Feedback Instrument for Rescue Force Development – trainer (FIRE-DO)

Abstract

The Feedback Instrument for Rescue Force Development – trainer (FIRE-DO) is an empirically validated psychometric scale designed to evaluate the individual teaching competency and instructional performance of trainers in rescue force and emergency management education. Serving as an instructor-specific supplementary module to the core Feedback Instrument for Rescue Force Development (FIRE; Schulte & Thielsch, 2019; Schulte et al., 2019), the FIRE-DO fills a critical diagnostic gap by enabling individual-level pedagogical evaluations rather than generic, team-aggregated course ratings. The instrument consists of 7 positively worded items rated on an authentic 7-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (stimme gar nicht zu / strongly disagree) to 7 (stimme vollkommen zu / strongly agree), supplemented by a discrete “cannot be answered” (nicht beantwortbar) option. Psychometric evaluation was conducted across two systematic empirical investigations at the Institute of the North Rhine-Westphalia Fire Brigade (Institut der Feuerwehr Nordrhein-Westfalen, IdF NRW), including a content-validation expert panel (Study I, N = 33) and a comprehensive full-cohort census sample of squad and platoon leader trainees (Study II, N = 350). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using robust maximum likelihood estimation verified a unidimensional structural model with correlated residuals between motivation-focused items, demonstrating excellent global fit (χ²(13) = 47.40, CFI = .978, TLI = .965, RMSEA = .087, SRMR = .024). The instrument demonstrates outstanding internal consistency, quantified via McDonald’s omega (ω = .91). Construct and criterion-related validity analyses revealed strong convergent associations with established higher-education teaching inventories (HILVE I Lehrkompetenz, r = .86; HILVE II Betreuung, r = .75; instructor grading, r = .67), robust predictive associations with self-reported competency acquisition (r = .44), training transfer (r = .48), and overall course satisfaction (r = .59), alongside clear discriminant separation from pre-training entrance examination scores (r = .09, ns). The instrument provides organizational psychologists, emergency management trainers, and fire academy administrators with a brief, highly reliable diagnostic tool completed in approximately two minutes.

Keywords

FIRE-DO, instructor evaluation, rescue force education, firefighter leadership training, teaching competency, instructional feedback, confirmatory factor analysis, McDonald’s omega, training evaluation, pedagogical quality

Authors

The Feedback Instrument for Rescue Force Development – trainer (FIRE-DO) was developed and psychometrically evaluated through a formal scientific collaboration between the Department of Organizational and Business Psychology at the University of Münster (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster) and the Institute of the North Rhine-Westphalia Fire Brigade (Institut der Feuerwehr Nordrhein-Westfalen, IdF NRW), Germany.

• Carsten Schulte — Department of Psychology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany; and Institute of the North Rhine-Westphalia Fire Brigade (IdF NRW), Münster, Germany.
• Meinald T. Thielsch — Professor of Organizational and Business Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany. Lead developer of the broader Münster evaluation frameworks and co-founder of the FIRE evaluation suite.

Inquiries regarding institutional application, comparative benchmark data, or academic research use can be directed through the official project portal hosted at go.wwu.de/fire or via the Department of Psychology at the University of Münster, Fliednerstraße 21, 48149 Münster, Germany.

Purpose

Emergency response operations conducted by fire services, technical relief organizations, police forces, and emergency medical systems are characterized by extreme situational volatility, severe time compression, acute threat levels, and profound decision-making gravity (Hagemann, 2011; Smith & Dyal, 2016). Incident commanders and operational team leaders bear direct legal and operational responsibility for life-safety outcomes, resource coordination, and tactical hazard mitigation under the regulatory frameworks of emergency management, such as the German Fire Service Regulation 100 (FwDV 100). Operating effectively within this demanding command architecture necessitates comprehensive, highly specialized initial and continuing leadership education (Schulte & Thielsch, 2019).

