Teacher Irrational Belief Scale (TIBS)

Abstract

The Teacher Irrational Belief Scale (TIBS) is a specialized psychometric self-report assessment developed to measure irrational cognitive schemas held by educators within primary, secondary, and post-secondary educational contexts. Rooted in the theoretical framework of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) formulated by Albert Ellis, the scale operationalizes dysfunctional cognitions that mediate the relationship between ambient occupational stressors and adverse psychological outcomes, including emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, reduced personal accomplishment, instructional anxiety, and teacher attrition. The instrument consists of 22 items evaluated on a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Psychometric investigations establish a robust four-factor multidimensional construct: (a) Self-Downing Attitudes (8 items), reflecting core self-devaluation, global negative self-rating, and perfectionistic standards following perceived pedagogical shortcomings; (b) Low Frustration Tolerance Attitudes (4 items), tapping into perceived intolerability regarding work demands and work-life balance; (c) Attitudes to School Organization (5 items), capturing rigid demands, awfulness evaluations, and demandingness directed at school leadership, administrative hierarchies, and participatory decision-making deficits; and (d) Authoritarian Attitudes toward Students (5 items), representing absolute imperatives, other-downing, and punitive demands regarding pupil classroom conduct and compliance. Across international validation studies, the TIBS has demonstrated commendable internal consistency, with total scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically exceeding .85 and subscale indices ranging between .70 and .88. The scale demonstrates robust convergent validity with validated indices of occupational burnout (e.g., the Maslach Burnout Inventory) and psychological distress, concurrent validity with general irrationality scales, and discriminant validity against non-evaluative pedagogical commitment. As an essential diagnostic and evaluative tool, the TIBS informs rational-emotive occupational interventions, teacher wellness frameworks, and institutional mental health initiatives worldwide.

Keywords

Teacher Irrational Belief Scale, TIBS, Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, cognitive appraisal, occupational stress, teacher burnout, self-downing, low frustration tolerance, demandingness, educational psychometrics.

Authors

The foundational conceptualization and developmental architecture of the Teacher Irrational Belief Scale were established by Michael E. Bernard, Ph.D., an internationally recognized educational psychologist and Emeritus Professor at the University of Melbourne (Melbourne Graduate School of Education), Australia, alongside contributions to rational-emotive cognitive therapy in educational settings with Marie R. Joyce (1984). Professor Bernard pioneered the systematic operationalization of Albert Ellis’s rational-emotive clinical formulations to educator-specific populations, delivering seminal psychometric communications regarding teacher stress and cognitive irrationality at the 24th International Congress of Psychology in Sydney (Bernard, 1988) and articulating comprehensive pedagogical stress interventions (Bernard, 1990).

Subsequent psychometric refinement, cross-cultural normative standardizations, and structural equation evaluations have been advanced by researchers including Carmen Bora, Simona Trip, Alina Decsei-Radu, and Simona Chereji from the Department of Psychology at the University of Oradea, Romania, in academic collaboration with Michael E. Bernard (Bora et al., 2009). Inquiries regarding the developmental trajectory, normative psychometrics, and programmatic adaptations of the TIBS may be directed to institutional academic repositories and peer-reviewed educational psychology channels associated with the University of Melbourne and the University of Oradea Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy research centers.

Purpose

Teaching is widely documented as one of the most psychologically taxing human service professions, characterized by structural overwork, relational friction, pupil behavioral challenges, administrative scrutiny, and systemic resource limitations. However, empirical investigations in occupational health psychology consistently reveal substantial individual variance in how educators adapt to analogous organizational environments. The overarching purpose of the Teacher Irrational Belief Scale is to identify, quantify, and delineate the core irrational cognitive mechanisms that transform everyday educational stressors into clinically significant psychological strain, somatic distress, and chronic professional burnout.

