Testing the Measurement Invariance of a Teacher Educational Innovation Competency Model
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aimed to develop a measurement model of teachers’ educational innovation competency among secondary teachers, and to examine the measurement invariance of the model across gender, educational level, and work experience. The sample consisted of 349 teachers selected through a three-stage sampling procedure. First, 10 provinces were randomly selected from five regions of Thailand. Second, 60 schools were randomly selected from the selected provinces. Third, teachers were randomly selected from each school. The research instrument was a measure of teachers’ educational innovation competency with acceptable content validity (IOC = 0.60–1.00) and reliability, as assessed by McDonald’s omega, ranging from .92 to .94. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance analysis.
The results revealed that the measurement model of teachers’ educational innovation competency comprised five components: innovative thinking, learning management for innovation creation, collaboration and teamwork, continuous self-development, and being a good role model. Second-order confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the model was appropriate and fit the empirical data well (χ²(40, n = 349) = 51.23, p = .110, χ²/df = 1.28, NFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .028, RMR = .015). The first-order factor loadings ranged from .64 to .92, while the second-order factor loadings ranged from .93 to .99, all statistically significant at the .01 level. The model demonstrated configural invariance across gender, educational level, and work experience; however, some factor loadings and indicators varied across groups.
The findings provide new knowledge that the measurement model has a common structural framework and can be used reliably to assess teachers across different groups. Nevertheless, teacher development should move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach toward differentiated development, with activities designed to correspond to the strengths and needs of teachers in different groups.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Views and opinions appearing in articles in the Journal of Arts of Management It is the responsibility of the author of the article. and does not constitute the view and responsibility of the editorial team I agree that the article is copyright of the Arts and Management Journal.
References
Aagaard, T., & Lund, A. (2020). Digital agency in higher education: Transforming teaching and learning. Routledge.
Aldaleel, A. (2025). Assessing middle school teachers' digital innovation skills in Bisha province: A comprehensive study. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE), 18(2), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.1802.03
Aljawarneh, S. A. (2020). Reviewing and exploring innovative ubiquitous learning tools in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32, 57-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09207-0
Arunyavat, Y. (2022). Development of 21st century learning assessment competency indicators for science teachers[Doctoral dissertation, Mahasarakham University]. https://fulltext.rmu.ac.th/fulltext/2565/M131459/Arunyavat%20Yaowanit.pdf
Bailey, R., Raisch, N., Temko, S., Titus, B., Bautista, J., Eniola, T. O., Jones, S. M. (2021). Innovations in social and emotional learning research and practice: Building from Evidence and applying behavioral Insights to the design of a social and emotional learning intervention in Northeast Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 7397. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147397
Chalarux, N., Intasingh, S., Assapaporn, N., & Nguenyuang, S. (2021). The components of innovative teacherness for education in digital era for sustainable local development. Community and Social Development Journal, 22(3), 94-108. https://doi.org/10.14456/rcmrj.2021.247707
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Demir, A., & Akuzum, C. (2023). Innovation scale in educational organizations: Development, validity and reliability study. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(4), 616-632.
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator's DNA: Mastering the five skills of disruptive innovators. Harvard Business Review.
Fernández-Cruz, F. J., & Rodríguez-Legendre, F. (2022). The innovation competence profile of teachers in higher education institutions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(6), 634-645. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1905031
Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Pearson.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Corwin.
Gligor, D., Russo, I., & Maloni, M. J. (2022). Understanding gender differences in logistics innovation: A complexity theory perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 246, Article 108420. DOI:10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108420
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Henard, D. H., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Why some new products are more successful than others. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 362-375. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.3.362.18861
Jumini, J. (2023). Development of teacher innovativeness instruments in the face of educational innovation. Ideguru: Jurnal Karya Ilmiah Guru, 8(2), 247-256. DOI:10.51169/ideguru.v8i2.523
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Association.
Kwannimit, T. (2012). Development of indicators of teacher resilience using the cognitive interview technique: testing measurement invariance by teachers’ background. Chulalongkorn University Theses and Dissertations (Chula ETD). 35354. https://digital.car.chula.ac.th/chulaetd/35354
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1989). Item bias and item response theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(2), 127-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90002-5
Mosakul, C., Ariratana, W., & Wachrakul, C. (2025). Innovative competency development of vocational teachers through professional learning community: A participatory action research. Journal of Ecohumanism, 4(1), 1839-1847. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v4i1.5999
OECD. (2019). The future of education and skills 2030: A series of concept notes. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/concept-notes/
OECD. (2021). Skills for 2030: OECD future of education and skills 2030 concept note. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/concept-notes/Skills_for_2030_concept_note.pdf
Ramos, J., Anderson, N., Peiró, J. M., & Zijlstra, F. (2016). Studying innovation in organizations: A dialectic perspective—introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(4), 477-480. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1192364
Salessi, S., & Etchevers, M. R. (2020). Innovative Work Behavior: Development and Validation of a Scale for Teachers. Acta de Investigación Psicológica, 10(3), 112-123. DOI:10.22201/fpsi.20074719e.2020.3.363
Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Crown Business.
Shareefa, M. (2023). Demystifying the impact of teachers’ qualification and experience on implementation of differentiated instruction. International Journal of Instruction, 16(1), 393–416. https://e-iji.net/ats/index.php/pub/article/view/197
Sofwan, M., Habibi, A., Attar, R. W., Alqahtani, T. M., Alahmari, S. A., & Alhazmi, A. H. (2024). Factors affecting teachers’ behavior of innovative teaching with technology: Structural equation modelling. Sustainability, 16(19), 8496. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198496
Sutcharitchit, W., & Khetchatturat, J. (2021). The development of educational innovation management model for enhancing teacher competency in secondary schools. Journal of Education Khon Kaen University, 44(2), 112-128.
Thurlings, M., Evers, A. T., & Vermeulen, M. (2015). Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative behavior: a literature review: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 430-471. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314557949
UNESCO. (2018). One in five children, youth and adults is excluded from education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000266071
Warne, R. T., & Burningham, C. (2019). Spearman’s g found in 31 non-Western nations: Strong evidence that g is a universal phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 145(3), 237–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000184
Welzel, C., Brunkert, L., Kruse, S., & Inglehart, R. F. (2023). Non-invariance? An overstated problem with misconceived causes. Sociological Methods & Research, 52(3), 1368-1400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124121995521
Wilson, K., & Sy, J. (2021). A framework for managing innovation in higher education: Lessons learnt from the UAE iPad initiative. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 17(1), 16-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/LTHE-08-2020-0013
Wiratchai, N. (2011). Measurement invariance testing across groups of examinees using structural equation modeling. Journal of Research and Curriculum Development, 1(1), 69-80. https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jrcd/article/view/93160
Zhu, C., Wang, D., Cai, Y., & Engels, N. (2013). What core competencies are related to teachers' innovative teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 9-27.