Impact of Compassion Fatigue on Teacher Job Satisfaction

Joi Chadwick

ORGL 501

Gonzaga University

Instructor: Adrian Popa

October 24, 2010

 Compassion fatigue “involves the symptomatic presentation of the caregiver of

traumatized/distressed clients as a result of exposure to the clients’ trauma.” (Eastwood &

Ecklund, 2008, p. 105) While there seems to be a growing body of work studying compassion

fatigue in helper professions such as therapists, social workers, and medical professionals, there

isn't as much information focusing on this phenomenon as regards teachers. Students spend large

portions of their days being exposed to teachers, and teachers spend large portions of their time

providing students care and attempting to meet their needs. Just as in helper professions,

teachers' empathy used “to build relationships with the children [can be] the conduit for the stress

suffered” by the teachers. (Nelson-Gardell & Harris, 2003, p. 6) Teachers get students (from

varying backgrounds) who may have experienced some trauma due to mental illness, violence,

abuse, neglect, serious accidents, medical procedures, natural disasters, war, etc. Given the

variety of media available to us, children need not even be directly involved to experience a

psychologically distressing event that inspires strong fear and helplessness. In fact, studies have

shown that children viewing violence and death on television have displayed increased

symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. (United States Department of Veterans Affairs,

2010) In addition, “research suggests that 14 to 43% of children have experienced at least one

traumatic event in their lifetime.” (ISTSS (1), 2010) Considering the time teachers and students

spend in schools together, it is possible that teachers may experience compassion fatigue.

The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of compassion fatigue on teachers' job

satisfaction. This is important to teachers, present and future, as it will help them place indirect

trauma of their profession in context. For the whole education field and those concerned about

retaining qualified and competent teachers it is relevant because, according to Eastwood &

Ecklund, “compassion fatigue appears to be related to staff retention in working with this
difficult population of children.” (2008, p. 107) It is also relevant to parents and society as a

whole because teacher performance affects student development and student development affects

the progress of society.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter will explore the current and relevant literature on compassion satisfaction

and fatigue and job satisfaction among teachers. It is organized into four sections: (1)

understanding the constructs of the phenomena, (2) compassion fatigue in other caring

professions, (3) teacher stress and burnout, and (4) job satisfaction among teachers. Each section

concludes with an explanation of relevance to this study and hypothesis.

Understanding the Constructs of the Phenomena

The National Center for Education Statistics (2010 (2)) states almost 49.4 million

students will be in public schools in the 2010 school year. Public schools will employ 3.3 million

teachers. According to Abdallah (2009), half of all U.S. public school teachers will leave

teaching before the end of their fifth year. Addressing the issue of teacher job satisfaction is

crucial in rebounding from and avoiding these high attrition rates. One way to gain

understanding regarding job satisfaction is via its relationship with the phenomena of

compassion satisfaction and fatigue.

Current literature varies on the terminology and definitions used to describe the

phenomena of long-term exhaustion and decreased compassion and capacity to display empathy.

Some researchers use some or all of the terms compassion fatigue, vicarious trauma, secondary

traumatic stress (disorder), and burnout interchangeably. Van Hook and Rothenberg (2009) use

compassion fatigue and vicarious trauma as synonymous terms that mean “work-related,
secondary exposure to extremely stressful events…that have occurred to others.” (p. 37) Sprang,

Clark, & Whitt-Woosely (2007) consider compassion fatigue and secondary traumatic stress

disorder to be interchangeable and used to represent a response at the direct opposite end of the

spectrum from compassion satisfaction. Salston and Figley (2003) also find compassion fatigue

and secondary traumatic stress (disorder) to be synonymous and that these terms specifically

mean presentation of symptoms parallel to post-traumatic stress disorder with the exception

being that the trauma of CF/STSD is indirect. The term vicarious trauma is defined in this same

vein according to Trippany, Cress, and Wilcoxon (2004) as they specify that vicarious trauma is

an occurrence unique to those working with trauma survivors, and burnout may occur in all

professions without requiring exposure to trauma victims. The greatest consensus on these terms

appears to be regarding burnout. Much of the literature acknowledges burnout as a product of

chronic stress – a product that includes mental, emotional, and physical exhaustion; a sense of

depersonalization, and decreased feelings of personal accomplishment. (van Horn, Schaufeli, &

Enzmann, 1999; Brenninkmeijer, Vanyperen, & Buunk, 2001; Howard & Johnson, 2004;

VanBergeijk & Sarmiento, 2006; Platsidou & Agaliotis, 2008)

As VanBergeijk & Sarmiento (2008) point out, each term relies on different theoretical

considerations, so the choice of which one(s) are applied is dependent on what population is

being studied. In developing the Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL), Figley & Stamm chose

to highlight the term compassion fatigue - defined as “negative aspects of providing care” - but

also place within it the two components burnout and secondary traumatic stress. (Stamm, 2009)

Using their parameters, burnout is the gradual presentation of negative feelings including

hopelessness, anger, frustration, exhaustion, and depression. These feelings negatively impact a

worker's ability to do a job. Secondary traumatic stress, in relationship to professional life, is the
result of work-related exposure to people who have “experienced extremely or traumatically

stressful events.” (Stamm, 2009) The other half the ProQOL emphasizes is compassion

satisfaction - the opposite of compassion fatigue. It is the positive feelings of accomplishment,

purpose, and satisfaction associated with the job.

The ProQOL was created to measure risk and raise issues regarding positive and negative

effects specific to those in helper professions experiencing or being exposed to extreme stress.

This makes it a useful measure in assessing teachers' risk of experiencing compassion fatigue

(and satisfaction). This also makes its constructs and terminology useful and applicable to this

study.

Compassion Fatigue/Satisfaction in Other Caring Professions

The growing body of work on compassion fatigue and compassion satisfaction in caring

professions – therapists, doctors, nurses, child protective services, police, etc. - provides a

foundation for studying these phenomena in the teaching profession. Their findings highlight

trends, contributory factors to compassion fatigue and compassion satisfaction, and point to

prevention/intervention needs and techniques that can be useful in addressing this problem.