Theoretical Rationale

Rooted in cognitive-mediational models of stress, the theoretical rationale of the TIBS posits that external workplace events—such as disruptive pupil behavior, heavy grading loads, or top-down administrative mandates—do not act as direct, unmediated causes of affective disturbance. Rather, emotional distress (e.g., anxiety, depression, anger, guilt) and behavioral dysfunctions (e.g., hostile disciplinary tactics, procrastination, absenteeism, early career resignation) are mediated by the educator’s underlying cognitive appraisal systems. When teachers adhere to rigid, dogmatic, unconditional beliefs (e.g., “I must be thoroughly competent at all times,” “Students must never misbehave,” “The administration should always support me perfectly”), they experience heightened vulnerability to emotional distress upon encountering inevitable professional challenges. The TIBS operationalizes these contextualized cognitive structures to capture domain-specific irrationality within school ecosystems.

Research Applications

Within empirical educational and psychological research, the TIBS serves as an indispensable measurement instrument across several major areas:

• Predictive Modeling of Teacher Attrition and Burnout: Investigating the structural pathways between irrational belief dimensions and the three classical burnout axes: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment.
• Cross-Cultural Comparative Psychometrics: Comparing the prevalence and structural invariance of instructional irrationality across differing cultural, economic, and institutional educational environments.
• Evaluation of Interventions: Serving as a primary outcome measure for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental investigations examining the efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), REBT-based stress inoculations, and rational mindfulness programs tailored for teachers.
• Classroom Management Correlates: Analyzing how authoritarian or demanding cognitive schemas influence instructional style, disciplinary consistency, punitive classroom practices, and student-teacher relational quality.

Clinical and Professional Development Applications

In applied psychological practice, school psychology consultations, and institutional wellness programs, the TIBS provides rich diagnostic data for individual and group interventions. School psychologists and licensed counselors utilize profile scores to identify targeted irrational schema configurations in struggling educators. By pinpointing whether a teacher’s distress stems predominantly from self-deprecating perfectionism (Self-Downing), intolerance of occupational friction (Low Frustration Tolerance), rigid administrative expectations (Attitudes to School Organization), or dogmatic behavioral demands toward pupils (Authoritarian Attitudes), clinicians can implement tailored cognitive restructuring, experiential acceptance interventions, and flexible problem-solving techniques.

Psychological Construct

The Teacher Irrational Belief Scale operationalizes irrationality as defined by Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy: cognitive evaluations characterized by absolutistic demands, dogmatic requirements, unconditional imperatives (expressed via words like “must,” “should,” “ought”), and derived cognitive distortions including catastrophizing (“awfulizing”), low frustration tolerance (“I-can’t-stand-it-itis”), and global negative evaluation or “downing” of self and others. Rather than assessing irrationality as a vague, generalized personality trait, the TIBS captures how these cognitive styles manifest specifically in educational environments. The scale is organized around four validated subscale dimensions:

1. Self-Downing Attitudes (Items 1–8)

The Self-Downing Attitudes subscale measures an educator’s tendency to fuse their core global self-worth with professional performance, pedagogical efficacy, and social approval from peers, administrators, or pupils. When professional setbacks occur—such as failing to reach an unmotivated student, receiving negative performance feedback, or struggling with classroom control—teachers with elevated self-downing schemas make overgeneralized, catastrophic leaps from behavioral failure to personal inadequacy. Core indicators include:

• Global Negative Self-Rating: Concluding that one is fundamentally a “failure” or entirely “inadequate” due to incomplete tasks or challenging classroom dynamics (e.g., Item 1: “I think I’m really inadequate when I don’t get the approval or respect for what I do”; Item 3: “I think I’m a failure when I haven’t ‘got through’ to a student or class”).
• Pedagogical Perfectionism: Harboring unyielding, absolutistic standards regarding flawless instructional execution and personal responsibility for all student outcomes (e.g., Item 4: “I really should be able to solve all my students’ problems perfectly”; Item 5: “I should be able to succeed at all the important things I do at school”).
• Catastrophizing Errors and Criticism Intolerance: Viewing instructional mistakes as unmitigated catastrophes and exhibiting intense vulnerability to external evaluation (e.g., Item 6: “To make mistakes or perform poorly as a teacher is for me one of the worst things in the world”; Item 8: “I can’t stand being criticized or thought badly of…”).

