Teachers’ Emotional Exhaustion Scale (TEES): Development and Psychometric Validation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The abstract has been rewritten, stylistically I think it would be better without the section titles, introduction, objectives, methodology etc. But I defer to the journal’s editor on this point.
Lines 44-47 describe the rationale for the study.
Phase 1 and selection of elements has been completely re-written to describe the process (lines 104-112).
More clarity given on Chilean school teachers from the national education system. (line 114)
Development of the TEES Scale: a lot more explanation in lines 142-145 have been provided.
Inclusion criteria required participants to be credentialed teachers actively engaged in classroom instruction with children and/or adolescents (line 198) is a lot clearer.
Ethical explanation met lines 236-242.
Formatting issues have been improved.
Limitations in relation to cultural and contextual factors, have been noted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful feedback has been instrumental in refining the clarity, coherence, and overall presentation of our study. Below, we address each of your comments and acknowledge the improvements made:
Comment 1: The abstract has been rewritten, stylistically I think it would be better without the section titles, introduction, objectives, methodology etc. But I defer to the journal’s editor on this point.
Response: We would like to inform you that the section titles in the abstract have been removed. We deeply appreciate your observation, as it has helped us align the manuscript more closely with the journal’s formatting requirements.
Comment 2: Lines 44-47 describe the rationale for the study.
Response: We have made the changes as you suggested. We sincerely appreciate this observation, as it has helped improve the justification of our study.
Comment 3: Phase 1 and selection of elements has been completely re-written to describe the process (lines 104-112).
Response: We have rewritten this section to improve the understanding of the process. We sincerely appreciate this observation, as it has helped enhance our text.
Comment 4: More clarity given on Chilean school teachers from the national education system. (line 114)
Response: We have made the change as you suggested. We sincerely appreciate this observation, as it has helped improve our text.
Comment 5: Development of the TEES Scale: a lot more explanation in lines 142-145 have been provided.
Response: We have improved the explanation of the scale’s development in accordance with your valuable observations. We sincerely appreciate this comment, as it has helped enhance our text.
Comment 6: Inclusion criteria required participants to be credentialed teachers actively engaged in classroom instruction with children and/or adolescents (line 198) is a lot clearer.
Response: Thank you very much for this observation. We had not initially considered this aspect, and as a result, we made the necessary modifications. We believe that the text is now much more robust thanks to your insightful comment.
Comment 7: Ethical explanation met lines 236-242.
Response: We truly appreciate your observation regarding the ethical explanation. Ensuring clarity and compliance with ethical standards was a priority for us, and we are pleased that this section now meets the required standards. Your feedback has helped us refine this critical aspect of our study.
Comment 8: Formatting issues have been improved.
Response: Thank you for noting the improvements in formatting. We carefully revised the manuscript’s structure and presentation, and we believe these enhancements have made the text clearer and more professional. Your attention to this detail has been invaluable in refining the readability of our work.
Comment 9: Limitations in relation to cultural and contextual factors, have been noted.
Response: We greatly appreciate your feedback regarding the inclusion of limitations related to cultural and contextual factors.
Once again, we sincerely appreciate your time, effort, and thoughtful feedback. Your suggestions have significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of our manuscript. We are grateful for the opportunity to refine our work based on your expertise and look forward to any further recommendations you may have.
Regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear author,
Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript. The topic addressed is highly relevant, and I have observed a significant improvement in the revised version of the document. I would like to share some comments to further enhance your work:
Introduction: The structure and clarity of this section are appropriate. However, greater conciseness is recommended in certain areas. Some paragraphs reiterate ideas regarding the effects of emotional exhaustion on teachers and its impact in the classroom. A more direct approach would improve both the clarity and impact of the message.
- Key terms such as burnout, emotional exhaustion, and occupational stress are introduced. Although closely related, it would be advisable to clearly define their conceptual differences from the outset to avoid confusion.
- At present, the manuscript only states a general objective. It is necessary to include specific objectives and the research question.
Methodology: This section is well-structured and appropriately presents the study design.
Results: The results are clearly and systematically presented. However, there is no need to repeat the sample description in each subsection, as this information is already detailed in the participants' section. It is recommended to modify Figure 2, as it currently includes the MFC with regression weights. Instead, standardised regression weights should be presented.
Discussion: This section requires better organisation and clarity to facilitate the reader’s understanding. Additionally, a contradiction has been identified: the introduction states that no instruments exist to measure emotional exhaustion in teachers, whereas the discussion indicates that only a few are available. It is crucial to maintain consistency between these sections.
