































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 6, Issue 1, 2025 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Kayla N. Marsh, Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, Oklahoma State University, 318 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, 

OK 74078, kayla.marsh@okstate.edu,  https://orcid/orf/0000-0003-3574-1936  
2. Christopher J. Eck, Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University, 234 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, 

chris.eck@okstate.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1645-3632  
3. Will Doss, Assistant Professor, University of Arkansas, AFLS E108, Fayetteville, AR 72701, wd009@uark.edu, 

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3163-7528  
 

55 

 

Validation of the School-Based Agricultural Education Model 
of Support Instrument 

 
K. N. Marsh1, C. J. Eck2, W. Doss3 

 
 

Article History 
Received: September 23, 2024 
Accepted: February 12, 2025 
Published: February 28, 2025 
 
 
Keywords 
SBAE needs; job satisfaction; 
humanistic lens; SBAE teacher well-
being 
  

Abstract 
Research on the needs of school-based agricultural education (SBAE) 
teachers has been conducted since 1983, driven by historic attrition 
within the profession, yet we do not have the depth of understanding 
necessary to provide actionable change to SBAE teachers to empower 
and support them in their practice. The Conceptual Model of Support for 
School-Based Agricultural Education Teachers was used to frame this 
study's purpose of establishing an instrument that takes a more human 
lens to support SBAE teachers. The instrument resulted in five 
components including personal needs, intracurricular program needs, 
relationship needs within the school and community, 
classroom/instructional needs, and school-based support needs with a 
total of 46 items validated through the principal component analysis with 
.60 reliability for all 46 items was indicated with a Cronbach’s alpha of 
.951. Recommendations include evaluating the humanistic needs of in-
service SBAE teachers. Additionally, preservice teacher preparation 
programs should use the instrument to evaluate SBAE teacher aspirants 
during their student teaching internship. Future research should consider 
the current needs of SBAE teachers using the validated instrument to 
determine opportunities to increase the level of effectiveness and 
individual wellness of SBAE teachers. 

 

mailto:kayla.marsh@okstate.edu
https://orcid/orf/0000-0003-3574-1936
mailto:chris.eck@okstate.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1645-3632
mailto:wd009@uark.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3163-7528


Marsh et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549  56 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Driven by historic attrition, school-based agricultural education (SBAE) teacher needs research 
has been conducted since 1983 (DiBenedetto et al., 2018; Eck & Edwards, 2019). Needs 
continue to evolve with stress, personal wellness, and work-life balance representing areas of 
focus in SBAE research that are related to the overwhelming amount of work, dedication, tasks, 
and the mental, physical, and emotional stress that comes with managing an SBAE program 
(Best et al., 2023; Marsh et al., 2023; Phipps et al., 2008; Shoulders et al., 2021). To maintain 
SBAE teacher job satisfaction and develop career specific human capital (i.e., education, skills, 
training, and experiences directly related to a chosen career; Fisher & Royster, 2016), leading a 
balanced life (i.e., personal wellness, boundaries, and work-life balance) has been 
recommended (Eck et al., 2020; Marsh et al., 2023). However, Marsh et al. (2023) reported 21st 
century programs were still faced with support gaps and inadequate professional development 
in previously identified need areas, potentially resulting in frustration and burnout (Klassen & 
Chiu, 2010; Marsh et al., 2023). 
 