2. Low Frustration Tolerance Attitudes (Items 9–12)

The Low Frustration Tolerance (LFT) Attitudes subscale assesses cognitive patterns that exaggerate the discomfort associated with educational labor, professional workload, temporal constraints, and the intersection of domestic and professional obligations. LFT stems from the core premise that occupational conditions must not be strenuous, demanding, or uncomfortable. Key facets include:

• Intolerance of Work-Life Imbalance: Believing that managing home and professional responsibilities is intolerable rather than merely demanding (e.g., Item 9: “I find it too hard to balance my home and work demands”).
• Demandingness Against Rigorous Effort: Exhibiting the core belief that one should be exempt from intense occupational labor (e.g., Item 10: “I shouldn’t have to work so hard”).
• Awfulizing Workload Conditions: Categorizing schools as fundamentally defective or “lousy” because professional expectations necessitate extensive temporal commitment beyond standard classroom hours (e.g., Item 11: “Schools are really lousy places because they give teachers too much work and not enough time to do it”; Item 12: “It’s really bad to have to put in so many hours both inside and outside the classroom”).

3. Attitudes to School Organization (Items 13–17)

The Attitudes to School Organization subscale captures rigid, dogmatic beliefs directed at educational administration, school leadership, and governance structures. While healthy desires for professional collaboration, shared governance, and administrative support are rational, irrational attitudes convert these preferences into absolute demands, interpreting organizational flaws as unlivable and intolerable. Key dimensions include:

• Absolutistic Demands for Administrative Consultation: Demanding that school leaders consult teachers on all operational decisions, accompanied by low frustration tolerance when excluded (e.g., Item 14: “Teachers should be consulted about decisions”; Item 17: “I can’t stand it when I am not consulted about a decision that affects my teaching”).
• Awfulizing Organizational Friction: Labeling institutions as the absolute worst work environments when communication or administrative support breaks down (e.g., Item 13: “One thing I find totally bad is the lack of communication between teachers and central administration”; Item 16: “Without good teacher-administrator communication and support, schools are the very worst places to work”).
• Rigid Demands for Institutional Justice: Absolute expectations regarding systemic fairness and institutional responsiveness to teacher grievances (e.g., Item 15: “Schools really should attend more to teachers’ problems and it is totally unfair when they don’t”).

4. Authoritarian Attitudes toward Students (Items 18–22)

The Authoritarian Attitudes toward Students subscale assesses dogmatic demands regarding student conduct, emotional reactions to non-compliance, and punitive tendencies toward disruptive pupils. Rather than understanding student misbehavior through developmental, systemic, or instructional lenses, educators scoring high on this dimension view misbehavior through a lens of personal affront, other-condemnation, and authoritarian entitlement. Manifestations include:

• Demands for Total Behavioral Control: Believing that teacher authority implies the unconditional power to enforce immediate compliance (e.g., Item 18: “As a teacher, I should have the power to be able to make my students do what I want”).
• Unconditional Behavioral Expectations: Rigidly insisting that students must always act respectfully, maturely, and considerately (e.g., Item 19: “Students should always be respectful, considerate and behave well”).
• Other-Downing and Punitive Condemnation: Demonizing disruptive learners as inherently bad, intolerable, or worthy of severe retribution (e.g., Item 20: “Students who constantly misbehave are horrible and should be severely punished”; Item 21: “I can’t stand it when students misbehave”; Item 22: “It’s really awful to have to teach in a class where there are so many problems”).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework undergirding the Teacher Irrational Belief Scale is rooted in Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), originally conceptualized by the clinical psychologist Albert Ellis in the mid-1950s, combined with cognitive-mediational theories of occupational stress developed by Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman.

