Development and validation of the Educational Psychology Workplace Motivation (EPWM) scale; A measure to evaluate educational psychologists’ working-life contexts, patterns, and motivation for change.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4276774/v1

This research builds on recent interest in Educational Psychologists’ (EPs) working-life contexts, patterns, and motivations. It seeks to deepen the knowledge made through Department for Education research (DfE, 2023) by presenting the development and validation of the Educational Psychology Workplace Motivation (EPWM) scale. The paper reports the application of the theory of motivational interviewing to the construction of the EPWM scale. The measure development process, including content validity and construct validity, is described, highlighting the rigorous validation procedures adopted. Suggestions for further strengthening the measure's rigor, such as establishing criterion validity through comparison with other measures, are discussed. Additionally, the analysis of data collected from 201 practicing EPs provides further insights into work-life contexts and patterns. The findings suggest that EPs often work beyond their contracted hours, have high caseloads, and produce a significant number of reports each academic year. The data also reveal a tendency for more time to be spent on school visits compared to home visits, shedding light on the locations of EPs' direct contact work. By making the EPWM scale available as an open-access resource, the study encourages further development and adaptation by the EP research community. In relation to recent renewed interest in EP working life experiences and motivations (DfE, 2023), the validation of the measure serves as a complementary step towards understanding EPs' work-life experiences and aims to stimulate further research in this area.

Workplace motivation

work-based stress

motivational interviewing

Role of the educational psychologist

time-allocation

There are two interrelated questions that have been posed so repeatedly within the educational psychology practice literature they are almost perennial in nature; ‘What is the role of the Educational Psychologist (EP)?’ and ‘What is unique about the EP role, when compared to similar professions?’. Discussion has been shaped over time by the changing legislative landscape for education and children’s services (Fallon, Woods & Rooney, 2010; Gaskell & Leadbetter, 2009; Lee & Woods, 2017; Marsh & Higgins, 2018; Owen, Craig, Barrett & Hannay, 2022). Across academic discourse one factor remains constant, an attempt to agree the primary functions of an EP, the key contexts for them to be conducted in, and how this translates into work tasks (Ashton & Roberts, 2006; Cameron, 2006; Currie, 2002, Szulevicz & Tanggaard, 2016).

There is a consensus that historically the EP role has developed in complexity, leading to an expansion of role tasks and duties, and work contexts (Farrell & Woods, 2015; Gillham, 1978). This growth has been associated with wider theoretical and philosophical movements in educational theory and practice such as an increase in the use f psychometrics and the movement towards inclusive practice. Grand narratives about theories of learning and the related purpose of education are argued to have shifted from those dominant in the 19th and early 20th century towards a modern, 21st century consensus (Lau, 2016). This is reported as a movement away from a ‘traditional’ narrative, also termed the ‘psychometric paradigm’, where positivist learning theories construct intelligence as ‘fixed’ and the role of education deemed to assess and stream for the workplace, towards an ‘emergent’ narrative, where constructivist theories view knowledge as decontextualised, learners as diverse, and the role of education is to enable social justice and provide equal opportunities (Lau, 2016).

It is also asserted that the EP role has evolved alongside these changing views away from practices wedded to the psychometric paradigm (Farrell & Woods, 2015; Gillham, 1978), such as case work focused on providing standardised assessments for gatekeeping resources, towards a complex role encompassing five key domains suitable for enacting social justice for diverse learners:

“adopting a psychological perspective to human problems;
uncovering mediating/psychological variables which link particular situations with specific outcomes;
employing psychological knowledge to create explanatory models of complex human problems;
using evidence based strategies for change;
sharing and promoting big ideas from psychology” (Cameron, 2006, pg.293).

Similarly, Currie (2002) outlines five core EP functions of “consultation, assessment, intervention, training, and research” (Currie, 2002, p.20). Related to the diversification of the role, training as an EP now offers a highly skilled career with diversified work activities and contexts to promote change. The day-to-day and weekly job is anecdotally noted as varied. The realities of this variance and high-level skill demands have influenced the publication of related research seeking to understand in detail the EP working-life experience, its personal impact on professionals and relationship to effectiveness. However, compared to wider, grander discussions about the role of the EP and uniqueness within educational practice, historically there has been less interest in this sub-topic. Scoping the literature reveals one pilot study conducted almost 20 years ago (Gersch & Teuma, 2005) and an EP doctorate thesis concerned with working-life experiences in the specific context of traded services (Islam, 2013). The Department for Education’s (2023) report on EP psychology services’ workforce insights and impact offers the most recent and comprehensive study (DfE, 2023), raising the profile of the research topic.

