IMPROVING TEACHER WELLBEING: A RANDOMIZED PILOT STUDY OF AN ONLINE 
SELF-GUIDED SINGLE SESSION CONSULTATION INTERVENTION 

By 

Joi R. Claiborne 

A DISSERTATION 

Submitted to  
Michigan State University 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements  
for the degree of 

School Psychology - Doctor of Philosophy   

2024 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABSTRACT 

Teaching  is a stressful job, that often presents with limited time and high job demands. 

However, the vast majority of the interventions tailored to help mitigate this stress and increase 

wellbeing are very time consuming and not tailored to meet the specific needs of teachers. To 

address this gap, this paper utilizes a randomized study design and pilots an online-self guided 

single session consultation (OSG-SSC) intervention aimed at improving wellbeing. Specifically, 

in a sample of 122 teachers (intervention group, n = 61; wait-list control group, n = 61) the 

fidelity, acceptability, and effectiveness of the OSG-SSC across a variety of indicators (i.e., 

teacher self-efficacy, school connectedness, positive emotions, hope, and burnout) was 

examined. The results suggests that the OSG-SSC was implemented with a high level of fidelity 

and found to be a useful and acceptable intervention by teachers. In addition, the OSG-SSC was 

also found to significantly reduce one aspect of burnout, emotional exhaustion with a large effect 

(F [1,78] = 12.26, p <.001, 𝜂𝑝

2  = .14; Cohen, 1988). As a result, the findings from this study were 

able to show preliminary  evidence that the OSG-SSC could be a useful and time-sensitive tool to 

improve teacher wellbeing. Given that this was a pilot study, future investigations should build 

upon these results to better understand the full utility of the OSG-SSC. 

  
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

First, to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, thank you, as without you, none of this would 

be possible.  I also thank my husband, Shawn, who has been my rock through this entire journey. 

I would also like to thank my mother, who paved the way and showed me that obtaining a PhD 

was possible. I also appreciate my father, sister, brother, in-laws, nieces, and nephews for their 

support, even when they may have not known how much just talking to them, allowed me to 

push through. To my best friends, thank you for always being a listening ear. Dr. Dixson, I also 

thank you for all of your help and guidance. Lastly, to my baby girl Noa, who is still baking in 

my womb, thank you for giving me the last dose of motivation I needed to cross this finish line.  

iii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 4 

METHODS ................................................................................................................................... 25 

RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 37 

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 44 

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 54 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 55 

APPENDIX A: Tables and Figures .............................................................................................. 67 

APPENDIX B: Study Measures ................................................................................................... 85 

APPENDIX C: Recruitment Email............................................................................................... 88 

APPENDIX D: Screening Form ................................................................................................... 89 

APPENDIX E: Study Consent Form ............................................................................................ 91 

APPENDIX F: OSG-SSC Module Flow Summary ...................................................................... 94 

iv 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

It has often been commonly stated that teachers are the “backbone of society”. They can 

serve as highly influential role models to children and be an important source of support for 

many years beyond their initial relationship  (Delpit, 2006). However, despite their importance 

within society, the teaching profession has one of the highest rates of burnout in the United 

States (Marken & Agrawal, 2022). In addition, teachers are commonly embedded in school 

systems that lack the programs, resources,  and tools needed to mitigate burnout and improve 

their wellbeing (Lever et al., 2017). As such, high rates of burnout among teachers persist, as 

well as contributes to a host of negative outcomes in schools, such as high teacher attrition, 

negative student outcomes (e.g., academic achievement), and low teacher work motivation 

(Harmsen et al., 2018; Madigan & Curran, 2021).  

Given these circumstances,  examining ways to improve teacher wellbeing through 

various interventions have recently become more popular  despite still being an area of limited 

research (Cann et al., 2023; Hascher & Waber, 2021). For example, in one systematic review of 

teacher wellbeing interventions that examined articles from 2000 to 2020, only 23 articles were 

included and 61% of those articles were published in the last seven years (Cann et al., 2023). As 

such, given this limited data, clear conclusions  on the key components of teacher wellbeing 

interventions have not been determined; although, a variety of factors have been hypothesized as 

potentially important considerations (Cann et al., 2023; Hascher & Waber, 2021).  

One factor in the current research literature that has been discussed, is the consideration 

of a teacher’s work environment (e.g., school context, intense time-consuming  schedule) and its 

alignment to the purpose of the intervention (Cann et al., 2023; Maas et al., 2021). This is a 

current gap in the research literature as the vast majority of teacher wellbeing interventions are 

1 

 
 
 
not synergetic with their work context (e.g., they are lengthy [i.e., 1-8 hours] and require 

multiple sessions;  see Table 1 for a review). Therefore, given this gap, designing an intervention 

with a shorter duration might be beneficial for two reasons. First, it is one possible way of adding 

to the current research literature on teacher well-being interventions, specifically highlighting  the 

role that their environment plays in attempting to improve their well-being. Second, teachers 

may find a shorter intervention to be more pragmatically  useful, which has been linked in the 

research literature to increased intervention effectiveness (Witt & Elliott, 1985). 

One type of intervention design that might be feasible for a teacher population and fill 

this gap, is a specific type of single-session  intervention (SSI), called the Single Session 

Consultation (SSC; Schleider et al., 2021). Specifically, the SSC may prove to be the flexible 

option needed for teachers because it is only one session, rooted in theory hypothesized to 

improve teacher wellbeing, and has a simple, flexible structure and design to meet the unique 

aspects of teachers’ work environments (Bannink, 2007; Falecki  & Mann, 2021; Schleider et al., 

2021). Therefore, while it is likely that the SSC could be a feasible intervention for teachers, 

additional practical adaptions to the SSC might also yield greater intervention effects for a more 

comprehensive  intervention (Wiit & Elliott, 1985). As such, one adaptation that could maximize 

intervention flexibility to meet a teacher’s unique needs, such as a lack of free time, are self -

guided interventions (Carolan et al., 2017). In the research literature, it has been found that there 

are no significant differences between the effects of self-guided interventions and other 

traditional in-person modalities (Carolan et al., 2017). Therefore,  the adaptation of the SSC to a 

self-guided version might prove to be an acceptable and effective adaptation for a comprehensive 

teacher wellbeing intervention.   

2 

 
 
Additionally, although there is evidence to support the above considerations as 

reasonable and potential considerations to address the current gap in the teacher wellbeing 

research literature, there is also a lack of established empirical  data to support further 

conclusions  in improving  teacher wellbeing. Thus, given these circumstances, Bowen and 

colleagues  (2009) recommend the utilization of a pilot study that focuses on the acceptability, 

fidelity, and limited efficacy to better understand if these ideas are relevant, sustainable, and 

appropriate for further testing. Thus, the primary aim of this study is to examine the 

acceptability, fidelity, and effectiveness of an adapted, online, self-guided version of the Single 

Session Consultation (OSG-SSC) aimed at improving teacher wellbeing. This paper first begins 

with a discussion of wellbeing in general and teacher wellbeing. Then, a discussion of the 

negative and positive indicators of teacher wellbeing. Next, it turns to a discussion on teacher 

wellbeing interventions, single session interventions, the single session consultation model, and 

self-guided interventions. Finally, the discussion ends with the examination of a pilot study to 

assess intervention acceptability, fidelity, and effectiveness.  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LITERATURE REVIEW 

Wellbeing 

In the research literature, general wellbeing has been defined in a variety of ways (e.g., 

subjective wellbeing, psychological  wellbeing, PERMA model (positive emotions, engagement, 

relationships,  meaning, accomplishment);  Diener & Ryan, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Seligman, 

2011). Nonetheless, most definitions typically reflect two related, but distinct perspectives: 

hedonic and eudaimonic viewpoints (Ryan & Deci, 2001). In the hedonic perspective, wellbeing 

is generally defined as a person’s overall evaluation of his or her life and can include cognitive 

states (e.g., satisfaction), ongoing affect (e.g., subjective happiness, positive and negative 

emotions, absence of unpleasant affect), and/or social states (e.g., interest and engagement; 

Diener & Lucas 1999; Diener & Ryan, 2009). In contrast, wellbeing from the eudaimonic 

perspective, extends the hedonic perspective further by including similar constructs, but 

expanding their breadth (Ryan & Deci, 2001). As such, the eudaimonic perspective is generally 

conceptualized by six constructs that altogether indicate positive functioning: self-acceptance 

(i.e., positive affect towards self), personal growth (i.e., interest in new experiences/learning), 

positive relatedness (i.e., positive engagement with others), life purpose (i.e., goals and 

meaning), autonomy (i.e., independence), and environmental mastery (i.e., competence in 

managing an environment (Ryff, 1989). Although the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives are 

frequently contrasted in the literature, previous research  suggests that these two theories overlap 

considerably (Deci & Ryan, 2008) and are highly correlated (e.g., r = .59; p <. 001; Keyes et al., 

2002). Thus, given the considerable overlap, the usage of one perspective over the other has been 

largely determined by discipline (e.g., education, psychology) and population (e.g., health care 

workers, education), with research focusing on teachers primarily  utilizing the hedonic 

4 

 
 
perspective. For example, in a systematic review of teacher wellbeing across 98 studies, Hascher 

and Waber (2021) found that the majority of studies based their conceptualization of wellbeing 

in teachers on the hedonic perspective. As such, given this review, this paper will conceptualize 

wellbeing in teachers from the hedonic perspective.   

Teacher Wellbeing 

Studying teacher wellbeing as its own distinct concept apart from the general wellbeing 

literature is a relatively novel concept in the literature. However, it has become more popular in 

recent years due to its hypothesized relationship with a host of important factors unique to 

teachers (e.g., student achievement, teacher retention, class and school climate;  Turner & 

Thielking,  2016). Given its relatively short research  history, there is understandably considerable 

debate in the research literature as to how to define teacher wellbeing beyond the general 

direction of the hedonic perspective (Hascher & Waber, 2021). For example, despite numerous 

articles citing the importance of further conceptualizing teacher wellbeing as a dual factor model 

that includes both positive and negative indicators (Fernandes et al., 2019; Greenspoon & 

Saklofske, 2001), several  different articles indicate that teacher wellbeing should be 

conceptualized as only the absence of negative indicators (e.g., stress and burnout) or only the 

presence of positive indicators (e.g., self-efficacy, positive relationships,  positive emotions 

(Breeman et al., 2015). Further, a small minority  of studies grounded their definitions of teacher 

wellbeing around the specific environment of the teaching profession. This latter point is 

importance as Skaalvik & Skaalvik (2018) found that 78% of the variance in teacher wellbeing 

can be explained by job variables  that are specific to the teaching profession. Thus, to 

accommodate the majority of the different perspectives of teacher wellbeing, in this paper 

teacher wellbeing will be defined as a teacher’s evaluation of their healthy and successful 

5 

 
 
functioning in the teaching environment, as indicated by both positive and negative indicators 

(Collie et al., 2015; Renshaw et al., 2015). 

Teacher Wellbeing Indicators   

Teacher  wellbeing is multi-dimensional  (Hascher & Waber, 2021). However, the 

research literature varies widely in describing the specific indicators that make up its multi-

dimensional nature. For example,  various theories have indicated that key aspects of teacher 

wellbeing could include factors such as (a) cognitive and affective indicators (e.g., self -efficacy, 

happiness, negative emotion; Diener et al., 2018), (b) motivation and psychosomatic symptoms 

(e.g., engagement, exhaustion, irritability;  van Horn et al., 2004), and (c) workaholism and 

burnout (Bakker & Oerlemans, 2011). Given this wide-ranging variation, Hascher and Waber 

(2021) recommend that indicators of teacher wellbeing should be split into two general 

categories, positive and negative factors that include cognitive (e.g., self-efficacy, motivation, 

poor emotion regulation) and affective (e.g., positive emotions, exhaustion, positive relations 

with others, burnout) aspects. As such, the following sections discuss the most salient constructs 

within these two categories: positive indicators of teacher wellbeing and negative indicators of 

teacher wellbeing.  

Positive  Indicators of Teacher Wellbeing 

Teacher Self-Efficacy. Teacher self-efficacy (TSE) is a construct within the broader self-

efficacy literature, which is well conceptualized within the framework of Social Cognitive 

Learning Theory (SCLT; Bandura, 1977). Specifically, SCLT posits that learning occurs in a 

social environment through the reciprocal  interaction of the person, environment, and behavior 

(Bandura, 1977). One dimension of SCLT is self-efficacy, or one’s level  of confidence in their 

ability to successfully perform the necessary steps to complete a task or behavior (Bandura, 

6 

 
 
 
   
 
1977). Within this framework, TSE can be defined as a teacher’s belief in their own ability to 

carry out the necessary steps required to attain various educational tasks or outcomes (Skaalvik 

& Skaalvik, 2007). Several literature reviews indicate that TSE is positively related to teacher 

wellbeing. For example,  in a systematic review, Zee and Koomen (2016) cited 42 studies that 

found a positive relationship between TSE and positive teacher wellbeing. These studies 

employed a variety of different methodologies, included participants from across grades, and 

were conducted in a variety of different contexts. Similarly, in a more recent literature review on 

teacher wellbeing that included 98 studies, Hascher and Waber (2021) concluded that “feelings 

of competence and teaching efficacy univocally showed positive correlations with teacher 

wellbeing”.  

Several empirical  studies support the conclusions of the above reviews across a variety of 

statistical analyses.  First, Capone and Petrillo (2020) examined the relationship between teacher 

wellbeing and teacher self-efficacy through a correlational analysis.  Specifically, they found that 

the correlation between these constructs was positive with a large effect size (r = .62; p < 0.01), 

suggesting a strong relationship between the two variables. Secondly, in another study utilizing a 

hierarchal  linear regression  to examine how various constructs (e.g., self-efficacy, school 

support, resources)  relate to teacher wellbeing, teacher self-efficacy was found to be the largest 

predictor of teacher wellbeing for teachers of K-12 students (β = .338; p <.001; Ortan et al., 

2021). In a third study, Liang and colleagues (2022) found that teacher self-efficacy acted as a 

key mediating factor in improving  a teacher’s wellbeing  via teachers’ participation in a 

professional learning  community (i.e., a group of teachers who come together as a team to help 

each other in a reflective, collaborative,  and inclusive way). Specifically, they found that teacher 

self-efficacy accounted for 28.4% of the impact that participating in a professional community 

7 

 
 
 
has on a teacher’s wellbeing. Lastly, in a study aiming to test the effects of a professional 

development intervention on teacher self-efficacy and teacher wellbeing across time, significant 

and moderate relationships were found (Tanaka et al., 2020). Specifically, teacher self-efficacy at 

Time  1 correlated with negative teacher wellbeing (e.g., burnout, stress) at Time 1 (r = -.23; p < 

.05) and Time 2 (r = -.26; p < .05). Additionally, teacher self-efficacy at Time 2 correlated with 

positive teacher wellbeing (e.g., happiness)  at Time 2 (r = .41; p < .01). As such, the current 

literature conceptually and empirically,  across a variety of statistical analyses, suggest self-

efficacy as a key positive indicator of teacher wellbeing in schools.   

School Connectedness. Another factor that has been found to be a positive indicator of 

teacher wellbeing is school connectedness. School connectedness is a broad term that can be 

defined as the extent to which teachers relate to and feel supported by others within their school 

community (Renshaw et al., 2015). In the research literature, school connectedness has been 

most commonly  conceptualized within the self-determination theory framework (Deci & Ryan, 

1985). Self-determination theory proposes that one is only able to become motivated after their 

basic psychological  needs are met (Ryan & Deci, 1985). One of the basic psychological needs is 

connectedness to others (Ryan & Deci, 1985). Consistent with this theoretical framework, self-

determination theory suggests that teachers with a strong sense of school connectedness (i.e., 

they feel connected to their students, their peers, and the larger school community) are more 

likely to be motivated in their teaching and thus, have higher levels of wellbeing (Hodges et al. 

2018). In the research literature, the relationship between teacher wellbeing and school 

connectedness has been explored both broadly and within specific relationships (e.g., students, 

principals),  conceptually and empirically.  Focusing first on the conceptual relationship, Hascher 

and Waber (2021) concluded that connectedness is a major indicator of teacher wellbeing, given 

8 

 
 
that it was the most frequently cited predictor of teacher wellbeing, with 36 of the 98 articles 

referencing this factor. Furthermore, in a different literature review focused on the importance of 

teacher-student relationships for teacher wellbeing, Spilt and colleagues (2011) argued that 

because teachers are likely to be drawn to their students to fulfill their psychological need of 

connectedness, a teachers need for relatedness becomes frustrated when a poor teacher-student 

relationship  occurs; and thus, psychologically, their wellbeing is undermined.  

In addition to the conceptual relationship between teacher wellbeing and school 

connectedness, an empirical  relationship  is also supported by the research literature across a 

variety of research studies and analyses. For example, in one study exploring supportive 

measures  for teacher wellbeing, Chan and colleagues (2021) found a moderately positive 

relationship  between teacher wellbeing and school connectedness (r = .53, p < .001, path 

analysis,  β = .34, p < 0.01). Similarly,  Collie and colleagues (2012) studied 485 teachers aiming 

to better understand factors that contribute to their wellbeing. They found that teacher wellbeing 

was moderately related to both connectedness to colleagues (r = .45, p < .01) and students (r = 

.26, p < .01). Furthermore, in a meta-analysis  of 51 studies exploring the effect of a principal’s 

behavior on various outcomes, a pooled medium effect of principal support and teacher 

wellbeing was also found (d = 0.34, p <.001; Liebowitz & Porter, 2019). Thus, school 

connectedness, both broadly and within specific relationships (e.g., students, principals)  is 

supported by the research literature as a positive indicator of teacher wellbeing.  

Positive Emotions. In the research literature, positive emotions are hypothesized as 

another positive indicator of teacher wellbeing (Hascher & Waber, 2021). Specifically,  positive 

emotions are a broad term that is not clearly defined but is typically characterized by terms such 

as joy and contentment (Seligman, 2011). In the research literature, Fredrickson’s (2001) 

9 

 
 
 
 
broaden-and build theory of positive emotion helps to conceptualize the relationship between 

positive emotions and wellbeing. Specifically, this theory states that positive emotions help to 

broaden one’s interest in new experiences which then helps to build and develop an individual’s 

personal resources  (i.e., social support, skills,  knowledge, resilience)  that are later utilized as 

positive supports to contribute to a higher level of wellbeing (Fredrickson, 2001). As such, the 

inclusion  of positive emotions in relation to the teacher wellbeing research literature has since 

been further explored and investigated (Sutton & Wheatley, 2003).  

One example of such work is Dreer (2021), who conducted a research study examining 

the relationship between various positive indicators of teacher’s wellbeing (i.e., engagement, 

relationships,  meaning) and job satisfaction. Utilizing stepwise regression,  Dreer found that 

positive emotion (a composite of contentment, joy, and general positivity) was the largest 

contributor (β = .34, p < .001) within this model. Similarly,  in a study exploring the relationship 

between various factors (i.e., positive emotions, subjective happiness, teaching praxes) and one’s 

passion for teaching, Moe (2016) found that positive emotions were the second largest 

significant contributor to the model (β = .23, p < .001) after job satisfaction (β = .38, p < .001). 