The ABC(DE) Model of Emotional Disturbance

At the center of REBT theory is the classic ABC Model of psychological functioning:

• A (Activating Event): The objective environmental context, adversity, or workplace stressor (e.g., an uncooperative student, heavy grading assignments, a critical performance review by a school principal).
• B (Belief System): The cognitive schemas and evaluations through which the teacher interprets the Activating Event. These beliefs fall into two distinct qualitative categories:
  • Rational Beliefs (RBs): Flexible, preferential, non-dogmatic cognitions that acknowledge frustration while maintaining balanced perspectives (e.g., “I strongly desire a quiet, attentive classroom, but students are young and fallible; their misbehavior is frustrating, but not unbearable or a reflection of my personal worth”).
  • Irrational Beliefs (IBs): Absolute, rigid, dogmatic imperatives characterized by demands, awfulizing, low frustration tolerance, and global evaluation (e.g., “Students must behave at all times, and it is awful when they do not; if they misbehave, they are awful and I am a failure”).
• C (Consequences): The emotional, physiological, and behavioral sequelae of the belief system. Rational beliefs generate healthy negative emotions (e.g., concern, healthy sorrow, annoyance) that foster adaptive problem-solving and flexible pedagogy. In contrast, irrational beliefs produce unhealthy negative emotions (e.g., clinical anxiety, debilitating depression, chronic rage, guilt) and dysfunctional behaviors (e.g., explosive outbursts, burnout, avoidance, withdrawal).
• D (Disputation) & E (Effective New Philosophy): The therapeutic and psychoeducational components of REBT, wherein educators systematically identify, challenge, and reconstruct irrational demands into flexible, self-affirming preferences.

Primary vs. Secondary Cognitive Appraisals in the Classroom

Ellis identified Demandingness (“musts,” “shoulds,” “oughts”) as the primary engine of irrationality, from which three secondary cognitive distortions derive:

1. Awfulizing / Catastrophizing: Evaluating a situation as greater than 100% bad, terrible, or disastrous (e.g., Items 6, 11, 16, 22).
2. Low Frustration Tolerance (Frustration Intolerance): Believing that one cannot endure discomfort, professional strain, or unfulfilled desires (e.g., Items 2, 8, 9, 17, 21).
3. Global Negative Evaluation / Rating (Self-Downing & Other-Downing): Rating an entire human being’s total worth based on a transient performance failure or misconduct (e.g., Items 1, 3, 20).

The TIBS structurally operationalizes this fourfold architecture within educational institutions. When teachers apply these cognitive schemas to their daily work, they establish an internal climate where failure to achieve perfection represents an existential threat to personal self-worth. By measuring these specific cognitive vulnerabilities, the TIBS captures the exact mechanisms that mediate the development of occupational burnout.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Teacher Irrational Belief Scale has been established through numerous empirical investigations involving primary, secondary, and tertiary educators across multiple international settings.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity for the TIBS was initially established via exploratory factor analyses conducted by Michael E. Bernard (1988, 1990) and subsequent structural equation modeling evaluations. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) conducted across representative educator samples confirms that the four-factor correlated model provides a superior fit to the data compared to alternative unifactorial or orthogonal models. In a foundational normative study of 384 Romanian educators, Bora, Bernard, Trip, Decsei-Radu, and Chereji (2009) demonstrated that the four-dimensional architecture exhibited sound fit indices: Comparative Fit Index ($ ext{CFI} > .90$), Goodness-of-Fit Index ($ ext{GFI} > .91$), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($ ext{RMSEA} = .058, 90% text{ CI } [.049, .067]$), confirming strong construct validity.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly substantiated through statistically significant positive correlations between TIBS dimensions and standardized measures of occupational strain, anxiety, and burnout:

• Occupational Burnout: TIBS total scores and subscales display significant positive associations with the Emotional Exhaustion ($r = .42 \text{ to } .56, p < .001$) and Depersonalization ($r = .35 \text{ to } .48, p < .001$) subscales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), along with a significant inverse correlation with Personal Accomplishment ($r = -.31 \text{ to } -.44, p < .001$).
• General Irrationality: Moderate to high positive correlations have been confirmed between TIBS subscales and general psychometric measures of irrational cognitive schemas, such as the General Attitude and Belief Scale (GABS) and the Irrational Belief Scale (Ellis), with correlation coefficients ranging from $r = .48$ to $.68$ ($p < .001$).
• Pedagogical Anxiety and Depression: The Self-Downing Attitudes subscale displays strong convergent associations with standardized clinical measures including the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; $r = .44, p < .001$) and the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; $r = .49, p < .001$).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by weak, non-significant correlations with demographic variables such as chronological age, gender, and biological traits, as well as distinct separation from generalized measures of cognitive ability and pedagogical content knowledge ($r < .15$, $p > .05$). Furthermore, the TIBS successfully differentiates between rational vocational commitment and dysfunctional over-commitment, demonstrating that high dedication to instructional excellence can occur independently of irrational self-downing or authoritarian demandingness.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

