Supervising Teacher Behavior Description Questionnaire

Abstract

The Supervising Teacher Behavior Description Questionnaire – Form 2 (STBDQ-2) is a specialized 54-item psychometric assessment instrument developed by W. E. Sistrunk and colleagues (1983). Derived as an adaptation of the broader Supervisory Behavior Description Questionnaire (SBDQ), the STBDQ-2 was engineered specifically to evaluate the behavioral styles and interpersonal supervision preferences of cooperating (supervising) teachers working with preservice student teachers during clinical field experiences. The instrument operationalizes supervisory interaction along two intersecting structural axes: three behavioral supervisory orientations—Directive, Collaborative, and Nondirective—and three core pedagogical task domains: Planning and Organizing, Instructional Management, and Instructional Evaluation. Respondents assess 18 distinct pedagogical supervisory tasks, each presented under the three supervisory orientations, yielding 54 behavioral statements evaluated via an evaluative semantic differential response format anchored across affective and conative polarities, specifically Satisfying/Dissatisfying and Motivating/Nonmotivating. Psychometric validation conducted on a normative sample of 227 educators (comprising 132 preservice student teachers and 95 supervising teachers) demonstrated high internal consistency reliability. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reached .97 for the total scale, with the supervisory orientation dimensions exhibiting values of .95 (Directive), .95 (Collaborative), and .96 (Nondirective). The task subscales similarly displayed strong internal consistency: Planning and Organizing (α = .88), Instructional Management (α = .94), and Instructional Evaluation (α = .93). Construct, content, and criterion-related validity assessments confirmed that the STBDQ-2 effectively differentiates between supervisor self-perceptions and supervisee expectations. This paper provides an exhaustive academic review of the STBDQ-2, analyzing its theoretical foundations within developmental and clinical supervision paradigms, structural taxonomy, psychometric properties, scoring methodology, research applications, and complete item inventory.

Keywords

Supervising Teacher Behavior Description Questionnaire, STBDQ, supervisory behavior, clinical supervision, teacher education, student teaching, developmental supervision, supervisory orientation, directive supervision, collaborative supervision, nondirective supervision, psychometrics

Authors

The Supervising Teacher Behavior Description Questionnaire – Form 2 was designed and validated by Walter E. Sistrunk and his research associates in the Department of Educational Leadership and Curriculum at Mississippi State University. Dr. Sistrunk, a scholar in educational administration, curriculum theory, and supervisory behavior, initiated the empirical development of the parent instrument, the Supervisory Behavior Description Questionnaire (SBDQ), presented at the Mid-South Educational Research Association (MSERA) annual meeting in 1982. Recognizing the unique interpersonal dynamics of the student teaching practicum, Sistrunk and his collaborative research team refined and adapted the original questionnaire into the STBDQ-2 to isolate the dyadic supervisor-student teacher relationship, presenting the validation findings during a symposium at the 1983 Mid-South Educational Research Association conference.

Purpose

The practicum or student teaching semester represents a critical formative milestone in teacher education, functioning as the primary bridge between academic pedagogical preparation and autonomous professional practice. Within this clinical ecology, the cooperating or supervising teacher plays an influential role in shaping the novice educator’s instructional efficacy, reflective habits, pedagogical identity, and career retention. However, supervisory interactions are frequently undermined by mismatched interpersonal expectations, ambiguous role definitions, and unilateral communication styles. The primary purpose of the Supervising Teacher Behavior Description Questionnaire – Form 2 (STBDQ-2) is to systematically evaluate, describe, and quantify the behavioral supervisory orientations preferred, expected, or perceived by both supervising teachers and student teachers across discrete functional domains of classroom instruction.