In another article exploring  the relationship between positive emotion and teacher wellbeing 

within a structural equation model, Manasia and colleagues (2020) found that positive emotions 

are both moderately related to teacher wellbeing (β = .41, p <.001) and a larger contributor to 

teacher wellbeing than job tasks and autonomy. As such, these findings help to highlight positive 

emotions as another critical and positive construct to indicate the wellbeing of teachers.  

Hope. In the research literature, hope is related to positive emotions and hypothesized as 

a key indicator of teacher wellbeing. Specifically, hope consists of two components and is 

defined as one’s perceived ability to produce and utilize pathways to achieve desired goals 

10 

 
 
(Snyder, 2002). The first component is pathways, which is one’s perceived ability to envision 

path to one’s future goals. The second component is agency, which is one’s belief, along with 

their motivation and persistence, that they can follow their envisioned path to reach their goals. 

As such, within hope theory, positive emotions have been found to be an influential construct. 

Snyder (2002) postulates that one’s positive emotions can influence one’s goal pursuit activities 

by acting as a positive reinforcer that elicits a positive feedback loop along the goal pursuit 

process. As such, given this salient connection between hope and positive emotions, it is not 

surprising  that hope has also been examined in the wellbeing research literature and found to be a 

key indicator. Specifically, in a meta-analysis  that consisted of 45 studies and over 11,100 

employees from a range of occupations (including teachers), a moderate and positive effect 

between hope and wellbeing was found (mean ρ = .44; Reichard et al., 2013).  

In addition to hope being found as a key indicator in the general wellbeing literature, it 

has also been explored within the teacher wellbeing research literature. For example,  in a 

research study examining the relationship between a teacher’s level of hope and wellbeing, hope 

was found to negatively relate to teacher burnout (r = - .31, p < .001; Kumarakulasingam,  2002). 

Similarly,  in a different study exploring hope and its relationship to stress, coping, and 

wellbeing, hope was found to have a large, positive correlation with teacher wellbeing (r = .69; p 

<.01) while also having a small,  negative correlation  with stress (a negative indicator of teacher 

wellbeing, r = -.22; p < .01; MacIntyre et al., 2022). Lastly, in another study investigating hope 

and other wellbeing factors (i.e., academic optimism, zest for work), hope was found to have a 

medium effect size correlation with “zest for work” (r = 0.51, p <.01) and perceived success (r = 

.57, p < .01 Sezgin & Erdogan, 2015). Thus, these findings taken together support hope as a 

positive indicator of teacher wellbeing.   

11 

 
 
Negative Indicators of Teacher Wellbeing   

In the research literature, the most salient negative indicators of teacher wellbeing are 

stress and burnout (Acton & Gaslow, 2015; Hascher & Waber, 2020; Renshaw et al., 2015). 

Specifically, teacher burnout has been clearly  defined in the literature, as a teacher’s prolonged 

response to chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors on the job (Maslach  & Leiter, 2016). 

While on the other hand, teacher stress has not been clearly defined, with definitions ranging 

from a teacher’s experience of unpleasant negative emotions resulting from work to a heightened 

level of pressure and demands made on an individual (Kyriacou, 2001). Additionally, teacher 

stress has also been characterized as being unstable over time, given that it is often situated as 

sporadic response to a specific critical incident, while teacher burnout has been characterized as 

a reliable  and easily identifiable symptom of occupational-based stress (Maslach & Leiter, 2016, 

pg. 351). As such, even though there are distinctions between the two terms, there is also still 

considerable overlap and thus, the research literature often uses the terms interchangeably to 

represent a negative indicator of teacher wellbeing (Belcastro & Gold, 1983; Bottiani et al., 

2019). Therefore, given that burnout is a more well defined, reliable, and consistent indicator, 

only teacher burnout will be discussed in this paper as a negative indicator of teacher wellbeing. 

Teacher Burnout. Burnout theory as conceptualized by Maslach (1976) is considered 

the most widely accepted theory in the burnout research literature (Edu-Valsania et al., 2022). 

Maslach argues that burnout is comprised of three core dimensions: (a) emotional exhaustion, the 

extent to which a person feels emotionally overextended and exhausted of their emotional 

resources, (b) depersonalization, the extent to which a person experiences a negative or detached 

response to other people, and (c) reduced personal accomplishment,  the extent to which a person 

experiences  a decrease in their feelings of competence and productivity at work (Maslach & 

12 

 
 
 
Jackson, 1981). Maslach theorizes that high levels of emotional exhaustion led to high levels of 

depersonalization, which in turn reduces feelings of personal accomplishment  (Maslach,  1998). 

Additionally, it is further hypothesized that the formation of these three core dimensions often 

results from a person’s inability  to effectively cope with their current situation, which is a key 

determinator to factor into burnout (Cherniss & Cherniss, 1980; Hobfoll & Freedy, 1993). In the 

research literature, burnout theory has been applied to a variety of occupations, including 

teaching, which has been found to have a relatively high prevalence of burnout (Iwanicki & 

Schwab, 1981; Lanners, 2019). For example,  in a meta-analysis  that consisted of 14,410 teachers 

focused on burnout, Garcia-Carmona and colleagues (2019) found that 28.1% of the sample met 

criteria for high levels  of emotional exhaustion, 37.9% met criteria for high levels  of 

depersonalization, and 40.3% met criteria for low levels of personal accomplishment.  As such, 

given this level of prevalence, teacher burnout has been widely studied in the burnout research 

literature (see Hascher & Waber, 2021 for review). 

Teacher  burnout has been found to be a key construct within the teacher wellbeing 

research literature. First, in a research study focused on the relationship between teacher burnout 

and teacher self-efficacy, Lauermann and Konig (2016) found that all three dimensions of 

teacher burnout were meaningfully associated with teacher-self efficacy (i.e., emotional 

exhaustion, r = - .44, p < .01; depersonalization, r = -.47, p < .001; reduced personal 

accomplishment,  r = -.62, p < .001). Second, teacher burnout has also been explored 

longitudinally in the research literature. For example, Burić and colleagues (2019) examined the 

relationship  between teacher burnout, resilience, and psychopathological symptoms (i.e., anxiety, 

depression, somatization)  over the course of 6 months. They found that teacher burnout at Time 

1, predicted teacher burnout (β = 0.80, p <.001), psychopathological symptoms (β = 0.20, p 

13 

 
 
 
<.01), and negative emotions (β = 0.27, p <.01) six months later. Lastly, teacher burnout has also 

been studied in relation to negative teacher outcomes, such as teacher attrition. For instance, in a 

meta-analysis  examining  teacher burnout, teacher attrition, and teacher job satisfaction in a 

sample of over 6,600 teachers, Madigan and Kim (2021b) found a significant and moderate mean 

effect between teachers’ intention to quit and two of the burnout dimensions (i.e., emotional 

exhaustion, r = .41, p < .05; depersonalization, r = .32, p < .05). In addition, Madigan and Kim 

found that burnout and job satisfaction explained 27% of the variance in teachers’ intention to 

quit, with about 17% of the variance being explained by the three burnout dimensions. As such, 

these findings help to highlight teacher burnout as a key negative indicator of teacher wellbeing.   

Intervention Research 

As has been outlined above, previous research indicates that there are various positive 

(i.e., teacher self-efficacy, school connectedness, positive emotions, hope) and negative (i.e., 

burnout) indicators of teacher wellbeing. However, the studies cited above are all correlational, 

thus precluding the ability of one to infer directionality or causality with regards to these teacher 

wellbeing indicators. As such, in order to better understand the relationship between the 

previously  established indicators of teacher wellbeing, a host of interventions studies focused on 

teacher wellbeing have been conducted. Leveraging experimental and quasi-experimental 

research designs, these studies provide additional insight into both understanding how teacher 

wellbeing indicators relate to one another, as well as how teacher wellbeing indicators can be 

leveraged to increase teacher wellbeing. In addition, these studies can also give insight into 

whether interventions targeting teacher wellbeing are acceptable (i.e., appropriate, well received) 

and have high fidelity (i.e., executed as planned; Bowen et al., 2009) within teacher populations.   

14 

 
 
 
Teacher Wellbeing  Interventions 

After a systematic review of the recent research literature, only eight intervention studies 

were found that focused on teacher wellbeing employing a quasi-experimental  or experimental 

design (Hascher & Waber, 2021; Hayes et al., 2020; Tamasch,  2020; See Table  1). Specifically, 

of these eight studies, seven showed significant effects of a teacher wellbeing intervention on 

various outcomes. Additionally, while two of the studies did not include any indicators of 

acceptability or fidelity, for those that did, ratings of acceptability and fidelity were found to be 

high and acceptable. Furthermore, the interventions were primarily  delivered using an in-person 

modality and across a range of intervention durations. In the research literature, a relationship 

between practical intervention considerations, such as intervention duration and modality, 

intervention usage, and intervention effectiveness has been found (Witt & Elliott, 1985). 

Therefore, for teachers, who are known to have demanding and inflexible schedules, it is 

plausible  that an increased likelihood of intervention usage and, thus positive effects could occur, 

by changing an intervention to be more practical (e.g., shorter duration, online, self-paced; 

Eckert & Hintze, 2000).  

In addition to the considerations around intervention modality and duration, intervention 

type also varied widely across the eight intervention studies, including types such as, skill  and 

psychoeducational based (e.g., social-emotional  skills  training; Talvio  et al., 2013) and positive 

psychology (e.g., gratitude journal; Chan, 2013). However, notably missing,  were interventions 

of a cognitive-behavioral  type, which have been cited as an important framework in the teacher 

wellbeing literature (Flaecki & Mann, 2021). Specifically, in a conceptual article authored by 

Flaecki and Mann (2021) on intervention design for building teacher wellbeing in schools, it was 

proposed that understanding the relationship between thoughts and actions is a key concept for 

15 

 
 
 
 
teachers in changing their behavior and improving their wellbeing. As such, this framework is a 

cognitive-behavioral  approach to behavior change, which emphasizes  the connections between 

one’s thoughts, actions, and feelings in efforts to change behavior (Beck, 1970). Thus, testing an 

intervention that incorporated these elements (e.g., shorter duration, online, cognitive-behavioral) 

could prove to be an acceptable and effective alternative in helping to improve a teacher’s 

wellbeing.  

Single Session Interventions  

One particular type of intervention that may prove to be pragmatically useful and 

effective for increasing teacher wellbeing is single  session interventions (SSIs). SSIs can be 

defined as “specific, structured programs that intentionally involve just one visit or encounter 

with a clinic, provider, or program” (Schleider et al., 2020, pg. 265). Additionally, SSIs do not 

reflect a specific theoretical orientation, the “client” may be an individual, a family, or a group, 

and the session may occur in a variety of settings (e.g., school, home, office; Schleider et al., 

2020). As such, the use of SSIs is not intended to replace traditional, longer intervention models 

and/or be a “magic bullet” solution to various presenting problems. Instead, they are meant to 

serve as a flexible option, particularly  in spaces where the alternative interventions may be 

difficult to access and/or nonexistent (e.g., schools; Schleider et al., 2020; Sung et al., 2020). 

Thus, given the inherent flexibility of SSI’s, adapting a SSI for teachers that aims to improve 

their wellbeing may prove to be a successful model of intervention. 

Although there has been very little recent research utilizing  SSIs with teachers, several 

studies have found them to be well received and effective with adult participants across a variety 

of concerns. For example,  in a study investigating an SSI for adults at-risk for depression and 

anxiety, Bentley and colleagues (2018) found that 82% of the study’s participants rated the SSI 

16 

 
 
 
as very or extremely useful and 69% of the participants stated that they were either very satisfied 

or extremely satisfied with the SSI. Similarly, in a systematic review of 16 SSIs focused on a 

wide range of concerns (e.g., emotional, stress, depression), Hymmen and colleagues (2013) 

found that participants rated SSIs as a useful intervention option more than 60% of the time. 

SSIs have also been found to be effective. First, in a study aiming to improve wellbeing 

for caregivers through a behavioral  activation SSI, reductions in stress (d = .53, p <.001) and 

increases  in “living  with values” (d = .13, p <.001) were found (Read et al., 2016). Second, in a 

study examining the effectiveness of a 45-minute, self-guided Dialectical Behavior Therapy SSI, 

medium effects in stress reduction (ηp2 = .13; p < .001; Lee et al., 2022) and increased anxiety 

self-efficacy (ηp2 = .13; p < .001; Lee et al., 2022) were found. Third, in a study aimed at 

increasing  hope in adults through a 90-minute SSI, a medium effect of the hope intervention at 

post-test was found (hope agency, η2= .07, p = .02; hope pathways, η2= .13, p = .003; Feldman & 

Dreher, 2012). Furthermore, at one month follow up, significantly more progress on goals was 

also found (η2= .12, p = .02). Last, in a 30-minute online SSI aimed at reducing parental 

accommodation for parents with anxious children, significant reductions in accommodation 

behavior (d = .61, p < .001) and increases in distress tolerance (d = .43, p < .001) after 2 weeks 

were found (Sung et al., 2023). Thus, SSIs have not only been found to be effective for 

participants, but also practically useful across a variety of concerns. As such, given the unique 

considerations of teachers that need flexible interventions (e.g., shorter duration, online, self-

paced) one specific type of SSI, the Single Session Consultation (SSC; Schleider et al, 2020), 

may prove to be an even more effective and acceptable intervention for teachers.  

17 

 
 
Single Session Consultation  

The Single Session Consultation (SSC) was developed by Schleider and colleagues 

(2020) as a flexible, one-hour therapeutic intervention for use with adolescents and adults, 

regardless of problem type or severity. The SSC is rooted in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy 

principles  (Bannink, 2007), a strengths-based, patient centered therapeutic approach, focused on 

a patient’s goals, hopes, and strengths (Bannink, 2007; Schleider et al., 2021). As such, through 

one, one-hour session, the SSC aims to empower the participant by helping them to realize  and 

utilize their existing resources to cope more effectively. Specifically, this is accomplished 

through an 8-step process (see Table 2) that identifies: (a) a specific, modifiable problem and 

associated hope; (b) a “smallest-possible  step” that one can take toward overcoming a problem; 

and (c) an action plan that helps to identify the potential inner obstacles of the participant and 

any external resources that will help them enact the “smallest-possible  step” (Schleider et al., 

2021).  

To date, the SSC has only been piloted in two samples: an in-person sample (Schleider et 

al., 2021) and a telehealth sample (Sung et al., 2023). In the original study, the SSC was piloted 

with 30 individuals at two university-based clinics (Schleider et al., 2021). Participants 

participated in one, one hour session of the SSC and completed measures before the SSC (i.e., 

overall psychological  distress, hopelessness,  hope-agency), immediately after (i.e., hopelessness, 

hope-agency, acceptability), and two weeks after (i.e., overall psychological  distress). Results 

from this study found large post intervention effects of increased hope-agency (d = 1.11, p < 

.001; Schleider et al., 2021) and decreased hopelessness (d = 1.43, p < .001; Schleider et al., 

2021) while also finding a large effect size reduction in psychological distress (d = .73, p =.002) 

two weeks later (Schleider et al., 2021). Additionally, the SSC was found to be acceptable and 

18 

 
 
 
well received, with 96% of participants reporting they would “mostly” or “very much” 

recommend the SSC to others (Schleider et al., 2021).  

The SSC has also been adapted and studied in a telehealth format (telehealth-SSC; Sung 

et al., 2023). Specifically,  60 individuals participated in one, one hour Zoom session and 

completed measures before the telehealth-SSC (i.e., anxiety, depression, hopelessness,  present 

readiness to change), immediately after (i.e., hopelessness,  present readiness to change, clinician 

alliance,  acceptability), and two weeks after (i.e., depression and anxiety). Results from this 

study found a large post-intervention effect of reduced hopelessness (d = .91, p < .001; Sung et 

al., 2023), a medium post-intervention effect of increased “readiness for change” (d = -0.49, p < 

.001; Sung et al., 2023), and a medium effect size reduction in anxiety symptoms two weeks 

after completing the telehealth-SSC (d = .40, p < .001; Sung et al., 2023). The telehealth-SSC 

was also found to be acceptable and well received, with an average acceptability rating of 4.35 

out of 5 (which was comparable to the in person-SSC; Sung et al., 2023).  

As such, the SSC is hypothesized to be an acceptable and effective intervention for 

teacher wellbeing for three reasons. First, the SSC’s theoretical framework of Solution-Focused 

Brief Therapy incorporates elements of Cognitive-Behavior Therapy (CBT; Bannik, 2007), 

which has been hypothesized as a key framework for teacher wellbeing interventions (Falecki & 

Mann, 2021). Second, the SSC can be completed in one, one-hour session, which might prove to 

be particularly  useful for teachers given their unique work demands (e.g., limited free time, 

inflexibility  in schedule). Last, the direct, but flexible 8-step process, allows for adaptation of the 

SSC to new populations and various concerns (i.e., teacher wellbeing; Sung et al., 2023) while 

still offering an easy-to-follow structure. Thus, for these reasons the SSC is hypothesized to be a 

useful intervention for teachers; however, given the flexibility of the SSC in addition to the need 

19 

 
 
for maximum  flexibility for teachers, further adaptations that will likely meet the unique 

demands of teachers are considered.  

Self-Guided Interventions  

One adaptation to interventions that has been found to maximize flexibility, while also 

delivering effective results, are online-based, self-guided interventions. Specifically, self-guided 

interventions typically serve as an adaptation of supported face to face interventions and aim to 

influence cognitive, affective, and behavioral changes through the completion of various self -

guided activities or steps (Beatty & Binnion, 2016). In the research literature, online self-guided 

interventions have found to have many benefits, including increased access and flexibility, cost-

efficiency, and the capacity to reach various types of participants (Beatty & Binnion, 2016). 

Additionally, online, self-guided interventions have been found to be effective in the literature, 

particularly  as a tool for improving wellbeing.  Specifically, two recent meta-analysis reported 

positive effects of online, self-guided interventions on improving workplace wellbeing. In one 

meta-analysis  of 21 digital occupational mental health interventions, a medium post-intervention 

effect of increased wellbeing, regardless of intervention guidance style (i.e., self-guided, 

clinician  guided; g = 0.37, p <.001; Carolan et al., 2017) was found. In another meta-analysis 

examining  effects of self-guided interventions, increased positive work outcomes (g = 0.24, p 

<.001; Donaldson et al., 2019) and reduced negative work outcomes (g = - 0.28, p = 0.15; 

Donaldson et al., 2019) were also found. Therefore, it is the hope that with this adaptation, 

teachers will find an adapted, online, self-guided SSC to be a practically useful and thus, an 

effective tool to help improve their wellbeing.  

20 

 
 
 
Utilizing  a Pilot Study to Assess Acceptability, Fidelity,  and Effectiveness  

When there is limited data available for the setting and population of interest in a study, a 

pilot study is recommended as an appropriate and useful study method (Bowen et al., 2009). As 

such, given that the SSC has limited preliminary data to suggest its acceptability, fidelity, and 

efficacy (Schleider et al., 2021; Sung et al., 2023) and has not been tested with teachers or been 

administered via an online, self-guided method, a pilot study is theorized as an appropriate 

design choice. Additionally, given that “pilot study” is a broad term that includes a multitude of 

specific designs (e.g., focus group, pre-post-design, or case-control design), Bowen and 

colleagues  (2009) also recommend various study designs depending on the focus area of the pilot 

study (e.g., acceptability, practicality, adaptation). Thus, in line with the focus of the two 

published SSC studies on acceptability, fidelity, and outcomes, (Schleider et al., 2021; Sung et 

al., 2023) one study design that is recommended as an appropriate design choice, is called a 

“randomized pilot study”. Specifically, a randomized pilot study is a small-scale  experimental, 

pre-post design, that typically serves a dual purpose: (a) to measure the implementation of an 

intervention (i.e., fidelity, acceptability) and (b) to measure the potential effects of implementing 

an intervention (Eldridge et al., 2016; Pearson et al., 2020).   

