Educational LeadershipOrganizational PsychologyPsychometrics

Zones of Indifference Instrument

The Zones of Indifference Instrument (ZII), developed by Wilkes and Blackbourn in 1981, is an academic psychometric assessment designed to evaluate teacher compliance and resistance toward administrative directives based on Chester Barnard’s organizational theory.

memjavad
PUBLISHED
Scientifically Reviewed · Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim · September 28, 2026
Medically & Scientifically Reviewed Verified: September 28, 2026
Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology • University of Kerbala
Review Criteria & Clinical Standards

This content undergoes rigorous scientific peer-review and medical editorial standards at Arab Psychology Network to ensure clinical accuracy, validity, and compliance with evidence-based guidelines from leading psychological and healthcare authorities (APA / WHO).

1. Abstract

The Zones of Indifference Instrument (ZII) is an extensive psychometric measurement tool developed by Sam T. Wilkes and Joe M. Blackbourn in 1981 at Mississippi State University. Designed to measure organizational authority and compliance within educational institutions, the instrument assesses the empirical boundaries of teachers’ “zones of indifference”—a fundamental concept derived from Chester I. Barnard’s classical theory of cooperative systems and executive function. The instrument quantifies the degree to which classroom teachers accept, question, alter, or openly resist administrative directives across various operational, pedagogical, and policy domains. Initially generated from a 134-item candidate pool formulated through qualitative input from 125 practicing educators, the scale was systematically field-tested on 104 teachers across four American states. Through rigorous principal component analysis, image analysis, and orthogonal rotation, the instrument established an 80-item, three-factor preliminary structure before refining into a standardized 78-item, two-factor operational model capturing Teacher-Determined Practices and Administrator-Determined Policy. The complete 134-item inventory provides researchers and administrative diagnosticians with a detailed behavioral audit of compliance. The ZII utilizes a 4-point polytomous behavioral compliance scale ranging from unreserved compliance (1) to active resistance requiring coercion (4). The psychometric integrity of the instrument is evidenced by high internal consistency, demonstrating a total scale Cronbach’s alpha of .95 and subscale coefficients of .92 for both functional dimensions. By capturing the exact operational thresholds where professional autonomy clashes with managerial fiat, the ZII serves as a foundational assessment mechanism for educational leadership, organizational climate diagnosis, and administrative decision-making research.

2. Keywords

Zones of Indifference Instrument, Chester Barnard, zone of acceptance, educational administration, organizational compliance, teacher autonomy, administrative directives, leadership behavior, educational bureaucracy, psychometrics, scale validation, professional discretion.

3. Authors

The Zones of Indifference Instrument was developed and standardized by Sam T. Wilkes and Joe M. Blackbourn in 1981 during their academic tenure at Mississippi State University (Department of Educational Leadership and Bureau of Educational Research and Evaluation). The research project was formalized under the institutional sponsorship of the College of Education at Mississippi State University and subsequently indexed and preserved in the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC ED 212 063).

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Zones of Indifference Instrument (ZII) is to provide an objective, empirically validated psychometric methodology for determining the breadth and depth of administrative authority within educational organizations. In public and private school environments, the administrative exercise of authority is not an absolute prerogative guaranteed by formal organizational charts; rather, it is continually mediated by the subjective willingness of professional subordinates to execute managerial mandates. The ZII operationalizes the theoretical premise that directives issued by school principals and district supervisors fall along an evaluation continuum ranging from immediate, unquestioned execution to overt insubordination.

From an applied organizational perspective, school administrators frequently fail to discern the subtle yet critical boundary between administrative operational jurisdiction and professional instructional autonomy. When school leaders issue mandates that encroach upon territories perceived by teachers as personal or professional prerogatives, the psychological contract is disrupted. Subordinates may respond through malicious compliance, covert alteration of directives, passive-aggressive noncompliance, or formal labor grievances. The ZII serves as an evaluative diagnostic tool capable of mapping which administrative behaviors are perceived as legitimate authority and which are viewed as illegitimate intrusions. This diagnostic utility allows administrators to prevent costly organizational conflict, optimize participatory management practices, and safeguard pedagogical morale.

In academic research, the instrument addresses systemic gaps in educational leadership literature regarding leadership style, subordinate satisfaction, school organizational climate, and teacher attrition. Organizational theorists utilize the instrument to determine how institutional variables—such as unionization, school socioeconomic status, faculty demographic composition, and bureaucratic centralization—expand or constrict the zone of indifference. Furthermore, the ZII functions as an invaluable instrument in organizational change research, enabling investigators to measure faculty openness to top-down curriculum reforms, accountability measures, and accountability auditing.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the Zones of Indifference Instrument is rooted in the psychological and sociometric dynamics of organizational authority, compliance behavior, and professional autonomy. In classical organizational theory, the “zone of indifference” does not denote emotional apathy; rather, it describes an individual’s psychological domain within which an order is accepted without conscious questioning of the issuer’s legitimate authority. When a directive falls comfortably within this zone, compliance occurs automatically as an implicit condition of organizational membership. When a directive falls outside this zone, cognitive dissonance ensues, activating psychological defense mechanisms, professional resistance, and active dispute over jurisdictional legitimacy.

The Dual-Factor Behavioral Framework

Through psychometric distillation, Wilkes and Blackbourn demonstrated that teacher compliance behavior is governed by two distinct latent structural dimensions:

  • Dimension 1: Teacher-Determined Practices
    This dimension reflects the psychological sphere of professional autonomy, pedagogical discretion, and instructional methodology. It encompasses directives where the administrator attempts to prescribe how instruction is delivered, how classroom discipline is handled, the arrangement of classroom physical space, the grading criteria applied to individual students, and the internal regulation of teacher-student interactions. Representative items loading heavily on this factor include item 45 (Select teaching procedures to be utilized in the classroom), item 46 (Structure the standardization of classroom furniture arrangement), item 57 (Require teachers to perform tasks that maintenance or custodial personnel are hired to do), item 126 (Establish the practice for teachers to collect student activity fees), and item 128 (Schedule classroom activities by the principal). Mandates within this domain target the technical core of the teacher’s professional identity. When administrative directives penetrate this boundary, teachers perceive them as an infringement upon their specialized expertise, triggering high rates of questioning and tactical adaptation.
  • Dimension 2: Administrator-Determined Policy
    This dimension encompasses the overarching organizational, institutional, and bureaucratic operational framework of the school enterprise. Directives in this category pertain to regulatory compliance, contractually mandated work hours, external community relations, institutional reporting schedules, legal mandates, and schoolwide resource allocation. Prominent items loading on this factor include item 97 (Require a standing position while teaching class), item 102 (Make assignments of teachers as sponsors to student club activities), item 114 (Prohibit teachers from leaving the school during school hours), item 121 (Direct teachers to refrain from expressing opinions about community problems), and item 123 (Prohibit the use of corporal punishment as a method of punishment). These items capture organizational regulations that maintain systemic equilibrium and external accountability.

The Inducement-Consequence Differential

The psychological construct also incorporates Barnard’s equilibrium between inducements and contributions. An individual’s zone of indifference is elastic: its operational diameter expands when organizational inducements (such as compensation, professional respect, supportive supervisory climate, and professional growth opportunities) substantially exceed the perceived consequences and demands of compliance. Conversely, when administrators exert coercive pressure or when organizational inducements decline, the zone constricts dramatically. As the zone narrows, directives that were previously complied with without friction migrate into categories of cognitive questioning and outright refusal.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Zones of Indifference Instrument is grounded in classical organizational sociology and the seminal executive theory articulated by Chester I. Barnard in his masterwork The Functions of the Executive (1938/1948). Barnard challenged the classical, top-down Taylorist paradigms of authority, which posited that authority flowed downward purely from formal hierarchy and ownership of capital. Instead, Barnard formulated the Acceptance Theory of Authority, asserting that the locus of authority resides not in the person issuing the command, but in the person to whom it is addressed.

According to Barnard, an individual will accept an order as authoritative only when four psychological and contextual conditions are simultaneously satisfied:

  1. The subordinate can and does comprehend the communication.
  2. At the moment of decision, the subordinate believes that the directive is not inconsistent with the overall purpose of the organization.
  3. At the moment of decision, the subordinate believes the directive is compatible with their own personal interest as a whole.
  4. The subordinate is mentally and physically able to comply with it.

Barnard posited that actions fall into one of three psychological categories: (a) orders that are clearly unacceptable and will not be obeyed; (b) orders that are neutral and fall near the boundary of acceptability; and (c) orders that are unquestionably acceptable and lie comfortably within the “zone of indifference.” Within this third zone, the individual suspends critical judgment and complies with orders without debating their justification.

This formulation was later adapted to educational bureaucracies by Herbert A. Simon (who relabeled it the “zone of acceptance”) and subsequently extended by educational researchers such as Kunz (1973) in his doctoral investigation of principals’ leadership behaviors and teachers’ professional zones of acceptance. Kunz demonstrated that teachers possess two separate operational zones: a professional zone (relating to instructional techniques, textbook selection, and pupil evaluation) and an organizational zone (relating to administrative logistics, duty schedules, and physical plant operations). Wilkes and Blackbourn (1981) integrated these historical frameworks, identifying the precise psychometric thresholds where administrative actions transition from legitimate leadership into contested bureaucratic overreach.

7. Validity

The validation of the Zones of Indifference Instrument was conducted through rigorous construct and content validation procedures designed to ensure that the instrument fully represented the administrative and instructional reality of public school educators.

Content and Domain Validity

Content validity was established through inductive item generation. A total of 125 practicing classroom teachers across diverse grade levels and school districts submitted critical incidents and behavioral directives they had encountered in their professional experience. These qualitative responses were systematically audited and categorized by panels of educational administrators and psychometricians into two primary descriptive categories: variables describing teacher-determined practices and variables describing administrator-determined policy. This comprehensive domain-sampling strategy resulted in an initial instrument containing 134 highly specific, behaviorally anchored items with high ecological validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was evaluated through multivariate structural analyses administered to a field-test sample of 104 teachers distributed across four states. Multiple rounds of factor analysis demonstrated that the construct bifurcates into distinct instructional-professional versus administrative-policy domains. Items were screened against strict statistical thresholds: only items demonstrating factor loadings equal to or exceeding .40 on their respective dimensions were retained in the standardized factorial models.

The empirical extraction of factors confirmed theoretical predictions derived from Barnard (1948) and Kunz (1973), demonstrating that teachers cognitively differentiate between administrative authority exerted over operational procedures and administrative interference in instructional autonomy. Items capturing questionable ethical or legal directives (e.g., Item 31: Direct teachers to alter records to indicate accreditation compliance; Item 66: Involve altering a student’s grade; Item 111: Direct a teacher to alter attendance reports of students) consistently loaded at the extreme resistance pole of the construct, confirming that the scale differentiates normative compliance from defensive noncompliance.

8. Reliability

The Zones of Indifference Instrument demonstrates exemplary psychometric reliability across its composite scores and dimensional subscales. Internal consistency was evaluated utilizing Cronbach’s alpha coefficient calculated on the field-test standardization cohort (N = 104).

  • Total Scale Internal Consistency: The full instrument achieved a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .95, indicating an exceptionally high degree of measurement precision and minimal measurement error across the composite construct.
  • Factor 1 (Teacher-Determined Practices): The subscale measuring teacher-determined practices achieved an alpha coefficient of .92.
  • Factor 2 (Administrator-Determined Policy): The subscale measuring administrator-determined policy similarly yielded an identical alpha coefficient of .92.

These reliability parameters surpass the standard .70 to .80 benchmarks recommended for exploratory psychometric research and satisfy the stringent .90 threshold established by psychometric standards for individual diagnostic and organizational assessment tools. The near-identical internal consistency across the two subscales confirms structural equilibrium between the operational dimensions.

9. Factor Analysis

The statistical reduction of the Zones of Indifference Instrument proceeded through a multi-stage exploratory factor analytic sequence designed to establish the latent dimensionality of the 134 initial items.

Initial Extraction and Component Reduction

The 134-item response matrix from the 104 field-test participants was initially subjected to exploratory principal component analysis (PCA). Eigenvalue criteria (eigenvalues > 1.0) and examination of the scree plot initially condensed the 134-item battery down to an intermediate 80-item structure distributed across three exploratory factors. In this preliminary phase, items were eliminated if they failed to attain a primary factor loading of at least .40 or exhibited excessive cross-loadings across divergent dimensions.

