JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept.

of Education IUB, Pakistan

Developing a Validated Instrument to Measure Teachers’ Job

Performance: Analyzing the Role of Background Variables
Akhtar Ali*
Syed Zubair Haider**
Abstract
The present study creates and validates a brief instrument to measure
teachers’ job performance in schools and then establishing the effect of
background variables (gender, location, and job status) on the performance.
The statements of this scale were developed with the experts’ suggestions. The
current research was accomplished in two studies. In Study 1, Teacher’s Job
Performance Scale consisted of 24-items was developed by using an empirical
approach. In exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a principal component
method (PCM) and varimax rotation, 3-factors were emerged namely
Instructional Qualities, Professional Qualities and Personal Qualities. While
in second study, psychometric properties of newly developed tool were
determined. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) also
verified 3-factors structure in the developed scale. Internal consistency
reliability and construct validity were also satisfactory for this scale. The
results of both studies make available preliminary support that TJPS
demonstrates tremendous psychometric properties. Therefore, it could be
considered as a reliable and valid heads’ ratings instrument for assessing the
job performance of teachers. The overall results revealed a significant
difference between male/female and permanent/contractual teachers
regarding performance. However, on the basis of heads’ ratings, the
performance of teachers from urban and rural areas did not differ
significantly.
Keywords: Teacher performance, job performance, validation

Introduction
The teacher is an essential element of all educational systems. He has to
perform numerous tasks such as a researcher, curriculum developer, team member or
leader, professional and being an analyst (Richards and Lockhart, 1996). Teachers are

*
Dean Faculty of Education/ Chairman, Department of Education, The Islamia University of
Bahawalpur, Pakistan
**
Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Training, The Islamia University of
Bahawalpur, R.Y.Khan Campus, Pakistan. Tel: +92-332-9601095. E-mail:
[email protected]

21
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept. of Education IUB, Pakistan

respected by the community as they considered educated and well-informed individuals

about various subjects of a school. A teaching institution without a teacher is much the
same as a body without the spirit, a skeleton without blood and flesh, and a shadow
without the stuff. We may put any effort to obtain our goals, arrangements, programs,
curricula, gear and managerial structure; however, this is just the teacher who put life
into the skeleton (Aziz, 2012). A capable teacher will dependably look for the future
opportunity, at the accomplishment of educational objectives. A capable instructor will
be more ready to make a viable learning environment and to deal with his/her class so
that the excellence of students will constantly be at the maximum level. Baldoni (2005)
accepted that if the teaching-learning process in a school is handled and run by capable
teachers, it is believed to be normal and will produce high caliber students. The role of
teacher is not only the provision of knowledge or skills to his/her students, but they also
have an important responsibility of moderating the teaching-learning process and
learning environment (Kayisoglu, 2015).
In line with other sectors, the education sector is also dependent on the good
performance of its individuals as the quality of an educational process is affected by
employees’ work performance. This is also regarded as an output of a task, and it has a
strong association with customer satisfaction, deliberate goals of an organization and
monetary involvement. Ghasemi and Keshavarzi (2014) define performance as a set of
attitudes related to work which a person performs or act. As’ad (1995) found that
performance or work performance is a condition of accomplishment and achievement
attained by an individual on the workplace. Armstrong (2007) argued that performance
is a conversion of beliefs to accomplishments, not only the way to attain the outcomes,
but it is also the effect that has extracted from intellectual and bodily actions and can be
regarded away from the results. The work of Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, and Sager
(1993) was considered as a valuable work related to the performance. In psychological
outlooks, they define performance as a person level factor and regarded it something
related to a single individual and something a single individual performs.
Job performance or work performance is one of most important component of
organizational behavior research that has been regarded as an essential indicator of
effective organization. Thus the success of an institution is based on the good
performance of its employees (Colquitt, LePine, & Wesson, 2010). The job
performance is also considered as an extent to which an individual reaches or obtains a
job-related quality or quantity. Suliman and Al Kathairi (2012) expressed that the term
job performance normally refers to whether an individual does his work properly, by
evaluating generally agreed five elements such as skills to perform a job, willingness to
innovate, work performance with quality and quantity and knowledge of job
responsibilities. Despite the confusion that how these phenomena should be accurately
defined, but this is a very central variable that associates with the success and output of

