Middle Leadership Roles Questionnaire—School Edition (Catalan) (MLRQ-SE-CAT) as an Instrument to Study the Roles and Practices of Cycle Coordinators as Middle Leaders

Abstract

The leadership exerted by teachers, outside the management roles in education centers, is defined as middle leadership. There is a lack of instruments to identify their practices and roles in non-English speaking countries. The aim of the present study was to report the validation of an adapted version of the MLRQ-SE by De Nobile, named MLRQ-SE-CAT. By means of a process of translation and validation by a panel of experts, a pilot questionnaire was applied to a sample of 414 cycle coordinators in Primary Schools of the Catalan education system. The results show a high degree of validity (CFI = 0.950; TLI = 0.915; RMSEA = 0.061) and reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.83), thus validating a new instrument for measuring middle leadership in similar education systems. The instrument allows us to detect 6 roles and 33 practices that teachers exert in their role as middle leaders. There is a correlation between roles, especially between the Strategic Role and the roles of Administration and Management. MLRQ-SE-CAT allows identifying the habitual practices and roles of middle leaders in an educational context, where they are becoming increasingly important.

1. Introduction

Educational leadership encompasses a broad focus of study due to its importance in school results and its influence on educational success (Leithwood, 2009; Day et al., 2016; Bolívar, 2019).

The start of the 21st century brought about a change in vision, where leadership began to be distributed from high positions to different members in the organization (Harris, 2013). Fullan (2015) affirmed that the old model of a hierarchy was no longer adequate for educational organizations that want to meet the demands of the 21st century. In its place, middle or intermediate levels became once again fundamental (Benoliel, 2021). Leadership adopted a new dimension, where the distribution and sharing of positions dominate the new models of educational leadership.

Middle leadership (from here on referred to as ML) can be defined as a link between management and teaching staff (Calatayud, 2023), where professionals have the ability to act and communicate between the different levels of an organization.

It is very difficult to identify what people make up ML, given that in each educational system they constitute different figures or positions (Lipscombe et al., 2021). Therefore, ML can vary in function according to the context where the practice takes place.

Along this line, Barrero Fernández et al. (2020) pointed out that ML can comprise department heads, training coordinators, teachers, mentoring teachers, teachers in charge of projects and planned activities, and management, among others. For their part, Harris and Jones (2020) believe that ML can comprise department heads, grade level leaders, or subject coordinators, as they act as a key piece in creating influence in three directions: downward, by leading and supporting; horizontally, by collaborating, accompanying, and connecting; and upward, as experts who are knowledgeable in the practice of education and the system as a whole. Their approach is based on dialogue, participation, and the construction of consensus (Rincón, 2018).

In general, ML is understood as a style of leadership that encompasses a great diversity of roles, responsibilities, and competences (Héreginé Nagy et al., 2024), providing opportunities to lead in teaching and learning from the core of educational centers (Lipscombe et al., 2023).

The interest regarding ML has increased in the field of education (Olondriz Valverde et al., 2024), given the potential for improving educational organizations at many levels, such as center reform (Bryant & Rao, 2019), the correct implementation of the curriculum (De Nobile, 2016, 2021), the improvement of the learning of students (Rodríguez & Gairín, 2020), and the learning of the teachers themselves (Edwards-Groves et al., 2018).

A review of the literature shows that middle leadership has been mainly studied in English-speaking countries (Olondriz Valverde et al., 2024), where the roles and practices, as well as the different figures according to the educational system analyzed, have been studied. However, outside of English-speaking countries, the topic of study is incipient, and there are very few references and data that bring us closer to the characteristics of these figures in educational organizations (Sepúlveda et al., 2022).

In this article, we will focus the analysis on the Catalan educational system, which is characterized by having a specific decree for the management of educational centers (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2010). This decree makes explicit the role of the centers’ management. In addition, it grants special importance to distributed leadership and the training and professionalization of educational management, promoting the assumption of leadership to the teachers themselves (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2010, p. 2).

The positions that can be identified as ML in this educational system are varied. The stage or cycle coordinators, department heads, project directors, or even teachers in any position can be considered.

It is interesting to identify, in the Catalan educational system where we are located, the roles and practices of ML, especially in the figure of Cycle Coordinator, which is not always present in other educational systems.

1.1. Cycle Coordinators

Politically and legally, Catalonia has its own educational competencies, which distinguishes it from the Spanish education system and its laws. For this reason, this study focuses exclusively on the Catalan educational system and its main law, the ‘Catalonian Education Law’ (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2009). In this context, the Catalan educational system uses Catalan as the vehicular language, further emphasizing the differences between the two educational contexts.

Due to this, and given its singular nature, the cycle coordinator has been considered a key figure in the Catalonian educational system.

Among their functions, they are tasked with organizing and supervising the work of the teaching staff, guaranteeing the coherence and continuity of educational actions. They collaborate closely with the management team in the creation and application of the internal evaluation plan of the center, proposing improvements for its development (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2009).

In addition, they are responsible for planning and structuring the meeting calendar of the cycle, including sending invitations, presiding over the proceedings, and creating written reports of the topics discussed, which provide information to the head of studies for follow-up. They also coordinate the transmission of information, along with other coordinators and heads of studies.

As a member of the management council, they represent their education cycle and assume the management of the inventory of materials, including ordering and maintaining resources, along with the teaching staff. Likewise, they organize specific activities of the cycle and ensure the dissemination of and compliance with the operating guidelines of the center in their area of management. These figures appear in both primary and secondary education (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2024a, 7 June).

The cycle coordinator operates in an intermediate space between the management and the teaching staff, making them a natural leader within educational institutions. This pedagogical and administrative management position is responsible for coordinating and supervising educational activities at the cycle level (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2024a, 7 June). This makes their study particularly relevant, as it provides an in-depth view of the intermediate leadership dynamics operating within educational institutions and their influence on organizational success.

In general, this position is close to the concept of ML within the Catalan educational system, as a connector between teachers and management. This motivated the selection of cycle coordinators for this study.

1.2. Instrument to Identify Roles in ML

The scarcity of instruments to identify roles and practices in ML, together with the diversity of figures and habitual practices according to the context, makes it necessary to have specific models available that serve as the basis on which to generalize the characteristics of the ML. The studies by De Nobile (2016, 2018) allowed for the establishment of a basis in the shape of the theoretical model of roles, “Middle Leadership in School” (MLiS).

The instrument “Middle Leadership Roles Questionnaire—School Edition” (MLRQ-SE) identifies six possible categories of functions for middle leaders in primary or secondary schools, as well as the “possible ‘inputs’ that ensure the success of middle leadership and ‘outputs’ that represent the possible effects of the middle leaders carrying out their various roles” (De Nobile, 2021, p. 2). The roles are identified in

Table 1. Roles of ML in the MLRQ-SE.

Roles	Description
SFR—Student-focused role	This role refers to the ways in which ML addresses student issues. These include behavior, academic progress, subject choices, health and well-being, and communication between home and school.
AR—Administrative Role	The administrative role refers to the procedures that middle leaders implement to manage information and resources. Tasks within this role range from maintaining inventory and recording other documents to placing orders, purchasing, and other forms of resource management.
MR—Management Role	The management role refers to the organization of people and events. In particular, this role involves middle leaders negotiating schedules, organizing class schedules, and preparing for meetings.
SUPR—Supervisory Role	The supervisory role refers to monitoring staff performance and includes a variety of supervisory tasks such as observing teaching, discussing work performance, and providing feedback.
SDR—Staff Development Role	The staff development role describes how middle leaders work to build the capabilities of teachers and other staff. Key aspects of this role include motivating staff to do their best through affirmation and support, being good role models, and onboarding new staff.
STR—Strategic Role	The strategic role refers to defining objectives and forming a vision for specific responsibilities associated with the leadership position, such as a subject area or a cross-curricular program.

Adapted from De Nobile (2016).

.

However, this instrument is only available in English, which limits its use in other contexts with other languages. In addition, the MLRQ-SE has only reported on a few main studies from English-speaking countries. For this reason, it is necessary to create an instrument that is applicable to different educational contexts, where we may find other ML figures.

In this regard, studies that have used the MLRQ-SE (De Nobile, 2021; De Nobile et al., 2024) have been conducted in the context of the New South Wales Department of Education (Australia) and in Scotland.

As the existing literature points out, middle leadership is heterogeneous and variable depending on the context and educational system in which it is situated, a fact that has made it a leadership style that is difficult to characterize and generalize (Adams et al., 2024; Lipscombe et al., 2021).