Image Analysis and Orthogonal Rotation

To isolate stable common variance and eliminate unique and error variance, the authors conducted an image factor analysis followed by orthogonal (Varimax) rotation. This analytical refinement eliminated the third ephemeral factor, converging into a definitive 78-item, two-factor structural solution.

Factor Loadings and Dimensional Allocation

The resulting two-factor orthogonal model separated instructional autonomy from bureaucratic policy:

  • Factor 1: Teacher-Determined Practices
    This factor captured high-loading items related to instructional delivery, pedagogical pacing, and internal classroom management. Noteworthy exemplary items and their primary loadings include:

    • Item 45: Select teaching procedures to be utilized in the classroom
    • Item 126: Establish the practice for teachers to collect student activity fees
    • Item 128: Schedule classroom activities by the principal
    • Item 46: Structure the standardization of classroom furniture arrangement
    • Item 57: Require teachers to perform tasks that maintenance or custodial personnel are hired to do
  • Factor 2: Administrator-Determined Policy
    This factor captured items governing institutional governance, professional boundaries, and administrative scheduling. Prominent exemplary items include:

    • Item 121: Direct teachers to refrain from expressing opinions about community problems
    • Item 102: Make assignments of teachers as sponsors to student club activities
    • Item 97: Require a standing position while teaching class
    • Item 123: Prohibit the use of corporal punishment as a method of punishment
    • Item 114: Prohibit teachers from leaving the school during school hours

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

  • Instrument Name: Zones of Indifference Instrument (ZII)
  • Alternative Title: Instrument to Measure Zones of Indifference of Teachers to Directives Issued by Administrators
  • Original Authors: Sam T. Wilkes and Joe M. Blackbourn (1981)
  • Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computer-assisted survey questionnaire
  • Item Count: 134 total items in the complete inventory pool (retaining a 78-item two-factor standardized measurement model for subscale scoring)
  • Target Population: Certified elementary, middle, and secondary school educators; administrative staff; educational researchers
  • Estimated Completion Time: 25 to 40 minutes
  • Response Format: 4-point polytomous behavioral compliance scale:
    • 1 = A directive you would comply with without question
    • 2 = A directive you would comply with but mentally question the authority of the administrator to issue
    • 3 = A directive issued by the administrator that you mentally question the authority of, but alter the application more in keeping with what you think should be done
    • 4 = A directive issued by the administrator that you question mentally and refuse compliance with unless forced to do so
  • Scoring Rules:
    • Individual items are scored from 1 to 4.
    • Subscale and total scores can be calculated via item summation or mean score averaging.
    • Lower scores (approaching 1.0) indicate directives fully situated within the teacher’s zone of indifference (unquestioned acceptance and compliance).
    • Moderate scores (ranging from 1.5 to 2.5) denote boundary-condition directives where compliance occurs alongside psychological questioning.
    • Elevated scores (ranging from 2.6 to 4.0) reflect directives falling outside the zone of indifference, characterized by covert modification, active resistance, or compliance obtained strictly through coercive administrative pressure.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Zones of Indifference Instrument was developed and published in 1981 at Mississippi State University. The original technical report and instrument documentation were deposited into the public domain via the Educational Resources Information Center under document identifier ERIC ED 212 063. As an ERIC-deposited research instrument sponsored by an educational institution, the tool is generally accessible for non-commercial educational, scholarly, and clinical research purposes without licensing fees, provided formal academic attribution is preserved in all scholarly publications and diagnostic reports.

12. References

  • Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press.
  • Barnard, C. I. (1948). Organization and management: Selected papers. Harvard University Press.
  • Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2012). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  • Kunz, D. W. (1973). Leader behavior of principals and the professional zone of acceptance of teachers (Publication No. 73-27941) [Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
  • Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). The Free Press.
  • Wilkes, S. T., & Blackbourn, J. M. (1981). The design of an instrument to measure zones of indifference of teachers to directives issued by administrators. Bureau of Educational Research and Evaluation, Mississippi State University. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 212 063. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED212063

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)

Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability:
Response Scale: Scoring: 1 = A directive you would comply with without question; 2 = A directive you would comply with but mentally question the authority of the administrator to issue; 3 = A directive issued by the administrator that you mentally question the authority of, but alter the application more in keeping with what you think should be done; and 4 = A directive issued by the administrator that you question mentally and refuse compliance with unless forced to do so.
Scoring Formula: Scoring: 1 = A directive you would comply with without question; 2 = A directive you would comply with but mentally question the authority of the administrator to issue; 3 = A directive issued by the administrator that you mentally question the authority of, but alter the application more in keeping with what you think should be done; and 4 = A directive issued by the administrator that you question mentally and refuse compliance with unless forced to do so.
1

Indicate how you would respond to the following directives issued by an administrator that would:
2

Attempt to structure discussion of school policy, problems, or procedure by teachers with members of the community unless a positive approach is evident.
3

Establish heating and cooling regulations for the classroom.
4

Establish a procedure for teachers to “sign-in” and “sign-out” for the school day.
5

Give directions to advance a student to another level when the present progress of the student is not satisfactory.
6

Prescribe procedure for the conduct of club activities.
7

Require attendance at staff-development activities.
8

Instruct teachers to attend open house activities.
9

Establish grading procedures to be used by teachers.
10

Give directions for the changing of classroom bulletin boards at regular intervals.
11

Structure a daily morning devotional activity in the classroom.
12

Require supervision of students after school hours for those students who have to stay after school to make up assignments.
13

Require participation in the teacher evaluation program.
14

Designate specific topics to be taught at specific times.
15

Require teachers to have students recite “The Lord’s Prayer” in the homeroom or classroom.
16

Make assignment to study committees of the school.
17

Require attendance at PTA meetings.
18

Require participation in a curriculum study group.
19

Require a six-week grade report to the administration.
20

Question nonattendance of teachers at professional meetings.
21

Provide additional time for student classroom assignment conferences.
22

Structure seating arrangement of students in assemblies.
23

Insist upon personal comments on grade sheets in each instance of a decline in student achievement.
24

Require ability grouping of students.
25

Dictate the use of only adopted textbooks in the classroom.
26

Be related to membership in professional organizations.
27

Place ultimate concern on the student.
28

Determine method to be used in the handling of classroom discipline problems.
29

Prohibit students from using the library during class time without teacher supervision.
30

Require the grading of English usage in all subjects taught.
31

Direct teachers to alter records to indicate accreditation compliance.
32

Require a written proposal for all planned field trips.
33

Require written goals and objectives of teachers.
34

Prescribe testing schedules and procedures.
35

Specify methods to be used in teacher-parent relations.
36

Require maintenance of accurate school classroom records.
37

Suggest the use of a teacher’s name to order supplies for other teachers.
38

Schedule the use of planning time for supervising another teacher’s class who is out on some school activity.
39

Establish a policy of student grade reduction for unexcused absences and tardiness.
40

Forbid the use of tobacco by teachers at school.
41

Determine the time of the teachers’ workday.
42

Direct teachers to meet the parents for conference.
43

Require extra assignments that would reduce time for classroom instruction.
44

Require long-range lesson plans.
45

Select teaching procedures to be utilized in the classroom.
46

Structure the standardization of classroom furniture arrangement.
47

Provide for the monitoring of student behavior on the way to school and from school by teachers.
48

Prohibit the consumption of refreshment by teachers in the classroom.
49

Instruct teachers to teach content without regard to student acquisition level.
50

Require attendance at faculty meetings.
51

Prevent teachers from leaving school.
52

Require teacher participation in a census of school age children during or after school hours.
53

Question student religious beliefs and home life.
54

Establish directives requiring teachers to supervise school bus loading/unloading of students.
55

Establish a bimonthly teaching meeting practice.
56

Provide a list of discipline cases handled by the teacher in the classroom.
57

Require teachers to perform tasks that maintenance or custodial personnel are hired to do.
58

Schedule male/female teacher supervision of restrooms.
59

Require teachers to purchase season football tickets.
60

Establish conditions under which corporal punishment could be administered.
61

Determine the test exemption policy.
62

Excuse students from classes to attend other school sponsored activities.
63

Allow the expenditure of school funds for extracurricular activities.
64

Provide guidelines outlining student assignment requirements for classroom work.
65

Direct teachers to escort sick students home.
66

Involve altering a student’s grade.
67

Be related to teacher involvement in political activities.
68

Direct all teachers to be on duty in the halls during the changing of classes.
69