Conclusions: The conclusions are not entirely clear. Furthermore, this section states that the instrument can be applied in other contexts, whereas the limitations section indicates that it is only applicable in Chile. This contradiction should be addressed to avoid confusion.
References: The references do not comply with the journal’s guidelines. It is recommended to adjust them to the required format.
Best regards,
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for their thorough and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insightful comments and suggestions have been invaluable in helping us improve the quality, clarity, and coherence of our work. We have carefully addressed each of the points raised and made the necessary revisions to the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each comment, outlining the changes made and how they have enhanced the manuscript.
Comment 1: Introduction: The structure and clarity of this section are appropriate. However, greater conciseness is recommended in certain areas. Some paragraphs reiterate ideas regarding the effects of emotional exhaustion on teachers and its impact in the classroom. A more direct approach would improve both the clarity and impact of the message.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their insightful comment regarding the introduction. Based on your recommendation, we carefully revised the section to enhance its conciseness and clarity. Specifically, we streamlined paragraphs that previously reiterated ideas about the effects of emotional exhaustion on teachers and its impact in the classroom. This allowed us to adopt a more direct approach, improving the overall readability and impact of the message.
We believe that this adjustment has significantly strengthened the manuscript, and we are grateful for your valuable feedback, which guided us in improving the quality of our work. Thank you once again for your thoughtful suggestions.
Comment 2: - Key terms such as burnout, emotional exhaustion, and occupational stress are introduced. Although closely related, it would be advisable to clearly define their conceptual differences from the outset to avoid confusion.
Response: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s valuable observation regarding the need to clearly define key terms such as burnout, emotional exhaustion, and occupational stress. In response to your suggestion, we have incorporated a specific section in the manuscript (lines 36 to 42) where the conceptual definitions of these terms are presented, and their main differences are highlighted. This section aims to avoid potential confusion and provide a solid conceptual foundation for readers.
Comment 3: - At present, the manuscript only states a general objective. It is necessary to include specific objectives and the research question.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their observation regarding the need to include specific objectives and the research question in the manuscript. In response to your valuable suggestion, we have made the corresponding modifications. Now, in addition to the general objective, we have incorporated specific objectives and the research question in the introductory section of the manuscript (lines 84 to 94).
We believe this addition provides greater clarity and structure to the study, allowing readers to more precisely understand the focus and scope of our research. We thank you again for your comment, as it allowed us to strengthen the quality and presentation of the manuscript.
Comment 4: Methodology: This section is well-structured and appropriately presents the study design.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their kind words regarding the methodology section. We are pleased to know that you consider this section to be well-structured and that it adequately presents the study design. We made every effort to ensure that the methodology was clear, rigorous, and detailed, with the aim of providing a solid foundation for the validity and reliability of the results obtained.
We thank you again for your positive comment, as it reinforces our commitment to quality and precision in the presentation of our work.
Comment 5: Results: The results are clearly and systematically presented. However, there is no need to repeat the sample description in each subsection, as this information is already detailed in the participants' section. It is recommended to modify Figure 2, as it currently includes the MFC with regression weights. Instead, standardised regression weights should be presented.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their observations regarding the results section. In response to your suggestion, we have removed the repetitive descriptions of the sample in each subsection, as this information is already detailed in the participants' section. This adjustment allowed us to optimize the presentation of the results, making it more concise and focused.
Additionally, we have modified Figure 2 to include standardized regression weights instead of non-standardized regression weights, as recommended. We believe this change improves the clarity and accuracy of the graphical representation, facilitating the interpretation of the results for readers.
We once again thank you for your valuable suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality and presentation of the manuscript.
Comment 6: Discussion: This section requires better organisation and clarity to facilitate the reader’s understanding. Additionally, a contradiction has been identified: the introduction states that no instruments exist to measure emotional exhaustion in teachers, whereas the discussion indicates that only a few are available. It is crucial to maintain consistency between these sections.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their observations regarding the discussion section. In response to your valuable suggestion, we have reorganized this section to improve its clarity and facilitate the reader's understanding. The arguments are now presented in a more structured manner, highlighting the main findings, their implications, and the future projections of the study.
Additionally, we have addressed the contradiction noted between the introduction and the discussion. In the introduction, we clarified that while some instruments exist to measure emotional exhaustion in teachers, they are not specifically designed to capture the unique characteristics of this population. On the other hand, in the discussion, we emphasized that the development of the TEES addresses this need by providing a specialized and psychometrically robust instrument. This adjustment ensures consistency between both sections and reinforces the coherence of the manuscript.
We thank you again for your comment, as it allowed us to identify and correct these areas, thereby strengthening the quality and presentation of the manuscript.
Comment 7: Conclusions: The conclusions are not entirely clear. Furthermore, this section states that the instrument can be applied in other contexts, whereas the limitations section indicates that it is only applicable in Chile. This contradiction should be addressed to avoid confusion.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their observation regarding the conclusions section. In response to your valuable suggestion, we have revised and clarified this section to ensure greater precision and consistency with the rest of the manuscript.
In particular, we have adjusted the conclusions to reflect that, although the Teachers' Emotional Exhaustion Scale (TEES) was developed and validated within the Chilean context, its potential application in other contexts will depend on additional studies evaluating its psychometric properties in different populations and educational settings. This change ensures consistency with the limitations section, where the need for future research to validate the instrument in other cultural and educational contexts is emphasized.
We thank you again for your comment, as it allowed us to identify and correct this inconsistency, thereby strengthening the clarity and coherence of the manuscript.
Comment 8: References: The references do not comply with the journal’s guidelines. It is recommended to adjust them to the required format.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out the need to adjust the references to the format required by the journal. In response to your observation, we have reviewed and corrected all references to ensure compliance with the journal's established guidelines. This included verifying citation styles, the order of elements, and the inclusion of all necessary information, such as DOIs and links, where applicable.
We believe these modifications ensure conformity with the journal's standards and improve the overall presentation of the manuscript. We thank you again for your comment, as it allowed us to strengthen the quality and accuracy of the submitted work.
Once again, we deeply appreciate the time and effort the reviewer has dedicated to evaluating our manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback has significantly contributed to improving the quality and presentation of our work. We hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations and addresses all the concerns raised. Thank you for your valuable input and for helping us strengthen our study.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Author,
Thank you very much for your time and effort in making the revisions to your manuscript. In relation to the introductory part, you have improved the wording of the text and, therefore, I consider that it improves the eligibility for the reader. However, reiterated ideas persist within this section. I believe that it is necessary to include novel ideas that make an impact, that make your work different and show the impact of your work. In relation to the objectives and research question, they are inserted correctly and are aligned with the study carried out.
In relation to the results, specifically section 3.1., it would be necessary to show how this content validation by expert judges has been carried out. Likewise, I consider the first paragraph of this section to be unnecessary. What does relevance, clarity and representativeness mean for the expert judges? Continuing with section 3.2., the validation starts with 14 items, when the content validation shows that 18 items remain, which creates confusion. Also, the values of skewness and kurtosis are shown, but they do not determine what this means. In section 3.3., they show correct fit indices, but do not comment on the SEM.
The discussion does not comment on the results obtained in this work by means of a consistent theoretical framework, i.e. there is a notable lack of scientific literature supporting the reliability and robustness of the values obtained in the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. As well as the impact of this research work at the international level.
The references are not adjusted to the journal's guidelines, i.e. there is still a lack of structure in this section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to evaluating our work, as well as your insightful comments and suggestions. Your feedback has been invaluable in helping us improve the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of our study. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments and describe the specific changes made to the manuscript.
Comment 1: "However, reiterated ideas persist within this section. I believe that it is necessary to include novel ideas that make an impact, that make your work different and show the impact of your work."
Response:
We sincerely appreciate this valuable observation. In response, we thoroughly reviewed the introduction to identify and remove repetitive content that may have hindered the narrative clarity and originality. Additionally, to strengthen the conceptual impact and highlight the relevance of our study, we incorporated a new paragraph between lines 42 and 51. This section includes recent and high-impact references that address the broader implications of teacher emotional exhaustion—specifically its associations with decreased work engagement, deterioration of the school climate, and increased intentions to leave the profession. These revisions aim to reinforce the contribution and distinctiveness of our work within the field of educational psychometrics.
Comment 2: In relation to the objectives and research question, they are inserted correctly and are aligned with the study carried out.
Response:
We sincerely appreciate your positive feedback regarding the formulation of the objectives and research question. We are pleased to know that these elements were deemed appropriate and consistent with the design and development of the study. This validation reinforces the overall focus of the research and supports the relevance of the theoretical and methodological framework adopted.
Comment 4: In relation to the results, specifically section 3.1., it would be necessary to show how this content validation by expert judges has been carried out. Likewise, I consider the first paragraph of this section to be unnecessary. What does relevance, clarity and representativeness mean for the expert judges?