EP working life experiences, contexts, and practices

Gersch and Teuma (2005) piloted a survey with 26 practising EPs. The survey primarily focused on perceived levels of stress, but in doing so gave insight into workplace activities. For example, in a open response question EPs reported that workplace patterns such as ‘having to provide data for the Local Authority’ and ‘too many school visits’ were causes of stress (Gersch & Teuma, 2005, pg. 226). Similarly, many of the identified sources of potential stress reduction related to workplace patterns and contexts, such as ‘more admin time’, ‘less report writing’, ‘fewer schools in patch’, ‘delegating work to an assistant’, ‘more supervision’, and ‘more flexible work hours’ (Gersch & Teuma, 2005, pg. 227). A more recent publication by the Association of Educational Psychologists is one of the few other papers addressing the topic (AEP, 2020). It offers guidance for sustainable EP workloads but did not collect and analyse primary data.

Further historical exploration of EP’s working life patterns and experiences was explored within the context of a traded services model by Islam (2013) as part of their doctoral thesis. EPs reported experiencing job insecurity due to a range of factors including competition from other services and redundancy threat, and stress generated from not knowing the ‘buy back’ from schools until the end of the financial year (Islam, 2013). A third dominant theme was one of increased workloads and pressures (Islam, 2013, pg. 106–118). Whilst this investigation was limited to the context of traded services, it furthered insight and interest into EP working life experiences.

The DfE (2023) study provides a recent and comprehensive exploration of EP working life experiences. Interestingly, the findings broadly mirror the general summaries of Gersch and Teuma (2005) and Islam (2013), where a high workload (termed ‘work composition’), particularly with a high report writing load, was reported to lead to dissatisfaction with the role; 31% of participants noted that they experience barriers such as these to engaging in desirable work (DfE, 2023, pg. 41). The study furthers the existing, nascent literature, to collect EP opinions relating to retention issues. 34% of Principal Educational Psychologists (PEPs) reported concerns about the retention of staff. 36% of EPs stated they would remain in the broader EP field but move to a different job, and 8% reported that they were considering reducing Local Authority (LA) work hours and increasing time in private practice (DfE, 2023, pg. 42). This demonstrates that retention of LA EPs is of concern, both in terms of the number of EPs, and the capacity of EPs (reduction in full-time equivalents). A critical number of EPs are seeking to change working life context(s), pattern(s) or both. Qualitative analysis of interview and focus group data related this trend to an apparent decrease in fulfilment with LA EP work activities, with EPs feeling they were conducting statutory assessments to the detriment of preventative, more interesting work (DfE, 2023, pg. 46–47).

In addition to these studies, there are also a couple of publications that explore work allocation models in EP services, offering additional insight into contexts and practices. Imich (1999) offered the first review of EP workload allocation that compared practice across services, rather than presenting a case study of one service. The analysis at the time estimated that an average of 47% of EP time is spent on school visits, 11% on prepping on for school visits, 5% on CPD, 21% on admin, 6% on service team meetings, and the rest of the time on additional activities such as responding to critical incidents (Imich, 1999). This historical picture (20 + years) broadly aligns with current research (DfE, 2013), with simmilar issues reported. Marsh and Higgins (2018) provide the most recent commentary on service allocation models recommending that 70% of EP time be allocated to ‘direct support’ such as casework and consultations, 17.5% of time as a flexible allocation such as for responding to critical incidences, and 12.5% dedicated to CPD.

Given that research both historic and current suggests that EPs are time and resource limited, with a high statutory and report-focused workload, this is arguably an important area for continued research interest. This study is one of two interrelated research projects that sought to address this. This paper is the first summation of data from the projects, and it has two aims; firstly, seeking to ameliorate the lack of a validated and open-access measure for scoping EP working life experiences. The development of such a measure was also designed to capture potential EP motivation to change their work context(s) and/or practice(s). The measure was termed the Educational Psychology Workplace Motivation (EPWM) scale. The second paper will report on the use of the to explore the relationship between workplace practices and contexts with the variables of workplace stress, burn out, and compassion fatigue/satisfaction.

We review Miller and Rollnick’s (2013) theory of Motivational Interviewing (MI) which underpins the construction of the measure. We then depict measure development and validation and initial analysis of data from 201 practicing educational psychologists.

Research aims and objectives

The research aimed to develop a questionnaire that could be used to evaluate educational psychologists’ work contexts (e.g., independent psychologist compared with local Authority based), work patterns (e.g., part-time, full-time, time spent on tasks), and work-based motivations (e.g., desiring a change of work context, planning for a sabbatical). The questionnaire was developed to be one of a series of measures for a second study exploring educational psychologists’ workplace stress, burn out, reports of compassion fatigue/ satisfaction, and relationship of these to work-place contexts, patterns and motivations (Sewell, Coley, Gossman & Park, UNDER REVIEW). The research objectives for the present study were to:

RO1: Create a series of questionnaire items with face validity for gathering educational psychologists’ self-report of their work context(s), work patterns, and work-based motivations (content validity).
RO2: Analyse item internal validity, revise questionnaire items accordingly, and develop questionnaire sub-scales (construct validity).
RO3: Collect data from a sample of educational psychologists to produce descriptive and correlational analyses of reports of work contexts, patterns, and motivations.
RO4: Report development and findings of the questionnaire, highlighting limitations and opportunities for improvement, as an open resource for maturation by educational psychologists and researchers (criterion validity)