Van Hook & Rothenberg (2009) found significant difference between demographic

groups in their study of child welfare workers. Women “were more likely to report compassion

fatigue than males” and workers ages 18-29 were more likely to report higher compassion

fatigue scores than all older groups of workers (30-39, 40-59, and 50 and older). In fact, an

interesting trend is that younger workers were more likely to report scores in the top 25% of

compassion fatigue. Considering estimates that between one third and one half of new teacher

hires are below the age of 30, the median new teacher age is 26, and females comprise 75% of all

public school teachers, these findings could potentially hint at a significant obstacle in retaining
young teachers if high risk for compassion fatigue is linked to lower job satisfaction. (Hussar,

n.d.; National Center for Education Statistics, 2005; National Center for Education Statistics (1),

2010)

Research that draws attention to populations at high risk for compassion fatigue also

draws attention to need address its symptoms. In their study of compassion fatigue, compassion

satisfaction, and burnout among mental health providers Sprang, Clark, and Whit-Woosely

(2007) found that 13% of mental health providers in a rural southern state were at high risk for

compassion fatigue or burnout. Responding to findings of their study, they note that these results

call attention to the need to investigate characteristics of the professionals and settings that

contribute to or prevent these conditions developing. In fact, later in their findings they mention

a trend that specialized trauma training reduced compassion fatigue and burnout levels and

increased compassion satisfaction.

In their study of emergency personnel who worked the scene of a Swedish bus disaster

that killed 15 people (including 12 children), Dyregrov and Mitchell (1992) discovered frequent

coping mechanisms used by the workers. For instance, having contact with others or a social

support was a coping mechanism for 90% of the sample. Mentally preparing themselves for the

work was a tool used by 63% of the group. While this study does not explore the potency of

these coping mechanisms or how the traumatic stress affected the workers and their attitudes

toward the job, the findings are still useful. They and previously mentioned findings support the

idea that, once again, should there be a link –between compassion fatigue/satisfaction and job

satisfaction - as this study proposes to discover - developing the support systems, providing

adequate training regarding these topics, and facilitating development and use of coping

mechanisms and self-care practices could be useful to treat compassion fatigue and raise job
satisfaction. (Dyregrov & Mitchell, 1992; Figley, 2002; Sprang, Clark, Whit-Woosely, 2007;

Bush, 2009)

Findings and Trends on Teacher Stress and Burnout and Job Satisfaction

The preceding information highlights usefulness of exploring compassion

fatigue/satisfaction within caring professions. However, studies on teachers have a tendency to

focus on burnout – rather than compassion fatigue – in exploring teachers' stress and emotional

states. Because these studies neglect the whole of compassion fatigue (defined in the first

section) this only presents a fraction of the picture regarding compassion fatigue within this

profession. Still the findings provide some useful information in understanding trends of teacher

burnout and addressing the problem of this study. In addition, many studies research teacher job

satisfaction, and some researchers have even developed measures designed specifically for

assessing job satisfaction in this population. Combining these efforts, some studies address stress

and burnout in relationship with job satisfaction which is similar to the purpose of this study.

Previously, I mentioned a trend of higher compassion fatigue scores among child welfare

workers ages 18-29 than workers 30 and above. In relation to this, another study found a trend

toward “greater burnout syndromes” in teachers below 30 in Macau than in teachers older than

that group. (Luk, Chan, Cheong, and Ko, 2009) Fuming and Jiliang (2007) point to the fact

teachers' job satisfaction increases with age and time in the profession. In contrast to this, Ma

and MacMillan (1999) found that more experienced teachers (20 or more years in the profession)

in New Brunswick were more likely to report dissatisfaction, but they could not clarify what

contributed to the lack of satisfaction. These findings raise the question of whether or not certain

populations are more susceptible to compassion fatigue (including burnout and secondary

traumatic stress) and if this affects their job satisfaction.

 The Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ) was designed to examine the

contributing factors to job satisfaction in the teaching profession. Among the factors considered

to account for teacher job satisfaction is responsibility (which includes student-teacher

relationship), recognition, work itself, colleagues, and supervision. Following analysis of the

measure, Lester notes the measure can be used to gain information on characteristics of

individual educators and work settings. (Lester, 1987) These factors and explanation are similar

to previous findings on contributing factors and coping mechanisms for compassion fatigue, as

well as commentary on the necessity of investigation of individual and setting to understand how

compassion fatigue/burnout and compassion satisfaction develop. (Bush, 2009; Sprang, Clark,

Whit-Woosely, 2007; Salston & Figley, 2003)

Several studies have found a link – a negative link - between job satisfaction and

burnout/emotional exhaustion/job stress and even go so far as to state that dimensions of burnout

predicted lower job satisfaction. (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009; Skaalvik, 2010; Klassen & Chiu,

2010) Klassen, Usher, & Bong (2010) found job stress (here distinguished as not synonymous to

but elemental of burnout) and job satisfaction were negatively correlated for North American

teachers. Because burnout and stress are some of the elements of compassion fatigue, these

studies seem to indicate a possible correlation between job satisfaction and compassion fatigue.

However, no studies directly and specifically address the question of whether or not these

conditions have a significant relationship – and therefore, they also do not respond to this

question as regards teachers - so there is as yet no answer on whether such a correlation exists.

Importance of Study

As stated earlier, teacher job satisfaction affects 52.7 million public students and teachers.

However, this issue is not only important to those people (who comprise 17% of the U.S.
population), but also the entire nation as the public must pay the cost of replacing teachers who

leave the profession – a cost of $2.2 billion annually, according to the National Center for

Education Statistics (2010). Because of the personal (mental, emotional, physical, and social)

consequences, effects on student development, and national expenditure, it is crucial that we ask

questions and continue to seek solutions regarding this problem. Specifically regarding this

study, it is important to find if there is a link between compassion satisfaction/fatigue and

teachers' job satisfaction. If such a relationship is found, it can be useful in helping address the

problem low job satisfaction and teacher attrition rates.