Current Study 

The purpose of this study is to examine the fidelity, effectiveness, and acceptability of an 

adapted, online, self-guided version of the Single Session Consultation (OSG-SSC) aimed at 

improving  teacher wellbeing. More specifically, this study employed a randomized pilot study 

design across a variety of positive (i.e., self-efficacy, school connectedness, positive emotions, 

hope) and negative (i.e., burnout) indicators of teacher wellbeing. The research  questions and 

hypotheses for this study are described in more detail below and in Table 3.  

21 

 
 
 
 
Research Questions  and Hypothesis 

Question 1. Can the OSG-SSC and OSG-SSC action plan be implemented with fidelity  by 

participants?   

Fidelity is a key measurement in intervention studies because without assessing fidelity, 

it is difficult to ascertain whether intervention effects can be attributed to the intervention itself 

or to the variability in the implementation procedures of the intervention (Toomey et al., 2020). 

The 8-step design of the SSC can be considered a natural fidelity checklist, in which completion 

of the 8 steps would indicate whether or not the intervention was completed with fidelity. This 

procedure was utilized to assess fidelity in the telehealth-SSC session (i.e., Sung et al., 2023) and 

it was found that all participants completed the telehealth-SSC with at least 70% fidelity (i.e., at 

least 70% of the 8 steps were completed). As such, given the novelty of the OSG-SSC, in which 

a clinician  is not present to assess the fidelity, a fidelity checklist was created for this study (see 

Appendix A) will be utilized to measure the fidelity of the OSG-SSC and will be completed by 

participants after each step. In addition, questions measuring the fidelity of the OSG-SSC action 

plan after two weeks will also be evaluated (see Appendix A). In the research literature, positive 

treatment results have often been obtained with 60% fidelity, with very few studies attaining 

fidelity higher than 80% (Durlak and Dupre, 2008). Thus, it is hypothesized that the OSG-SSC 

and the OSG-SSC action plan will be implemented with at least 70% fidelity.  

Question 2. Does participation  in the OSG-SSC significantly  change the positive  indicators  of 

teacher wellbeing (i.e., teacher self-efficacy,  school connectedness,  positive  emotions, hope) 

immediately following  and/or two weeks after the completion of the OSG-SSC compared to a 

control group? 

22 

 
 
 
Previous research suggests teacher self-efficacy (Zee & Koomen; 2016), school 

connectedness (Chan et al., 2021), positive emotions (Dreer, 2021), and hope (Reichard et al., 

2013) are positive (proximal  and distal) indicators of teacher wellbeing. Furthermore, previous 

intervention studies aimed at improving wellbeing have also utilized these factors to indicate 

increased improvement  in the level of a teacher’s wellbeing across a range of positive effects 

(Chan, 2013; Rahm & Heise, 2019; Tarrasch  et al., 2020). Therefore, given that high levels of 

these variables  are associated with positive teacher wellbeing, it was hypothesized that a 

meaningful (i.e., at least a medium effect size) increase in the proximal indicators (e.g., positive 

emotions, hope) would occur from pre to post and be maintained through follow-up, while there 

would also be a meaningful increase in distal indicators (e.g., school connectedness, teacher self-

efficacy) from pre to follow-up.  

Question 3. Does participation  in the OSG-SSC significantly  change the negative indicator  of 

teacher wellbeing (i.e., burnout) two weeks after the completion of the OSG-SSC compared to 

the control group? 

Previous research suggests burnout as a negative and distal indicator of teacher wellbeing 

(Lauermann & Konig, 2016). Additionally, in teacher wellbeing intervention studies, teacher 

burnout has also been utilized as a factor to indicate the reduction or improvement of one’s level 

of a teacher’s wellbeing after the implementation of an intervention (e.g., Hayes et al., 2020). 

Therefore, given that high levels of teacher burnout are associated with low teacher wellbeing, it 

was hypothesized that teacher burnout will meaningfully decrease from pre-intervention to 

follow-up.  

Question 4. Do teachers find the OSG-SSC to be an acceptable, useful, and satisfactory 

intervention?   

23 

 
 
 
 
The OSG-SSC was specifically adapted to meet the needs of teachers and thus, it is 

critical to understand how they perceive the intervention. Furthermore, given the connection in 

the research literature between acceptability and increases in treatment effects (Witt & 

Elliott,1985), assessing  treatment acceptability is critical. In both versions of the SSC (Schleider 

et al., 2021; Sung et al., 2023), the treatment acceptability was measured through the 

Consultation Feedback Form (Schleider et al., 2021), a questionnaire designed specifically for 

the SSC. In the original SSC (Schleider et al., 2021) an acceptability rating of 3.5 out of 5.0 was 

hypothesized and in the telehealth-SSC, a 3.0 out of 5.0 was hypothesized (Sung et al., 2023). As 

such, it is hypothesized that teachers will find the OSG-SSC an acceptable and useful 

intervention, as measured by a score of 3.0 out of 5.0 on each question on an adapted version of 

the Consultation Feedback Form (OSG-SSC Feedback Form).  

For pilot intervention studies, the usage of qualitative data to inform quantitative findings 

has also been found particularly useful in the research literature  (Baldeh et al., 2020). As such, to 

further inform the acceptability of the OSG-SSC, teacher interviews will be informally  assessed 

for this study. In the telehealth-SSC (Sung et al., 2023) limited responses from a qualitative 

open-ended question was provided and determined to be mostly positive or neutral, with no 

negative feedback given. Thus, it is further hypothesized that the qualitative data will positively 

(e.g., majority  positive and/or neutral qualitative responses)  corroborate  the quantitative results 

of the OSG-SSC as an acceptable and useful intervention for teachers.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
Participants   

METHODS 

Participants were recruited from school districts and teacher-based non-profit 

organizations in the state of Michigan between February 2023 and May 2023. As shown in 

Figure 1, 135 participants were assessed for eligibility  for this study and 13 were excluded for 

either not meeting eligibility  criteria (i.e., full time K-12 Michigan teacher, computer/internet 

access, 6 or less on single item coping question; n = 8) or not signing the consent form for the 

study (n = 5). 122 participants were then randomized to either the intervention group (e.g., OSG-

SSC; n = 61) or the wait list control group (e.g., WLC; n = 61). 22 participants in the OSG-SSC 

group and 18 participants in the WLC group were emailed the intervention or first survey and at 

least 2 reminders, but never responded. Intervention and survey data across each time point was 

collected for all participants, except for one Time 3 survey from an OSG-SSC group participant.  

This study’s sample consisted of 38 teachers in the OSG-SSC (81.6% female) and 43 

teachers in the WLC group (88.4% female). The self-reported racial groups were: 73.7% (OSG-

SSC) and 86% (WLC) White, 7.9% (OSG-SSC) and 0% (WLC) Black, 0% (OSG-SSC) and 

2.3% (WLC) LatinX, 2.6% (OSG-SSC) and 4.7% (WLC) Asian, and 15.8% (OSG-SSC) and 

7.0% (WLC) Bi/Multi-Racial.  81.6% (OSG-SSC) and 72.1% (WLC) of the sample attained at 

least a master’s  degree. Teachers  who taught at least 12 years or more made up 57.9% (OSG-

SSC) and 51.2% (WLC) of teachers in the current sample. 42.1% (OSG-SSC) and 53.6% (WLC) 

of the sample taught at least one elementary grade level (Kindergarten through 5th grade). 

Teachers  in the sample reported their school types as 65.8% (OSG-SSC) and 69.8% (WLC) 

urban (i.e., contained within a city of a population of 50,000 or more). See Table 4 for a more 

detailed breakdown of this study’s sample demographics.  

25 

 
 
 
Inclusion Criteria 

In order to be found eligible for this study, participants had to be a full-time PK-12th 

grade teacher in the state of Michigan and have access to a computer with internet. Additionally, 

they had to demonstrate some need for an intervention aimed at increasing wellbeing by 

answering the following question, “How well are you coping in your job as a teacher?”. To be 

included in the study, a “moderate” (i.e., 6 or lower) level of coping had to be endorsed on a 11-

point scale, ranging from 0 (not well) to 10 (very well). In previous research, one’s level of 

coping has served as proximal  indicator of one’s level of wellbeing (Meng & D’Arcy, 2016). 

Furthermore, single item scales have also been used previously to assess functioning in teachers 

(e.g., Eddy et al., 2019; von der Embse, 2012). In this sample, teachers in the OSG-SSC group 

self-reported an average coping score of 5.6 and teachers in the WLC group self-reported a 4.7 (p 

>.05; See Table 4).   

Design  

Given the novelty of the OSG-SSC, along with the current study’s focus on examining its 

acceptability, fidelity, and efficacy, a randomized pilot study design was utilized for this study, 

as recommended by Bowen and colleagues (2009). As such, this study randomly assigned 

participants to either the OSG-SSC group (n = 38) or WLC group (n = 43) and data was 

collected from both groups across 3 time points: pre-intervention, post-intervention, and at a 

two-week follow-up. The treatment group received the OSG-SSC and the WLC group did not 

receive any intervention during the study but was offered access to the OSG-SSC upon 

completion of the study. The timeline for data collection was modeled after the timeline utilized 

by the developers of the intervention (i.e., Schleider et al., 2021). 

26 

 
 
Measures 

Treatment Fidelity   

Overall treatment fidelity of the OSG-SSC was measured using an OSG-SSC Treatment 

Fidelity Checklist (See Appendix A) created by the principal investigator of this study. Through 

3 items, the OSG-SSC Treatment Fidelity Checklist measures the implementation integrity of the 

OSG-SSC intervention (e.g., “I read all of the information given to complete this step”). 

Response options were indicated using a 3-point Likert scale (i.e., 0 [no], 1 [to some extent], and 

2 [yes]) and was completed after each step of the OSG-SSC. Fidelity scores from each step was 

totaled for each participant and then averaged across all participants for an average fidelity 

percentage for each step and a total treatment fidelity score. In addition, fidelity of the OSG-SSC 

action plan was measured through one question on the 2-week follow-up survey (i.e., “Since 

completing the online module, have you initiated at least one part of your action plan?”). A 

fidelity OSG-SSC action plan score was calculated from the total percentage of “yes” responses 

on this question.  

Teacher Self-Efficacy   

Teacher  self-efficacy was measured using the teaching efficacy subscale from The 

Teacher  Subjective Wellbeing  Questionnaire (TSWQ-TE;  Renshaw et al., 2015; see Appendix 

A). Through four items, this subscale measures one’s level of teaching efficacy (e.g., “I feel like 

my teaching is effective and helpful”). Response options were indicated using a 4-point Likert 

scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always). An average teaching efficacy score 

was calculated for each teacher. A higher score represented a greater level of perceived teaching 

efficacy. In previous research, support for adequate reliability on the teaching efficacy subscale 

was indicated (e.g., α = .89, Renshaw et al., 2015). Additionally, in previous samples,  evidence 

27 

 
 
 
 
of adequate structural validity (EFA range = .81 to .84; Renshaw et al., 2015) was indicated. 

Convergent validity between teaching efficacy and a supportive student environment (r = .33; 

Renshaw et al., 2015) and supportive teacher environment (r = .25; Renshaw et al., 2015) was 

also concluded. In the current sample, alpha estimates for teaching efficacy were .86 (WLC) and 

.91 (OSG-SSC) at Time 1 and .87 (WLC) and .92 (OSG-SSC) at Time 3.  

School Connectedness  

School connectedness was measured using the school connectedness subscale from the 

TSWQ-SC (Renshaw et al., 2015; See Appendix A). Through four items, this subscale measures 

one’s level of connection to the school (e.g., “I feel like I belong at this school”). Response 

options are indicated using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost 

always). An average school connectedness score was calculated for each teacher. A higher score 

represented a relatively greater level of school connectedness. In previous research, support for 

adequate reliability on the school connectedness subscale was concluded (e.g., α = .82, Renshaw 

et al., 2015). In addition, evidence of satisfactory structural validity (EFA range = .54 to .87; 

Renshaw et al., 2015) was indicated. Convergent validity between a supportive student 

environment (r = .58; Renshaw et al., 2015) and supportive teacher environment was also 

indicated in previous samples  (r = .72; Renshaw et al., 2015). In this study, alpha estimates 

obtained for school connectedness was .86 (WLC) and .81 (OSG-SSC) at Time 1 and .89 (WLC) 

and .86 (OSG-SSC) at Time 3. 

Hope  

Hope was measured using the Adult Hope Scale (AHS; Synder et al., 1991; see Appendix 

A). This 12-item scale measures  one’s level of hope and is divided into two subscales: agency 

(e.g., “I meet the goals that I set for myself”) and pathways (e.g., “There are a lot of ways around 

28 

 
 
 
any problem”).  Each subscale contains four items, with the other four items being filler 

statements. Response options are indicated using an 8-point Likert scale ranging from 1 

(definitely  false) to 8 (definitely  true). A higher agency score is indicative of a higher amount of 

one’s perceived belief in their ability to accomplish their envisioned goals. A higher pathways 

score is indicative of a higher perceived ability to envision paths to one’s goals. For each teacher, 

a separate average agency and average pathways score was computed.  

Scores on these subscales have previously  been found to be reliable with alpha estimates 

ranging from .97 – .99 across four samples (Babyak et al., 1993) in previous  samples. 

Additionally, in previous research, evidence of adequate structural validity has also been 

concluded (agency CFA range = .73 to .94; pathways CFA range = .62 to .95; Babyak et al., 

1993). Evidence of convergent validity has been indicated in previous samples  with higher hope 

scores significantly predicting greater positive affect (r = 0.39; DiGasbarro et al., 2020), 

optimism (r = 0.55; DiGasbarro et al., 2020), and quality of life (r =.56; DiGasbarro et al., 2020). 

In the current sample, hope scores were concluded to have acceptable reliability for hope 

pathways, across both groups ( = .68; WLC;  = .78, OSG-SSC) at Time 1, Time  2 ( =. 88, 

WLC;  =.86, OSG-SSC), and at Time 3 ( =.84, WLC;  =76, OSG-SSC). Adequate reliability 

for hope agency, across both groups, was also indicated in the current sample ( =.81, control 

group;  =.79, treatment group) at Time 1, Time  2 ( =.78, WLC;  =.74, OSG-SSC) and at 

Time  3 ( =.85, WLC;  =.86, OSG-SSC). 

Positive  Emotions  

Positive emotions was measured using the positive emotion subscale from the Workplace 

PERMA Profiler (PERMA-PE; 2014; See Appendix A). With 3 items, this subscale measures 

one’s general tendencies toward feeling contentment and joy in their workplace (e.g., “At work, 

29 

 
 
 
how often do you feel positive?”). Response options are rated on a 11-point Likert scale ranging 

from 0 (never) to 10 (always). A higher score on this measure  indicates a higher level of positive 

emotions in the workplace. For each teacher, an average positive emotions score was calculated. 

In previous samples,  adequate evidence of reliability was concluded for this subscale in an 

occupational setting (r range = .77 - .86; Watanabe et al., 2018). Evidence of convergent validity 

has been indicated in previous samples with life satisfaction (r = .65; Butler & Kern, 2016). 

Additionally, adequate evidence of structural validity was also previous found (CFA range .51 to 

.89; Butler & Kern, 2016) in prior samples. In the current sample, the following positive 

emotions alpha estimates were found: .88 (WLC) and .95 (OSG-SSC) at Time 1, .90 (WLC) and 

.96 (OSG-SSC) at Time 2, and .92 (WLC) and .83 (OSG-SSC) at Time 3. 

Teacher Burnout  

Teacher  burnout was measured using The Maslach Burnout Inventory for Educators 

(MBI-ES; Maslach et al., 1996; See Appendix A). This 22-item scale measures  the level of 

burnout across three separate scales:  emotional exhaustion (e.g., “I feel emotionally drained from 

my work”), depersonalization (e.g., “I worry that this job is hardening me emotionally”),  and 

personal accomplishment  (e.g., “I feel like I’m positively influencing other people’s lives 

through my work). The emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and personal 

accomplishment  (PA) scales contain 9, 5, and 8 items, respectively,  with response options being 

indicated using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (every day). For each scale, a 

total scale score is calculated by adding up the responses from each scale’s items. Each scale was 

interpreted separately, consistent with the developers’ instructions for the MBI-ES (Maslach et 

al., 1996). A higher degree of burnout is indicated by a higher score on the emotional exhaustion 

and depersonalization scales and a lower score on the personal accomplishment  scale. In 

30 

 
 
 
 
previous research, evidence of good internal consistency was indicated for each of the scales 

(e.g., EE,  = .87; DP,  = .76; PA,  = .84; Chang, 2013). Additionally, in previous samples, 

acceptable evidence of convergent validity was also indicated through teachers of children with 

behavior problems  (e.g., EE, r = .36; DP, r = .20, PA, r = .27; Lambert et al., 2009). Evidence of 

adequate structural validity was also indicated (EE factor analysis range = .43 to .78; DP factor 

analysis range = .62 - .82; PA factor analysis  range = .67 - .85; Koeske & Koeske, 1989) in 

previous samples.  In the current sample, alpha estimates at Time 1 for each subscale, across both 

groups, were concluded to be adequate (EE,  = .89; DP,  = .72; PA,  = .83 [WLC]; EE,  = 

.93; DP,  = .81; PA,  = .87 [OSG-SSC]). At Time 3, reliability  for each subscale, across both 

groups, was also indicated in the current sample (EE,  = .92; DP,  =.60; PA,  =.73 [WLC]; 

EE,  =.93; DP,  = .75; PA,  = .89 [OSG-SSC]).  

Treatment Acceptability 

To measure acceptability, all participants in the treatment group were given the OSG-

SSC Feedback Form (See Appendix A), an adapted version of the feedback form developed by 

Schleider and colleagues (2021) in the original  pilot study of the SSC. This form was completed 

directly after completing the intervention and contained 5 questions on a 5-point Likert scale 

ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). A higher score indicates a greater perceived 

usefulness of the OSG-SSC. For each question, an average score was calculated across all 

participants. Given the adaptation of the original intervention to an online format, the questions 

were slightly adapted to reflect this change (e.g., “Would you recommend the online program to 

others?”; “Did you find the online program helpful in addressing a problem related to your 

occupational wellbeing?”).  

31 

 
 
 
Teacher Interviews. In order to measure further themes of intervention acceptability 

from participants, brief interviews with teachers were conducted. Through 6 interview questions 

(See Appendix A), the interview probed the overall acceptability (e.g., “Would you recommend 

the module to other teachers?”) and feasibility of the OSG-SSC (e.g., “How could the online 

module be improved?”). The interview questions were created by the principal investigator of 

this study. The interview was conducted by a research assistant, recorded over Zoom, and 

offered to all participants in the intervention group after completing the two-week follow up 

measure. 22 teachers participated in the interview.  

