2014 BrunstingSreckovicLane ETC

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/274960035
Special Education Teacher Burnout: A Synthesis of Research from 1979 to 2013
Article in Education and Treatment of Children · November 2014

DOI: 10.1353/etc.2014.0032
CITATIONS READS
96 6,019
3 authors:
Nelson Brunsting Melissa A. Sreckovic

Wake Forest University University of Michigan-Flint
21 PUBLICATIONS 201 CITATIONS 16 PUBLICATIONS 260 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Kathleen L. Lane
University of Kansas
186 PUBLICATIONS 3,836 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
National PBIS TA Center View project
International Student Transition to US Colleges and Universities View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Nelson Brunsting on 14 April 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

6SHFLDO(GXFDWLRQ7HDFKHU%XUQRXW$6\QWKHVLVRI5HVHDUFK
IURPWR
Nelson C. Brunsting, Melissa A. Sreckovic, Kathleen Lynne Lane
Education and Treatment of Children, Volume 37, Number 4, November

2014, pp. 681-711 (Article)
3XEOLVKHGE\:HVW9LUJLQLD8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
DOI: 10.1353/etc.2014.0032
For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/etc/summary/v037/37.4.brunsting.html
Access provided by Wake Forest University (17 Oct 2014 15:03 GMT)
EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 37, No. 4, 2014
Special Education Teacher Burnout: A Synthesis

of Research from 1979 to 2013
Nelson C. Brunsting
Melissa A. Sreckovic
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Kathleen Lynne Lane
University of Kansas
Abstract
Teacher burnout occurs when teachers undergoing stress for long periods of
time experience emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of person-
al accomplishment (Maslach, 2003). Outcomes associated with burnout in-
clude teacher attrition, teacher health issues, and negative student outcomes.
Special educators are at high risk for burnout as their working conditions
align with many factors associated with burnout. In this review, we updated
the literature on special education teacher working conditions by review-
ing studies (N = 23) that (a) included a quantitative measure of burnout and
(b) focused on special education teachers as participants. An analysis of the
studies reviewed provided a clear base of support for the association between
burnout and a range of variables from the individual, classroom, school, and
district levels. Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological Model supplied the orga-
nizational framework for the range of variables. Teacher experience, student
disability, role conflict, role ambiguity, and administrative support were par-
ticularly salient factors in special education teacher burnout. Important gaps
in the research are discussed, future directions for researchers are outlined,
and implications for teachers and other practitioners are provided.
Keywords: teacher burnout, special education, emotional disturbance, role
conflict, role ambiguity, Maslach Burnout Inventory
D ue to a national teacher shortage crisis in the 1990s and early

2000s, much of the research on special education teacher (SET)
working conditions in the last two decades has focused on teach-
er supply and attrition (Boe & Cook, 2006; Ingersoll, 2003; Miller,
Brownell, & Smith, 1999). However, recent research reports attrition
of SETs as lower than attrition in other fields of employment (e.g.,
healthcare; Boe, Cook, & Sunderland, 2008). In addition, a substantial
portion of the purported SET shortage appears to have been due to a
Address correspondence to Nelson C. Brunsting, 201C Peabody Hall, University of

North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; email: brunnc3@live.unc.edu
Pages 681–712
682 Brunsting et al.
methodological issue wherein teachers who transferred within their

district were counted as having left the profession (Boe, et al, 2008;
Edgar & Pair, 2005). These findings, coupled with the increased access
to entry into teaching special education through fast-tracked alterna-
tive-route teacher preparation programs permitted by No Child Left
Behind (2001), have led researchers to refocus their efforts from in-
creasing SET supply to developing teacher capacity and commitment
(Sindelar, Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010). While teacher supply is still
an important responsibility, they argue the focal question is no longer
how do we recruit more teachers? but rather how can we best train and sup-
port our teachers? One promising approach for building SET capacity
and supporting teacher commitment is to alleviate teacher burnout.
At one point or another almost all teachers become frustrated
with their job or harbor negative feelings toward the profession. Yet,
some teachers experience these emotions more acutely or with greater
frequency (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Teachers are described
as experiencing burnout when the stress they encounter overcomes
their resources and abilities to cope adequately, leading them to
feel exhausted, cynical, or unaccomplished in their work (Hakanen,
Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006; Maslach et al., 2001). Although stress and
dissatisfaction correlate highly with teacher burnout (Martin, Sass,
& Schmitt, 2012), the current review follows Maslach (2003) in dif-
ferentiating stress and dissatisfaction from burnout, which is com-
posed of three components: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization/
cynicism, and (lack of) personal accomplishment. This delineation
between stress and burnout is both conceptually necessary and prac-
tically important, as individuals respond differently to stress: some
thrive, others are indifferent to stress, and others experience burnout
over time (Farber, 2000). Similarly, job satisfaction and burnout are
separate constructs, as one can be dissatisfied with multiple aspects of
one’s job (e.g., salary, hours, support from colleagues) without expe-
riencing emotional exhaustion, cynicism, or lack of personal accom-
plishment (Farber, 2000).
The special education literature has traditionally focused on
stress or burnout in terms of attrition (Billingsley, 2004; Gersten,
Keating, Yovanoff, & Harniss, 2001). Yet, attrition may be the least
worrisome correlate of burnout. Results of recent studies found
teacher burnout to impact a range of variables, including teacher
health and student outcomes. More specifically, burnout is associ-
ated with physical symptoms, such as chronic fatigue and colds,
recurrent flu, and musculoskeletal pain (Armon, Melamed, Shirom,
& Shapira, 2010; Cordes & Dougherty, 1993). Further, depression
is highly related to burnout, as teachers with burnout experience
SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT 683
eight out of nine symptoms of depression (Bianchi, Boffy, Hingray,

Truchot, & Laurent, 2013).
Unfortunately, students are not spared the negative influence
of teacher burnout. Students of disengaged or exhausted teachers are
frequently disruptive, struggle socially and emotionally, and attain
their Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals less frequently—all
of which impact academic development (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009;
Ruble & McGrew, 2013). Thus, teacher burnout presents a problem for
students, their families, and school systems as they attempt to respond
to students’ academic, behavioral, and social struggles. In short, the
effect of teacher burnout is far-reaching, impacting more than solely
the teacher experiencing its effects.
Teacher Burnout in Special Education
There is a range of factors associated with the onset of teach-
er burnout, including: lack of administrative support (Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2007), paperwork (Billingsley, 2004), challenging student
behaviors (Hastings & Brown, 2002), role overload (i.e., the experience
of too many unique demands on one’s time and resources; Adera &
Bullock, 2010), and expectation-reality mismatch, which occurs when
the pre-service expectation of teaching does not align with the real-
ity of what the teacher experiences in the classroom (Zabel, Boomer,
& King, 1984). Unfortunately, these are all factors that many SETs
face daily, putting them at increased risk of burnout. Many SETs do
not feel they have the support of their principals and may lack the
resources needed to manage or alleviate their overload of responsi-
bilities (Kaff, 2004). In addition, SETs often use their time perform-
ing noninstructional tasks (e.g., IEP meetings, paperwork; Vannest
& Hagan-Burke, 2010). Although pre-service special educators’ ex-
pectations of the classroom are relatively accurate, they overestimate
the amount of support SETs receive from administrators and general
educators (Wasburn-Moses, 2009). Because the factors associated with
burnout align closely with the realities of their daily work experienc-
es, it is critical to provide SETs with ways to alleviate burnout before
it leads to negative outcomes.
Challenging Student Behaviors and SET Burnout
Wisniewski and Gargiulo (1997) conducted a comprehensive
review of studies on stress and burnout for practitioners in special
education from 1969 to 1996. Results linked all SETs with high risk
for burnout; however, Wisniewski and Gargiulo found that SETs
working with students with emotional disturbance (ED) were expe-
riencing burnout at “crisis proportions.” Indeed, a range of studies
documented significantly higher burnout for SETs teaching students