Researchers have identified specific challenges impacting SBAE teachers' job satisfaction 
(Boone & Boone, 2009; DiBenedetto et al., 2018; Doss et al., 2023). Doss et al. (2023) reported 
114 items across seven categories associated with challenges impacting job satisfaction: 
classroom activities, SBAE program management, relationships, professional development, 
personal factors, and miscellaneous job responsibilities. While DiBenedetto et al. (2018) and 
Doss et al. (2023) recommended further exploration and professional development to address 
these recurring issues, neither provided the depth needed for proactive solutions to improve 
SBAE teacher needs or job satisfaction. This task is elusive because a “one size fits all” approach 
to career-specific human capital development through professional development is often 
ineffective in meeting the needs of all SBAE teachers (Klassen & Chiu, 2010), perhaps requiring 
a more human lens, giving rise to the need for this study. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The conceptual model of support for SBAE teachers was developed to describe professional 
development needs within a hierarchy of support (Marsh et al., 2023), giving the needs and job 
satisfaction of SBAE teachers a human lens. As such, this model served as the conceptual 
framework for this study. When describing the Conceptual Model of Support for SBAE Teachers, 
it uses the three-component model for agricultural education (FFA, n.d.) as the base of the 
pyramid due to the interdependency of the classroom, student leadership and career 
development (FFA), and Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) components in SBAE 
programs and the overlapping roles among each experienced by SBAE teachers. Human capital 
development takes place in each of the three components (depicted as dashed line with arrows 
in Figure 1) based on the needs of the individual SBAE teacher taking into consideration their 
teaching effectiveness, personal characteristics, and professional characteristics (Eck et al., 
2019). As SBAE teachers develop human capital in each component, they ascend to higher 
levels (subsistence, security, association, respect, self-actualization) of Maslow’s Hierarchy for 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549


Marsh et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549  57 
 

Teachers (Fisher & Royster, 2016), further developing career-specific human capital and 
reducing challenges contributing to SBAE teacher attrition (Doss et al., 2023; Eck et al., 2019; 
Fisher & Royster, 2016; FFA, n.d.).  
 
Figure 1  
 
The Conceptual Model of Support for School-Based Agricultural Education Teachers (Marsh et 
al., 2023). 

 
 
Items categorized as subsistence (i.e., accessibility training, classroom management skills, and 
support for teacher mental health) represent “need(s) for sustaining and supporting SBAE 
teachers in their daily practice, helping to provide to the ability to survive within the 
profession” (Marsh et al., 2023, p. 126). The subsistence level items within the hierarchy will 
need to be supported differently to meet SBAE teachers' human needs than items at the level 
of association (i.e., community support, parent support, and support from school and local 
administration). Association-needs represent the importance of belonging and the relationships 
that support and surround SBAE teachers (Doss et al., 2023; Marsh et al., 2023). While the 
conceptual model of SBAE teacher support is focused on individual SBAE teacher needs, 
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs does not describe or account for how school site, community, and 
external factors can influence a teacher’s effectiveness and practice. Impacts of these external 
factors, either positive or negative, can be understood with self-determination theory (SDT). 
SDT suggests individuals have three basic needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness, 
providing a rationale supporting how external factors can impact an SBAE teacher’s level of 
effectiveness and individual wellness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). 
  
Currently, there is not a way to objectively measure and quantify teacher needs based on their 
location within the model, providing for the need of this study. Evaluating SBAE teachers' 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549


Marsh et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549  58 
 

human needs and where they align within the model of support can improve how we address 
human capital development within the profession, promoting their effective SBAE teaching 
practices (Eck et al., 2020; Marsh et al., 2023).  
 

Purpose and Objectives 
 
A current limitation within the conceptual model of support for SBAE teachers is that needs are 
conceptually aligned at the lowest potential level within the hierarchy (i.e., subsistence; see 
Figure 1). A validated instrument could assess an individual's human needs, representing needs 
within different levels of the hierarchy, and provide clear insight to meet specific human capital 
needs of individuals. Additionally, the development of a valid instrument for evaluating SBAE 
teacher’s needs to discover national trends within the profession has been recommended 
(Duncan et al., 2006). Given this clear need, the purpose of this study was to establish a more 
human lens to support SBAE teachers. The following research objectives guided the study: 
1. Determine the primary components of support for SBAE teachers. 
2. Validate the conceptual model of support for SBAE teachers as a potential instrument for 

evaluating teacher needs. 
3. Determine the internal consistency reliability of the components of the instrument.  
 