Within specialized civil protection academies such as the IdF NRW, leadership training encompasses theoretical lectures, small-group tactical seminars, sandbox simulation exercises (Planübungen; Röseler et al., 2021), and full-scale high-fidelity field exercises (Einsatzübungen; Röseler et al., 2020). Instruction is routinely delivered by rotating teams of up to three operational trainers. While institutional guidelines mandate that instructors demonstrate both exceptional operational subject-matter mastery and rigorous pedagogical-didactic competencies (Feuerwehr-Dienstvorschrift 2, 2012; IdF NRW, 2019), classical course evaluation inventories frequently aggregate student perceptions across the entire instructional collective. This practice obscures individual pedagogical strengths and weaknesses, preventing targeted personnel development.

The FIRE-DO was explicitly engineered to resolve this diagnostic limitation. As a specialized instructor-level module appended to the overarching core FIRE framework, the purpose of the FIRE-DO is three-fold:

• Individualized Diagnostic Assessment: It enables trainees to provide differentiated, standardized, and anonymous didactic feedback for a specific named trainer, distinguishing personal instructional efficacy from broader course logistics or peer-group dynamics.
• Formative Professional Development: It serves as a formative feedback mechanism for instructors. Results provide actionable data regarding presentation clarity, communicative accessibility, motivational guidance, constructive feedback quality, and the integration of authentic field experience, driving self-reflection and professional development (Rindermann, 2003, 2009).
• Organizational Quality Assurance & Research: It supplies training academy directors and occupational researchers with an empirically anchored, psychometrically validated benchmark. In research contexts, it allows investigators to isolate trainer-level variance when modeling training transfer, knowledge retention, and leadership competency acquisition across civil protection academies, armed forces, and disaster management organizations.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the FIRE-DO is the perceived didactic competency of individual instructors in emergency response leadership education (Didaktische Kompetenz von Dozent/-innen im Rahmen der Rettungskräfteausbildung). Grounded in multidimensional conceptualizations of instructional effectiveness (Feldman, 2007; Rindermann, 2009), the scale models instructional competence as an integrated, unidimensional pedagogical capability observed and rated by adult learners undergoing specialized operational training.

Although captured psychometrically as a unified latent dimension, the construct synthesizes several core behavioral components identified by educational and organizational psychology as critical for adult vocational learning:

• Expository Clarity and Cognitive Structuring: Operational leadership education requires distilling complex physical, chemical, tactical, and legal realities into actionable mental models. Instructors must present difficult concepts concisely without sacrificing doctrinal rigor (Item 1: “Der Dozent / Die Dozentin fasste schwierige Sachverhalte prägnant zusammen”) while maintaining accessible linguistic clarity (Item 5: “Der sprachliche Ausdruck des Dozenten / der Dozentin war verständlich”).
• Formative Feedback Delivery: High-stakes scenario training requires rapid, precise, and psychologically safe debriefing. Effective instructors deliver constructive, actionable critiques of trainee decisions, identifying errors while reinforcing doctrinal compliance (Item 2: “Ich finde, der Dozent / die Dozentin gab nützliches Feedback”).
• Learner Activation and Motivational Support: Adult learners in vocational emergency training benefit from active participation rather than passive reception. Competent trainers actively engage participants, encourage interactive classroom dialogue, and foster self-efficacy in command decision-making (Item 3: “Der Dozent / Die Dozentin motivierte mich, mich einzubringen”; Item 4: “Ich finde, der Dozent / die Dozentin war am Lernerfolg der Teilnehmer interessiert”).
• Content Expertise: Demonstrating deep, infallible mastery of theoretical doctrine, operational tactics, and hazard science forms the prerequisite foundation of instructional credibility (Item 6: “Der Dozent / Die Dozentin kannte sich mit den Inhalten der Lehre sehr gut aus”).
• Contextualization via Operational Field Experience: Emergency response training is distinctly practical. Instructors must bridge abstract doctrines and chaotic operational realities by integrating relevant, credible operational deployment experiences (Item 7: “Der Dozent / Die Dozentin konnte den Unterricht mit seinen / ihren eigenen Einsatzerfahrungen gut ergänzen”).

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the FIRE-DO is anchored in Rindermann’s Multidimensional Model of Educational Success (Multidimensionales Bedingungsmodell des Lehrerfolgs; Rindermann, 2009). Rindermann’s paradigm posits that instructional success in adult and higher education is not a simple function of charismatic personality or content knowledge alone, but an interaction of structured teaching behavior, rhetorical proficiency, cognitive pacing, and interpersonal engagement.

According to this theoretical perspective, high-quality instruction depends upon several foundational dimensions:

• Structure and Comprehensibility: The clear logical organization of instructional materials, transparent signposting of objectives, and concise summation of complex operational scenarios.
• Interaction and Activation: The pedagogical capacity to stimulate cognitive engagement, encourage participatory problem-solving, and foster bidirectional communication.
• Atmosphere and Individual Regard: Creating a supportive learning climate marked by constructive feedback, empathy for trainee difficulties, and active commitment to student learning success.
• Authenticity and Practical Integration: Contextualizing abstract principles within relevant, high-fidelity real-world environments.

Historically, standardized teaching evaluation instruments were designed primarily for academic universities (e.g., the Heidelberg Inventory for Course Evaluation, HILVE; Rindermann, 2009; Münster Questionnaire for Evaluation, MFE; Thielsch & Stegemöller, 2014). However, as Schulte and Thielsch (2019) observed, adult vocational training in modern emergency services mirrors university-level instruction in its pedagogical methodologies: both environments rely heavily on frontal instruction, interactive syndicate seminars, tactical sandbox simulations, and post-exercise debriefings.

The FIRE-DO operationalizes Rindermann’s overarching educational success framework within the specific cultural and functional milieu of the fire service. Rather than modeling multiple distinct subscales, the FIRE-DO integrates these theoretical facets into a highly parsimonious, unifactorial assessment of the instructor’s didactic competence, acknowledging that in vocational adult education, clarity, motivation, feedback, and authentic operational experience function in concert to produce instructional excellence.

Validity

The validity of the FIRE-DO was empirically investigated across two primary studies conducted at the Institute of the North Rhine-Westphalia Fire Brigade (IdF NRW), providing multi-method evidence supporting its content, construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Content Validity and Item Suitability (Study I)

Content validity was evaluated using a panel of subject-matter experts and active trainees (N = 33), comprising 7 experienced fire academy trainers (86% male; mean age = 38.9, SD = 6.0) and 26 squad leader trainees (96% male; mean age = 30.5, SD = 6.9). Every candidate item adapted from established higher-education evaluation tools was rated on comprehensibility and instructional relevance. More than 81% of respondents judged all trainer items to be “important” or “rather important,” with zero items identified as unclear or ambiguous. No significant differences emerged between the ratings of instructors and trainees, confirming comprehensive content representation.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity (Study II)

In Study II (N = 350 active squad and platoon leader trainees), construct validity was systematically examined by comparing FIRE-DO scores against established psychological constructs, academic evaluation metrics, objective entrance performance, and known measurement bias variables.

• Convergent Validity: The FIRE-DO demonstrated substantial positive correlations with theoretically aligned measures:
  • Subscale Dozentenverhalten (Trainer Behavior) of the core FIRE questionnaire: r = .69, p < .001 (assessing the instructional collective).
  • Subscale Lehrkompetenz (Teaching Competence) from the university-validated HILVE I: r = .86, p < .001.
  • Subscale Betreuung (Supervision/Mentorship) from HILVE II: r = .75, p < .001.
  • Direct overall instructor grade assigned by trainees (inverted German academic scale): Spearman’s ρ = .67, p < .001.
• Discriminant Validity: As theoretically hypothesized, perceived trainer competence was not significantly related to trainees’ objective knowledge prior to instruction, operationalized as performance on an entrance examination administered on the first day of the course: r = .09, ns (n = 211). This null association confirms that the FIRE-DO reflects instructional processes rather than student pre-existing ability.
• Control for Bias Variables: Trainee affective state (measured using Jäger’s 5-point smiley mood scale) correlated moderately with trainer ratings (r = .33, p < .001), consistent with educational theory indicating that successful learning experiences foster positive affect. Trainee perception of group cohesion (FIRE Subscale Gruppe) also exhibited a moderate correlation (r = .31, p < .001), indicating that instructional ratings remain predominantly distinct from social peer dynamics.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The scale exhibited significant, robust predictive relationships with critical educational outcomes measured via the core FIRE instrument:

• Self-reported Trainee Competency Acquisition (Kompetenzerwerb): r = .44, p < .001.
• Trainee Perceived Preparation & Training Transfer (Vorbereitung & Transfer): r = .48, p < .001.
• Overall Course Satisfaction (Gesamtzufriedenheit): r = .59, p < .001.
• Overall Course Grade: Spearman’s ρ = .40, p < .001.

Reliability

The reliability of the FIRE-DO was comprehensively examined in Study II using classical and modern psychometric indicators. Given that real-world measurement rarely satisfies the stringent mathematical assumption of essential tau-equivalence (where all items possess identical true-score factor loadings and error variances), relying solely on Cronbach’s alpha can introduce parameter bias. Consequently, the authors evaluated scale dimensionality and measurement equivalence using structural equation modeling.

A formal model comparison via chi-square difference testing confirmed that a congeneric measurement model (where item factor loadings freely vary) fit the observed data significantly better than an essentially tau-equivalent model (χ²(6) = 52.10, p < .001). Under the congeneric specification, the scale’s composite reliability was calculated via McDonald’s omega (ω), yielding an exceptional coefficient:

McDonald’s ω = .91

This high internal consistency satisfies the psychometric threshold (ω ≥ .90) recommended for individual diagnostic assessments, confirming that the 7-item composite produces highly reliable scores suitable for personal instructional feedback and comparative longitudinal tracking.

Item-level discrimination indices (corrected item-total correlations, r_it) demonstrated robust psychometric coherence across all items:

• Item 1 (Concise summaries): r_it = .78
• Item 2 (Useful feedback): r_it = .83
• Item 3 (Motivated involvement): r_it = .76
• Item 4 (Interest in learning success): r_it = .75
• Item 5 (Understandable expression): r_it = .75
• Item 6 (Subject-matter expertise): r_it = .72
• Item 7 (Operational experience integration): r_it = .64

Factor Analysis

The latent factorial structure of the FIRE-DO was evaluated in Study II (N = 350) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) executed in the R statistical environment (v4.1.0) using the lavaan structural equation modeling package (Rosseel, 2012). Because educational evaluation data frequently exhibit negative skewness and leptokurtic distribution curves, the robust maximum likelihood estimator (MLR) with Yuan-Bentler scaled test statistics was employed.

Structural Model Specification

An initial baseline model specified a strict unifactorial structure with uncorrelated errors. However, this zero-covariance baseline yielded an unacceptable root mean square error of approximation: χ²(14) = 64.83, CFI = .968, TLI = .952, RMSEA = .102 (90% CI [.078, .128]), SRMR = .028. Inspection of empirical modification indices suggested significant shared variance between Item 3 (“motivated me to contribute”) and Item 4 (“interested in trainee learning success”) (Δχ² > 10).

Modeling this residual covariance was deemed theoretically justified by the close conceptual link between these two items, which both measure the trainer’s motivational and interpersonal engagement. The modified model produced a statistically significant improvement in model fit (χ²_Diff(1) = 17.44, p < .001).

Final Model Fit and Factor Loadings

The final unidimensional model with the modeled residual covariance exhibited strong global fit across multiple indices:

• Chi-Square: χ²(13) = 47.40, p < .001
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .978
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .965
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .087 (90% CI [.061, .114])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .024

All standardized factor loadings (λ) on the latent factor were positive, statistically significant at p < .001, and substantial in magnitude (ranging from .68 to .87), confirming that all 7 items reflect the unified latent construct of didactic competence.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