with ED than those working with students with other disabilities
(e.g., Banks & Necco, 1990; Nichols & Sosnowsky, 2002). The impact
of the challenging behavior of students with ED is corroborated by
the general education literature as challenging student behavior corre-
lated with burnout for general education teachers (Hastings & Brown,
2002). Further, classroom management mediated the behavior-burn-
out relationship for general educators (Tsouloupas, Carson, Matthews,
Grawitch, & Barber, 2010). As Wisniewski and Gargiulo were the last
to comprehensively review SET burnout, there is a need for an up-
dated review of teacher burnout, specifically one focused exclusively
on SETs to identify gaps in the research, make recommendations for
practitioners, and improve teacher health, teacher working conditions,
and student outcomes. Although all SETs are at risk for burnout, those
who teach students with ED appear to be especially at risk. Therefore
we conducted the current review with particular attention to the im-
pact of challenging student behavior and SETs working with students
with ED.
Purpose
As the understanding of the importance of burnout has grown, the
need for a review focused on burnout for SETs has increased. We con-
ducted the current review to update the knowledge base on burnout by
reviewing all empirical studies examining one or more of the compo-
nents of burnout delineated by Maslach (i.e., emotional exhaustion, de-
personalization, and lack of personal accomplishment) for SETs in the
United States (US). To structure the review we used Bronfenbrenner’s
(1977) Ecological Model as an organizational framework to order the
variables associated with teacher burnout from proximal (e.g., teacher
characteristics) to distal (e.g., district policy)—a point we will explain in
more detail in the method section. The timing of the review is germane
as the field is shifting focus from teacher supply to teacher quality and
working conditions, and the last review focused on SET burnout was
published in 2002. As such, we conducted this review to synthesize re-
search on SET burnout, identify gaps in the literature on SET burnout
for future research, and offer recommendations for practitioners.
Method
To identify studies measuring SET burnout, we conducted a sys-
tematic search using a multiple-gated process, which included elec-
tronic, hand, and ancestral searches. To determine eligible articles to be
included in the review, a set of inclusion criteria was identified by all au-
thors. During the article selection process, potential articles were coded
independently by the first and second authors to determine inclusion

eligibility. A binary coding scheme of met/not met was used. To calcu-
late the inter-rater agreement the number of total agreements was multi-
plied by 100 and divided by number of agreements plus disagreements.
Electronic Search
First, we completed an electronic search of the following databases:
Academic Search Complete, Education Full Text, ERIC, and PsycINFO.
All possible combinations, derivations, and previous iterations (e.g.,
mental retardation and intellectual disability [ID]) of the following
search terms were used: (Field 1) emotional exhaustion, cynicism,
depersonalization, personal accomplishment, or burnout; (Field 2)
special education, exceptionality, disability, autism, emotional and/or
behavioral disorder, emotional disturbance, other health impaired, or
oppositional defiant disorder; and (Field 3) teacher or educator. The
search yielded 147 articles (excluding duplicates). All titles and abstracts
were read independently by the first and second authors to determine if
the article met inclusion criteria (described below). Inter-rater reliability
was 90%. Fifty-nine articles were retained to be read in entirety to: (a)
verify the article met inclusion criteria; (b) supplement information in
the abstract to determine whether the article met inclusion criteria; or
(c) resolve situations when the authors disagreed (n = 15). The first and
second authors read all 59 articles in full to determine inclusion eligibility
and coded them using the met/not met system. Inter-rater agreement
was 95%; authors used a consensus model to reach final agreement.
Second, the first and second authors conducted hand searches of any
journal publishing more than one of the included articles by reviewing
the titles and authors of each article published between 1979 and 2013
(i.e., Exceptional Children, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
and Teacher Education and Special Education). Inter-rater agreement was
100% for the hand searches, with no additional articles identified for
inclusion. Finally, the reference lists of all included articles as well as
the reference list of other reviews on SET burnout (e.g., Wisniewski &
Gargiulo, 1997) were searched for additional articles. One additional
article (Zabel & Zabel, 2002) was located through the ancestral search.
Twenty-three articles met the inclusion criteria described below.
Application of Inclusion Criteria
Articles selected for inclusion in this review needed to meet all
of the following criteria: (a) contain a quantitative measure of emo-
tional exhaustion, depersonalization/cynicism, or lack of personal ac-
complishment, (b) include SETs working at a public or private school
setting, (c) differentiate the outcomes for SETs if general education
teachers also participated in the study, (d) present data and explain the
analyses in a clear and interpretable manner, and (e) occur in the US
and be published in a peer-reviewed journal between 1979 and 2013.
Quantitative measure of burnout. As the review was organized
around Maslach’s conceptualization of burnout, all included studies
needed to measure at least one of the three components of burnout. Of
the 59 initially read, one study with variables similar to, yet different
from, the components of burnout was excluded (Cancio, Albrecht, &
Johns, 2013).
Special education teacher participants. Included studies had partici-
pants who were SETs working in a public or private school setting. We
did not differentiate between certified and noncertified SETs in terms
of inclusion criteria (a limitation later discussed).
Differentiated outcomes for special education teachers. If a sample
had fewer than 50% SETs, then the outcomes for each variable needed
to be differentiated for SETs. This was done in order to avoid misap-
propriation of the results of a study to SETs if they represented a small
portion of the sample. Of the 59 initially read in full, one study with
fewer than 50% SETs in the sample used special education status as
a predictor variable for burnout but did not differentiate burnout for
SETs and therefore was not included (Jones & Youngs, 2012).
Present the data and analyses in a clear and interpretable manner.
Included articles featured a defined data analytic plan. The Zabel and
Zabel (1982) study was excluded because the authors were unable to
determine the analysis procedures used to interpret the data.
Occur in the United States between 1979 and 2013. The first version
of the Maslach Burnout Inventory was published in 1979 and repre-
sents the starting date for the literature search (Maslach & Jackson,
1979). Results were restricted to the US as other countries operational-
ize special education differently and we wanted to focus on what was
understood for SETs in the US.
Analysis of Included Articles
The current review draws its organizational framework from
Brownell and Smith (1993), who used Bronfenbrenner’s (1977)
Ecological Model to organize variables associated with teachers’ career
decisions. Bronfenbrenner posited the importance of processes and
contexts on an individual’s development, using the Ecological Model
to illustrate the proximal and distal systems of contexts impacting
the individual. The Ecological Model is well suited for analyzing SET
burnout, because burnout develops over time and in multiple settings
(e.g., classroom, school). In contrast to Brownell and Smith, we do not
attempt to place each variable associated with burnout into a certain
system within the model (e.g., microsystem). The included studies