The instrument was engineered to address several distinct diagnostic, theoretical, and empirical imperatives:

• Dyadic Fit and Congruence Analysis: In clinical teacher preparation, friction often emerges when a student teacher expects an egalitarian, consultative partner (collaborative orientation) or professional autonomy (nondirective orientation), but encounters a highly prescriptive, authoritarian mentor (directive orientation). The STBDQ-2 enables teacher education researchers and field placement coordinators to assess the degree of congruence or divergence between student teacher preferences and supervisor behavioral self-perceptions, providing actionable empirical data to resolve interpersonal supervisory impasses.
• Targeted Supervisory Professional Development: Cooperating teachers are frequently selected based on classroom pedagogical competence rather than formal training in adult clinical supervision. The STBDQ-2 serves as an objective self-reflection and professional development diagnostic tool, allowing supervising teachers to identify their default supervisory tendencies and learn how to intentionally modulate their approaches across different instructional phases.
• Formative Program Evaluation: University field-experience offices utilize the instrument to monitor the pedagogical ecology of student teaching placements, ensuring that cooperating schools provide an environment that balances structured guidance with increasing pedagogical autonomy.
• Empirical Research on Supervisory Efficacy: The STBDQ-2 provides a standardized psychometric metric for empirical investigations examining how supervisory styles correlate with novice teacher outcomes, such as instructional self-efficacy, classroom management competence, burnout, occupational stress, and attrition rates during induction years.

Psychological Construct

The STBDQ-2 operationalizes supervisory interaction as a multi-dimensional behavioral construct defined by the intersection of two structural dimensions: Supervisory Behavioral Orientations (the interpersonal process) and Supervisory Task Domains (the functional operational context).

1. Supervisory Behavioral Orientations (Process Dimensions)

The core construct rests upon three distinct behavioral modalities through which a supervisor exerts influence, establishes power dynamics, and facilitates decision-making:

• Directive Supervisory Behavior: Characterized by supervisor-dominated control, high structure, clear behavioral delineation, and explicit prescription. In this orientation, the supervising teacher functions as an authoritative instructional model and director. The supervisor assumes primary responsibility for identifying instructional objectives, establishing diagnostic criteria, prescribing specific classroom interventions, and judging instructional quality. An illustrative item reflecting this approach is Item 1: “The supervising teacher should write and plan units and lessons for the student teaching experience.”
• Collaborative Supervisory Behavior: Grounded in an egalitarian, transactional, and reciprocal problem-solving paradigm. Responsibility for instructional decision-making, planning, and evaluation is shared equally between the supervisor and the student teacher. Communication is characterized by active dialogue, mutual negotiation, joint brainstorming, and co-constructed pedagogical solutions. An illustrative item is Item 2: “The supervising teacher should collaborate with the student teacher in writing and planning units and lessons.”
• Nondirective Supervisory Behavior: Defined by high student-teacher autonomy, supervisor facilitation, active listening, and self-directed problem-solving. The supervising teacher serves as a non-judgmental sounding board, encouraging the novice teacher to establish instructional targets, self-evaluate performance, and experiment with pedagogical approaches without external imposition. An illustrative item is Item 3: “The supervising teacher should permit the student teacher to plan and write his/her own units and lessons.”

2. Supervisory Task Domains (Content Subscales)

The STBDQ-2 distributes these three supervisory behavioral approaches across three critical operational task domains of classroom instructional practice:

• Planning and Organizing: Encompasses the structural, anticipatory aspects of instructional design. Tasks within this domain include designing short-term and long-range lesson plans, establishing curriculum-aligned learning objectives, selecting curricular materials, and developing standardized pedagogical units (e.g., Items 1–6, 13–15, 22–24, 37–39).
• Instructional Management: Involves the direct execution of classroom teaching, real-time learning management, and practical pedagogical delivery. Behaviors in this subscale address grouping students for differentiated learning, improving student study habits, managing instructional technology and equipment, allocating specific teaching tasks, and implementing educational innovations (e.g., Items 7–12, 16–21, 31–33).
• Instructional Evaluation: Focuses on assessment, clinical observation, diagnostic feedback, performance reflection, and iterative inquiry. Tasks include determining the effectiveness of educational resources, identifying teaching challenges, establishing criteria for student teacher performance appraisals, selecting evaluative instruments, and engaging in systematic action research (e.g., Items 25–30, 34–36, 40–54).

