Teacher-Student Relationship Quality and Classroom Climate From the Student Perspective: Adaptation of the SPARTS-E in the Spanish Context7.
Laura Garcia-Rodriguez, Charo Reparaz, Concha Iriarte
PMID 41420300WHAT IT FOUND
The Spanish student-reported teacher-relationship scale works for Closeness and Conflict but fails for Negative Expectations.
Teachers and students agreed on conflict but not on closeness, as teachers view it through classroom management while students view it through emotional availability.
Key findings
01The SPARTS-E showed adequate internal consistency for Closeness and Conflict but poor reliability for Negative Expectations, with three items removed and one ambiguous.
02Student and teacher reports of relationship quality were largely discordant, showing no correlation for Closeness and only weak agreement for Conflict.
03Student-reported Closeness was the strongest predictor of positive classroom climate, while Conflict was negatively associated with all climate dimensions.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample was non-probabilistic and convenience-based, limiting generalisability. The teacher sample was small (58 teachers) due to post-pandemic recruitment constraints, preventing cultural invariance analysis. Teacher and student data were not matched at the individual dyad level, so classroom-level aggregation may obscure individual relationship dynamics. The Negative Expectations subscale demonstrated poor internal consistency, making findings from this dimension unreliable.
Declared interests
No conflicts of interest were reported.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the lack of correlation between student and teacher Closeness as evidence that teachers are unaware of their students' feelings. The study design aggregated scores at the classroom level, which masks individual dyadic relationships, and the authors suggest the discrepancy reflects different definitions of Closeness (management vs. emotional availability) rather than a measurement failure.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →