Examining the Effects of Compass on the Self-Efficacy of Teachers of Students with Autism

Background: Self-efficacy is described as confidence in one’s ability to complete task demands (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is associated with higher degree of effort, willingness to endure hardships, and ability to manage difficult situations. Self-efficacy is of particular interest to implementation science researchers because of the importance of understanding why evidence-based practices fail to be implemented in community settings. For this study, the self-efficacy of classroom teachers of students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) was investigated. The Autism Self-Efficacy Scale for Teachers (ASSET) is a new measure for special educators of students with ASD. The ASSET is a 30-item questionnaire based on a 100-pt scale with excellent internal consistency (alpha = .96). Research shows the ASSET correlates negatively correlated with teacher stress (Ruble, Toland, Birdwhistell, McGrew & Usher, 2013), a significant issue that often leads to burnout and eventual attrition. Little is known about teacher self-efficacy and what other variables might be of influence. The ASSET was administered within a larger randomized control trial of a parent-teacher consultation intervention called the Collaborative Model for Promoting Competence and Success (COMPASS).

Objectives: The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) to examine the influences of time (beginning and end of school year) and group assignment (placebo or treatment group) on teacher self-efficacy, and (b) to evaluate the impact of self-efficacy on child goal attainment outcomes.

Methods: Teacher-child dyads were randomly assigned to a placebo control group (PBO) or one of two treatment groups (COMPASS followed by either face-to-face teacher coaching or by web-based teacher coaching). Data were collected at baseline (prior to group assignment) and after the treatment period. A total of 44 special education teachers of children aged three to eight with ASD participated. Of these teachers, 29 were in the experimental group and 15 were in the PBO. An analysis of covariance was used to measure the effect of time and group on ASSET scores. Child goal attainment was determined by an independent observer and based on goal attainment scaling (Ruble, Toland, & McGrew, 2012).

Results: At baseline, mean ASSET scores for the PBO was 71.4 (SD = 13.5) and for the experimental group was 76.1 (SD = 11.1); at the end of the school year, mean ASSET scores for the PBO was 77.1 (SD = 11.8) and for the experimental group was 84.4 (SD= 9.3). Analysis of covariance using baseline ASSET scores as the covariate indicated no difference between the two groups on final ASSET scores F(1,41) = .3.4, p = 07, eta squared = .08. There was a small relationship between pre and post ASSET scores as indicated by an eta squared value of .22. More importantly, ASSET scores did not correlate with child goal attainment outcomes for the PBO  (r = -.18, p = .52) but did correlate with child goal attainment outcomes for the experimental group (r = .40, p = .03).

Conclusions: Although COMPASS did not have an effect on teacher self-efficacy, the self-efficacy of teachers in the experimental group was associated with child outcomes.