Participants

Participants were recruited to the research via an advert that was shared on researchers’ social media networks and a recruitment email that was sent to existing contacts with the request to share more widely, as appropriate. A demographic questionnaire was completed by all participants. The sample can be appraised as relatively representative of the EP workforce which has a high ration of female to male employees (83% females) and the age average falling between 35–54 years of age (Lyonette, Atfield, Baldauf & Owen, 2019). Participants were 201 practicing, HCPC registered educational psychologists. 92.5% of participants reported their gender as Female and 7% reported their gender as Male. The mean participant age was 43, with a standard deviation of 11. 6.5% of the sample considered themselves disabled. Geographic distribution centered on England (89.1%) followed by Scotland (5%), Wales (4%) and outside of the UK (0.5%).

The primary reported ethnicity was ‘White: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, or British’ (80.6%) with the following ethnicities also represented in the sample:

‘White: Any other White background’ (9%)
‘White: Irish’ (2%)
‘Mixed or multiple ethnic groups: White and Asian’ (1.5%)
‘Mixed or multiple ethnic groups: White and Black Caribbean’ (1%)
‘Asian/ Asian British: Indian’ (1%)
‘Asian/ Asian British: Pakistani’ (1%)
‘Asian/ Asian British: Chinese’ (0.5%)
‘White: Gypsy or Irish traveler’ (0.5%)
‘White: Roma’ (0.5%)

Table One below reports further demographic data of professional level and time active in profession since qualifying with HCPC.

Table One: Demographic data

Questionnaire item design

Content validity was enacted through methods adopted for questionnaire item design. The first step was to identify common work contexts and patterns for educational psychologists. The research team independently generated statements of common work contexts and patterns based on their own practice experience, and consultation of the existing EP literature. These statements were then combined and refined resulting in the following contexts:

Local Authority
Self-employed / independent psychologists
National Health Service
Third sector (e.g., employed by a charity)
Private sector (e.g., employed by a business)
School/Academy trust (employed as member of staff, not as an independent/self-employed EP)
Academic/University tutor
Research position (university)
Research position (private sector)
Other (with option to specify)

This process also yielded the following identified work practices:

Work in one context
Work across multiple contexts
Number of hours contracted to work per week in one context
Number of hours contracted to work per week across multiple contexts
Number of hours (on average) estimated actually worked per week in one context
Number of hours (on average) estimated actually worked per week across multiple contexts
Estimation of number of cases (children, families, adult assessments) supported each academic year
Estimation of number of reports written per year (not including psychological advice for EHCPs)
Estimation number of number of assessments and reports for EHCPs completed each year
Estimate of length of average school visits
Estimate of length of average home visit

These formed Part A of the questionnaire, to gain a self-report of each participant’s current work context(s) and pattern(s). Part B of the questionnaire was developed to explore motivation and intention to change current workplace context(s) and patterns(s). Items mirror Part A, following the same production method of generation and refinement of statements, leading to the following:

Change of job/career
Pursuit of a complementary career
Career break
Secondment
Retirement
Reduction of work hours
Increase of work hours
Stay working as an EP but move to a different work context (e.g., from LA to independent practice)

The development of Part B questionnaire items relating to intention to change working practices or contexts, was based on change theories from the field of MI (Miller and Rollnick, 2013). The theory posits that when people are thinking about and discussing change, their language tends to fall into two (typically sequential) categories (Miller and Rollnick, 2013). The ‘MI Hill’ model (Figure One) illustrates how ‘preparatory change talk’ (uphill) consists of the person’s initial motivations for change but does not (yet) include intent or commitment to the change. Subsequently, ‘mobilizing change talk’ (downhill) includes implied intent or action towards change. Miller and Rollnick (2013) argue that we move from thinking about change (contemplation), to preparing for change and then toward action. The current study’s questionnaire is designed to afford sensitivity in distinguishing between these different levels of motivation for- and action toward- change, from preparatory stages (beginning to think about change) to mobilizing stages (taking steps and committing to a plan).

Figure One: The ‘Motivational Interviewing Hill’ model (Adapted from: Miller and Rollnick, 2013, p. 164)

The application of Motivational Interviewing lead to three types of question (all repeated in relation to each of the above-listed topics):

‘Over the past 6 months, I have had thoughts about…’
‘Over the past 6 months, I have actively taken steps towards...’
‘In the next 6 months, I plan to…’

In summary, Based on Miller and Rollnick’s (2013) theory that ‘preparatory change talk’ relates to the person’s initial motivations for change that do not include intent or commitment to the change, questionnaire items including the wording ‘thoughts about [change]’ are intended to capture these earlier stages of ‘preparatory change talk’ over the last six months. The theory also posits that ‘mobilizing change talk’ includes implied intent or action towards change. Questionnaire items with the wording ‘actively taken steps towards’ are designed to capture the activation language of participants, signaling their commitment to and/or intent for change, over the last six months. Finally, Miller and Rollnick (2013) suggest that commitment language (such as ‘I will’ or ‘I intend to’) implies likelihood of action: people are more likely to act upon their intentions when they begin to use such mobilizing change talk. Participant commitment language is explored through items with the wording ‘in the next 6 months, I plan to…’

Version 2, consisting of both Part A and Part B, was made available for participants using JISC online and can be viewed in full in Appendix Two.