Previous studies have not utilized both the Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL)

inventory and the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ) to seek explanations regarding

compassion satisfaction/fatigue and job satisfaction. More to the point, the current literature does

not use these measures to assess teachers' risk for the first set of phenomena and discover

association (or lack of association) between that risk and job satisfaction. However, these tools

were designed specifically for the purpose of providing information regarding their respective

phenomena, and used coinciding could provide more insights into queries regarding both. This

study is crucial because it does bring these inventories together to ask if such a link exists.

Purpose of Study

This study will explore the impact of the compassion fatigue/satisfaction spectrum on

teachers' job attitudes. The purpose of this study is to raise awareness regarding a possible

relationship between compassion fatigue/satisfaction and teachers' job satisfaction and

implications of such a relationship. This study asks the following question:

1. What is the relationship between compassion fatigue and job satisfaction among

teachers?
 METHODOLOGY

This study will use quantitative methods of survey research because it is efficient and

able to “yield the most data from the largest number of people for the least cost” and it helps the

researcher “avoid many of the ethical problems created by direct observation.” (Vacha, 2007)

While direct observation could potentially change how teachers report on their experiences,

survey research allows for less obtrusive data collection. As there may be stigmas regarding the

attitudes and conditions being studied – job satisfaction and compassion fatigue/satisfaction –

this method provides a platform for participants to accurately report on their experiences and

these phenomena while lessening risk for many negative consequences – such as stigmatization

or job loss – that may arise due their responses and what they represent (or appear to represent).

Sample Selection

This study will take advantage of cluster sampling. Cluster sampling is useful “when the

goal is to describe the population as a whole for the least cost, and the cost savings are especially

large if the population is spread out geographically.” (Vacha, 2007) This fits the goal of this

study because the research intends to make generalizations regarding attitudes of teachers across

the United States.

There are 13,757 school districts in the United States, and these will be divided into four

groups by U.S. geographic region: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. Twenty districts from

each region will be chosen to participate via random number generation. The twenty random

numbers generated will form each regional cluster. This is to expand beyond the limitations of

Lester's work developing the TJSQ, which only studied a population in four New York counties.

This will allow for a picture more representative of the country's teachers. Because the average

number of teachers per school district is 240, I estimate a sample of 19,200 participants (or
N=19,200) which should provide for a substantial sample for analysis after subtracting for errors

and incomplete questionnaires. Such a large and geographically diverse sample will be useful to

avoid sampling bias, and again, to provide a basis to form generalizations about the whole

population.

Instrumentation

The literature reviewed utilizes a variety of measures to explore the topics of compassion

fatigue/satisfaction (CF/CS) and teacher job satisfaction. Some of the research even uses the

Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) measure or the Teachers' Job Satisfaction Questionnaire

(TJSQ) which were specifically designed to gain data regarding CF/CS in helper professions and

job satisfaction among teachers, respectively. However, the literature displays a deficiency by not

taking advantage of both these measures simultaneously to answer questions regarding any

relationship between CF/CS and job satisfaction. This study intends to address that deficiency.

The ProQOL and TJSQ, as mentioned previously, were designed and have been used in

prior research to study these conditions and attitudes. This lends to their appropriateness to the

research questions of this study. Both tools are surveys which are useful in assessing subjective

experiences such as attitudes. A problem with using surveys to measure such is disregard for the

fact that “attitudes are often complex and multidimensional.” (Hoyle, Harris, & Judd, 2002)

Surveys may neglect circumstances or intensity of attitudes. Both of these measures maintain

their suitability, though, in that they are multiple-item measures. This allows the ProQOL and

TJSQ to use several items to define and measure the proposed constructs meaningfully.

Additionally, both are summated – or Likert-type – scales which aids in measuring intensity of

the variables. This aids in establishing (or denying) a relationship between the constructs based

on how strongly subjects report each variable. Finally, questionnaires are useful in addressing
this study's research problem due to convenience – they can be easily administered to a large

group at once, providing for a large sample of data that can be useful in forming generalizations

regarding the rest of the population (teachers).

Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL) Version 5

The ProQOL [Appendix A] – which will be used to measure risk for compassion fatigue

and compassion satisfaction - is a 30-item self-report questionnaire that is “the most commonly

used measure of the positive and negative effects of working with people who have experienced

extremely stressful events.” (Stamm, 2009) At the time of publication of The Concise ProQOL

Manual 2009, 46 of 100 papers in the Published Literature in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder used

a version of the ProQOL. (Stamm, 2009) The ProQOL, originally titled the Compassion Fatigue

Self Test, grew from the work of Charles Figley. Beth Stamm joined Figley in the late 1980s and

added compassion satisfaction to the measure changing the name of the test to Compassion

Satisfaction and Fatigue Test. The measure - which had been Figley's, Figley's and Stamm's, then

Stamm's and Figley's – became solely Stamm's in the late 1990s and the name was changed to

the Professional Quality of Life Scale.

The ProQOL measures both “the positive aspects of providing care” (compassion

satisfaction) and “the negative aspects of providing care” (compassion fatigue). (Stamm, 2009)

To measure these these it uses three scales that inventory CS and the two components of CF –

burnout and secondary traumatic stress – experienced by respondents within the last 30 days of

answering the questionnaire. Each scale consists of 10 Likert-type items and has a unique

distribution tendency. Stamm (2009) writes that “compassion satisfaction scale typically is

skewed toward the positive side, […] burnout is normally distributed,” and “secondary traumatic

stress is skewed toward the absent side.” What this means is greater tendencies of people to
report positively about compassion satisfaction; high and low levels of burnout being reported

about evenly with most reported “a neutral amount of burnout;” and low incidence of secondary

traumatic stress being reported. (Stamm, 2009)

According to Stamm (2009), all scales on the ProQOL have “good to excellent reliability'

– the Burnout scale having the lowest reliability of α = .75, Compassion Satisfaction having the

highest reliability of α = .88, and Secondary Traumatic Stress falling between the two with a

reliability of α = .81. To increase reliability, it will be necessary to solicit responses from a large

and inclusive population of teachers from various schools and geographic regions. This creates a

sample that should include a meaningful range of variation on compassion fatigue/satisfaction,

leading to higher reliability. Additionally, it will be necessary to establish a testing environment

free from distractions to decrease the likelihood of random errors and careless mistakes – thus

contributing to reliability of the measure.

