Matthews, K. M., and Holmes, C. T. (1982). A method for assessing teacher motivation. NASSP Bulletin 66:22–28.
Comments: The 16-item Teacher Motivation Diagnostic Questionnaire (TMDQ) assesses the following four areas related to teacher motivation: attitude toward the principal (2, 6, 11, and 15), future utility (3, 7, 10, and 14), principal’s expectations (1, 5, 12, and 16), and self-concept of ability (4, 8, 9, and 13). Each area contains four questions.
Reliability: Reliability estimates are provided in a study conducted by Matthews and Holmes (1982). Norms for the state of Georgia are presented in a study by Norton (1992). National norms are reported in a study by McDonough (1992). Operational Definitions: Attitude toward principal is defined as the effective orientation of teachers toward their principals. Future utility is defined as the beliefs of teachers about the benefits to them personally of improving student achievement. Principal’s expectations are defined as the beliefs of teachers about the expectations of their principals for improved student achievement. Self-concept of ability is defined as the beliefs of teachers about the probability
that the academic achievement of their students could be improved.
Validity: Evidence of face validity was established by the teachers who responded to the questionnaire. Convergent construct validity was established by correlating the four areas of the TMDQ with a section of the PTO.
References
Callaway, C. A. (1994). The validity of the Teacher Motivation Diagnostic Questionnaire. EdD dissertation, University of Georgia.
McDonough, M. L. B. (1992). Norms of the Teacher Motivation Diagnostic Questionnaire. EdD dissertation, University of Georgia.
McNeely, C. A. (1996). Student achievement and teacher motivation in elementary schools. EdD dissertation, University of Georgia. Newman,
P. P. (1993). A comparison of teachers’ beliefs about principals’ expectations and students’ beliefs about teachers’ expectations for improved student achievement. EdD dissertation, University of Georgia.
Norton, N. B. (1992). Georgia norms for the Teacher Motivation Diagnostic Questionnaire. EdD dissertation, University of Georgia.
Teacher Motivation Diagnostic Questionnaire
- How much does your principal want test scores to improve?
- How much do you want to please your principal?
- How much would higher student achievement help you?
- How much higher could your students’ test scores be?
- How much does your principal expect test scores to improve?
- How much do you want to make your principal happy?
- How much would higher achievement be to your advantage?
- How good are you at helping students raise test scores?
- How much could your students’ achievement be raised?
- How much would you benefit from higher achievement?
- How much does your principal try to please you?
- How important are high test scores to your principal?
- How good could you be at improving students’ achievement?
- How much good would higher test scores do you?
- How much do you like the way your principal works with you?
- How much does your principal want higher test scores?
Scoring: The following semantic differential scoring technique is utilized: for items 1–2 (strong to weak) and it is re- versed (weak to strong) for items 6 and 16; for items 3 and 7 (small to large) and it is reversed (large to small) for items 5, 10, 14, and 15; for item 4 (high to low) and it is reversed (low to high) for items 9, 11, and 12; and for item 8 (bad to good) and it is reversed (good to bad) for item 13.