José Luis Galvez-Nieto , Juan A. García , Daniela Vera-Bachmann , Italo Trizano-Hermosilla , Karina Polanco
{"title":"Análisis de clases latentes multinivel del clima escolar: factores individuales, familiares y comunitarios","authors":"José Luis Galvez-Nieto , Juan A. García , Daniela Vera-Bachmann , Italo Trizano-Hermosilla , Karina Polanco","doi":"10.1016/j.psicod.2020.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Although school climate is related to a variety of positive outcomes in students, few studies have explored the heterogeneity of school climate profiles. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe different school climate profiles by evaluating variables at the individual, family and community levels in Chilean students. The sample consists of 2,683 adolescent students (51.2% men and 48.8% women), aged between 12 and 20 years (<em>M</em> = 15.78, <em>SD</em> = 1.35), and from 32 Chilean educational institutions. Results obtained from a multilevel latent class cluster analysis show that the model with six clusters of students and two class of institutions proves to be the most parsimonious model and with the best fit to the data. School climate profiles were built on the basis of four indicators: <em>school climate</em> (<em>Wald</em> = 301.065, <em>p</em> < .001), <em>student-teacher relationships</em> (<em>Wald</em> = 226.687, <em>p</em> < .001), <em>positive attitude towards authority</em> (<em>Wald</em> = 115.591, <em>p</em> < .001) and <em>positive attitude towards norm transgression</em> (<em>Wald</em> = 3705.593, <em>p</em> < .001). All of them are to be useful indicators for profile segmentation. Covariates that are associated with school climate profiles identified: at the individual level, <em>age</em> (<em>p</em> = .019) and <em>sex</em> (<em>p</em> < .001); at the family level, family structure (<em>p</em> < .001); at the school level, type of educational institution (<em>p</em> = .002); and at the community level, the perception of <em>insecurity in the neighborhood</em> (<em>p</em> = .011), <em>social control</em> (<em>p</em> = .002) and <em>support</em> (<em>p</em> <.001).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46733,"journal":{"name":"Revista De Psicodidactica","volume":"25 2","pages":"Pages 85-92"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista De Psicodidactica","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1136103420300010","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10
Abstract
Although school climate is related to a variety of positive outcomes in students, few studies have explored the heterogeneity of school climate profiles. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe different school climate profiles by evaluating variables at the individual, family and community levels in Chilean students. The sample consists of 2,683 adolescent students (51.2% men and 48.8% women), aged between 12 and 20 years (M = 15.78, SD = 1.35), and from 32 Chilean educational institutions. Results obtained from a multilevel latent class cluster analysis show that the model with six clusters of students and two class of institutions proves to be the most parsimonious model and with the best fit to the data. School climate profiles were built on the basis of four indicators: school climate (Wald = 301.065, p < .001), student-teacher relationships (Wald = 226.687, p < .001), positive attitude towards authority (Wald = 115.591, p < .001) and positive attitude towards norm transgression (Wald = 3705.593, p < .001). All of them are to be useful indicators for profile segmentation. Covariates that are associated with school climate profiles identified: at the individual level, age (p = .019) and sex (p < .001); at the family level, family structure (p < .001); at the school level, type of educational institution (p = .002); and at the community level, the perception of insecurity in the neighborhood (p = .011), social control (p = .002) and support (p <.001).