22
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept. of Education IUB, Pakistan

the organization (Yusoff, Ali, & Khan, 2014). This is also considered as a total outcome
that an individual renders and that is recognized by the institution.
The excellence and performance of a teacher have been a focused apprehension
in education. The efficient job performance of a teacher is indispensable for improving
an educational system as a whole (Yusoff, Khan, & Azam, 2013). Teacher’s
performance is defined as the aptitude to fulfill the requirements and demands of the
professional development process to the required level by a homogeneous set of
knowledge, perspectives, behavior, and skills in a way to accurately display the things
(Ghasemi & Keshavarzi, 2014). In view of Werang and Lena (2014) a teacher job
performance is the quality and skills of a teacher to put together all necessary and
related variables for the increment and improvement of the educational process.
Selamat, Samsu, and Kamalu (2013) believed that teacher’s job performance is a
teacher’s method and strategies of teaching and it is associated with teacher’s
efficiency. It is a process of determining teacher’s engagement in daily routine activities
to run the school affairs properly. This is also judged as teacher’s noticeable attitudes
associated with results which are related to instructive objectives.
After determining the importance of teacher’s job performance, the second
important issue emerged is related to its measurement. A review of teacher’s work
performance literature reveals that there are some scales available for the measurement
of work performance (e.g., Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity, 2013;
Ross, Singer-Dudek, & Greer, 2005; Rebore, 1985). But, they have two clear
limitations, first, these scales are developed for West and second, most of the scales
measure employees’ performance within organizations. They are not specifically
designed for measuring teacher’s job performance. Despite a growing body of research
into teacher’s performance, there is a lack of appropriate scales for evaluating teacher’s
performance based on head’s ratings in Pakistan, which raises the significance of this
research. Considering its value, the main objective of this research is to address the
above issue by developing and validating a scale for measuring teacher’s performance
based on their heads’ ratings.
Study 1: Examining the Dimensionality of the Proposed Instrument
This study was carried out to develop and validate Teacher’s Job Performance
Scale. The development of this scale was comprised of following steps.
Step 1: Developing Items Pool
The first step of developing TJPS was the items' generation. For this purpose,
20 M.Phil students (15 male, 5 female), 20 Ph.D. students (10 male, 10 female), 10
secondary school teachers (5 male, 5 female) and 10 schools heads (5 male, 5 female)
of different subjects were requested to fill in an open-ended questionnaire to find out
their perspectives regarding the essential aspects of job performance of teachers. They
were requested to mention all those qualities, skills, behaviors and characteristics,

23
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept. of Education IUB, Pakistan

which they think, are crucial for teachers’ good job performance. The responses were
carefully analyzed and on the basis of them, statements were developed and arranged in
the frequency distribution. The statements with the highest frequency were retained to
make a pool of 40 items (statements). These statements were displaying different
dimensions of teachers’ job performance. Moreover, with the help of literature review,
these statements were carefully examined and scrutinized by the researcher.
Step 2: Assessing Items Suitability
In the next step, experts were asked to examine items generated in the form of
statements. Primarily, these 40 statements were given to 10 Ph.D. researchers and 03
university lecturers and they were asked to develop the categories of these statements
for teachers’ job performance. The purpose was to scrutinize items and clearly
designate items into different dimensions to check the inter-rater-reliability. On the
basis of researchers’ opinions, three facets of teachers’ job performance were developed
e.g., Instructional Qualities, Professional Qualities, and Personal Qualities. After
making these dimensions, the 40 statements were given to the 05 lecturers, 05 assistant
professors and 10 Ph.D. researchers, and they were requested to place each statement
into their respective category. The selection criterion for the items of different
dimensions was 70% consensus among the experts. The repeated statements and the
items which were not clearly related to the job performance were rejected. Therefore,
only 24 statements out of total 40 could be clearly designated into three categories of
teacher’s job performance. These statements were written with four-point Likert scale
and the scores assigned to this scale were ranging from 1 to 4. Finally, an initial form of
the scale for measuring job performance of teachers by their respective heads was
developed and was put in next step for EFA.
Step3: Pretesting
In this step, after finalization of the items, EFA was run to study the scale
structure.
Participants and Method
To further validate the TJPS and to provide an estimation of its reliability, 24-
items were given to head teachers (only the head teachers of public high and higher
secondary schools were selected because of their better understanding to evaluate their
teachers and having different management related experience and certifications). The
population of the study was head teachers of public high and higher secondary schools
situated in district Bahawalpur. Total 54 head teachers of public high and higher
secondary schools were randomly selected and requested to rate the performance of
their randomly selected 432 secondary school teachers (08 teachers per school (04
science and 04 arts). Simple random sampling technique is always preferred due to
enhanced generalizability with a wider involvement of participants (Haider & Qureshi,
2016). Of the head teachers, 27 (50%) were male and 27 (50%) were female.