In multiple regression and structural equation analyses, TIBS scores account for unique variance in objective workplace indicators, including the frequency of teacher sick-leave days taken, self-reported intentions to leave the profession within five years, and the frequency of student office disciplinary referrals. Longitudinal evaluations further demonstrate that baseline TIBS scores reliably predict post-test emotional exhaustion across academic terms, even after controlling for baseline workplace stressors and class size.

Reliability

The Teacher Irrational Belief Scale demonstrates robust reliability across diverse educational environments and linguistic adaptations. Both internal consistency and temporal stability metrics satisfy psychometric requirements for psychological measurement tools.

Internal Consistency

Extensive psychometric investigations consistently demonstrate strong internal consistency coefficients:

• Total Scale: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) for the complete 22-item composite scale consistently ranges between .84 and .91 across diverse teacher cohorts, indicating high overall homogeneity.
• Self-Downing Attitudes (Items 1–8): Typically yields alpha coefficients ranging from .82 to .88, reflecting strong covariance among the perfectionism, guilt, and inadequacy items.
• Low Frustration Tolerance Attitudes (Items 9–12): Demonstrates internal consistency values between .74 and .81, a solid outcome given its brief 4-item length.
• Attitudes to School Organization (Items 13–17): Yields Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from .71 to .79 across validation studies.
• Authoritarian Attitudes toward Students (Items 18–22): Consistently demonstrates alpha coefficients between .73 and .82.

In the normative standardization study conducted by Bora et al. (2009), the four subscales demonstrated comparable internal consistency metrics: Self-Downing ($lpha = .84$), Low Frustration Tolerance ($lpha = .76$), Attitudes to School Organization ($lpha = .73$), and Authoritarian Attitudes toward Students ($lpha = .75$). Item-total correlations across the 22 items range between .38 and .69, with no individual item deletion yielding a substantial elevation in subscale reliability.

Test-Retest Reliability

The temporal stability of the TIBS has been confirmed through repeated test-retest administrations over periods ranging from four to eight weeks in non-intervention control groups:

• Four-week test-retest coefficients ($r_{tt}$) range from .79 to .87 for the subscales, and .86 for the total score, indicating that instructional irrational beliefs represent relatively stable cognitive dispositions over time.
• Eight-week stability evaluations during regular instructional semesters yielded test-retest coefficients exceeding .74 across all subscales.
• In contrast, intervention cohorts receiving focused Rational Emotive Cognitive-Behavioral interventions exhibit statistically significant, substantial reductions in TIBS scores at post-test ($p < .001$), confirming the scale’s sensitivity to therapeutic change while maintaining high baseline temporal stability.

Factor Analysis

The latent structural foundation of the Teacher Irrational Belief Scale has been established through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), confirming a 4-factor latent structure corresponding to Bernard’s original theoretical model.

Exploratory Factor Structure

Initial exploratory factor analytic procedures utilized Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) paired with oblique rotations (Promax and Oblimin), reflecting the theoretical assumption that irrational cognitive schemas correlate with one another. Eigenvalue analysis and scree plot inspections consistently support a four-factor solution accounting for approximately 51% to 58% of the total variance across items:

• Factor 1: Self-Downing Attitudes (Items 1–8) accounts for the largest proportion of common variance (~26–30%), with primary factor loadings ranging from .52 to .79. Items loading onto this factor explicitly capture personal inadequacy, catastrophic interpretations of mistakes, and intolerance of criticism.
• Factor 2: Authoritarian Attitudes toward Students (Items 18–22) accounts for approximately 9–12% of the variance, with factor loadings between .49 and .74, tapping into punitive intolerance and absolute demands for student compliance.
• Factor 3: Attitudes to School Organization (Items 13–17) accounts for approximately 8–10% of the variance, with primary loadings between .48 and .76, centering on demands for participatory decision-making and administrative communication.
• Factor 4: Low Frustration Tolerance Attitudes (Items 9–12) accounts for roughly 6–8% of the variance, with factor loadings between .54 and .78, addressing the intolerance of long working hours and work-life balance challenges.