Construct validity

To analyse construct validity Cronbach's alpha was applied to all 25 items from Part B of Version One (Appendix One). The reliability coefficient for a whole scale will range from zero to one. The closer a scale coefficient value is to one, the more closely all items are deemed to be related to each other, and construct validity is taken to be strong (Smith, 2005). A zero score would indicate that scale items are not related to each other and there is minimum construct validity (Smith, 2005). A coefficient score between 0.7 and 0.8 is deemed to be sufficient when whole scale items number 10 or more (Smith, 2005) Item-total correlations were computed using Pearson’s product moment coefficient to assess which items were not as closely related to each other, resulting in removal of three items to improve construct validity of the scale (these items were B13, B14, B15, see ‘Results’ section for further explanation).

Cronbach's alpha was also applied to the development of subscales that could be said to have construct validity. If subscale items number less than 10 then a coefficient of 0.4 is deemed to be sufficient for construct validity to be implied (Smith, 2005). Potential combinations of items per sub-scale are shown in Table Two (item numbers correspond with those in Appendix One):

Criterion validation and dissemination plan

Criterion validation posed a challenge for the current study as to the best of the researcher’s knowledge no other measure exists that is specifically designed to explore EPs workplace motivations regarding their work context(s) and practice(s). As such, Version 2 of the EPWM and a dissemination plan designed to allow for future analysis of criterion validation. Criterion validity can be established if high correlation occurs with another established measure of EP workplace experiences and behaviours. Through the dissemination plan outlined below, it is hoped that researchers and EPs in the field will make use of the open access publication of the EPWM to develop and compare against other such questionnaire generative studies:

Publication of EPWM Version 2 open access via University of Worcester, Worcester Research and Publications (eprints.worc.ac.uk).
Presentation at EP practice conference highlighting open access and call for generation and comparison of further measure(s)
Circulation of open access on social media channels

EP sample analysis

The 201 (add in extent sample is representative here when completed above) sample presented an opportunity for analysis of educational psychologists’ self-reported workplace contexts and practices, motivations for work-based change, and the relationship of these to different variables. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each item of Part A. For Part B they were calculated for the whole scale and then for each sub-scale, to give a broad picture of reported work contexts and practices.

Pearson’s product moment was calculated to analyse the relationship between variables. These included the following from the demographic questionnaire;

age
time in profession
professional level,

and variables from Part A of the EPWM of;

contracted work hours
hours estimated actually worked
estimated number of cases per academic year
estimated number of reports produced per academic year
estimated number of EHCP assessments completed per academic year
estimated time of average school visit
estimated average time of home visit

As well as all Part B subscales.

The demographic data categories of disabled/not disabled, gender, and ethnicity were excluded from the analysis as they all represented skewed variables. This is advisable as if the distribution of data within a variable is highly skewed it can lead to spurious correlations, with variables appearing to be correlated when they are not (Bardsley, 2014).

Ethics

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the University of Worcester Research Ethics Committee

Construct validity

The calculated Cronbach's Alpha for all 25 items in Part B yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.902, demonstrating high internal consistency. Most item-total correlations fell between 0.4 and 0.7 demonstrating moderate but not high correlations. In Version One, three items had low item total-correlations, B13 (0.259), B14 (0.316), and B15 (0.344). These items were all related to retirement. This is a plausible finding as retirement is only an option for those at a certain age, so it would not relate closely to other items if it were not an option for younger participants; most participants were not of retirement age. The decision was made to remove items B13, B14, and B15 from Version Two and re-calculate Cronbach's Alpha giving a reliability coefficient of 0.906. As such, Part B in Version Two has items relating to retirement removed (Appendix Two).

Table Two presents Cronbach’s Alpha scores for the development of subscales. All proposed subscales yielded a reliability coefficient above 0.7 indicating high internal consistency. Version 2 (Appendix Two) involves scoring six subscales. The first three allow an analysis of participants' general motivations regarding changing job/career, seeking alternative options, and continuing to work as an EP but changing working context(s) or pattern(s). The second three enable an analysis of EPs of general motivation, whether participants are engaging in thoughts about change, have acted towards change, or intend to (plan to) make a change.