As other studies point out, understanding the roles of ML requires instruments adapted to the specific contexts where this leadership style is to be assessed (Sepúlveda et al., 2022). To strengthen the MLiS model (De Nobile, 2018), the MLRQ-SE instrument must be implemented in different contexts, given the variability of the middle leadership style.

The choice of the Catalan educational context for this study helps expand the theoretical knowledge of the MLiS model and the transferability of the MLRQ-SE. The Catalan language has more than 10 million speakers, making it the second most spoken language in Spain and the thirteenth in the European Union (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2024b, 3 September). This fact positions the validation of the MLRQ-SE in the Catalan language as a significant contribution to the validation of the MLiS model and the study of ML roles.

With the aim of expanding knowledge about ML, the study seeks to report, through a systematic process, the validation and the results of an adapted version of the MLRQ-SE for the Catalonian education system, which is framed within an organizational structure and with specific ML figures. This study is focused on the figure of the cycle coordinator, due to its representativeness of ML in Catalonian educational centers, and the objective of the present study is as follows:

-

To validate a questionnaire used to measure the roles of middle leadership for the cycle coordinators of the Catalan education system.

2. Materials and Methods

A quantitative, descriptive, and exploratory study was conducted. For this, the process included the translation, adaptation, and validation of the MLQR-SE by De Nobile (2016), using its most current version (2020). The present study was approved by the author of the instrument.

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed based on the data from the MLQR-SE to validate this adaptation, demonstrate its reliability, and report the results of the study.

2.1. Sample

The sample was selected by convenience. It was composed of 414 teachers who exerted or had exerted the position of cycle coordinators in Primary Education centers, either public or charter. The convenience was determined by the permission from the Department of Education of the Catalonian Government for the access to education centers for statistical aims. The majority of the sample are women N = 245 (59.5%), with a smaller percentage of men N = 168 (40.5%) and one respondent who preferred not to answer this question (>0.1%).

It was not possible to determine the total population group of cycle coordinators in Catalonia, as each school can choose to have between 1 and 3 coordinators, depending on the number of educational lines offered. Additionally, this can vary between academic years, so there are no records available for the total population of Catalonia.

2.2. Instrument

As previously mentioned, the MLRQ-SE instrument includes 36 items in the shape of practices related to ML supported by the existing literature. These items are distributed into 6 dimensions with 6 items each (

Table 2. Dimensions and items of the original instrument used.

Dimensions	No. of Items	Items
SFR—Student-focused role	6	R-01: Helping students R-05: Meeting with students about academic issues R-17: Meeting with students about personal issues R-23: Dealing with student behavior R-29: Assisting students with academic issues R-31: Liaison between student’s home and school
AR—Administrative Role	6	R-07: Creation and/or maintenance of information (or data) relating to student progress R-08: Being responsible for records of student discipline R-15: Keeping inventory of resources R-18: Creation and/or maintenance of records relating to student behavior R-24: Creation/modification of forms, proformas, and other admin tools R-25: Arranging orders and purchases
MR—Management Role	6	R-02: Organizing rosters R-09: Organizing timetables for relief teachers or guest staff R-19: Implementing curriculum R-20: Organizing a team or committee R-30: Organizing agendas and itineraries for special days or events R-35: Planning curriculum with other teachers
SUPR—Supervisory Role	6	R-03: Supervising a grade or stage R-10: Monitoring the performance of staff R-11: Supervising a group of staff in a teaching area R-21: Discussing aspects of work performance with staff R-26: Engaging in classroom observations of teachers R-32: Providing feedback to staff members for work done
SDR—Staff Development Role	6	R-04: Leading staff development R-13: Demonstrating procedures and/or techniques R-14: Mentoring staff R-27: Organizing staff development R-33: Helping staff members with aspects of their work R-36: Involvement in staff induction
STR—Strategic Role	6	R-06: Establishing goals for area of responsibility R-12: Creating or changing whole-school policy R-16: Leading innovation and change R-22: Establishing a vision for area of responsibility R-28: Leading whole-school policy change R-34: Heading teams or committees

Adapted from De Nobile (2016).

), which are answered with Likert-type answers (1 “Not at all”, 2 “Rarely”, 3 “Sometimes”, 4 “Frequently”, and 5 “Very frequently”).