Procedures 

Data collection for this study was submitted to the Michigan State University’s 

Institutional Review Board and approved. Teachers were then recruited throughout various 

Michigan school districts and other targeted outlets (i.e., teacher network non-profits, teacher 

education program alumni  list serves;  see Appendix B). Interested participants completed a 

screening consent form (see Appendix C) and a brief questionnaire to determine if they met the 

eligibility  requirements  for the study (see Appendix C). Teachers that were found eligible signed 

a full study consent form (see Appendix D) outlining the specifics of the study and data 

collection timeline.  Teachers that were not found eligible for the study were immediately 

informed of their status after completing the screening survey and given a list of relevant 

resources (e.g., teacher wellbeing resource websites). Once the consent form was signed by 

eligible  participants, participants were randomized into two groups and sent an introductory 

email  that included detailed next steps to either completing the intervention or the wait-list 

surveys. The entire study was conducted online. Teachers could receive up to $45 in Amazon 

gift cards, depending on which group they were randomized into, and the payment was 

32 

 
 
distributed after completing milestones in the study. Specifically, $10 was distributed to teachers 

in the treatment group after they completed the pre-survey, intervention, and post-survey. For 

teachers in the WLC group, $10 was distributed after the teacher completed each of the two 

surveys. For both groups, another $10 was distributed after teachers completed the 2 week 

follow-up survey. Teachers  in the treatment group were sent an additional $25 after completing 

an optional follow up interview.  

Conditions 

Online Self-Guided Single Session Consultation (OSG-SSC). Participants randomly 

assigned to the OSG-SSC group completed an adapted version of the Single Session 

Consultation (SSC) developed by Schleider and colleagues (2021). The OSG-SSC retains the 

framework of the SSC as developed, but it was adapted for this study to be completed as an 

online, self-guided version focused on improving teacher wellbeing. Specifically, the SSC is a 

flexible, 8-step program used to help participants identify: (a) a specific, modifiable problem and 

associated hope; (b) a “smallest-possible  step” that one can take toward overcoming a problem; 

and (c) an action plan that helps to identify the potential inner obstacles of the participant and 

any external resources that will help them enact the “smallest-possible  step” (Schleider et al., 

2021). Thus, in the OSG-SSC, the participant was prompted to self-guide through the 8-steps, 

with the goal of them realizing their inner strength and mobilize their existing resources to 

manage more effectively (see Appendix E). The OSG-SSC was designed and implemented 

through the Computerized Intervention Authoring System (CIAS; 2021), a free research resource 

developed by Dr. Steve Ondersma that facilitates the development of interactive and 

sophisticated digital behavioral health interventions. The OSG-SSC was completed in one single 

session and did not take any participant longer than 60 minutes to complete.  

33 

 
 
Waitlist  Control. Participants randomly assigned to the WLC group completed three 

surveys over the course of a two-week period. After the first survey was completed, an email 

with a link to complete the second survey was automatically sent after one hour. Participants 

completed the second survey and two weeks after they completed a third survey. Once 

participants completed all three surveys, they received a final email  with a link to complete the 

OSG-SSC.  

Treatment Phases 

This study collected data from participants across four phases: (a) pre-intervention;  (b) 

intervention; (c) post-intervention; and (d) 2-week follow up. In the pre-intervention phase, 

participants in the OSG-SSC and WLC groups completed an initial survey (see Table  5) for 

measures).  During the intervention phase, participants in the OSG-SCC group completed the 

intervention online in a one, single session  immediately following the completion of the initial 

survey. On average, participants took 31 minutes to complete the intervention (see Table 4). 

During the intervention phase, participants were also prompted to complete the OSG-SSC 

Treatment Fidelity Checklist after every step of the intervention. During the post-intervention 

phase, the OSG-SSC group completed the post-intervention survey (see Table  5) immediately 

following the completion of the intervention. Additionally, the WLC group completed a second 

survey (see Table  5), which was automatically sent to their emails  1 hour after completing the 

initial survey. Lastly, after two weeks, participants from both groups completed a 2-week follow 

up survey (see Table  5). Participants in the OSG-SSC group could also optionally participant in 

an informal follow up interview, which was completed  by a research assistant and recorded. 

After completing the follow up survey, teachers from the WLC group had the opportunity to 

begin the OSG-SSC intervention.  

34 

 
 
 
Data Analysis  

OSG-SSC Fidelity Analysis  

Fidelity of the OSG-SSC (i.e., Research Question 1) was analyzed using the OSG-SSC 

Treatment Fidelity Checklist and items from the follow-up survey. Consistent with previous 

research (Durlak & Dupre, 2008), a high level  of fidelity was determined by completing the 

OSG-SSC and OSG-SSC action plan with at least an average fidelity score of 70% or higher. 

Specifically, the OSG-SSC fidelity was determined by calculating an average total fidelity 

percentage from each step completed of the OSG-SSC. On the follow-up survey, the fidelity of 

the OSG-SSC action plan was also calculated as a total percentage of “yes” responses from the 

OSG-SSC action plan question.  

ANOVA Outcome Analyses   

Outcome effects of the OSG-SSC (i.e., Research Question 2 and 3) were analyzed using 

repeated measures ANOVA analyses. In the research literature, this method has been shown to 

be appropriate for analyzing intervention data over time and across conditions with small sample 

sizes (e.g., n = 50; Singh et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2012). In the ANOVA analyses, time was 

entered as a within subject factor (i.e., Time  1, 2, and/or 3) and treatment condition (i.e., OSG-

SSC, WLC) was entered as a between subject factor. Immediate intervention effects (i.e., 

positive emotions, hope) were examined across both groups at Time  1, 2, and 3; while the distal 

intervention effects (i.e., school connectedness, teacher self-efficacy, burnout) were examined 

across both groups at Time 1 and Time 3. A missing  data analysis in SPSS was performed and it 

was determined that the data was missing completely at random (MCAR; chi-square = 173.90, p 

=.38). Thus, given that only very small  amounts of missing data (<10 scores across the total 

sample)  were found in this sample, listwise deletion was used for any missing data values 

35 

 
 
 
(Allison, 2009). T-tests and chi-square analyses were used to examine any differences on 

demographics and outcome variables between the two groups and no significant between group 

differences were found (See Table 4). As such, this result indicates there are balanced groups 

within this dataset and thus, the inclusion of covariates was not needed for these analysis 

(Pocock et al., 2002). 

OSG-SSC acceptability  analysis  

Acceptability of the OSG-SSC (i.e., Research Question 4) was analyzed using the OSG-SSC 

Feedback Form and brief teacher interviews. From the feedback form, a high level of 

acceptability was determined by a score of 3.0 or higher out of 5.0 across each question on the 

form (Schleider et al., 2021; Sung et al., 2023). For each question, an average score was 

calculated across all participants. In addition, follow-up teacher interviews were qualitatively 

assessed for further themes related to acceptability. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RESULTS 

Research Question 1: Can the OSG-SSC be Implemented with Fidelity  by Participants?  

The overall total average self-reported fidelity rating for all participants who completed 

the OSG-SCC was 95.8% (see Table 6). In addition, the average fidelity rating for each step of 

OSG-SCC was above 95%, except for one, which fell at 89% (i.e., Step 4). After two weeks, 

participants also reported an 83.35% fidelity rating for initiating at least 1 step of their action 

plan (see Table  6). In the research literature, fidelity ratings over 70% are considered high 

(Perepletchikova & Kazdin, 2005). Thus, it was concluded that the OSG-SSC module and the 

OSG-SSC action plan were implemented with high fidelity.  

Research Question 2: Does Participation  in the OSG-SSC Significantly Change the Positive 

Indicators of Teacher Wellbeing (i.e., hope, positive emotions,  school connectedness, 

teacher self-efficacy) Immediately  Following and/or Two Weeks after the Completion of 

the OSG-SSC Compared to the Control Group?  

Hope 

Across all time points, no significant interaction between time and group for hope 

pathways or agency was found (F [2 ,78]) = .452, p = .64, 𝜂𝑝

2  = .006; Cohen, 1988; See Table 7). 

As such, these results indicate that the intervention did not increase the hope of treatment 

teachers, relative to control group teachers, within this study. In addition, these results also 

indicate that hope did not increase across time over the course of this study. 

Positive  Emotions 

A significant, small-medium  main interaction effect between time and group for positive 

emotions was found (F ([2 ,79]) = 3.02, p = 0.05, 𝜂𝑝

2  = .047; Cohen, 1988; See Table  7). 

However, the main effect comparing the teachers across groups was not significant (F [1,79] = 

37 

 
 
 
1.16, p =.284, 𝜂𝑝

2  = .015; Cohen, 1988). Specifically, a post-hoc test revealed a significant 

increase of positive emotions for both groups of teachers across time (M difference T1-T3 = .99, 

p =.01, d =.52 [intervention group]; M difference T1-T3 = 1.10, p < .001, d =.59 [control group]; 

See Table  8). Thus, these results indicate that for the treatment and control group, a teachers’ 

feelings of positive emotions increased over the course of the study; however, this increase 

cannot be attributed to the teacher’s group condition.  

School Connectedness  

No significant main interaction effect between time and group for school connectedness 

was found (F [1 ,79] = .702, p = .41, 𝜂𝑝

2  = .009; Cohen, 1988; See Table  7). These results suggest 

that the intervention did not increase the school connectedness of treatment teachers, relative to 

control group teachers, within this study. In addition, these results also indicate that the school 

connectedness of teachers did not increase across time over the course of this study. 

Teacher Self-Efficacy 

A significant and small-medium  interaction effect between time and group for teacher 

self-efficacy was found (F [1,77] = 3.97, p = 0.50, 𝜂𝑝

2  = .050; Cohen, 1988; See Table  7). 

However, a post-hoc analysis revealed that the self-efficacy of study teachers decreased over the 

course of the study (p = .05, d = .25; see Table 8), which was not the expected direction for this 

variable.  As such, these results indicate that the intervention did not increase the treatment group 

teacher’s self-efficacy, relative to control group teachers, within this study. In addition, these 

results also indicate that a teacher’s self-efficacy decreased across time over the course of this 

study. 

38 

 
 
 
 
Question 3: Does Participation  in the OSG-SSC Significantly Change the Negative 

Indicator of Teacher Wellbeing (i.e., burnout) Two Weeks After the Completion of the 

OSG-SSC Compared to the Control Group? 

Burnout – Depersonalization   

No significant main interaction effect between time and group for depersonalization was 

found within this study (F ([,78] = 3.65, p = 0.60, 𝜂𝑝

2  = .045; Cohen, 1988; See Table 7). This 

indicates that the intervention did not significantly change the treatment group’s feelings of 

depersonalization relative to control group teachers, within this study. In addition, these results 

also indicate that a teacher’s feelings of depersonalization did not change across time over the 

course of this study. 

Burnout – Emotional Exhaustion  

A significant and large main interaction effect between group and time for emotional 

exhaustion was found (F [1,78] = 12.26, p <.001, 𝜂𝑝

2  = .14; Cohen, 1988; See Table  7). 

Additionally, a significant and medium main effect of time and group was also found for 

emotional exhaustion (F [1,78] = 4.49, p = .037, 𝜂𝑝

2  = .055; F (1,78) = .160, p = .045, 𝜂𝑝

2  = .057; 

Cohen, 1988). Post-hoc tests further examining this effect revealed a significant decrease in a 

teacher’s feeling of emotional exhaustion for those in the intervention group from Time  1 to 

Time  3 (M difference = .49, p < .001, d =.36; See Table 8), while those in the control group 

experienced an increased feeling of emotional exhaustion over the same time period (M 

difference = .12, p =.28, d =.09; See Table 8). This  indicates that the intervention did 

significantly decrease the treatment group’s feelings of emotional exhaustion relative to control 

group teachers, within this study, across time.  

39 

 
 
 
 
Burnout – Personal Accomplishment  

No significant interaction between time and group for personal accomplishment  was 

found (F (1,73) = .709, p = .403, 𝜂𝑝

2  = .010; Cohen, 1988; See Table  7). These results indicate no 

significant differences in a teacher’s feelings of personal accomplishments  across group 

condition (i.e., treatment or control group) or across time over the course of the study.  

Research Question 4: Do Teachers Find the OSG-SSC to be an Acceptable, Useful, and 

Satisfactory Intervention?  

Total mean scores for each question from the OSG-SSC feedback form are shown in 

Table 9. On a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) teachers rated their acceptability of the 

OSG-SSC through 5 questions. First, teachers reported that the OSG-SSC was “helpful in 

addressing a problem” (M = 3.50). Second, teachers reported that they found the “OSG-SSC 

helpful in developing an action plan that addressed their concerns” (M = 3.53). Third, teachers 

also indicated that they were “hopeful of the usefulness of their action plan” (M= 3.53). Fourth, 

teachers reported that they “feel motivated to use their action plan” (M = 3.82). Last, a majority 

of teachers also indicated that they would “recommend the online module to others” (M = 3.79). 

In the previous trials of the SSC, a high level of acceptability was previously  determined by 

having a mean score of a 3.0 or higher out of 5.0 across each question on the SSC feedback form 

(Schleider et al., 2021; Sung et al., 2023). Thus, it was concluded that the OSG-SSC was found 

to be acceptable, useful, and satisfactory intervention for teachers.  

Qualitative  Acceptability  Findings 

To informally enhance the quantitative acceptability data of the OSG-SSC as an aid in 

informing future research, qualitative data from 22 teacher interviews were analyzed and 

categorized across 4 categories: (a) overall impressions  of the OSG-SSC; (b) impact of the OSG-

40 

 
 
 
 
SSC on the teacher’s  job; (c) action  plans usage and barriers; (d) improvements to the OSG-

SSC. Table 10 further summarizes  the qualitative findings into subthemes and the frequency of 

participants who agreed with the subtheme.  

Overall  Impressions of the OSG-SSC. Out of the 22 teachers interviewed, 18 teachers 

had an overall positive impression  of the module, as indicated by their response to the question, 

“What was your overall impression  of the module?”. Within this line of questioning, teachers 

then further elaborated on the specific elements of the module that they enjoyed. Specifically, out 

of the 18 teachers who found the OSG-SSC to be a positive experience, 16 participants praised 

the OSG-SSC for it’s simple and easy to use design, which they found manageable for their 

demanding schedules, while 15 teachers praised its utility as a tool to encourage reflection. 

Seven of the 18 teachers also enjoyed the OSG-SSC because it created a space for them to focus 

and reflect on themselves. Additionally, four of the 18 teachers highlighted the usage of a 

stepped process and the creation an action plan as positive components of the OSG-SSC, while 

two teachers felt that their participation made their goals more attainable.  

Conversely, four teachers either had a mixed or negative overall  impression  of their 

participation in the intervention. Specifically,  all four of these teachers felt that the module was 

not helpful in addressing the external problems causing them stress  in their jobs. In addition, 

three of the four teachers also felt as no new information was presented in the module and two of 

the four teachers felt the module was too simplistic. Despite these negative impressions,  all 

teachers who were interviewed stated that they would either recommend the module to other 

teachers (i.e., 19 teachers) or recommend it only to a specific group of teachers because they 

thought the information would be more applicable to that group (i.e., three teachers; e.g., new 

teachers, teachers without established coping skills).   

41 

 
 
Impact of the OSG-SSC on the Teacher’s Job. After participating in the OSG-SSC, 17 

of the teachers interviewed cited some type of positive impact the module had at their job. Nine 

teachers stated that the OSG-SSC increased their level of awareness during subsequent situations 

at their jobs and/or produced an external action that led to internal positive feelings at work. 

Moreover, seven teachers described seeing positive shifts in how they framed and thought about 

their challenges  at work, in addition to having an increased focus on controlling the things that 

are within their control. Additionally, five of the teachers interviewed also felt that their 

participation in the OSG-SSC kept them more accountable to themselves and the goals they set. 

On the other hand, five teachers did not feel as if their participation in the OSG-SSC led to any 

positive impact at their jobs.  

Action Plans Usage and Barriers. At the time interviews were being conducted, 18 

teachers (81%) had initiated at least one part of their action plan. Nonetheless, various barriers 

that either completely hindered teachers from initiating their action plan and/or made it difficult 

to follow through with their other steps were stated. Specifically, 10 teachers discussed various 

external reasons (i.e., other people, school events) that hindered successful momentum with their 

action plans. In addition, four teachers each either stated internal reasons (i.e., motivation, 

laziness)  and/or that their identified problem was “too big” to tackle with such an action plan. 

Two teachers also cited time as an additional barrier either implementing  or continuing their 

action plans.  

Improvements  to the OSG-SSC. Participants of the OSG-SSC cited a variety of ways 

OSG-SSC could be improved if utilized in the future. Suggestions to improving the content were 

given by 12 teachers (i.e., adding videos, scenarios, research facts, other teachers’ stories) and 

technical improvements were reported by nine teachers (i.e., module design, saving material 

42 

 
 
within the module). Additionally, eight teachers stated they would have liked to have more 

frequent reminders to check-in on their action plans and four teachers thought the follow-up 

period should have been longer than two weeks. In future sessions, three teachers stated that they 

thought additional accountability within their school community would be a great improvement 

to the OSG-SSC. Lastly, more clarity of some of the questions in the OSG-SSC (two teachers) 

and more security or anonymity for answers/input (one teacher) were cited as other 

improvements  to make to the OSG-SSC.  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCUSSION 

The goal of this study was twofold. The first goal was to pilot an online, self-guided 

version of the Single Session Consultation (OSG-SSC) intervention. The second goal was to 

examine the fidelity, effectiveness, and acceptability of the OSG-SSC intervention. While 

previous versions of the SSC have been investigated, this study extends prior research by 

adapting it to an online self-guided format focused on supporting teacher wellbeing. This is 

important because it offers an easily accessible and brief intervention for members  of the 

teaching profession, who are often busy and suffering from burnout. This study had four 

hypotheses. 

Fidelity  

In this study, it was hypothesized that the OSG-SSC module and action plan would be 

implemented with high fidelity (i.e., 70% or higher).  This hypothesis was supported. Results 

indicated that both the implementation of the OSG-SSC module (i.e., 95.8% of teachers 

implemented the intervention as directed) and its accompanying action plan (i.e., 83.3% of 

teachers initiated at least one step of action plan) were carried out with high fidelity. These 

findings are consistent with previous research which found high fidelity (i.e., >70% of all 

participants implementing  an intervention as directed) ratings from the telehealth-SSC and other 

teacher wellbeing interventions (Hwang et al., 2017). Additionally, the fidelity percentages 

found for this study are also higher than other self-guided interventions, which struggled to 

maintain high intervention fidelity across time (i.e., 56% of participants typically completed an 

intervention as directed; Waller & Gilbody, 2009). 

These fidelity findings are particularly important because they indicate that the OSG-SSC 

module was easy to understand and follow for busy teachers, a main aim of this intervention. The 

44 

 
 
action plan findings are also important because they indicate that the findings of this intervention 

can engender lasting change in participants. As such, for teachers who have demanding 

schedules, it is encouraging that a self-guided, single session intervention was successful in 

motivating them to implement a plan that could put them on a path toward better mental health 

despite their intense profession. In sum, the OSG-SSC intervention and action plan was 

implemented as intended by participants, indicating a well-designed intervention for teachers. 

