SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2026 / Volume: 12 Issue: 2

The perception scale for curriculum leadership: Validity and reliability study

Cemile Keski(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0000-0002-6660-5016
İlkay Doğan Taş(KIRIKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-1418-1688
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-06-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on the analyses, a valid and reliable scale with 21 items and four components was created to determine middle school branch teachers' perception of curriculum leadership.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to create a measurement instrument that would be both valid and reliable for assessing middle school branch teachers' perceptions of curriculum leadership.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A straightforward random sample technique was used to choose the participants. 343 middle school branch teachers made up the study's sample.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on the analyses, a valid and reliable scale with 21 items and four components was created to determine middle school branch teachers' perception of curriculum leadership.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Curriculum leadership · Branch teacher · Middle school

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to create a measurement instrument that would be both valid and reliable for assessing middle school branch teachers' perceptions of curriculum leadership. A straightforward random sample technique was used to choose the participants. 343 middle school branch teachers made up the study's sample. The researchers created the "Curriculum Leadership Perception Scale," with 21 items to collect quantitative data. The scale's reliability was investigated utilizing McDonald’s omega coefficient, item discrimination, and split-half reliability analyses, while its validity was evaluated through face, content, and construct validity. For face and content validity, expert opinion and a pilot study were carried out; EFA and CFA were used for construct validity. While the 213 participants' data were used for EFA, the 130 participants' data were used for CFA. Eighteen items were eliminated following the EFA, and a CFA was carried out. The following fit indices were obtained for the scale by the analysis: RMSEA = .062, GFI = .982, NNFI/TLI = .929, CFI = .940, and IFI = .941. The reliability coefficient for McDonald’s omega was .932. Based on the analyses, a valid and reliable scale with 21 items and four components was created to determine middle school branch teachers' perception of curriculum leadership.

🔖

Cite This Article

Keski, C., Taş, İ. D. (2025). The perception scale for curriculum leadership: Validity and reliability study. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Volume: 12 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1518335

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (54)