The process of validation of the content was conducted through translation and reverse-translation to adapt the instrument to the Catalan language. Then, it was subjected to the judgement by experts. The expert team consisted of 10 education experts (3 university professors specializing in educational organization and leadership, 5 teachers, and 2 interpreters).

Lastly, the instrument was subjected to a Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA) to demonstrate its validity. The results are reported in the present document, and the full version is found in Appendix A.

2.3. Data Collection

The questionnaire was conducted through the Office Forms web platform. Initial contact was made via email, where the objectives of the research project were outlined, and the researchers’ contact information was provided for any questions or further assistance. To ensure confidentiality, the entire dataset was anonymized. Each participant gave informed consent, and institutional approval for the study was also obtained.

Data collection took place in October and November 2024, with a total of 414 responses gathered by 30 November 2024. All participants agreed to take part in the study, confirming that they were either currently working or had previously worked as cycle coordinators in their schools.

2.4. Data Analysis

The study was centered on verifying the internal validity of the scale of the questionnaire on middle leadership practices, through the performance of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) (Hair et al., 2020). The CFA allowed analyzing the structural or construct validity of the questionnaires, starting with the respective initial (expected) models of the dimensions.

The reliability of the questionnaire, and of its parts, was evaluated through Cronbach’s “Alpha” Coefficient of internal consistency. A value higher than 0.60 indicates an acceptable reliability, so a value of higher than 0.80 is good or very good (>0.90). It is complemented with the Intraclass Correlation statistic. The reliability of the items was measured through the corrected homogeneity and the estimated “Alpha” without the item.

Lastly, the quantitative variable pairs were correlated with Pearson’s correlation and Spearman’s correlation, depending on the normality of not of the variables.

3. Results

The Section 3 shows the process of adaptation of the MLRQ-SE instrument for the Catalan context and its final version, which was named MLRQ-SE-CAT.

The results are divided into two sections. First, the validation by expert judges and the process of translation and counter-translation performed is described. Second, the AFC results are explained.

3.1. Translation and Expert Judgement Results

The first step in the validation was an inverse translation through the model by Brislin (1986), which combines different simultaneous translations.

Then, the judgement by experts was initiated through an analysis of each item to verify its univocity, meaning, and pertinence to the context of the study. Univocity allows us to determine if the statement in the item allows it (or not) to be interpreted in a single manner. Pertinence indicates the adequacy of the item in terms of the objectives of the information that must be collected by the instrument. Lastly, the meaning of an item is related to the importance of the item in the context of the study.

For this, the instrument was subjected to a validation by experts, for which 10 professionals in educational organization and leadership, along with 10 cycle coordinators, examined the items.

The assessment by the judges detected three items that were unanimously eliminated. The educational system for which it was originally designed, and the educational system to which it was destined, were different in terms of context, practices, and teaching organization. Thus, items R-13, R-14, and R-16 were not meaningful for the context of the study. The justification for their elimination, according to the comments by the experts, is found below:

• Item R-13 “Demonstrating procedures and/or techniques”: The position of the cycle coordinator does not imply the teaching of techniques to their peers, given that the education system already has teacher training programs in place. In addition, these are organized by the center’s management, to be implemented for all professionals.
• Item R-14 “Mentoring staff”: Mentorship is not performed habitually in the educational system studied. The profile of a mentor is not recognized between the teachers in education centers.
• Item R-26 “Engaging in classroom observations of teachers”: The act of observation among equals in the education centers is not a practice with specific aims in the context of the study. There is no culture of observation between teachers, for learning, evaluation, or other aspects.

These exclusions did not affect the overall coherence of the model but rather helped to adapt the instrument to the specific characteristics of middle leadership in the Catalan educational system. Although these items were eliminated, the remaining model, with the 33 items, shows high validity and reliability (See Section 3.2), validating the instrument’s structure in the studied context. The removal of these items does not alter the integrity of the original model, as the key dimensions of middle leadership continue to be adequately represented.

The adapted instrument is shown in

Table 3. The final instrument—MLRQ-SE-CAT.