24
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept. of Education IUB, Pakistan

Approxmately 35 (65%) heads hold master degree and 19 (35%) M.Phil. All of the head
teachers have M.Ed degree as profession qualification. The head teachers age range
from 36 – 55 years (M = 46.87, SD = 8.75) and experience range from 12 – 26 years (M
= 18.10, SD = 8.92). However, the completed questionnaire of 376 secondary school
teachers (188 male and 188 female) with age 19-48 years (M = 32.43, SD = 8.29) and
experience 1-27 years (M = 13.29, SD = 8.15) from 54 public high and higher
secondary schools were returned by their heads with a response rate of 87.03%. Data
were approximately 5 times greater than the total number of statements (Field, 2013).
We personally visited the selected schools and requested the headmaster/headmistress
to rate their teachers’ performance. In some schools, it was noted that some school
heads were hesitant in providing the true information. However, we convinced them,
informed them the rationale of the study, assured respondents the confidentiality, and
requested to complete the scale.
Exploratory Factor and Reliability Analysis
EFA with PCM followed by varimax rotation was run on 24-statements to
extract the uncorrelated items of the questionnaire. The correlation analysis revealed
that all statements correlate with at least the other variable at .30 which suggests
suitable factorability. All 24-items in the scale associated fairly and none of the
correlation coefficients were large so, there was no reason to remove any statement.
Moreover, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy revealed that
it is very suitable for this data. The value of KMO = .826 is higher than the suggested
value of .5 (Kaiser, 1974). Furthermore, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was also
significant, χ² (66) = 6082.40, p < .000, demonstrating that factor analysis is a suitable
method (Bartlett, 1954). Normal distribution of all items also suggested that there is no
need to delete any item due to a high skewness (>2) or kurtosis (>7) (Finch &West,
1997). Considering this overall criteria, EFA was considered appropriate with 24-items.
To reach a meaningful factor structure, 1, 2, 3, and 4-factor solution was
examined. Finally, the whole procedure yielded 24-items divided into 3-dimensions
with each factor has more than one eigen-value and together explained 64.05% of the
common variance in the measured construct (Table 1). The final factors were comprised
of those items with factor loadings equal to or greater than 0.4 on a specific dimension,
cross-loadings not exceeding .3 and not loaded on two or more than two factors
simultaneously. These findings, therefore, present primary help for the strength of
proposed instrument (i.e., TJPS). The minimum score achieved could be 24 and
maximum 96, whereas, high score demonstrates better job performance.

25
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept. of Education IUB, Pakistan

Table 1
EFA Factors Loadings based on Principal Components Method
Q# Items F1 F2 F3
Q5 Teacher properly prepares and delivers his/her lectures .93
Q14 Teacher uses daily life examples to clarify concepts .91
Q1 Teacher encourages students to participate in co- .83
curricular and extracurricular activities
Q9 Teacher uses different teaching methods in classroom .79
Q19 Teacher appreciates students’ questioning and .71
classroom discussion
Q20 Teacher uses variety of teaching materials (AV aids) in .65
classroom
Q13 Teacher provides a favorable learning environment to .52
the students
Q7 Teacher constantly evaluates students’ learning .40
Q24 Teacher maintains a respectable relationship with .89
students
Q16 Teacher actively participates in school activities .81
Q15 Teacher maintains strict discipline in classroom .79
Q18 Teacher obeys rules and regulations of school .74
Q3 Teacher has a good working relationship with .61
colleagues
Q23 Teacher maintains a good relationship with .58
administrative staff
Q11 Teacher keeps contact with the parents .53
Q17 Teacher gives attention to increase his/her profession .49
knowledge
Q6 Teacher is punctual in performing duties .87
Q12 Teacher has a good sense of humor .81
Q22 Teacher speaks loudly in the classroom .77
Q10 Teacher gives proper attention to his/her work .71
Q4 Teacher performs his/her duties honestly .62
Q8 Teacher performs his/her duties according to the .51
requirement
Q2 Teacher has a good personality .44
Q21 Teacher is a responsible person .41
Eigen Value 5.45 2.61 1.30
% of Total Variance 31.42 21.77 10.86
Cronbach's Alpha .74 .83 .70

