Developing protective factor scale for classroom teachers: A validity and reliability study

DOI: 10.31704/ijocis.2018.005 The purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable assessment scale in order to determine protective factors that teachers have. The study was conducted with 348 primary school teachers teaching at primary schools in Aydın city Efeler district at 2017-2018 school year, fall semester. In the study, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis techniques were used for construct validity of the study. Within the context of results obtained, the measurement scale developed could be defined as a valid and reliable measurement scale to be used to determine protective factors which primary school teachers have. Article History: Received Revised Accepted Online 10 April 2018 27 May 2018 02 June 2018 30 June 2018


Introduction
The most important professional element determining the functioning of education system and the quality of service provided are teachers.Whether actions to be taken to improve quality will be successful or not will be shaped depending on motivation and occupational skills of teachers.In order to raise healthy generations and to be able to achieve success aimed at education, teachers are expected to have characteristics like having peace in themselves, showing respect for their occupation, cope with difficulties and have characteristics like being resilient and being open to new ideas (Kırımoğlu, Yıldırım & Temiz, 2010).Teachers should be aware of the needs of students, create a positive and supportive classroom environment, have critical thinking and be able to use different instructional techniques in the classroom, find solutions against problems (Beltman, Mansfield & Price, 2011).Positive work conditions and a work environment based on cooperation and a strong support from school administration would change school atmosphere especially in disadvantaged schools and all efforts improving student-teacher relationship would provide benefit in increasing job satisfaction and productivity of teachers (Gu & Day, 2013).Therefore, it is important to strengthen the teacher, who is the building block of the system.Strengthening is used for making people working in an institution more energetic and motivated (Doğan & Kılıç, 2008).Strengthening aims individuals to gain necessary information, skills and belief to cope with problems emerging in work environments (Altınkurt, Türkkaş Anasız & Ekinci, 2016).Short (1994) states that it is possible to strengthen teachers by involving them in decision making processes, utilizing from occupational development opprtunities, autonomy and having characteristics, like occupational selfefficacy.Teachers will gain strength as they acquire new knowledge and experiences and as they transfer these experiences and abilities to classroom environment.
As a starting point for teacher strengthening studies, it is an important requirement to increase resilience characteristics of teachers.Resilience means the coping ability of individuals when they face with a problem (Strumpfer, 2001).When the literature is reviewed, varying definitions of resilience can be found; a process bringing coping skills against destructive, stressful or challenging life events (Richardson, Neiger, Jensen & Kumpfer, 1990), the process of self-actualization and maturation (Higgins, 1994), capacity of resisting to distress and self-perpetuating (Wolin & Wolin, 1993), individual's ability to recover himself/herself after facing difficulties, effectively managing stressful and risky conditions (Goldstein and Brooks, 2005), individuals' successful recovery after negative effects of situations containing risk and ability of reinstatement (Masten, 2001).While the common point of those definitions is individual's facing with distress and emphasizing the coping ability with this stress; there are also definitions as being successful, easily adapting to new situations and the skill of social adaptation (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000), successful adaptation capacity of the individual despite difficult or threatening conditions (Masten, Best & Garmezy, 1990).
Although the structure of resilience is a structure which has been investigated since 1970s (Luthar, Cicchetti & Becker, 2000), what attracts attention is that in studies examining resilience especially in the context of disadvantaged groups and school, the concept of academic resilience is used.Within this context, in schoolbased resilience studies, not only strengthening the resilience of the student but also strengthening the resilience of the teacher along with a whole school approach comes to the forefront (Henderson and Milstein, 2003).Resilience of teacher is defined by Bobek (2002) as a dynamic process arising from the interaction of teacher and environment over time.In another definition, Patterson, Collins and Abbott (2004) explain teacher resilience as teachers' use of occupational skills effectively despite difficult conditions in order to reach the purposes of the school.Day and Gu (2014) explain that teacher resilience is not only a capacity to cope with difficult conditions but also has a meaning of having characteristics necessary for strong commitment to occupation, occupational self-efficacy and motivation to encourage students for achievement.Brunetti (2006) defines teacher resilience as teachers' continual commitment towards teaching process despite difficult conditions.Henderson and Milstein (2003) describe teacher resilience as coping with stressful conditions and capacity for adaptation, being able to improve social, academic and occupational competence when facing with stressful conditions or under daily life stresses.