Response:
Thank you very much for your insightful comments regarding section 3.1. We have addressed each of your observations as follows:
- The section was revised to provide a clear and detailed explanation of how the content validation was conducted. We now specify that two rounds of expert judgment were implemented. In both phases, the judges received a written operational definition of emotional exhaustion and evaluated each item using a standardized form that included three predefined criteria. This structured procedure has been fully integrated into the revised manuscript to enhance methodological transparency.
- Following your suggestion, the first paragraph of section 3.1 was removed to avoid redundancy. The section now begins directly with a concise description of the expert-based validation protocol.
- We included specific definitions of the three assessment dimensions used by the expert judges:
- Relevance: the degree to which the item reflects a central aspect of emotional exhaustion in the teaching profession.
- Clarity: the semantic and syntactic precision of the item, ensuring it is easily understood by respondents.
- Representativeness: the extent to which the item captures a distinctive and essential characteristic of the construct without overlapping with other items.
We believe these modifications significantly improve the conceptual clarity and methodological rigor of the content validation section, and we thank you again for your valuable feedback.
Comment 5: In section 3.2, the validation begins with 14 items, whereas content validation indicates that 18 items were retained, which creates confusion.
Response:
We sincerely thank the reviewer for this accurate and insightful observation. Upon reviewing the manuscript, we identified that the reported number of items in section 3.2 was mistakenly stated as 14. In fact, following the expert judgment and Aiken’s V analysis, 13 items were retained for the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), not 14. This discrepancy has now been corrected in the revised manuscript to ensure consistency across sections.
We truly appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail, which allowed us to resolve this important inconsistency and improve the clarity and accuracy of the methodology section.
Comment 6: Additionally, skewness and kurtosis values are shown, but their meaning is not interpreted.
Response:
Thank you for this important observation. In response, we have included an explicit interpretation of the skewness and kurtosis values presented in Table 2. Specifically, we added the following explanation in section 3.2:
“The skewness and kurtosis values presented in Table 2 were examined to assess the normality of the distribution of the items. In the context of social sciences, values between -2 and +2 are generally considered acceptable to assume univariate normality. All the items fell within this range, indicating that the data distribution was approximately normal.”
This addition clarifies the rationale for applying parametric methods, such as Maximum Likelihood estimation, in the Exploratory Factor Analysis and enhances the statistical transparency of the analysis.
Comment 7: In section 3.3, they show correct fit indices, but do not comment on the SEM.
Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable observation. In response, we have expanded section 3.3 to include an explicit interpretation of the structural equation modeling (SEM) procedure used in the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Specifically, we now clarify that the CFA was conducted within a SEM framework to test the two-factor structure identified in the EFA—namely, “Emotional Fatigue” and “Emotional Hopelessness.” The model specified 10 observed variables loading onto their respective latent factors, with no cross-loadings permitted. The two latent factors were allowed to correlate, based on the theoretical premise that they reflect interrelated dimensions of emotional exhaustion in teachers. The fit indices obtained support this latent structure and confirm the robustness and construct validity of the model.
This addition aims to clarify the analytical approach and fulfill the expectation of theoretical interpretation within a SEM context, as recommended.
Comment 8: The discussion does not comment on the results obtained in this work by means of a consistent theoretical framework, i.e. there is a notable lack of scientific literature supporting the reliability and robustness of the values obtained in the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. As well as the impact of this research work at the international level.
Response:
We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important observation. In response, we revised the discussion section to incorporate a more coherent and theory-driven interpretation of the psychometric findings. The updated section begins by situating the construct of emotional exhaustion within contemporary international frameworks that conceptualize it as multidimensional, referencing established theoretical contributions. We then included a comparison of our results with those of previous validation studies—specifically referencing the Serbian version of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), which reported similar reliability and factorial structure outcomes. Finally, the discussion emphasizes the potential international applicability of the TEES, especially in the context of post-pandemic educational challenges, and its value as a cross-culturally adaptable tool for assessing teacher well-being. These revisions aim to enhance the theoretical consistency of the manuscript and demonstrate the broader scientific impact of the instrument.
Comment 9: The references are not adjusted to the journal's guidelines, i.e. there is still a lack of structure in this section.
Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail regarding the formatting of the references. In response, we have carefully revised the entire reference list to ensure full compliance with the journal’s formatting guidelines.
Once again, we thank you for your thoughtful and detailed review. We believe that the revisions made in response to your comments have significantly strengthened our manuscript. We hope that the changes address your concerns and meet the standards of the journal. Please find attached the latest revised version of our manuscript for your consideration. If any further clarifications or modifications are required, we remain at your disposal.
