Principals’ Analysis of Their Supervisory Styles and Teachers’ Analysis of Their Principals’ Supervisory Styles

1. Abstract

The Principals’ Analysis of Their Supervisory Styles (PASS) and the parallel Teachers’ Analysis of Their Principals’ Supervisory Styles (TAPSS) are comprehensive psychometric instruments developed by Ruth M. Smalt (1997) at Fordham University to evaluate the multifaceted dimensions of instructional supervision in educational leadership. Grounded in the conceptual paradigms of cognitive coaching, transformational leadership, and clinical supervisory models, these instruments operationalize supervision not merely as an administrative evaluation mechanism, but as a collaborative, reflective, and developmental process. The PASS consists of a 67-item self-report questionnaire administered to school administrators, whereas the TAPSS comprises a 69-item questionnaire administered to instructional staff to assess perceptions of their principal’s supervisory behaviors. Both instruments assess six core structural subscales: (1) Purposes of Supervision, (2) Structure and Procedures During Supervision, (3) Supervisory Practices and Behaviors, (4) Promoting Trusting Relationships, (5) The Transformational Supervisor, and (6) Nurturing Reflective Thinking.

Administered via a four-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 2 = Infrequently, 3 = Frequently, 4 = Always), the PASS and TAPSS exhibit robust psychometric properties. Internal consistency reliability analysis demonstrated exceptional total scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of α = .95 for the PASS (with subscale alphas ranging from .78 to .93) and α = .98 for the TAPSS (with subscale alphas ranging from .60 to .96). Content validity was rigorously established through an expert panel requiring an 80% consensus threshold alongside extensive theoretical grounding. Construct validity was corroborated via intercorrelational matrices, discriminant validity assessments, and exploratory factor analyses yielding six interpretable factors. By offering dual administrative self-report and subordinate-perceptual lenses, the PASS and TAPSS serve as foundational diagnostic and empirical tools for investigating administrative alignment, instructional leadership, school organizational climate, and educational reform.

2. Keywords

instructional supervision, educational leadership, supervisory styles, cognitive coaching, transformational leadership, reflective thinking, clinical supervision, teacher evaluation, psychometrics, administrative leadership

3. Authors

The instruments were developed and validated by Dr. Ruth M. Smalt as part of her doctoral dissertation at the Graduate School of Education at Fordham University (Smalt, 1997). Dr. Smalt’s research focused on educational leadership, organizational administration, pedagogical coaching, and supervisory communication. Her empirical investigations integrated foundational models of instructional supervision and cognitive monitoring, notably drawing upon the supervisory frameworks established by McDonough (1991), Arthur L. Costa, and Robert J. Garmston.

The instrument development was completed across a rigorous three-year investigative timeline in New York metropolitan school systems, engaging educational practitioners, administrative panels, and psychometricians. Institutional correspondence and academic inquiries regarding the original dissertation and technical manuals are cataloged under Fordham University Libraries and Dissertation Abstracts International (Smalt, 1997).

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Principals’ Analysis of Their Supervisory Styles (PASS) and the Teachers’ Analysis of Their Principals’ Supervisory Styles (TAPSS) is to provide an empirically grounded, multi-perspective framework for measuring instructional supervision in primary and secondary educational settings. Historically, educational supervision functioned primarily as a bureaucratic, inspectoral exercise focused on compliance, summative teacher evaluation, and administrative oversight. The PASS and TAPSS were designed to operationalize modern paradigms of supervision, specifically focusing on formative instructional improvement, clinical pre- and post-observation conferences, cognitive coaching, transformational leadership, mutual trust, and the cultivation of higher-order metacognition across educational environments.

In educational and organizational research, the dual-instrument methodology addresses a pervasive methodological challenge: perceptual divergence between leaders and subordinates. By comparing PASS (principal self-assessment) and TAPSS (teacher assessment of the principal), researchers can compute dyadic discrepancy scores, assess perceptual congruence, and examine how discrepancies between perceived and enacted supervisory styles impact institutional culture, teacher self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and student academic achievement. Such multi-rater supervisory diagnostics allow institutions to avoid common-method bias and administrative social desirability distortions.

Clinically and practically, the PASS and TAPSS serve vital professional development purposes. School districts, educational leadership academies, and university administration programs employ these scales to:

• Diagnose Supervisory Deficits: Identify whether administrators are over-relying on perfunctory administrative duties rather than developmental coaching behaviors.
• Facilitate Reflective Administrative Practice: Enable principals to evaluate their fidelity to structured clinical conferences, questioning techniques, and non-evaluative feedback.
• Assess School Organizational Climate: Measure the extent to which a school’s environment fosters psychological safety, collegial trust, and intellectual risk-taking among teachers and students alike.
• Evaluate Intervention Efficacy: Measure shifts in supervisory behavior following professional development programs such as Cognitive Coaching®, peer observation workshops, or clinical supervision seminars.