Studies related to resilience emphasize the necessity of investigating the risk factors that caus the negative conditions in which the person faces and the protective factors which help the individual remain standing under difficult conditions (Kumpfer, 1999;Luthar, Cicchetti & Becker, 2000;Rutter, 1990).Risk factors are described as stressful situations increasing the possibility of emergence of negative conditions (Kumpfer, 1999;Richardson, Neiger, Jensen & Kumpfer, 1990;Richman & Fraser, 2001).Risk factors could be biological or genetic, but they can also arise from environmental factors and could also be the combination of both factors (Richman & Fraser, 2001).Low socioeconomic level, poverty, domestic pressure and violence, educational level of parents, structural disorders and disease symptoms in parents, premature birth, divorce, maltreatment, parenting at an early age, homelessness, natural disaster or war can be given as examples of risk factors (Masten, 2001;2014;Rutter, 1990;Werner & Smith, 1992;2001).As examples of risk factors teachers face with; disadvantaged students, negative student behaviors, having difficulty in classroom management, nonsupportive administration, insufficiency of equipment, negative relationships with parents of students and colleagues, disadvantaged geographical location of the school, heavy work load and insufficient time can be given (Beltman, Mansfield & Price, 2011;Day, 2012;Kaldi, 2009;Sinclair, 2008).
In resilience approaches, the focus point is on the description of protective factors which help to protect individuals from negative effects of risk factors (Masten, Cutuli, Herbers & Reed, 2007).Protective factors are described as situations which decrease negative effects of risk factors, increase welfare in stressful and tough living conditions (Kiplinger & Browne, 2014) and at the same time developing healthy adaptation and competences of individual (Masten, 1994).Individual characteristics which can be approached as protective factors are characteristics like social competence, communication skills, sense of humor, internal locus of control, self-efficacy, problem solving skills, autonomy, sense of future and purpose (Benard, 2004;Gürgan, 2006;Henderson & Milstein, 2003;Masten, Best & Garmezy, 1990;Rutter, 1985;Waters & Sroufe, 1983).Protective factors other than individual characteristics and related to the environment of the individual can be given under the headings of family, school and society (Dryden, Johnson, Howard & McGuire, 1998;Masten, Best & Garmezy, 1990;Rutter, 1985;Werner & Smith, 1992;2001).According to Howard and Johnson (2004), commitment to the institution, belief in self-efficacy, support of family, friend, colleague and administration function as protective factors in teachers.Behaviors of administration and the work environment are stated to have protective roles in the sustainability of teacher resilience (Brunetti, 2006;Riolli & Savicki, 2003).In easily recovering from difficult conditions teachers face and their successful adaptation to changes, mutual supportive personal, occupational and peer/colleague relationships play an important role (Sammons, Day, Kington, Gu, Stobart & Smees, 2007).According to Howard and Johnson (2004), protective factors which affect the lives of teachers have a learnable, sustainable and improvable characteristic.Teachers can have job satisfaction and fulfill their responsibilities by this way (Brunetti, 2006).
In order for individuals to be successful in their occupational and private lives, it is important to know risks and protective factors they have to show resilience characteristics.In this way, negative effects of risk factors could be reduced; protective factor characteristics can be improved.Although there are no certain criteria that could be used when defining a variable as a risk factor or as a protective factor, it can be seen that both concepts are approached from individual, familial or environmental frames and their classifications look like each other (Coleman & Hagell 2007).Cognitive, affective, environmental and social characteristics of the individual all affect each other and they have a common effect on resilience (Hjemdal, 2007;Werner & Smith, 2001).In many studies, researchers mention about positive effects of individual, familial and social protective factors under difficult conditions by taking ecological approach into consideration (Fraser, 1997;Pinheiro, 2006;Werner & Smith, 2001).Ecological system approach emphasizes reciprocal interaction of inner and outer forces affecting behaviors of individuals (Danış, 2006).According to ecological model, in defining the concept of resilience, environmental/social factors like family and friends take an important place (Ungar, 2013).Ungar (2012) laid emphasis on approaching resilience with its individual, familial and social dimensions and stated that the most effective way for the development of the individual is to understand the relationship between the individual and the environment she/he lives in.Bronfenbrenner (1979) stresses the importance of planning studies based on ecological approach towards increasing the resilience of individuals by taking into consideration their values, attitudes and perceptions.Benard (2004) proposes that studies aiming to increase resilience should be made by taking the interaction of individuals' self-control mechanisms with environment into account.It is necessary to determine factors affecting student-teacher resilience and providing a school atmosphere that will improve this characteristic in order to obtain an effective education (Arastaman, 2011).
It is obvious that based on the explanations in the related literature, when the social/ecological dimension of the school is taken into account, interventions and approaches aiming to strengthen teachers could have an effect directly on students.Accordingly, it is thought that strengthening both individual and environmental resources of teachers would make an important buffering effect against negative effects of risks at school while working under difficult circumstances and working with disadvantaged groups.In interventions towards increasing teacher resilience, it is crucial to determine teachers' past negative experiences or negative consequences they are in at present and protective factors that help them cope with those negative circumstances.In order to investigate and determine the variables which affect life quality of teachers in individual, institutional and occupational dimensions, it was needed to develop a measurement tool.In this respect, it is expected from the measurement tool to help determine protective factors which teachers have and lead the way through increasing resilience for any interaction.The purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool in order to determine protective factors that the teachers have within the context of cultural characteristics.