Dimensions	No. of Items	Items
SFR—Student-focused role	6	R-01: Helping students R-05: Meeting with students about academic issues R-15: Meeting with students about personal issues R-21: Dealing with student behavior R-26: Assisting students with academic issues R-28: Liaison between student’s home and school
AR—Administrative Role	6	R-07: Creation and/or maintenance of information (or data) relating to student progress R-08: Being responsible for records of student discipline R-13: Keeping inventory of resources R-16: Creation and/or maintenance of records relating to student behavior R-22: Creation/modification of forms, proformas, and other admin tools R-23: Arranging orders and purchases
MR—Management Role	6	R-02: Organizing rosters R-09: Organizing timetables for relief teachers or guest staff R-17: Implementing curriculum R-18: Organizing a team or committee R-27: Organizing agendas and itineraries for special days or events R-32: Planning curriculum with other teachers
SUPR—Supervisory Role	5	R-03: Supervising a grade or stage R-10: Monitoring the performance of staff R-11: Supervising a group of staff in a teaching area R-19: Discussing aspects of work performance with staff R-29: Providing feedback to staff members for work done
SDR—Staff Development Role	4	R-04: Leading staff development R-24: Organizing staff development R-30: Helping staff members with aspects of their work R-33: Involvement in staff induction
STR—Strategic Role	6	R-06: Establishing goals for area of responsibility R-12: Creating or changing whole-school policy R-14: Leading innovation and change R-20: Establishing a vision for area of responsibility R-25: Leading whole-school policy change R-31: Heading teams or committees

Adapted from De Nobile (2016).

.

The questionnaire maintained the six original dimensions, with a total of 33 items.

3.2. Results from the Validity and Reliability Analysis

The instrument received responses from 414 cycle coordinators between the months of October and November 2024.

The results from the CFA show that all the items obtained good factorial loads with respect to the dimensions expected, which were highly significant (p < 0.001).

Table 4. Confirmatory factor analysis of the structure of the role questionnaire (N = 414).

Dimension	Item	Estimator	Error	Z-Value	p-Value	Standard Estimator
SFR	R-01: Helping students	0.392	0.0623	6.29	<0.001	0.369
	R-05: Meeting with students about academic issues.	0.425	0.0685	6.20	<0.001	0.365
	R-15: Meeting with students about personal issues	0.465	0.0513	9.07	<0.001	0.512
	R-21: Dealing with student behavior	0.481	0.0572	8.40	<0.001	0.478
	R-26: Assisting students with academic issues	0.369	0.0719	5.13	<0.001	0.316
	R-28: Liaison between student’s home and school	0.299	0.0543	5.51	<.001	0.317
AR	R-07: Creation and/or maintenance of information (or data) relating to student progress	0.377	0.0489	7.71	<0.001	0.426
	R-08: Being responsible for records of student discipline	0.494	0.0564	8.76	<0.001	0.477
	R-13: Keeping inventory of resources	0.488	0.0695	7.02	<0.001	0.389
	R-16: Creation and/or maintenance of records relating to student behavior	0.422	0.0452	9.34	<0.001	0.502
	R-22: Creation/modification of forms, proformas, and other admin tools	0.498	0.0490	10.16	<0.001	0.547
	R-23: Arranging orders and purchases	0.392	0.0535	7.32	<0.001	0.405
MR	R-02: Organizing rosters	0.312	0.0540	5.79	<0.001	0.336
	R-09: Organizing timetables for relief teachers or guest staff	0.272	0.0456	5.97	<0.001	0.330
	R-17: Implementing curriculum	0.351	0.0460	7.63	<0.001	0.480
	R-18: Organizing a team or committee	0.336	0.0465	7.23	<0.001	0.466
	R-27: Organizing agendas and itineraries for special days or events	0.211	0.0501	4.22	<0.001	0.238
	R-32: Planning curriculum with other teachers	0.357	0.0386	9.25	<0.001	0.503
SUPR	R-03: Supervising a grade or stage	0.416	0.0600	6.93	<0.001	0.379
	R-10: Monitoring the performance of staff	0.418	0.0492	8.51	<0.001	0.473
	R-11: Supervising a group of staff in a teaching area	0.398	0.0501	7.93	<0.001	0.446
	R-19: Discussing aspects of work performance with staff	0.324	0.0411	7.88	<0.001	0.429
	R-29: Providing feedback to staff members for work done	0.406	0.0475	8.56	<0.001	0.475
SDR	R-04: Leading staff development	0.296	0.0492	6.02	<0.001	0.315
	R-24: Organizing staff development	0.290	0.0397	7.30	<0.001	0.374
	R-30: Helping staff members with aspects of their work	0.286	0.0456	6.27	<0.001	0.354
	R-33: Involvement in staff induction	0.349	0.0461	7.58	<0.001	0.418
STR	R-06: Establishing goals for area of responsibility	0.319	0.0468	6.82	<0.001	0.386
	R-12: Creating or changing whole-school policy	0.389	0.0535	7.27	<0.001	0.410
	R-14: Leading innovation and change	0.317	0.0417	7.60	<0.001	0.431
	R-20: Establishing a vision for area of responsibility	0.369	0.0408	9.04	<0.001	0.507
	R-25: Leading whole-school policy change	0.325	0.0436	7.46	<0.001	0.429
	R-31: Heading teams or committees	0.264	0.0425	6.21	<0.001	0.371

contains a summary of this CFA. With respect to the goodness of fit of the data to this factorial model, the following were obtained: (a) a highly significant Chi-square (p < 0.001) with a good ratio (2.56) with respect to its degrees of freedom (value = 1227; 480 gL); (b) a good RMSEA value (0.061; 95% CI: 0.057–0.066), indicating a very good degree of fit; (c) confirmation by other indices such as CFI (0.950) and TLI (0.915). As a result, the structure of six dimensions is deemed sufficiently tested and validated for the 33 items that were accepted, given their psychometric properties.

Figure 1 shows the flow diagram of the validated structure for this questionnaire, for the sample of cycle coordinators. In the figure, the existence of correlations between the dimensions can be verified, with the one between management (MR) and staff development (SDR) as well as supervision (SUPR) being especially strong.

Once the validity of the questionnaire has been demonstrated, its psychometric study is completed with the analysis of the reliability of these dimensions, along with the entire questionnaire. For this, the classical method of Cronbach’s “Alpha” of internal consistency was used, which was completed with the Intraclass Correlation. The results (

Table 5. Reliability coefficients of the role questionnaire (N = 414).

Dimensions	No. of Items	Cronbach’s Alpha	Intraclass Correlation
SFR—Student-Focused Role	6	0.832	(0.758–0.898)
AR—Administrative Role	6	0.804	(0.742–0.860)
MR—Management Role	6	0.767	(0.693–0.833)
SUPR—Supervisory Role	5	0.729	(0.674–0.777)
SDR—Staff Development Role	4	0.677	(0.593–0.750)
STR—Strategic Role	6	0.767	(0.714–0.805)
Complete questionnaire	33	0.831	(0.807–0.854)

) indicate a high degree of reliability (0.83) for the complete scale with the 33 items. As for the dimensions, the reliability was also good, although in two of them, precisely those that were shortened by the elimination of the items from the original version, the reliability coefficient was somewhat lower. In conclusion, in general, the values obtained allow us to confirm the reliability of the questionnaire.

Lastly,

Table 6. Correlation matrix (Pearson) with confidence interval (95%), between the variables of the dimensional scores of the roles questionnaire (N = 414).

Dimensions of Roles	SFR—Student-Focused Role	AR–Admin. Role	MR—Manag. Role	SUPR—Supervisory Role	SDR—Staff Develop. Role	STR—Strategic Role
SFR—Student-Focused Role	--------
AR—Administrative Role	0.494 ** (0.417–0.563)	--------
MR—Management Role	0.332 ** (0.243–0.415)	0.382 ** (0.297–0.462)	--------
SUPR—Supervisory Role	0.355 ** (0.268–0.436)	0.424 ** (0.341–0.500)	0.611 ** (0.547–0.668)	--------
SDR—Staff Development Role	0.259 ** (0.167–0.347)	0.375 ** (0.289–0.455)	0.510 ** (0.435–0.578)	0.480 ** (0.402–0.511)	--------
STR—Strategic Role	0.244 ** (0.151–0.332)	0.317 ** (0.227–0.401)	0.436 ** (0.354–0.511)	0.472 ** (0.393–0.543)	0.444 ** (0.636–0.518)	--------

(**) = Highly significant.

shows the correlations (Pearson) of all the dimensions. As shown, (a) the coefficients were highly significant (p < 0.001), (b) the variables were associated with the same types of values (high with high; low with low), and (c) the coefficients were of intensities that were high in the following cases: (1) the correlation between Management and Supervisory role (0.61) and Staff development (0.51); (2) the correlation between Administrative role and Student-focused role (0.49); and (3) the correlation between Supervisory role and Staff development (0.48) as well as Strategic role (0.47).