Table Two: Chronbach’s Alpha for subscales

EP sample analysis

Table Three presents descriptive statistics calculated for the EPWM, Version Two Part A and Part B. Across the participant sample, the mean number of contracted hours is close to full-time work hours. There was a difference in 8 hours between mean contracted number of hours and mean actual hours worked. This indicates that EPs typically work more hours than contracted. There is also disparity between the mean number of cases worked per year (80) and mean number of reports written (excluding EHCPs) (38) indicating that it is a possible work practice trend that reports are not written de rigor for all case involvements. However, the mean number of EHCP assessments (28) can potentially be factored into this reading of the data, as participants may have included these as part of their overall estimation of average number of cases per academic year (as they were not instructed to exclude EHCP assessments, as they were when estimating number of reports). In this case, the number of average cases that potentially lead to reports rises to 66, with the possibility of EPs writing reports for 83% of children and families supported. The mean scores for average home and school visits can be interpreted as suggesting that more time is given to school visits than home visits. This intuitively is plausible as a school visit will often involve supporting multiple children whereas a home visit is typically for one child.

The mean scores for subscales give an indication of general workplace motivations across the sample as a whole. Mean scores for the subscales of ‘Change of job/career’ and ‘Alternative options’ fall close to the maximum subscale score of 30, indicating the likelihood that there is the existence of motivation within the sample to change job or seek alternative options (e.g., sabbatical). However, this sub scale encompasses all dimensions of thoughts, actions, and plans, and so may reflect a motivational desire, rather than actual movement towards such a change. There appeared to be less representation in the sample of a motivation to continue working as an EP but make changes to work context(s) or practice(s). Similarly, the mean scores for sub scales relating to Motivational Interviewing indicate that whilst there is the presence of motivation within the sample for workplace change, regarding thoughts, actions, and plans, a particularly high degree of this was not reported on average by participants.

Table Three: EPWM descriptive statistics

Table Four reports all Pearson’s product moment correlations and highlights those that were significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 level. Associations between demographic variables and variables from Part A of the EPWM generated some intuitive findings and some relationships that provide speculative insight into influences on work practices (such as completion of EHCPs and reports).

Age and time active in the profession have a strong positive correlation that would be as expected. Age and time active in the profession also both have positive, but weaker correlations, with professional level, which again is to be expected as individuals tend to be promoted in relation to experience. Time active in profession has significant, but weak negative correlations with contracted work hours per week and number of EHCP assessments completed per academic year.

The first correlation is likely accounted for by those who are older and have more experience choosing part time work for a variety of reasons, such as health or caring duties. The correlation that as time in profession increases, amount of EHCP assessment decreases, may be accounted for a variety of reasons. It is plausible that as time in profession also correlates with professional level that as promotion occurs, EHCP assessment reduces as a responsibility. This interpretation is supported by a similar negative correlation between professional level and number of EHCP assessments.

Significant, positive correlations between variables hours contracted to work and number of reports and number of EHCP assessments completed per academic year, likewise, are to be expected; More hours worked will incur a larger workload and hence more cases, and more reports completed. Average length of school visit and home visit did not significantly correlate with other variables and can be deemed to have no relationship with other factors.

Significant, positive relationships were found between the Part B subscale of ‘Continue in EP job and change working practices/contexts’ and variables professional level, contracted hours per week, and number of EHCP assessments per year. A possible interpretation of the picture emerging here is that increases in professional level, higher contracted hours, and higher numbers of EHCP assessments confer more responsibility and associated pressure which may influence thoughts, plans and actions of continuing in the role, whilst seeking to change context and practices, in order toa change in responsibility and pressure.

Table Four: Pearsons’ product moment correlations

The validity of chosen measures critically contributes to the integrity of a research project. This is particularly important when the phenomenon under study is complex, such as individual motivations. The current study reports the development and validity testing of the Educational Psychologists’ Work-based Motivations Questionnaire (EPWM). The measure was developed as there appeared to be no existing validated measure to explore EPs self-reported motivations to make changes to their working-live patterns and context. Appropriate processes were adopted to rigorously validate the EPWM (Smith, 2005). Content validity (also known as ‘face validity’) is noted as the weakest form of validation, however it is still important for offering initial insight into the operationalisation of the measure for EPs. Working as a research team reinforced confidence in content validity when developing Part B scale items as it consisted of a series of experienced EPs who could critique the content’s relevance to topic as defined for the subsequent research. Construct validity was established after removal of items relating to retirement, and subscales were developed with high construct validity.

However, further strengthening of the rigor of the measure is advisable. Critically, establishing criterion validity for the measure, including convergent and discriminant validity. This requires a new sample with the aim of comparing the current measure with one exploring the same phenomena. It appears that such a measure specific to EPs is yet to exist, hence including Version Two open access as an appendix to this paper to encourage development of different variations, or development of new measures for comparison. The EP profession has a healthy research community to develop, adapt, and validate this starting point in assessing EP working-life motivations.