primarily examined variables associated with the SET or the people
and settings with which the SET has direct interaction. Therefore, the
organizational framework in this study focuses on the proximity of
certain variables to the SET experiencing burnout. Studies are syn-
thesized by the variables associated with burnout, beginning with
the most proximal to the most distal: individual level variables (e.g.,
age, gender), classroom level variables (e.g., student disability, chal-
lenging behaviors), school level variables (e.g., administrative sup-
port, workload), and state and district level variables (e.g., pre-service
training, salary). Next, studies with SET burnout as an independent
variable are reviewed and studies investigating interventions for SET
burnout are described. Finally, the overall impact of burnout on SETs
is discussed, implications for practitioners are provided, and limita-
tions and future directions are considered.
Results
A total of 23 studies met inclusion criteria, which yields a pub-
lishing rate from 1979 to 2013 of 0.66 studies per year. The included
studies are described in table 1 and are denoted in the reference list
with an asterisk.
Individual Level Variables Associated with Burnout
Teacher age and gender. Five studies reported teacher age as nega-
tively correlated with burnout, meaning older teachers experienced
less emotional exhaustion and depersonalization while having greater
personal accomplishment (Banks & Necco, 1990; Carlson & Thompson,
1995; Crane & Iwanicki, 1986; Weber & Toffler, 1989, Zabel & Zabel,
1983). In a model including SETs’ classroom and school experiences,
age did not make a significant contribution to burnout, suggesting the
impact of age on burnout may be mediated and moderated by other
variables (Embich, 2001). Carlson and Thompson (1995) reported gen-
der made a significant contribution to depersonalization, with males
experiencing higher rates of depersonalization. Similarly, Crane and
Iwanicki (1986) found being male positively correlated with burnout.
Teaching experience and level of education. Teaching experience as
measured in total number of years teaching either special education
or general education was negatively correlated with burnout (Coman
et al., 2013; Crane & Iwanicki, 1986). Coman and colleagues also
found years teaching special education correlated negatively with
burnout. Interestingly, years of general education teaching experi-
ence was inversely correlated with burnout in one study (Zabel &
Zabel, 1983). Zabel and Zabel (2001) partially replicated this finding
Table 1
688
Studies meeting inclusion criteria

Study Research Participants Variables of Interest Results
Design
Beck & Gargiulo, Cross-Sectional 997 SETs in Ohio SE Category

1983 463 teaching ID Teaching GE lower DP and higher PA than GE teachers and those
534 GE teachers Teaching ID teaching mild ID.
McIntyre, 1983 Correlational 684 SETs in SC settings in Class Size
the Northeast burnout was found.
Zabel, & Zabel, Correlational 601 SETs in Kansas Teacher Age Previous regular education teaching experience was
1983 and Cross- Teaching Experience
Sectional Training
bachelor’s degree.
McIntyre, 1984 Correlational 684 SETs in SC settings in Locus of Control
the Northeast less teachers felt in control of their personal outcomes, the
more burnout teachers experienced.
Zabel, Dettmer, et Descriptive 601 SETs in Kansas Delivery Model/Setting SETs of students with hearing impairments, teaching in SC
al., 1984 -
ing high school students reported the highest EE. High
school SETs and those teaching students with ED reported
the highest DP.
Note: ASD = autism spectrum disorder; AWC = adult word count (i.e., the number of adult words children are exposed to in a classroom setting); BD =
Behavioral Disorder; DD = developmental delays; DP = depersonalization; ED = Emotional Disturbance; EE = emotional exhaustion; GE = general education;
ID = Intellectual Disability; IEP = individualized education plan; PA = personal accomplishment; SC = self-contained classroom, SE = special education; SET
Brunsting et al.
= special education teacher; TD = typically developing; TEACCH = Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication Handicapped Children.
Table 1
Design
Crane & Iwanic- Correlational 443 SETs in Connecticut, Role Ambiguity -
ki, 1986 teaching students with ED,
ID, and LD Teacher
Demographics age, gender, training, and experience.
Fimian & Blan- Correlational 415 Alumnae or students Academic and First year teachers did not report higher levels of burnout
ton, and Cross-Sec- at Appalachian State Organizational Variables
1986 tional University Role Ambiguity Teacher Exam, Role Ambiguity, and Total Stress Frequen-
379 SE trainees
36 SETs
Cherniss, 1988 Cross-sectional Principal Function Principal at the school with lower burnout interacted
students with ID Principal Interaction
23 SETs Content engaged in more personal and work-related dialogue
SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER BURNOUT
Frequency Mode and less on administrative dialogue; and provided more
689
Table 1
690

Design
Correlational 68 SETs (51 F, 17 M) of Classroom Demographics Student age predicted an increase in teacher EE. Super-
1989 students with ID, random- Financial Support visory Support was associated with a decrease in EE.
ly selected from a national Support from Education and Collegial Support predicted decreases in
organization for ID Colleagues DP. Financial Support and Teacher age predicted increas-
Support from Parents es in PA.
Banks & Necco, Correlational 181 SETs in two school Age Age was inversely correlated with burnout. Teachers in re-
1990 districts: one in the Great Experience source rooms or of students with BD had higher burnout
Lakes and one in the SE Category
Southeast Training teachers reported less burnout than those with a degree.
Frank & McKen- Longitudinal 41 SETs (38 F, 3 M) who Age of Students

zie, 1993 taught for 5 years upon Delivery Model/Setting teaching students above age 12 and students with BD
graduating Disabilities of Students experienced the most EE.
Brunsting et al.
Table 1
Design
Carlson & Correlational 490 SETs in Hawaii Needs Satisfaction Needs satisfaction, lack of resources, busywork, class
SET Survey composition, and teacher age predicted variance in teach-
er burnout. EE was the strongest predictor of intention to
leave teaching.
Cooley & Yova- Intervention 92 special education ser- Job Satisfaction

Cross-over vice providers (51% SETs, Organizational Commit- increases in EE, PA, job satisfaction, and organizational
design ment commitment. Intervention effect size for EE was large (h2
other roles) Peer Collaboration = 0.15), as was follow-up (h2 = 0.20).
Stress Management
Embich, Correlational 300 SETs serving students Co-Teaching SETs co-teaching one period had higher EE and DP than
2001 with LD in a mid-Atlantic Perceived Workload teachers co-teaching more than one period. Team teach-
school district Principal Support
Role Ambiguity and Principal Support predicted burnout.
Zabel & Zabel, Correlational 301 SETs in Kansas (95% Delivery Model/Setting GE teaching experience was correlated with PA. SE teach-
2001 and Cross-Sec- Caucasian, 86% F) Teacher Demographics ers with a Master’s Degree reported higher PA than those
tional who only had a Bachelor’s.
691
Table 1
692

Design
Nichols & Sos- Correlational 77 SETs in SC classrooms Caseload
nowsky, 2002 in Michigan Disabilities Served
% of Students with ED burnout.
Zabel & Zabel, Correlational 301 SETs in Kansas Support from Admin, Support from Administration, Colleagues, and Parents
2002 Colleagues, and Parents were all inversely correlated with burnout.
Jennett et al., Correlational 64 SETs working with Autism Philosophy Teacher commitment to TEACCH philosophy was in-
2003 students with ASD Level of Commitment versely correlated with both EE and PA. Commitment to
a philosophy predicted an increase in PA.
Ruble et al., 2011 Correlational 35 SETs of children with Admin. Support