4. Discussion

The objective of the present study was to validate an instrument to measure the ML roles and practices developed in the educational context of Catalonia.

The MLRQ-SE instrument was adapted and validated to create the MLRQ-SE-CAT tool, which can be applied to the Catalonian context. This instrument maintains the six dimensions of the original one, but it is reduced to 33 items related with practices oriented to the ML who undertake functions as cycle coordinators.

The present instrument corroborates the De Nobile model MLiS in the Catalan context, showing validity and reliability in an instrument with dimensions centered on the roles of management (MR) and administration (AR), as well as student-focused roles (SFR) and supervisory roles (SUPR), while at the same time adding its own, such as the strategies provided by leaders (STR) or the ability to develop the staff under their responsibility and their peers (SDR).

The Student-Focused Role (SFR) obtained high values, which confirms the presence of the ML in teaching and learning processes, as well as the concern for the well-being and development of students (Lillejord & Børte, 2020; Rodríguez & Gairín, 2020). Among the items that were commonly identified by the participants, we found “Helping students” or “Meeting with students about personal issues” shaped the role, with a higher Cronbach alpha value (0.832).

The second role with a high Cronbach alpha value was the Administrative Role (AR) (0.804). The administration roles are related with the use of information and resources, as well as the supervision of inventory and orders. This role, although seemingly less associated with leadership, was notably identified by the participants, in line with other studies such as the one by Farchi and Tubin (2019), although in contrast to other studies such as the one by Bassett and Shaw (2018), who argued that ML in New Zealand awarded less importance to administrative tasks, as they took too much time.

Along the same line, the management tasks (MR) were also reduced in ML according to Bassett and Shaw (2018). However, the questionnaire shows that ML awarded more importance to these tasks (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.767), such as “Organizing a team or committee” or “Organizing rosters”. In addition, the Management Role is also centered on the correct management of the curriculum (Busher et al., 2007), an aspect identified by the ML as among their practices, in agreement with De Nobile et al. (2024), who considered, in their recent study, that the management of the curriculum must be classified as its own dimension.

The fourth dimension, Supervisory Role (SUPR), obtained a high Cronbach’s alpha, with a value of 0.729 in its five items. In this sense, the studies that gave prominence to this role (Busher et al., 2007; Fleming, 2014) shared key practices, such as “Supervise a grade or stage” or “Supervising a group of staff in a teaching area”, with this role supported in the literature as belonging to ML (De Nobile, 2018; Harris et al., 2019). The Supervisory Role is related with middle leadership practices that favor a collegiate and mutual help work environment. In fact, this dimension is characterized for exerting influence on different aspects, including the construction of an environment of support among coworkers, promoting collaborative relationships, the making of decisions, participative discussions, and promoting a well-organized setting for teamwork. Middle leadership research has underscored the importance of offering teaching support and advice, solutions, and suggestions with respect to the planning of classes (Ng, 2015) as well as the design of activities and evaluations (Rhodes & Brundrett, 2009). To promote this type of collaborative environment, it is essential to be able to manage emotions and construct relationships of trust (Edwards-Groves et al., 2016; Rhodes & Brundrett, 2009; Rönnerman et al., 2017).

The fifth dimension, corresponding to the Staff Development Role (SDR), showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.677. Despite this role obtaining lower indices, its four items were recognized as habitual practices by the ML in the study, as similar studies have already reported (De Nobile, 2021). In line with Lillejord and Børte (2020) and Strike et al. (2019), this role belongs to ML, given that such individuals tend to be recruited due to their teaching skills and their experience in school-related work, providing meaning to diverse practices of this role, such as leading, organizing, or helping members of the team.

Lastly, the sixth dimension showed a high reliability, with a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.767. This dimension analyzes the Strategy Role (STR), which includes crucial practices such as “Leading innovation and change”, “Heading teams or committees”, and “Creating or changing whole-school policy”. These practices are included in a role recognized by the literature as vital for linking strategic decision making and classroom practices (Zadok et al., 2024). Lastly, the responsibility of the ML with respect to school policy and its influence on the organizational structure is also recognized by other authors (De Nobile, 2018; Leithwood, 2016).

The set of roles are shown to be interdependent, which suggests that the leaders who perform one of the functions well tend to also perform the others well (De Nobile, 2019). In particular, the management and supervisory roles have stronger correlations with the other dimensions (0.611), which could indicate that these functions are essential for the general performance of the ML. Leadership becomes meaningful when it combines the vision of supervising peers and managing teams and organizations, giving meaning to the correlation between the roles reported in the results, in line with the ideas of some authors (Bryant & Walker, 2024; Grice, 2019; Lipscombe et al., 2019), who affirm that ML operates in various spaces and spheres within the same organization, but always in line with the development of education.

In conclusion, the MLRQ-SE-CAT describes the roles and practices of cycle coordinators, thus providing a valuable instrument for the measurement of ML practices and roles among the leaders in educational organizations, in educational contexts where this important category has yet to be explored.

4.1. Teorethical Contributions

This study makes a significant contribution to the field of ML in educational organizations.

Firstly, it is the first study to validate an instrument for measuring ML within the Catalan context. The results obtained confirm that John De Nobile’s Middle Leadership in Schools (MLiS) model is applicable in non-English-speaking educational contexts, specifically within the Catalan educational system, thus enriching the theoretical knowledge of ML. By identifying the six key roles of middle leaders, the findings reinforce the theoretical framework and demonstrate the relevance of this model in various educational contexts.

Secondly, this study represents the first recognition of cycle coordinators as middle leaders. This recognition is crucial for understanding the holistic dimension of their role in the functioning of educational organizations.

Finally, the MLRQ-SE-CAT instrument facilitates the identification of a clear relationship between the pedagogical dimension of middle leadership and the management and administrative dimensions, contributing to the general knowledge of this leadership style.

4.2. Practical Contributions

Firstly, the psychometric study conducted validates an instrument that can be used in empirical research within the Catalan educational system, opening up the possibility to study other figures within this system who may fulfill the role of middle leader. Furthermore, it establishes a clear and well-defined process for the instrument to be validated in other contexts outside English-speaking countries, such as the Spanish or Portuguese educational systems.

Secondly, the study emphasizes the urgent need for adequate training for educational leaders. This point is highlighted by the small percentage of respondents who reported receiving prior training (7.2%) and the contrast in positive results on the MLRQ-SE-CAT compared to the rest of the participants. More support and training should be provided to teachers who assume leadership roles.

Finally, cycle coordinators are recognized as teachers who carry out management and administrative tasks. In this regard, the study provides evidence of the role of middle leaders as pedagogical managers. Supporting these leaders should be a priority for the future of educational organizations. The study aligns with contemporary discussions on distributed leadership, pedagogical leadership, and shared management, in favor of innovation, continuous improvement, and a collaborative school culture.

Having a validated questionnaire will also enable its use as a tool for evaluation, self-assessment, and reflection, fostering the improvement of practices and feedback for teachers who assume middle leadership roles.

In summary, this study lays the foundation for a more nuanced understanding of middle leadership in primary education, offering both theoretical insights and practical recommendations that can guide future research, policy decisions, and school leadership development programs. Implementing these findings will enable educational institutions to improve leadership practices, thereby strengthening school governance and enhancing student academic outcomes.

5. Conclusions

The results of the confirmatory factor analysis, and the reliability of the instrument, allow us to conclude that the adapted version is adequate for its use in future studies about middle leadership in similar educational contexts.

In addition, the findings suggest that the ML roles have a complex and interdependent structure. This implies that any study centered on the roles of ML must consider a holistic understanding that encompasses all the dimensions identified: management, administrative, supervisory, staff development, strategy, and student-focused roles.

The research conducted assumes the limitation in performing the study only with cycle coordinators. Adopting new visions of other roles in ML, such as stage coordinators or heads of studies, could improve future adaptations of the instrument to more positions.

In conclusion, the instrument proposed allows identifying the middle leadership practices of Cycle Coordinators, and it is a significant advance for future studies. Its contribution will allow us to identify critical nodes and reflect on processes of improvement centered on the teaching and learning of both students and teachers.

As for future lines of research, a suggestion is made to explore how middle leadership roles are manifested in different levels of education and in different geographical contexts. Likewise, it would be pertinent to conduct longitudinal studies to analyze the evolution of middle leadership practices over time. Lastly, comparative studies between countries with diverse education systems will shed light on how cultural and organizational factors have an influence on the performance of middle leaders and the effectiveness of their practices. In this regard, we also suggest that these potential future studies across different educational contexts could evaluate the transferability of the instrument between contexts and countries with different educational systems.