Methods and Procedures 
 
A non-experimental survey research design (Privitera, 2020) was employed to evaluate in-
service SBAE teachers (N = 3,729) within Region II of NAAE (i.e., Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas, 
Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas) using a census approach. The email contact 
frame was developed using existing listservs and email frames, allowing for personalized 
communication. Five-hundred-fifty-three emails were returned undeliverable, resulting in an 
accessible population of 3,176. Email correspondence followed the tailored design method 
(Dillman et al., 2014), including the purpose of the study, authenticity (university logo), and the 
lead researcher’s contact information, along with the anticipated timeline for data collection. 
The initial email was followed by three points of contact to invite SBAE teachers to participate 
in the study (Dillman et al., 2014), resulting in 581 responses (18.3% response rate), of which 
303 responses were complete and eligible for data analysis. While nonresponse bias was of 
concern given the response rate, respondents were representative of the population of 
interest. Data collected in this study was compared to the corresponding population values of 
SBAE teachers, per recommendations from the National Center for Education Statistics (Bose, 
2001). Specifically, NAAE Region II was reported to be 46.0% female as of the 2023 National 
Supply and Demand Study (Foster et al., 2024), which is the same as the respondents (46.0% 
female and 54.0% male). In addition, respondents aligned with the Supply and Demand Study 
related to certification type (i.e., majority traditionally certified) and state representation (i.e., 
Texas was the largest, followed by Oklahoma). Given the anonymous nature of data collection 
(i.e., mass email and listserv recruitment) and the approved IRB protocol, collecting non-
respondents was not possible, which is a limiting factor of the study, and the data presented 
should be considered accordingly.  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549


Marsh et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549  59 
 

The instrument was developed using items from the findings of Doss et al. (2023) and Marsh et 
al. (2023) focusing on job satisfaction, human capital, and individual human needs of SBAE 
teachers. Based on previous literature (Boone & Boone, 2009; Clark et al., 2014; DiBenedetto et 
al., 2016; Doss et al., 2023; Marsh et al., 2023; Maslow, 1943; Rosser, 2020; Touchstone, 2015), 
the 153 items were organized into categories by the research team, including classroom factors 
(40 items), SBAE program management (31 items), relationships (26 items), professional 
development (9 items), personal factors (10 items), and miscellaneous job responsibilities (19 
items) to encompass the comprehensive model for SBAE. The classroom factors categories 
represent characteristics like classroom management, land lab instruction, keeping student 
records, and lesson planning (Boone & Boone, 2009; DiBenedetto et al., 2018 Doss et al., 2023). 
SBAE program management factors consist of items such as the role of the FFA advisor, training 
CDE teams, SAE programs, and program planning and prioritization (Boone & Boone, 2009; 
DiBenedetto et al., 2018 Doss et al., 2023; Rosser, 2020; Touchstone, 2015). Relationship 
factors represent interactions between SBAE teachers and others, such as students in the 
agriculture program, the school secretary, the superintendent, local community members, and 
assistant principals (Boone & Boone, 2009; Doss et al., 2023; Fisher & Royster, 2016; Marsh et 
al., 2023; Rosser, 2020; Touchstone, 2015). The professional development construct factors 
include state professional organizations, clear policies and procedures, life-long learner, and 
purposeful professional development (Boone & Boone, 2009; Doss et al., 2023; Eck et al., 2020; 
Marsh et al., 2023). Personal factors construct included health (mental, physical, and 
emotional), work and home life balance, and teacher motivation (Boone & Boone, 2009; Clark 
et al., 2014; Doss et al., 2023; Marsh et al., 2023; Maslow, 1943). The individual needs construct 
includes rest, balanced nutrition, the ability to ask for help, and the ability to navigate life crises 
(Fisher & Royster, 2016; Marsh et al., 2023; Maslow, 1943). Participants were asked to identify 
their current level of effective integration on a five-point Likert-type scale (i.e., 1 = never/high 
need and 5 = always/low need), for each of the 153 items. 
 
To address research objectives one and two, a principal component analysis (PCA) was used to 
reduce the number of items in the instrument to a smaller dataset of related items (Costello & 
Osborne, 2005). PCA with a Varimax rotation, developed by Kaiser (1958), was chosen with the 
assumption that the seven constructs are correlated due to the relation with SBAE teacher 
needs (Doss et al., 2023). The research team evaluated the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure 
of sampling adequacy, eigenvalues, parallel analysis, component loadings, and commonalities 
for item reduction. While the initial instrument was evaluated for face and content validity, 
additional validity was established through the PCA (Field, 2018 Privitera, 2020). To address 
reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were established to provide internal consistency 
reliability for Model of Support for SBAE Teachers instrument per the third research objective. 
 