Teachers' Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ)

Designed in 1985 by Paula Lester, the TSQJ – like the ProQOL – is a summated multiple-

item measure. The TJSQ [Appendix B] is 77 items and includes nine scales, or factors, it

analyzes to measure the construct of job satisfaction among teachers. The measure is based in

part on Herzberg and Maslow's theories on motivation to work and hierarchy of needs

(respectively), which were used because of concepts that are compatible to factors “found in the

educational setting and identified in the construction of this instrument.” (Lester, 1987) The nine

factors analyzed are supervision, colleagues, working conditions, pay, responsibility, work itself,

advancement, security, and recognition. While some of these factors seem irrelevant to the

purpose of this study, they are overlapping and interdependent within the concept of teacher job

satisfaction and acknowledge the complexity of the construct. Therefore, the integrity of the
measure will be maintained to evaluate job satisfaction.

VALIDITY AND ETHICS

Reliability

The ProQOL, as previously mentioned is a widely used measure. According to Stamm

(2009), all scales on the ProQOL have “good to excellent reliability' – the Burnout scale having

the lowest reliability of α = .75, Compassion Satisfaction having the highest reliability of α = .88,

and Secondary Traumatic Stress falling between the two with a reliability of α = .81. To increase

reliability, it will be necessary to solicit responses from a large and inclusive population of

teachers from various schools and geographic regions. This creates a sample that should include

a meaningful range of variation on compassion fatigue/satisfaction, leading to higher reliability.

Additionally, it will be necessary to establish a testing environment free from distractions to

decrease the likelihood of random errors and careless mistakes – thus contributing to reliability

of the measure.

The TJSQ is less known than the ProQOL and has been used mostly in doctoral

dissertations. (Lester & Bishop, 2000) Lester reports the overall reliability of the TSJQ is very

high with an internal consistency of .93. (Lester, 1987; Lester & Bishop, 2000) Reliability of the

individual scales (factors) of the measure are as follows:

Factor Alpha

Supervision 0.92

Colleagues 0.82

Working conditions 0.83

Pay 0.8

Responsibility 0.73

Work itself 0.82

Advancement 0.81

Security 0.71

Recognition 0.74

With the lowest internal consistency being .71, and the overall coefficient being so high, this

range of alpha reliabilities is acceptable for measuring the construct of job satisfaction.

Construct validity

Stamm claims the ProQOL has “good construct validity with over 200 published papers”

and “more than 100,000 articles on the Internet.” (Stamm, 2009) However, some threats to

construct validity of the ProQOL and this particular study are measurement of constructs of

disinterest and random error. Constructs of disinterest the scale might measure include test

anxiety (including guilt or shame regarding the research topic), motivation, distraction, and item

comprehension. To minimize the effects of the constructs of disinterest on validity, it will be

necessary to explain to participants the purpose of the study, that there are no right or wrong

answers, that their responses will be anonymous, and clarify any misunderstandings they may

have about test items or the measures in general. As mentioned previously, a standardized testing

environment will be used to lessen distractions. To minimize random error, participants will be

encouraged to take their time on items and respond honestly, and they will not be given a time

limit.
 Specific threats to the construct validity of the TJSQ are 11 questions that are unnecessary

to measure the construct of job satisfaction. Items 4, 12, 26, 36, 38, 41, 46, 49, 50, 66, and 68, by

Lester's admission, “had factor loadings below 0.30” and are “filler items” that “were not

included in any further statistical analysis. (Lester & Bishop, 200) Therefore, to increase

construct validity in this study, those items will be omitted from the questionnaire participants

receive leaving 66 items for data collection and analysis. The revised measure will be piloted to a

sample of 100 before mass administration.

Internal Validity

This study does not seek to determine whether or not compassion fatigue causes low job

satisfaction or compassion satisfaction causes high job satisfaction. If it did, it would be

vulnerable to a correlational fallacy – for instance, assuming that compassion fatigue is the cause

of low job satisfaction because they coincide. This study, to avoid spuriousness and such a

fallacy, proposes no hypothesis but rather asks questions – is there a relationship between the two

constructs? - and collects data as a platform for future studies to develop hypotheses.

Additionally, the Hawthorne effect is a threat to internal validity. Teachers, knowing they

are being studied, may feel pressure to respond in expected ways rather than honestly to avoid

repercussions. This would be more of a problem using participant observation or focus groups.

For this purpose, the less obtrusive method of survey research was chosen. Anonymity will also

be emphasized to the participants and used by the researcher to encourage responses that are

honest and accurate based on their experiences.

External validity

This study improves upon Lester's external validity by addressing selection bias and
population-sample difference. It will utilize a larger participant population from a larger

geographic region. Whereas the original random sample used in developing the TJSQ was N =

620 and 526 of those were used to analyze factors and reliability of the measure, for the purpose

of this study a larger sample will be used to increase reliability. (Lester, 1987) The original

sample was also drawn from a population of teachers from four counties in New York. Again, to

increase validity and reliability, this study will expand to include participants from other regions

in America. These broader boundaries will increase our ability to form generalizations regarding

the entire American teacher population.

Ethical Considerations

Informed Consent

All participation will be voluntary. Prior to testing, teachers will be presented with

information regarding the nature of the study, explaining that it is a scholarly project for the

purpose of exploring teachers' professional quality of life and job satisfaction, and that all data

collected may be used to inform practices and policies that enhance these conditions. Teachers

will be told they may opt to participate or not, and by filling out the questionnaires they are

providing their informed consent for their data to be used in the research. They may choose to

opt out and not have their data included in the study at any time before submitting their test

packets to the proctor. This information will be presented in announcing the study and in

verbal/written communication on the test date prior taking the surveys.

Participant Protection, Risks, and Adverse Effects

The most pressing concerns in protecting the participants are of the psychological nature.