5. Psychological Construct

The PASS and TAPSS conceptualize supervisory style not as a static, unitary personality trait, but as a multifaceted behavioral construct comprising six distinct, interrelated dimensions. Each dimension represents a theoretical pillar essential for effective pedagogical guidance and organizational growth:

1. Purposes of Supervision

This subscale evaluates the philosophical orientation and fundamental intentionality underpinning the supervisory enterprise. It captures the degree to which supervisory visits are viewed as formative tools for professional learning and instructional improvement versus perfunctory, bureaucratic, or punitive evaluative compliance. In an effective supervisory climate, both formal and nonformal classroom observations are explicitly decoupled from threatening evaluation and oriented toward collaborative problem-solving, instructional enrichment, and instructional leadership.

2. Structure and Procedures During Supervision

Drawing directly from clinical supervision models, this dimension measures adherence to formal, systematic protocols during the supervisory cycle. It encompasses the structured execution of:

• The Preconference: Collaborative goal-setting, clarifying instructional objectives, detailing planned pedagogical strategies, specifying student assessment techniques, and establishing objective data-gathering procedures.
• The Postconference: Reviewing and summarizing observational data, comparing anticipated lesson plans with actual outcomes, analyzing the causal relationships between pedagogical choices and student learning, and generating reflective improvements for future practice.

3. Supervisory Practices and Behaviors

This construct examines micro-level interpersonal communication behaviors utilized by the supervisor during instructional dialogues. Rooted in active listening and cognitive mediation techniques, it includes establishing explicit ground rules, utilizing nonjudgmental phrasing, paraphrasing and summarizing teacher perspectives, demonstrating acceptance of teacher ideas, applying strategic silence to facilitate deep cognitive processing, and guiding teachers toward objective self-analysis of classroom data.

4. Promoting Trusting Relationships

Supervisory effectiveness is contingent upon psychological safety and interpersonal trust. This subscale assesses the principal’s capacity to build relational trust through emotional authenticity, vulnerability, transparency, ethical follow-through on commitments, accountability for administrative actions, maintaining professional confidentiality, and demonstrating authentic empathy and regard for teachers as professional individuals.

5. The Transformational Supervisor

Synthesizing transformational leadership theory with cognitive development, this dimension assesses the principal’s capacity to inspire, intellectually stimulate, and support educators. It measures how effectively the supervisor encourages teachers to analyze the cognitive mechanisms underlying their pedagogical decisions, construct sequenced instructional plans, experiment with creative educational strategies, and sustain high expectations for themselves and their students. Furthermore, it examines the principal’s systemic focus on continuous institutional improvement, resource provision, and vision alignment.

6. Nurturing Reflective Thinking in the School

This dimension operationalizes the transfer of supervisory reflection to the broader school culture and classroom environments. It assesses whether the principal fosters an environment where teachers encourage students to think metacognitively, explore alternative hypotheses, ask generative questions, engage in peer critique, and work collaboratively. It also captures collegial learning structures among the faculty, such as inter-visitation, peer observation, and continuous professional dialogue regarding the cognitive dimensions of learning.

6. Theoretical Framework

The architectural foundation of the PASS and TAPSS integrates three major educational and psychological paradigms: Clinical Supervision, Cognitive Coaching, and Transformational Leadership Theory.

Clinical Supervision Paradigm

The structural underpinnings of the instruments stem from the clinical supervision framework pioneered by Morris Cogan (1973) and Robert Goldhammer (1969). Clinical supervision conceptualizes observation as a non-threatening, collaborative cycle involving systematic planning, objective observation, and intensive post-observational analysis. Rather than evaluating teachers against a rigid checklist, the clinical supervisor functions as an objective data collector who presents empirical observations to the teacher. Smalt operationalized this cycle within Part II (Structure and Procedures) and Part III (Supervisory Practices), formalizing the pedagogical value of deliberate pre- and post-conferencing phases.