Effectiveness  

Hope  

In this study, hope was hypothesized to significantly increase over time in the 

intervention group with at least a medium effect size. This hypothesis was not supported. This 

study did not find a significant interaction or main effect of time or group for pathways or 

agency. As such, it can be concluded that the OSG-SSC intervention had no effect on a teachers’ 

level of hope across time. This finding is surprising  for a variety of reasons. First, the theoretical 

base of the SSC (i.e., solution-focused brief therapy) is intertwined with hope theory as they both 

aim to motivate clients to achieve their goals through their own unique pathways (Bannink, 

2007; Snyder, 2002). Second, other studies have established hope as an important proximal 

indicator of teacher wellbeing (e.g., Kumarakulasingam,  2002, Macintyre et al., 2022). Last, 

these results are also misaligned with the original pilot study’s results, which found significant 

pre to post-intervention increases  in hope-agency with a large effect (i.e., (dz = 1.43; Schleider et 

al., 2021). 

One plausible reason for the differences found in this study’s results compared to the 

research literature is the self-guided aspect of this intervention, which inherently lacked a social 

component. Specifically,  hope has been theorized to be inexplicably  intertwined with social 

45 

 
 
 
interaction. These  constructs are so interrelated that one researcher asserted , “to not connect with 

others, is to not hope” (Synder, 2002, pg. 264). As such, the lack of a social component might 

have resulted in a lack of change in teachers’ hope for the treatment group teachers. This point is 

further highlighted by the fact that many hope interventions include an in-person component 

(e.g., Schrank et al., 2012). Thus, even though the theoretical base of this intervention is so 

closely aligned with hope theory and hope has been found to be an important factor in teacher 

wellbeing, the lack of a social component might make its inclusion  in this inappropriate.  

Positive  Emotions  

This study hypothesized that positive emotions would significantly increase over time in 

the intervention group with at least a medium effect. This hypothesis was not found to be 

supported, as both groups exhibited a significant increase of positive emotions from pre- to post-

intervention. This  finding was unexpected as previous research indicates that positive emotions 

are engendered when teachers have intentional time to reflect and generate solutions to improve 

their wellbeing (Berti et al., 2019; Bradley et al., 2018). As such, given these results, continued 

exploration of positive emotions in future teacher wellbeing studies may be indicated.  

School Connectedness  

In this study, it was hypothesized that school connectedness would significantly increase 

over time in the intervention group with at least a medium effect. This hypothesis was not found 

to be supported, as the results showed no significant effects of the OSG-SSC on a teacher’s level 

of school connectedness over time. These  results are misaligned with previous research literature 

which has found significant positive increases  in a teacher’s connectedness with others at their 

school after participation in teacher wellbeing interventions (e.g., Cann et al., 2023). Although 

misaligned, these results do make sense given the context of the OSG-SSC intervention. 

46 

 
 
Specifically, the OSG-SSC was completed independently and focused on self-reflection and self- 

improvement, lacking explicit content or activities regarding one’s connection with others at 

their school. As a result, it is unlikely  that significant improvements to how a teacher feels 

connected to others in their school would be found given this lack of focus which has been more 

explicit in other teacher wellbeing interventions (Cook et al., 2017; Fernandes et al., 2019). 

Additionally, it is also possible  that changes in school connectedness could likely take longer 

than two weeks to manifest. This assertion would be consistent with other teacher wellbeing 

intervention studies that found positive effects after longer follow-up times (e.g., 4 weeks or 

more; Sharrocks, 2014; Taylor, 2018). Therefore, considerations around the inclusion of school 

connectedness in future studies is warranted given the adaptations and follow up period.  

Teacher Self-Efficacy 

This study hypothesized that teacher self-efficacy would significantly increase over time 

in the intervention group with at least a medium effect. This hypothesis was not found to be 

supported, as the OSG-SSC intervention had no effect on a teacher’s self-efficacy over time. 

This result is surprising  given the strong link between teacher self-efficacy and wellbeing as 

indicated by a robust review (i.e., Zee & Koomen, 2016; 165 studies) and other teacher 

wellbeing intervention studies that have shown positive increases in a teacher’s self-efficacy 

after participation in an intervention (Cann et al., 2023). However, notably in some of these 

intervention studies, the focus of the intervention was to improve teacher wellbeing through a 

focus on improving a teacher’s teaching practice (e.g., Berti et al., 2019; Wolf et al., 2019), 

which was not the focus of the OSG-SSC intervention. Therefore, it is possible that the 

insignificant results found in this study are due to the broad nature of the OSG-SSC intervention 

which was intentionally developed to tackle a variety of concerns (Schleider et al., 2021). Thus, 

47 

 
 
given these results, consideration of the inclusion of teacher self-efficacy without a more explicit 

focus on teaching practices may be warranted in future studies of the OSG-SSC.  

Burnout 

In this study, it was hypothesized that burnout (i.e., emotional exhaustion, 

depersonalization, personal accomplishment)  would significantly decrease over time in the 

intervention group with at least a medium effect. This hypothesis was partially supported. 

Emotional exhaustion significantly decreased in the intervention group over time, with a large 

effect. However, depersonalization and personal accomplishment  exhibited no significant 

changes. The emotional exhaustion finding is consistent with previous research,  which has 

highlighted emotional exhaustion as the core and often first presenting factor of burnout at work 

and thus sensitive to intervention changes (Edú-Valsania at al., 2022). As such, this finding is 

important because it provides significant evidence to support the OSG-SSC as an intervention to 

improve some aspect of teacher wellbeing. In addition, although insignificant, this study’s 

finding of depersonalization is also consistent with previous research. Specifically, in a meta-

analysis  (i.e., 23 studies examined) examining interventions aimed at reducing teacher burnout,  

virtually null effects of these intervention on depersonalization was found (d = 0.03, p > 0.05; 

Iancu et al., 2018). Therefore, it is possible that depersonalization may be very insensitive  to 

changes from interventions and thus, the consideration of including depersonalization in future 

studies is warranted.  

On the other hand, this study’s insignificant findings of personal accomplishment are 

inconsistent with the previous research literature. For example, in the same meta-analysis  cited 

above, significant, small effects of personal accomplishment  were found (d = 0.14; p < 0.01; 

Iancu et al., 2018). In addition, these effects only became stronger over time (i.e., 3 months , d = 

48 

 
 
0.29,  p < 0.05; Iancu et al., 2018). As such, it may be plausible  that the insignificant results 

found for personal accomplishment in this study could be due to the short follow up time of the 

OSG-SSC intervention (i.e., 2 weeks). As such, given these results, it can be concluded that the 

OSG-SSC significantly decreased one aspect of burnout (i.e., emotional exhaustion) while it had 

no effect on the other aspects (i.e., depersonalization, personal accomplishment).   

Acceptability   

This study hypothesized that teachers would find the OSG-SSC to be both an acceptable 

and useful intervention (i.e., average score of a 3 or higher for each question). This  hypothesis 

was supported, as the average teacher rating ranged from a 3.5 to 3.8 for each acceptability 

question. In addition, the results also indicated that on average, 90.4% teachers who participated 

in the OSG-SSC found it to be a helpful and useful tool to address problems of teacher wellbeing 

and would recommend it to others. These findings were found to be consistent with previous 

research, which found good acceptability ratings in both the original and telehealth versions of 

the SSC (i.e., range = 4.07 to 4.56 out of 5; Schelider et al., 2021, Sung et al., 2023). 

Additionally, to provide further insight into the good quantitative acceptability of the OSG-SSC 

that was found, additional qualitative insights gained from teacher interviews are discussed in 

more detailed below. 

Overall, a vast majority of teachers reported very positive impressions  of the module for 

a variety of reasons (e.g., simple,  easy to follow, reflective tool) while the negative impressions 

were mostly tied to the OSG-SSC doing little to address the external factors that contribute to 

negative teacher wellbeing.  These impressions  are consistent with previous research. 

Specifically, in the research literature generally positive impressions  of online based 

interventions have been found in teacher (Cook et al., 2017) and non-teacher populations 

49 

 
 
(Scheutzow et al., 2022). In addition, there is research literature that also aligns with the critique 

of teacher wellbeing interventions inability  to tackle larger external issues (Brandt et al., 2023). 

Given that the purpose of the OSG-SSC was to encourage participants to focus on selecting 

actions steps that the participant could control, it is not unexpected that some participants felt the 

OSG-SSC was not helpful in addressing systematic external factors that were outside of their 

control. Thus, although the negative impressions  of the OSG-SSC are valid, the OSG-SSC was 

positively received by a vast majority of teachers interviewed.  

Moreover, teachers also offered several recommendations for the future implementation 

of the OSG-SSC. These recommendations included improvements to the module content (e.g., 

increased visual  content, more scenarios/examples),  technical  improvements  (e.g., back button, 

ability to re-start), increased frequency of check-ins, and a longer follow-up period. These 

recommendations are consistent with previous research on web based interventions which 

highlighted intervention functionality and interactiveness as critical components to increase 

participant acceptability and engagement (Scheutzow et al., 2022). Unfortunately, this current 

trial of the OSG-SSC was severely limited by the design limitations of the online platform 

utilized to deliver the intervention. As such, future trials could utilize a more content engaging 

and technically savvy platform to possibly increase acceptability as outlined by the above 

recommendations. Thus, overall, the high acceptability of the OSG-SSC not only provides 

evidence to support the utility of the adaptations made specifically for teachers but when coupled 

with the above fidelity and preliminary efficacy results, also gives some support of the future use 

of the intervention with teachers, with improvements.   

50 

 
 
 
 
Limitations   

This current study is limited by the following factors: (a) racial  diversity, (b) self-report 

fidelity, and (c) a short follow-up period. First, this study's sample lacked racial diversity. 

Despite being a very diverse sample  across a range of other demographic markers  (i.e., 

years/grade level taught, education level, school type) the racial makeup of the teachers in this 

study was overwhelming white (i.e., 73.7% [intervention group]; 86% [WLC group]).  This 

limitation is significant because it may highlight a potentially bias sample of those who self-

selected to participate in this study. Specifically, this lack of diversity could be indicative of 

teachers of color deciding to opt out of this study due to the unique job stressors they face (e.g., 

racial  discrimination, discussion of political issues, lack of supportive environments;  Cormier et 

al., 2021; Doan et al., 2023) that they perceived the OSG-SSC to be insufficient to address. Thus, 

further adaptations of the OSG-SSC should intentionally consider and include the experiences of 

teachers of color to better address the totality of experiences contributing to levels of teacher 

wellbeing.  

Second, although all measures  included in this study were self-reported, the use of only a 

self-report fidelity measure (e.g., checklist, self-report survey) is not an ideal way to measure 

fidelity (Breitenstein et al., 2010). Specifically,  the use of a self-report fidelity measure in 

addition to other measures such as, technological intervention records (e.g., how long a user 

stayed on one question, start/end time) or audio/video recordings in which a third -party rater 

could also assess fidelity, would likely provide a more accurate and robust assessment of fidelity 

than a single self-report measure (Schultes et al., 2015). While these options were explored for 

this study, they were unable to be implemented due to the technological limitations of the 

platform used. As such, the usage of a variety of fidelity measures (e.g., self-report, 

51 

 
 
 
technological intervention records) with a compatible system would likely be ideal in future 

studies.  

Last, this study had a short follow up period of only two weeks. In order to be consistent 

with previous research on the SSC (Schleider et al., 2021; Sung et al., 2023) the two week 

follow-up period was selected as appropriate for this pilot study. However, in light of the 

adaptations made for this study, it is possible that the two week follow up period limited the 

effects of the results found for variables such as personal accomplishment  and school 

connectedness. Specifically, for these variables, previous teacher wellbeing intervention research 

indicated significant effects with longer follow up times (Iancu et al., 2018; Sharrocks, 2014; 

Taylor,  2018). Additionally, a longer follow up window may have also contributed to increased 

acceptability as indicated through the teacher interviews conducted. Thus, given that this study 

was a pilot, investigating preliminary  effects with limited time and resources, future studies 

should explore longer follow up times, such as one month, to see if has an impact on the effects 

found in this study.  

Implications  & Future Directions  

The findings from this study have a variety of implications for future research and 

practice. First, it is the first study to adapt the SSC model to an online, self-guided model focused 

on teacher wellbeing. This  is significant because these findings extend the research of the SSC as 

a flexible, adaptable program, while also adding a potentially beneficial self-guided online 

intervention for busy teachers. Specifically, this study preliminarily  showed that the OSG-SSC 

was a simple,  feasible, practical,  and effective tool for improving some aspects of teacher 

wellbeing (i.e., emotional exhaustion). Given these results, future studies could build upon this 

novel model as a targeted tool to help curb a teacher’s emotional exhaustion. Second, the OSG-

52 

 
 
SSC utilized technology which could easily  be adapted in future studies to boost engagement and 

potentially effectiveness. For example, in future studies, teachers could opt to re-engage with the 

module as needed when various situations arise by simply  re-logging into their accounts and 

completing the intervention again as a refresher. Future adaptations could also extend the OSG-

SSC by adding on additional modules to help target specific problems teachers may be facing. In 

addition, the OSG-SSC could also be adapted to be utilized school-wide, whereas one school 

wide professional development session is dedicated to introducing the intervention and then the 

technology is used in subsequent meetings to quickly monitor, troubleshoot, and collaborate on 

actions plans to ensure optimal success. Last, this study showed that a single session approach 

for interventions may be a suitable solution for busy teachers. A teacher’s time is valuable and in 

our current system teachers spend an average of 19, 8-hour school days doing professional 

development sessions (Jacob & McGovern, 2015). As such, there is potentially a high utility of a 

single session intervention for teachers that can be completed in less than an hour. Future 

research should continue to explore how single session  interventions can be helpful for teachers 

across a variety of domains, given their job demands, which could make single session 

interventions ideal.  

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION 

Teachers  are an invaluable  resource in our community and a focus on their wellbeing is 

paramount to the health of schools and students. As such, this study aimed to offer a novel 

approach to help improve teacher wellbeing that was a feasible and practical option for the time 

intensive schedules of teachers. The findings from this study were able to show preliminary 

evidence that the OSG-SSC could be such a tool for teachers. In addition, the OSG-SSC could 

also likely offer a good return on investment for individual teachers and schools interested in 

implementing  this intervention due to the flexibility of the OSG-SSC and it’s easily accessible 

and easy to use online platform. For example, schools would only need to invest minimal time 

resources when first implementing  this intervention, but due to the intervention’s flexibility, 

could use it a variety of ways for the remainder of the school year (e.g., whole school monthly 

check ins, individualized coaching, goal setting). Thus, future investigations should build upon 

the results found in this study, with a larger, more diverse sample, and including some of the 

recommendations given to better understand the full utility of the OSG-SSC

54 

 
 
REFERENCES 

Acton, R., & Gaslow, P. (2015). Teacher wellbeing in neoliberal  contexts: A review of the 
literature. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 40(8), 99-114. 
https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.441680081120104 

Allison, P. D. (2009). Missing  data. In Maydeu-Oilvares, A & Millsap, R (Eds.) The SAGE 

handbook of quantitative  methods in psychology, 72-89. Sage Publications  Ltd.  

Babyak, M. A., Snyder, C. R., & Yoshinobu, L. (1993). Psychometric properties of the Hope 
Scale: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality,  27(2), 154-
169. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1993.1011 

Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. (2011). Subjective well-being in organizations. In K. S. 

Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive  organizational 
scholarship  (pp. 178–189). Oxford University Press.  

Baldeh, T., MacDonald, T., Kosa, S. D., Lawson, D. O., Stalteri, R., Olaiya, O. R., ... & 
Mbuagbaw, L. (2020). More pilot trials could plan to use qualitative data: a meta-
epidemiological  study. Pilot and Feasibility  Studies,  6(1), 1-7. 
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-020-00712-z 

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral 

change. Psychological  Review, 84, 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 

Bannink, F. P. (2007). Solution-focused brief therapy. Journal of Contemporary 
Psychotherapy, 37(2), 87-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-006-9040-y   

Beatty, L., & Binnion, C. (2016). A systematic review of predictors of, and reasons for, 

adherence to online psychological  interventions. International  Journal of Behavioral 
Medicine,  23(6), 776-794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-016-9556-9   

Beck, A. T. (1970). Cognitive therapy: Nature and relation to behavior therapy. Behavior 
Therapy, 1(2), 184-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(70)80030-2   

Bentley, K. H., Boettcher, H., Bullis, J. R., Carl, J. R., Conklin, L. R., Sauer-Zavala, S., Pierre-

Louis, C., Farchione, T., & Barlow, D. H. (2018). Development of a single-session, 
transdiagnostic preventive intervention for young adults at risk for emotional 
disorders. Behavior Modification,  42(5), 781-805. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445517734354 

Berti, S., Cigala, A., & Sharmahd, N. (2019). Early childhood education and care physical 

environment and child development: State of the art and reflections on future orientations 
and methodologies. Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 991-1021. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02574 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Beshai, S., McAlpine, L., Weare, K., & Kuyken, W. (2016). A non-randomised feasibility trial 
assessing  the efficacy of a mindfulness-based intervention for teachers to reduce stress 
and improve well-being.  Mindfulness,  7(1), 198-208. https://10.1007/s12671-015-0436-1 

Bowen, D. J., Kreuter, M., Spring, B., Cofta-Woerpel, L., Linnan, L., Weiner, D., Bakken, S., 

Kaplan, C., Squiers, L., Fabrizio, C., & Fernandez, M. (2009). How we design feasibility 
studies. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,  36(5), 452-457. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002 

Bradley, C., Cordaro, D. T., Zhu, F., Vildostegui, M., Han, R. J., Brackett, M., & Jones, J. 

(2018). Supporting improvements in classroom  climate for students and teachers with the 
four pillars  of wellbeing curriculum.  Translational  Issues in Psychological  Science, 4(3), 
245. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000162 

Brandt, C. O., & Lopes Cardozo, M. (2023). Researching teacher well-being in protracted crises: 

a multiscalar  cultural political  economy perspective. Comparative Education 
Review, 67(1), 167-187. https://doi.org/10.1086/722815 

Breeman, L., Wubbels, T., Van Lier, P., Verhulst, F., Van der Ende, J., Maras, A., & Tick, N. 

(2015). Teacher characteristics,  social classroom  relationships,  and children’s social, 
emotional, and behavioral classroom  adjustment in special education. Journal of School 
Psychology, 53(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.11.005 

Breitenstein, S. M., Gross, D., Garvey, C. A., Hill, C., Fogg, L., & Resnick, B. (2010). 

Implementation fidelity in community‐based interventions. Research in Nursing & 
Health, 33(2), 164-173. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/nur.20373 

Burić, I., Slišković, A., & Penezić, Z. (2019). Understanding teacher well-being: a cross-lagged 

analysis  of burnout, negative student-related emotions, psychopathological symptoms, 
and resilience. Educational  Psychology, 39(9), 1136-1155. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1577952 

Burić, I., Slišković, A., & Sorić, I. (2020). Teachers’  emotions and self-efficacy: A test of 

reciprocal  relations. Frontiers  in Psychology, 11, 1650. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01650 

Butler, J., & Kern, M. L. (2016). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional  measure of 

flourishing. International  Journal of Wellbeing,  6(3). 
https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v6i3.526 

Cann, R., Sinnema, C., Rodway, J., & Daly, A. J. (2023). What do we know about interventions 

to improve educator wellbeing? A systematic literature review. Journal of Educational 
Change, 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-023-09490-w   

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Capone, V., & Petrillo, G. (2020). Mental health in teachers: Relationships with job satisfaction, 
efficacy beliefs, burnout and depression. Current Psychology, 39(5), 1757-1766. 
https://doi.org/0.1007/s12144-018-9878-7     

Carolan, S., Harris, P. R., & Cavanagh, K. (2017). Improving employee  well-being and 
effectiveness: Systematic review and meta-analysis of web-based psychological 
interventions delivered in the workplace. Journal of Medical  Internet Research, 19(7), 
https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7583 

Chan, D. W. (2013). Counting blessings versus misfortunes: Positive interventions and 

subjective well-being of Chinese school teachers in Hong Kong. Educational 
Psychology, 33(4), 504-519. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785046 

Chan, M. K., Sharkey, J. D., Lawrie, S. I., Arch, D. A., & Nylund -Gibson, K. (2021). 