Findings 
 
Research Objective 1: Determine the Primary Components of Support for SBAE Teachers 
To address research objective one, the 153-item instrument (see Table 1) was analyzed to 
determine the primary components to reduce items in the model of support for SBAE 
instrument using PCA. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy equaled 0.77 which is within 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549


Marsh et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549  60 
 

the accepted range according to Cerny and Kaiser (1977). The initial PCA resulted in 34 
components loading above a 1.0 eigenvalue. The 34 components were compared to parallel 
analysis resulting in eight factors loading above the output. Data were re-analyzed (PCA with 
Varimax rotation) fitting the 153 items with the eight factors accounting for 51.8 percent of the 
variance found. The component and communality loadings of the rotated matrix of all 153-
items were analyzed and it was determined 54-items should be retained from the Varimax-
rotated PCA. Items were fixed to eight components based on loadings of 0.6 or higher in at 
least one component area. A sample of the 99 items not retained included statements related 
to managing paperwork, managing instructional time, maintaining student records, developing 
a program budget, lesson planning, relationships with CTE directors, relationships with 
university faculty in Agricultural Education, relationships with the State FFA Association, 
managing lab/facilities, develop curriculum, used new technology, and engage in professional 
organizations.   
 
Table 1 
Retained PCA Component Loadings and Communalities (54 items, n =303) 

Items  1 2 3 4 5 6 Communality 
R_5     .54  .384 
R_8   .53    .480 
R_9     .90  .856 
R_10   .63    .545 
R_12   .67    .489 
R_16   .82    .733 
R_19     .89  .834 
R_21   .76    .710 
R_22   .85    .778 
R_23   .84    .78 
R_24   .65    .54 
C_1    .67   .63 
C_3    .75   .65 
C_12    .68   .65 
C_23    .59   .50 
C_25    .66   .56 
C_28    .656   .59 
P_1  .73     .61 
P_2  .68     .51 
P_3  .72     .62 
P_4  .72     .59 
P_6  .81     .72 
P_7  .77     .65 
P_8  .73     .73 
P_9  .77     .65 
P_11  .76     .66 
P_12  .70     .69 
P_14  .80     .73 
P_15  .77     .66 
P_18  .68     .55 
P_20  .67     .59 
P_28  .62     .57 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549


Marsh et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549  61 
 

Items  1 2 3 4 5 6 Communality 
M_5 .65      .54 
M_15 .75      .68 
PR_4      .58 .43 
PR_9      .55 .53 
PE_1 .84      .75 
PE_2 .69      .56 
PE_3 .81      .73 
PE_4 .68      .52 
PE_5 .68      .57 
PE_7 .85      .78 
PE_8 .83      .75 
PE_10 .65      .53 
MH_1 .74      .58 
MH_2 .81      .68 
MH_3 .75      .61 
MH_4 .76      .61 
MH_5 .78      .65 
MH_7 .67      .57 
MH_8 .59      .44 
MH_10 .80      .67 
MH_15 .31  .36    .45 
MH_16 .35  .32   .52 .53 

Note. Factor loadings below .30 are not displayed; extraction values are based on 
communalities; R = Relationships, C = Classroom/Instruction, P = Program factors, M = 
Miscellaneous factors, PR = Professional factors, P = Personal factors, MH = Maslow’s Hierarchy 
– Individual needs. Items with a strikethrough were not retained. Please see the attached 
instrument for the original items and corresponding item codes. 
 
 
The 54 retained items were then re-analyzed using an additional PCA to verify the number of 
components using the reduced dataset. The analysis resulted in a KMO measure of 0.91. Six 
components resulted in eigenvalues above parallel analysis (i.e., a simulated data set with the 
same number of items and respondents to optimize component extraction), demonstrating the 
need to re-analyze the PCA with a Varimax rotation while limiting items to fit within six 
components. The component loadings and communalities of the rotated matrix were analyzed 
using a Varimax rotation of the retained 54 items to develop the final component structure of 
items resulting from the six components (see Table 1). 
 