Method
In this study, the descriptive survey model was used.Survey models are research approaches aiming to describe a situation or event much the same (Karasar, 2010).The descriptive survey model is a research model examining the current situations and characteristics of events or entities under their own conditions (Kaptan, 1998).The information about participants, data collection tools and process steps of the study are presented below.

Participants
The population of the study includes classroom teachers working at primary schools in Efeler District, Aydın city center.While determining the sample size, the following dimensions were taken into account: When the sample size is under 300, it should be 5-10 times more than the number of items, when the sample size exceeds 300, stable results are achieved (Kass & Tinsley, 1979;cited in Can, 2016).Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) suggest a sample size including at least 300 samples for factor analysis.As a result, reaching at least 300 teachers was aimed and without choosing a sample, the whole population was tried to reach.Totally, 348 teachers were included in the study.Primary school teachers were informed about the study and their consent was obtained.Personal information about participant teachers was given in Table 1.(3.20 %).The mean age of the participants is x=45.30and standard deviation is ss=.90.The professional seniority of teachers show a distribution as follows; between 0-10 years, there are 27 students (7.80 %), between 11-20 years there are 79 teachers (22.70%), between 21-30 years there are 117 teachers (33.60 %), between 31-40 years there are 68 teachers (19.50 %) and over 41 years there are 5 teachers (1.40 %).Mean professional seniority of participants is x=23.10 and standard deviation is ss=.94.In the Risk Form applied to participants, there are possible risk conditions teachers can face in their occupational life.Participants are asked to define risky conditions they face if there any.The distribution of participants' answers to the risky conditions they faced in the past about their occupation is given in Table 2.When Table 2 is examined, 176 teachers (24.40 %) stated that they worked in a district that threats the security of teachers.While 120 teachers (16.60 %) stated that the school they work as a teacher has a disadvantaged position, 97 teachers (13.40 %) stated that there are disadvantaged students in their school and 90 teachers (12.40 %) stated that there are students speaking different languages in their school.69 teachers (19.50 %) stated that they experienced a long period of unemployment, 58 (9.50 %) teachers stated they experienced serious problems with parents of students and 40 (5.50 %) teachers said that they experienced serious problems with their colleagues.In addition, teachers stated problems like frequent change in their place of duty (20, 2.70 %), damage to personal belongingness by students (20, 2.70 %), serious conflicts with school administration (9, 1.20 %), experiencing official investigation (6, .80%) and experiencing violence from students (5, .60 %).

Data Collection Tools
In this study, Protective Factor Scale for Primary School Teachers, Risk Form and Personal Information Form were used as data collection tools.The process steps related to development of the scale and information about Risk Form and Personal Information Form are presented below:

The Process Steps
In the development process of the Protective Factor Scale, the steps taken are given below: 1. Description of the concept to be measured: Within the scope of this study, protective factor for teachers is defined conceptually as characteristics which help teachers actualize their occupational purposes and minimize the effects of negative work circumstances.In this research study, research findings explaining resilience in teachers (Beltman, Mansfield & Price, 2011;Brunetti, 2006;Day, 2012;Day & Gu, 2014;Gu &Day, 2013;Henderson & Milstein, 2003;Kaldi, 2009;Riolli & Savicki, 2003;Sinclair, 2008) in literature were used as a base in defining protective factor characteristics of teachers.