Cross-loadings across alternative factors are generally low (typically $< .28$), confirming distinct structural demarcation among the underlying dimensions.

Confirmatory Factor Analytic Metrics

Subsequent structural modeling has supported the fit of the four-factor oblique model over competing one-factor general models. Representative fit indices from contemporary structural equation studies are detailed below:

These structural findings confirm that while teacher irrationality shares a core cognitive substrate (demandingness and rigid evaluations), it operates through four distinct psychological domains that should be scored and interpreted individually alongside the total scale composite.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Context-specific psychometric self-report rating scale / cognitive schema inventory.
• Target Population: Certified primary, secondary, and post-secondary educational personnel, pre-service teachers, school counselors, and pedagogical staff.
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration via paper-and-pencil or secure digital survey platforms.
• Administration Duration: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes to complete all 22 items.
• Item Count: 22 items organized across four subscales:
  • Self-Downing Attitudes: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (8 items; score range: 8 to 40).
  • Low Frustration Tolerance Attitudes: Items 9, 10, 11, 12 (4 items; score range: 4 to 20).
  • Attitudes to School Organization: Items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 (5 items; score range: 5 to 25).
  • Authoritarian Attitudes toward Students: Items 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 (5 items; score range: 5 to 25).
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type scale scored as:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • All 22 items are framed in the direction of irrationality; there are no reverse-coded items.
  • Subscale Scores: Computed by summing the raw item ratings within each designated subscale domain.
  • Total Scale Score: Computed by summing all 22 items (total score range: 22 to 110).
  • Higher scores uniformly indicate greater levels of instructional irrational beliefs, heightened cognitive rigidity, and an elevated vulnerability to occupational distress and professional burnout.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original conceptualization of the Teacher Irrational Belief Scale was introduced by Professor Michael E. Bernard in 1988 at the 24th International Congress of Psychology in Sydney, Australia, with foundational clinical principles detailed in Bernard and Joyce (1984) and applied interventions published in Bernard (1990). Subsequent psychometric norming, scale validation, and comparative psychometric revisions were published by Carmen Bora et al. in 2009.

The TIBS is considered an academic research instrument available for non-commercial educational, scientific, and dissertation research without royalty fees, provided appropriate scholarly attribution and standard citation protocols are maintained in all publications and presentations. The instrument, its normative distributions, and empirical validation profiles are documented in peer-reviewed scientific journals (e.g., the Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies) and institutional university repositories, including the North Carolina State University Repository and Romanian central academic indexes. Practitioners seeking to incorporate the TIBS into commercial organizational consultation packages, proprietary software applications, or for-profit professional assessments should seek formal authorization from the primary authors and copyright holders.

References

• Bernard, M. E., & Joyce, M. R. (1984). Rational-emotive therapy with children and adolescents: Theory, treatment strategies, preventive methods. John Wiley & Sons.
• Bernard, M. E. (1988). Teacher stress and irrationality [Paper presentation]. The 24th International Congress of Psychology, Sydney, Australia.
• Bernard, M. E. (1990). Taking the stress out of teaching. Collins-Dove.
• Bora, C., Bernard, M. E., Trip, S., Decsei-Radu, A., & Chereji, S. (2009). Teacher Irrational Belief Scale – Preliminary norms for Romanian population. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 9(2), 211–220. http://www.scipio.ro/documents/13115/03a86701-a9c8-4734-ae58-e61a29904059
• Ellis, A. (1994). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy (Revised and updated ed.). Birch Lane Press.
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (3rd ed.). Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Trip, S., Bora, C., & Roseanu, G. (2012). The role of irrational beliefs and emotion regulation strategies in teacher burnout. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33, 1077–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.288

Items of the Scale