The PCA fit to six components resulted in 46 (of 54) items loading at or above a 6.0, explaining 
58.7% of the variance in the dataset. The five components are outlined in Table 2 with the 
corresponding and updated item numbers to represent the SBAE model of support instrument. 
One construct (professional needs) and eight items did not fit the six-construct model. 
Removed items included managing relationships with other teachers, appreciation of individual 
differences, purposeful professional development, and the ability to ask others for help.  
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549


Marsh et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549  62 
 

Table 2 
 
Emerging Components and Retained Items (46 items) 

Component Title  Item Corresponding Item Description 
1. Personal Needs (Safety and 

Security) 
P_1 Ability to take care of yourself 
P_2 Manage stress 

 P_3 Health (mental, physical, and emotional) 
 P_4 Change in family dynamics 
 P_5 Work and home life balance 
 P_6 Death of a relative or close friend 
 P_7 Financial loss 
 P_8 Emotional health support 
 P_9 Support for teacher mental health 
 P_10 Teacher motivation 
 P_11 Rest  
 P_12 Balanced nutrition  
 P_13 Exercise and physical activity  
 P_14 Body function is regulated 
 P_15 Good general health  
 P_16 Established a routine   
 P_17 I can cope with stress/anxiety in healthy ways 
2. Intracurricular Program Needs I_1 Role as the FFA advisor 
 I_2 Managing the FFA chapter 
 I_3 Managing the total Agricultural Education program 
 I_4 Attending fairs/showing/exhibitions 
 I_5 Training CDE teams 
 I_6 Being competitive in CDEs 
 I_7 Livestock and project center management 
 I_8 Training LDE teams 
 I_9 Being competitive in LDEs 
 I_10 Being competitive with livestock projects 
 I_11 SAE programs 
 I_12 SAE visits 
 I_13 Fundraising for FFA activities 
 I_14 FFA award applications 
 I_15 Resources for awarding and recognizing SAEs 
3. Relationship Needs within School 

and Community 
R_1 Relationship with principal  
R_2 Relationship with transportation director  

 R_3 Relationship with superintendent  
 R_4 Relationship with school board  
 R_5 Competence of superintendent  
 R_6 Competence of school board  
 R_7 Competence of counselors  
4. Classroom/Instructional Needs C_1 Teach effectively 
 C_2 Ability to use different teaching methods and strategies 
 C_3 Engaging students in critical thinking activities 
 C_4 Standards alignment 
 C_ 5 Amount of time allotted for preparation 
5. School-Based Support Needs S_1 Relationship with assistant principals  
 S_2 Competence of assistant principals  

Note. P = Personal Needs, I = Intracurricular Needs, R = Relationship Needs, C = Classroom/Instructional Needs, and 
S = School-Based Support Needs. The numbers presented in this table will be used from this point forward.  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549


Marsh et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549  63 
 

Research Objective 2: Validation of the SBAE Model of Support Instrument  
The final instrument resulted in five components represented with 46 items. All 46 items 
loaded at a value greater than .60 (Guadagonli & Velicer, 1988), and their communalities meet 
an acceptable level, according to Hair et al. (2010). The original instrument represented 153 
items compiled from different validated studies of Doss et al. (2023) (132 items) and Marsh et 
al. (2023) (42 items). Using the constant comparative method, 21 duplicative items from the 
studies were removed to create the comprehensive original 153 items prior to data collection 
(Creswell & Poth, 2018). The resulting 46 items are considered valid based on the PCA results 
measuring the component (Privitera, 2020) of the model of support for SBAE. In addition to the 
validity of the previously developed items, a reliability estimate based on 46 items resulted in 
an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha of .95 (Nunnally, 1978). We evaluated the deletion of any item 
that may have increased the total Cronbach’s alpha score. After analysis of the item-total 
statistics, it was determined that the removal of any item would decrease the total Cronbach’s 
alpha level instead of increasing it, resulting in the retention of all 46 items as part of the valid 
model of support instrument for SBAE teachers.  
 
