Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining administrative leadership behavior: A comparison of principals and assistant principals

  • Published:
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andrews, R., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal instructional leadership and school achievement.Instructional Leadership, 44, 9–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, D., & Brown, H. (1970).The assistant principalship, Vol. 3. Reston, VA: NASSP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, G., & Reynolds, D. (1990). Managing for improved school effectiveness: an international survey.School Organisation, 10(2), 167–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, R., & Dreeban, R. (1983).How schools work. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blank, R. (1987). The role of the principal as leader: analysis of variation in leadership in urban high schools.Journal of Educational Research, 82(2), 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossert, S. (1988). School effects. In N. Boyan (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational administration. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal.Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 36–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyan, N. (1988). Describing and explaining administrator behavior. In N. Boyan (Ed.),Handbook of research in educational administration. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burry, J., & Shaw, D. (1988). Teachers and administrators differ in assessing teacher effectiveness.Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 2, 33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebmeier, H. (1991). The development of an instrument for client-based principal formative evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April.

  • Ebmeier, H., & Snyder, J. (1992). Empirical linkages among principal behaviors and intermediate outcomes: implications for principal evaluation.Peabody Journal of Education, 68(1), 75–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebmeier, H., & Wilson, A. (1989). The development of an instrument for client based principal formative evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March, San Francisco.

  • Glasman, N. S. & Heck, R. (1992). The changing leadership role of the principal: implications for principal assessment.Peabody Journal of Education, 68(1), 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Instructional leadership in the school context. In W. Greenfield (Ed.),Instructional leadership: concepts, issues and controversies. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, A. (1992). The social and organizational influence of principals: evaluating principals in context.Peabody Journal of Education, 68(1), 37–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck, R. (1992). Principals' instructional leadership and school performance: implications for policy development.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck, R. (in press). The effects of school context and principal leadership on school achievement: the case of Singapore.Urban Review.

  • Heck, R., Ahu, S., Akiyama, P., Galera, D., Miura, R., & Tom, P. (1993). Socialization of new administrators. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, April.

  • Heck, R., Larsen, T., & Marcoulides, G. (1990). Instructional leadership and school achievement: validation of a causal model.Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2), 94–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck, R., & Marcoulides, G. (1989). Examining the generalizability of administrative allocation decisions.The Urban Review, 21(1), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck, R., & Marcoulides, G. (1992). Principal assessment: conceptual problem, methodological problem or both?Peabody Journal of Education, 68(1), 124–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck, R., Marcoulides, G., & Lang, P. (1991). Principal leadership and school achievement: the application of discriminant techniques.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(2), 115–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1991).LISREL VII: user's reference guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K. Jantzi, D., Silins, H., & Dart, B. (in press). Using the Appraisal of school leaders as an instrument for school restructuring.Peabody Journal of Education.

  • Marcoulides, G. (1989). Performance appraisal: issues of validity. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 2(2), 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcoulides, G., & Heck, R. (1992a). Assessing instructional leadership effectiveness with generalizability theory.The International Journal of Educational Management, 6(3), 4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcoulides, G., & Heck, R. (1992b). Organizational culture and performance: proposing and testing a model.Organizational Science.

  • Marsh, H. (1989). Sex differences in the development of verbal and mathematics constructs: the high school and beyond data.Journal of Educational Research, 26(2), 191–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H., Balla, J., & McDonald, R. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: the effects of size.Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C., & Greenfield, D. (1985). The socialization of the assistant principal: implications for school leadership.Education and Urban Society, 18, 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C., Mitchell, B., Gross, R., & Scott, D. (1992). The assistant principal: a career position or a stepping stone to the principalship?NASSP Bulletin, 76(540), 80–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitner, N. (1988). The study of administrator effects and effectiveness. In N. Boyan (Ed.),The handbook of research in educational administration. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitner, N., & Hocevar, D. (1987). An empirical comparison of two-factor versus multifactor theories of principal leadership: implications for the evaluation of school principals.Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1(1), 93–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, C. (1990). Job satisfaction among secondary school administrators.Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(1), 68–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valverde, L. (1980). Promotion socialization: the informal process in large urban districts and its adverse effects on non-whites and women. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.

  • Wheaton B., Muthen B., Alwing, D., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In D. Heise (Ed.),Sociological methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management Science, California State University at Fullerton, P.O. Box 344080, 92634-9480, Fullerton, CA

    George A. Marcoulides

  2. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Manoa, USA

    Ronald H. Heck

Authors
  1. George A. Marcoulides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronald H. Heck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marcoulides, G.A., Heck, R.H. Examining administrative leadership behavior: A comparison of principals and assistant principals. J Pers Eval Educ 7, 81–94 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00972351

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00972351

Keywords

Search

Navigation