Part A is also arguably a site for improvement in subsequent iterations. Part A is presented in a survey style collecting more precise demographic information and attempting to qualify various work patterns and contexts. The current items were devised and chosen for precise use for the second part of the study, published in a subsequent paper. The focus was on work contexts and patterns, hence queries such as hours contracted versus hours worked and context, e.g., local authority or independent. Future adaptations of the scale may wish to augment these to explore variables relating to specific research questions. For example, research concerned with exploring the impact of burn out on families and children may wish to ask questions such as what percentage of your time is dedicated to supporting families versus the percentage of supporting children without accessing families.

The analysis of the current EP sample has illuminated some interesting dynamics in working-life contexts and patterns. They paint a picture that EPs are likely to be working more than their contracted hours per week and are more likely to be in full time employment. The numbers reported for yearly case load and quantity of reports per academic year are interesting as they can be triangulated with EP reports in previous research that they feel they have a high workload (DfE, 2023). As such, these findings reflect those in the existing literature, further strengthening the conclusion that this is a working life reality for most EPs (DFE, 2023; Gersch & Teuma, 2005; Imich, 1999; Islam, 2013; Marsh & Higgins, 2018). There also appears to be a pattern of practice where more time is spent on school visits than home visits, giving an initial insight into where EP direct contact work takes place. Of course, this is initial data in a sample of 201. Again, the development of the measure has been made in part to encourage further adaptation and investigation of EP working-life contexts and patterns. There is an apparent need to develop a wider research literature to be developed on this topic to better understand and inform the practicalities of EP work.

In summary, the EPWM was developed and validated for further use in the second part of the research project exploring EP working-life experiences and associated motivations, and for peer-development by the wider research and EP community. It has been shown to provide a valid way to understand EPs working-life contexts and practices, and motivation for change. It is adaptable, particularly Part A, for addressing a range of alternative research questions within this topic. There is a distinct lack of a strong literature on EPs working-life experiences and the impact of these, and this paper has also been written to encourage future research efforts.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND COMPLIANC WITH ETHICS STATEMENT

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. The University of Worcester Ethics Board granted ethical clearance to complete the research and informed consent was obtained from participants.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data cannot be made openly available to protect study participant privacy.

Author Contribution

Fiona Coley contributed to data generation and writing of the manuscript.Peter Gossman contributed to data analysis and editing of the manuscript.Jane park contibuted to data collection.

Ashton, R., & Roberts, E. (2006). What is valuable and unique about the educational psychologist?. Educational Psychology in Practice, 22(02), 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667360600668204
Association of Educational Psychologists (2020). Guidance on Workload. Available to AEP members.
Bardsley, E. (2014). Tendency toward negative correlations for positively-skewed independent random variables. Journal of Hydrology (New Zealand), 53(2), 175-177. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.937415967168988.
Cameron, R. J. (2006). Educational psychology: The distinctive contribution. Educational Psychology in Practice, 22(4), 289-304.https://doi.org/10.1080/02667360600999393
Currie, E. (2002). Review of provision of educational psychology services in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Department for Education. (2023). Educational Psychology services: workforce insights and impact. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/educational-psychology-services-workforce-insights-and-impact [Retrieved: 10^th July 2023].
Fallon, K., Woods, K., & Rooney, S. (2010). A discussion of the developing role of educational psychologists within Children’s Services. Educational Psychology in Practice, 26(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667360903522744
Farrell, P., & Woods, K. (2015). Reflections on the role of consultation in the delivery of effective educational psychology services. Educational Psychology Research and Practice, 1(1), 2-9. https://doi.org/10.15123/uel.8856w
Gaskell, S., & Leadbetter, J. (2009). Educational psychologists and multi‐agency working: exploring professional identity. Educational Psychology in Practice, 25(2), 97-111.https://doi.org/10.1080/02667360902905031
Gersch, I., & Teuma, A. (2005). Are educational psychologists stressed? A pilot study of educational psychologists’ perceptions. Educational Psychology in Practice, 21(3), 219-233.https://doi.org/10.1080/02667360500205909
Gillham, B. (1978). Reconstructing Educational Psychology. Kent: Croom Helm Ltd.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003279853
Imich, A. (1999). Delivering educational psychology. Educational Psychology in Practice, 15(1), 57-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/0266736990150110
Islam, S. N. (2013). An investigation into educational psychologists’ perceptions of traded service delivery, using soft systems methodology (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham).
Lau, A. M. S. (2016). ‘Formative good, summative bad?’–A review of the dichotomy in assessment literature. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(4), 509-525.https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2014.984600
Lee, K., & Woods, K. (2017). Exploration of the developing role of the educational psychologist within the context of “traded” psychological services. Educational Psychology in Practice, 33(2), 111-125.https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2016.1258545
Lyonette, C., Atfield, G., Baldauf, B. & Owen, D. (2019). Research on the Educational Psychology Workforce: Research Report. The Institute for Employment Research: University of Warwick. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/912884/Research_
on_the_Educational_Psychologist_Workforce_March_2019.pdf [Retrieved: 4^th August 2023].
Marsh, A. J., & Higgins, A. (2018). A developing educational psychology service work-allocation model. Educational Psychology in Practice, 34(2), 208-221.https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2018.1424621
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). New York: The Guildford Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2450030210
Owen, L., Craig, L., Barrett, W., & Hannay, S. (2022). Excellence, equity and efficiency in educational psychology service delivery: a journey. Educational Psychology in Practice, 38(4), 410-427.https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2022.2129594
Sewell, A., Coley, F., Gossman, P., & Park, J. (UNDER REVIEW). Caring for the carers: The influence of stress, burnout, and experiences of compassion on educational psychologists’ work-based motivations. Educational Psychology in Practice.
Smith, G. T. (2005). On construct validity: issues of method and measurement. Psychological assessment, 17(4), 396-408.https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.4.396
Szulevicz, T., & Tanggaard, L. (2016). What is Educational Psychology Practice? London: Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44266-2_1