Cognitive Coaching and Thoughtful Classroom Models

The intellectual framework heavily references the work of Arthur L. Costa and Robert J. Garmston (1994, 2002) alongside empirical extensions by McDonough (1991). Cognitive coaching posits that overt teaching behaviors are driven by internal, invisible cognitive processes. Consequently, the goal of supervision is not merely to change external classroom behaviors, but to mediate and modify the educator’s internal cognition, decision-making, and self-monitoring capacities. The supervisory questioning strategies measured in the PASS and TAPSS (e.g., rephrasing, probing for specificity, facilitating causal inferences between teaching decisions and student achievement) mirror Costa and Garmston’s cognitive mediation maps. This framework extends to Costa’s wider advocacy for “schools as homes for the mind” (Costa et al., 1992), asserting that reflective supervisory practices among administrators directly cultivate reflective pedagogical practices among teachers and higher-order thinking skills among students.

Transformational Leadership Theory

Underpinning Part V of the scale is the transformational leadership model articulated by Bernard M. Bass (1985) and adapted to educational environments by Kenneth Leithwood (1992, 1994). Transformational supervisors elevate educators beyond immediate self-interest toward collaborative school visioning, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and elevated collective efficacy. Smalt synthesized transformational leadership with supervisory practice by evaluating how administrators model reflective self-examination, communicate high expectations, support risk-taking in pedagogical design, and build collaborative school cultures.

7. Validity

The developmental methodology of the PASS and TAPSS incorporated robust psychometric procedures to ensure content, construct, and discriminant validity across both administrator and teacher cohorts.

Content Validity

Content validity was established through an extensive, iterative three-year development cycle. Smalt generated an initial pool of behavioral statements grounded in the theoretical literature of supervisory practices, clinical cycles, and cognitive coaching (e.g., Costa et al., 1992; McDonough, 1991). This initial item pool was submitted to a panel of expert judges specializing in educational administration, curriculum development, and psychometrics. Panelists evaluated each statement for clarity, representativeness, theoretical alignment, and domain relevance. In accordance with rigorous psychometric criteria, a strict 80 percent inter-rater consensus threshold was enforced: only items achieving at least 80% agreement among panel experts were retained and integrated into the pilot instruments.

Construct and Intercorrelational Validity

Construct validity was evaluated by examining the intercorrelation matrices across the six subscales for both the PASS and TAPSS instruments. The intercorrelations among the subscales revealed statistically significant, moderate-to-high positive correlations, confirming that while the six subscales capture distinct components of supervisory style, they converge logically on a unified overarching construct of developmental, transformational supervision. Strong literature support was documented across all six subscales, substantiating that the measured variables accurately reflect the theoretical dimensions of collaborative supervisory leadership.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established for the Principals’ Analysis of Their Supervisory Styles (PASS) questionnaire. Analyses demonstrated that the PASS subscales effectively differentiated between traditional evaluative supervisory approaches and collaborative, cognitive coaching-oriented approaches. The scale demonstrated the capacity to discern distinct variations in administrative style independent of administrative tenure, school level (elementary vs. secondary), or general organizational size, confirming that the tool measures specific supervisory behavioral styles rather than generic institutional variables.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency reliability of the PASS and TAPSS was evaluated using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (α) across the total scales and individual subscale dimensions. The normative pilot sample included 30 principals and 40 teachers during the draft phases, followed by field evaluation data from 51 school principals completing the PASS and 56 teachers completing the TAPSS (Smalt, 1997).

Internal Consistency of the PASS (Principal Self-Report)

The overall instrument demonstrated exceptional reliability, with a total scale Cronbach’s alpha of α = .95. Subscale reliability coefficients on the PASS demonstrated strong to excellent internal consistency:

• Purposes of Supervision: α = .78
• Structure and Procedures During Supervision in My School: α = .91
• Supervisory Practices and Behaviors: α = .80
• Promoting Trusting Relationships: α = .81
• The Transformational Supervisor: α = .93
• Nurturing Reflective Thinking in My School: α = .86

Internal Consistency of the TAPSS (Teacher Rating of Principal)

The total TAPSS instrument demonstrated an outstanding overall reliability coefficient of α = .98. Subscale alphas for the TAPSS were as follows:

• Purposes of Supervision: α = .94
• Structure and Procedures During Supervision in My School: α = .92
• Supervisory Practices and Behaviors: α = .74
• Promoting Trusting Relationships: α = .89
• The Transformational Supervisor: α = .96
• Nurturing Reflective Thinking in My School: α = .60

With the exception of the reflective thinking subscale on the teacher version (α = .60, which likely reflects the indirect observation teachers have of overall school-wide student/collegial reflection compared to direct dyadic supervisory interactions), all subscales across both instruments comfortably exceed established psychometric thresholds for research and diagnostic utility (α ≥ .70 to .95).

