CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Educational Leadership and PracticesSchool Leadership and Teacher PerformanceTeacher Education and Leadership Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Assessing Impediments to Leadership Succession in Australian Catholic Schools

Dorman, Jeffrey P, D'Arbon, Tony·2003·School Leadership & Management
DOI 10.1080/1363243032000080014
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Evidence from the field indicates that many good candidates are not applying for principalships in Australian Catholic schools. Research aimed at developing an instrument to assess their reasons for not applying was conducted in New South Wales, Australia. A sample of 977 assistant principals, religious education coordinators and other coordinators were used in the evolution of a survey instrument. Scale development procedures resulted in a 32-item questionnaire with 8 underlying scales (namely, Unsupportive External Environment, Systemic Accountability, Lack of Expertise, Personal and Family Impact, Explicit Religious Identity, Gender Bias, Interview Problems, Loss of Close Relationships). Validation data indicated that this instrument--the Impediments to Leadership Succession Inventory--has sound structural characteristics. Use of this instrument revealed that respondents who perceived clear disincentives and systemic and societal devaluing of the work of principals were less inclined to apply for a principalship.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1363243032000080014

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 1997, Year Book Australia 1995
  2. 2002, Year Book Australia 2000
  3. Blumberg A, 1980, The Effective Principal: Perspectives in School Leadership
  4. 1990, The Education Digest, 53, 12
  5. Budge D, 1994, Times Educational Supplement, 18, 13
  6. Byrne BM, 1998, Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming
  7. Canavan K, 1998, Conversations in cyber-space: Challenges and paradoxes for Catholic leaders
  8. Canavan K, 1999, Journal of Religious Education, 47, 19
  9. Canavan K, 2001, Building Blocks for Leadership Succession in Catholic Education
  10. Cohen J, 1977, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
  11. 10.1108/09578239010006901 · DOI
  12. 10.1177/0263211X98262005 · DOI
  13. Duncan D, 1990, Leadership in Catholic education, Richmond
  14. Fynes-Clinton M, 2002, The Courier-Mail, 28, 5
  15. Hallinger P, 1982, Administrator's Notebook, 30, 1
  16. Hart AW, 1987, Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20, 1
  17. 10.1037/h0024421 · DOI
  18. 1998, Headteacher supply and recruitment issues. In Education and employment-ninth report: The role of headteachers (chap D)
  19. 10.1177/0263211X98264002 · DOI
  20. 10.1177/0263211X990274001 · DOI
  21. Jordan DW, 1994, The supply and demand of public school principals and administrators in southwestern Louisiana: 1993-1997
  22. Jöreskog KG, 1993, LISREL 8: User's Reference Guide
  23. Kelloway EK, 1998, Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher's Guide
  24. Levin JS, 1995, Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 25, 19, 10.47678/cjhe.v25i1.183203 · DOI
  25. Livingstone ID, 1999, The Workloads of Primary Teaching Principals: A New Zealand Survey
  26. 10.1108/09578239910262944 · DOI
  27. Miskel C, 1985, Review of Educational Research, 55, 87, 10.3102/00346543055001087 · DOI
  28. 2001, The Principal Shortage
  29. 2002, 2007 Annual Report
  30. 10.1177/019263659808260202 · DOI
  31. Pounder DG, 2001, Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 27, 10.1177/0013161X01371003 · DOI
  32. Preston B, 1998, Teacher Supply and Demand to 2004: Updated Projections. Report commissioned by the Australian Council of Deans of Education
  33. Rogus JF, 1993, Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education, 14, 40
  34. Rowe R, 2000, New Zealand Education Review
  35. Stano D, 1993, Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education, 14, 17
  36. Sullivan J, 1998, Catholic Education: Distinctive and Inclusive
  37. Viadero D, 1999, Education Week, 18, 34
  38. Williams E, 1998, Times Educational Supplement, 6, 4
  39. Young MD, 2001, Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 461, 10.1177/0013161X01374003 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dorman, J. P., & D'Arbon, T.
Affiliations
Australian Catholic University (AU)
Venue
School Leadership & Management
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2003-02
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
25-25
ISSN
  • 1363-2434 (ISSN-L)
  • 1364-2626
DOI
10.1080/1363243032000080014
OpenAlex
W2076222952
Cited by
38
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
17.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
School Leadership and Management (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Leadership and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Leadership and Teacher Performance
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
Keywords
leadership succession, school principals, Catholic schools, scale development, instrument validation, gender bias, religious identity, family impact, New South Wales

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review