26
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept. of Education IUB, Pakistan

The first factor was named as “Instructional Qualities,” consists of 08 items

representing the teaching qualities of school teachers. The loadings of these 08 items
(05, 14, 01, 09, 19, 20, 13, and 07) range from .93 to .40, with 31.42% explained
variance. The second dimension “Professional Qualities,” comprises 08 items
signifying the professional qualities of school teachers. These 08 items (24, 16, 15, 18,
03, 23, 11, and 17) load .89 to .49 with 21.77% explained variance. The third and last
factor is termed as “Personal Qualities,” also involving 08 items describing the personal
characteristics and qualities of school teachers. These 08 items (06, 12, 22, 10, 04, 08,
02, and 21) have factor loadings between .41 and .87, and together explain 10.86% of
the variance. The analysis of the reliability coefficient of TJPS depicts the Cronbach’s α
value of .87 for whole scale.
Study 2: Role of Background Variables (Gender, Location and Job Status)
The idea of group comparison was used as indicator of construct validity
(Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010) for the effect of gender, location and job status in
performance.
Respondents
In the second phase of the study, data were collected from 80
headmasters/headmistress of conveniently selected public high and higher secondary
schools, and they were requested to rate the performance of their 640 secondary school
teachers (08 teachers per school (04 science and 04 arts). However, the completed scale
of 621 secondary school teachers from 80 public high and higher secondary schools of
district Bahawalpur were returned by heads with a response rate of 97.03%. Of the
teachers, 308 (49.6%) were male, and 313 (50.4%) were females. Out of total sample,
315 (50.7%) were from urban schools and 306 (49.3%) were from rural schools. The
teachers age range from 21 – 59 years (M = 40.03, SD = 10.48) and experience from 1 –
38 years (M = 15.52, SD = 10.37). Of the head teachers, 40 (50%) were male and 40
(50%) were female. Approxmately 48 (60%) head teachers have academic qualification
as master, 26 (32.5%) M.Phil and 6 (7.5%) Ph.D. The head teachers age range from 38
– 57 years (M = 45.12, SD = 9.68) and experience range from 15 – 30 years (M = 19.45,
SD = 10.25) respectively.
Results
For determining the psychometric properties of the scale, CFA, internal
consistency reliability and correlation matrix for subscales were calculated. Descriptive
statistics were computed on transformed scores.
Hypothesized Model 1
The first model was hypothesized as one factor (TJPS), explaining all variance
between 24 statements. From the first model, we are thinking teacher’s job performance
as a single main factor. This perception was strengthening by the formal practice of

27
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept. of Education IUB, Pakistan

assembling new construct by including the individual statements in the construct to get
the total score.
Hypothesized Model 2
In second model, we hypothesized that 24 statements split into three first-order
factors (i.e., instructional qualities, professional qualities and personal qualities) relied
on the findings of previous study. The varimax (orthogonal) rotation in Study-1
extracted three dimensions, thus, Model 2 is considered a reasonable model for current
data.
Table 2
Hypothesized Models and Goodness-of-Fit Indices
1 First-order 3 First-order
Fit Threshold for Threshold for
factor model factor model
measure good fit acceptable fit
value value
Χ² (df) − − 993.52 (102) 243.69 (96)
Χ²/df Χ²/df < 3 3 < Χ²/df < 5 9.41 2.96
NFI .95 ≤ NFI ≤ 1 .90 ≤ NFI ≤ .95 .59 .91
GFI .95 ≤ GFI ≤ 1 .90 ≤ GFI ≤ .95 .82 .93
0 < RMSEA < .05 < RMSEA <
RMSEA .08 .05
.05 .08
TLI .95 ≤ TLI ≤ 1 .90 ≤ TLI ≤ .95 .64 .90
CFI .95 ≤ CFI ≤ 1 .90 ≤ CFI ≤ .95 .61 .92

NFI = Normed Fit Indices; GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index.
In the present study, many indices were utilized to obtain the satisfactoriness of
the hypothesized models (Table 2). Since there is no agreed upon or globally tolerable
statistic as an index of ensuring model adequateness, for this reason, different indices
were measured to check the models. Moreover, chi-square and Goodness of Fit Index
(GFI) were also calculated to check the individual model. In addition, RMSEA was also
employed to calculate the lack of fit in the hypothesized models (Browne & Cudeck,
1993; Steiger & Lind, 1980). In the end, two incremental fit index measures, TLI
(Tucker & Lewis, 1973) and CFI (Bentler, 1990) were also used. Evaluating all the
indices of goodness-of-fit judged in Study-2, first hypothesized model does not give a
considerably better fit by normal standards. However, Model 2 significantly improves
all indices compared to the first model and displays good fit, as specified by the
different indices of model fit.