ASD Mastery Experience inversely correlated with burnout.
Biglan et al., 2013 Correlational Experiential Avoidance Mindful Awareness and Valued Living inversely correlat-
DD (30 teachers and 12 Mindful Awareness ed with burnout. Experiential Avoidance correlated with
consultants) Valued Living burnout.
Brunsting et al.
Table 1
Design
Coman et al., Correlational 53 preschool teachers of Commitment to model
2013 students with ASD from Students in class implemented. Teacher Experience, Experience Teaching
North Carolina, Colorado, # with ASD Students with ASD, and Number of TD Students in Class
Florida, and Minnesota # TD correlated negatively with burnout. Number of Students
Teacher Experience with ASD correlated with burnout.
Irvin et al., 2013 Correlational 21 classroom teachers of Adult Word Count

students with ASD in pre- Child Vocalizations to students with ASD present, and correlated negatively
schools in the Southeast Conversational Turns
Ruble & McGrew, Correlational 79 SETs responsible for the IEP Goal Attainment Teacher EE was inversely correlated with IEP Goal
2013 (Intervention IEPs of students with ASD IEP Quality Attainment, Administrative Support, IEP Quality, and
does not target in grades 3-8 Intervention Teacher Intervention Adherence. Teacher DP was inverse-
burnout) Adherence ly correlated with Intervention Satisfaction and Coaching
Intervention Satisfaction. Teacher EE predicted a decrease in IEP Goal
Satisfaction Attainment.
Coaching Satisfaction
Teacher Engagement
693
almost two decades later, as they reported years teaching general

education students was correlated with personal accomplishment
for SETs. With regard to the relative contributions of teacher age and
experience to burnout, Carlson and Thompson (1995) found even
though teacher age accounted for a significant amount of variance
of emotional exhaustion, teacher experience did not make a signifi-
cant unique contribution to the model. The evidence supporting the
relationship between level of education of SETs and burnout is rela-
tively strong, with higher levels of education associated with lower
emotional exhaustion (Embich, 2001), depersonalization (Weber &
Toffler, 1989; Zabel & Zabel, 1983), and higher personal accomplish-
ment (Zabel & Zabel, 1983; 2001). Interestingly, SETs with alternative
licensure experienced less burnout than those with either a bach-
elor’s or master’s degree in one study (Banks & Necco, 1990).
Teacher traits and self-perceptions. Biglan, Layton, Jones, Hankins,
and Rusby (2013) found three variables to be associated with SET
burnout: experiential avoidance, mindful awareness, and valued liv-
ing. Experiential avoidance, or an individual’s desire to avoid dis-
agreeable situations, thoughts, or feelings, correlated positively with
burnout. However, mindful awareness (the ability to stay present
and aware of surroundings) and valued living (the perception of liv-
ing in accord with one’s surroundings) correlated negatively with
burnout. Ruble, Usher, and McGrew (2011) examined self-efficacy
of SETs for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), report-
ing self-efficacy of classroom management to be inversely correlated
with burnout. However, no relationship was found between self-ef-
ficacy for obtaining colleagues’ or principals’ support and burnout.
Lastly, McIntyre (1984) found SET burnout correlated with locus of
control, which meant teachers with higher burnout perceived their
outcomes to be controlled by others. This is not surprising, as locus
of control and teacher efficacy are associated constructs (Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
Classroom Level Variables Associated with Burnout
Beyond the characteristics and perceptions of individual SETs,
the next most proximal setting is the place they spend the majority of
their working hours: the classroom (Vannest & Hagan-Burke, 2010).
Studies meeting inclusion criteria reported evidence supporting the
relationship between burnout and the following classroom-level fac-
tors: student age, student special education category, student special
education composition, and the service model/setting.
Student age. The association between student age and SET burn-
out was consistent across three studies. In a five-year longitudinal
sample of SETs, teachers of students aged 13–19 had higher mean

burnout scores than teachers of other age groups (Frank & McKenzie,
1993). Carlson and Thompson (1995) reported teachers of older stu-
dents experienced higher levels of depersonalization and lower levels
of personal accomplishment, and Weber and Toffler (1989) found stu-
dent age predicted increases in emotional exhaustion.
Student special education category. Multiple studies investigated
the relation between teacher burnout and the special education cat-
egory of the students they taught. Two descriptive studies found
teachers of students with ED to have the highest or second highest
mean levels of burnout (Frank & McKenzie, 1993; Zabel, Dettmer,
& Zabel, 1984). Further, in another study the proportion of students
with ED in a classroom correlated with SET burnout in self-contained
classrooms serving students with varying special education needs
(Nichols & Sosnowsky, 2002). In yet another study, Banks and Necco
(1990) found SETs of students with ED experienced higher burnout
than those of students with ID. With regard to teaching students with
ID, teachers of students with moderate ID experienced lower burnout
than general education teachers and teachers of students with mild ID
(Beck & Gargiulo, 1983).
Classroom composition. Carlson and Thompson (1995) reported
an aggregated variable comprised of student age range, class size,
and special education categories served, accounted for a signifi-
cant increase in SET emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.
Coman et al. (2013) provided further detail regarding these multiple
factors. In their sample of 53 SETs of preschool students with ASD,
the number of students with ASD in a teacher’s class correlated with
burnout, and the number of typically developing students was in-
versely correlated with burnout. In addition, Irvin, Hume, Boyd,
McBee, and Odom (2013) reported the ratio of adults in a classroom
to students with ASD correlated with an increase in burnout, mean-
ing the more adults present in a classroom, the higher the level of
teacher burnout.
Service model and setting. The research findings on the relation-
ship between burnout and service model are in slight disagreement.
SETs in self-contained settings experienced higher mean levels of
burnout than those in other settings, yet this difference was not test-
ed for significance (Zabel, Dettmer, et al., 1984). Crane and Iwanicki
(1986) reported teaching in a self-contained setting was correlated
with burnout. In contrast, Banks and Necco (1990) found teaching in
resource rooms to correlate significantly with burnout. Findings sug-
gested the impact of service model on burnout may be moderated by
other factors.
School Level Factors Associated with Burnout

Work hindrances. Teacher report of busywork and teacher report
of lack of resources were associated with an increase in emotional
exhaustion (Carlson & Thompson, 1995). Similarly, teacher report of
overall workload, which included paperwork, parent conferences,
and extracurricular responsibilities, predicted an increase in burnout
for SETs (Embich, 2001).
Emotional experiences in school. The degree to which five aspects
of teacher needs (security, social, esteem, autonomy, and self-actual-
ization) were met in their work environment was a significant predic-
tor of burnout (Carlson & Thompson, 1995). Also, the frequency of
stress experienced by teachers accounted for 14% of the variance in
the intensity of burnout for first-year SETs (Fimian & Blanton, 1986).
Role ambiguity and role conflict. Role ambiguity is used to describe
situations wherein the job description and expectations for the role
are not made clear. When the work responsibilities and tasks expected
of an individual are conflicting or are impossible to complete in a rea-
sonable time and manner, an individual is described as experiencing
role conflict. The included studies provided strong support for the re-
lationship between these two variables and burnout. Both role con-
flict and role ambiguity contributed significantly to burnout for SETs,
controlling for teacher age, gender, experience, and training (Crane
& Iwanicki, 1986). Embich (2001) replicated the Crane and Iwanicki
study and found similar results for SETs in both self-contained set-
tings and in team-teaching settings. Role ambiguity, in particular, was
found to account for 31% of the variance in first-year SETs’ burnout
(Fimian & Blanton, 1986).
Support from coworkers and parents. In an observational cross-sec-
tional study, Cherniss (1988) explored the interaction of principals and
teachers at two schools for students with ID. The mean level of SET
burnout at one school was low, while the mean level at the other school
was moderate. The principal with low burnout interacted more with
staff and teachers, engaged in more personal dialogue, provided more
support, and observed others doing their jobs significantly less than
the principal at the school with moderate burnout. The importance
of administrative support was corroborated by four studies, each of
which found relations between principal support and burnout in the
expected direction (Embich, 2001; Ruble & McGrew, 2013; Weber &
Toffler, 1989; Zabel & Zabel, 2002). The support SETs received from fel-
low teachers was inversely correlated with burnout (Weber & Toffler,
1989; Zabel & Zabel, 2002). While students’ parents do not interact as
often with teachers, support SETs perceived from their students’ par-
ents was also associated with less burnout (Zabel & Zabel, 2002).
State or District Level Factors Associated with Burnout