9. Factor Analysis

Both instruments were subjected to exploratory factor analytic (EFA) procedures to examine their internal latent structure and verify whether the operationalized theoretical constructs aligned with observable behavioral dimensions (Smalt, 1997). Principal components analysis followed by orthogonal and oblique rotations yielded six interpretable factors for both the PASS and TAPSS questionnaires.

Factor Architecture and Structural Concordance

The factor analyses confirmed that supervisory style is structurally multi-dimensional. Although both instruments yielded an identical six-factor conceptual framework, the precise distribution and grouping of retained items varied slightly between the administrative self-report instrument (67 items) and the teacher perception instrument (69 items):

The factor solutions confirmed that items loaded saliently on their designated primary factors (λ ≥ .40), accounting for a substantial proportion of common variance. The divergence in item numbers between instruments reflects the unique perceptual vantage points of administrators versus instructional staff: teachers responded to additional items specifically addressing teacher-specific observation arrangements, confidentiality, and direct classroom movements that administrators evaluated from an organizational leadership perspective.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Formal Tool Title: Principals’ Analysis of Their Supervisory Styles (PASS) / Teachers’ Analysis of Their Principals’ Supervisory Styles (TAPSS)
• Original Author: Ruth M. Smalt, Ed.D. (Fordham University, 1997)
• Assessment Construct: Perceptions and enacted practices of instructional supervisory styles, cognitive coaching, clinical conferencing, transformational leadership, and reflective school climate
• Format & Administration: Paper-and-pencil or digital self-report questionnaires; can be administered individually, in administrative cohorts, or school-wide to instructional staff
• Item Count:
  • PASS (Principal Form): 67 items
  • TAPSS (Teacher Form): 69 items
• Response Format: 4-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Never
  • 2 = Infrequently
  • 3 = Frequently
  • 4 = Always
• Subscales & Factor Structure:
  1. Purposes of Supervision (PASS items 1–5; TAPSS items 1–8)
  2. Structure and Procedures during Supervision in My School (PASS items 6–16; TAPSS items 9–19)
  3. Supervisory Practices and Behaviors (PASS items 17–24; TAPSS items 20–29)
  4. Promoting Trusting Relationships (PASS items 25–32; TAPSS items 30–39)
  5. The Transformational Supervisor (PASS items 33–54; TAPSS items 40–59)
  6. Nurturing Reflective Thinking in My School (PASS items 55–67; TAPSS items 60–69)
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Item scores correspond to the selected numeric value (1 to 4).
  • Subscale scores are calculated by summing the item values within each subscale or computing the subscale mean (sum divided by the number of items in the subscale, yielding a 1.00 to 4.00 metric).
  • A Total Scale Score is derived by summing all items or averaging across all items.
  • Higher scores represent greater frequency of collaborative, transformational, cognitively mediated, and reflective supervisory behaviors.
  • Dyadic congruence / discrepancy analysis is performed by contrasting principal PASS subscale means with the aggregate TAPSS subscale means of their corresponding instructional staff.
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 20–25 minutes per questionnaire.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The PASS and TAPSS questionnaires were developed and published in 1997 as part of doctoral research conducted at Fordham University (Smalt, 1997). The scales are published in academic dissertations and educational measurement literature for non-commercial scholarly research, educational evaluation, and dissertation study purposes.

Researchers and educational practitioners wishing to utilize the PASS or TAPSS in formal organizational assessments, academic publications, or grant-funded interventions must provide appropriate academic attribution and citations to Smalt (1997) and Fordham University. For commercial adaptations, large-scale leadership consulting use, or digital redistributions, inquiries regarding formal copyright permissions should be directed to the Graduate School of Education at Fordham University or Dissertation Publishing (ProQuest/UMI).

12. References

• Barell, M. C. (1991). New York: The state of learning: Statewide profile of the educational system. A report to the governor and the legislature on the educational status of the state’s schools for 1989–90. New York State Education Department. ERIC ED 334 252.
• Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
• Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Houghton Mifflin.
• Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools. Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
• Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools (2nd ed.). Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
• Costa, A. L., Bellanca, J., & Fogarty, R. (Eds.). (1992). If minds matter: A foreword to the future (Vols. 1–2). Skylight Publishing.
• Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8–12.
• Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X94030004006
• McDonough, S. (1991). The supervision of principals: A comparison of existing and desired supervisory practices as perceived by principals trained in cognitive coaching and those without the training (Unpublished master’s thesis). California State University, Sacramento.
• Smalt, R. M. (1997). Measuring principals’ styles of supervision (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (Order No. 9729609).

13. Items of the Scale