Table One: Demographic data

Demographic	Sample %
Time Active: 0-5 years	31.8%
Time Active: 6-10 years	18.4%
Time Active: 11-15 years	15.4%
Time Active: 16-25 years	25.9%
Time Active: 26-30 years	4.5%
Time Active: 31+ years	4%

Professional Level: Main grade EP	60.2%
Professional Level: Specialist Senior EP	7.5%
Professional Level: Senior EP	20.9%
Professional Level: Principal EP	6%
Professional Level: Other	5.5%

Table Two: Chronbach’s Alpha for subscales

Potential subscale	Item numbers	Cronbach's Alpha
Change of job or career	B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6	0.88
Alternative options	B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12,	0.78
Continue working as an EP and change working context(s) or pattern(s)	B16, B17, B18, B19, B20, B21, B22, B23, B24	0.85
MI: Thoughts about all possibilities	B1, B4, B7, B10, B16, B22	0.76
MI: Taking steps toward action for all possibilities	B2, B5, B8, B11, B17, b21, B23	0.76
MI: Commitment to a plan for all possibilities	B3, B6, B9, B12, B16, B18, B24	0.76

Table Three: EPWM descriptive statistics

Part A: Item	Mean	St. Dv.
Number of hours per week contracted to work	32.6	6.6
Estimated actual hours worked per week	40.3	24.1
Estimated average number of cases per academic year	80.4	123.9
Estimated average number of reports written per academic year	38.3	36.4
Estimated number of EHCP assessments per academic year	28.4	22.4
Estimated (in hours) length of average school visit	3.6	5.2
Estimated (in hours) length of average home visit	1.6	1.2
Part B: Scale			Max
Total score: Whole scale	84.5	16.5	120
Total score: Change of job/career	22.6	5.8	30
Total score: Alternative options	24.4	4.8	30
Total score: Continue in EP job and change working practices/context	24.3	8.1	45
Total score: MI: Thoughts about change	22.7	6.7	35
Total score: MI: Taking steps towards change	28.3	5.3	35
Total score: MI: A plan for change	26.9	5.2	35