Presenting the constructs being explored – particularly those of the ProQOL - may cause
distressing self-evaluation or even evaluation of others. Such evaluations could result in negative

or destructive behaviors. For this reason it is purposeful to present the ProQOL in its entirety – as

the developer requires – to provide a carefully framed explanation that minimizes stigmatization

teachers may feel in responding to the items or the whole measure. It will be important to make

participants aware that none of the scales used in this study are diagnostic. In addition, after

testing teachers will be provided with the ProQOL helper pocket card [Appendix F] and the

address of the scale's website (www.proqol.org) which provides information about the scale and

the concepts it measures. Because this website includes the whole scale and its manual, teachers

may individually administer the test at their discretion, self-score, and receive help interpreting

the scores and placing them into context.

Risks and adverse effects of this study include stigmatization, fear of repercussions (real

or imagined), encouraging correlational fallacy that may inspire policies and practices that affect

the population, and psychological effects previously discussed. The main methods to minimize

stigmatization and fear of repercussions are informing teachers before and after their

participation and providing anonymity so responses are not linked to them. To discourage

correlational fallacy it is important to stress in the presentation of findings that this study is for

the purpose of asking a question and raising awareness not for presenting an conclusion

regarding causation. Also, is should be emphasized that much further research should be done in

this area.

Benefits

This study may – as the researcher hopes – generate interest and further research

regarding relationships of compassion satisfaction-fatigue and other phenomena to job

satisfaction. Such interest and further study could lead to hypotheses and findings that help our
schools and nation implement changes that enrich teachers' work lives, increase job satisfaction,

and aid in teacher retention. At the least, teachers will leave the study with information and

resources they may use to help them and/or others better frame and respond to psychosocial

issues they encounter.

Confidentiality & Anonymity

Confidentiality would provide some incentive for teachers to participate and respond

honestly as only the researcher would know who contributed what to the study. However,

anonymity provides a greater incentive because of assurances that not even the researcher knows

this information. Should any entity – whether it be a supervisor, principal, superintendent, or

other individual or agency – request or attempt to retrieve information specific to a participant

they would not be able to do so. Even if they coerced the researcher, they would not be able to

know who gave what data because even the researcher would not know. This helps protect the

participants and their data and increases likelihood that responses will be accurate.

NEXT STEPS AND ANTICPATED CONTRIBUTIONS

` This study intends to help those in the field of education better address and be prepared

for certain issues. Acquiring support (financial, personnel, etc.) from decision-makers and

administrative bodies in the field would help lend credibility to the research and encourage

participation. In accordance with this concern, the next step after revisions or updates is to

acquire institutional/organizational support from a university, interest group, non-government

organization, or even a government entity – e.g. the U.S. Department of Education. Due to the

potential impacts this study might have on the field of education, I anticipate bodies interested in
shaping educational policy and practices will be willing to contribute to this proposed research

effort. The process of gaining support from these sources may include grant proposals, meetings,

and presentations to solicit necessary backing. After support is acquired, the research design may

need to be adjusted to adhere to the requirements and guidelines of the backing organization.

After these adjustments, the study would be implemented as outlined in the procedures section.

REFERENCES

Abdallah, J. (2009). Lowering Teacher Attrition Rates through Collegiality. Journal of Academic

Leadership, 7(1). Retrieved September 22, 2010, from

http://www.academicleadership.org/emprical_research/531.shtml

Baranowsky, A. B., Gentry, J. E., & Gold, M. (2010). Compassion Fatigue Pre-Workshop

Materials.Traumatology Institute (Canada). Retrieved September 11, 2010, from

http://www.psychink.com/rfiles/207PrewkshpScales.10.pdf

Brenninkmeijeir, V., Vanyperen, N., & Buunk, B. (2001). I am not a better teacher, but others are

doing worse: burnout and perceptions of superiority among teachers. Social Psychology

of Education, 4, 259-274. Retrieved September 5, 2010, from ERIC.

Bride, B. E., & Figley, C. R. (2007). The Fatigue of Compassionate Social Workers: An

Introduction to the Special Issue on Compassion Fatigue. Clinical Social Work Journal,

35, 151-153. Retrieved from SocINDEX with Full Text.

Bush, N. (2009). Compassion Fatigue: Are You at Risk? Oncology Nursing Forum, 36(1), 24-28.

Retrieved September 1, 2010, from SocINDEX with Full Text.

Dyregrov, A., & Mitchell, J. (1992). Work with Traumatized Children - Psychological Effects

and Coping Strategies. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 5(1), 5-17. Retrieved September 11,
 2010, from PsycINFO.

Eastwood, C. D., & Ecklund, K. (2008). Compassion Fatigue Risk and Self-Care Practices

Among Residential Treatment Center Childcare Workers. Residential Treatment of

Children and Youth, 25, 103-122. Retrieved from SocINDEX with Full Text.

Figley, C. (2002). Compassion Fatigue: Psychotherapists' Chronic Lack of Self Care. Journal of

Clinical Psychology: In Session, 58(11), 1433-1441. Retrieved September 5, 2010, from

Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection.

Fuming, X., & Jiliang, S. (2007). Research on Job Satisfaction of Elementary and High School

Teachers and Strategies to Increase Job Satisfaction. Chinese Education and Society,

40(5), 86-96. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from ERIC.

Hussar, W. (n.d.). Predicting the Need for Newly Hired Teachers in the United States to 2008–9

(Rep.). Retrieved September 26, 2010, from National Center for Education Statistics

website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999026.pdf

International Society for Trauamatic Stress Studies. (2010). Children and Trauma. ISTSS.

Retrieved September 12, 2010, from

http://www.istss.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=ResourcesforProfessionals&Template=/

CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1626

International Society for Trauamatic Stress Studies. (2010). Indirect Traumatization in

Professionals Working with Trauma Survivors. ISTSS. Retrieved September 12, 2010,

from

http://www.istss.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=ResourcesforProfessionals&Template=/

CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1625

Klassen, R., & Chiu, M. (2010). Effects on Teachers' Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction: Teacher
 Gender, Years of Experience, and Job Stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3),

741-756. Retrieved September 25, 2010, from ERIC.