3. Affective and Conative Evaluative Modalities

Rather than merely measuring behavioral frequency, the STBDQ-2 incorporates a semantic differential scoring paradigm. This captures the respondent’s psychological reaction to each behavior along two fundamental motivational vectors: Satisfying versus Dissatisfying (evaluating emotional and relational fulfillment) and/or Motivating versus Nonmotivating (evaluating professional drive and behavioral activation). Consequently, the instrument measures not simply what supervisors do, but how those supervisory behaviors are perceived to affect the student teacher’s emotional security and intrinsic professional motivation.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the STBDQ-2 is rooted in 20th-century models of educational supervision, situational leadership, and adult learning theory. The instrument synthesizes principles from three primary theoretical traditions: Glickman’s Developmental Supervision, Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory, and Clinical Supervision paradigms.

Glickman’s Theory of Developmental Supervision

The primary conceptual foundation of the STBDQ-2 aligns with Carl D. Glickman’s paradigm of Developmental Supervision (Glickman, 1981). Glickman posited that teachers vary across two developmental axes: conceptual development (cognitive complexity regarding pedagogy) and level of professional commitment. Glickman postulated that no single supervisory approach is universally effective; instead, the supervisor’s behavior must match the teacher’s developmental stage:

• Directive Supervision is theoretically indicated when a teacher possesses low conceptual development and low commitment, requiring direct modeling, explicit standards, and prescriptive guidance.
• Collaborative Supervision is appropriate for educators at moderate levels of conceptual development, who benefit from joint problem-solving, dialectical exchange, and shared accountability.
• Nondirective Supervision is theoretical best practice for teachers functioning at high levels of cognitive complexity and autonomous professional commitment, where the supervisor’s role is to facilitate self-discovery.

The STBDQ-2 operationalizes this developmental continuum by organizing its behavioral options into matched triads across identical instructional situations.

Situational Leadership Theory

The scale also reflects the principles of Hersey and Blanchard’s (1969, 1977) Situational Leadership Theory, which maintains that effective leaders must adapt their task behavior (guidance) and relationship behavior (support) to the maturity level of the follower. In the context of pre-service teacher clinical placements, task maturity relates to pedagogical technical skill, while psychological maturity relates to confidence and self-efficacy. By examining supervisory behavior across distinct task domains, the STBDQ-2 reflects the situational premise that a mentor may need to adopt a directive approach in high-stakes instructional evaluation, while simultaneously operating collaboratively or nondirectively in materials selection or action research.

Clinical Supervision and Reflective Practice

Finally, the STBDQ-2 integrates the clinical supervision models formulated by Goldhammer (1969) and Cogan (1973), later extended by Acheson and Gall (1980). These models emphasize observational feedback, data-driven post-observation conferences, and the promotion of reflective autonomy. The inclusion of the Instructional Evaluation subscale directly operationalizes these clinical cycles, measuring whether supervisory assessment is enacted as an authoritarian inspection (directive), a shared analytical inquiry (collaborative), or a self-reflective discovery process (nondirective).

Validity

Empirical validation of the STBDQ-2 was established through systemic investigations examining content, construct, and criterion-related validity during its development and subsequent field trials (Sistrunk, 1982; Sistrunk et al., 1983).

Content Validity

Content validity was established through systematic item generation derived from the parent Supervisory Behavior Description Questionnaire (SBDQ), educational administration literature, and clinical teacher preparation standards. A panel of educational leadership faculty, clinical placement supervisors, and curriculum specialists reviewed the original pool of items. The panel evaluated each item for representativeness across the three supervisory orientations and the three instructional task subscales. Items that exhibited ambiguity, dual-task loading, or evaluative bias were revised or eliminated, ensuring that each of the 18 pedagogical scenarios clearly embodied distinct directive, collaborative, and nondirective behavioral manifestations.