Psychometric Specifications

• Test Type: Trainee-reported instructional evaluation rating scale (standardized educational feedback module).
• Target Population: Trainees, students, and operational personnel participating in leadership, technical, or tactical command courses across emergency management organizations (fire departments, disaster relief agencies, emergency medical services, police academies, and armed forces).
• Administration Mode: Standardized paper-and-pencil questionnaire or secure digital/mobile survey interface.
• Completion Time: Approximately 2 minutes per evaluated instructor.
• Item Count: 7 standardized items (all positively keyed).
• Authentic Response Scale: Seven-point Likert-type response format:
  • 1 = stimme gar nicht zu (strongly disagree)
  • 2 = stimme nicht zu (disagree)
  • 3 = stimme eher nicht zu (somewhat disagree)
  • 4 = neutral (neutral)
  • 5 = stimme eher zu (somewhat agree)
  • 6 = stimme zu (agree)
  • 7 = stimme vollkommen zu (strongly agree)

  An additional discrete category is provided for cases where an item cannot be evaluated: nicht beantwortbar (cannot be answered).

Standardized Administration & Scoring Protocol

1. Timing and Sequencing: The FIRE-DO is typically administered immediately following the core FIRE questionnaire at the conclusion of a training module or seminar. To minimize testing bias, evaluation should occur prior to any final examination.
2. Anonymity Standards: To ensure uninhibited feedback and protect respondents, no identifying demographic variables should be collected. Analyses should only be conducted if a minimum threshold of N = 8 completed questionnaires is obtained (or at least 50% participation in small seminars with 10–14 participants; Thielsch & Weltzin, 2013).
3. Data Screening & Missing Value Management: In digital administrations, all 7 items should be mandatory (with the valid option to select nicht beantwortbar). In paper administrations, any protocol omitting two or more items entirely should be excluded from aggregation. Responses marked nicht beantwortbar are omitted from item-level and scale-level computations.
4. Score Calculation:
   • Step 1: Assign numeric points from 1 (stimme gar nicht zu) to 7 (stimme vollkommen zu). Responses marked nicht beantwortbar receive no score and are excluded for that participant.
   • Step 2: For each item, compute the arithmetic mean across all responding participants in the course cohort.
   • Step 3: Sum the seven resulting item means and divide by 7 to yield the composite scale score (ranging from 1.0 to 7.0). Higher values reflect greater perceived didactic competence.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Publication & Development Year: Developed and validated between 2015 and 2019; primary empirical validation data published in 2021/2022.
• Copyright & Ownership: Copyright © Carsten Schulte, Meinald T. Thielsch, and the Institute of the North Rhine-Westphalia Fire Brigade (Institut der Feuerwehr Nordrhein-Westfalen).
• Licensing & Usage Rights: The FIRE-DO is made openly accessible for scientific, educational, and internal institutional evaluation purposes without commercial licensing fees. Operational fire schools, civil protection training centers, and academic researchers may utilize the instrument provided formal attribution is given to the authors and the original research publications.
• Official Documentation: Detailed survey manuals, core questionnaire modules, and digital assets can be accessed at the project repository: go.wwu.de/fire.