Sincerely,
Dr. Martínez Líbano
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The abstract needs to be rewritten without the subheadings. Also, the context and rational for the research needs to written in the first section of the abstract.
The literature review at the beginning of the article is a strength of the article, it explains the theoretical context and the rationale for the research. It does need to clarify what is meant by teachers. Are University lecturers seen as teachers for example? What level/or sector are these teachers? Are they teaching particular subjects, specialists or general education?
Line 27: the words faculty members suggest this is referring to university teachers not school teachers, please be explicit what level the teachers are working at or are these statements aimed at all teachers no matter what level?
Lines 116-120: Who were these experts, what were experts in what qualified them to be an expert?
What were the items? Published articles? Reports?
What does reagent mean in this context?
The development of the TEES needs further clarification.
Line 144: Development of the TEES Scale: This process needs more explanation, exactly how were the items identified? How were decisions made and who in the team made the decisions. What quality measured were used to demonstrate rigour?
Line 167-168: Reads like a repetition of line 165.
Line 179: What kind of data was collected, how was it collected, did it get ethical approval did participants give informed consent?
Line 201: Mentions students being the participants but are they teachers?
Lines 206-222 This section seems more like method than results?
Line 234 onwards: There are formatting issues.
Lines 249-254: Is this repetition from earlier?
Line 341: The educational sector is not a unified one. Different educational sectors have different stresses.
Line 349: There may be under-lying health issues that have nothing to do with teaching. May be the economy for example?
Line 361: This is repetition from the context, this has already been argued.
There is a lot of repetition in the piece. There is not a clear explanation of how the data was collected from the teachers, any interviews or questionnaires need to be explained and discussed.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The structure of the article need attention so that the method is well explained and how the data was collected from the teachers/participants before the numerical analysis is undertaken.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear author,
Firstly, I would like to thank you for submitting your manuscript to our journal. The topic addressed is relevant and of great interest in the context of contemporary society. However, I would like to share a series of comments that, in my opinion, will contribute to improving the scientific rigour and overall quality of the manuscript.
Introduction:
I suggest restructuring this section to optimise clarity and coherence. I believe a more precise organisation could enhance the readability and understanding of the reader. I propose the following structure:
1. Begin with a brief contextualisation summarising the relevance of emotional exhaustion among teachers.
2. Continue with definitions and essential characteristics of the construct, supported by updated literature.
3. Include a review of previous studies addressing this topic from both national and international perspectives.
4. Highlight the importance of the present study, emphasising its contribution to the field.
5. Conclude with a clear presentation of the general and specific objectives, as well as the research question.
Methodology:
The methodological section requires substantial adjustments.
· In the methodological design section, the type of study employed is mentioned; however, the justification provided is imprecise. I recommend revising and clarifying this aspect.
· Sections 2.3 and 2.4 duplicate information already mentioned in the procedure section. It would be advisable to review and synthesise these points to avoid redundancy.
· Regarding the participants section, if convenience sampling was used, it is important to specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria defined for the sample selection.
· Additionally, in the data analysis section, it is essential to include the analysis performed by expert judges, specifically the content analysis of the applied instrument.
Results:
While the results section is robust, there is evidence of some repetition of information. For example:
· The description of the sample is mentioned on multiple occasions (lines 218–220 and 249–254). It would be advisable to consolidate this information into a single section.
· The explanation of Aiken’s V appears in lines 222–231; however, I believe this content should be integrated into the methodology section, specifically under data analysis.
· For greater clarity, I would appreciate receiving documents detailing the evaluation conducted by the expert judges regarding the pertinence, clarity, and representativeness of the items.
· I would also like to ask whether the structural equation model (SEM) has been represented with regression weights or standardised regression weights.
· Furthermore, I suggest including a table detailing the association between the elements and the factors, along with the regression weights and standardised regression weights. I believe this information would significantly enhance the reader’s understanding and accessibility to the results.
· In relation to section 3.4, the purpose of this analysis is not entirely clear. I would appreciate clarification regarding its objective and relevance in the context of the study.
Discussion:
In the discussion section, I recommend expanding the bibliographic review by incorporating relevant studies at both national and international levels. This will allow for better contrast and contextualisation of the results obtained, thereby reinforcing the impact and significance of your research.
I trust that these comments will be useful in strengthening the quality of your work. Despite the interest generated by the topic, I regret to inform you that, in its current state, the manuscript does not meet the quality standards required by our journal, and I must therefore communicate its rejection.
Yours sincerely