Weber and Toffler (1989) reported that financial support corre-
lated with personal accomplishment in a national sample of teachers
of students with ID. This was the only included study to investigate
factors associated with burnout in a context with which the individual
had no direct person-to-person interaction.
Burnout and Student Outcomes
Two studies, both published in 2013, investigated the relation-
ship between burnout and student outcomes (Irvin et al., 2013; Ruble
& McGrew, 2013). Unlike the previously reviewed studies that inves-
tigated burnout as a dependent variable, these two studies included
burnout as the independent variable. Irvin et al. (2013) reported SET
burnout to be inversely correlated with the number of adult words
children with ASD were exposed to in that teacher’s classroom set-
ting. Also investigating outcomes for students with ASD, Ruble and
McGrew (2013) found inverse correlations between teacher emotional
exhaustion and student IEP goal attainment and IEP quality. Further,
they found emotional exhaustion accounted for 9.3% of the variance
in IEP goal attainment. Burnout may also have an indirect effect on
student outcomes, as Ruble and McGrew also found an association
between teacher emotional exhaustion and adherence to the interven-
tion targeting student IEP goal attainment.
Intervention for Burnout
Although only one included study tested an intervention target-
ing burnout, the results were promising. Cooley and Yovanoff (1996)
designed an intervention to impact two of the main correlates of burn-
out: teacher stress and collegial support. The intervention lasted ten
weeks, with weekly sessions lasting two hours apiece. Five weeks
were dedicated to coping with stress and focused on the following
three skills: (a) problem identification and solution development, (b)
physiological coping (e.g., muscle relaxation), and (c) cognitive cop-
ing (e.g., recognition and redirection of self-negativity). The second
five weeks teachers paired together to practice solving school-related
problems by a four-step process: (a) clarifying the problem, (b) sum-
marizing the problem, (c) designing an intervention, and (d) evaluat-
ing the intervention outcome. Participants in the intervention expe-
rienced significant positive differences in emotional exhaustion and
personal accomplishment, as well as job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment. In contrast, teachers in the control group experi-
enced no differences. The effect size of the intervention for emotional
exhaustion was considerable (h2 = 0.15) as was follow-up (h2 = 0.20),
which occurred two, five, or seven months post-intervention, depend-

ing on cohort. In a separate study, Jennett, Harris, and Mesibov (2003)
found teachers’ commitment to an intervention philosophy was in-
versely correlated with both emotional exhaustion and personal ac-
complishment. Commitment also explained 17.8% of the variance in
personal accomplishment, which suggests teachers who commit to an
intervention may have greater success alleviating their burnout.
Discussion
The purpose of this review was to update the literature on SET
burnout as conceptualized by Maslach in order to solidify the research
base for future inquiry. Using Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) Ecological
Model as an organizational framework, we investigated a range of
variables associated with teacher burnout. It is critical for SETs to re-
ceive better support to alleviate burnout due to the health risks and
negative student outcomes associated with teacher burnout. To this
end, we first discuss the impact of variables within certain settings on
SET burnout while also indicating gaps for further research. Second,
we note implications for teachers and practitioners and provide rec-
ommendations for mitigating burnout. Lastly, we discuss limitations
of the study as well as the most pressing future directions for research.
Teacher Characteristics and Perceptions
Biglan et al.’s (2013) finding of the relation between burnout and
teacher mindful awareness, valued living, and experiential avoidance
provides a useful starting point for further research into other emo-
tions, traits, and perceptions that may interact with burnout for SETs.
Because burnout occurs in the interaction between prolonged stress
and individuals’ traits and coping mechanisms (Maslach et al., 2001),
research in special educator burnout may find certain traits, emotions,
or perceptions as important targets or aspects for interventions. A re-
cent review analyzed the literature on general educator emotionality
and burnout and suggested emotional regulation as a fruitful target
for interventions (Chang, 2009). Given the results of the Cooley and
Yovanoff (1996) intervention concerning teacher task-focused coping
and emotional regulation, we suggest further research into teacher
emotional regulation with the goal of improving the one current in-
tervention targeting SET burnout. Future treatment-outcome studies
should be conducted to explore the generalizability of these outcomes
to inform pre-service teacher preparation as well as professional de-
velopment activities for in-service teachers. These findings will also
be important to inform training new and supporting existing admin-
istrators who serve as instructional leaders at the school-site level.
Principals and assistant principals may benefit from this information

as it relates to supporting novice and experienced teachers.
Beyond stress management and emotional regulation, another
factor associated with a decrease in burnout is teacher efficacy for
dealing with students’ behavioral challenges (O’Neill & Stephenson,
2011; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). This is unsurprising, as challenging
behavior has been documented to lead to teacher burnout (Hastings &
Brown, 2002), and the percentage of students with ED—who by defi-
nition exhibit challenging behaviors—in a teacher’s class was associ-
ated with higher intensity of burnout (Nichols & Sosnowsky, 2002).
However, Pullis (1992) documented that SETs working with students
with ED did not consider their students’ challenging behavior as a pri-
mary source of their stress. According to Ruble et al. (2011) self-effica-
cy for classroom management correlated with burnout for SETs work-
ing with students with ASD, but self-efficacy for obtaining support
from their administration or colleagues did not. Due to differences
in these findings, it is imperative additional inquiry be conducted to
understand burnout relative of other variables such as student-level
variables (e.g., type of disability) and environmental variables (e.g.,
perceived administrative support, focus on inclusive programing).
Classroom Factors
Two findings regarding classroom factors deserve further at-
tention. First, multiple studies documented a relationship between
student age and teacher burnout, but none explored the process or
mechanisms by which student age may account for increases in burn-
out. Because it is necessary for students of all ages to receive access to
strong academic support from their teacher, it is particularly impor-
tant for secondary schools to be aware of the risk for burnout and to
support their SETs. It is also important for researchers to illuminate
the processes by which student age is related to an increase in burn-
out, in order to provide SETs with information and interventions tar-
geting their unique needs.
The second noteworthy finding was the relationship between the
adult-to-student with ASD ratio and burnout, with higher total burn-
out associated with a higher adult-to-student with ASD ratio (Irvin et
al., 2013). One might expect an increased number of adults to help
decrease demands on the teacher and provide emotional support, but
it is possible the ratio of adults-to-students with ASD is higher due to
students with greater needs or greater behavioral issues. However,
Embich (2001) found the highest mean level of burnout to be among
teachers who co-taught one period a day, which suggests the increase
in burnout may stem from issues between SETs and other adults in
the classroom. The effect of team teachers and paraprofessionals on