28
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept. of Education IUB, Pakistan

Table 3
Mean, SD, Correlation Matrix, and Alpha Reliability Coefficients for TJPS and Sub-
scales
Sr # Measures Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1 Instructional 2.73 0.62 1.00
Qualities
2 Professional 3.12 0.51 .608** 1.00
Qualities
3 Personal 3.04 0.53 .662** .816** 1.00
Qualities
4 TJPS 2.96 0.49 .866** .892** .918** 1.00
Cronbach's α 0.719 0.816 0.773 0.887
**p < 0.01
Pearson correlation matrix for TJPS and its dimensions are good (Table 3).
Dimensions to total scale association and inter-subscales association are significant at p
< .01 that demonstrate the internal consistency and a measure of construct validity.
Overall statistically moderate and high positive correlations were found among the
subscales of TJPS. Professional qualities has a moderate significant correlation (r =
.608, p < .01) with instructional qualities. The facet, personal qualities also has
moderate correlation with instructional qualities (r = .662, p < .01) and high correlation
with professional qualities (r = .816, p < .01). Similarly, TJPS has high correlation with
instructional qualities (r = .866, p < .01), professional qualities (r = .892, p < .01), and
personal qualities (r = .918, p < .01) respectively.
In gender-wise analysis, independent sample t-test was applied to study the
difference among male (n = 303) and female (n = 313) teachers on TJPS.
Table 4
Gender Difference on TJPS
Sr 95% CI
Scales Gender Mean SD t Sig
# LL UL
1 Instructional Male 2.75 0.85 2.327 .032 - -.063
Qualities 1.237
Female 3.40 0.24
2 Professional Male 3.25 0.47 1.274 .219 -.596 .146
Qualities Female 3.48 0.30
3 Personal Qualities Male 3.13 0.66 1.361 .190 -.827 .177
Female 3.45 0.37
4 TJPS Male 3.04 0.60 1.969 .044 -.827 .027
Female 3.44 0.23

29
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept. of Education IUB, Pakistan

There is a significant difference between both groups regarding performance

(Table 4). In instructional qualities subscale, the difference is statistically significant
among male (M = 2.75, SD = .85) and female (M = 3.40, SD = .24) teachers t (619) =
2.327, p < .032. Moreover, on the basis of overall TJPS, there is also a significant
difference between the performance of male (M = 3.04, SD = .60) and female (M =
3.44, SD = .23) teachers t (619) = 1.969, p < .044. As a whole, the high mean score of
female teachers showed that they are more efficient performer in schools as compared
to male teachers.
In location-wise analysis, independent sample t-test was applied to study the
difference among urban (n = 315) and rural (n = 306) teachers on TJPS.
Table 5
Location Difference on TJPS
Sr 95% CI
Scales Location Mean SD t Sig
# LL UL
1 Instructional Urban 2.73 0.64 -.279 .780 -.112 .084
Qualities
Rural 2.74 0.61
2 Professional Urban 3.13 0.51 .562 .574 -.057 .104
Qualities
Rural 3.11 0.51
3 Personal Qualities Urban 3.06 0.54 .888 .375 -.046 .123
Rural 3.02 0.53
4 TJPS Urban 2.97 0.50 .396 .693 -.062 .094
Rural 2.96 0.49

There is no significant difference between urban (M = 2.97, SD = .50) and rural

(M = 2.96, SD = .49) groups regarding teachers’ performance t (619) = .396, p < .693
(Table 5). As a whole, the high mean score of urban teachers revealed that they
performed better than the rural teachers.
In job-status-wise analysis, independent sample t-test was applied to study the
difference among permanent (n = 520) and contractual (n = 101) teachers on TJPS.

