Home⇛Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives⇛vol. 4 no. 5 (2026)

Emotional Resilience Among Filipino Public School Leaders: Development of Culturally Integrated Scale

Michael J. Froilan | Gaudencio C. Aljibe Jr

Discipline: psychology (non-specific)

 

Abstract:

Public school leaders in the Philippines operate under compounding occupational, relational, and institutional demands that existing resilience measures—developed primarily in Western, well-resourced educational systems—are ill-equipped to capture with adequate construct validity. This study developed and validated the Emotional Resilience Scale for Filipino Public School Leaders (ERS-FPSL) within an etic–emic integration framework that positions Filipino indigenous constructs as structural dimensions of resilience rather than cultural supplements. A census sample of 569 public school leaders from the Division of Northern Samar was randomly allocated to independent exploratory (n = 310) and confirmatory (n = 259) subsamples. Exploratory factor analysis with parallel analysis retention yielded a five-factor solution accounting for 66.80% of total variance: Coping Flexibility, Emotion Regulation Capacity, Emotional Recovery, Social Support, and Organizational Support, with 26 items retained for confirmatory testing. A hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis tested a threelevel model in which five first-order subscales converged onto a second-order Internal Emotional Processes factor, which, together with Social Support and Organizational Support, defined the third-order Emotional Resilience construct. The model demonstrated excellent fit (CFI = .999, TLI = .998, RMSEA = .051 [.043, .059], SRMR = .047), with all standardized loadings significant (B = .781–.979), McDonald's w = .865–.946, and Average Variance Extracted = .787–.914. These findings validate a culturally integrated, hierarchically organized model of resilience with direct implications for leadership development and human resource policy within Philippine public education.



References:

  1. Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
  2. Aulén, A.-M., Pakarinen, E., Feldt, T., Tolvanen, A., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2022). Psychological detachment as a mediator between successive days' job stress and negative affect of teachers. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 903606. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.903606
  3. Berkovich, I., & Eyal, O. (2015). Educational leaders and emotions: An international review of empirical evidence 1992–2012. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 129–167. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314550046
  4. Brown, T.A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
  5. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162). SAGE.
  6. Bulatao, J.C. (1992). Phenomena and their interpretation: Landmark essays, 1957–1989. Ateneo de Manila University Press.
  7. DeVellis, R.F., & Thorpe, C.T. (2022). Scale development: Theory and applications (5th ed.). SAGE.
  8. Eyal, O., Berkovich, I., & Yosef-Hassidim, D. (2024). Principal-teachers agreement on teachers' interpersonal emotion regulation: Relations with principals' transformational leadership,
  9. teaching staff positive collective emotions, and teaching staff organizational commitment. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 35, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00938-y
  10. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  11. Gadermann, A., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 17(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7275/n560-j767
  12. Guilaran, J., Alingasa-Aguirre, A.P., & Robles, A.M. (2025). An exploration of the dimensions of Filipino received social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 42(9), 2363– 2391. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251342884
  13. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  14. Horn, J. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
  15. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  16. Jorgensen, T.D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A.M., & Rosseel, Y. (2022). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling (R package version 0.5-6).
  17. Kaiser, H. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
  18. Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
  19. Kato, T. (2012). Development of the Coping Flexibility Scale: Evidence for the coping flexibility hypothesis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(2), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027770
  20. Kline, R.B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Press.
  21. Klusmann, U., Aldrup, K., Roloff-Bruchmann, J., Carstensen, B., Wartenberg, G., Hansen, J., & Hanewinkel, R. (2023). Teachers' emotional exhaustion during the COVID-19 pandemic: Levels, changes, and relations to pandemic-specific demands. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, Article 103908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103908
  22. Lynch, F. (1962). Philippine Values II: Social acceptance. Philippine Studies, 10(1), 82–99.
  23. Maas, J., Schoch, S., Scholz, U., Rackow, P., Schüler, J., Wegner, M., & Keller, R. (2022). Teachers' perceived time pressure, emotional exhaustion and the role of social support from the school principal. Social Psychology of Education, 25(6), 1545–1562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-022-09730-6
  24. Marsh, H., Dicke, T., Riley, P., Parker, P., Guo, J., Basarkod, G., & Martin, A. (2023). School principals' mental health and well-being under threat: A longitudinal analysis of workplace demands, resources, burnout, and well-being. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 15(3), 999–1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12423
  25. Mercado, L.N. (1994). The Filipino mind. Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
  26. Paliliunas, D., Belisle, J., & Dixon, M.R. (2022). A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of acceptance and commitment training (ACT) to increase the flexibility of teacher behavior in educational settings. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 25, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2022.04.001
  27. Pe-Pua, R., & Protacio-Marcelino, E. (2000). Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology): A legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00054
  28. Reyes, J. (2015a). Loób and kapwa: An introduction to a Filipino virtue ethics. Asian Philosophy, 25(2), 148–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2015.1043173
  29. Reyes, J. (2015b). Loób and kapwa: Thomas Aquinas and a Filipino virtue ethics [Doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven].
  30. Reyes, J. (2016). In defense of hiya as a Filipino virtue. Asian Philosophy, 26(1), 66–78.
  31. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
  32. Rungduin, T. (2014). Exploring sama and gaan ng loób in the workplace. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 3(5), 73–98.
  33. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
  34. Schornick, Z. T., & Braun, S. S. (2025). Teachers who use cognitive reappraisal to manage their emotions are more forgiving of others. Teaching and Teacher Education, Article 104854.
  35. Selmer, J., & De Leon, C. (2001). Pinoy-style HRM: Human resource management in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Business Review, 8(1), 127–144.
  36. Tablan, F. (2019). Filipino virtue ethics and meaningful work. Humanities Bulletin, 2(2), 22–38.
  37. Virtanen, A., De Bloom, J., & Kinnunen, U. (2020). Recovery experiences and well-being among teachers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(6), 468–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000205
  38. Wang, H., Burić, I., Chang, M.-L., & Gross, J. (2023). Teachers' emotion regulation and related environmental, personal, instructional, and well-being factors: A meta-analysis. Social Psychology of Education, 26(6), 1651–1689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09810-1
  39. Worthington, R., & Whittaker, T. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838.

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic