A Correlational Study of Hardiness Health and Burnout Among Tea PDF

East Tennessee State University
Digital Commons @ East

Tennessee State University
Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works
May 1994
A Correlational Study of Hardiness, Health, and

Burnout among Teachers in the Sullivan County
School System
Deborah F. Morelock
Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd

Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons, and the Other Psychology
Commons
Recommended Citation
Morelock, Deborah F., "A Correlational Study of Hardiness, Health, and Burnout among Teachers in the Sullivan County School
System" (1994). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2753. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/2753
This Dissertation - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State
University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East
Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected].
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrougb, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
In the unlikely, event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
UMI
University Microfilms International
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 40106*1346 USA
313/761-4700 600/521*0600
Order Number 94241T0
A correlational study of hardiness, health, and burnout among

teachers in the Sullivan County School System
Morelock, Deborah Falin, Ed.D.

B u t Tennessee State University, 1994
UMI
300 N, Zceb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
A CORRELATIONAL STUDY OF
HARDINESS, HEALTH, AND BURNOUT
AMONG TEACHERS
IN THE SULLIVAN COUNTY
SCHOOL SYSTEM
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the Department of
Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
by
Deborah Falin Morelock
May 1994
APPROVAL
This is to certify that the Graduate Committee of
DEBORAH FALIN MORELOCK
met on the
tWgntY-geCQnti day of March. 1994.

The committee read and examined her dissertation,
supervised her defense of it in an oral examination, and
decided to recommend that her study be submitted to the
Graduate Council Associate Vice-President for Research and
Dean, School of Graduate Studies, in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education.
Chairman, Graduate Committee
Signed on behalf of
the Graduate Council
Associate Vice-President for
Research and Dean, school of
Graduate studies
ii
ABSTRACT
A Correlational Study of
Hardiness, Health, and Burnout
Among Teachers
In The Sullivan County
School System
by
Deborah F. Morelock
The purpose of this study vas to explore the

relationships among hardiness, health and burnout and to
investigate the relationships of the subscales of hardiness
to health and to the subscales of burnout among teachers in
the Sullivan County School System. The Hardiness Test was
used to measure hardiness and the Maslach Burnout Inventory
Form Ed to measure burnout. Results of the Health
Evaluation and Risk Test was reported on the Educators
Demographic Data Survey. The study sample consisted of 50X
teachers.
A statistically significant relationship was revealed

between hardiness and health; among the hardiness subscales,
commitment accounted for the largest amount of variance in
health. Multiple regression was used to analyze the
relationships among the subscales of hardiness and the
subscales of burnout. Of the hardiness subscales,
commitment and control equally accounted for the greatest
amount of variance in depersonalization and personal
accomplishment.
To determine the extent to which the subjects'

demographic variables were related to any study variables,
correlation coefficients were computed between demographic
variables and each of the study variables. While age, years
teaching experience, and level taught were significantly
related to the study variables, the extremely low
correlations indicate that only 1% of the variance in these
three variables were explained by the study variables,
preventing meaningful interpretation.
Kobasa's health and hardiness theory is supported by

the results of this study. These results also support
previous research findings which suggest that hardiness
buffers against burnout.
iii
IRB Number 01
Assurance Number M1194
IRB FORM 108 PROTOCOL NO. 93-048s
BAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
PROJECT TITLE: Hardiness: Its Relationship to Health and Burnout

Among Teachers in the Sullivan County School
System.
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Deborah F. Morelock
The Institutional Review Board has reviewed the above-titled
project on November 12. 1993 w ith respect to the rights and
safety of human subjects, including matters of informed consent
and protection of subject confidentiality, and finds the project
acceptable to the Board.
Anthony J. DeLucia
Chairman, IRB
iv
DEDICATION
To my mother who taught me very early in my life the
value of an education. To my father who taught me later in
my life the difference between that education and wisdom.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to publicly acknowledge the words of
encouragement and support that the members of Cohort III
have given me during the past three years; without them I
would have never completed this endeavor.
I am grateful to the Educational Leadership and Policy
Analysis Department at East Tennessee state University for
creating a doctoral program for working school
administrators and for admitting me to it.
A special word of thanks goes to Dr. Robert Me Elrath,
my advisor, teacher, and Chair of my Committee. Not only
did I have the best chairman I could hope for, I was blessed
with the ideal committee members: Dr. Charles Burkett, Dr.
Hal Knight, Dr. A. Keith Turkett, and Dr. Russ West who
contributed ideas, edits and positive encouragement.
To my children, Erin and Brooks, I express gratitude
for behaving as though Mom's schooling was a natural part of
life, not a source of inconvenience. Hopefully, you were
both too young to remember the amount of time I spent away
from you. To my husband, Chris, for his love and support,
as he endured much over the past three years to help me make
this dream a reality. I have yet to decide if the view is
worth the climb.
Finally, I appreciate the participation of the five
hundred one teachers in Sullivan County, Tennessee who
helped provide data for this study.
vi
CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1. INTRODUCTION ................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ..................... 3
Significance of the Study ............... 3
Purpose .................................. 4
Limitations of the Study .................... 4
Assumptions of the Study .................... 5
Research Questions .......................... 5
Definition of Terms ...»*.................... 6
Organization of the Study .............. :... 8
2. LITERATURE R E V I E W .............................. 10
Kobasa's Hardiness Theory ................. 10
Kobasa's Orginial Hardiness Research ...... 12
Other Hardiness Research ................... 14
Teachers and Hardiness Research ........... 17
Health's Evolution ........................... 19
Cardiovascular Disease and Health ......... 19
Relationship of Health to Hardiness ....... 23
Burnout ...................................... 24
Maslach's Study of Burnout ................. 25
Burnout and Hardiness ...................... 27
Burnout Research and Teachers ............. 29
s u m m a r y ..................... 32
3. REASEARCH DESIGN........................ 34
Population ................................. 34
vii
Chapter Page
Instruments ...................................... 35
The Hardiness T e s t ........................... 35
The Haslach Burnout Inventory Form Ed ....... 37
H E A R T ......................................... 39
Educators DemographicData Sheet .............. 40
Data Collections Procedures ..... 41
Data A n a l y s i s ............... 41
Hypotheses ..... 42
Summary of Methodology ........................... 45
4. RESULTS .......................................... 48
Sample Demographics ........................... 48
Description of Hardiness, Health,

and Burnout Scores ............................ 51
Hardiness T e s t ................................. 52
Health ......................................... 53
Burnout ........................................ 54
Research Questions ............................... 57
Research Question 1 ................. 57
Research Question 2 ......... *........ 58
Research Question 3 ....... 59
Research Question 4 ............................ 60
Research Question 5 ........................... 63
Age ...... 65
Gender ...................................... 66
Years Teaching Experience .................. 66
Highest Level of Education ................. 67
viii
Chapter Page
Level T a u g h t .............................. 67
Teaching Assignment ....................... 68
5. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 70
Discussion........................................ 70
Hardiness and H e a l t h .......................... 70
Hardiness and B u r n o u t .. ............ 72
Hardiness ........... *.......... 75
Conclusions..................................... 76
Recommendations ................................. 77
S u m m a r y ......................................... 78
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... 81
APPENDIXES
A. The Hardiness T e s t .............................. 90
B. Maslach Burnout InventoryForm E d ............... 95
C. Educators Demographic DataSurvey ................ 98
V I T A .................................................... 99
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Gender, Age, and Years Teaching

Experience ..................................... 49
2. Level of Education, School Level Assigned,

Class Type ..................................... 50
3. Descriptive Statistics for Hardiness and

Subscales, Health, and Burnout Subscales
(Raw Scores) .................................. 53
4. Frequency and Percentages of Total

Risk Points .......................... 54
5. Frequency and Percentages of

Experienced Burnout of Respondents as
Measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory .... 56
6. Regression Analysis for Health Using

Hardiness Subscales ........................... 60
7. Regression Analysis for Emotional Exhaustion

Using Hardiness Subscales ..................... 62
8. Results of Regression Analysis for

Depersonalization Using Hardiness Subscales ... 63
9. Results of Regression Analysis for Personal

Accomplishment Using Hardiness Subscales ..... 63
10. correlation Coefficients of

Study V a r i a b l e s ............................... 69
11. Correlation Coefficients for Burnout

Subscales and Hardiness Subscales............. 74
x
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Stress and contemporary life styles have become
inextricably linked (Selye, I960). Stress has been shown to
be related to poor health, chronic illness, exhaustion,
fatigue and burnout (Selye, 1978; sutterly, 1986; Maslach,
1986). Hardiness may be described as an aspect of the
personality which reduces the effects of stress.
Individuals who possess personality hardiness may actually
negate the harmful effects of stress and enjoy an enhanced
health status (Kobasa, 1977).
It is generally recognized that the increasingly higher
rate of turnover among public school teachers is due to
stress. Some of the sources of stress for teachers include;
(a) task overload (heavy work load, inadequate time for
preparation); (b) lack of control over activities and
outcomes (lack of teaching aids, inadequate resources,
incompetent administration); (c) insufficient satisfactions
from work (frequent negative and infrequent positive
feedback); (d) role conflicts (career development issues,
inadequate time for individual remedial work); (e) rapid or
unpredictable change; (f) interpersonal conflicts
(disruptive students, pupil misbehavior, difficult social
relations); (g) unrealistic expectations; and (h) feelings
of inadequacy (Dewe, 1986).
1
Although the nature and origin of stress experienced by
public school teachers nay vary, it is certain that stress
is part of the typical teacher's life. Haslach (1976) and
Cunningham (1983) have described the subsequent effects of
chronic stress on teachers in terns of burnout. They noted
that when the nultitude of stressors found in the teaching
situation continue without relief, the pattern of reactions
described by burnout seriously damages the teacher's ability
to perform: feelings become negative, attitudes become
cynical, concern for students is lost, frequency of physical
illness and absenteeism increases, and use of drugs and
alcohol frequently goes up. Thus, burnout, as the
subsequent outcome of continued stress, reflects the
cumulative reactions to this stress.
The role of hardiness (composed of control, commitment
and challenge dimensions) as a mediator of stress has been
presented as a personality orientation that helps people
cope with stressors and stress in ways that minimize the
potentially debilitating effects of life change (Kobasa,
1977).
Burnout is a "syndrome of emotional exhaustion,
depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment that
can occur" in individuals who work with people (Haslach,
1986, p.3). In this study, burnout will be measured by the
separate scores of the subscales for the Maslach Burnout
Inventory: Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization,

Personal Accomplishment (Maslach & Jackson, 1986).
Excessive stress over a long period of time can lead to
burnout and even threaten health. Two-thirds of office
visits to family doctors are prompted by stress-related
symptoms (Wallis, 1983).
As a result of this concern, it is essential that
teachers assume self-responsibility for their health through
wellness programs similar to that of the Health Evaluation
and Risk Test (HEART), sponsored through Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Tennessee and used in the Sullivan County School
System.
For this study of hardiness, health, and burnout, the
theory of hardiness will provide the theoretical framework
because hardiness is connected with both health and burnout.
This study differs from previous health and hardiness
research in that health will not be measured through self-
reported instruments but through medical analysis.
Statement of the Problem
The problem is to determine the relationships of health
and burnout among teachers in the Sullivan County school
system and hardiness as a personality characteristic.
Significance of the Study
The investigation of stress-resistant personality

factors in educators has been advocated by Holt, Fine, and
Tollefson (1987) with an ultimate view toward increasing the
educator's potential for success in teaching. The value of
hardiness, a stress-resistant factor, to the educator has
application for deterring teacher burnout and entrapment.
Purpose
Concern with teacher stress is threefold. First, it is
quite probable that stress negatively and substantially
affects the classroom environment, the teaching-learning
process, and the attainment of educational goals and
objectives. Secondly, in the past 30 years, physicians and
health officials have come to realize how heavy a toll
stress is taking on the well-being of individuals. Finally,
a combination of stress and health factors can lead to
teacher burnout, which in turn does not lead to teacher
turnover; rather to teacher "entrapment". It is the purpose
of this study to explore those relationships.
Limitations of the. Study
The scope of the study will be limited to the teachers
in the Sullivan County School System who participate in the
Health Evaluation and Risk Test conducted by Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Tennessee and volunteer to share that
information in this study. Non-participants may differ in
motivation level from participants (Borg & Gall, 1989).
A second limitation of the present study is a

statistical one. Correlational studies are appropriately
used in providing the degree of the relationship between
variables but cannot establish cause-and-effect
relationships between correlated variables (Borg & Gall,
1989). Therefore, causation cannot be concluded from the
results of this study.
Assumptions of the study
The study includes the following assumptions:
1. All self-reports of subjects, as noted on the
Educators Demographic Data Survey (EDDS) and as recorded on
the Maslach Burnout Inventory Form Ed (MBI), the Hardiness
Test, and the Health Evaluation and Risk Testing (HEART),
were true and accurate statements.
2. The MBI can accurately measure burnout.
3. The Hardiness Test can accurately measure
psychological hardiness.
4. The HEART can accurately measure health.
Research Questions
1. What is the relationship between hardiness and health,
that is, the fourteen factors as identified by the
American Heart Association which make it possible to
determine the extent of risk of cardiovascular disease?
2. What are the relationships among total hardiness and the
subscales of burnout (Emotional Exhaustion,

Depersonalization, and Personal Exhaustion) in public
school teachers in the Sullivan County School System?
3. What is the relationship of each subscale of hardiness
(commitment, control and challenge) to health in public
school teachers in the Sullivan County School System?
4. What are the relationships among the hardiness subscales
(commitment, control, and challenge) and each of the
subscales of burnout (Emotional Exhaustion,
Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment) in
public school teachers in the Sullivan County School
System?
5. What is the relationship, if any, between selected
demographicc variables as reported by the Educators
Demographic Data Survey and the three subscales of
burnout and hardiness?
Definitions of Terms
The following definitions apply to this study:
Hardiness: Hardiness is a personality constellation of
commitment, control, and challenge that mediates the effects
of stress to promote physical and psychological health
(Kobasa, 1977).
Commitment: Commitment is the tendency to involve
oneself fully in life and recognize one's distinctive goals
and priorities and the appreciation of one's ability to make
decisions and hold values (Kobasa, 1982).

Control: Control la the tendency to believe and act as
if one can influence the course of events (Kobasa, 1982).
Challenge: Challenge is the capacity to perceive
stressful life events as an opportunity and incentive for
personal growth, rather than a simple threat to security
(Kobosa, 1982).
Burnout: Burnout is a syndrome of emotional
exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal
accomplishment that can occur in individuals who work with
people (Haslach, 1986).
Emotional Exhaustion: Emotional exhaustion consists of
a low energy level, sense of depletion, and feeling of being
overwhelmed by the emotional demands imposed by other people
(Haslach, 1986).
Depersonalization! Depersonalization is the attempt at
emotional self“protection manifested by detached, callous,
and even dehumanized response toward others (Haslach, 1986).
Reduced Personal Accomplishment: Reduced personal
accomplishment is the sense of inadequacy and failure that
arises subsequent to feelings of guilt for the negative
response toward others (Haslach, 1986).
HEART! Health Evaluation and Risk Test includes:
complete blood profile, body composition testing and
determination of target body weight, graded exercise
cardiovascular fitness test on stationary bicycle, blood
pressure and heart rate reading at rest and during exercise,

8
evaluation of personal and family traits of cardiovascular
disease, stress evaluation and tobacco use evaluation
(Wellness I).
Teachers; Teachers included regular and special
education classroom teachers, remedial teachers (such as
resource math, reading), as well as special areas (such as
physical education, art, music, and library). The term
"teacher" as used in this research project did not include
administrators or pupil professionals (such as guidance
counselors, social workers or school psychologists).
organization of the Study
This study was organized and presented in five
chapters. Chapter 1 contains the introduction of the study
and the statement of the problem including its purpose,
significance, limitations, and assumptions. Five research
questions, ten definitions of terms, and a discussion of the
study are also included in the chapter.
Chapter 2 provides the review of literature regarding
hardiness, health, and burnout. The literature review
begins with a description and an explanation of hardiness.
The chapter then presents research studies of hardiness in
teachers. The concept of health is discussed and presented
in relation to hardiness. Finally, burnout is described and
then related to teaching.
Chapter 3 is comprised of research design, procedures,

and methodology. It Includes a description of the target
population and the selection of the study sample, the
instruments, the treatment of data, the hypotheses, and a
summary of methodology.
Chapter 4 contains the presentation of demographic
characteristics of research subjects, analysis of data, and
results of hypotheses testing.
Chapter 5 includes a summary of the findings,
conclusions, recommendations, and implications.

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
This literature review will address hardiness, health,
and burnout beginning with a description of hardiness and
explained by Kobasa and co-authors (Kobasa, 1977, 1979,
1982; Kobasa, Maddi, 8 Courington, 1981; Kobasa & Puccetti,
1983). Research studies of hardiness in teachers will be
presented (Hammond, 1987; Langemo, 1987; Holt, Fine &
Tollefson, 1987; Goor, 1990; Pierce & Malloy, 1990). The
concept of health as measured by cardiovascular risk factors
will be presented from the perspectives of several authors
(Lenfante, stone, & Castelli, 1987; Stoto, 1991; Gunby,
1992; Brownson, 1992), and its relativeness to hardiness
will be discussed. Burnout will be presented from the
perspective of Maslach (1986), and will also be related to
teaching (Byrme, 1992; Dworkin, 1985; Cadavid & Lunenburg,
1991; Lutz 6 Maddiralta, 1987).
Kobasa's Hardiness Theory
The term "personality hardiness" has been used to
describe persons who have a kind of personal and world view
that underlies the positive capacity to cope with and
mediate stress (Kobasa, 1979). In her originating research,
Suzanne C. Kobasa (1979) stated that "persons who experience
high degrees of stress, without falling ill, have a
10
11
personality structure differentiating then from persons who
become sick under stress” (p.3)* This personality structure
"hardiness” was defined as a constellation of commitment,
control, and challenge that serves as a "resistance
resource” in encounters with stress (Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn,
1982, p. 169). The resistance resource theory formed the
foundation of Kobasa's proposed concept that individuals who
are exposed to high levels of stress who do not become ill,
may have characteristics that come under the rubric
"personal hardiness” (Kobasa, 1979). Kobasa explained that
these hardy individuals choose commitment rather than
alienation, control rather than powerlessness, and challenge
rather than threat. These three personality characteristics
remain the basis of her continuous research on personal
hardiness.
Commitment involves activity and curiosity, not
passiveness and alienation. It entails belief in the value
for "what one is and what one is doing, as well as a
tendency to involve oneself fully and vigorously in life."
The committed individual finds life in general, and work in
particular, meaningful and worth engaging, thereby lessening
the threat perceived in situations and circumstances
(Kobasa, 1982).
Control is the tendency to believe and act as if one
is influential (rather than helpless) in the course of
events in one's life. Individuals who have control strive

12
to understand the reasons for things that occur with
particular reference to their own sphere of responsibility
(Kobasa, 1982). Control involves developing a repertoire of
options and actions that transforms events into a continuing
life plan (Holt, Fine, & Tollefson, 1987).
Challenge, the third dimension of the hardiness
constellation, involves the belief that one should expect
and accept change, not stability, as the normal pattern of
life (Kobasa, 1982; Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982). The
anticipation of change is positive, rather than threatening
and change is viewed as an incentive to growth. The
individual with this characteristic emphasizes growing and
changing, rather than conserving and protecting the status
quo (Holt, Fine, & Tollefson, 1987).
Kobasa's Original Hardiness Research
Kobasa's original research on hardiness (1979) was a
retrospective, single observation, correlational study (& =
200) of middle and upper level male executives of a major
utility company who worked in an environment of unusually
high stressors, as measured by stressful life events.
Demographically, the pool was quite homogeneous.
"The model characteristics of the subjects were (a)
male gender; (b) 40 to 49 years of age; (c) married,
with two children; (d) on the third or middle
management level, and having been there for 6 years or

13
more; (e) possessing at least a college degree; (£)
wife not working outside the home; and (g) usually
Protestant, and attending religious services very or
fairly often" (Kobasa, 1979, p.5).
Kobasa found that high stress/low illness individuals
could be distinguished from high stress/high illness
individuals. The high stress/low illness executives showed
a commitment to self, vigor, and an awareness of meaning in
their lives. Also, these individuals had a greater sense of
internal locus of control and were more oriented to
challenge (Kobasa, 1979).
Following the original study, Kobasa, Maddi, and Kahn
(1982) and Kobasa, Maddi, and Courington (1981) conducted
hardiness research in two longitudinal studies using
subjects with similar demographic characteristics as the
utility company executives. After completion of factor
analysis (Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982) the cognitive scale
was dropped and the idea of a composite hardiness score was
developed.
The contributions from this follow-up research were:
(1) hardiness serves as a buffer to the effects of stress,
(2) hardiness is most operative when stressful life events
mount over a period of time, and (3) increased hardiness
increased the likelihood of maintaining health (Kobasa,
Maddi, & Courington, 1981; Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982).
Hardiness was linked to Type A behaviors (Kobasa,

14
Maddi, & Zola, 1983) and to social supports (Kobasa &
Puccetti, 1983) in subsequent research. The two studies
continue to confirm the association of hardiness to stress -
induced illness. The study on Type A behavior supports the
contention that Type A's who are low in hardiness while
being exposed to high-stress conditions are even sicker than
was formerly indicated (Kobasa, Maddi, & Zola, 1983).
The study on social support concluded that family
support functions as a resistance resource only if hardiness
is high. Low-hardy executives, those who feel alienated,
lacking in control and threatened by change, may not resist
stress as actively if they are given strong cohesiveness and
expressiveness at home (Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983). It is the
hardy who tend to better utilize the positive aspects of
social support and assets.
Other Hardiness Research
Through 1983, Kobasa's published research used a pool
of subjects essentially identical to the sample in her
original study. During the next four years other
researchers began to submit additional subjects to a
hardiness examination; e.g., college student resident
assistants (Nowack & Hanson, 1983), female college students
(Ganellen & Blaney, 1984), female secretaries (Schmied &
Lawler, 1986), New York state school superintendents
(Falinski, 1985), faculty researchers, researchers, and

15
administrators at a southwestern university (Hammond, 1987),
and athletic trainers (Shapiro, 1987).
Nowack and Hanson (1983) found that hardiness
correlated significantly and accounted for 35% of the
variance in frequency and severity of illness. The authors
concluded that hardiness buffers burnout.
Ganellen and Blaney (1984) found that commitment and
challenge, but not control, were significantly correlated
with social support. Therefore, the researchers conclude
that the higher the level of social support subjects report,
the higher their level of hardiness. Also found was that
powerlessness and internal locus of control measure
perceptions of control, not control itself.
Schmied and Lawler (1986) set out to determine if the
original all male hardiness research could be generalized to
females. The authors stated:
"Hardiness may not generalize to females, especially
when using physical illness as the dependent measure;
hardiness in men may not be the same as hardiness in
women; because hardiness was associated in this study
with age, education and marital status, hardiness may
be a developmental trait; and hardiness may not
manifest itself in the occupational role of a secretary
where there is little opportunity for control or
challenge and Type A behaviors are unlikely to be
rewarded" (Williams, 1988, p.50).

16
Falinski (1985) found that personal hardiness
contributed to the ability of New York state school
superintendents to handle role stress and therefore feel job
satisfaction. In another similar study by Hammond (1987),
faculty, researchers, and administrators at a southwestern
university responded to a questionnaire revealing that
satisfaction could be predicted by hardiness, social
support, and coping strategies.
Shapiro (1987) in a later study of athletic trainers
confirmed that personal hardiness was a significant
contributor to job satisfaction of these individuals.
Up to this point, the majority of hardiness studies
involved executives and high-level managers. Since then
several studies of hardiness have included two other groups
of professionals who experience high daily stress, nurses
and teachers.
Simoni (1987) conducted a study of nurses in Kentucky.
He found that personal hardiness factors helped to reduce
the symptoms of burnout as well as to improve nurses'
perceptions of career satisfaction. In a similar study of a
subgroup of nurses working in oncology, D'Ambrosia (1982)
found that burnout could be predicted based on hardiness
factors, particularly the sense of control versus
powerlessness. Rich and Rich (1987) concluded that
hardiness is an important stress-resistance resource in
preventing or reducing burnout in female staff nurses.

17
Teachers and Hardiness Research
Recent studies of personal hardiness in teachers have
shown a relationship between hardiness factors and reduced
symptoms of burnout. In a study of university faculty,
Hammond (1987) and Langemo (1967) found that, indeed,
hardiness factors provided energy for coping with work-
related stress. Holt, Fine, and Tollefson (1987) surveyed
192 female regular and special education elementary teachers
to study the mediating effects of coping and hardiness on
the stress-burnout relationship. As in previous studies,
individuals with high occupational stress and low burnout
were found to choose active coping, feel less alienation,
and experience more internal locus of control. These
teachers were also likely to report both physical and mental
illness.
The findings in the Holt et al. (1987) study stimulated
interest in terms of teacher career stages and reported
levels of stress. In the group perceiving lower stress,
there was a higher percentage of older, more experienced
teachers and also younger, less experienced teachers. In
contrast, the high stress group contained more teachers with
five to ten years of experience, that is, the early,
teacher-career-stage group.
Goor (1990) in his investigation of teachers at three
career stages concluded that teachers who remain in the

18
educational profession despite their exposure to the stress
of frustrating job conditions and student failure had higher
personal hardiness than those vho left the profession. As a
group, more seasoned or later-career teachers had higher
personal hardiness characteristics than novice or early-
career teachers.
The study most significant to the present investigation
is that of Pierce and Molloy (1990). The subjects in this
research included a total of 750 teachers from 16
contrasting socio-economic status schools. The study was
designed to investigate the psychological and work patterns
of teachers experiencing high and low levels of burnout.
Higher levels of burnout were associated with poorer
physical health, higher rates of absenteeism, lower self-
confidence and more frequent use of regressive coping
strategies. Teachers classified as experiencing high levels
of burnout attributed most of the stress in their lives to
teaching and reported low levels of career commitment and
satisfaction. Further, teachers who recorded high levels of
burnout were characterized by lower levels of the
personality disposition of hardiness.
In summary, the three personality characteristics,
commitment, control and challenge, are the basis of ongoing
research on personal hardiness. While some researchers use
different ways to measure hardiness, research results on
hardiness in teacher samples are sufficient enough to

19
provide incentive for further investigation of Kabasa's
hardiness theory.
Health's Evolution
Humanity's earliest efforts at optimizing health
might be described as survival, avoidance of dangers. With
written records comes increased evidence related to health-
oriented practices. The Hebrew Old Testament and Greek
literature show that health practices were incorporated into
belief systems (Grasser & Craft, 1984). Hippocrates
supported the belief in the body's ability to heal. After
the Middle Ages, the use of the scientific method in health
practices was prevalent. Thus, the evolution of health
moved away from treatment of disease toward use of
information derived from interventions to determine risk
factors (Grasser & Craft, 1984).
cardiovascular Disease as a Measure of Health
The Framingham Heart study in 1948 pioneered the
concept that certain items, known eventually as risk
factors, were associated with the development of heart
disease (Lenfant, stone, & Castelli, 1987). From the 45-
year-old Framingham Heart study emerged the identification
of risk factors for cardiovascular disease such as high
blood cholesterol, elevated blood pressure, cigarette
smoking, overweight, elevated blood sugar, lack of physical

20
activity, and stress (Dawber, 1980).
The concept of risk factors spawned a new generation of
studies aimed at intervening to reduce the impact of risk
factors on health* The first conclusive evidence of the
value in lowering risk factors came in hypertension
intervention trials. A consensus then emerged that
identifying and treating high blood pressure would greatly
lower the stroke rate. This was followed*by a campaign to
encourage health professionals to measure blood pressure and
identify people with elevated blood pressure, and to bring
them into a treatment setting to have their pressures
controlled surfaced (Lenfante, Stone, & Castelli, 1987). By
the late 1970s, the stroke rate had fallen dramatically.
The scientific base provided by the 45-year-old Framingham
Heart Study and the risk factor concept associated with
lifestyle have provided the field with a base for health
promotion and disease prevention programs which include
HEART, the risk testing analysis used in the current study.
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death
and disease in the United States, a somewhat alarming fact
since it is mainly a preventable illness. Cardiovascular
health is an important indicator of a person's overall
health. This is because persons who promote and protect
their own cardiovascular health have chosen lifestyles or
behaviors which lessen their risks, not only for
cardiovascular disease, but also for many other chronic

21
diseases.
chronic cardiovascular disease includes a large list of
diseases that involve the heart (hence, "cardio"), and
vascular system (arteries, veins, heart and lungs). These
include hypertension (also known as high blood pressure),
and atherosclerosis, also known as "hardening of the
arteries" (blocking of the arteries with plaque), i.e.,
coronary artery disease (angina and heart attacks), strokes,
peripheral vascular disease (involving the arteries of the
periphery of the body— neck and head, legs and arms). Also
included are some causes of chronic obstructive lung
diseases and some causes of chronic kidney diseases.
Chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, "are all
related to a common set of risk factors (diet, smoking,
alcohol, exercise)" (stoto, 1991, p. 1460).
In 1989, nearly one million persons in this country
died of cardiovascular disease, "almost as many as those who
died of cancer, accidents, pneumonia, influenza, and all
other causes of death combined" (Gunby, 1992, p. 336).
Changes in health trends reflect a decline in mortality due
to heart disease, however, "heart disease remains the
leading cause of death among men and women" (Kritz-
Siverstein, 1992, p. 335). Progress in the treatment of
heart disease has been made yet "close to one quarter of the
US population, some 69,080,000 persons, has one or more
forms of cardiovascular disease today" (Gunby, 1992, p.

22
336) .
Cardiovascular disease as the leading cause of death is
’’greatly influenced by lifestyle and behavior."
"....Nutritional practices, exercise and stress management
are known to be influential in prevention and treatment of
cardiovascular disease" (Tanner, 1991, p. 845}. Behavioral
and attitudinal changes toward health prevention have
reduced certain risk factors. "Lifestyle has been defined
as all those behaviors over which an individual has control"
(Walker, 1987, p. 76). Risk factors are those tendencies
(inherited, developed or chosen), which increase one's odds
of developing a disease. Risk factors for development of
cardiovascular disease are (l) hypertension, (2) diabetes,
(3) smoking, (4) sedentary lifestyle, (5) diet high in fats,
(6) positive family history of heart disease, one of the
major risk factors in an individual's lifestyle is cigarette
smoking. "Cigarette smoking is now considered the leading
avoidable cause of mortality in the United States,
accounting for approximately 434,000 deaths in 1988"
(Brownson, 1992, p. 99).
Persons who choose lifestyles or behaviors that promote
and protect their overall health and their cardiovascular
health believe their "health outcomes are under their own
control" (Brownson, 1992, p.100.) By making conscious
choices about their lifestyles which promote health, they
have become participants in the health care process, as

23
opposed to those who are only recipients of health care.
They have chosen to prevent diseases and protect their
health. Their overall health, as well as their
cardiovascular health is more likely to remain free from
disease. "When people accept responsibility for their
health, changes in lifestyle practices could prevent and
reverse many of the health problems of today..." (Tanner,
1991, p.846). While health promotion is an imperative goal
for our nation. One needs only to look at the major causes
of cardiovascular disease to know that lifestyle factors are
major contributors. "A number of authors have voiced the
belief that health care is undergoing a revolution...with
the focus shifting specifically to lifestyle and wellness
behaviors..." (Grasser & Craft, 1984, p. 210).
Relationship of Health to Hardiness
Health was found to be an outcome of personality
hardiness (Kobasa, 1977, 1979; Kobasa & Pucetti, 1983).
Individuals high in hardiness are hypothesized to be better
able to withstand the negative effects of life stressors
and, consequently, are less likely than individuals in low
hardiness to become ill (Shepperd & Kashani, 1991). Their
resistance to illness presumably results from perceiving
life changes as less stressful (Kobasa, 1979) or from having
more resources at their disposal to cope with life changes
(Kobasa, 1982). In support of this hypothesis Kobasa found

that hardy executives were more likely to remain healthy
under conditions of high stress than were non-hardy
executives (Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982).
An important issue in hardiness research in general
should be noted. Most investigations of hardiness have
relied on self-report instruments to assess health status
rather than using physiological measures or medical records
(Maddi, 1983). There is some evidence that self-report
measures of illness reflect negative affectivity and are
unrelated to actual, long-term health status (Watson &
Fennebaker, 1989). This evidence calls much of the
hardiness literature into question and adds importance to
the results of this study.
Burnout
One of the first uses of the term burnout was in 1974
by Fruedenberger. He used it to describe the conditions of
some volunteers in free clinics. He defined burnout as "a
situation in which one loses an idea - the incentive that
motivates the person. Something within that person dies and
does not return " (p. 160). Fruedenberger, a trained
psychoanalyst, based his model of burnout on emphasizing the
psychology of the individual. He used a case study approach
with focus on an individual's psychological capacities and
vulnerabilities when placed in a stressful work situation.
He was primarily concerned with the individual dynamics of

25
burnout and the psychological reasons why it occurs.
Maslach's Study of Burnout
Christina Maslach and her colleagues at the University
of California, Berkeley provided a complementary contrast to
the theory of burnout. Maslach and Pines, both trained
social psychologists, began to conduct extensive interviews
with over 200 social welfare workers (Pines & Kafry, 1978),
psychiatric nurses (Pines, Aronson & Kafry, 1981), poverty
lawyers (Maslach & Jackson, 1978), prison personnel (Maslach
& Jackson, 1981), and child-care workers (Pines & Maslach,
1978) .
From these studies Maslach arrived at a symptomatic
definition of burnout. She states burnout is a "syndrome of
physical and emotional exhaustion, involving the development
of negative self-concept, negative job attitudes, and loss
of concern and feeling for clients" (Pines & Maslach, 1978,
p.233). Maslach (1993) later expanded on this definition,
"Burnout is a syndrome of emotional exhaustion,
depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment that
can occur among individuals who do * people work' of some
kind" (p.l). According to Maslach, burnout is a response to
job-related stress, particularly of emotional overload and a
sense of being overwhelmed by the perceived demands of
others. It is a process; it does not happen spontaneously.
Defining the phenomenon of burnout has resulted in both

26
confusion and controversy. In an attempt to form a working
definition of burnout Maslach found consensus in three
areas. They include the occurrence of burnout at an
individual level; burnout as an internal psychological
experience involving feelings, attitudes, motives and
expectations; and burnout as a negative experience for the
individual, in that it involves distress, problems,
dysfunction and/or negative consequences (Holt, 1985).
Maslach (1984) addressed potential problems of an over-
expanded definition of burnout. These problems include: the
potential of inflating the incidence of the syndrome of
burnout and the risk of inappropriate causes and solutions.
As a result, burnout will become a catch-all phrase with
decreased diagnostic value.
Passivity, impatience, and self-doubt have been found
to have a close association with the experiences of burnout
(Maslach, 1986). For the most part, gender has little
effect on the overall incidence of burnout, however, slight
variations have been noted in depersonalization and
emotional exhaustion (Maslach, 1986). Depersonalization
tends to be demonstrated to a greater extent in men than in
women, while emotional exhaustion tends to occur more often
in women than men. Burnout tends to occur more frequently
in whites than in blacks; and its incidence is greater in
young rather than in older, more experienced people
(Maslach, 1986). Holt (1985), in a study of burnout and

27
hardiness among female elementary teachers ( H ^ l l ) , found
teachers with five to ten years experience were
significantly higher in the high stress-high burnout group.
Maslach clearly presented in her findings (1986) that
burnout does not afflict people indiscriminantly. The
conditions of burnout appear to be a product of a
combination of factors, both internal and external to the
individual, in varying combinations and levels of intensity.
Fruedenberger (1980) echoed this statement: "Not all people
are equally susceptible to burnout, such as the
underachiever and the happy-go-lucky individual with fairly
modest aspirations" (p.19).
Burnout and Hardiness
Not everyone is susceptible to burnout (Maslach, 1993).
Personality differences appear to be related to the
vulnerability of burnout (Maslach, 1982). Burnout, as
described by Maslach, parallels in many ways the
characteristics of low personality hardiness (Lambert &
Lambert, 1987).
Burnout-prone individuals tend not to be aware of their
limits (Maslach, 1982), which is consistent with the
commitment facet of hardiness (Kobasa, 1979). Maslach
(1982), emphasizing self-awareness, implies that a person
needs to know his/her strengths and weaknesses, assets and
liabilities, skills and talents as well as deficiencies in

28
those areas. Haslach (1982) stated that "The emotional
overload that precipitates burnout is more likely to occur
if you do not know when it is time to stop, to say no, or to
make changes" (p.65). Individuals who lack commitment tend
to "establish a sense of self-worth by winning approval and
acceptance of others. In so doing, the person may be so
accommodating that he or she is overextended too often"
(Maslach, 1985, p.63). Assuming responsibility for the
successes and failures of individuals is fertile ground for
experiencing a low sense of personal accomplishment
(Maslach, 1986).
Burnout is related to locus of control, another factor
that also contributes to low hardiness. Rotter defines
locus of control as the degree to which individuals feel
they have personal control over outcomes and suggests that
external locus of control individuals are more prone to
learned helplessness. These types of individuals believe
that they have little or no control over their environment
and tend to withdraw in faces of stress and frustration.
Kyriacou and Sutcliffe (1979) found a significant
correlation between self-reported teacher stress and
external locus of control. They noted that teachers with a
belief in external locus of control may be more likely to
appraise their environment as threatening and thereby may be
more prone to experience occupational stress, thus,
strengthening the conceptual link between burnout and

29
hardiness.
Characteristics of burnout-prone individuals (Maslach,
1982) that correspond to the challenge component of
hardiness include passiveness and powerlessness.
Individuals described like this tend to lack self-esteem or
confidence. This type of individual is at the mercy of his
environment instead of shaping and controlling it. This
behavioral pattern is consistent with that of low challenge
which is characterized by a strong sense of threat toward
changing life events (Kobasa, 1982).
Burnout Research and Teachers
In the education literature, the connection between
stress and burnout is fairly well established (Sarros &
Sarros, 1987; Rinke, 1989; Crump, 1991). Most of the
studies have identified specific work stressors such as role
ambiguity, work load, and overall work stress as
contributing to burnout. Few have looked at the degree to
which the individual teacher experiences the three aspects
of burnout (Schwab & Iwanicki, 1982), that is, emotional
exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal
accomplishment. There is also no consistent estimate of the
extent of burnout among teachers.
Colasurdo (1987) in a study of San Diego teachers
indicated that 52% of the 215 respondents were burned out or
reported frequent feelings of burnout. A recent survey by

30
the American Federation of Teachers (Natale, 1993) yielded a
31% report of being burned out or "getting there".
Symptoms vary in both intensity and frequency. It is
not unusual for any teacher to experience occasional
feelings of burnout. It is when those feelings persist over
a long period of time that they manifest themselves in
chronic physical and emotional difficulties (Iwanicki,
1983).
Yet, there are teachers, despite their exposure to the
stress of teaching who do not exhibit symptoms of burnout at
the same high levels as other teachers in similar
situations. Previous research has attempted to examine the
relationships among teacher background, organizational
factors, individual personality, and various aspects of
teacher burnout. These studies have relied primarily on
teacher questionnaires and are subject to the limitations of
that type of instrument. Nevertheless, the findings provide
some interesting insights about the individual teacher and
burnout.
In a study of 469 randomly selected Massachusetts
teachers, Schwab and Iwanicki (1982) found age to be a
factor in feelings of emotional exhaustion and fatigue.
Younger teachers had more intense feelings than older
counterparts. Carlson (1992) found similar results in
studies with special education teachers. While these
findings have been replicated in other dissertations

31
(Tuettemann & Punch, 1992; Connoly & Sanders, 1986;
Harrison, 1983; Hooper, 1983; Raison, 1981), contradictory
findings about age have been determined in other studies
(Hipps & Haulpin, 1991; Clarke, 1991; Pierce & Molloy, 1990;
Colasurdo, 1981; Malanowski, 1982). A similar contradictory
pattern of findings has been seen when studies have included
teacher sex, years of teaching experience, level of
education, teaching level, marital status, regular or
special education, or size of school district. In a recent
study of 145 urban middle school teachers, Maynard (1992)
reported any attempt to predict teacher burnout should take
into consideration marital status, ethnicity, and sex.
There have been some personality characteristics which
have been shown to influence levels of experienced burnout.
Locus of control was found to be a significant mediator
between stress and burnout among 599 full-time elementary,
203 intermediate and 715 secondary teachers (Byrne, 1992).
Teachers with a more external locus of control evidenced
more feelings of burnout than those with a more internal
orientation. Similar results were found in a survey of 200
high school teachers (Mazur & Lynch, 1989) and in a study of
191 junior high teachers in an interracial cross-cultural
center (Cadavid & Lunenberg, 1991). significant
relationships have also been found between higher levels of
reported burnout an self criticism (Jackson, 1983), low self
regard (Hipps & Malpin, 1991), low sense of competence and

32
self-actualization (Pierce & Molloy, 1990), few coping
strategies (Cadavid & Lunenberg, 1991), and intolerance of
ambiguity (Fielding, 1982).
Cedoline (1982) feels that roost individuals who have
chosen teaching as a profession are disposed by their
personalities to certain attitudes and aptitudes. These
include a high dedication to their work, a sincere desire to
help others, and a willingness to accept certain
occupational disadvantages in order to do what they think
needs to be done. ''The personality characteristics of
altruism, sincere caring, and idealism— when met by lack of
feedback, limited appreciation, public apathy, and day-to-
day stress— make teachers vulnerable candidates for
occupational distress" (p.105).
Summary
Personality hardiness is a stress-resistance resource
(Kobasa, 1977), Health has been found to be an outcome of
hardiness (Kobasa, 1977, 1982; Kobasa, Maddi, & Courington,
1981; Rich & Rich, 1987). The literature is replete with
hardiness studies which measure health based on one's
perception rather than medical analysis (Kobasa, 1977, 1979,
1982; Kobasa, Maddi, & Courington, 1981; Kobasa & Pucetti,
1983; Hammond, 1987; Langeroo, 1987; Holt, Fine, & Tollefson,
1987; Goor, 1990? Pierce & Malloy, 1990).
The link between hardiness and burnout is essential in

33
the descriptions of low hardiness (Kobasa, 1977, 1979) and
burnout (Maslach, 1986), and in the similarities between
coping strategies of educators (Hammond, 1987) and teachers
who experience burnout (Lambert & Lambert 1987).
In the education literature, the connection between
stress and burnout is fairly well established (Sarros &
Sarros, 1987; Rinke, 1989; Crump, 1991). These findings, in
conjunction with Goor's (1990) study of hardiness at three
teacher career stages, corroborates the importance of
studying hardiness, health, and burnout among teachers in
the Sullivan County School System.

CHAPTER 3
Research Design
In this chapter, sample selection and data collection
procedures are presented; demographic information about the
subject population is discussed; instrumentation is
described; and research hypotheses are stated.
A descriptive correlational design was used to
investigate the relationships among hardiness, health and
burnout and to investigate the relationships of the
components of hardiness to health and to the components of
burnout in educators in the Sullivan County School System.
Population
The subjects used in this study were 804 full-time
teachers in the Sullivan County School System located in
Northeast Tennessee. Of these 804 subjects, 213 are high
school teachers, 201 middle school teachers and 390
elementary teachers. They represent four high schools,
nine middle schools, and seventeen elementary schools.
The term "teachers" included regular and special
education classroom teachers, remedial teachers (such as
resource math, reading), as well as special areas (such as
physical education, art, music, and library). The term
"teacher" as used in this research project did not include
administrators or pupil professionals (such as guidance
34
35
counselors, social workers or school psychologists).
Instruments
Two instruments, a personal demographic questionnaire
and a cardiovascular risk factor analysis, will be used to
measure the variables of this study. They include the
third generation version of the Hardiness Test, the Maslach
Burnout Inventory Form Ed, the Educators Demographic Data
Survey, the Health Evaluation and Risk Test (HEART).
The Hardiness Test
In this investigation, the third generation version of
the Hardiness Test, also known as the Personal Views survey,
was used to measure hardiness. This instrument was
developed by Suzanne Kobasa in 19B6. The current version is
a 50-item, four-point Likert scale estimated to take 10
minutes or less to take. It is the result of multiple itera-
and factor-analyses of data from several samples.
In her originating research in 1977, Suzanne C. Kobasa
used a 253-item questionnaire derived from four standardized
instruments and two personality measures she constructed.
The instruments chosen for their "theoretical relevance and
empirical reliability and validity" (Kobasa, 1979, p.5)
included: Jackson's Personality Research Form; Hahn's
California Life Goals Evaluation Schedules; Rotter's Test
for Internal vs. External Locus of Control; Maddi, Kobasa,

36
and Hoover's Alienation vs Commitment Test (Kobasa, 1977).
The Hardiness Test is comprised of three subscales:
challenge, commitment, and control. The challenge items are
numbers 2, 6, 9, 12, IS, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 37, 40,
43, 46, and 49. An example from this subscale is, (6) "I
feel uncomfortable if I have to make any changes in my
everyday schedule." The commitment items include numbers 1,
8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 38, 39, 41, 44, 47, and
50. An example from the commitment subscale is , (1) "I
often wake up eager to take up my life where it left off the
day before." The control items include numbers 3, 4, 5, 7,
10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28,31, 34, 35, 42, 45, and 48. An
example control item is, (4) "Planning ahead can help avoid
most future problems."
These subscales provide negative indicators of
hardiness. In other words, a low score indicates a high
level of hardiness. Each of these scales has adequate
reliability and validity. Factor analysis by Kobasa and
Haddi (1985) include "estimates of internal consistency
with Coefficient Alphas in the .90s for total hardiness
score, and in the .70s for commitment, control, and
challenge scores. Stability appears to be in the .60s over
periods of two weeks or more." The reported reliability
coefficients that were obtained are: .71 for commitment,
.67 for control, .59 for challenge, and .81 for total
hardiness. The validity of the hardiness construct as a

37
moderator of stress has been established through many
studies (Kobasa, 1979, 1980; Kobasa & Maddi, 1982; Kobasa,
Maddi, & Courington, 1981; Kobasa, Maddi & Puccetti, 1982;
Kobasa, Maddi, & Zola, 1983; Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983;
Kobasa, Maddi & Kahn, 1982).
The Maslach Burnout Inventory Form Ed
The Maslach Burnout Inventory Form Ed is a 22-item
Likert scale that contains three subscales, Emotional
Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment;
it is estimated to take 10-15 minutes for completion
(Maslach & Jackson, 1986).
Burnout is a continuous variable with ranges of low to
high degrees of experienced feeling. Teachers are not
classified as "burned out" or "not burned out", instead they
are placed on a continuum of "more burned out" to "less
burned out". Those teachers who experience a higher degree
of burnout will score high on Depersonalization and
Emotional Exhaustion and low on Personal Accomplishment.
Scores of those teachers who experience a low degree of
burnout will be reversed, while teachers experiencing
moderate levels of burnout will have moderate scores on all
three subscales. Scores of each subscale are considered
separately and are not combined into a single, total score.
Scores are considered high if they are in the upper
third of the normative distribution, moderate if they are in

38
the middle third, and low if they are in the lower third.
Scores for groups of respondents can also be treated as
aggregate data with means and standard deviations computed
for each subscale, comparisons made to available normative
data or local norms, and correlations made with other
information obtained from respondents.
The Maslach Burnout Inventory norms and scale
development are based on a sample (H = 2000) human service
employees (police officers, teachers, counselors, social
workers, physicians, psychologists, and lawyers). The MBI
Form Ed is basically the same as the MBI. The only
modification of items in the MBI Form Ed has been to change
the word "recipient" to "student". In the teaching
profession, students are the teachers' recipients (Schwab,
1993). Validity and reliability are substantiated by two
studies conducted with these changes, Iwanicki and Schwab.
Factor analytic studies by Iwanicki and Schwab report
Cronbach alpha estimates of .90 for Emotional Exhaustion,
.76 for Depersonalization, and .76 for Personal
Accomplishment, while Gold reports estimates of .88, .74,
and .72, respectively. These reliabilities parallel those
of the MBI (Schwab, 1993).
Mean scores and standard deviations tend to be slightly
higher for teachers on Emotional Exhaustion (teachers mean «
21.25, overall sample mean “ 20.99); substantially higher on
Depersonalization (teachers mean = 11.00, overall sample

39
mean “ 8.73); and lower scores on Personal Accomplishment
(teachers mean « 33.54, overall sample mean = 34.58). Since
the mean scores vary from the overall sample, the cut-off
points for classifying teachers who are experiencing high,
average, and low levels of burnout vary from other subgroups
and the overall sample (Schwab, 1993).
HEART
Health will be measured through the analysis of HEART
(Health Evaluation and Risk Test) which is available to all
Sullivan County School System employees. This testing
occurred during the fall of 1993. Incentives to participate
include: no cost to employees, testing is done in a mobile
unit at each school on school time, and follow-up
conferences with a Blue Cross Blue Shield physician who
provides the participants with an explanation of their test

results.
The American Heart Association has identified the
factors which make it possible to determine the extent of
risk of cardiovascular disease. They include:
cardiovascular fitness, systolic blood pressure, diastolic
blood pressure, body fat percentage, total cholesterol,
H.D.L. cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, resting
electocardiagraro, stress electrocardiogram, tobacco use,
tension and stress, personal history of heart disease,
family history of heart disease, and age factor. Tests

40
results from the cardiovascular disease testing and the
health evaluation questionnaire are used to develop a
composite cardiovascular disease risk factor score,
identifying the risk factors which affect individuals and to
what extent they may influence present and future risk of
cardiovascular disease. Included on each teacher's test
report is an entry labeled "Total Risk Points"; this is used
to determine the overall risk category and serves as a
measure of health. The risk categories include:
Total Risk Points Risk
5.9 or less Points Very Low

6.0 - 13.9 Points Low
14.0 - 22.9 Points Moderate
23.0 - 31.9 Points High
32.0 or more Points Very High
Each participant will be asked to report this risk
factor on the Educators Demographic Data Sheet distributed
with the Maslach Burnout Inventory Form Ed and the
Hardiness Test.
Educators Demographic Data Sheet
The Educators Demographic Data Sheet will be used to
collect descriptive information about the sample.
Demographic data will include sex, age, education level,
primary assignment, number of years in current assignment,
and number of years in education.

41
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection procedures followed in this study will
emphasize a personalized approach from the researcher to the
potential subjects. Prior to a first contact with the
teachers, a letter will be sent by John O'Dell,
Superintendent of the Sullivan County School System to all
regular classroom teachers in the system. He will request
their support in participating in this research study. The
researcher will attend all Wellness counseling sessions. At
that time each subject will be given a testing packet which
will include a letter explaining the study and asking for
their participation, instruments consisting of the Hardiness
Test, Maslach Burnout Inventory Form Ed, Educators
Demographic Data Sheet to include a request for the risk
factor from the Health Evaluation and Risk Testing, and an
envelope which is preaddressed to the researcher. The
answer sheets and return envelopes will be numerically coded
in order to protect the subjects' confidentiality and to
inform the researcher of nonresponse.
Data Analysis
This investigation used correlational techniques:
Pearson Product Moment correlations and multiple regression
analyses. Descriptive statistics and one-way analyses of
variance were computed as needed. Pearson product moment

42
correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the
correlations among all variables: the three MBI Form Ed
subscales; the three Hardiness subscales; and gender, age,
years teaching, teaching assignment, and level of education
from the Educators Demographic Data Survey. The level of
significance was 0.05.
Hypotheses
The twenty-two null hypotheses in this study are:
1. There is no statistically significant relationship
between levels of hardiness, as measured by the Hardiness
Test, and health, as reported on the Educators Demographic
Data Sheet (EDDS) and measured by the Health Evaluation and
Risk Test (HEART).
between levels of hardiness, asmeasured by the Hardiness
Test, and degrees of burnout asmeasured by the Emotional
Exhaustion subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI)
Form Ed.
Test, and degrees of burnout as measured by the
Depersonalization subscale of the MBI Form Ed.
4. There 1b no statistically significant relationship
Test, and degrees of burnout asmeasured by the Personal

43
Accomplishment subscale of the MBI Form Ed.
between levels of commitment, as measured by the Hardiness
Test, and health, as reported on the EDDS and measured by
HEART.
between levels of control, as measured bythe Hardiness
HEART.
between levels of challenge, as measured by the Hardiness
HEART.
Test, and Emotional Exhaustion as measured by the MBI Form
Ed.
between levels of control, as measured by the Hardiness
Ed.
Ed.
11. There is no statistically significant relatioinship

44
Test, and Depersonalization as measured by the MBI Form Ed.
Test, and Personal Accomplishment as measured by the MBI
Form Ed.
Form Ed.
16. There is no statistically significant relatioinship
Form Ed.
between age and the study variables (hardiness, commitment,
control, challenge, health, Emotional Exhaustion,
Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment).
between gender and the study variables (hardiness,

45
commitment, control, challenge, health, Emotional
Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment).
between years teaching experience and the study variables
(hardiness, commitment, control, challenge, health,
Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal
Accomplishment).
between highest level of education and the study variables
Accomplishment).
between level taught and the study variables (hardiness,
between teaching assignment and the study variables
Accomplishment).
Summary of Methodology
A descriptive correlational design was used to study
the relationships among hardiness, health, and burnout among
teachers in the Sullivan County School System. A sample of

46
804 full time classroom teachers, representing four high
schools, nine middle schools, and seventeen elementary
schools was recruited.
Instrumentation included the Hardiness Test (a
composite score and three subscores for commitment, control,
and challenge), the Health Evaluation and Risk Test
(cardiovascular risk factor), and the Maslach Burnout
Inventory Form Ed (subscale scores for Emotional Exhaustion,
Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment) to measure
hardiness, health, and burnout, respectively. Demographic
data were collected from the Educators Demographic Data
Survey.
All regular classroom Sullivan County teachers were
contacted in writing by John O'Dell, superintendent of
Schools, to encourage them to volunteer to participate in
the study. Arrangements were made through Anthony Delucia,
Chairperson, Institutional Review Board, East Tennessee
State University to ensure that the Institutional Review
Board's criteria were met. Dates and locations at
participating schools were arranged for data collection.
An explanation was presented to participating teacher
subjects that included the purpose of the study,
instructions for completing the questionnaire, confirmation
of anonymity of data, procedure for requesting a copy of
research findings, and an expression of appreciation for the
teachers' participation in the study. Questions and

feedback were solicited from the teachers.
CHAPTER 4
Results
The purpose of this study was to explore the
relationships of hardiness and the three subscales of
hardiness: commitment, control, and challenge, to health
and to the subscales of burnout: Emotional Exhaustion (EE),
Depersonalization (DP), and Personal Accomplishment (PA) in
teachers. These relationships were investigated through a
descriptive correlational design.
The Hardiness Test and the Maslach Burnout Inventory
Form Ed were used to measure the personality traits. Health
was measured by reporting the total risk factor points
scored on the Health Evaluation and Risk Test (HEART). Data
collected from 501 teachers in the Sullivan County School
System were analyzed, utilizing Spearman rho and Eta
correlation coefficients and multiple regression analyses.
Descriptive statistics of the variables are presented,
followed by the results of the data analyses computed to
address each of the research hypotheses and questions.
Sample Demographics
Five hundred twenty-one (64.8%) of a total population
of eight hundred four teachers volunteered to participate in
this study. Five hundred one (96.16%) of the five hundred
twenty-one questionnaires were analyzed; twenty were
unusable because of missing risk factors.
48
49
Gender, age, years teaching experience, grade level
assigned, level of education, and regular or special
education assignment were the demographic variables selected
for analysis. Frequency distributions with percentages were
computed for each demographic variable and are presented
in Table 1.
Table 1
Gender. Ace, and Years Teaching Experience
Category Number Percent
Gender
Female 389 77.6

Male 112 22.4
501 100.0
Age
Under 26 18 3.6
26 - 35 72 14.4
36 - 45 204 40.7
46 - 55 163 32.5
56 and over 44 8.8
501 100.0
Years Teaching Experience

1-3 33 6.6
4 -9 55 11.0
10 - 14 76 15.1
15 - 19 126 25.4
20 - 24 118 23.3
25 - 29 72 14.4
30 and over 21 4.2
501 100.0
50
Table 2
Level of Education. School Level Assigned. Class Type
Category Number Percent
Level of Education
Bachelors 209 41.7

Masters 217 43.3
Masters Plus 68 13.6
Specialist 5 1.0
Doctorate 2 .4
501 100.0
School Level Assigned
Elementary 241 48.1

Middle 140 27.9
High 120 24.0
501 100.0
Class Type Assigned
Regular Ed 442 88.2

Special Ed 59 11.8
501 100.0
The majority of teachers participating in this study
were female (77.6%). Most respondents were between the ages
of 36-45 (40.7%) and 46-55 (32.5%) with the highest
percentage in the 36-45 age group (40.7%) and the lowest in
the under 26 age group (3.6%). Years of teaching experience
varied from 1-3 years (6.6%) to 30 and over (4.2%). Most
teachers had between 10-24 years teaching experience; 10-14

51
years (15.1%), 15-19 years (25,4%), and 20-24 years (23.3%).
The largest group of teachers were elementary (48.1%)
followed by middle (27.7%) then high school (24.0%). A
majority of teachers held Master's (43.3%) or Bachelor's
(41.7%) degrees. Four hundred forty -two (88.2%) were
regular education teachers. The sample included 59 (11.7%)
special education teachers.
Description of. Hardiness. Health, and Burnout Scores
Table 3 shows descriptive statistics for the
independent variables. The means, standard deviations,
ranges, and reliability coefficients are presented for the
raw scores for hardiness and its subscales. Descriptive
statistics and analyses of data for the health scale and
burnout subscales were computed on raw scores. Descriptive
statistics, including mean scores, standard deviations,
ranges of scores, and reliability coefficients were used to
report group performance on each instrument.
Reliability coefficients for the Hardiness Test subscales
ranged from .63 to .80. The coefficients on Table 3
indicate that commitment was the most reliable subscale
associated with the hardiness construct followed by control
and challenge. The Maslach Burnout Form Ed had higher
reliability coefficients. Reliability coefficients for the
MBI Form Ed ranged from .70 to .89, possibly this reflects
its standardization for commercial use.

An analysis of survey instrument data implied both the
Hardiness Test and Maslach Burnout Inventory Form Ed met
acceptable reliability requirements. An alpha reliability
coefficient of .86 indicated the Hardiness Test was a
reliable instrument to measure total hardiness in spite of
the fact that the subscale reliabilities were moderate,
ranging from .63 for challenge, .67 for control, and much
higher for commitment at .80. Reliability coefficients for
the Maslach Burnout Inventory Form Ed ranged from .70 for
Depersonalization, .79 for Personal Accomplishment, and .89
for Emotional Exhaustion. These moderate to high
reliabilities indicate that the three subscales for
measuring burnout are adequate.
Hardiness Test
The possible raw score range was 0 to 48 for the
commitment subscale, 0 to 51 for the control and challenge
subscales, and 0 to 150 for total hardiness. The mean raw
scores obtained in this study were 38.67 for commitment,
39.08 for control, 31.56 for challenge, and 109.44 for total
hardiness. The mean subscale scores are consistent with
those reported by Holt (1985) for a sample of 211 elementary
public school teachers.

53
Table 3
o v a v j.B V .L C B i.c r ^ n a ir u j.n B B B a n u _ o u w B c a j.

and Burnout Subscales fRaw Scores!
Factor Mean SD Range Reliability
Hardiness 109.44 12.97 69 - 137 .86
Commitment 38.67 5.20 23 - 48 .80
Control 39.08 4.84 27 - 50 .67
Challenge 31.56 5.69 15 - 49 .63
Health 13.30 5.97 .5 - 35.1
Burnout
EE 22.99 10.90 0-52 .89
DP 6.92 5.44 0-29 .70
PA 37.38 7.00 13 - 48 .79
Health
The possible scoring range for the Health Evaluation
and Risk Evaluation (HEART) was 0.5 to 40.3. The mean score
obtained in this study was 13.30 placing the teachers of the
Sullivan County School System in the low range for
cardiovascular disease. Comparisons of the health score to
other studies are ill-advised because of the variation in
instrumentation used by researchers to measure health.
Table 4 provides the frequency and percentages of total

54
risk points. Host teachers were in the low (48.3%) and
moderate (34.9%) categories of risk points with the highest
percentage in the 6.0 - 13.9 risk point group (48.3%) and
the lowest in the very high (.2%).
Table 4
Frequency and Percentages of Total Risk Points--------------
Total Risk Points Frequency Percentage
Very Low (5.9 or less) 46 9.2
Low ( 6.0 - 13.9) 242 48.3
Moderate (14.0-22.9) 175 34.9
High (23.0 - 31.9) 37 7.4
Very High (32.0 or more) 1 .2
501 100.0
Burnout
The possible scoring ranges for the Burnout subscales
were as follows: Emotional Exhaustion, 0 to 54;
Depersonalization, 0 to 30; Personal Accomplishment, 0 to 48
(Schwab, 1993). Means reported for subscale scores for a
sample of 469 Massachusetts teachers and 462 California
teachers were: 21.25 for Emotional Exhaustion (slightly
higher than the 20.99 overall sample mean); 11.00 for
Depersonalization (substantially higher than the 8.73
overall sample mean); and 33.54 for Personal Accomplishment
(slightly lower than the 34.58 overall sample mean) (Schwab,

55
1993) .
For this study sample, a mean of 22.99 was obtained for
Emotional Exhaustion which Indicates a moderate level of
experienced burnout, as measured by this subscale. For the
Depersonalization subscale, the sample mean of 6.92 Is
Indicative of a low level of Depersonalization. The sample
mean of 37.38 obtained for Personal Accomplishment is
indicative of a low level of this aspect of burnout. The
study sample means were consistent with the results reported
by.Schoenig (1986) for 188 public school teachers for the
three subscales: Emotional Exhaustion (H « 20.69),
Depersonalization (H = 6.72), and Personal Accomplishment
(M - 35.48).
Table 5 provides the frequency and percentages of
experienced burnout of respondents as measured by the
Maslach Burnout Inventory. The highest percentage of
teachers (60.4%) scored in the high category of personal
accomplishment with 22.4% in the moderate group and 17.2% in
the low group. Emotional exhaustion scores were evenly
distributed with 35.1% in the high and moderate group and
29.8% in the low group. The majority of teachers (68.3%)
were in the low depersonalization subscale.

56
Table 5
Frequency and Percentages o f Experienced Burnout of
Respondents as Measured bv the Maslach Burnout Inventory
Variables Frequency Percentage
Personal Accomplishment
High (0 - 30) 303 60.4
Moderate (31 -36) 112 22.4
Low (37 or over) 86 17.2
501 100.0
Emotional Exhaustion
High ( 27 or over) 175 35.1
Moderate ( 17 -26) 175 35.1
Low (0-16) 151 29.8
501 100.0
Depersonalization
High (14 or over) 68 13.6
Moderate (9-13) 90 18.0
Low (0-8) 343 68.4
501 100.0
57
Research Question 1
The first research question was: Hhat is the
relationship between hardiness and health among teachers in
the Sullivan County School System? A Spearman rho
correlation was used to address this question and null
hypotheses one:
Hoi: There is no statistically significant
relationship between levels of hardiness and health. A
correlation of .15 (p < .001) was obtained between total
hardiness and health among teachers in the Sullivan County
School System who participated in this study, indicating a
weak although statistically significant relationship and
resulting in the rejection of hypotheses one. Furthermore,
an r,3 of .023 indicates that hardiness accounts for only 2%
of the variance of health.
Further analyses, utilizing Spearman rho correlation
coefficients, were conducted with respect to the
relationships between the subscales of hardiness and health.
The coefficient obtained for the commitment subscale and
health was .086 (p < .001), with an r,3 of .007, indicating
that commitment accounts for 1% of the variance in health.
For the control subscale and health, the coefficient
obtained was . 0933 (p < .001), yielding an r,3 of .009,
which indicates that control explains 1% of the variance in

58
health. The coefficient obtained for the challenge subscale
and health was .1370 (g < .001), yielding an r,1 of .019
which indicates that challenge explains 2% of the variance
in health. These results further support the weak
relationship between total hardiness and health.
Research Question 2
The second research question was: What are the
relationships among total hardiness and the subscales of
burnout (Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and
Personal Accomplishment) in public school teachers in the
Sullivan County School System? Three null hypotheses were
stated in response to this question:
H02: There is no statistically significant
relationship between Hardiness and Emotional Exhaustion.
1^3: There is no statistically significant
relationship between Hardiness and Depersonalization.
Hq4: There is no statistically significant
relationship between Hardiness and Personal Accomplishment.
Spearman rho correlation coefficients were used to
analyze these relationships. The correlation coefficient
between total Hardiness and Emotional Exhaustion was -.53
(g < .001), indicating an inverse relationship between these
two variables. Null hypotheses two was rejected. An r,2 of
.2809 was obtained which indicates that Hardiness explains
28% of the variance in Emotional Exhaustion. Between total

Hardiness and Depersonalization, the coefficient was -.43
(E < .001), indicating an inverse relationship and the
rejection of hypotheses three. An r,3 of .1849 indicates that
Hardiness accounts for 18% of the variance in
Depersonalization. Between total Hardiness and Personal
Accomplishment the coefficient was .40 (e < *001),
indicating a positive relationship between these two
variables, thus hypotheses four was rejected. An r,a of .16
indicates that Hardiness accounts for 16% of the variance in
Personal Accomplishment. The moderate, inverse relationship
between total Hardiness and Emotional Exhaustion was the
strongest of the three; the other two were rather weak.
Research Question 3
The third research question was: What is the
relationship of each subscale of hardiness (commitment,
control and challenge) to health in public school teachers
in the Sullivan County School System? Stepwise multiple
regression analysis was used to address this question and
hypotheses five through seven. This technique allowed the
researcher to determine which independent variables remain
significant predictors of burnout when they are considered
in the presence of other previously significant predictors.
Stepwise regression also identifies which-independent*'
variables, together, explained the greatest amount of
variance.
60
H|)5: There is no correlation between levels of
commitment, as measured by the Hardiness Test, and health,
as reported on the Educators Demographic Data sheet (EDDS)
and measured by the Health Evaluation and Risk Test (HEART).
H„6: There is no statistically significant
relationships between levels of control and health.
Ho7: There is no statistically significant
relationship between challenge and health.
Commitment entered the regression equation at the first
step (£ » 16.58, p < .0001) and explained 4% of the
variance. Control and challenge did not enter the equation,
therefore, hypotheses five was rejected, while hypotheses
six and seven were retained. The results are presented in
Table 6.
Table 6
Regression Analysis for Health Using Hardiness subscales
Variables R Rl P
Commitment .193 .04 16.58
E < .0001
Research Question 4
The fourth research question was; What are the
relationships among the hardiness subscales (commitment,
control, and challenge) and each of the subscales of burnout

61
(Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal
Accomplishment) in public school teachers in the Sullivan
County School System? To address this question and
hypotheses eight through sixteen three stepwise multiple
regression analyses were used.
Hull Hypotheses Eight through Sixteen
H(,8: There is no statistically significant
relationship between commitment and Emotional Exhaustion.
Hg9: There is no statistically significant
relationship between control and Emotional Exhaustion.
Hpio: There is no statistically significant
relationship between challenge and Emotional Exhaustion.
Holl: There is no statistically significant
relationship between commitment and Depersonalization.
relationship between control and Depersonalization.
Hol3: There is no statistically significant
relationship between challenge and Depersonalization.
relationship between commitment and Personal Accomplishment.
Hol5: There is no statistically significant
relationship between control and Personal Accomplishment.
1^16: There is no statistically significant
relationship between challenge and Personal Accomplishment.
Commitment entered the first regression equation at the

62
firBt step (£ « 219.04 s < .00005), accounting for 34% of
the variance in Emotional Exhaustion and the rejection of
hypotheses eight. At the second step, challenge entered the
equation (£ = 114.09 £ < .00005), explaining an additional
1% of the variance and the rejection of hypotheses nine.
Hypotheses ten was not rejected as control did not enter the
equation. In table 7 the results of the first regression
equation are presented.
Table 7
Regression Analysis for Emotional Exhaustion Using Hardiness
Subscales
Variable R R1 F
Challenge .59 .35 114.09
p < .00005
Commitment entered the second regression equation at
the first step (£ =• 43.44, p < .00005), explaining 24% of
the variance in depersonalization, challenge and control
did not enter the equation. For the second equation, in
which the subscales of hardiness were regressed on the
dependent variable Depersonalization, the results are
presented in Table 8. Hypothesis eleven was rejected while
hypotheses twelve and thirteen were retained.

63
Table 8
Results of Regression Analysis for Depersonalization Using
Hardiness SubBcales
Variable R R1 F
fi < .00005
Commitment entered the third equation at the first step
(E ° 24.05, p < .00005), explaining 15% of the variance in
Personal Accomplishment, and retaining hypothesis fourteen.
Challenge and control did not enter the equation, thus
hypotheses fifteen and sixteen were retained. The stepwise
multiple regression results are presented in Table 10.
Table 9
Results of Regression Analysis for Personal Accomplishment
Using Hardiness Subscales
Variable R R1 F
E> < .00005
Research Question 5
The fifth research question was: What is the
relationship, if any, between selected demographic variables

64
as reported by the Educators Demographic Data survey (EDDS)
and the three subscales of burnout and hardiness?
variables and each of the study variables. Null hypotheses
seventeen through twenty-two were addressed.
Null Hypotheses Seventeen through Twenty-two
relationship between age and the study variables (hardiness,
HqIS: There is no statistically significant relationship
between gender and the study variables (hardiness,
relationship between years teaching experience and the study
variables (hardiness, commitment, control, challenge,
health, Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and
Personal Accomplishment).
relationship between highest level of education and the
study variables (hardiness, commitment, control, challenge,

65
relationship between level taught and the study variables
Accomplishment).
relationship between teaching assignment and the study
variables (hardiness, commitment, control, challenge,
Spearman rho correlation coefficients were computed
between the demographic variables age and years teaching
experience and total hardiness, hardiness subscales, health,
and burnout subscales. Eta correlation coefficients were
calculated between the demographic variables gender, highest
education level, level taught, type of teaching assignment
and total hardiness, hardiness subscales, health, and
burnout scales.
Ace
spearman rho correlation coefficients indicated a
statistically significant relationship between age and
Health (r,J = .36, p < .001). This relatively low
correlation indicates that age explains 13% of the variance
in the risk of cardiovascular disease. Only this portion of

66
hypothesis seventeen was rejected all other portions were
retained.
Gender
While Eta correlation coefficients revealed
statistically significant relationships between gender and
total hardiness (Eta «* ,1 3 , E < .005), commitment (Eta =
.16, e < .0005), control (Eta = .11, p <.01), and
Depersonalization (Eta ® .09, p < .05), these extremely low
four variables is explained by gender, preventing meaningful
interpretation. Hypothesis eighteen is rejected for these
four parts and retained for challenge, Emotional Exhaustion,
and Personal Accomplishment.
Years Teaching Experience
All variables (health, total hardiness and the
hardiness BUbscales and the burnout subscales) with the
exception of Depersonalization revealed statistically
significant relationships with years of teaching experience,
thus only one part (Depersonalization) of hypothesis
nineteen was retained. All other parts were rejected.
Spearman rho correlation coefficients between years teaching
experience and health (r, ■ .29, p < .05), years teaching
experience and Emotional Exhaustion (r, « .10, p < .05)
indicated 8% and 1% of the variance respectively. These

67
relatively low correlations indicate that older teachers
have greater cardiovascular disease risk and experience more
Emotional Exhaustion. Total hardiness (r( « -.15, £ < .01)
and the hardiness subscales, commitment (rt *» -.14, £ <
.001), challenge (r. -.12, £ < .01), control (rf = -.13, £
< .01), along with the burnout subscale Personal
Accomplishment (r, = -.10, £ < .05) were inversely related
to years teaching experience. This shows that younger
teachers were hardier and felt greater Personal
Accomplishment.
Highest Level of Education
To determine the extent to which the subjects' level of
education was related to any of the study variables, Eta
correlation coefficients were computed between level of
education and each of the study variables. Level of
education was significantly related to Personal
Accomplishment (Eta = .16, £ < .01), the extremely low
correlations indicate that only 2% of the variance in this
variable is explained by level of education, preventing
meaningful interpretations and the rejection of only the
Personal Accomplishment portion of hypothesis twenty and the
retainment of all other parts.
Level Taught
As indicated in Table 10, level taught (elementary,

middle or high) and Health ( Eta = .15, £ < .05)
Depersonalization (Eta » .16, p < .001) and Personal
Accomplishment (Eta » .14, p < .01) were found to be
statistically correlated through Eta coefficients. These
portions of hypothesis twenty-one were rejected. Hardiness,
commitment, challenge, control, and Emotional Exhaustion
were not statistically correlated, thus these portions of
hypothesis twenty-one were retained.
Teaching Assignment
To identify the depth of the relationships between
teaching assignment and the hardiness, health, and burnout
measures Eta coefficients were computed. The results
revealed no significant correlations, thus hypothesis
twenty-two was retained.