Research Objective 3: Determine the Internal Consistency Reliability of the Components of 
the Instrument  
The 46-item instrument was deemed valid through a PCA loading on five components, with a 
Cronbach’s alpha of .95. Reliability estimations were calculated using the corresponding items 
within each of the five components. The first component, identifying personal needs depicting 
individuals' subsistent and safety needs, is a combination of 17 items, resulting in a Cronbach’s 
alpha of .96. It was determined that the removal of any of the 17 items would result in a 
decreased Cronbach’s alpha of the first component, leading to all items being retained. The 17 
items have substantial positive correlations (Davis, 1971), demonstrating interrelated items 
measuring the personal needs component (Field, 2018). The second component, intracurricular 
program needs, depicted program-specific needs related to FFA and SAE, represented by 15 
validated items, resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha of .95. It was determined that the removal of 
any of the 15 items would result in a decreased Cronbach’s alpha of the second component, 
leading to all items being retained. The 15 items have substantial positive correlations (Davis, 
1971), demonstrating interrelated items measuring the intracurricular program needs 
component (Field, 2018).  
 
The third component included relationship needs from the surrounding school and community, 
with seven items representing relationships with and the competence of individuals who serve 
in support roles within proximity of the SBAE program with resulting Cronbach’s alpha of .90. 
The removal of any item would reduce the Cronbach alpha of the instrument, resulting in all 
items being retained. Additionally, the seven items have substantial positive correlations (Davis, 
1971), demonstrating a measure of interrelated items. The fourth component included 
classroom/instruction needs and resulted in Cronbach’s alpha of .83 for the five validated 
items. The deletion of any item would result in a reduction of Cronbach’s alpha, so all items 
were retained. The five items have a moderate to very strong positive correlation (Davis, 1971). 
The fifth component, school-based support needs, included two items with a Cronbach’s alpha 
of .51, thus falling below the acceptable threshold of .70 or greater (Nunnally, 1978). Eisinga et 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549


Marsh et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549  64 
 

al. (2013) suggested that coefficient alpha for a two-item scale is not a meaningful measure and 
recommended reporting the Spearman-Brown reliability indicator. The Spearman-Brown 
estimate resulted in .51 for the two items, but the deletion of the two items would reduce the 
overall 46-item instrument reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .95, leading researchers to 
retain the two items even though two-item scales are problematic (Yan & Green, 2011).  
 

Conclusions and Recommendations 
 
This study resulted in a valid and reliable SBAE model of support instrument. The five emerging 
components included personal needs, intracurricular program needs, relationship needs, 
classroom/instructional needs, and school-based support needs. These represent six of the 
seven original categories. While professionalism was the category lost through the PCA, could it 
be that being professional is assumed? In addition, school-based support emerged as its own 
component, demonstrating a difference in item performance with items that referred to 
relationships and competence of administrators versus relationships and competencies of 
others who serve in support roles within proximity of the SBAE program. Perhaps this is due to 
the administrative tasks of assistant principals who manage and engage with SBAE teachers 
more directly. The retention of two items within this component may suggest that further 
research is needed to consider the implications and additional items that may expand the 
school-based support needs of SBAE teachers. 
  
The personal needs component represented the greatest quantity of retained items and were 
merged from personal factors and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs representing human 
psychological needs for subsistence and safety as an individual and within the profession, 
aligning with the conceptual model of support for SBAE.  Could it be that SBAE teachers’ basic 
human needs are not being met and teachers are becoming more frustrated within the 
profession (Marsh et al., 2023; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Fisher & Royster, 2016). In addition to 
personal needs, intracurricular needs was the second largest retained component, representing 
a plethora of tasks related to program planning, FFA advisement, competitive events, and SAE 
management.  
 
While the classroom/instruction component was reduced to five items, the items are closely 
related to historical SBAE needs, potentially indicating a change is needed in tactics used to 
support teachers in meeting their classroom/instruction needs. The classroom/instruction 
needs identified in this study aligned with those in the SBAE effective teaching instrument (Eck 
et al., 2019) representing the human capital skills needed to be effective. Regardless of the 
historical context of these needs, new teachers are being prepared through SBAE teacher 
preparation programs or entering the profession from alternative routes, therefore the need to 
consider and evaluate this component remains essential.  
 