30
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept. of Education IUB, Pakistan

Table 6
Job Status Difference on TJPS
Sr 95% CI
Scales Job Status Mean SD t Sig
# LL UL
1 Instructional Permanent 2.79 0.72 2.283 .029 .056 .953
Qualities
Contractual 2.28 0.58
2 Professional Permanent 3.15 0.56 3.182 .003 .192 .868
Qualities
Contractual 2.63 0.42
3 Personal Permanent 3.07 0.61 3.691 .001 .278 .958
Qualities
Contractual 2.45 0.32
4 TJPS Permanent 3.00 0.55 3.688 .001 .248 .854
Contractual 2.45 0.25

The results revealed that there is a significant difference between permanent

and contractual teachers regarding job performance in high and higher secondary
schools. In the subscales, such as instructional qualities, professional qualities, personal
qualities and in total teacher’s job performance (TJPS) permanent (M = 3.00, SD = .55)
and contractual (M = 2.45, SD = .25) teachers differ significantly t (619) = 3.688, p <
.001. As a whole, the high mean score of permanent teachers showed that they
performed better as compared to contractual teachers in high and higher secondary
schools.
Discussion and Conclusion
The core purpose of the current study was to develop an indigenous, short and
psychometrically suitable tool to measure the teacher’s job performance in Pakistan and
analyzing the effect of background variables on their work performance. As very few
attempts have been made so far to measure this fact in the country, the present TJPS is
the important tool of its kind developed in Pakistan. This is a multidimensional scale
comprised of three factors such as instructional qualities, professional qualities, and
personal qualities. In the scale validation procedure, EFA extracted a 24-item scale,
which shows appropriate psychometric properties and further confirmed by CFA. The
findings of EFA demonstrated that factor loadings ranged from 0.40 to 0.93 and the
value of KMO was 0.82. Moreover, the total eigen-values for all the 24-items were
above 1. The scale reliability statistics reveals that the Cronbach’s α of overall scale
was 0.87 and mean item-total-correlation up to 0.73, which proves the internal
consistency of the scale.

31
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept. of Education IUB, Pakistan

Further, CFA was applied to know the items structure and fitness in the second
study. The 3-factor-model was found much reliable with data and revealed better fit as
compared to 1-factor-model, i.e. χ²/df = 2.96, NFI = .91, GFI = .93, RMSEA = .05, TLI
= .90, and CFI = .92. In addition, the correlations between TJPS and its subscales were
also in the expected direction, maintaining the convergent validity of the TJPS. This
result also supports the assumption that the TJPS dimensions evaluate various aspects
of teacher’s job performance. It is also proposed that TJPS is internally reliable and a
valid measure for identifying job performance among school teachers.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that teachers’ gender has its effect on
teachers’ performance and effectiveness. The findings of the current study also revealed
that the difference between male and female teachers regarding performance is
significant. The performance of female teachers was much better than the male teachers
in public schools. Hanif, Tariq, and Nadeem (2011) argued that gender is a strong
predictor of teacher’s job performance. They believed that gender accounted for 15%
variance in teacher’ job performance and emerged as a major determinant of work
performance of teachers. Norlander-Case, Reagan, and Case (1999) expressed that
female teachers tend to perform better in teaching than their male counterparts. On the
contrary, Akiri and Ugborugbo (2008) found no noteworthy dissimilarity between the
performance of male and female secondary school teachers.
Moreover, the study reveals no considerable difference between urban and rural
school teachers regarding performance. The findings provide evidence that the
performance of urban and rural secondary school teachers is same. However, the high
mean score of urban teachers demonstrates better performance of urban teachers as
compared to rural teachers in public schools. This result is also supported by Akiri and
Ugborugbo (2008) described no significant difference between the performance of
urban and semi-urban teachers at secondary school level. However, they reported a
major difference between urban and rural teachers in terms of performance. The study
results also explained a significant difference between the performance of permanent
and contractual teachers in schools. Moreover, the high mean score of permanent
teachers described that they performed better as compared to contractual teachers.
Furthermore, Fyfe (2007) reported no significant difference between the performance of
permanent and contractual teachers. On the other hand, some studies demonstrated that
there is a significant difference between the performance of permanent and contract
teachers. They found contract teachers more efficient as compared to regular teachers
(Atherton & Kingdon, 2010; Hameed, Dilshad, Malik, & Batool, 2014). The low
performance of contractual teachers in the present study may be attributed to various
reasons resulted by weaker commitment, low job satisfaction, low level of
organizational justice, the absence of ethical climate, the harsh behavior of management
and strict supervision of contractual teachers.