69
Table 10
Correlation Coefficients of Study Variables
Variable Risk H Commit Chall Control EE DP PA
Age .36* .08 .05 .09 .06 .07 .04 .09
Gender .01 .13* .16* .03 .11* .04 .09* .04
Experience .29* -.15* -.14* -.12* -.13* .10 .08 - .10*
Education .10 .10 .16 .09 .10 .03 .07 .14*
Level .15* .09 .09 .04 .04 .05 .16* .12
Assignment .07 .05 .06 .07 .10 .07 .10 .06
*E < .05
Risk «* HEART risk point

H « Total hardiness score
Commit ** Commitment
Chall *> Challenge
Control « Locus of Control
EE = Emotional Exhaustion
DP =* Depersonalization
PA = Personal Accomplishment
CHAPTER 5
Discussion, Conclusions, and
Recommendations
Discussion
Hardiness and Health
On the basis of hardiness theory it was anticipated
that the relationship between hardiness and health would
have been stronger than that obtained (r, “ .15, p < .001).
Correlations between the subscales of hardiness and health
revealed that commitment (r, “ .086, p < .001), control
(r, “ .093, p < .001), and challenge (r, = .137, p < .001)
were weakly correlated with health. The very low
correlation coefficient obtained between challenge and
health supports a growing sentiment that the challenge
component of hardiness is either not being measured
appropriately (Funk & Houston, 1987), or that it does not
contribute significantly to hardiness (Rich & Rich, 1987).
In view of the correlation coefficients obtained for
the subscales of hardiness in relation to health, the
results of the regression analysis were not unexpected.
Commitment entered the regression equation at the first
step, accounting for only 4% of the variance (£ = 16.58, p,
.0001). Control and Challenge failed to enter the equation.
It is possible that hardiness does not interact in a
70
71
protective way with health as proposed by Kobasa (1985). In
hardiness research, health has been viewed as the absence of
illness. The most common measures of health used in
hardiness research has been some form of symptom and disease
checklist (Kobasa, 1977, 1979, 1982; Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn,
1982; Kobasa & Pucetti, 1983; Shepperd & Kashani, 1991).
Research findings reported for studies of hardiness and
health have varied in their support of a hardiness-health
link. The two strongest supporting studies that have been
reported is a positive relationship (p “ <48, p < .01)
between hardiness and physical illness by Nowack (1988) in a
study of professional employees and Tang (1989) in a study
of 167 police officers (p = .59, p < .001).
This study's departure from the customary use of
illness instrumentation to measure health resulted in a
significant correlation between hardiness and health, albeit
rather weak. Another pertinent issue in this regard is that
the mean health score of 13.27 (range = .5 - 35.1; SD =
5.97) for the study sample suggests a relatively low level
of cardiovascular disease risk among the subjects. It is
worth noting that the overall total risk factor for all
Sullivan County Educators was 16.24 (n = 942). It may be
that, for a sample with a broader range of health scores, a
higher correlation with hardiness would have been observed.
It is likely that a randomized sample, in contrast to the
volunteer participants in this study, would have elicited

72
less skewed health scores. It is conceivable that teachers
whose cardiovascular disease risk points were low were more
inclined to participate as volunteers in this study, thus
skewing the data. Because these findings are based on data
from a convenience sample, they cannot generalize to
teachers beyond this sample. The results do however,
support a theoretical link between hardiness and health.
Hardiness.and Burnout
The correlation coefficients obtained for total
hardiness and the burnout subscales are consistent with
previous research findings. For hardiness and Emotional
Exhaustion, a correlation coefficient of -.53 was obtained,
for Depersonalization, the correlation coefficient was -.43,
and for Personal Accomplishment, the correlation coefficient
was .40 (all at the .001 alpha level). These correlation
coefficients are shown in Table 11.
Clarke (1991) reported a correlation coefficient of .57
(S,.01) for total hardiness and burnout for 211 nursing
students. Schoenig (1986), in a study of 188 public school
teachers found a correlation coefficient of .48 (j> < .05)
between total hardiness and burnout. Clarke stated that
hardiness correlated with each of the subscales of burnout,
reporting correlation coefficients of -.49 for Emotional
Exhaustion, -.33 for Depersonalization, and .42 for Personal
Accomplishment (all at the .05 alpha level).

73
When relationships among the subscales of hardiness and
the subscales of burnout were analyzed with multiple
regression, it was found that commitment and control
accounted for most of the variation in the burnout scores.
Commitment and challenge explained a total of 35% of the
variance in emotional exhaustion. For Depersonalization
commitment accounted for 24% of the variance while control
and challenge failed to enter the equation. For Personal
Accomplishment, commitment accounted for 15%; neither
control nor challenge entered the equation. Although it is
difficult to compare these findings with previous research
findings because of instrumentation differences, they are
consistent with those reported by Williams (1968) and Holt
(1985).
Both Williams (1988) and Holt (1985) used the Locus of
Control Scale to measure hardiness in their respective
samples, both reported correlations with burnout for five
hardiness subscales that were being used to measure
hardiness. The correlation coefficients among the subscales
of hardiness and burnout reported by Holt (1985) were
consistent with those reported by Williams (1988). Neither
Holt nor Williams obtained statistically significant
relationships between the challenge subscale and burnout.
The limited extent to which the challenge subscale
interacted with the burnout variables is similar to its
interaction with health. The correlation of challenge with

74
the burnout variables was an expected finding based on
previous research reports (Holt, 1985; Williams, 1988;
Clarke, 1991).
Table 11
Correlation Coefficients for Burnout Subscales and Hardiness
Sttfrgsalee
EE DP PA
Commitment -.53* -.45* .34*
Control -.43* -.29* .26*
Challenge .40* -.25* .20*
*E < .001
The level of burnout for each of the subscales found in
the study sample is consistent with studies of public school
teachers (Schoenig, 1986) and female elementary teachers
(Holt, 1985). This finding suggests that burnout is
prevalent among educators. This concern is offset, at least
in part, by the interactions found among the commitment and
control components of hardiness and burnout. While not
strong, the relationships hold promise that hardiness could
provide some protection against the harmful effects of
stress on teachers.
As previously pointed out, these findings cannot be
generalized beyond this convenience sample. It is worth
noting; however, that despite the lack of randomization, the

75
study subjects represented 31 schools. Nevertheless, lack
of randomization clearly constitutes a study limitation.
The investigator found, when administering the
questionnaire, that teachers expressed considerable interest
upon learning that the purpose of the study was to
investigate the effects of stress and burnout on teachers.
All participants requested the results of the study. One
can speculate that teachers who either had an interest in
the subject of stress and burnout or those who believed
themselves to be experiencing stress and burnout might be
more inclined to volunteer to participate in the study. In
either event, participant selection would have an
undetermined influence on the results. Another observation
made by the investigator was that the number of teachers in
a school who volunteered appeared to be somewhat determined
by the interest and enthusiasm expressed by the school's
principal. To control for these and many other intervening
factors, a randomized or stratified sample would likely
provide more reliable results.
Hacflinegp
The results of this study support research findings on
hardiness in teachers (Holt, 1985; Williams, 1988) adding to
the applicability of hardiness to populations beyond the
initial sample of middle-age, male executives (Kobasa, 1977,
1979). These findings serve as encouragement to further

76
investigate hardiness in populations, such as educators.
As more is learned about how hardiness is experienced and
developed, it is possible that hardiness techniques can be
included in teacher preparation programs.
Findings in this study tend to support the premise that
the challenge component does not contribute to the composite
hardiness score. Hull, Van Treuren, and Virnelli (1987), in
particular, question whether hardiness is truly a unitary
concept, contending that commitment and control have
independent effects on health and disclaiming any
contribution from challenge. Other researchers' findings
have brought into question the validity of challenge as a
contributing factor to the explanation of hardiness (Jarvis,
1993; Tang, 1989; Nowack, 1991). Kobasa has indicated that
challenge has been somewhat elusive and that she is trying
to identify more definitive ways to conceptualize and
measure it (Kobasa, 1993); she maintains her stance that
challenge contributes to total hardiness.
Conclusions
For this sample, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. Hardiness is present and measurable in this sample
of subjects, most of whom were over 35 years of age.
2. Hardiness is significantly related to health,
albeit rather weakly.

77
3. Hardiness is correlated more strongly with
Emotional Exhaustion than with the other aspects of burnout.
4. Commitment is more strongly correlated with
Emotional Exhaustion than are the other components of
hardiness.
5. Contributions of the individual components of
hardiness to health and burnout are not equitable.
6. Results of this study tend to support the use of
total hardiness scores, rather than subscale scores.
7. Health is related to age, years of teaching
experience, and level taught, albeit very weak.
8. Female sample subjects are slightly more hardy than
males.
Recommendations
The findings in this study suggest the following
recommendations:
1. Further investigation of hardiness in randomized
sample of teachers.
2. Further investigation of hardiness through
longitudinal studies of burnout to establish causation
and determine if stress causes burnout or if teachers who
experience burnout are unable to cope with stressors.
3. Continued research on the relationship between
hardiness and health using true measures of health.
4. Determine whether challenge is a valid dimension of

78
hardiness, whether it is a component of the commitment
dimension, or whether it needs to be eliminated from the
hardiness construct.
5. Conduct research on how aspects of hardiness can be
taught and implement them into teacher preparation programs.
6. Implementation of other Wellness Programs into
school systems.
7. Share findings with the teachers of the Sullivan
County School System.
summary
The purpose of this study was to explore the
relationships among hardiness, health, and burnout among
teachers in the Sullivan County School System. Five
research questions and twenty-two null hypotheses were
formulated to guide this study. A descriptive correlational
design was used; statistical analyses included descriptive
statistics and simple and multiple correlations.
A statistically significant positive relationship was
revealed between hardiness and health; among the hardiness
subscales, commitment accounted for the largest amount of
variance in health. Significant relationships were obtained
between hardiness and each of the burnout subscales. Of the
hardiness subscales, commitment and control equally
accounted for the greatest amount of variance in Emotional

Exhaustion; commitment also accounted for the greatest
amount of variance in Depersonalization and Personal
Accomplishment.
variables and each of the study variables. While age, years
teaching experience, and level taught were significantly
related to the study variables, the extremely low
three variables were explained by the study variables,
preventing meaningful interpretation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
80
Bibliography
Antonovosky, A. (1979). Health._stress and coping. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borg, W.R. & Gall, M.D. (1989). Educational Research.

Longman: New York & London.
Brownson, A. (1992). Cardiovascular disease. American

Journal of Public Health, £2, 1, 99-102.
Byrne, B.M. (1992). Investigating causal links to burnout

for elementary, intermediate, and secondary teachers.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 344 886)
Cadavid, V. Lunenberg, F.C. (1991). Locus of control, pupil

control ideology, and dimensions of teacher burnout.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Services No. ED 333 560)
Carlson, B.K. (1992). Effects of teacher and organization

related variables on the perceptions of burnout and
career direction of special education teachers in
Hawaii. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii,
1992). Dissertation Abstracts International. £2,
2615A.
Cedoline, A.J. (1982). Job burnout in public education.