Klassen, R., Usher, E., & Bong, M. (2010). Teachers’Collective Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and

Job Stress in Cross-Cultural Context. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 464-

486. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from ERIC PlusText.

Kreuger, L., & Stretch, J. (2003). Identifying and helping long term child and adolescent disaster

victims: Model and method. Journal of Social Service Research, 30(2), 93-108. Retrieved

from PsycINFO.

Lester, P. (1987). Development and Factor Analysis of the Teacher Job Satisfaction

Questionnaire (TJSQ). Educational and Psychological Measurements, 47, 223-233.

Retrieved September 25, 2010, from ERIC.

Lester, P., & Bishop, L. (2000). Handbook of Tests and Measurement in Education and the Social

Sciences (2nd ed.). Lanhan, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Luk, A., Chan, B., Cheong, S., & Ko, S. (2010). An Exploration of the Burnout Situation on

Teachers in Two Schools in Macau. Social Indicators Research, 95(3), 489-502.

Retrieved September 25, 2010, from ERIC.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Special Analysis 2005-Mobility in the Teacher

Workforce. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a part of the

U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved September 26, 2010, from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2005/analysis/sa01.asp

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Fast Facts. National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a part of the U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved

September 22, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Table A-25. Percentage distribution of full-time

and part-time newly hired teachers, by age and control of school Selected years, 1987–8

through 2003–4. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a part of

the U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved September 26, 2010, from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2018/tables/table_A25.asp?referrer=r

eport

Nelson-Gardell, D., & Harris, D. (2003). Childhood Abuse History, Secondary Traumatic Stress,

and Child Welfare Workers. Child Welfare, 82(1), 5-26. Retrieved from PsycINFO.

Platsidou, M., & Agaliotis, I. (2008). Burnout, Job Satisfaction and Instructional Assignment-

related Sources of Stress in Greek Special Education Teachers. International Journal of

Disability, Development and Education, 55(1), 61-76. Retrieved September 20, 2010,

from PsycINFO.

Salston, M., & Figley, C. R. (2003). Secondary Traumatic Stress Effects of Working With

Survivors of Criminal Victimization. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16(2), 167-174.

Retrieved from PsycINFO.

Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does School Context Matter? Relations with Teacher

Burnout and Job Satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 518-524. Retrieved

September 25, 2010, from ERIC.

Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of

relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059-1069. Retrieved September 25,

2010, from ERIC.

Sprang, G., Clark, J. J., & Whitt-Woosley, A. (2007). Compassion Fatigue, Compassion

Satisfaction, and Burnout: Factors Impacting a Professional's Quality of Life. Journal of

 Loss and Trauma, 12, 259-280. Retrieved from PsycINFO.

Stamm, B. (2009). The Concise ProQOL Manual. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from

http://www.proqol.org/uploads/ProQOL_Concise_9-2009.pdf

Trippany, R., Cress, V., & Wilcoxon, S. (2004). Preventing Vicarious Trauma: What Counselors

Should Know When Working with Trauma Survivors. Journal of Counseling and

Development, 82, 31- 37. Retrieved September 9, 2010, from PsycINFO.

United States Department of Veterans Affairs. (2010, June 15). Media Coverage of Traumatic

Events - National Center for PTSD. National Center for PTSD Home. Retrieved

September 08, 2010, from http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/media-coverage-

traumatic-event.asp

Vacha, E. (2007). Data Collection Strategies for Basic and Applied Research. Lecture. Retrieved

September 15, 2010, from

http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/orgl/orgl501/Lectures/Lecture4.doc

Van Hook, M. P., & Rothenberg, M. (2009). Quality of Life and Compassion Satisfaction/

Fatigue and Burnout in Child Welfare Workers: A Study of the Child Welfare Workers in

Community Based Care Organizations in Central Florida. Social Work & Christianity,

36(1), 36-54. Retrieved from SocINDEX.

VanBergeijk, E. O., & Sarmiento, T. L. (2006). The consequences of reporting child

maltreatment: Are school personnel at risk for secondary traumatic stress? Brief

Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 6(1), 79-98. Retrieved from PsycINFO.

Wright, B. (2004). Compassion fatigue: how to avoid it. Pallative Medicine, 18, 3-4. Retrieved

from PsycINFO.

Zinzow, H. M., Ruggiero, K. J., Resnick, H., Hanson, R., Smith, D., Saunders, B., & Kilpatrick,
D. (2009). Prevalence and mental health correlates of witnessed parental and community

violence in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry,

50(4), 441-450. Retrieved from Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection.

 APPENDIX A

Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL)

Compassion Satisfaction and Compassion Fatigue (ProQOL) Version 5 (2009)

When you [help] people you have direct contact with their lives. As you may have found, your

compassion for those you [help] can affect you in positive and negative ways. Below are some

questions about your experiences, both positive and negative, as a [helper]. Consider each of the

following questions about you and your current work situation. Select the number that honestly

reflects how frequently you experienced these things in the last 30 days.

1=Never 2=Rarely 3=Sometimes 4=Often 5=Very Often

___1. I am happy.

___2. I am preoccupied with more than one person I [help].

___3. I get satisfaction from being able to [help] people.

___4. I feel connected to others.

___5. I jump or am startled by unexpected sounds.

___6. I feel invigorated after working with those I [help].

___7. I find it difficult to separate my personal life from my life as a [helper].

___8. I am not as productive at work because I am losing sleep over traumatic experiences

of a person I [help].

___9. I think that I might have been affected by the traumatic stress of those I [help].

___10. I feel trapped by my job as a [helper].

___11. Because of my [helping], I have felt "on edge" about various things.

___12. I like my work as a [helper].

___13. I feel depressed because of the traumatic experiences of the people I [help].
___14. I feel as though I am experiencing the trauma of someone I have [helped].