32
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept. of Education IUB, Pakistan

References
Akiri, A. A., & Ugborugbo, N. M. (2008). An examination of gender’s influence on
teachers’ productivity in secondary schools. J. Soc. Sci, 17(3), 185-191.
Armstrong, M. (2007). Performance management, basic strategies and practical
guidelines. Translation N. Mirsepasi and Asmaly Kavoosi. Tehran: Cashmere
Publications.
As’ad, M. (1995). Psikologi Industri. Yogyakarta: Liberty.
Atherton, P., & Kingdon, G. (2010). The Relative Effectiveness And Costs Of Contract
And Regular Teachers In India. Institute of Education, University of London.
Aziz, M. A. (2012). Effects of Demographic Factors & Teachers' competencies on The
Achievement of Secondary School Students in Punjab. Gomal University Journal
of Research, 28(1).
Baldoni, J. (2005). Great Motivation Secrets of Great Leaders (POD): McGraw Hill
Professional.
Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various χ 2 approximations.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 296-298.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Models (pp.136–162). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of
performance. Personnel Selection in Organizations, 3570.
Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2010). Psychological Testing and Assessment: An
Introduction to Tests and Measurement. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Colquitt, J., LePine, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Wu, X. (2010). Organizational Behavior:
Essentials for Improving Performance and Commitment: Dongbei University of
Finance & Economics Press.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: Sage.
Finch, J. F., & West, S. G. (1997). The investigation of personality structure: Statistical
models. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(4), 439-485.
Fyfe, A. (2007). The use of contract teachers in developing countries: Trends and
Impact. Working Paper: International Labour Office, Geneva.

33
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept. of Education IUB, Pakistan

Ghasemi, B., & Keshavarzi, R. (2014). The relationship between organizational

climate, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in a
hospital environment. Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical
Paper, 40(2), 759-773.
Haider, S. Z., & Qureshi, A. (2016). Are All Children Equal? Causative Factors of
Child Labour in Selected Districts of South Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of New
Approaches in Educational Research, 5(1), 3-10.
Hameed, Y. M. Y., Dilshad, R. M., Malik, M. A., & Batool, H. (2014). Comparison of
academic performance of regular and contract teachers at elementary schools.
Asian Journal of Management Sciences & Education, 3(1), 89-95.
Hanif, R., Tariq, S., & Nadeem, M. (2011). Personal and job related predictors of
teacher stress and job performance among school teachers. Pakistan Journal of
Commerce and Social Sciences, 5(2), 319-329.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
Kayisoglu, N. B. (2015). Validity and reliability studies for scale of evaluating physical
education teachers based on student ratings (SEPETBSR). Journal of Physical
Education and Sport Management, 6(8), 60-69.
Norlander-Case, K. A., Reagan, T. G., & Case, C. W. (1999). The Professional
Teacher. The Preparation and Nurturance of the Reflective Practitioner. Agenda
for Education in a Democracy. Volume 4: ERIC.
Rebore, R. W. (1985). Educational administration: A management approach: Prentice
Hall.
Richards, Jack C. and Lockhart, Charles. 1996. Reflective Teaching in Second
Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ross, D. E., Singer-Dudek, J., & Greer, R. D. (2005). The teacher performance rate and
accuracy scale (TPRA): Training as evaluation. Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 411-423.
SCALE, 2013. Teaching Performance Assessment Scale (TPAS) Retrieved 11th July,
2013, from https://scale.stanford.edu/teaching
Selamat, N., Samsu, N. Z., & Kamalu, N. S. M. (2013). The Impact of Organizational
Climate on Teachers’ Job Performance. Educational Research, 2(1), 71-82.
Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. (1980, May). Statistically-based tests for the number of
common factors. Paper presented at the Annual Spring Meeting of the
Psychometric Society, IA.

34
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (Vol. 20 No. 1) 2017 Dept. of Education IUB, Pakistan

Suliman, A., & Al Kathairi, M. (2012). Organizational justice, commitment and

performance in developing countries: The case of the UAE. Employee Relations,
35(1), 98-115.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood
factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170
Werang, B. R., & Lena, L. (2014). Relationship between Principal’s Leadership, School
Organizational Climate, and Teachers’ Job Performance at State Senior High
Schools in Merauke Regency-Papua-Indonesia. International Journal of
Education and Research, 2(6), 635-640.
Yusoff, R. B. M., Ali, A. M., & Khan, A. (2014). Assessing Reliability and Validity of
Job Performance Scale among University Teachers. Journal of Basic and Applied
Scientific Research, 4(1), 35-41.

35