New York: Teachers College Press.
Clarke, B.M. (1991). The burnout maze: An exploration of

the interrelationships of burnout, hardiness,
depression, response mode to burnout, and demographic
variables. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Colorado, Denver, 1991).
Colasurdo, M.M. (1987). A descriptive study of professional

burnout amongst public school teachers in San Diego,
California. (Doctoral dissertation, United States
International University, 1987). Dissertation
Abstracts International. 42, 470A.
Connolly, C. & Sanders, W. (1986). Teacher stress— an

ongoing problem that needs attention. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher
Educators, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Services No. ED 266 139)
82
Crump, D.R* (1991). Special and regular secondary education

teachers: Relationship of personality preference
stress hardiness and job satisfaction. (Doctoral
dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1991).
Cunningham, W. G, (1983). Teacher burnout-Solutions for the

1980's: A Review of the literature. The Urban Review.
IS. 37-51.
D'Ambrosia, S.J. (1987). A study to examine if there is a

relationship between burnout and hardiness of nurses
working with oncology patients. (Doctoral
dissertation, Temple University).
Dawber, T. W. (1980). The Farmlncham study: The

epidemiology of atherosclerotic disease. Cambridge,
MS, Harvard University Press.
Dewe, P. (1986). Stress: Causes, consequences and coping

strategies for teachers. Wellington, N.Z.: New
Zealand Education Institute.
Dworkin, A. G. (1985). When teachers give up: Teacher

burnout, teacher turnover and their impact on children.
Austin, TX: Hogg Foundation for Mental Health.
Falinski, J.M. (1987). Role-Stress, personal factors, and

work-related outcomes in the superintendency (conflict,
ambiguity, locus-of-control, satisfaction). (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Syracuse). Dissertation
Abstracts International. 42, 07A.
Fielding, M.A. (1982). Personality and situational

correlates of teacher stress and burnout. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Oregon, 1982).
Freudenberg, H.J. (1974). Staff burn-out. Journal of

Social Issues. 30, 159-165.
Funk, S.D., & Houston, B.K. (1987). A critical analysis

of the Hardiness Scale's validity and utility.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. SI (3),
572-578,
Ganellen, R.J., & Blaney, P.H. (1984). Hardiness and social

support as moderators of the effects of life stress.
Journal of Personality, and Social Psychology. 42, 156-
163.
83
Goorf H. B. (1990). Self-efficacy beliefs and personal

hardiness characteristics of teachers at three career
stages. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Virginia).
Gunby, R. (1992). Cardiovascular diseases remain nation's

leading cause of death. Journal, of the American
Medical Association. 267.(3). 335-336.
Hammond, L.A. (1987). Stress and role satisfaction: The

mediating effects of social support, hardiness, coping
strategies, and gender in academic multiple role
persons. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Florida).
Harrison, S.N. (1983). The sources of teacher burnout among

elementary teachers of Mississippi (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi,
1983).
Hipps, E. S. & Malpin, G. (1992). The differences in

teachers' and principals' general -lob stress and_stresg_
related to performance-based accreditation. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South
Educational Research Association, Knoxville, TN. (ERIC
Document Reporduction Services No. ED 353 345)
Hipps, E. S. & Malpin, G. (1991). The relationship of locus

of control, stress related to performance_based
accreditation, and lob stress to burnout in public
school teachers and principals. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Reproduction Services
No. ED 333 557)
Holt, P. (1985). A study of the interaction of levels

of occupational stress, degree of burnout, and
personality hardiness in female elementary teachers.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas).
Holt, P., Fine, M.J. & Tollefson, N. (1987). Mediating

stress: Survival of the hardy. Psychology in the
Sshaals, 21 d), si-58.
Hooper, M. L. (1983). The relationship between selected
demographic variables, job satisfaction, and teacher
burnout (Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State
University, 1983).
B4
Iwanicki, E. F. (1983). Toward understanding and

alleviating teacher burnout. Theory into Practice. 21
(1), 27-32.
Jackson, B.G. (1983). Burnout in teachers working with

educationally handicapped children. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California, 1983).
Dissertation Abstracts International. M , 387A.
Jenkins, S* & Calhoun, J.F. (1991). Teacher stress: Issues

and interventions. Psychology in the Schools. 28. CO-
70.
Kobasa, S.C. (1977). Stress, personality, and health: A

study of an overlooked possibility (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Chicago). Dissertation
Abstracts International. 2430B.
Kobasa, S.C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality,

and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. XL, 1-11.
Kobasa, S. C. (1982). The hardy personality: Toward a

social psychology of stress and health. In G.S.
Sanders & J.suls (Eds.), Social psychology of health
and illness (pp.3-321.
Kobasa, S.C.& Maddi, S.K. (1977). Existential personality

theory. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Current personality
theories. 243-276. Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Kobasa, S.C., Maddi, S.R., & Courington, S. (1981).

Personality and constitution as mediators in the
stress-illness relationship. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior. 21, 368-378.
Kobasa, S.C., Maddi, S.R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and

health: A prospective study. Journal ofPersonality
and Social Psychology. Al, 168-177.
Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., Pucetti, M.C., & Zola, M. A.

(198S). Effectiveness of hardiness, exercise and social
support as resources against illness. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research. 21, 525-533.
Kritz-siverstein, D. (1992). Employment status and heart

disease risk factors in middle-aged women: The rancho
bernardo study. American Journal of Public Health. SI,
2, 215-219.
85
Langemo, D.K. (1990). Impact of work stress on female nurse

educators. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 22.,
159-162.
Lenfant, C,, Stone, E., & Castelli, W. (1987), Celebrating

40 years of the Framingham heart study. Journal.of
Schppl Health# Sir 7 , 279-281.
Luckner, J. L. (1990). Strategies for alleviating teacher
stress. ACEHI JOURNAL. 1£, 4-12,
Lutz, F.W. & Maddirala, J., (1988). Stress, burnout.and

reform mandated accountability. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Services No. ED 297 017)
Malanowski, J.R. (1982). A study of the relationships among

burnout, personal orientation, and demographic
variables of teachers. (Doctoral dissertation, Bowling
Green State University, 1981).
Martinez, J.G. (1989). Cooling off before burning out.

Academic Therapy. 2A, 3, 271-84.
Maslach, c. (1986). Burnout: The cost of caring. New York:

Prentice-Hall.
Maslach, C. & Jackson, S.E. (1986). Maslach burnout

inventory (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists.
Maynard, J.A. (1992). An analysis of occupational burnout

among teachers in selected urban schools. (Doctoral
dissertation, Texas Southern University, 1992).
Mazur, P.J. & Lynch, M.D. (1989). Differential impact of

administrative, organizational, and personality factors
on teacher burnout. Teaching-and-Teacher-Education. 5 ,
4, 337-53.
Mechanic, D. (1976). Stress illness and illness behavior.

Journal of Human Stress. 2., 2-6.
Natale, J. A. (1993). Why teachers leave. The Executive

Educator. 22# 14-18.
Nowack, K.M. & Hanson, A.L. (1983). The relationship

between stress, job performance, and burnout in college
student resident assistants. Journal of College
Student Personnel. Nov., 545-550.
86
Pardine, P., Dytell, R., and Friedman, A. (April 1982). The

stress-illness relationship mediated bv negligent
health behavior. Paper presented at the annual
convention of the Eastern Psychological Association,
Baltimore. (ERIC Reproduction Services No. ED 273 575)
Pender, N.J. (1987). Health promotion in nursing practice

(2nd ed.). Norwalk, CT:Appleton & Lange.
Pierce, C.M., & Holloy, G.N. (1990). Psychological and

biographical differences between secondary school
teachers experiencing high and low levels of burnout.
British Journal of Educational Psychology. 60. 37-51.
Pines, A.M., Aronson, E., & Kafry, D. (1981). Burnout:

From tedium to personal growth. New York: The Free
Press.
Pines, A.M., & Kafry, D. (1978). Occupational tedium in the

social services. Social Work. 22* 499-507.
Pines, A.M., & Maslach, C. (1980). Characteristics of staff

burnout in mental health settings. Hospital and
communitv Psvchiatrv. 22, (4), 233-237.
Raison, J. c. (1981). Job burnout and stress in regular and

special education teachers: Its relation to contact
with handicapped students. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Minnesota, 1981).
Rich, V.L., & Rich, A.R. (1985). Personality hardiness and

burnout in female staff nurses. Image: Journal of
Nursing Scholarship. X2, 2 , 63-66.
Rinke, J.M. (1989). The relationship between personality

type and burnout in Michigan community college
counselors. (Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan
University, 1989).
Sarros, J.C., & Sarros, A.M. (1987). Predictors of teacher

burnout. The Journal of Educational Administration.
22* 2, 216-230.
Schmied, L.A., & Lawler, K.A. (1986). Hardiness, Type A
behavior, and the stress-illness relationship in
working women. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. £1, 6 , 1218-1223.
87
Schoenig, T.M. (1987). An investigation of the

relationships among burnout, hardiness, stressful
teaching events, job and personal characteristics in
public school teachers. (Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra
University, 1987).
Schwab, R.L., Burnout in education. In Maslach burnout

inventory manual, 2nd ed, 1993.
Selye, H. (1978). The stress of life (rev. ed). Mew York:

Me Graw-Hill.
Shapiro, S. H. (1987). Determinants of job satisfaction

among athletic trainers: The relationship between
academic program factors and job factors, personal
factors, and hardiness personality. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Virginia).
Shepperd, J.A., & Kashani, J.H. (1991). The relationship of

hardiness, gender, and stress to health outcomes in
adolescents. Journal of Personality. 59. 4, 747-768.
Smith, J.A. (1981). The idea of health: A philosophical

inquiry. Advances in Nursing Science. 2(3), 43-50.
Sotto, M. A. (1991), National health objectives for the year

2000: The demographic impact of health promotion and
disease prevention. American Journal of Public Health.
Si, 11, 1456-1465,
Sutterley, D. C. (1986). Stress management: Grazing the

clinical turf. Holistic Nursing Practice. 1 (1), 36-
53.
Tang, T.L. (1991). The effects of hardiness, iob-related

stress, and life stress on health and absence from
work. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the
Psychological Association, Houston, TX. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Services No. Ed 299 508)
Tanner, E.K. (1991). Assessment of a health-promotive

lifestyle. Nursing Clinics of North America. 2£, 4,
845-853.
Tuettemann, E., & Punch, K.F. (1992). Psychological

distress in secondary teachers: Research findings and
their implications. Journal of Educational
Administration. 2fl, 1, 42-54.
Walker, S.N. (1987). The health-promoting lifestyle

profile: Development and psychometric characteristics.
Nursing Journal. 22, 2, 76-81.
88
Wallis, C. (1983, June 6). Stress: Can we cope? Time. 48-

54.
WilliantB, R.F. (1988). Hardiness, health care claims,

absenteeism and burnout: A prospective study of
direct and moderating effects. (Doctoral dissertation,
Case Western Reserve University).
Appendix A
The Hardiness Test
89
PLEASE NOTE
Copyrighted materials in this document have not been

filmed at the request o f the author. They are available
for consultation, however, in the author's library.
pages 90-93
pages 95-96
University Microfilms International

Appendix B
Maslach Burnout Inventory Form Ed
94
Appendix c
Educators Demographic Data Survey
97
98
EDUCATORS DEMOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET
Your sex:
_______ (1) Male (2) Female
Your age:
_______ Years
Please indicate the highest degree level you have achieved:
_______ (l) Bachelor's
_______ (2) Master's
_______ (3) Master's plus 30
_______ (4) Doctorate
How many years have you been in education?
_______ Years
Did you participate in the HEART analysis (Wellness Testing) during

the 1993-94 school year? ________ Yes No
If yes, what is your risk factor?
___________ Risk Factor Points
RETURN QUESTIONNAIRE TO DEBBIE M0REL0CK HOLSTON MIDDLE SCHOOL

THROUGH PONY EXPRESS.
THANKS POR YOUR PARTICIPATION

A Correlational Study of Hardiness Health and Burnout Among Tea PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Correlational Study of Hardiness Health and Burnout Among Tea PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Correlational Study of Hardiness Health and Burnout Among Tea PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

East Tennessee State University

Digital Commons @ East

A Correlational Study of Hardiness, Health, and

Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

A correlational study of hardiness, health, and burnout among

Morelock, Deborah Falin, Ed.D.

HARDINESS, HEALTH, AND BURNOUT

IN THE SULLIVAN COUNTY

the Faculty of the Department of

Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis

East Tennessee State University

of the Requirements for the Degree

Deborah Falin Morelock

This is to certify that the Graduate Committee of

DEBORAH FALIN MORELOCK

tWgntY-geCQnti day of March. 1994.

supervised her defense of it in an oral examination, and

decided to recommend that her study be submitted to the

Graduate Council Associate Vice-President for Research and

Dean, School of Graduate Studies, in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education.

Chairman, Graduate Committee

The purpose of this study vas to explore the

A statistically significant relationship was revealed

To determine the extent to which the subjects'

Kobasa's health and hardiness theory is supported by

IRB FORM 108 PROTOCOL NO. 93-048s

BAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY

PROJECT TITLE: Hardiness: Its Relationship to Health and Burnout

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Deborah F. Morelock

The Institutional Review Board has reviewed the above-titled

project on November 12. 1993 w ith respect to the rights and

safety of human subjects, including matters of informed consent

and protection of subject confidentiality, and finds the project

acceptable to the Board.

To my mother who taught me very early in my life the

value of an education. To my father who taught me later in

my life the difference between that education and wisdom.

I would like to publicly acknowledge the words of

encouragement and support that the members of Cohort III

have given me during the past three years; without them I

would have never completed this endeavor.

I am grateful to the Educational Leadership and Policy

Analysis Department at East Tennessee state University for

creating a doctoral program for working school

administrators and for admitting me to it.

A special word of thanks goes to Dr. Robert Me Elrath,

my advisor, teacher, and Chair of my Committee. Not only

with the ideal committee members: Dr. Charles Burkett, Dr.

contributed ideas, edits and positive encouragement.

To my children, Erin and Brooks, I express gratitude

for behaving as though Mom's schooling was a natural part of

life, not a source of inconvenience. Hopefully, you were

both too young to remember the amount of time I spent away

from you. To my husband, Chris, for his love and support,

as he endured much over the past three years to help me make