___15. I have beliefs that sustain me.

___16. I am pleased with how I am able to keep up with [helping] techniques and protocols.

___17. I am the person I always wanted to be.

___18. My work makes me feel satisfied.

___19. I feel worn out because of my work as a [helper].

___20. I have happy thoughts and feelings about those I [help] and how I could help them.

___21. I feel overwhelmed because my case [work] load seems endless.

___22. I believe I can make a difference through my work.

___23. I avoid certain activities or situations because they remind me of frightening

experiences of the people I [help].

___24. I am proud of what I can do to [help].

___25. As a result of my [helping], I have intrusive, frightening thoughts.

___26. I feel "bogged down" by the system.

___27. I have thoughts that I am a "success" as a [helper].

___28. I can't recall important parts of my work with trauma victims.

___29. I am a very caring person.

___30. I am happy that I chose to do this work.

© B. Hudnall Stamm, 2009. Professional Quality of Life: Compassion Satisfaction and Fatigue

Version 5 (ProQOL). /www.isu.edu/~bhstamm or www.proqol.org.

This test may be freely copied as long as (a) author is credited, (b) no changes are made, and (c)

it is not sold.
 Appendix B

Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire

(Italicized items will be omitted from final instrument used in this study.)

For the following statements, indicate your level of agreement with each. If you Strongly

Disagree place a 1 next to the item; Disagree = 2; Neutral (neither disagree or agree) = 3; Agree

= 4; and Strongly Agree = 5

___1. Teaching provides me with an opportunity to advance professionally.

___2. Teacher income is adequate for normal expenses.

___3. Teaching provides an opportunity to use a variety of skills.

___4. When instructions are inadequate, I do what I think is best.

___5. Insufficient income keeps me from living the way I want to live.

___6. My immediate supervisor turns one teacher against another.

___7. No one tells me that I am a good teacher.

___8. The work of a teacher consists of routine activities.

___9. I am not getting ahead in my present teaching position.

___10. Working conditions in my school can be improved.

___11. I receive recognition from my immediate supervisor.

___12. If I could earn what I earn now, I would take any job.

___13. I do not have freedom to make my own decisions.

___14. My immediate supervisor offers suggestions to improve my teaching.

___15. Teaching provides for a secure future.

___16. I receive full recognition for my successful teaching.

___17. I get along well with my colleagues.

___18. The administration in my school does not clearly define its policies.

___19. My immediate supervisor gives me assistance when I need help.

___20. Working conditions in my school are comfortable.

___21. Teaching provides me the opportunity to help my students learn.

___22. I like the people with whom I work.

___23. Teaching provides limited opportunities for advancement.

___24. My students respect me as a teacher.

___25. I am afraid of losing my teaching job.

___26. Teaching involves too many clerical tasks.

___27. My immediate supervisor does not back me up.

___28. Teaching is very interesting work.

___29. Working conditions in my school could not be worse.

___30. Teaching discourages originality.

___31. The administration in my school communicates its policies well.

___32. I never feel secure in my teaching job.

___33. Teaching does not provide me the chance to develop new methods.

___34. My immediate supervisor treats everyone equitably.

___35. My colleagues stimulate me to do better work.

___36. My students come to class inadequately prepared.

___37. Teaching provides an opportunity for promotion.

___38. My immediate supervisor watches me closely.

___39. I am responsible for planning my daily lessons.

___40. Physical surroundings in my school are unpleasant.

___41. I do not have the freedom to use my judgment.

___42. I am well paid in proportion to my ability.

___43. My colleagues are highly critical of one another.

___44. I do have responsibility for my teaching.

___45. My colleagues provide me with suggestions or feedback about my teaching.

___46. Teaching provides me an opportunity to be my own boss.

___47. My immediate supervisor provides assistance for improving instruction.

___48. I do not get cooperation from the people I work with.

___49. My immediate supervisor is not afraid to delegate work to others.

___50. Behavior problems interfere with my teaching.

___51. Teaching encourages me to be creative.

___52. My immediate supervisor is not willing to listen to suggestions.

___53. Teacher income is barely enough to live on.

___54. I am indifferent toward teaching.

___55. The work of a teacher is very pleasant.

___56. I receive too many meaningless instructions from my immediate supervisor.

___57. I dislike the people with whom I work.

___58. I receive too little recognition.

___59. Teaching provides a good opportunity for advancement.

___60. My interests are similar to those of my colleagues.

___61. I am not responsible for my actions.

___62. My immediate supervisor makes available the material I need to do my best.

___63. I have made lasting friendships among my colleagues.

___64. Working conditions in my school are good.

___65. My immediate supervisor makes me feel uncomfortable.

___66. I prefer to have others assume responsibility.

___67. Teacher income is less than I deserve.

___68. I go out of my way to help my colleagues.

___69. I try to be aware of the policies of my school.

___70. When I teach a good lesson, my immediate supervisor notices.

___71. My immediate supervisor explains what is expected of me.

___72. Teaching provides me with financial security.

___73. My immediate supervisor praises good teaching.

___74. I am not interested in the policies of my school.

___75. I get along well with my students.

___76. Pay compares with similar jobs in other school districts.

___77. My colleagues seem unreasonable to me.

 Appendix C

Group Administration of the ProQOL

(Taken from The Concise ProQOL Manual 2009)

In this type of administration, a group of people complete the ProQOL simultaneously.

This may be in a classroom setting or something like individual computer workstations in a

computer lab. The key aspect of the group administration is that there are others present who are

doing the same activity. In a group administration it is important to consider the group effect on

scores. If a few people are quite vocal about their unwillingness to participate, there is an effect

on all of the participants. If people feel they are being watched by others, or are embarrassed to

be in the group, the scores are unlikely to be valid and privacy rights may have been violated.

People should not be singled out so as to cause embarrassment. For example, you should not set

up a group administration for all people who made medical errors if the administration is based

on the assumption that their mistakes occurred because of burnout.

In the case of a self-test, people may be given general information such as “others who

score similarly to you…” By contrast, in the case of individual administration, feedback may be

much more specific. Feedback in group settings should not be about a single individual but about

things that apply to more than one person. The most important thing about giving feedback is to

be prepared. Be prepared to give specific and clear information appropriate to the setting and be

prepared to answer questions. You will always get that one question you most don’t want to

answer!