Elementary school teacher well-being and supportive measures amid COVID-19: An 
exploratory study. School Psychology. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000441 

Chang, M. L. (2013). Toward a theoretical model to understand teacher emotions and teacher 
burnout in the context of student misbehavior: Appraisal, regulation and coping. 
Motivation  and Emotion, 37, 799–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9335-0   

Cherniss, C., & Cherniss, C. (1980). Staff burnout: Job stress  in the human services. Sage 

Publications.  

Cohen J. (1988). Statistical  Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587 

Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning: 

Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational 
Psychology, 104(4), 1189. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029356   

Collie, R.J., Shapka, J.D., Perry, N.E., & Martin, A.J. (2015). Teacher  well-being:  Exploring its 

components and a practice-oriented scale. Journal of Psychoeducational  Assessment, 
33(8), 744-756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915587990 

Cook, C. R., Miller, F. G., Fiat, A., Renshaw, T., Frye, M., Joseph, G., & Decano, P. (2017). 
Promoting secondar teacher’s wellbeing and intentions to implement evidence-based 
practices: Randomized evaluation of the achiever resilience  curriculum.  Psychology in 
the Schools, 54(1), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21980 

Cormier, C. J., Wong, V., McGrew, J. H., Ruble, L. A., & Worrell, F. C. (2021). Stress, burnout, 

and mental health among teachers of color. The Learning Professional,  42(1), 54-62. 
https://learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/stress-burnout-and-mental-
health-among-teachers-of-color.pdf 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An 

introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-
006-9018-1 

Deci E.L., Ryan R.M. (1985). Intrinsic  motivation  and self-determination  in human behavior.   

Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7_2   

Delpit, L. (2006). Lessons from teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 220-231. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285966 

Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (1999). Personality and Subjective Well-being.  In D. Kahneman, E, 
Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being:  Foundations of hedonic psychology. (pp. 213-
229). Russell Sage Foundation.  

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2018). Advances and open questions in the science of 

subjective wellbeing. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 15. 
https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.115 

Diener, E., & Ryan, K. (2009). Subjective well-being:  A general overview. South African 

Journal of Psychology, 39(4), 391-406. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630903900402 

DiGasbarro, D., Midden, A., Van Haitsma, K., Meeks, S., & Mast, B. (2020). Reliability and 

validity of the adult hope scale among nursing home residents with and without cognitive 
impairment.  Clinical Gerontologist,  43(3), 340-349. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2019.1656696 

Doan, S., Steiner, E., Pandey, R., & Woo, A. (2023). Teacher well-being and intentions  to leave: 
Findings from the 2023 state of the american teacher survey. RAND Corporation. 
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1108-8.html   

Dreer, B. (2021). Teachers’  well-being and job satisfaction: the important role of positive 

emotions in the workplace. Educational  Studies, 1-17. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1940872 

Edú-Valsania, S., Laguía, A., & Moriano, J. A. (2022). Burnout: A review of theory and 
measurement. International  Journal of Environmental Research and Public 
Health, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031780 

Falecki, D., & Mann, E. (2021). Practical applications for building teacher wellbeing in 

education. In C.F. Mansfield (Ed), Cultivating Teacher Resilience  (pp. 175). Springer. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5963-1_11       

Fernandes, L., Peixoto, F., Gouveia, M. J., Silva, J. C., & Wosnitza, M. (2019). Fostering 

teachers’ resilience  and well-being through professional learning:  Effects from a training 
programme.  The Australian Educational  Researcher, 46(4), 681-698. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00344-0   

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Feldman, D. B., & Dreher, D. E. (2012). Can hope be changed in 90 minutes? Testing the 

efficacy of a single-session  goal-pursuit intervention for college students. Journal of 
Happiness Studies, 13(4), 745-759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9292-4 

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology:  The broaden-

and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 

García-Carmona,  M., Marín, M. D., & Aguayo, R. (2019). Burnout syndrome in secondary 
school teachers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Social  Psychology of 
Education, 22(1), 189-208. https://10.1007/s11218-018-9471-9 

Granziera, H., Collie, R., & Martin, A. (2021). Understanding teacher wellbeing through job 

demands-resources theory. In C.F. Mansfield (Ed), Cultivating Teacher Resilience  (pp. 
229-244). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5963-1_14   

Greenspoon, P.J., & Saklofske, D.H. (2001). Toward an integration of subjective wellbeing and 

psychopathology. Social Indicators  Research, 54(1), 81-108. 
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007219227883  

Hascher, T., & Waber, J. (2021). Teacher  well-being:  A systematic review of the research 

literature from the year 2000–2019. Educational Research Review, 34, 100411. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100411 

Hayes, R., Titheradge, D., Allen, K., Allwood, M., Byford, S., Edwards, V., & Ford, T. (2020). 

The Incredible Years® Teacher  Classroom Management programme  and its impact on 
teachers’ professional self‐efficacy, work‐related stress, and general well‐being: Results 
from the STARS randomized controlled trial. British Journal of Educational 
Psychology, 90(2), 330-348.https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12284 

Hobfoll, S.E., & Freedy, J. (1993). Conservation of resources: A general stress theory applied to 
burnout. In W.B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.) Professional  burnout: Recent 
developments in theory and research.  Routledge.  

Hodges, A., Cordier, R., Joosten, A., Bourke-Taylor, H., Speyer, R. (2018) Evaluating the 

psychometric quality of school connectedness measures: A systematic review.  PLoS one 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203373     

Harmsen, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., Maulana, R., & Van Veen, K. (2018). The relationship between 

beginning teachers’ stress causes, stress responses, teaching behavior and 
attrition. Teachers and Teaching, 24(6), 626-643.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1465404  

Hascher, T., & Waber, J. (2021). Teacher  well-being:  A systematic review of the research 

literature from the year 2000–2019. Educational Research Review, 34, 100411. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100411  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hwang, Y. S., Bartlett, B., Greben, M., & Hand, K. (2017). A systematic review of mindfulness 

interventions for in-service teachers: A tool to enhance teacher wellbeing and 
performance. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 26-42. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.015 

Hymmen, P., Stalker, C. A., & Cait, C. A. (2013). The case for single-session  therapy: Does the 
empirical  evidence support the increased prevalence  of this service delivery model. 
Journal of Mental  Health, 22(1), 60-71. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2012.670880 

Iwanicki, E. F., & Schwab, R. L. (1981). A cross validation study of the Maslach Burnout 
Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(4), 1167-1174. 
https://doi.org/0.1177/001316448104100425   

Jacob, A. & McGovern, K. (2015). The Mirage:  Confronting the Hard Truth about Our Quest 
for Teacher Development. TNTP. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558206.pdf 

Kern, M. (2014). The workplace PERMA profiler. University of Pennsylvania. 

https://www.peggykern.org/uploads/5/6/6/7/56678211/workplace_perma_profiler_10201
4.pdf  

Keyes, C. L., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: the empirical 

encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007 

Koeske, G. F., & Koeske, R. D. (1989). Construct validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory: A 

critical review and reconceptualization. The Journal of Applied Behavioral 
Science, 25(2), 131-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886389252004 

Kumarakulasingam,  T. M. (2002). Relationships  between classroom management, teacher stress, 
teacher burnout, and teachers' levels  of hope [Doctoral dissertation, University of 
Kansas]. Proquest Dissertations Publishing.  https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-
theses/relationships-between-classroom-management/docview/305517235/se-2.   

Lambert, R. G., McCarthy, C., O’Donnell, M. & Wang, C. (2009). Measuring elementary 

teacher stress and coping in the classroom:  Validity evidence for the classroom appraisal 
of resources and demands. Psychology in the Schools, 74(4), 274–283. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20438 

Lanners, M. (2019). Are teachers more affected by burnout than physicians, nurses and other 
professionals?  A systematic review of the literature. In N. Lightner & J. Kalra (Eds), 
Advances in human factors and ergonomics in healthcare and medical devices (Vol 957). 
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20451-8_14   

Lee, C. S., Bowman, M., & Wu, J. L. (2022). Preliminary  outcomes from a single-session, 
asynchronous online, stress and anxiety management workshop for college 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
students. Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. http://dx.doi.org/10.47626/2237-
6089-2021-0448  

Lever, N., Mathis, E., & Mayworm, A. (2017). School mental health is not just for students: 

Why teacher and school staff wellness matters. Report on Emotional & Behavioral 
Disorders in Youth, 17(1), 6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6350815/ 

Liang, W., Song, H., & Sun, R. (2022). Can a professional learning community facilitate teacher 

well-being in China? The mediating role of teaching self-efficacy. Educational 
Studies, 48(3), 358-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1755953 

Liu, S., Rovine, M. J., & Molenaar,  P. (2012). Selecting a linear mixed model for longitudinal 

data: repeated measures analysis of variance, covariance pattern model, and growth curve 
approaches. Psychological  Methods, 17(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026971 

Maas, J., Schoch, S., Scholz, U., Rackow, P., Schüler, J., Wegner, M., & Keller, R. (2021). 

Teachers’  perceived time pressure, emotional exhaustion and the role of social support 
from the school principal.  Social Psychology of Education, 24(2), 441-464. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09605-8 

Macintyre, P., Mercer, S., Gregersen, T., & Hay, A. (2022). The role of hope in language 

teacher's changing stress, coping, and well-being. System, 109. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102881 

Madigan, D. J., & Curran, T. (2021). Does burnout affect academic achievement? A meta-
analysis  of over 100,000 students. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 387-405. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09533-1   

Madigan, D. J., & Kim, L. E. (2021a). Does teacher burnout affect students? A systematic 
review of its association with academic achievement and student-reported 
outcomes. International  Journal of Educational Research, 105, 101714. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101714      

Madigan, D. J., & Kim, L. E. (2021b). Towards an understanding of teacher attrition: A meta-

analysis  of burnout, job satisfaction, and teachers’ intentions to quit. Teaching and 
Teacher Education, 105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103425 

Manasia, L., Pârvan, A., & Macovei,  M. (2020). Towards a model of teacher well-being from a 
positive emotions perspective. European Journal of Investigation  in Health, Psychology 
and Education, 10(1), 469-496. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe10010035    

Marken, S., Argawal, S. (2022, June 13). K-12 workers have the highest burnout rate in U.S.  
Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/393500/workers-highest-burnout-rate.aspx   

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Maslach, C. (1998). A multidimensional theory of burnout. In Cooper, C (Ed.), Theories of 

organizational  stress  (pp. 68-85). Oxford University Press. 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christina-
Maslach/publication/280939428_A_Multidimensional_Theory_of_Burnout/links/55cd2b
0708aebebb8f577ea5/A-Multidimensional-Theory-of-Burnout.pdf  

Maslach C., Jackson S.E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of 
Organizational  Behavior, 2(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205 

Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual (3rd ed.). 

Mind Garden, Inc. 

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Burnout. In G. Fink (Ed.), Stress: concepts, cognition, 

emotion, and behavior (pp. 351-357). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
12-800951-2.00044-3 

Meng, X., & D'Arcy, C. (2016). Coping strategies and distress reduction in psychological well-

being? A structural equation modelling analysis using a national population 
sample. Epidemiology and Psychiatric  Sciences, 25(4), 370-383. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796015000505 

Moe, A. (2016). Harmonious passion and its relationship with teacher well-being. Teaching and 

Teacher Education, 59, 431-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.017 

Ortan, F., Simut, C., & Simut, R. (2021). Self-efficacy, job satisfaction and teacher well-being in 
the K-12 educational system. International  Journal of Environmental  Research and 
Public Health, 18(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312763   

Pearson, N., Naylor, P. J., Ashe, M. C., Fernandez, M., Yoong, S. L., & Wolfenden, L. (2020). 
Guidance for conducting feasibility and pilot studies for implementation trials. Pilot and 
Feasibility  Studies,  6(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-020-00634-w 

Perepletchikova, F., & Kazdin, A. E. (2005). Treatment integrity and therapeutic change: Issues 
and research recommendations. Clinical  Psychology: Science and Practice, 12(4), 365. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpi045 

Pocock, S. J., Assmann, S. E., Enos, L. E., & Kasten, L. E. (2002). Subgroup analysis, covariate 

adjustment and baseline comparisons  in clinical  trial reporting: current practice and 
problems.  Statistics  in Medicine, 21(19), 2917-2930. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1296 

R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for 

Statistical  Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ 

Rahm, T., & Heise, E. (2019). Teaching  happiness to teachers-development and evaluation of a 

training in subjective well-being.  Frontiers in Psychology, 10(2703). 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02703  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Read, A., Mazzucchelli, T. G., & Kane, R. T. (2016). A preliminary  evaluation of a single 

session behavioral  activation intervention to improve well‐being  and prevent depression 
in careers.  Clinical Psychologist,  20(1), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/cp.12084   

Reichard, R. J., Avey, J. B., Lopez, S., & Dollwet, M. (2013). Having the will and finding the 

way: A review and meta-analysis of hope at work. The Journal of Positive 
Psychology, 8(4), 292-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.800903  

Renshaw, T. L., Long, A. C., & Cook, C. R. (2015). Assessing teachers’ positive psychological 
functioning at work: Development and validation of the Teacher Subjective Wellbeing 
Questionnaire. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(2), 289. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000112 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on 

hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141. 
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141   

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Exploration of the meaning of 

psychological  well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069    

Scheutzow, J., Attoe, C., & Harwood, J. (2022). Acceptability of web-based mental health 

interventions in the workplace: systematic review. JMIR Mental  Health. 
https://doi.org/10.2196/34655  

Schleider, J. L., Dobias, M. L., Sung, J. Y., & Mullarkey,  M. C. (2020). Future directions in 

single-session  youth mental health interventions. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent 
Psychology, 49(2), 264-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2019.1683852    

Schleider, J. L., Sung, J. Y., Bianco, A., Gonzalez, A., Vivian, D., & Mullarkey, M. C. (2021). 

Open pilot trial of a single-session  consultation service  for clients on psychotherapy wait-
lists. The Behavior Therapist,  44(1), 8-15. https://psyarxiv.com/fdwqk  

Schrank, B., Bird, V., Rudnick, A., & Slade, M. (2012). Determinants, self-management 

strategies and interventions for hope in people with mental disorders: Systematic search 
and narrative review. Social Science & Medicine, 74(4), 554-564. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.008 

Schultes, M. T., Jöstl, G., Finsterwald, M., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2015). Measuring 

intervention fidelity from different perspectives with multiple methods: The Reflect 
program as an example. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 47, 102-112. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.10.001 

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish:  A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-

being. Free Press.  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Serdar, C. C., Cihan, M., Yücel, D., & Serdar, M. A. (2021). Sample size, power and effect size 

revisited: simplified and practical approaches in pre-clinical,  clinical  and laboratory 
studies. Biochemia Medica, 31(1), 27-53. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2021.010502 

Sezgin, F., & Erdogan, O. (2015). Academic optimism, hope and zest for work as predictors of 
teacher self-efficacy and perceived success. Educational Sciences: Theory and 
Practice, 15(1), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.1.2338 

Sharrocks, L. (2014). School staff perceptions of well-being and experience of an intervention to 

promote well-being.  Educational Psychology in Practice,  30(1), 19-36. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2013.868787 

Singh, V., Rana, R. K., & Singhal, R. (2013). Analysis of repeated measurement data in the 

clinical  trials. Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative  Medicine,  4(2), 77. 
https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-9476.113872 

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik,  S. (2018). Job demands and job resources as predictors of teacher 
motivation and well-being. Social Psychology of Education, 21(5), 1251-1275. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9464-8   

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik,  S. (2007). Dimensions  of teacher self-efficacy and relations with 

strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of 
Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801 

Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249-

275. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1304_01 

Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S.T., 

Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: 
Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of 
Personality  and Social Psychology, 60, 570-585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.60.4.570  

Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M., & Thijs,  J. T. (2011). Teacher  wellbeing: The importance of 

teacher–student relationships. Educational  Psychology Review, 23(4), 457-477. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y 

Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers' emotions and teaching: A review of the 

literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 15(4), 327-
358. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026131715856 

Sung, J., Bugatti, M., Vivian, D., & Schleider, J. (2023). Evaluating a telehealth single-session 
consultation service  for clients on psychotherapy wait-lists. Practice Innovations,  8(2), 
141-161. https://doi.org/10.1037/pri0000207 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sung, J., Dobias, M., & Schleider, J. L. (2020). Single-session  interventions:  complementing and 
extending evidence-based  practice. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z7bw 

Swanson, E., Wanzek, J., Haring, C., Ciullo, S., & McCulley, L. (2013). Intervention fidelity in 
special and general education research journals.  The Journal of Special Education, 47(1), 
3-13. https://doig.org/10.1177/0022466911419516 

Talvio,  M., Lonka, K., Komulainen, E., Kuusela, M., & Lintunen, T. (2013). Revisiting gordon’s 

teacher effectiveness training: An intervention study on teachers´ social and emotional 
learning. Electronic  Journal of Research in Educational  Psychology, 11(3), 693-716. 
https://dx.doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.31.13073 

Tanaka, N., Boyce L., Chinn, C., & Murphy, K. (2020) Improving early care and education 

professionals’  teaching self-efficacy and well-being: A mixed methods exploratory study, 
Early Education and Development, 31(7). 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1794246  

Taylor,  M. J. (2018). Using CALMERSS to enhance teacher well-being: A pilot study. 
International  Journal of Disability,  Development & Education, 65(3), 243–261. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2017.1394985 

Taris,  T. W., Le Blanc, P. M., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. J. (2005). Are there causal 

relationships  between the dimensions of the Maslach Burnout Inventory? A review and 
two longitudinal tests. Work & Stress, 19(3), 238-255. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500270453 

Turner,  K., & Thielking,  M. (2016). Teacher wellbeing:  Its effects on teaching practice and 

student learning. Issues in Educational  Research, 29 (3), 938–960. 
http://www.iier.org.au/iier29/turner2.pdf 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention 

(2015). Results from the school health policies  and practices  study 2014. 
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/shpps/pdf/shpps-508-final_101315.pdf. 

van Horn, J. E., Taris,  T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. J. (2004). The structure of 

occupational well‐being:  A study among Dutch teachers. Journal of Occupational and 
Organizational  Psychology, 77(3), 365-375. https://doi.org/10.1348/0963179041752718 

von der Embse, N., & Mankin, A. (2021). Changes in teacher stress and wellbeing throughout 

the academic year. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 37(2), 165-184. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2020.1804031  

Waller,  R., & Gilbody, S. (2009). Barriers to the uptake of computerized cognitive behavioural 
therapy: a systematic review of the quantitative and qualitative evidence. Psychological 
Medicine,  39(5), 705-712. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291708004224  

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Watanabe, K., Kawakami, N., Shiotani, T., Adachi, H., Matsumoto, K., Imamura, K., 

Matsumoto, K., Yamagami, F., Fusejima, A., Muraoka, T., Kagami, T., Shimazu, A., & 
Kern, M. L. (2018). The Japanese Workplace  PERMA-Profiler: a validation study among 
Japanese workers. Journal of Occupational Health, 60(5), 383-393. 
https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.2018-0050-OA 

Witt, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In T. R. 