We recommend the SBAE model of support instrument be used by stakeholders (i.e., 
administration, state staff, and teacher mentors) to continually evaluate the humanistic needs 
of in-service SBAE teachers to provide the context for how SBAE teachers need the content, 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549


Marsh et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549  65 
 

curricula, professional development, mentoring and/or resources to be presented to make 
them more impactful for supporting their needs, reducing potential job-related stress and 
increasing retention within the profession. Additionally, preservice teacher preparation 
programs should use the instrument as a student self-assessment to evaluate the SBAE teacher 
aspirants during their professional education core courses and student teaching internship, 
measuring the impact of early field experiences, supports, professional networking, and student 
teaching placement opportunities that meet their humanistic needs and develop their human 
capital prior to entering the SBAE classroom. Employing a longitudinal design would allow 
teacher preparation programs to observe the growth of students from their pre-service 
program into their career, where it would be expected that participants continue to grow and 
develop, moving them from the subsistence level up through respect and self-actualization 
(Marsh et al., 2023). Given the variety of uses for the instrument (i.e., complete 
program/instrument or specific component), it is recommended that assessment data evaluate 
individual components or item responses to determine the needs of participating SBAE 
teachers.  
 
Future research should consider the current needs of SBAE teachers using the validated 
instrument to determine opportunities to increase the level of effectiveness and individual 
wellness of SBAE teachers (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Perhaps such implementation could improve 
work-life balance and job satisfaction by helping SBAE teachers manage a successful program 
(Marsh et al., 2023; Phipps et al., 2008; Shoulders et al., 2021). It is also recommended that the 
Model of support instrument be evaluated to consider if the components reflect the needs of 
those involved in non-formal agricultural education and higher education professions within 
agriculture and adapted, as needed, to provide a humanistic lens to inform retention and job 
satisfaction efforts.  
 

Acknowledgments 
 
This manuscript is based on data published in the Proceedings of the National Conference of 
the American Association for Agricultural Education.  

Marsh, K. N., Eck, C. J., & Doss, W. (2024). Validation of the school-based agricultural 
education model of support instrument. National AAAE Conference, Manhattan, KS.  

 
No LLM or Multimodal AI systems were used in the development of this manuscript. Grammarly 
was employed to improve punctuation and adherence to established writing and grammar 
rules. 
 
Author Contributions: K. Marsh – conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, writing-
original draft; C. J. Eck- conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing-
review and editing, funding acquisition; W. Doss – conceptualization, writing-review and 
editing. 
 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549


Marsh et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549  66 
 

References 
 
Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W. Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., & Esquivel, S. L. (2013). 

Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. 
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(6), 1–13. 
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a0a9/c0d005f0878f79811b930d16f8d83bfc4a1d.pdf  

 
Best, R., Robinson, J. S., Terry, R., Edwards, M. C., & Cole, K. (2023). Tasks associated with 

teaching school-based agricultural education. National AAAE Conference, Raleigh, NC. 
http://www.agedweb.org/aaae/Proceedings.asp?EventID=92     

 
Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2009). An assessment of problems faced by high school 

agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(1), 21-32. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.01021 

 
Bose, J. (2001). Nonresponse bias analyses at the National Center for Education Statistics. 

National Center for Education Statistics. 
https://nces.ed.gov/FCSM/pdf/IHSNG_StatsCan2_JB.pdf  

 
Cerny, C. A., & Kaiser, H. F. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-

analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12, 43–
47. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1201_3 

 
Clark, M. S., Kelsey, K. D., & Brown, N. R. (2014). The thornless rose: A phenomenological look 

at decisions career teachers make to remain in the profession. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 55(3), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.03043 

 
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four 

recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Assessment, Research & 
Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1.110.9154  

 
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among 

five approaches. Sage. 
 
Davis, (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Prentice Hall.  
 
DiBenedetto, C. A., Willis, V. C., & Barrick, R. K. (2018).  Needs assessments for school-based 

agricultural education teachers: A review of literature. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
59(4), 52-71. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04052 

 
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed- mode 

surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.  
 
