Table 2: Hierarchal regression analysis on predicting variables of teacher efficacies.

TSETSESToSES
abcdefghijkl
ββββββββββββ

Gender.17.35−.12.08.18.08.26.20.19.21.04.11
Experience.05.12.30*.03.12.16.27.20.07.15.10.18
Education level−.13−.13.221.9.26.15−.01−.12.06−.05.02−.09
Education training.17−.15−.01−.14.10.07−.13−.15.04.13−.07.04
.07.13.18.07.16.07.12.07.05.08.01.04
F value0.881.872.77*1.032.381.001.821.020.671.130.180.54

Gender.18.31*−.12.10.24*.10,26.21.19.19.04.09
Experience.05.08.31*.03.16.18.27.16.05.12.07.16
Education level−.13−.10.23.19.15.13−.01−.10.06−.04.06−.07
Education training.17−.13−.01−.14.11.04−.13−.08.04.12−.06.05
Level of concerns.05.17.12−.20.46***.24.022.8*.13.22.52***.10
.00.03.01.04.20.06.00.07.01.05.27.01
F value0.721.832.391.305.57***1.501.441.760.701.483.95**0.52

a: GTE, b: PTE, c: decision making, d: school resource, e: parental involvement, f: community involvement, g: instructional efficacy h: student discipline management, i: create a positive climate, j: student management, k: instruction strategies, and l: classroom management.
* P < .05, **P < .01, ***P < .001.