Kratochwill (Eds.), Advances in school psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 251-288).  
Erlbaum. 

Wolf, S., Aber, J. L., Behrman, J. R., & Tsinigo,  E. (2019). Experimental impacts of the “Quality 
Preschool for Ghana” interventions on teacher professional  well-being, classroom 
quality, and children’s school readiness. Journal of Research on Educational 
Effectiveness,  12(1), 10–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2018.1517199 

Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher  self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, 
student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of 
research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981-1015. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                  APPENDIX A: Tables and Figures 

Table 1 

Teacher Wellbeing  Intervention  Studies 

Authors 

Total 
Sample 
Size 

Modality    Duration  Focus of 

Intervention  

Beshai et 
al., 2016 

N = 
89 

    In 
person 

9 sessions, 
75 mins 

Mindfulness  

Chan, 
2013 

N = 
78 

Hybrid 

8 weeks. 
15 
mins/week 

Gratitude 
journal 

Effects 

Acceptability  

Fidelity  

78 % of 
participants 
reported that they 
enjoyed the course 
“a lot”, 20 % 
responded “quite a 
lot” 

Did not measure  

Small  
( 𝜂2 = .30) 

Medium to 
Large  
(Range d = -
.38 – -.85) 

Did not 
measure  

Fidelity was 
only evidenced 
by teachers’ 
self-reports in 
summary 
statements 
about their 
listing of 
events, their 
journaling,  and 
their reflections 
on their 
meditations 

Indicators 
of Interest 

Stress, 
teacher 
wellbeing, 
mindfulne
ss, and 
compassio
n 

Life 
satisfactio
n, positive 
affect, 
negative 
affect, and 
gratitude  

67 

 
 
 
                                                          
                                                                  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1 (cont’d) 

Cook et 
al., 2017 

N = 
44 

Online 

5 sessions: 
2.5 
hours/sess
ion 

Psychoeduca
tion of stress, 
wellbeing 
concepts and 
wellness plan 

Stress, 
self-
efficacy, 
and work 
satisfactio
n 

Medium  
(d = .57 – .69) 

Did not 
measure 

The results from a 
questionnaire 
indicated that 
participating 
teachers found the 
intervention to be 
reasonable, 
acceptable, and 
effective  

Fernande
s et al., 
2019 

N = 
59 

In person 

9 sessions: 
2 
hours/sess
ion, once 
a week 

Professional 
development 
series 
(topics: 
resilience, 
building 
relationships, 
effective 
teaching)   

Positive 
experience
s, negative 
experience
s, work 
meaning 
and 
wellbeing 

Small  
( 𝜂2 = 22 – .25) 

Did not measure  

Did not 
measure  

Hayes et 
al., 2020 

N = 
80 

In person 

6 full days 
over 7 
months 

Classroom 
management 
training 

No significant 
effects found 

Teachers  reported 
that they were able 
to identify positive 
changes as a result 
of the intervention 

Developers 
were confident 
in the group 
leaders 
delivering the 
intervention 
with fidelity to 
the model 

Burnout, 
self-
efficacy, 
positive 
affect, 
negative 
affect 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1 (cont’d) 

Rahm & 
Heise, 
2019 

N = 
89 

In person 
+ journal 
(self-
guided) 

5 weeks, 
13 hours  

Psychoeduca
tion, positive 
psychology 
interventions 
(emotions 
diary and 
gratitude) 

Positive 
emotions, 
negative 
emotions, 
life 
satisfactio
n, thriving 

Medium to 
Large 
(Range d = 
.31 – .65) 

Talvio  et 
al., 2013 

N = 
43 

In person 

4 days/full 
school day  

Wellbeing
, coping  

Large  
 (d = 3.58) 

Social 
Emotional 
Skill 
Training   

Did not 
measure 

Did not 
measure 

Participants 
reported a high 
personal benefit 
(M = 5.68 out of 7 
- highest 
agreement) and 
increase in 
knowledge (M = 
5.44) from the 
intervention  

Participants 
reported positive 
reactions to the 
intervention (Mean 
average of 4.13 out 
of 5 - highest 
agreement) 

Tarrasch 
et al., 
2020 

N = 
44 

In person 

20 weekly 
sessions1 
and ½ 
hours per 
session 

Mindfulness/
Social 
Emotional 
Skill 
Training   

Large (Range 
d = .62 – 
1.20) 

Did not measure 

Did not 
measure 

Self-
efficacy, 
mindfulne
ss, 
anxiety, 
stress, 
burnout, 
compassio
n, 
reactivity, 
anxiety 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 

8 Steps of the Single Session Consultation   

Step # 

Summary of Step  

Step 1  

Establish shared purpose for being here 

Step 2 

Identify a client’s top problem  

Step 3 

Identify client’s top hope  

Step 4 

Pose the miracle  question  

Step 5 

Create a scale based on the miracle question  

Step 6 

Explore expectations to the problem  

Step 7 

Construct an action plan 

Step 8  Wrap Up 

70 

 
 
 
 
Table 3 

Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Measures   

Research Questions 
Question 1: Can the OSG-SSC and 
OSG-SSC action plan be implemented 
with fidelity  by participants? 

Hypotheses 
It is hypothesized that the OSG-SSC and OSG-
SSC action plan will be implemented with at 
least 70% fidelity  

Measure(s) 
OSG-SSC Treatment Fidelity 
Checklist; OSG-SSC Action Plan 
Fidelity  

It is hypothesized that self-efficacy, school 
connectedness, positive emotions, and hope will 
increase from preintervention to 
postintervention and follow-up with at least a 
medium effect 

Teacher  Subjective Wellbeing 
Questionnaire – Teacher Efficacy 
Scale; Teacher  Subjective Wellbeing 
Questionnaire – School 
Connectedness Scale; Adult Hope 
Scale; PERMA- Positive Emotions 

It is hypothesized that teacher burnout will 
decrease from preintervention to 
postintervention and follow-up with at least a 
medium effect 

Maslach Burnout Inventory for 
Educators   

Question 2: Does participation  in the 
online self-guided  Single Session 
Consultation  (OSG-SSC) significantly 
change the positive  indicators  of 
teacher wellbeing (i.e., self-efficacy, 
school connectedness, positive 
emotions, hope) immediately following 
and two weeks after  the completion of 
the OSG-SSC compared to the control 
group?   

Question 3: Does participation  in the 
online self-guided  Single Session 
Consultation  (OSG-SSC) significantly 
change the negative indicator  of 
teacher wellbeing (i.e., burnout) 
immediately following  and two weeks 
after the completion of  
the OSG-SSC compared to the control 
group? 

71 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3 (cont’d) 

Question 4: Do teachers find the OSG-
SSC to be an acceptable,  useful, and 
satisfactory  intervention? 

It is hypothesized that teachers will find the 
OSG-SSC an acceptable and useful 
intervention, as measured by a mean score of 
3.0 out of 5.0 across the variety of items on the 
OSG-SSC Feedback Form 

OSG-SSC Feedback Form; Teacher 
Interviews  

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4  

Demographic Variables for the Intervention  and Waitlist  Control (WLC) 
Groups 

Intervention 
M(SD) 

WLC 
M(SD) 

13.2 
81.6 
5.3 

11.6 
88.4 
- 

86 
2.3 
- 
4.7 
7.0 

18.4 
81.6 
- 
- 

20.9 
69.8 
2.3 
7.0 

73.7 
- 
7.9 
2.6 
15.8 

Variable  
Gender  
  % Male  
  % Female  
  % Non-Binary  
Race 
  % White  
  % LatinX 
  % Black 
  % Asian  
  % Bi/Multi-Racial   
Education  
  % Bachelors 
  % Master’s  
  % MD/JD/PhD 
  % Other  
Year(s) Taught 
  % 1 yr 
  % 2 yrs. 
  % 3 yrs.  
  % 6-8 yrs. 
  % 9-11 yrs. 
  % 12-14 yrs. 
  % 15+ yrs. 
Grade(s) Taught 
  % Pre-K 
  % K-2nd  
  % 3-5th  
  % 6-8th  
  % 9th- 12th  
  % Mixed Elem 
  % More than 2 grades  
School Type  
  % Rural  
  % Urban 
  % Suburban 
Coping with Stress 
Time  to Complete Intervention 
(mins) 
Note. p = significance of the mean difference between the two conditions 

2.6 
65.8 
31.6 
5.4 (1.86) 
31.12 (12.11) 

4.7 
- 
14 
9.3 
20.9 
9.3 
41.9 

9.3 
14 
16.3 
18.6 
18.6 
23.3 
- 

2.6 
2.6 
15.8 
10.5 
10.5 
18.4 
39.5 

7.9 
21.1 
10.5 
26.3 
18.4 
10.5 
5.3 

4.7 
69.8 
25.6 
4.7 (1.94) 
- 

73 

p 
.30 

.18 

.26 

.66 

.44 

.77 

.11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5 

Data Measures Utilized  by Phase and Group Condition  

Treatment Phases and Measures 

Group Condition 

Pre-Intervention  

Intervention  

Post-Intervention  

2 Week Follow Up  

OSG-SSC 

Demographics, TSWQ-TE, 
TSWQ-SC, MBI-ES, AHS, 
PERMA-PE 

OSG-SSC Treatment 
Fidelity Checklist 

OSG-SSC Feedback 
Form, AHS, PERMA-
PE 

WLC 

Same as above  

None  

AHS, PERMA-PE 

OSG-SSC Action 
Plan Fidelity, 
TSWQ-TE, 
TSWQ-SC, MBI-
ES, AHS, 
PERMA-PE, 
Follow-Up 
Interview 

TSWQ-TE, 
TSWQ-SC, MBI-
ES, AHS, 
PERMA-PE,  

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 6 

Intervention  and Action Plan Fidelity  (n = 37) 

Intervention Fidelity  

Intervention Step 

Percentage 

  Step 1 
  Step 2 
  Step 3 
  Step 4 
  Step 5 
  Step 6 
  Step 7 
Total  
Action Plan Fidelity  
At least 1 step of action 
plan initiated after 2 
weeks 

96.5% 
98% 
98% 
89% 
95.5% 
96.5% 
97.5% 
95.8% 

83.3% 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7 

Interaction  Effects  of Study Variables  

Variable  

Time  1 

Time  2 

Time  3 

Hope Pathways 
  Intervention 
  WLC 
Hope Agency 
  Intervention 
  WLC 
Positive Emotions 
  Intervention 
  WLC 
School Connectedness 
  Intervention 
  WLC 
Teacher  Self Efficacy 
  Intervention 
  WLC 
Burnout - DP 
  Intervention 
  WLC 
Burnout - EE 
  Intervention 
  WLC 
Burnout - PA 
  Intervention 
  WLC 

M 

SD 

M 

SD 

M 

SD 

n 

6.21 
6.17 

6.46 
6.42 

5.78 
5.90 

2.84 
2.74 

3.02 
3.30 

1.96 
1.72 

4.19 
3.99 

4.29 
4.44 

.85 
.88 

1.04 
1.26 

2.15 
1.80 

.66 
.76 

.65 
.63 

1.39 
1.19 

1.37 
1.24 

.88 
.95 

6.33 
6.13 

6.58 
6.47 

6.06 
6.97 

.94 
1.04 

1.03 
1.13 

2.36 
1.87 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 

6.07 
6.09 

6.31 
6.35 

6.77 
7.01 

2.70 
2.69 

3.09 
3.14 

1.65 
1.84 

3.69 
4.12 

4.32 
4.33 

.90 
1.11 

1.12 
1.13 

1.66 
1.96 

.70 
.69 

.73 
.62 

1.19 
1.09 

1.42 
1.39 

.74 
.75 

36 
43 

36 
43 

37 
43 

37 
43 

36 
42 

37 
42 

36 
43 

33 
41 

Group by Time 
Interaction 
F 
.897 

p 
.40 

2  
𝜂𝑝
     .01 

.452 

.64 

.01 

3.02 

.05 

.05 

.702 

.41 

.01 

3.97 

.05 

.05 

3.65 

.06 

.05 

12.26 

<.001 

.14 

.709 

.40 

.01 

Note. Effect size in  𝜂𝑝
accomplishment   

2 with .02, .06, .14 corresponding to small, medium, and large effect size, respectively; Cohen, 1988; DP = depersonalization; EE = emotional exhaustion; PA = personal 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8 

Post Hoc Analyses of Mean Differences  Between Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 

Variable  

Treatment 

Control 

Time  1 - Time 
2 

MD  SE 

Time  2 - Time 
3 
p  MD  SE 

Time  1 - Time  3 

Time  1 - Time  2 

Time  2 - Time  3 

Time  1 – Time  3 

p  MD  SE 

p 

MD  SE 

p 

MD  SE 

p 

MD  SE 

p 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

.26 

.09 

.07 

.57 

.34 

.28 

.16 

.70 

.32 

.98 

.05 

.89 

.12 

.01 

.16 

.12 

.13 

.09 

.12 

.10 

.30 

.29 

.04 

.14 

.15 

.32 

.14 

.16 

.14 

.99 

.19 

.25 

.08 

1.00 

1.00 

1.06 

.047 

.17  <.001 

Hope 
Pathways 
Hope 
Agency  
Positive 
Emotions 
School 
Connecte-
dness  
Teacher 
Self-
Efficacy 
Burnout - 
DP  
Burnout - 
EE 
Burnout - 
PA 
Note. MD = mean difference; DP = depersonalization; EE = emotional exhaustion; PA = personal accomplishment   

.14  <.001 

.03 

.49 

.31 

.08 

.13 

.16 

.07 

.09 

.81 

.07 

.04 

.07 

.39 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

.10  1.00 

.09 

.13 

1.00 

.10 

.86 

.07 

.13 

1.00 

.23  1.00  1.10 

.23  <.001 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

.05 

.07 

.44 

.16 

.08 

.05 

.11 

.15 

.44 

.12 

.11 

.28 

.11 

.11 

.31 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9 

Average OSG-SSC Intervention  Acceptability  Ratings  

Question 

N  Min  Max  Mean (SD) 

Did you find the module helpful in 
addressing a problem related to your 
occupational wellbeing? 

Did the module help you develop an 
action plan to address your concern? 

38 

2 

5 

3.50 (.83)  

37 

2 

5 

3.81 (.94) 

How hopeful are you that the action plan 
will be useful? 

38 

1 

5 

3.53 (.95) 

How motivated do you feel to use your 
action plan? 

38 

2 

5 

3.82 (.87) 

Would you recommend the online 
module to others? 

38 

2 

5 

3.79 (.88) 

# of participants 
with a rating of 3 or 
greater 
33 

34 

33 

36 

35 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10  

Teacher Interview  Themes about OSG-SSC  
Example Excerpts   
Theme/Subthemes   

Module Impressions    
Positive Impression 

N/A 

  Simple & 
manageable  

  Reflective  tool  

  Created a space to     
  focus on yourself 

  Applicable  

  Stepped process  

 Creation of action 
plan  

  Made goals feel 
  attainable 

“No, I actually think because we're educators and teachers, I think it was just enough, 
where again, you felt like you could be successful, you can answer the questions. It wasn't 
cumbersome.  I liked the breaks in between” 
“Like it did make me self-reflect and help, like, changed how I approached. Like 
communicating  with other teachers and that” 
“So, I think oftentimes, as teachers, we do that for others and our students and our 
families,  and we don't necessarily do it for ourselves. So, I really enjoyed that the focus 
was actually on me and how I felt instead of suppressing certain things, and just putting 
on that brave face and doing what you're supposed to do” 
“I thought it made a lot of sense. It resonated with me, that uhh it wasn't, you know, 
toxically positive, but I think it took the, I think it left the problem and the solution in the 
hands of the teacher herself, or the person himself. And I thought it was well done” 
“Yes, it helped me. But when you ask, step that I can do, or I can, it kind of help me. It's 
kinda like, have you Okay, step, what steps you can do, because when we are in a mode 
of, of stress, we really don't think of how we can slow down and then kinda of gets some 
level first steps “I need to do this”. So that was good. I kinda like that”  
“Well, I think I liked [that] you actually did help guide through like creating an action 
plan, that might, you know, help you overcome some of the stress, anxiety or, you know, 
any of those other negative feelings that we get right now” 
“I found that they were very helpful for kind of giving you a way to compartmentalize 
your ideas and set those goals”  

Mixed Impression 

Negative Impression 

N/A 

N/A 

79 

Frequency 
(n = 22) 

18 

16 

15 

7 

7 

4 

4 

2 

2 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
Table 10 (cont’d) 

Not helpful  for 
external problems at 
work 

Too simple  

“But again, a lot of the stresses that I am feeling this year are more from the top down and 
not things I'm able to address directly because they're more policies,  than day to day 
issues” 

“…when I did the module, it felt too simplistic…there are multiple things that surround 
most from personal experience.  If I'm feeling stressors, there are multiple  things that 
surround that. It's not just one thing.  
“…because a lot of things I spoke about are, again, tools that I've used in the past. So 
there really hasn't been to any new ones.”  

  No new information 
  presented  

Module Impact At Work 
Positive Impact  
  Increased awareness 

  External impact 

N/A 
“Yeah. So um, like, part of my, my thing was, for my wellbeing was just about like taking 
things off your plate, right, sort of kind of making those decisions about things that you 
kind of have to let go. And so it just made me more aware of that maybe like, what are 
things that I need to keep doing because it's best for my students versus what are things I 
need to keep doing because it's some district mandated data collection? And like, like, can 
I still do that, but not put as much time into it so that I have more time to spend with my 
students working with colleagues like things that I know benefit their growth? So I think 
just going through the questions kind of made me empowered me a little bit to be able to 
think like, okay, I can try this” 
“I will say like, I've been really intentional with that fifth hour prep time that I had set. 
Like, this is when I'm gonna get my tasks done. So even if I haven't been scheduling 
meetings, I do feel like I have been more intentional with that time with contacting the 
parents with whom I work. So I hope that they appreciate that and I feel like I can like 
still check something off a to do list that makes me feel good, like things are being 
accomplished”  

4 

2 

3 

17 
9 

9 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
 
 
Table 10 (cont’d) 

Reframing of 
  situations 

“…I've been reframing instead of thinking about the challenges I've been trying to think 
about the kids who are just lovely human beings who love coming to my class and are 
positive and I've been trying to focus on them rather than the kids who are difficult”  

 Mindset  shift to things 
  within my control  

  Created 
accountability   

“…I was so focused on things that were out of my control because they just felt like they 
do. I mean, they have a big impact. But it was so frustrating because I can't control them. 
But to like, frame it as things that I can control and think about and do. I thought it was 
really helpful, because that was just not where I was putting my effort before.”  
“Yes, I think it could be a really helpful tool, especially  because you put those actionable 
steps in there. And so you can set up ways to hold yourself accountable”  

No impact at work  

“Sadly, no, that particular strategy was unable to help me with the things that are causing 
me the most stress right now.”  

Action Plans 

Initiated  at least one 
part of plan 

“Yeah, yeah for the action plan. Some things I wrote down were to, like  things I could do, 
I could change my pay grade, for example, as a teacher, by continuing my education, I 
applied for school for a master's program and was just accepted.” 