Determining the purpose of measurement tool:
The scale developed within the scope of the study aims to determine protective factors that teachers possess.3. Generating the item pool: While generating the item tool, first of all, protective factor characteristics which teachers could have were screened using related literature within the scope of an ecological approach (Benard, 2004;Bronfenbrenner, 1979;Ungar, 2012;2013).
In the second phase, the measurement tools assessing protective factors were investigated.In this phase, studies on related concepts like protective factors, risk factors, resilience, psychological resilience, psychological hardiness, strength to recover and measurement tools used in these studies were investigated.In this context, Resilience Scale developed by Wagnild and Young (1993), Bruth Protective Factors Inventory developed by Bruth and Carroll (2002), Connor and Davidson Resilience Scale (2003), California Resilience Scale High School Verison adapted to Turkish by Özcan (2005), Resilience Scale developed by Gürgan (2006), Child and Youth Resilience Scale-CYRM 28 adapted by Aydoğan, Terzi, Çakır and Tomar (2012), Student Resilience Scale developed by Arastaman (2011), Family Resilience Scale developed by Kaner and Bayraklı (2010), Psychological Resilience Scale for Adults developed by Friborg et. al. (2003) and adapted to Turkish by Basım and Çetin (2011), Relational Resilience Scale developed by Aydoğan (2014), Adult Resilience Scale developed by Ryan and Caltabiano (2009) and adapted to Turkish by Savi Çakar, Karataş and Çakır (2014), Occupational Resilience Scale developed by Tagay and Demir (2016) were utilized in the study.
In the third phase, the protective factors were tried to be described via interviews with teachers.5 primary school teachers were interviewed.In choosing teachers for interviews, having risk factors like working in disadvantaged districts, having been investigated before were determined as criteria.Teachers were asked about what kind of difficulties they have had in their lives and how they have coped with those difficulties.According to the answers teachers gave, item writing process took place taking into account the difficulties they have experienced, their coping methods and individual characteristics they have.After completing these phases, the item pool constituted was placed logically according to literature and sent for expert opinion.4. Expert Opinion: The content validity, comprehensibility and appropriateness of the items which took place in the item pool, were investigated by expert opinions.The content validity is described as making a decision about the representation level of the measurement tool (Tan, 2014, p.188); it is the indicator of whether the items of a measurement tool are sufficient or not in terms of quantity and quality for measuring what is aimed to be measured and it can be evaluated with expert opinion (Büyüköztürk, 2012).For this purpose, opinions of one assessment and evaluation, two psychological counselling and guidance, one Turkish education and five curriculum development experts were obtained.In accordance with expert opinions, some items were excluded from the scale and some items were edited.For example; items of "I can lead forth my students" and "I feel confident about my occupational skills" were excluded and instead of the item "I have difficulty in classroom management", item "I may have difficulty in classroom management" was replaced.The draft scale prepared was transformed into a 53-item form.
The evaluation of the items in the scale was made appropriate to a 7-point Likert type and graded as follows; 1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: mildly disagree, 4: neither agrees nor disagrees, 5: mildly agree, 6: agree, 7: strongly agree.7-point Likert type was chosen because in the studies of Preston and Colman (2000), scales including 2, 3 or 4 choices were found to have least, scales including 5 to 6 choices were found to have middle and scales consisting of 7-10 choices were found to have highest validity, reliability and user choice value.
An instruction including why the scale was prepared and answering choices were added and a draft scale form was obtained.Together with the prepared scale form, Personal Information Form and Risk Form, in order to determine the risk conditions which teachers have in their own lives were applied to the teachers.Personal Information Form: In the Personal Information Form, which was prepared by the researchers of the study, there are questions about gender, age, professional seniority, years of working at the school they are currently working.Risk Form: In the Risk Form developed by the researchers, there are risk conditions teachers could face in their occupational lives.Participants are demanded to state the risky conditions they face if there is any.In order to make them state how much they are influenced from each condition, a gradation was made (1: did not affect, 2: affected mildly, 3: neither affected nor not affected, 4: affected, 5: affected very much).