When working in group settings, it is not uncommon for one or two individuals to

provide revealing personal information that are not appropriate to the group setting. In these

cases it is incumbent on the test administrator to contain and refocus the attention of the class.
Good ethical behavior suggests the test administrator follow up with the person in a more

appropriate setting. In situations such as these, it is usually appropriate to provide a referral for

employee assistance or other help such as mental or physical health care.

In the case that the administrator believes that there is an imminent danger, they should

take emergency actions such as calling 911 and protecting the person, themselves, and others

from harm in the best way that they can.

Compassion Satisfaction Burnout Secondary Traumatic

Stress

Bottom quartile (25th 44 43 42

percentile)

Mean (50th percentile) 50 50 50

Top quartile (75th 57 56 56

percentile)
 Appendix D

ProQOL Scoring

(Taken from The Concise ProQOL Manual 2009)

Calculating the Scores on the ProQOL

There are three steps to scoring the ProQOL. The first step is to reverse some items. The

second step is to sum the items by subscale and the third step is to convert the raw score to a t-

score. The first set below shows the scoring actions in detail. Two methods for scoring are

presented. The first is to follow Steps 1-2 and then use the table at the end of this section to

convert raw scores to t-scores. The second method uses computer 16 scoring. The computer code

presented below is written for SPSS that can be converted by the user to other statistical

programs if needed:

Step 1: Reverse items 1, 4, 15, 17, and 29 into 1r, 4r, 15r, 17r and 29r (1=5) (2=4) (3=3) (4=2)

(5=1)

Step 2: Sum the items for each subscale.

CS = SUM(pq3,pq6,pq12,pq16,pq18,p20,pq22,pq24,pq27,pq30).

BO = SUM(pq1r,pq4r,pq8,pq10,pq15r,pq17r, pq19, pq21, pq26, pq29r).

STS = SUM(pq2,pq5,pq7,pq9,pq11,pq13,pq14,pq23, pq25,pq28).

COMMENT: Interpretation of scores: The mean score for any scale is 50 with a standard

deviation of 10.

COMMENT: The cut scores for the CS scale are 44 at the 25th percentile and 57 at the 75th

percentile.

COMMENT: The cut scores for the BO scale are 43 at the 25th percentile and 56 at the 75th
percentile.

COMMENT: The cut scores for the STS scale are at 42 for the 25th percentile and 56 for the

75th percentile.
Cut Scores

The ProQOL measure is best used in its continuous form. However, many people prefer

to have cut scores to indicate relative risks or protective factors. To address these needs, cut

scores are provided. The cuts are set at the 25th and 75th percentiles. They are potentially overly

inclusive—that is they tend to Type 1 error. This means that the there is a greater possibility of

having a false positive than missing someone who actually belongs in a particular group.

Because this is a screening and planning tool, it is probably less problematic to include someone

who should not be included than to exclude someone what should be included so that supportive

or corrective action is considered even if it is not needed. Scores near the boarders can be

particularly troublesome in that the cut point is an artificially applied criteria. Please note that

while we provide cut scores based on the 75th percentile, we do not recommend that the measure

be used for anything other than screening, and we prefer from a statistical perspective, to use the

continuous numbers.
 Appendix E

Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire Scoring

Scoring: Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Neutral (neither disagree or agree) = 3; Agree = 4;

and Strongly Agree = 5. Scoring is reversed for the following 22 unfavorable items (27, 52, 65,

6, 56, 57, 77, 48, 43, 40, 18, 74, 61, 30, 33, 54, 13, 23, 9, 25, 32, and 58)

Raw scores will range from 66 (strongly disagree with all favorable items and strongly

agree with all unfavorable items) to 330 (strongly agree with all favorable items and strongly

disagree with all unfavorable items). For the purposes of this study, cut scores will be used to

separate participants into groups of low, average, and high job satisfaction to correspond to the

cut scores of the ProQOL. The groupings will be low job satisfaction = 66-132 ; average job

satisfaction = 133-264; high job satisfaction = 265-330. These cut scores are mildly overly

inclusive in the low job satisfaction group, and as with the ProQOL cut scores, it is a less

problematic to include someone who should not be included rather than exclude someone who

ought to be included within this group.

 Appendix F

ProQOL Helper Pocket Card

(Side A)

CARING FOR YOURSELF IN THE FACE OF DIFFICULT WORK

Our work can be overwhelming. Our challenge is to maintain our resilience so that we can keep

doing the work with care, energy, and compassion.

10 things to do for each day

1. Get enough sleep.

2. Get enough to eat.

3. Do some light exercise.

4. Vary the work that you do.

5. Do something pleasurable.

6. Focus on what you did well.

7. Learn from your mistakes.

8. Share a private joke.

9. Pray, meditate or relax.

10. Support a colleague.

For more Information see your supervisor and visit www.psychosocial.org or www.proqol.org

Beth Hudnall Stamm, Ph.D., ProQOL.org and Idaho State University

Craig Higson-Smith, M.A., South African Institute of Traumatic Stress

Amy C. Hudnall, M.A., ProQOL.org and Appalachian State University

Henry E. Stamm, Ph.D., ProQOL.org

 (Side B)

SWITCHING ON AND OFF

It is your empathy for others helps you do this work. It is vital to take good care of your thoughts

and feelings by monitoring how you use them. Resilient workers know how to turn their feelings

off when they go on duty, but on again when they go off duty. This is not denial; it is a coping

strategy. It is a way they get maximum protection while working (switched off) and maximum

support while

resting (switched on).

How to become better at switching on and off

1. Switching is a conscious process. Talk to yourself as you switch.

2. Use images that make you feel safe and protected (switch off) or connected and cared for

(switch on) to help you switch.

3. Find rituals that help you switch as you start and stop work.

4. Breathe slowly and deeply to calm yourself when starting a tough job.

Please visit www.proqol.org for information regarding compassion fatigue/compassion

satisfaction and the ProQOL scale. You may also download and self-administer the scale from

this website and find scoring information.