References

• Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
• Feldman, K. A. (2007). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based approach (pp. 93–143). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5742-3_5
• Feuerwehr-Dienstvorschrift 2. (2012). Ausbildung der Freiwilligen Feuerwehren (FwDV 2). Ausschuss Feuerwehrangelegenheiten, Katastrophenschutz und zivile Verteidigung (AFKzV). Kohlhammer.
• Feuerwehr-Dienstvorschrift 100. (1999). Führung und Leitung im Einsatz – Führungssystem (FwDV 100). Ständige Konferenz der Innenminister und -senatoren der Länder. Kohlhammer.
• Grabbe, Y. (2003). Evaluation von Lehre an Hochschulen: Entwicklung und Validierung eines standardisierten Erhebungsinstruments [Doctoral dissertation, Universität Münster].
• Hagemann, V. (2011). Teamtrainings und deren Evaluation in High-Risk-Organisationen. Verlag Dr. Kovač.
• Institut der Feuerwehr Nordrhein-Westfalen. (2019). Leitfaden für die Ausbildung der Führungskräfte an der Landesfeuerwehrschule NRW. IdF NRW.
• Jäger, R. S. (2004). Von der Beobachtung zur Notengebung: Ein praxisorientiertes Handbuch zur Leistungsbeurteilung in der Schule. Empirische Pädagogik.
• Niemann, F., & Thielsch, M. T. (2020). Evaluation von Grundausbildungslehrgängen im Rettungswesen mit dem FIRE-B. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 64(4), 280–292.
• Revelle, W. (2021). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (R package version 2.1.6). Comprehensive R Archive Network. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
• Rindermann, H. (2003). Wie effektiv sind Lehrevaluationen? Eine empirische Untersuchung zum Nutzen von Rückmeldungen über Lehrqualität. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 17(3/4), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1024//1010-0652.17.34.241
• Rindermann, H. (2009). Lehrevaluation: Einführung und Inventar zur Lehrveranstaltungs-Evaluation (HILVE) (2. überarb. Aufl.). Empirische Pädagogik.
• Röseler, S., Schulte, C., & Thielsch, M. T. (2020). Evaluation praktischer Einsatzübungen im Brand- und Katastrophenschutz mit dem FIRE-PR. Notfall + Rettungsmedizin, 23(6), 441–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10049-019-00657-3
• Röseler, S., Schulte, C., & Thielsch, M. T. (2021). Planübungen systematisch evaluieren: Das Modul FIRE-PÜ. BRANDschutz / Deutsche Feuerwehr-Zeitung, 75(4), 218–223.
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
• Schulte, C., & Thielsch, M. T. (2019). Evaluation von Führungskräftelehrgängen bei der Feuerwehr: Entwicklung und Validierung des Feedback-Instruments zur Rettungskräfte-Entwicklung (FIRE). Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 63(3), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000298
• Schulte, C., Röseler, S., & Thielsch, M. T. (2019). Das Feedback-Instrument zur Rettungskräfte-Entwicklung (FIRE): Handanweisung und Skalenhandbuch. WWU Münster Forschungsberichte. https://doi.org/10.17879/77109670068
• Smith, T. D., & Dyal, M. A. (2016). Examining the relationships between occupational stress, burnout, and safety compliance in firefighters. Safety Science, 85, 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.01.018
• Spiel, C. (2001). Theorien und Methoden der Evaluationsforschung. In R. Oerter, C. von Hagen, G. Röper, & G. Noam (Eds.), Lehrbuch der Klinischen Entwicklungspsychologie (pp. 605–626). Hogrefe.
• Thielsch, M. T., & Hadzihalilovic, D. (2020). Evaluation von Stabsübungen und Führungsstabsausbildungen mit dem FIRE-CU. Bevölkerungsschutz, 2020(3), 32–36.
• Thielsch, M. T., & Stegemöller, J. (2014). Münsteraner Fragebogen zur Evaluation (MFE): Skalenhandbuch zum Zusatzmodul Moderation (MFE-ZMo). Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.
• Thielsch, M. T., & Weltzin, S. (2013). Evaluation universitärer Lehre: Mindestteilnehmerzahlen und Rücklaufquoten für verlässliche Ergebnisse. Qualität in der Wissenschaft, 7(2), 43–49.
• Thielsch, M. T., Schulte, C., & Röseler, S. (2019). Das Feedback-Instrument zur Rettungskräfte-Entwicklung – Basisausbildung (FIRE-B). WWU Münster Forschungsberichte.
• Thielsch, M. T., Schulte, C., Röseler, S., & Hadzihalilovic, D. (2020). Das Feedback-Instrument zur Rettungskräfte-Entwicklung – Krisenstäbe (FIRE-CU). WWU Münster Forschungsberichte.
• West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Sage Publications.
• Whittaker, T. A. (2012). Using the modification index and standardized expected parameter change for model specification searches in structural equation modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2010.531275
• Wolf, B., Feldmann, M., & Merget, G. (2001). Das Koblenzer Evaluations-Inventar zur Lehre (KEIL). Universität Koblenz-Landau.
• Young, K. M., & Cooper, C. L. (1995). Occupational stress in the ambulance service: A review of the literature. Stress Medicine, 11(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2460110207

Items of the Scale