Doss, W., Rayfield, J., & Lawver, D. (2023). A national study assessing the influence of perceived 

challenges faced by school-based agricultural education teachers on their ability to do 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a0a9/c0d005f0878f79811b930d16f8d83bfc4a1d.pdf
http://www.agedweb.org/aaae/Proceedings.asp?EventID=92
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2009.01021
https://nces.ed.gov/FCSM/pdf/IHSNG_StatsCan2_JB.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1201_3
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.03043
https://doi.org/10.1.110.9154
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04052


Marsh et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549  67 
 

their job. Journal of Agricultural Education, 64(3), 184–202. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i3.2476  

 
Duncan, D. W., Ricketts, J. C., Peake, J. B., & Uesseler, J. (2006). Teacher preparation and in-

service needs of Georgia agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(2), 
24–35. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.02024 

 
Eisinga, R., Grotenhuis, M. T., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, 

Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58(4), 637–642. 
http://doi.org/10.1007s00038-012-0416-3  

 
Eck, C. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2019). Teacher shortage in school-based, agricultural education 

(SBAE): A historical review. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(4), 223–239. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04001  

 
Eck, C. J., Robinson, J. S., Cole, K. L., Terry, Jr., R., & Ramsey, J. W. (2020). The validation of the 

effective teaching instrument for school-based agricultural education teachers. Journal 
of Agricultural Education, 61(4), 229–248. http://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04229  

 
Eck, C. J., Robinson, J. S., Ramsey, J. W., & Cole, K. L. (2019). Identifying the characteristics of an 

effective agricultural education teacher: A national study. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 60(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04223  

 
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using SPSS (5th ed.). Sage.  
 
Fisher, M. H., & Royster, D. (2016). Mathematics teachers’ support and retention: Using 

Maslow’s Hierarchy to understand teachers’ needs. International Journal of 
Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 47(7), 993–1008. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2016.1162333   

 
Foster, D. D., Smith, A. R., Lawver, R. G., & Spiess, M. (2024). National Agricultural Education 

Supply and Demand Project [data set]. American Association for Agricultural Education. 
http://nsd.aaaeonline.org. 

 
Guadagonli, E., &Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component 

patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 25–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.103.2.265 

 
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010).Multivariate data analysis (7th 

ed.). Pearson Education Inc. 
 
Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychmetrika, 

23(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289233  
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v64i3.2476
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.02024
http://doi.org/10.1007s00038-012-0416-3
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04001
http://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2020.04229
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.04223
https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2016.1162333
http://nsd.aaaeonline.org./
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289233


Marsh et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549  68 
 

Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: 
Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 
102(3), 741-756. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237  

 
Marsh, K., Eck, C. J., Layfield, K. D., & Donaldson, J. (2023). Identifying school-based agricultural 

education teacher needs and support gaps. Advancements in Agricultural Development. 
Advancements in Agricultural Development, 4(3),117–
130. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.347 

 
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. 

http://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 
 
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.  
 
Phipps, L. J., Osborne, E. W., Dyer, J. E., & Ball, A. (2008). Handbook on agricultural education in 

public schools (6th ed.). Thomas Delmar Learning. 
 
Privitera, G. J. (2020). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Sage. 
 
Rosser, T. (2020, Summer). Agriculture teachers association of Texas mentor program. Growing 

Our Future, 24–25. 
https://issuu.com/texasffa/docs/magazine_summer_2020_no_bleed_full 

 
Ryan, M. R., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic 

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. 
https://www.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 

 
Shoulders, C. W., Estepp, C. M., & Johnson, D. M. (2021). Teachers’ stress, coping strategies, 

and job satisfaction in COVID-induced teaching environments. Journal of Agricultural 
Education, 62(4), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.04067  

 
The National FFA Organization [FFA]. (n.d.). The National FFA Handbook. 

https://www.ffa.org/agricultural-education/ 
 
Touchstone, A. J. L. (2015). Professional development needs of beginning agricultural education 

teachers in Idaho. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(2), 170-187. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.02170 

 
Yan, Y., & Green, S. B. (2011). Coefficient alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st Century? 

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 377–392. 
https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406668 

 
© 2025 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v6i1.549
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i3.347
http://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
https://issuu.com/texasffa/docs/magazine_summer_2020_no_bleed_full
https://www.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2021.04067
https://www.ffa.org/agricultural-education/
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.02170
https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406668