Conducting Trial Application:
In order to conduct trial application of the 53-item draft prepared together with the Personal Information Form and Risk Form in fall semester of the 2017-2018 education year, focus group discussions were carried out with eight teachers doing doctorate at Adnan Menderes University Curriculum and Teaching Doctoral Program.The articipants mainly consisted of primary school teachers.Teacher interviews lasted about 30 minutes.Teachers were required to read and evaluate the draft form carefully and according to their suggestions, the items which were difficult to understand were corrected.For instance, in the Risk Form, some examples were added for some of the items, the statement "I am appreciated by my students' parents" was changed into "I win recognition of my students' parents."6. Carrying out the actual application: This application was carried out on 348 primary school teachers.It was targeted to make the data collection process in all primary schools taking place in Aydın city Efeler district and totally 21 primary schools were included.All teachers in these schools were tried to reach by face to face interactions or via school administrators.

Data Analysis
The prepared draft scale form was applied to 354 primary school teachers working at primary schools of Aydın city Efeler district in the fall semester of 2017-2018 education year.In the analysis of obtained data, SPSS 23.0 and AMOS 22.0 statistics package programs were used.5 scales which were detected to be filled up incompletely, wrongly or randomly were excluded from the study.By doing missing data analysis, the data was completed with the method of mean value assignment.In order to examine outliers from data, the scores were transferred into Z scores.A value out of a Z score between -3 and +3 range was excluded.As a result of excluding totally 6 participants from the study, analyses were conducted with 348 participants.In order to test validity of the scale, exploratory factor analysis and confirmative factor analysis were conducted.For criterion validity, General Self-Efficacy Scale and the Pearson correlation coefficient in between were calculated and in order to test reliability, Cronbach Alpha inner consistency coefficient was found and for test-retest reliability, Pearson correlation coefficient between two calculations was calculated.

Findings Findings Related to Construct Validity of Protective Factor Scale for Primary School Teachers
The relevance of the research sample and for factor analysis were examined with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Barlett Sphericity test.In order to evaluate the relevance of data structure for factor analysis, KMO is expected to be over 0.60.The significance of chi-square statistic calculated is an indicator of the relevance of data matrix (Büyüköztürk, 2012, p.126).The values obtained from the research is as follows; Kaiser Meyer Olkin = .92,Bartlett's Test of Sphericity = 9799.75,df=1378.p=.00.In the light of this information, it can be said that the data obtained is significant.The factors emerged out of the study were subjected to axis rotation.After rotating the axis, while the load of items over a factor increases, their loads on other factors decrease.In this way, they find items giving them high correlation and factors can be interpreted more easily (Büyüköztürk, 2012, p.126).In order to determine factor structure related to the scale, principal components analysis and as a rotation method, varimax out of vertical rotation methods were chosen.
In exploratory factor analysis, the principal components analysis out of the most used factoring techniques was utilized.In determining the factor structure of the scale; the factor load value that is .45or over, difference between two load values that is at least .10,and eigenvalue of each factor at least 1 were taken into account (Büyüköztürk, 2012 p.124-125).Besides that, some items were excluded from the scale because of their insufficiency in terms of number under a factor (i13, i26) or placing the item under a theoretically inappropriate dimension (i3, i33).
As a result of exploratory factor analysis based on these information, totally 35 items which were not suitable to the criteria above or inconsistent with each other in terms of meaning or content were excluded from the scale and the factor analysis was repeated.The scale emerged after exploratory factor analysis consists of 18 items and explains 62.40 % of the total variance and consists of 4 dimensions.The scree plot graphic of the scale can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Scree plot
The first dimension explains 20.40 of the total variance about the scale, the second dimension explains 15.07 % of the total variance related to scale, the third dimension explains 13.90 % of the total variance related to the scale and the fourth dimension explains 13.01 % of the total variance related to the scale.In multidimensional research designs, it is accepted as sufficient for the explained variance to be in between 40 % and 60 % (Tavşancıl, 2005).Within this frame, it could be seen that the contribution of the described factor to total variance is sufficient.Their factor loads range from .47 to .83.As a result of exploratory factor analysis, in the four factor scale, the distribution of items to factors was analyzed in terms of content and by taking expert opinions into account they were named as individual characteristics, job satisfaction, institutional commitment and perception of administrative support.The findings related to exploratory factor analysis are presented in Table 3.In order to test four-factor structure obtained from Exploratory Factor Analysis, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted.The first value to be investigated in the structure emerging as a result of the analysis is p-value.Although this value is not desired to be significant, p value is usually significant because of the excess of the number of samples or variables (Çokluk, Şekercioğlu & Büyüköztürk, 2010).Therefore, other goodness of fit indices should be examined.When the ratio of chi-square value to the degree of freedom (  2 /) is examined, this ratio is found as 3.54.If this ratio is in the range of 0-2, it means an excellent fit, if it is between 2 to 3, it means a good fit and if it is between 3 to 5 it means an average (acceptable) fit (Çokluk et. al., 2010;Hooper, Coughlan & Mullen, 2008).GFI and CFI value was found as .88,RMSEA value is found as .086.Although these values are in an acceptable range (Hu & Bentler, 1999), in order to make factor structure fit better, modification suggestions were examined.Modification suggestions give clues related to executable corrections for the model to fit better (Kline, 2011, Meydan & Şeşen, 2015).When the suggestions are examined, appropriately to the theoretical structure, correction suggestions came up among error terms of some items under the first factor (e1 and e2, e1 and e5) and among error terms of some items under the second factor (e7 and e9, e8 and e10) and a correction process was conducted.As a result of renewed confirmatory factor analysis, four-factor structure is presented in Figure 2:

Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis model
When values related to the model emerged after confirmative factor analysis were investigated, it was found that correlation values range between .43 and .85 between items and the factors they are related with.Goodness of fit indices related to the model (Bayram, 2013;Byrne, 1998;Çokluk et. al., 2010;Hooper et al., 2008;Hu & Bentler, 1999;Kline, 2011;MacCallum, Browne & Sugawara, 1996;Schumacker & Lomax, 2010;Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996) is presented in Table 4 P value of the model obtained as a result of confirmative factor analysis is significant at .00 level. 2 /sd ratio of the model was found as 2.95 (368.91/125= 2.95).In this framework, because  2 /sd ratio is under 3, it can be said that the fit is at an appropriate level.When RMSEA is examined, a fit index at .07 level is obtained.Because RMSEA is under .08, it is possible to evaluate fit as good (Çokluk et. al., 2010).A GFI value at .90 means good fit and an AGFI value at .85 means an acceptable level of fit (Kline, 2011;Schumacker & Lomax, 2010).IFI and CFI values were calculated as .91 and their fit is accepted as good (Hu & Bentler, 1999;Kline, 2011).

Findings Related to Criterion Validity of Protective Factor Scale for Primary School Teachers
In order to test the criterion validity, General Self-efficacy Scale adapted into Turkish by Aypay (2010) was used.The relationship of the scale with the General Self-efficacy Scale was examined.The correlation values between Protective Factor Scale for Primary School Teachers and General Self-efficacy Scale are presented at Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficient between mean scores of these two scales was found significant with r=.35, p<.01.This result means that this scale has a positive and significant relationship with General Self-efficacy Scale.The highest level of correlation among dimensions was found (r=.44, p<.01) with sub-dimension of individual characteristics of the scale.Positive, low and significant correlations were found with job satisfaction sub-dimension at r=.23, p<.01, with institutional commitment sub-dimension at r=.18, p<.01 and with administrative support dimension at r=.22, p<.01.Absolute value of the correlation coefficient between .70-1.00 is defined as a high level correlation, between .70-.30 is defined as an average correlation and between .30-.00 is defined as a low level of correlation (Büyüköztürk, 2012).

