Stress and Coping

Results The results of participants’ ratings on the stress scale and coping strategies indicate that participating teachers rated the feeling of being tired because of work as one of the highest indicators of stress (M = 3.62; SD = 1.21). Teachers carrying their school problems home received the next highest rating (M = 3.27; SD = 1.34). Among the coping strategies, the two items that received the highest mean ratings were seeking support from family, friends, and colleagues (M = 3.66; SD = 1.21) and listening to music (M = 3.52; SD = 1.24). The EFA indicated that a one factor was appropriate according to the eigenvalues, scree plots, and model fit statistics. Results indicated keeping the items Q7 – Q19 resulted in a unidimensional construct that fit the data well, according to a majority of the fit statistics (χ2 = 133.225, p = 0.000, MSEA = 0.115, CFI = 0.972, TLI = 0.966, WRMR = 0.917), according to traditional cutoffs to a three out of the four fit Table 2 Descriptives of the Stress Scale Items and Coping Strategies Full Stress Scale Items

Mean

SD

Min

Max

N

You carry your school problems home with you

3.27

1.34

1

5

206

Your work makes you frustrated

3.03

1.15

1

5

206

Your work makes you tense

3.12

1.20

1

5

206

The amount of work you have to get done interferes with how well it gets done

3.17

1.27

1

5

206

Your work causes you a great deal of stress

3.25

1.26

1

5

206

I often get upset and cannot eat

1.51

0.83

1

5

206

I do not sleep well

2.66

1.29

1

5

206

I have a lot of headaches

2.36

1.37

1

5

206

I feel tired

3.62

1.21

1

5

204

I find myself seeking medical care often

1.77

1.01

1

5

206

I have sought counseling or psychological help

1.51

0.99

1

5

203

I have high blood pressure

1.89

1.43

1

5

202

I miss a lot of time from work

1.26

0.63

1

5

204

(continued)


8/15/18 3:40 PM

462

CANCIO, LARSEN, MATHUR, ESTES, JOHNS, AND CHANG Table 2 (continued)

Full Stress Scale Items

Mean

SD

Min

Max

N

1.50

0.85

1

5

204

Writing

1.43

0.82

1

5

203

Listening to music

3.52

1.24

1

5

202

Gardening

1.93

1.24

1

5

203

Talking with your supervisor

1.93

1.01

1

5

202

Yoga

1.36

0.83

1

5

204

Exercising

2.74

1.33

1

5

200

Support from family, friends, and colleagues

3.66

1.21

1

5

204

Involvement in your professional organization (e.g., CEC, CCBD)

1.39

0.76

1

5

202

Counseling

1.30

0.73

1

5

203

Engaging in staff development

2.34

1.10

1

5

204

Eating

2.80

1.35

1

5

203

Use of prescribed medication

1.90

1.48

1

5

198

Use of tobacco products

1.30

0.92

1

5

198

Use of alcohol

1.89

0.99

1

5

202

Use of recreational drugs

1.04

0.27

1

4

188

Coping Strategies Dancing

Note. CEC = Council for Exceptional Children. CCBD = Council for Children with Behavior Disorders.

statistics (Wang & Wang, 2012). The factor loadings and communalities are found in Table 3. Although some of the factor loadings were below the cutoff (.32), (e.g., “Q18 — I have high blood pressure,” “Q19 — I miss a lot time from work”), they were still retained according to the theoretical context coverage. As the data were considered categorical and there were some floor effects in the data, reliability statistics such as omega or Cronbach’s alpha can be misleading and thus were not calculated (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). The SEM and multi-group are found in Tables 4 – 6. As seen in Table 4, in the overall SEM where no grouping of teachers was done, dancing was the only strategy that statistically predicted lower stress (B = -0.176, β = -0.212, p = 0.002). This does lend support to the predictive validity of measure, as dancing is theorized to decrease stress. (Brauninger, 2012) Because stress is a latent variable and thus has no


8/15/18 3:40 PM

463

Stress and Coping Table 3 STRESS Latent Variable Factor Loadings and Communalities (N = 101)

SE

Standardized Factor Loadings

Communalities

1.000

0.000

0.700

0.490

Q8 — Your work makes you frustrated

1.221***

0.098

0.855

0.731

Q9 — Your work makes you tense

1.387***

0.109

0.971

0.943

Q10 — The amount of work you have to get done interferes with how well it gets done