Construct Validity

Construct validity was evaluated by examining whether the scale accurately differentiated between supervisory orientations and reflected theoretical expectations among different educator cohorts:

• Inter-Scale Orthogonality and Differentiation: Correlational analyses among the three broad behavioral orientations (Directive, Collaborative, and Nondirective) demonstrated that the subscales capture empirically distinct operational constructs. While Collaborative and Nondirective dimensions showed moderate positive correlations reflecting a common underlying non-authoritarian orientation, both diverged substantially from the Directive dimension, confirming theoretical divergence.
• Known-Groups Validity: Validation studies administered the instrument across distinct cohorts: student teachers ($N = 132$) and cooperating supervising teachers ($N = 95$). The instrument successfully differentiated between these groups. Cooperating teachers consistently reported higher preference for and self-reported execution of collaborative behaviors, whereas student teachers frequently exhibited significant variance in their desire for directive guidance depending on their field experience stage. Novice teachers in the earliest practicum weeks preferred higher directiveness in Instructional Management, shifting toward collaborative and nondirective preferences in Planning and Organizing as their clinical experience progressed.

Criterion-Related Validity

Criterion-related validity was evidenced by correlating STBDQ-2 scores with external measures of supervisory satisfaction, student teacher self-efficacy scales, and clinical performance evaluations. High congruence between a student teacher’s preferred supervisory orientation and the actual behavior exhibited by the cooperating teacher was strongly correlated with elevated ratings of practicum satisfaction, positive affective ratings on the semantic differential scales, and higher end-of-term clinical teaching assessments.

Reliability

The STBDQ-2 exhibits high internal consistency reliability across its overall score, behavioral dimensions, and operational task subscales. The primary psychometric validation conducted by Sistrunk et al. (1983) with a total sample of $N = 227$ educators (comprising 132 student teachers and 95 supervising teachers) established the following reliability parameters:

These internal consistency estimates exceed standard psychometric thresholds (α ≥ .80 for research instruments, α ≥ .90 for diagnostic tools), demonstrating that individual items within each behavioral dimension and task domain contribute consistently to their respective constructs. The high alpha value for the total scale (.97) reflects the shared semantic differential rating format and the structural coherence of the underlying supervisory behavior taxonomy.

Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the STBDQ-2 was originally examined through exploratory factor analysis performed on the calibration sample data to evaluate the empirical independence of the theoretical dimensions and subscales (Sistrunk, 1982; Sistrunk et al., 1983).

Factor Extraction and Structural Solutions

Factor analyses conducted during the instrument’s initial validation utilized principal axis factoring followed by both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations to examine the latent structure of the 54 items:

• Three-Factor Behavioral Solution: When factor extraction was constrained to isolate supervisory orientations, three primary latent factors accounted for the majority of the common variance, cleanly mirroring the theoretical triad of Directive, Collaborative, and Nondirective supervisory behaviors. Items structured around unilateral supervisor control (e.g., “The supervising teacher should require…”, “The supervising teacher should determine…”) loaded heavily on the Directive factor (loadings generally exceeding .60). Items characterized by shared decision-making (“The supervising teacher should collaborate with…”) clustered on the Collaborative factor, while items emphasizing autonomy and delegation (“The supervising teacher should permit…”) loaded strongly on the Nondirective factor.
• Task-Domain Multi-Trait Multi-Method Characteristics: Subsequent factor analytic iterations designed to assess the three functional task subscales (Planning and Organizing, Instructional Management, and Instructional Evaluation) revealed that the STBDQ-2 functions as a bi-factor or matrix-structured instrument. Items load primarily on their respective behavioral orientation factor, with secondary variance systematically accounted for by the specific pedagogical task domain.