SET burnout constitutes an important area for future research, as
SETs in a recent study supervised 3.32 paraprofessionals on average
(Giangreco, Suter, & Hurley, 2013).
School Factors
Of all the factors associated with burnout, the three most sup-
ported by the included studies were school level factors: role ambigu-
ity, role conflict, and administrative support. Unfortunately, we were
unable to find intervention studies for role ambiguity or role conflict in
the special education or general education literature, though Gersten
et al. (2001) did document the relationship between job design and
teacher intent to leave the profession. As noted by Cancio et al. (2013),
educational research is needed to (a) further untangle interlocking
processes of administrative support, role issues, and job design, and
(b) design an intervention targeting role conflict and role ambiguity to
decrease SET burnout. Such research would help provide principals
and other school administrators with the most critical information
for helping alleviate SET burnout. In addition, mentorship by expe-
rienced teachers is another possible avenue to alleviate burnout and
has been heavily researched with regard to attrition but not exam-
ined with SET burnout (Billingsley, 2004; Wasburn, Wasburn-Moses,
& Davis, 2012).
Student Outcomes and Burnout
Early research primarily investigated variables suspected to
cause teacher burnout; only recently have studies conceptualized SET
burnout as a predictor of student outcomes. Although the remedia-
tion of burnout is paramount, a better understanding of which stu-
dent outcomes are associated with burnout may increase (a) teacher
awareness of the importance of self-care, (b) press on administrators
to prioritize alleviating SET burnout, and (c) willingness of research-
ers and funding agencies to provide more resources and interventions
for burnout. With regard to teacher self-care, some teachers perceive
burnout as a by-product to be endured in the process of putting their
students first and can be unwilling to put their own emotional needs
before those of their students (Farber, 2000). If these teachers come
to understand the negative impact their emotional exhaustion has on
their students’ social, emotional, and academic outcomes, they may
increase their effort to replenish their own emotional resources in or-
der to better serve their students.
While it is alarming that burnout is related to poor student out-
comes, this factor may provide the key to garnering greater support
from the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) for research and inter-
vention due to the IES’s focus on student outcomes. Currently, the
only documented student outcomes correlating with SET burnout are
IEP goal attainment, IEP quality, and rate of adult words to which
students with ASD were exposed. Does SET burnout impact student
GPA, academic engagement, self-determined behaviors, work com-
pletion, or reading comprehension? There is a range of critical student
outcomes future research needs to investigate and disseminate to cur-
rent practitioners. Many teachers experiencing emotional exhaustion
report they exhaust themselves for the better of their students and
plan to continue to do so (Farber, 2000). The more the list of negative
student outcomes associated with SET burnout grows, the more likely
emotionally exhausted teachers may be to increase their self-care.
Intervention Context
Cooley and Yovanoff’s (1996) implementation of an intervention
targeting teacher stress response and peer collaboration decreased
SET burnout. Their success provides a solid foundation for future
intervention research into interventions targeting other correlates of
burnout, such as role conflict and ambiguity, principal support, and
self-efficacy for classroom management. There is great need for this
research as some teachers experiencing burnout may manage stress-
ful situations well but feel unable to reconcile daily conflicting job de-
mands.
Equally as important as designing and testing interventions
targeting burnout is the role burnout plays in teacher commitment
and adherence to interventions. SETs with higher levels of emotion-
al exhaustion were less likely to adhere to an intervention targeting
students’ IEP quality, and teachers experiencing higher levels of de-
personalization were dissatisfied with the intervention as well as the
coaching they received during the treatment phase of the intervention
(Ruble & McGrew, 2013). Although this study is the only instance in
the special education literature, the results are corroborated by the
finding that higher levels of depersonalization among general educa-
tion teachers was inversely correlated with teacher self-report of their
intervention treatment integrity (Oakes, Lane, Jenkins, & Booker,
2013). If similar results continue to be replicated, teacher burnout will
need to be considered in the conceptualization and design of any in-
tervention with teachers as participants or relevant stakeholders.
Implications for Practitioners
Based on the reviewed studies, we recommend SETs: (a) be
aware of the risks of burnout to their career, their health, and to their
students; (b) continue developing their classroom management skills

and confidence in their use; (c) identify role conflict and ambigu-
ity and problem-solve to alleviate issues; (d) seek support from col-
leagues and administrators; and (e) engage in self-care techniques
such as stress management.
Awareness of burnout. There is no quantitative evidence to sup-
port the adage knowing is half the battle when it comes to burnout.
However, SET awareness of the risks of burnout to themselves and
other practitioners working in special education, especially those
working with students with ED or ASD, is an important prerequisite
to mitigating the impact of burnout. We encourage teachers who feel
overwhelmed trying to meet the often vast needs of their students to
prioritize self-care with an understanding that their health, their lon-
gevity in teaching, and the academic and behavioral outcomes of their
students are all impacted by burnout.
Challenging behaviors. Due to the impact of challenging student
behaviors on SET burnout, we urge both pre-service and in-service
teachers to continue to increase their confidence in and knowledge
about classroom management techniques. Indeed, self-efficacy for
classroom management mediated the relationship between teacher
burnout and challenging student behaviors (Tsouloupas et al., 2010)—
an important finding considering SETs of students with ED have the
highest rate of burnout among SETs (Banks & Necco, 1990; Nichols &
Sosnowsky, 2002). Because the majority of current teacher preparation
programs do not include courses on classroom management (Oliver
& Reschly, 2010), professional development offerings may be the only
way for some in-service teachers to become proficient in research-
based classroom and behavioral management techniques such as func-
tional assessment-based interventions (FABIs). FABI is a tool designed
to help teachers understand the reason for students’ behavior as well
as how to decrease undesirable behaviors and increase behaviors that
facilitate the instructional experience for all students (Umbreit, Ferro,
Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007). Recent studies have shown professional de-
velopment offerings to increase both in-service and pre-service teacher
knowledge, confidence, and use of FABIs (Lane, Oakes, & Cox, 2011;
Lane et al., 2014). We temper this recommendation by noting the need
for research to investigate whether knowledge, confidence, and use of
FABIs impacts SET burnout.
Role conflict and ambiguity. Given the salience of role conflict and
role ambiguity for teacher burnout, we suggest principals and other ad-
ministrators provide detailed job descriptions and attend to situations
when multiple teacher responsibilities are in conflict. In addition, prin-
cipals will want to be especially attentive to teacher needs when they
pertain to role conflict and ambiguity in order to protect teacher health,