1.083***

0.099

0.758

0.575

Q11 — Your work causes you a great deal of stress

1.359***

0.107

0.952

0.906

Q12 — I often get upset and cannot eat

0.995***

0.103

0.697

0.485

Q13 — I do not sleep well

0.920***

0.099

0.644

0.414

Q14 — I have a lot of headaches

0.975***

0.095

0.683

0.466

Q15 — I feel tired

1.164***

0.100

0.815

0.664

Q16 — I find myself seeking medical care often

1.081***

0.104

0.757

0.573

Q17 — I have sought counseling or psychological help

0.597***

0.134

0.418

0.175

Q18 — I have high blood pressure

0.302

0.167

0.211

0.045

Q19 — I miss a lot of time from work

0.315*

0.126

0.220

0.049

Unstandardized Factor Loadings

Q7 — You carry your school problems home with you

Stress Items

Note. SE = standard error. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.


8/15/18 3:40 PM

464

CANCIO, LARSEN, MATHUR, ESTES, JOHNS, AND CHANG Table 4 Regression Coefficients of Predictors (Coping Strategies) on Outcome Variable (Stress)

Predictor Variable

B

SE

Beta

p-value

Dancing

-0.176

0.058

-0.212

0.002*

Writing

-0.057

0.054

-0.066

0.291

Listening to music

-0.065

0.037

-0.116

0.079

0.002

0.040

0.004

0.951

Gardening Talking with your supervisor

-0.047

0.047

-0.067

0.315

Yoga

-0.064

0.058

-0.076

0.268

Exercising

-0.065

0.037

-0.123

0.084

Support from family, friends, and colleagues

-0.067

0.039

-0.115

0.083

Involvement in your professional organization (e.g., CEC, CCBD)

-0.102

0.059

-0.111

0.085

0.279

0.058

0.288

-0.073

0.043

-0.114

Counseling Engaging in staff development

0.001** 0.093

Eating

0.190

0.031

0.365

0.001**

Use of prescribed medication

0.110

0.032

0.231

0.001**

Use of tobacco products

0.075

0.043

0.098

0.084

Use of alcohol

0.109

0.046

0.154

0.017*

Use of recreational drugs

0.271

0.115

0.104

0.019*

Note. SE = standard error. * p < .05; ** p < .01. CEC = Council for Exceptional Children. CCBD = Council for Children with Behavior Disorders.

natural scale, the easiest interpretation is for the standardized Beta (β) (Muthén, & Muthén, 1998 – 2017). Thus, for every one standard deviation increase a teacher reported in dancing, their stress score was predicted to be .212 standard deviations lower. Other coping strategies of counseling, eating, use of prescription medication, use of alcohol, and use of recreational drugs predicted an increase in stress (all p < .05). Nevertheless, as this was not a randomized controlled trial, causal claims should not be made, even with caution. Table 5 shows the results from a multigroup SEM where the groups are determined by the level of experience of the teachers ( 5 years). InEx = inexperienced (< 5 years). * p < .05; ** p < .01.

0.003 -0.027

Yoga

0.081 -0.118

-0.06

Listening to music

Talking with your supervisor

-0.057

Writing

Gardening

-0.054

Ex

Dancing

Variable

-0.127

0.27

0.014

0.121

0.232

-0.077

0.164

-0.266

-0.182

-0.056

0.17

0.087

-0.09

0.089

-0.026

-0.256

InEx

Table 5 Regression Coefficients of Coping Strategies on Stress by Teacher Experience

0.956

0.538

0.922

0.124

0.881

0.474

0.943

0.843

0.093

0.430

0.699

0.323

0.598

0.698

0.822

0.738

0.748

0.674

0.907

0.163

InEx

p-value

0.001**

0.901

0.425

0.217

0.496

0.69

0.987

0.113

0.163

0.314

0.687

0.67

Ex

Stress and Coping

465

8/15/18 3:40 PM

466


eating was associated with increased stress for experienced teachers (B = 0.237, β = 0.393, p < 0.001). Table 6 shows the results from a multigroup SEM where the groups were determined by whether a teacher had a self-contained classroom or not. Teachers of self-contained classrooms reported dancing (B = -0.278, β = -0.268, p = 0.02) and being a member of a professional organization as coping strategies that reduce stress (B = -0.198, β = -0.19, p = 0.04), while eating was a predictor for higher stress (B = 0.175, β = 0.278, p = 0.004). Those teachers not in a self-contained classroom did not have any significant predictors of stress. As five tests were run on the same data, a Bonferroni correction is appropriate. The adjusted alpha was (.05/5 =.01), thus only those coefficients that had a p-value of .01 or less should be considered significant. Two other multigroup analyses were run, but they did not converge; one analysis was run where the groups were defined by age (