Barriers  in Implementing Action Plans 
External reasons  

Internal  reasons  

“I tried, I think for like a week and a half, two weeks, really being diligent and following 
through, and then it kinda went to crap. And I'm trying to get back on following through 
on my action plan a little bit more. So that way, I can figure out different ways. We just 
had a really rough state testing, and it felt like it never was going to end” 
“…sometimes  the motivation after dealing with exceptionally difficult situations, which 
seem to happen way too frequently, is down. And so there are definitely times when I've 
like, gotten to my room for that fifth hour time when I intend on getting things done. And 
I just like, sit and like have to do some deep breathing.” 

7 

7 

5 

5 

18 

10 

4 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10 (cont’d) 

Problem “too big” 

“I try, I try, but I can't use this to solve the district problem.” 

Time  

Yeah, I mean, time, I think like uh yeah, like, just within the school day, like that's hard -
to-find time, right? Like, there's just like, there's not time to, to do things to even stop and 
reflect. Like doing the module kind of made me stop and reflect which we don't often 
have time to do. So, I think time is a big one, like, taking time to think, how do I redo 
some of these systems? How do I make the system more efficient? Like, do I have time to 
reach out to colleagues and ask them how they're doing it? Like, I think time is a huge 
barrier.”   

Module Improvements 

Content  

Technical    

“…maybe to learners who learn with visually,  like a visual word wall, even have an 
encouraging mantra, like, how can I make this problem smaller?  How can I make this 
more manageable, even like a graphic of a large problem breaking it down to small 
problem. People love graphs. I think that that might be useful.” 
One thing that was a little difficult was that nothing was really saved. So, like, I went 
ahead, and I made my own document, so that way, I could look back at it. I was fine. Not 
sure about everyone else. So if this was to be scaled up, or if more people answered, there 
might be some a little bit of difficulty.” 

More 
reminders/check-ins 

“I think one thing that I think would be helpful is maybe doing like, almost like a 
reminder check in. One week might be better and consistent, like, how is it going? Like, 
not even a whole thing, but like one question. Have you been implementing  your plan? 
Yes, no. So, like kinda thing might help.” 

4 

2 

12 

9 

8 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10 (cont’d) 

More time before 
follow-up 

Colleague 
accountability 

Question clarity 

“It would be it will probably be helpful to follow up on like a year from now to see how 
that went. Like, because it's a mindset shift. I think it'd be helpful to get data over a long 
period of time. So I can see how it can be life changing.” 

“But I think that, like doing this at a school wide level, might be very beneficial. You 
know, having your coworkers be like, hey, did you remember to write in your journal or 
meditate or whatever their goal is? I think that the having someone else there to kind of 
be your buddy with it is beneficial” 
I think, some clarity with that one miracle question rating would be helpful 

Security 

“…the ID that was put there in the module can be easily used to assess our emails 

Recommend to Others 
Would recommend 

“I had a positive impression  overall, and I would recommend it to somebody else” 

Would recommend to a    
specific  group 
Note. Some quotes were minimally  edited for grammar and clarity.  

“I would recommend it, especially someone who had 10 years or under” 

4 

3 

2 

1 

19 
3 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Participant  Flow Diagram  

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX B: Study Measures 

OSG-SSC Feedback Form (adapted from Schleider et al., 2021) 
Scale: 1-5; Not all – Very Much  

•  Did you find the OSP-SSC helpful in addressing a problem related to your occupational 

wellbeing?  

•  Did the OSP-SSC help you develop an action plan to address your concern?  
•  How hopeful are you that the action plan will be useful? 
•  How motivated do you feel to use your action plan? 
•  Would you recommend the online module to others?  

Open ended question 

•  Are there any other comments or feedback you’d like to share about the OSG-SSC? 

OSG-SSC Treatment Fidelity  Checklist 
Scale: 1-3; No, To Some Extent, Yes 

• 
• 
• 

I read all of the information given to complete this step 
I understood all of the information given to complete this step 
I completed this step 

OSG-SSC Action Plan Fidelity 

•  Since you completed the online module, have you initiated at least one part of your action 

plan? [Yes or No] 

o  If no, what has been preventing you from initiating your action plan? [open ended 

question]  

Teacher Subjective Wellbeing  Questionnaire (Renshaw et al., 2015) 
School Connectedness Subscale  
Scale: 1-4; Almost Never – Almost Always  

• 
• 
• 
• 

I feel like I belong at this school  
I can really be myself at this school 
I feel like people at this school care about me  
I am treated with respect at this school  

Teacher Subjective Wellbeing  Questionnaire (Renshaw et al., 2015) 
Self-Efficacy Subscale  
Scale: 1-4; Almost Never – Almost Always  

• 
• 
• 
• 

I am a successful teacher 
I am good at helping students learn new things  
I have accomplished a lot as a teacher 
I feel like my teaching is effective and helpful  

Adult Hope Scale (Synder et al., 1991) 
Scale: 1-8; Definitely False to Definitely True  

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I can think of many ways to get out of a jam 
I energetically pursue my goals  
I feel tried most of the time  

I am easily downed in an argument  
I can think of many ways to get the things in life that are important to me  
I worry about my health  

• 
• 
• 
•  There are a lot of ways around my problem  
• 
• 
• 
•  Even when others get discouraged, I know I can find a way to solve the problem  
•  My past experiences  have prepared me well for my future  
• 
• 
• 

I’ve been pretty successful in life  
I usually find myself worrying about something  
I meet the goals that I set for myself  

MBI for Educators Survey (Maslach et al., 1996) 
Scale: 0-6; Never to Every Day 
How often… 

I feel emotionally drained from work 
I feel used up at the end of the workday 
I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the job 
I can easily understand how my students feel about things 
I feel I treat some students as if they were impersonal objects 

I deal very effectively with the problems of my students  
I feel burned out from my work 
I feel I’m positively influencing other people’s  lives through my work 
I’ve become more callous  toward people since I took this job 
I worry that this job is hardening me emotionally 
I feel very energetic  
I feel frustrated by my job 
I feel I’m working too hard on my job 
I don’t really care what happens to some students 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•  Working with people all day is a really a strain for me 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•  Working with people directly puts too much stress on me 
• 
I can easily create a relaxed atmosphere with my students 
• 
I feel exhilarated after working closely with my students 
• 
I have accomplished many worthwhile things in this job 
• 
I feel like I’m at the end of my rope  
• 
In my work, I deal with emotional problems very calmly   
• 
I feel students blame me for some of their problems   

Positive Emotions Subscale from PERMA (Kern, 2014) 
Scale: 0-10; Never to Always  

•  At work, how often do you feel joyful? 
•  At work, how often do you feel positive? 
•  At work, to what extent do you feel contented? 

86 

 
 
 
 
Teacher Interview Questions 

•  What was your overall impression  of the online module? 
•  Did your participation in the online module help you at work?  
•  Did you follow through with your action plan? 
•  How could the online module be improved? 
•  Would you recommend the module to other teachers? 
• 

Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your interaction with the online 
module?  

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX C: Recruitment Email 

Hi teachers, 

Have you been feeling a little stressed at work? Are you experiencing any symptoms of burnout 
because of work-related factors? Would you like to learn a new way of problem solving while 
contributing to novel research  adapted by a former teacher?  

If the answers to these above questions are yes, please consider participating in this research 
study.  

Your total participation in this study would take no longer than 75 minutes total across a two-
week period. After an initial screening, you will be randomly assigned to two groups and asked 
to complete: 

•  An online module, that can be completed at a time most convenient for you  
•  Three brief surveys  

You can also receive up to $45 in gift cards for your participation in this study. Participants will 
be eligible  to receive compensation for the following tasks: 

o  $10 for completing the first two surveys and/or online module 
o  $10 for completing a third survey 
o  $25 for completing a 30-minute follow up interview about your experience [OPTIONAL] 

If you are a full time, PK-12th grade teacher and are interested in contributing to this important 
research, please click on the following link to learn more and complete a <5 minute screening 
survey:  

Thank you for your time and consideration of this research. If you have any questions, please 
contact the primary research  investigator via the information below. 

Joi Claiborne, M.A. 
Michigan State University 
School Psychology, Doctoral Student 
xxx@msu.edu  
Note: This study has been approved by Michigan State University's Institutional Review Board 
[STUDY00007543]  

88 

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX D: Screening Form 

Hello! 

Thank you for visiting this survey link regarding the teacher wellbeing study. This screening 
survey includes some questions to determine if you are eligible  for the study.  

The survey will take 5 minutes and you may stop at any time. Your participation in the screening 
is completely voluntary. Your answers will be confidential. No one will know your answers 
except for the research team. 

At the end of this survey, you will receive a message indicating if you have met the 
qualifications for the research study. At that time, if you would like to continue in the study, you 
will be prompted to read and sign a consent form. You will also be asked to provide an email 
address, so that a member of the research team can follow up with you via email  regarding next 
steps in the research study. 

If you do not meet the qualifications of this study, your information will be destroyed, and you 
will be provided with teacher wellbeing resources. Alternatively, if you qualify for the study, 
decide to participate, and sign the research informed consent form, your survey data will be kept 
with the research record in an encrypted location until the completion of the study. 

At this time, would you like to proceed with the screening? Please indicate your response below.  

Are you currently employed as a PK-12 teacher in a school? 

o  Yes 
o  No [If answered no, the survey will be terminated and given the “End of Survey for 

Ineligible Participants” response] 

Do you currently have access to a computer with reliable  internet access? 

o  Yes 
o  No [If answered no, the survey will be terminated and given the “End of Survey for 

Ineligible Participants” response 

Stress at work could be tied to a host of other factors happening outside of work (e.g., family, 
life, home). The focus of this intervention is to focus on mitigating solely workplace wellbeing.  
o  At this time, do you believe you are experiencing  symptoms of stress and/or burnout due 

to work related factors?  

o  Yes, a majority of my stress at work is due to work related factors. [in the box 

below please briefly describe symptoms] 

o  No, not a majority. But I am able to identify some significant work based factors. 

[in the box below please briefly describe symptoms 
o  No, my stress at work is primarly  due to outside factors 

In the past two weeks.. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
o  How well have you coped with your job related stress as a teacher?” [0-10 scale] 

End of Survey for Eligible Participants 
Thank you for answering the screening questions. Based upon the answers you provided, you 
have been found eligible to participate in our study! 

If you would still like to participate in the the full study: 

1.  Please provide an email address in the box below. One of our study researchers will email 

you at this address regarding next steps.  

2.  Continue on to the next page to read and agree to the consent form. A copy of the form 

will be sent to your email.  

Email address: _________ 

 End of Survey for Ineligible Participants/Those  that do not wish to continue   

Thank you for participating in the screening process for our research study. Unfortunately, you 
are either not eligible to be a participant for the research study or you have choosen to not 
continue in the process. 

We appreciate your interest and time. To ensure privacy and confidentiality, any screening data 
you provided will be destroyed. For additional resources on teacher wellbeing, please refer to the 
following sites: 

•  https://resilienteducator.com/collections/wellbeing/ 
•  https://positivepsychology.com/category/stress-burnout-prevention/ 

If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as how to do any part of it, please 
contact the researcher, Joi Claiborne, 442 Erickson, College of Education, Michigan State 
University, East Lansing, MI 48824, xxxx@msu.edu, or at xxx-xxx-xxxx. 

If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research  participant, would like 
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you 
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research 
Protection Program at xxx-xxx-xxxx, Fax xxx-xxx-xxxx, or e-mail  irb@msu.edu or regular mail 
at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX E: Study Consent Form 

Research Participant information Consent Form 

Study Title: An Online Module to Improve Teacher Wellbeing 
Department and Institution: Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special 
Education at 
Michigan State University 
Contact Information: xxx@msu.edu 

BRIEF SUMMARY 
You are being asked to participate in a research study. Researchers are required to provide a 
consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to 
explain risks and benefits of participation including why you might or might not want to 
participate, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to discuss 
and ask the researchers any questions you may have. 

You are being asked to participate in a research study to determine if a single session, interactive, 
self-paced online module is an effective, acceptable, and feasible intervention for teacher 
wellbeing. The content of the module is self-help in nature and not considered to be any form of 
psychotherapy. If you volunteer for this study, you will be randomly assigned to one of two 
possible groups. You will be asked to complete various measures  before the module begins, 
immediately after, and two weeks after the module is complete. Your total participation in this 
study should take no longer than 75 minutes across a two-week period.  

While the foreseeable risk is likely  minimal  to absent, given that the focus of the study is on 
increasing  teacher wellbeing, it is possible that you may feel moments of emotional stress when 
participating in this study due to its reflective nature. If this happens, all modules are self-paced 
and thus, you will be able to stop the module at any time and return to it at your leisure. You may 
also be worried about your answers not being private and confidential. The researchers will do 
everything they can to make sure that your answers stay confidential and private. 

You can receive up to $45 for your participation in this study. Your participation may also 
stimulate positive feelings and emotions and give greater understanding to the researchers on 
how to support teachers better. 

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH 
The purpose of the research is to determine if a single session, online self-help module to address 
teacher wellbeing is effective, acceptable, and feasible for teachers. Your participation in the 
entire study will take approximately two weeks if assigned to the first group and four weeks if 
assigned to the second group. 

WHAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DO 
You will first be asked screening questions to determine whether you may be eligible for the 
research. If you are found eligible and volunteer for this study, you will then be randomly 
assigned to one of two possible groups: an online module group or waitlist control group. 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Online Module Group: Upon consent of the study, participants in the online module group will 
be sent an email  that includes all relevant instructions, materials,  and survey links. At your 
convenience, you will be asked to watch and participate in an interactive self-paced, self-help 
online module. This module is not a form of psychotherapy. You will also be asked to complete 
a survey directly prior to and after your participation in the module. Two weeks after you 
complete the module and surveys, you will be contacted one more time to complete another 
survey. After completing all surveys and the module, participants in this group will also have an 
opportunity to volunteer to participate in a 30-minute follow up interview with the primary 
researcher  or research assistant over Zoom. Not every participant in this group will be asked to 
complete an interview, it will be on a volunteer basis and limited in number. 

Waitlist  Control Group: Upon consent of the study, participants in the waitlist control group 
will be informed via email  they were added to a waitlist and asked to complete questionnaires 
over the course of a two-week period. After the initial two-week period, you will receive a link 
to participate in the same online module that the other group completed. This module is not a 
form of psychotherapy.  

The information that participants provide during the screening process and study surveys will be 
used for research analysis.  Qualitative answers provided while completing steps of the online 
module will not be used for analysis. 

POTENTIAL BENEFITS 
You can receive up to $45 in gift cards for your participation in this study. Your participation 
may also stimulate positive feelings and emotions and give greater understanding to the 
researchers  on how to support teachers better. Specifically, the participants will receive 
compensation for the following tasks: 

Task  

Online Module Group   Waitlist  Control Group 

Completion of initial 
surveys  

Completion of   
intervention  

Completion of 2-week 
survey 

Completion of a 30-  
minute interview  

$10 Amazon Gift Card 

$10 Amazon Gift Card 

-- 

$10 Amazon Gift Card  

$10 Amazon Gift Card 

$25 Amazon Gift Card  

-- 

POTENTIAL RISKS 
While the foreseeable risk is likely  minimal  to absent, given that the focus of the study is on 
increasing  teacher wellbeing, it is possible that you may feel moments of emotional stress when 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
participating in this study due to its reflective nature. If this happens, the online module and 
surveys are self-paced and thus, you will be able to stop the module survey at any time and 
return to it at your leisure. You are also allowed to discontinue your participation in the study at 
any time. You may also be worried about your answers not being private and confidential. The 
researchers  will do everything they can to make sure that your answers stay confidential and 
private. 

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY 
Your privacy is incredibly important to the research team. The information that participants 
provide during the screening process and study surveys will be used for research analysis and 
thus, in order to make sure that your answers are kept private and confidential, you will be 
completing all surveys, online through a safe and secure link. The only people who will have 
access to your screening and study survey data once you submit it is the research team, who 
cannot identify which survey is yours. This consent form and your screening and survey data will 
be kept for a minimum  of 5 years in the research lead’s office. This is in order to make sure the 
researchers  have access to your screening and study survey data while they interpret the results 
and complete the research report. The report will not talk about your individual responses but 
will instead talk about trends that occur across all of the participant screening and study survey 
data. Additionally, the research report will not identify you or your school, so your information 
will be kept strictly within the research team. 

YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW 
You have the right to say no to participate in the research. You can stop at any time after it has 
already started. There will be no consequences if you stop. You will not lose any benefits that 
you normally  receive. If you choose not to participate, or you begin to participate but choose to 
stop, you will not receive any penalty from the researchers. 

RESEARCH RESULTS 
As previously mentioned, the final research report will not discuss your individual results but 
will discuss patterns and trends identified across all research participants. However, if you do 
wish to read the final report after it is completed, you are free to contact the research team at the 
email  address or telephone number listed at the top of this form. 

CONTACT INFORMATION 
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part 
of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher, Joi Claiborne, 442 Erickson, College of 
Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, xxxx@msu.edu. If you have 
questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain 
information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may 
contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection 
Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail  irb@msu.edu or regular mail  at 4000 
Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. Your endorsement below means that you are 
voluntarily agreeing to participate in the research study [There will be a place to electronically 
consent on the Qualtrics survey] 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX F: OSG-SSC Module Flow Summary 

1.  Pre-Test [demographics + all Time  1 Measures] 
2.  OSG-SSC Module  

•  Step 1: Establish shared purpose for being here 

o  Introduction to module  

•  Step 2: Identify the teacher’s top problem 

o  Teachers  are provided a series of probing questions to help them reflect on 

what their top problem or reason that disrupts their wellbeing at their school.  

•  Step 3: Identify the teacher’s top hope  

o  Teachers  are provided a series of probing questions to help them reflect on 

what their top hope is related to their stress at work.  

•  Step 4: Miracle  question  

o  Teachers  are provided with this scenario: suppose that while you are sleeping 

tonight, a miracle occurs and the problem that led you to complete this module 
today completely disappears. Because this miracle  happened when you were 
asleep, you don’t know it’s occurred right away. So, you wake up and go into 
work and.... 

▪  Teachers  are then provided a series of probing questions to reflect on 
what they may notice, think, or feel if their miracle  was actualized  

•  Step 5: Miracle  question scale 

o  A visual scale numbered from 1-10 was shown to teachers and they were 

asked to think back to the miracle question and choose a number on the scale 
that indicates where they are at now  

▪  Teachers  are provided a series of reflective questions to analyze the 
number they selected and reflect on what they can continue to do to 
stay at this number or improve to one number higher  

•  Step 6: Explore expectations to the problem  

o  Teachers  are provided a series of probing questions to help them reflect on 

days or moments when their lives  may have been closer to their solution (even 
if it was just a little bit) 
•  Step 7: Construct an action plan 

o  Teachers  are asked to come up with three concrete, specific actions (including 

when and where they can do these actions) that they can take to make 
a small  change and bring them closer to a “10” on their scales 

o  Teachers  are asked to identify two people who can help them take these steps  
o  Teachers  are provided a series of probing questions to help identify obstacles 

to their action plan and how they would overcome it  

•  Step 8: Wrap Up 
o  Closing  

3.  Post-Test [OSG-SSC feedback form + All Time 2 Measures] 
4.  End of Module – Thank you’s!  

94