increase teacher retention, and increase student outcomes. We recom-
mend pre-service teachers ask their mentor teacher or teacher educator
program director for help (a) selecting positions where the job descrip-
tion is well detailed and (b) discussing potential conflicts in job respon-
sibilities and time allotment prior to being hired. Future inquiry should
study whether teacher-training programs can prepare pre-service teach-
ers to decrease the chances of role conflict and ambiguity when inter-
viewing for potential jobs.
For in-service teachers, we recommend identifying possible role
conflict or role ambiguity issues and then problem-solving with their
department head or principal on ways to best resolve the issue. On the
one hand, this may be difficult for teachers experiencing burnout due to
a strained relationship with administrators. On the other hand, if SETs
expect students to self-advocate during the IEP process, it is important
for teachers to advocate for themselves when experiencing burnout. Yet,
more inquiry as to how in-service teachers can resolve role conflict and
role ambiguity is needed.
Support from administration. Current research provides teachers
with the evidence to reinforce their requests for greater support from
administration, as teacher burnout is both a major health risk and a fac-
tor in negative student outcomes. Although some administrators may
attempt to resolve teacher burnout by providing a paraprofessional, this
solution may be insufficient, as the evidence suggests SET burnout in-
creases as the adult-to-student ratio increases (Irvin et al., 2013). These
results should not be interpreted to disparage the employment of para-
professionals, who also experience moderate to high levels of burnout
(Shyman, 2010); rather, the results highlight the complexity of teaching
students with exceptionalities and show there is a need for other solu-
tions beyond the addition of a paraprofessional. To ease the stress and
burden on SETs, we agree with the recommendation of Wasburn-Moses
(2005) for principals to provide teachers with both emotional and instru-
mental support (e.g., helping to secure resources, listening and attempt-
ing to resolve their concerns).
Limitations and Future Directions
We encourage the reader to interpret our findings in light of the
following limitations. First, the use of a narrowly focused definition
of burnout limited which articles were included in the literature re-
view, as did the exclusion of studies on participants outside of the US.
While efforts were made to discuss articles on special educator stress
and job satisfaction and relevant international studies throughout the
review, their exclusion from the results limits the generalizability of
the study to SETs in the US. It is important for future inquiry to con-
tinue to examine issues of teacher burnout within and beyond the US,
taking into account the varying models for supporting students with
disabilities in different countries.
Second, despite a systematic approach to identifying articles,
it is possible some studies were either not located or mistakenly ex-
cluded from the review. We encourage future teams to continue to
(a) conduct high-quality studies—particularly treatment-outcome
studies—examining the nature of teacher burnout, with attention to
longitudinal studies examining mediating and moderating variables
on outcome variables and (b) synthesize existing literature through
carefully constructed literature reviews attending to issues of reli-
ability of article selection and article coding. Our hope is that as the
intervention literature is developed, researchers will carefully attend
to the recommended core quality indicators for treatment-outcomes
studies using group (e.g., Gersten et al., 2005) and single case (e.g.,
Horner et al., 2005) designs according to guidelines specified in the
literature and, more recently, by What Works Clearinghouse (Odom
& Lane, in press). There is ample work needed in the area of interven-
tion inquiry. For example, it would be wise to examine interventions
for teachers targeting role conflict and role ambiguity as well as in-
terventions for principals and administration targeting role conflict,
role ambiguity, and supporting teachers to build upon the current
knowledge base.
Third, the use of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model as an or-
ganizational framework aligns well with burnout as it accounts for
the salience of process and immediacy of social setting. In contrast,
it would also have been fruitful to organize the studies around the
individual components of burnout (emotional exhaustion, deperson-
alization, and personal accomplishment) to hone in on differential
impact of different variables—particularly examining protective as
well as risk factors—on each component. Similarly, this focus on the
factors contributing to SET burnout does not address the impact that
differences in special education certification credentials, training, and
preparation might have on SET burnout. Considering the broad time
range of publication dates of articles on SET burnout, we recommend
future reviews and empirical studies to further explore the impact of
teacher training, preparation programs, and certification as moderat-
ing and mediating variables that explain SET burnout.
Summary
Our intent in this review was to determine the number of em-
pirical studies with a quantitative measure of burnout for SETs,
locate gaps for future research, and provide implications and recom-
mendations for current practitioners based on the literature. Using
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model as an organizing framework, we
investigated 23 included studies and discussed their findings pertain-
ing to burnout. Role conflict, role ambiguity, and administrator sup-
port were found to be particularly salient factors in teacher burnout.
Due to the impact of burnout on teacher attrition, teacher health, and
student outcomes, it is critical for researchers to provide both a bet-
ter understanding of the processes by which SETs experience burn-
out and more interventions to alleviate burnout based on challenges
teachers experience.
References
Adera, B. A., & Bullock, L. M. (2010). Job stressors and teacher job
satisfaction in programs serving students with emotional and
behavioral disorders. Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 15,
5–14.
Armon, G., Melamed, S., Shirom, A., & Shapira, I. (2010). Elevated
burnout predicts the onset of musculoskeletal pain among
apparently healthy employees. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 15, 399–408.
Banks, S. R., & Necco, E. G. (1990). The effects of special education
category and type of training on job burnout in special edu-
cation teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13,
187–191.
Beck, C. L., & Gargiulo, R. M. (1983). Burnout in teachers of retarded
and nonretarded children. Journal of Educational Research, 76,
169–173.
Bianchi, R., Boffy, C., Hingray, C., Truchot, D., & Laurent, E. (2013).
Comparative symptomatology of burnout and depression.
Journal of Health Psychology, 18, 782–787.
Biglan, A., Layton, G. L., Jones, L. B., Hankins, M., & Rusby, J. C.
(2013). The value of workshops on psychological flexibility
for early childhood special education staff. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 32, 196–210.
Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attri-
tion: A critical analysis of the research literature. Journal of
Special Education, 38, 39–55.
Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage
of fully certified teachers in special and general education.
Exceptional Children, 72, 443–460.
Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2008). Teacher turnover:

Examining exit attrition, teaching area transfer, and school
migration. Exceptional Children, 75, 7–31.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human
development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.
Brownell, M. T., & Smith, S. W. (1993). Understanding special educa-
tion teacher attrition: A conceptual model and implications
for teacher educators. Teacher Education and Special Education,
16, 270–282.
Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Defining administra-
tive support and its relationship to the attrition of teachers of
students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education
and Treatment of Children, 36, 71–94.
Carlson, B. C., & Thompson, J. A. (1995). Job burnout and job leav-
ing in public school teachers: Implications for stress manage-
ment. International Journal of Stress Management, 2, 15–29.
Chang, M. L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout:
Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational
Psychology Review, 21, 193–218.
Cherniss, C. (1988). Observed supervisory behavior and teacher burn-
out in special education. Exceptional Children, 54, 449–454.
Coman, D., Alessandri, M., Gutierrez, A., Novotny, S., Boyd, B., Hume,
K., & Odom, S. (2013). Commitment to classroom model phi-
losophy and burnout symptoms among high fidelity teachers
implementing preschool programs for children with autism
spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 43, 345–360.
Cooley, E., & Yovanoff, P. (1996). Supporting professionals-at-risk:
Evaluating interventions to reduce burnout and improve
retention of special educators. Exceptional Children, 62,
336–355.
Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an integration
of research on job burnout. Academy of Management Review,
18, 621–656.
Crane, S., & Iwanicki, E. (1986). Perceived role conflict, role ambiguity,
and burnout among special education teachers. Remedial and
Edgar, E., & Pair, A. (2005). Special education teacher attrition: It all
depends on where you are standing. Teacher Education and
Embich, J. L. (2001). The relationship of secondary special education

teachers’ roles and factors that lead to professional burnout.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 58–69.
Farber, B. A. (2000). Treatment strategies for different types of teacher
burnout. Psychotherapy in Practice, 56, 675–689.
Fimian, M. J., & Blanton, L. P. (1986). Variables related to stress and
burnout in special education teacher trainees and first-year
teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 9, 9–21.
Frank, A. R., & McKenzie, R. (1993). The development of burn-
out among special educators. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 16, 161–170.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., &
Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experi-
mental and quasi-experimental research in special education.
Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.
Gersten, R., Keating, T., Yovanoff, P., & Harniss, M. K. (2001). Working
in special education: Factors that enhance special educators’
intent to stay. Exceptional Children, 67, 549–567.
Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Hurley, S. M. (2013). Revisiting per-
sonnel utilization in inclusion-oriented schools. Journal of
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and
work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology,
43, 495–513.
Hastings, R. P., & Brown, T. (2002). Coping strategies and the impact
of challenging behaviors on special educators’ burnout.
Mental Retardation, 40, 148–156.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M.
(2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-
based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71,
165–179.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? (A Research
Report). Seattle, WA: The University of Washington, Center
for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Irvin, D. W., Hume, K., Boyd, B. A., McBee, M. T., & Odom, S. L.
(2013). Child and classroom characteristics associated with
the adult language provided to preschoolers with autism
spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7,
947–955.
Jennett, H. K., Harris, S. L., & Mesibov, G. B. (2003). Commitment to