Findings Related to the Reliability of Protective Factor Scale for Primary School Teachers
In order to calculate the inner consistency of the scale, Cronbach Alpha values of the total scale and its subdimensions and item total score coefficients were calculated.Cronbach alpha inner consistency coefficient was calculated as .87 for the total score, .86 for the first sub-dimension, .74 for the second sub-dimension, .78 for the third dimension and .72 for the fourth dimension.When corrected item total correlation was examined for each item, it was seen that they ranged between .33 and .67.It can be asserted about item total score correlation that the items at .30 or over can differentiate individuals at a desirable level (Büyüköztürk, 2012, p.183).
Four weeks after the first application of the scale, it was applied to 38 teachers once again and test-retest reliability coefficient was calculated for both tests.Test retest reliability coefficient was found .96.This coefficient is expected to be over .80 or with a more flexible approach, not to be under .70(Alpar, 2010).Between two applications, when pearson correlation coefficients were examined for dimensions, it was found .96(p<.01) for the first sub-dimension, .98 (p<.01) for the second dimension, .94(p<.01) for the third dimension and .97(p<.01) for the fourth sub-dimension.Thus, despite the time period passed, findings obtained from the individuals were found to be consistent.Starting from these findings, it can be asserted that the scale obtained is sufficiently reliable.
Validity and reliability analysis results of the scale show that the scale can be a measurement tool that can be used to determine protective factors primary school teachers have.The scale consists of 18 items and has a four-factor structure.These factors are named as individual characteristics (occupational self-perception and perception of competence), job satisfaction, institutional commitment/belongingness, perception of administrative support.The scale is a 7-point Likert-type degraded as 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).The lowest possible score of the scale is 18 and the highest possible score of the scale is 126.Item examples of the dimensions are presented in Table 6

Discussion and Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool in order to determine the protective factors primary school teachers have.As a result of the analyses conducted, it was found that the scale presents a four-factor-construct.These factors are titled as individual characteristics (occupational selfperception and perception of competence), job satisfaction, institutional commitment/belongingness, perception of administrative support.When similar measurement tools are examined, it can be seen that in Resilience Scale developed by Gürgan (2006), an eight factor structure is noticeable including being strong, being assertive, being optimistic, developing relationships, foresight, attaining goals, leading and being investigator.In Bruth Protective Factors Inventory developed by Baruth and Carroll (2002), a four-protectivefactor-construct emerged including agreeable personality, supportive environment, less stress factors and balancing experiences.In Psychological Resilience Scale for Adults adapted into Turkish by Basım and Çetin (2011) consists of six sub-dimensions including self-perception, sense of future, structural style, social competence, familial adjustment and social resources.
Individual characteristics dimension emerged in the scale structure (occupational self-perception and perception of competence) come out as an important factor in teachers' coping with stress and difficulties they experience in school.In many research studies, it is emphasized that individual characteristics play an important role in increasing resilience of individuals and individual characteristics like self efficacy, problem solving skills and social competence have protective factor characteristics (Benard, 2004;Gürgan, 2006;Henderson & Milstein, 2003;Masten, Best & Garmezy, 1990).Teachers' perception of competence related to the occupation also functions as a protective factor to increase teacher resilience (Day & Gu, 2014;Howard & Johnson, 2004).Perception of high competence about teaching and having self-confidence about teaching skills also play an important role in teacher resilience (Mansfield, Beltman, Price & McConney, 2012).Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy and Hoy (1998) argues that whether it depends on an objective evaluation or not, when teachers believe that they have effective teaching skills, their perception of professional competence and their commitment to occupation becomes stronger.
Another sub-dimension of the scale appears as job satisfaction.Stanford (2001) states that resilient teachers are individuals whose job satisfaction is high and can get support from the people around them.According to Youssef and Luthans (2007), there are significant relationships between resilience and job satisfaction.It is crucial for teachers to establish satisfying relationships in their job and in their family life to get pleasure out of life and to look at the future with hope in order to have resilient individual characteristics (Irmak & Izgar, 2015).Teachers whose job satisfaction are high have a positive classroom climate and can cope with difficult conditions more easily (Grayson & Alvarez, 2008).
It is supported by some studies that institutional commitment/belongingness characteristic, which is another sub-dimension, functions as a protective factor.These studies reflect that there is a significant relationship at the same direction between resilience of individuals and their institutional commitment (Genç, 2014;Howard & Johnson, 2004;Yelboğa, 2006;Youssef & Luthans, 2007).It is argued that resilient individuals can cope more easily with stressful conditions they face and their sense of commitment to their institutions will be higher (Çetin & Basım, 2011).
Another factor structure emerging from the scale is the perception of administrative support.In many studies, it is emphasized that teachers' being in supportive relationships with their colleagues and administration in the schools they work has a promoting effect on their occupational lives (Brunetti, 2006;Gu & Day, 2013;Riolli & Savicki, 2003;Sammons, Day, Kington, Gu, Stobart & Smees, 2007).Howard and Johnson (2004), in their studies, stated that teachers share not only their problems but also their life experiences with their colleagues with whom they established a supportive relationship and this makes them feel relaxed during the day and cope with the stress more easily.Tait (2008) underlines that social and emotional support and communication skills have great importance in minimizing the negative effects of stress and developing resilience.Sezgin (2012) states that teachers can show a higher level of resilience in a school environment that ensures them to participate in decision making processes, based on trust and cooperation is supported.
In order to test the criterion validity, the relationship of the scale with the General Self-Efficacy Scale was investigated and it was found that the scale had a positive and significant relationship with the General Self-Efficacy Scale.The highest relationship between dimensions was about individual characteristics subdimension.Because self-efficacy is an individual characteristic which has a protective function, it is an expected result that it presents a higher relationship with individual characteristics.For the criterion validity, General Self-Efficacy Scale was used because in many studies self-efficacy presents a protective function and selfefficacy is higher in resilient individuals (Benard, 2004;Castro, Kelly & Shih, 2009;Gizir, 2004;Gürgan, 2006;Henderson & Milstein, 2003;Masten, 2014;Masten, Hubbard, Gest, Tellegen, Garmezy & Ramirez, 1999;Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007;Tait, 2008;Terzi, 2008).
When the analyses related to reliability of the scale were investigated, Cronbach alpha inner consistency coefficient was found .87;test-retest reliability coefficient is found .96.As a result, it can be stated that the scale obtained is a valid and reliable measurement tool for determining the protective factors teachers have.
In spite of the negativities teachers could face, resilience has an important function in ensuring communication between teachers and their students, maintaining the education successfully and high occupational performance teachers attain (Ocak & Güler, 2017).Just as mentioned in the literature, the resilience of individuals is affected by many individual, familial and environmental factors.Individual and occupational protective factor characteristics which they have are important in increasing resilience of teachers.Therefore, in determining these characteristics of teachers, the developed measurement tool can be used.It is thought to be important to develop programs which will increase teachers' protective factor characteristics and resilience, to conduct studies which reinforce teachers and to use measurement tools developed to evaluate efficiency of those programs and studies.

Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Studies
This study was conducted with teachers working at primary schools in Aydın city Efeler district.Within the scope of validity studies of the measurement tool which is planned to be developed, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted with the same sample.Validity and reliability results obtained from the study are limited to the sample of the study.Repeating validity and reliability analyses in studies which will be conducted with teachers working in different branches and working conditions would contribute to the understanding of teachers' protective factor characteristics and conceptual structure of the teacher resilience and to the increment of availability of the measurement tool.
The difficulty experienced in achieving teachers is another limitation of the study.In the study, it was aimed to reach all primary schools in Aydın city Efeler district and about five hundreds forms were given to the primary school teachers at 21 primary schools.While responses from some teachers were obtained through face to face application of the scale and answers were taken spontaneously, others were reached through school administrations.In both situations, some of the forms returned unanswered.Therefore, encouraging teacher participation in studies regarding teachers might increase the efficiency of these studies.Finally, although parent and student relationships are seen as an important dimension affecting occupational motivation of teachers, no dimension measuring this characteristic emerged in the scale.So, the measurement tools which will to be developed might focus on shareholder interactions.

Table 1 .
Personal Information about Participants.) of them were male.When the age group is reviewed, the distribution is as follows; between 20-30 age range there are 15 respondents (4.30 %), between 31-40 age range there are 75 respondents (21.60 %), between 41-50 age range there are 143 respondents (41.10 %), between 51-60 age range there are 96 respondents (27.60 %) and over the age of 61, there are 11 respondents

Table 2 .
Risky Conditions the Teachers Faced in the Past about Their Occupation.

Table 3 .
Findings Related to Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Table 4 .
: Findings Related to Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Table 5 .
The Correlation Values Between Protective Factor Scale for Primary School Teachers and General Self-efficacy Scale.

Table 6 .
: Item Examples from the Scale.