Table Four: Pearsons’ product moment correlations

		Age	Time active in profession	Proff level	Hours per week contracted to work	Est. no. hours worked p/w	Est. av. No. of cases per a/y	Est. av. No. reports per a/y	Est. av. no. assessments and reports for EHCPs per a/y	Est. (hrs) length of av. School visit	Est. (hrs) length of av. home visit	EPWP Change job/career	EPWP Alt. options	EPWP Continue	EPWP thoughts of all poss	EPWP active all poss	EPWP Plan All poss
Age	Pearson R.	1	.662**	.293**	-.142*	.63	.049	-.061	-.128	-.036	-.051	-.039	.117	.076	-.010	.010	-.007
Age	Sig. (2 tail)		<.001	<.001	.044	.371	.486	.390	.070	.612	.474	.579	.097	.285	.884	.892	.924
Time active in profession	Pearson R.	.662**	1	.464**	-.200**	.073	.008	-.073	-.202**	-.036	-.078	-.077	-.075	.138	-.024	-.008	.030
Time active in profession	Sig. (2 tail)	<.001		<.001	.004	.302	.911	.302	.004	.610	.271	.276	.288	.051	.731	.909	.676
Proff level	Pearson R.	.293**	.464**	1	-.041	.080	-.009	-.043	-.260**	-.017	-.098	.088	.041	.175*	.107	.047	.082
Proff level	Sig. (2 tail)	<.001	<.001		.562	.259	.900	.543	<.001	.813	.167	.213	.564	.013	.132	.508	.246
Hours per week contracted to work	Pearson R.	-.142*	-.200**	-.041	1	.289**	.118	.181*	.203**	.013	-.036	-.041	-.031	-.221**	-.116	-.036	-.153*
Hours per week contracted to work	Sig. (2 tail)	.044	.044	.562		<.001	.096	.010	.004	.858	.615	.565	.661	.002	.100	.610	.030
Est. no. hours worked p/w	Pearson R.	.063	.073	.080	.289**	1	.048	.026	.064	-.025	.007	-.030	.025	-.065	-.019	-.002	-.002
Est. no. hours worked p/w	Sig. (2 tail)	.371	.302	.259	<.001		.494	.716	.365	.726	.926	.677	.729	.362	.792	.973	.978
Est. av. No. of cases per a/y	Pearson R.	.049	.008	-.009	.118	.048	1	.239**	.116	.007	.039	-.132	-.015	.016	-.061	-.060	-.055
Est. av. No. of cases per a/y	Sig. (2 tail)	.486	.911	.900	.096	.494		<.001	.102	.920	.579	.062	.837	.823	.388	.395	.438
Est. av. No. reports per a/y	Pearson R.	-.061	-.073	-.043	.181*	.026	.239**	1	.099	.055	-.023	-.017	-.015	-.053	.011	-.023	-.038
Est. av. No. reports per a/y	Sig. (2 tail)	.390	.302	.543	.010	.716	<.001		.163	.441	.749	.814	.829	.456	.873	.749	.591
Est. av. no. EHCPs per a/y	Pearson R.	-.128	-.202**	-.260**	.203**	.064	.116	.099	1	-.022	.084	.025	-.101	-.209**	-.093	-.114	-.136
Est. av. no. EHCPs per a/y	Sig. (2 tail)	.070	.004	<.001	.004	.365	.102	.163		.752	.235	.724	.154	.003	.187	.107	.054
Est. (hrs) length of av. School visit	Pearson R.	-.036	-.036	-.017	.013	-.025	.007	.055	-.022	1	.595**	-.015	.051	-.067	.004	-.038	-.077
Est. (hrs) length of av. School visit	Sig. (2 tail)	.612	.610	.813	.858	.726	.920	.441	.752		<.001	.829	.471	.342	.950	.592	.275
Est. (hrs) length of av. home visit	Pearson R.	-.051	-.078	-.098	-.036	.007	.039	-.023	.084	.595**	1	-.019	-.025	-.119	-.064	-.071	-.121
Est. (hrs) length of av. home visit	Sig. (2 tail)	.474	.271	.167	.615	.926	.579	.749	.235	<.001		.785	.729	.093	.366	.319	.086
EPWP Change job/career	Pearson R.	-.039	-.077	.088	-.041	-.030	-.132	-.017	.025	-.015	-.019	1	.534**	.560**	.776**	.782**	.727**
EPWP Change job/career	Sig. (2 tail)	.579	.276	.213	.565	.677	.062	.814	.724	.829	.785		<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001
EPWP Alt. options	Pearson R.	.117	.075	.041	-.031	.025	-.015	-.015	-.101	.051	-.025	.534**	1	.551**	.729**	.783**	.734**
EPWP Alt. options	Sig. (2 tail)	.097	.288	.564	.661	.729	.837	.829	.154	.471	.729	<.001		<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001
EPWP Continue	Pearson R.	.076	.138	.175*	-.221**	-.065	.016	-.053	-.209**	-.067	-.119	.560**	.551**	1	.759**	.735**	.858**
EPWP Continue	Sig. (2 tail)	.285	.051	.013	.002	.362	.823	.456	.003	.342	.093	<.001	<.001		<.001	<.001	<.001
EPWP thoughts of all poss	Pearson R.	-.010	-.024	.107	-.116	-.019	-.061	.011	-.093	.004	-.064	.776**	.729**	.759**	1	.755**	.809**
EPWP thoughts of all poss	Sig. (2 tail)	.884	.731	.132	.100	.792	.388	.873	.187	.950	.366	<.001	<.001	<.001		<.001	<.001
EPWP active all poss	Pearson R.	.010	-.008	.047	-.036	-.002	-.060	-.023	-.114	-.038	-.071	.782**	.783**	.735**	.755**	1	.857**
EPWP active all poss	Sig. (2 tail)	.892	.909	.508	.610	.973	.395	.749	.107	.592	.319	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001		<.001
EPWP Plan All poss	Pearson R.	0.007	.030	.082	-.153*	.002	-.055	-.038	-.136	-.077	-.121	.727**	.734**	.858**	.809**	.857**	1
EPWP Plan All poss	Sig. (2 tail)	.924	.676	.246	.030	.978	.438	.591	.054	.275	.086	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Appendices One and Two are not available with this version.

No competing interests reported.

Development and validation of the Educational Psychology Workplace Motivation (EPWM) scale; A measure to evaluate educational psychologists’ working-life contexts, patterns, and motivation for change.

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

EP working life experiences, contexts, and practices

Method

Research aims and objectives

Participants

Questionnaire item design

Construct validity

Criterion validation and dissemination plan

EP sample analysis

Ethics

Results

Construct validity

EP sample analysis

Discussion

Declarations

Author Contribution

References

Tables

Appendix

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1