philosophy, teacher efficacy, and burnout among teachers
of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 33, 583–593.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom:
Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to stu-
dent and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research,
79, 491–525.
Jones, N., & Youngs, P. (2012). Attitudes and affect: Daily emotions
and their association with the commitment and burnout of
beginning teachers. Teachers College Record, 114, 1–36.
Kaff, M. S. (2004). Multitasking is multitaxing: Why special educators
are leaving the field. Preventing School Failure, 48, 10–17.
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., & Cox, M. (2011). Functional assessment-
based interventions: A university-district partnership to pro-
mote learning and success. Beyond Behavior, 20, 3–18.
Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Powers, L., Diebold, T., Germer, K., Common,
E. A., & Brunsting, N. C. (2014). Improving teachers’ knowl-
edge of functional assessment-based interventions: Outcomes
of a professional development series. Manuscript under review.
Martin, N. K., Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2012). Teacher efficacy
in student engagement, instructional management, student
stressors, and burnout: A theoretical model using in-class
variables to predict teachers’ intent-to-leave. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28, 546–559.
Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and inter-
vention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 189–192.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1979). The measurement of experienced
burnout. Berkeley, CA: University of California Department
of Psychology.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.
McIntyre, T. C. (1983). The effect of class size on perceptions of burn-
out by special education teachers. Mental Retardation and
Learning Disability Bulletin, 11, 142–145.
McIntyre, T. C. (1984). The relationship between locus of control and
teacher burnout. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54,
235–238.
Miller, M. D., Brownell, M. T., & Smith, S. W. (1999). Factors that pre-
dict teachers staying in, leaving, or transferring from the spe-
cial education classroom. Exceptional Children, 65, 201–218.
Nichols, A. S., & Sosnowsky, F. L. (2002). Burnout among special edu-

cation teachers in self-contained cross-categorical classrooms.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425
(2001).
Oakes, W. P., Lane, K. L., Jenkins, A., & Booker, B. B. (2013). Three-
tiered models of prevention: Teacher efficacy and burnout.
Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 95–126.
Odom, S. L., & Lane, K. L. (in press). The applied science of spe-
cial education: Quantitative approaches, the questions they
address, and how they inform practice. In L. Florian (Ed.).
The SAGE Handbook of Special Education (2nd Ed.). (Vol. 1 pp.
369–388). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
O’Neill, S. C., & Stephenson, J. (2011). The measurement of classroom
management self-efficacy: A review of measurement instru-
ment development and influences. Educational Psychology, 31,
261–299.
Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2010). Special education teacher prepa-
ration in classroom management: Implications for students
with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders,
35, 188–199.
Pullis, M. (1992). An analysis of the occupational stress of teachers of
the behaviorally disordered: sources, effects and strategies for
coping. Behavioral Disorders, 17, 191–201.
Ruble, L. A., & McGrew, J. H. (2013). Teacher and child predictors of
achieving IEP goals of children with autism. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 43, 2748–2763.
Ruble, L. A., Usher, E. L., & McGrew, J. H. (2011). Preliminary inves-
tigation of the sources of self-efficacy among teachers of stu-
dents with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 26, 67–74.
Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T., & Billingsley, B. (2010). Special edu-
cation teacher education research: Current status and future
directions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 8–24.
Shyman, E. (2010). Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion
among special education paraprofessionals: A preliminary
investigation. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 828–841.
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, 611–625.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy:

Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education,
17, 783–805.
Tsouloupas, C. N., Carson, R. L., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M. J., &
Barber, L. K. (2010). Exploring the association between teach-
ers’ perceived student misbehavior and emotional exhaus-
tion: The importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion
regulation. Educational Psychology, 30, 173–189.
Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C., & Lane, K. L. (2007). Functional
behavioral assessment and function-based intervention: An effec-
tive, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Vannest, K. J., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2010). Teacher time use in special
education. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 126–142.
Wasburn, M. H., Wasburn-Moses, L., & Davis, D. R. (2012). Mentoring
special educators: The roles of national board certified teach-
ers. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 59–66.
Wasburn-Moses, L. (2005). How to keep your special education teach-
ers. Principal Leadership, 5, 35–38.
Wasburn-Moses, L. (2009). An exploration of pre-service teach-
ers’ expectations for their future roles. Teacher Education and
Weber, D. B., & Toffler, J. D. (1989). Burnout among teachers of stu-
dents with moderate, severe, or profound mental retardation.
Wisniewski, L., & Gargiulo, R. M. (1997). Occupational stress and
burnout among special educators: A review of the literature.
Journal of Special Education, 31, 325–346.
Zabel, M. K., & Zabel, R. H. (1983). Burnout among special educa-
tion teachers: The role of experience, training, and age. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 6, 255–259.
Zabel, M. K., Dettmer, P. A., & Zabel, R. H. (1984). Factors of
emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and sense of
accomplishment among teachers of the gifted. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 28, 65–69.
Zabel, R. H., Boomer, L. W., & King, T. R. (1984). A model of stress and
burnout among teachers of behavioral disordered students.
Behavior Disorders, 9, 215–221.
Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, M. K. (1982). Factors in burnout among teachers
of exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 49, 261–263.
Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, M. K. (2001). Revisiting burnout among special

education teachers: Do age, experience, and preparation still
matter? Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 128–139.
Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, M. K. (2002). Burnout among special educa-
tion teachers and perceptions of support. Journal of Special
Education Leadership, 15, 67–73.
View publication stats

2014 BrunstingSreckovicLane ETC

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2014 BrunstingSreckovicLane ETC

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Special Education Teacher Burnout: A Synthesis of Research from 1979 to 2013

Article in Education and Treatment of Children · November 2014

Nelson Brunsting Melissa A. Sreckovic

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

National PBIS TA Center View project

International Student Transition to US Colleges and Universities View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Education and Treatment of Children, Volume 37, Number 4, November

For additional information about this article

Special Education Teacher Burnout: A Synthesis

D ue to a national teacher shortage crisis in the 1990s and early

Address correspondence to Nelson C. Brunsting, 201C Peabody Hall, University of

methodological issue wherein teachers who transferred within their

eight out of nine symptoms of depression (Bianchi, Boffy, Hingray,

documented significantly higher burnout for SETs teaching students

independently by the first and second authors to determine inclusion

system within the model (e.g., microsystem). The included studies

Studies meeting inclusion criteria

Beck & Gargiulo, Cross-Sectional 997 SETs in Ohio SE Category

Frequency Mode and less on administrative dialogue; and provided more

Studies meeting inclusion criteria

Frank & McKen- Longitudinal 41 SETs (38 F, 3 M) who Age of Students

Cooley & Yova- Intervention 92 special education ser- Job Satisfaction

Role Ambiguity and Principal Support predicted burnout.

Studies meeting inclusion criteria

Ruble et al., 2011 Correlational 35 SETs of children with Admin. Support

Irvin et al., 2013 Correlational 21 classroom teachers of Adult Word Count

almost two decades later, as they reported years teaching general

sample of SETs, teachers of students aged 13–19 had higher mean

School Level Factors Associated with Burnout

State or District Level Factors Associated with Burnout

which occurred two, five, or seven months post-intervention, depend-

Principals and assistant principals may benefit from this information

the classroom. The effect of team teachers and paraprofessionals on

students; (b) continue developing their classroom management skills

pertain to role conflict and ambiguity in order to protect teacher health,

Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2008). Teacher turnover:

Embich, J. L. (2001). The relationship of secondary special education

Jennett, H. K., Harris, S. L., & Mesibov, G. B. (2003). Commitment to

Nichols, A. S., & Sosnowsky, F. L. (2002). Burnout among special edu-

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy:

Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, M. K. (2001). Revisiting burnout among special

View publication stats

S-ar putea să vă placă și