Determine the amount of planning time per week.
70

Notify teachers of grade/subject assignments.
71

Establish the practice of planning individual student lesson prescriptions.
72

Require a teacher to supervise two classes in the same period in separate rooms.
73

Constitute running errands for the administration which are unrelated to the school program.
74

Assign school related duties outside the classroom involving no students.
75

Attempt to restrict topics that could be discussed in the lounge area.
76

Outline the policy concerning attendance at work.
77

Require a very low noise level to be maintained in the classroom.
78

Instruct teachers to accept a student into class after the suspension of a student.
79

Prohibit the keeping of report cards in the classroom.
80

Establish the policy of paying substitute teachers for sponsoring club activities or other extracurricular activities.
81

Limit the number of graduate courses a teacher could be enrolled in after school hours.
82

Schedule duty assignments at times other than the required school day.
83

Allow the public to use classroom after hours.
84

Instruct each class to contribute a specified amount of money to the school activity fund.
85

Assign a student with the disciplinary record to your instructional group.
86

Prevent the early dismissal of classes by teachers.
87

Instruct teachers to monitor student classroom appearance in keeping with the school dress code.
88

Assign selected teachers to duties that are not assigned to the entire faculty.
89

Restrict students from restraining students from participation in the activity period.
90

Not allow athletes to participate in sports due to academic problems.
91

Require submission of lesson plans weekly by teachers.
92

Require strict adherence to the curriculum guide and/or daily lesson plan.
93

Structure teacher dress practices.
94

Direct all teachers to attend all school functions.
95

Structure student dress practices.
96

Require the issuance of student failure reports by teachers.
97

Require a standing position while teaching class.
98

Schedule teachers to supervise school-related meetings at school.
99

Provide the procedure for recording student absences.
100

Require attendance at an administrator/teacher conference.
101

Require the submission of absentee and tardy reports every period of the school day.
102

Make assignments of teachers as sponsors to student club activities.
103

Require teachers to use the school cafeteria for lunch.
104

Provide guidelines determining advancement and retention practices.
105

Require the use of a teaching syllabus.
106

Provide guidelines concerning the manner by which sick leave should be utilized by teachers.
107

Schedule teacher to supervise PE classes during an unassigned period.
108

Schedule the utilization of teacher aids in the classroom instead of substitute teachers when the regular teacher is not present.
109

Establish the format for written lesson plans.
110

Schedule teachers to move to different rooms for instructional purposes.
111

Direct a teacher to alter attendance reports of students.
112

Determine specific staff development activities.
113

Require teachers to perform information gathering that other professionals are employed to do.
114

Prohibit teachers from leaving the school during school hours.
115

Schedule workdays prior to the commencement of school without pay and not specified by contract.
116

Require the keeping of an extensive record of library books that are issued to students.
117

Result in the lowering of grades for poor conduct by students.
118

Establish written job descriptions for teachers.
119

Indicate that classroom materials had been selected by the administration.
120

Require teacher direction of a staff development activity.
121

Direct teachers to refrain from expressing opinions about community problems.
122

Require an instant gathering of data for office purposes.
123

Prohibit the use of corporal punishment as a method of punishment.
124

Determine the length of exams to be administered.
125

Require the maintenance of discipline of students at all times in the classroom.
126

Establish the practice for teachers to collect student activity fees.
127

Structure teacher arrival at school prior to the designated time for the beginning of the school day.
128

Schedule classroom activities by the principal.
129

Prohibit the wearing of jeans by teachers.
130

Involve a teacher administering corporal punishment to another teacher’s student.
131

Require the presence of teachers with students in the cafeteria.
132

Prohibit a teacher from being employed in another job.
133

Provide an individual teacher personnel file in the office.
134

Suggest an explanation by the teacher of personal life activities.
★

Rate This Scale

5.0 / 5 • 1 vote

Cite This Article

memjavad (2026, September 28). Zones of Indifference Instrument. PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/zones-of-indifference-instrument/
memjavad. “Zones of Indifference Instrument.” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE, 28 September 2026, https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/zones-of-indifference-instrument/.
memjavad. “Zones of Indifference Instrument.” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. September 28, 2026. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/zones-of-indifference-instrument/.