While the preliminary symposium presentation by Sistrunk et al. (1983) provided overall reliability indices and confirmed that factor analysis was utilized to establish the structural integrity of the dimensions and subscales, full item loading matrices and specific goodness-of-fit parameters (such as RMSEA, CFI, and TLI commonly reported in modern structural equation modeling) were not fully elaborated in the initial ERIC conference summary. Subsequent educational researchers have continued to validate the three-factor behavioral model as the most robust framework for interpreting respondent profiles.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Supervising Teacher Behavior Description Questionnaire – Form 2 is structured as a standardized, paper-and-pencil or digital self-report inventory. Its design features include:

• Test Type: Multi-dimensional behavioral description and supervisory preference questionnaire.
• Target Population: Cooperating teachers (supervising teachers), university clinical supervisors, and preservice student teachers participating in clinical school placements.
• Item Inventory: 54 individual behavioral statements arranged into 18 thematic triads. Each triad assesses a single instructional task across three supervisory orientations: Directive, Collaborative, and Nondirective.
• Item Syntax and Triadic Organization:
  • Directive Items: Feature verbs expressing supervisor initiation, unilateral prescription, or requirement (e.g., “The supervising teacher should write…”, “should determine…”, “should require…”).
  • Collaborative Items: Feature reciprocal verbs denoting shared responsibility (e.g., “The supervising teacher should collaborate with…”, “and the student teacher should collaborate in…”).
  • Nondirective Items: Feature permissive, facilitative verbs granting autonomy to the student teacher (e.g., “The supervising teacher should permit the student teacher to…”).
• Response Scale and Scoring Options: The STBDQ-2 employs a semantic differential rating format. Depending on the specific research question or clinical diagnostic objective, respondents rate each item on a bipolar continuum ranging across:
  • Satisfying (1) to Dissatisfying (7 or 5, typically scored as a multi-point continuum), assessing affective comfort and interpersonal contentment; and/or
  • Motivating (1) to Nonmotivating (7 or 5), assessing perceived pedagogical empowerment and drive.

  (Note: Scoring can be reversed depending on whether high numerical values denote positive or negative evaluation; researchers must establish consistent directional coding prior to analysis).

• Scale Scoring Protocols:
  • Directive Dimension Score: Sum or mean of the 18 directive items (Items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, 52).
  • Collaborative Dimension Score: Sum or mean of the 18 collaborative items (Items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50, 53).
  • Nondirective Dimension Score: Sum or mean of the 18 nondirective items (Items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54).
  • Subscale Scores: Items are cross-categorized across Planning and Organizing, Instructional Management, and Instructional Evaluation, allowing practitioners to calculate separate domain-specific behavioral scores.
  • Total Score: A composite metric reflecting the participant’s overall orientation toward structured vs. autonomous supervisory engagement.
• Administration Time: Approximately 15 to 25 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Supervising Teacher Behavior Description Questionnaire – Form 2 was published in 1983 following the development of its predecessor instrument in 1982. The scale was made accessible to the scholarly and educational community via the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC document ED 238 203). As an academic instrument disseminated through the ERIC public research repository, the STBDQ-2 is generally available for non-commercial research, institutional evaluation, and scholarly inquiry without mandatory licensing fees, provided proper academic attribution is maintained. Researchers and teacher educators wishing to implement the scale within formal certification programs or commercial assessment platforms are advised to cite the primary source literature and contact the originating institution (Mississippi State University) or authors regarding institutional reproduction permissions.

References

• Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. D. (1980). Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers: Preservice and inservice applications. Longman.
• Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Houghton Mifflin.
• Glickman, C. D. (1981). Developmental supervision: Alternative approaches for helping teachers improve instruction. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development Journal, 23(5), 26–34.
• Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
• Sistrunk, W. E. (1982). The Supervisory Behavior Description Questionnaire (SBDQ) Forms 1 and 2 as research instruments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
• Sistrunk, W. E., et al. (1983). Investigations of supervisory behavior: A symposium. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Nashville, TN. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 238 203.

Items of the Scale