  1. Akbaş, O., & Keskin, A. (2021). Eğitim programı liderliği [Curriculum leadership]. In G. Ekici, & S.M. Özdemir (Eds.), Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme [Curriculum development and evaluation in education]. Nobel Academic Publishing.
  2. Akbaş, O., Keskin, A., & Duman, S.N. (2021). Eğitim programı liderliği yeterlilikleri üzerine bir araştırma [A study on curriculum leadership competencies]. Turkish Journal of Primary Education, 6(2), 157-179. https://doi.org/10.52797/tujped.1014824
  3. Akbulut, Y. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS uygulamaları [SPSS applications in social sciences]. İdeal Kültür Publishing.
  4. Akpınar, B. (2017). Eğitimde program geliştirme [Curriculum development in education]. Data Publishing.
  5. Bayirli, A., & Balcı, A. (2021). Okul müdürlerinin eğitim programı liderliğini belirlemeye yönelik bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması [Developing a scale to determine curriculum leadership of school principals]. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 19(2), 1252-1276. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.938818
  6. Bolat, Y., & Baş, M. (2023). İki önemli öğretmenlik mesleği yeterliği: eğitim programı okuryazarlığı ve eğitim programı liderliği [Two important teaching professional competencies: Curriculum literacy and curriculum leadership]. Journal of Education for Life, 37(2), 294-330. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2023372541
  7. Bentler, P.M., & Chou, C.P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001004
  8. Berinsky, A. (2004). Silent voices: Public opinion and political participation in America. Princeton University Press.
  9. Brown, T.A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.
  10. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage Publications.
  11. Carpenter, S. (2017). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25 44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583
  12. Chen, J., Yang, Y., Xu, F., Xu, W., Zhang, X., Wang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Factors Influencing Curriculum Leadership of Primary and Secondary School Teachers from the Perspective of Field Dynamic Theory: An Empirical Investigation in China. Sustainability, 13, 12007. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112007
  13. Cherryholmes, C.H. (1988). Power and criticism: Poststructural investigations in education. Teachers College Press.
  14. Chuan-Hsing, W., & Mei-Ju, C. (2016). A study on curriculum leadership indicators regarding elementary school dean of academic affairs. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Sciences, 4(8), 20–48.
  15. Creswell, J., & Guetterman, T.C. (2018). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (6th Ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
  16. Çelik, V. (2012). Eğitimsel liderlik [Educational leadership]. Pegem Publishing.
  17. Çobanoğlu, R., & Yıldırım, A. (2021). Türkiye’de Program Geliştirme Çalışmaları: Cumhuriyet’in İlanından Günümüze Tarihsel Bir Analiz [Curriculum Development Studies in Türkiye: A Historical Analysis from the Declaration of Republic to Present] The Journal of Turkish Educational Science, 19(2), 810-830. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.912329
  18. de Winter, J.C.F., & Dodou, D. (2012). Response to commentary on "The driver behaviour questionnaire as a predictor of accidents: A meta-analysis". Journal of Safety Research, 43(1), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2011.06.013
  19. Demirel, Ö. (2021). Eğitimde program geliştirme [Curriculum development in education]. Pegem Academic Publishing.
  20. DeVellis, R.F., & Thorpe, C.T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
  21. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54, 77–80.
  22. Ertürk, S. (2013). Eğitimde program geliştirme [Curriculum development in education]. Edge Academic Publishing.
  23. Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., & Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299.
  24. Field, A. (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd Edition, Sage Publications Ltd., London.
  25. Frankel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E. (2008). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw Hill Higher Education.
  26. Giroux, H.A. (1991). Border pedagogy and the politics of postmodernism. Social Text, 28, 51–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/466376
  27. Glatthorn, A.A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead, B.M. (2005). Curriculum leadership: Development and implementation. Sage Publications.
  28. Harris, A., Jones, M., & Crick, T. (2020). Curriculum leadership: a critical contributor to school and system improvement. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 1 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1704470
  29. Henderson, J.G., Castner, D.J., & Schneider, J.L. (2018). Democratic curriculum leadership: critical awareness to pragmatic artistry. Rowan & Little.
  30. Ho, D.C.W. (2010). Teacher participation in curriculum and pedagogical decisions: Insights into curriculum leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(5), 613–624. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1741143210373739
  31. Ho, R. (2006). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
  32. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M.R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1): 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
  33. Horn, J.L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
  34. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  35. Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (2006). The multivariate social scientist: introductory statistics using generalized linear models (2nd ed.). Sage
  36. Jacobs, H.H. (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping. Association for Supervision.
  37. Johns, R. (2005). One Size doesn’t fit all: Selecting response scales for attitude items. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 15(2), 237 264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13689880500178849
  38. Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315788135
  39. Kline, R.B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
  40. Krosnick, J. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 213 36. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305
  41. Krosnick, J.A., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and questionnaire design. In P.V. Marsden & J.D. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (2nd ed., pp. 263–313). Emerald Group Publishing.
  42. Mardia, K.V. (1970). Measures of Multivariate Skewness and Kurtosis with Applications. Biometrika, 57, 519-530. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519
  43. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri [General competencies for teaching profession]. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/StPrg/Ogretmenlik_Meslegi_Genel_Yeterlikleri.pdf
  44. Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.
  45. Noddings, N. (2013). Education and democracy in the 21st. century. Teachers College, Columbia University.
  46. Park, H.S., Dailey, R., & Lemus, D. (2002). The use of exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 562–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00824.x
  47. Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. Peter Lang.
  48. Posner, G.J. (1995). Analyzing the curriculum. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
  49. R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. http://www.R-project.org/
  50. Schwab, J.J. (1971). The practical: Arts of eclectic. The School Review, 79, 493-542. https://doi.org/10.1086/442998
  51. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. Brace ve World, Inc.
  52. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon.
  53. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31(3), 245 248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621606290168
  54. Wiles, J. (2016). Eğitim program liderliği [Leading curriculum development]. (B. Acat, Trans. Ed.). Nobel Academic Publishing.