
==== Front
BMC Psychol
BMC Psychol
BMC Psychology
2050-7283
BioMed Central London

39267178
1973
10.1186/s40359-024-01973-6
Research
Development of Chinese college students’ perception teacher differential behavior scale and its reliability and validity test
Jiang Mao-Min 1
Gu Man-li 2
Kong Yang 3
Zhang Nan zhangnansd@126.com

4
1 https://ror.org/00mcjh785 grid.12955.3a 0000 0001 2264 7233 School of Public Affairs, Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361005 China
2 https://ror.org/059gcgy73 grid.89957.3a 0000 0000 9255 8984 School of Kangda, Nanjing Medical University, Lianyungang, 222000 China
3 https://ror.org/008w1vb37 grid.440653.0 0000 0000 9588 091X School of Health Management, Binzhou Medical University, Yantai264003, China
4 grid.443652.2 0000 0001 0074 0795 Physical Education Department, Shandong Technology and Business University, Yantai264005, China
12 9 2024
12 9 2024
2024
12 4825 11 2022
28 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Objective

To compile a scale of Chinese college students’ perception of teachers’ differential behavior and to provide a reference for college students to establish correct life values, promote college students’ physical and mental health, and reduce teachers’ differential treatment.

Methods

Open-ended questionnaires and expert interviews were used to conduct interviews and correspondence with 58 college students, ten psychologists, and six psychologists to form an initial questionnaire. Then, the scale’s exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and reliability and validity test were conducted on 7053 college students from 18 universities in 6 provinces (municipalities directly under the Central Government).

Results

The Chinese college students’ perception of teachers’ differential behavior scale has two dimensions: teacher prejudice and preference. Each dimension includes three aspects: emotional feedback, behavior orientation, and opportunity privilege, and each aspect have a total of 4 items. The consistency test coefficients of each dimension and each factor of the prepared scale are all above 0.7, and the split-half reliability is above 0.6. Confirmatory factor analysis shows that the six-factor structural model fits well (χ2/df = 4.287, RMSEA = 0.066, CFI = 0.950, TLI = 0.919). Using the generalized anxiety disorder scale and the patient health questionaire-9items as empirical criteria, each factor in the scale demonstrated significant correlations with both the GAD scale and the patient health questionaire-9items.

Conclusions

The Chinese college students’ perception of teachers’ differential behavior scale has a two-dimensional six-factor structure and has good reliability and validity. It can be used as an effective tool to measure Chinese college students’ perceived teacher differential behavior.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-024-01973-6.

Keywords

College students
Comprehension of teacher differential behavior
Scale construction
Exploratory factor analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis
Reliability
Validity
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001809 National Natural Science Foundation of China 72274023 Social Science Planning Fund of Shandong Province, China22CGLJ01 Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, ChinaZR2022MG037 Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of China22YJA890037 issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Suicide has emerged as the second leading cause of death among Chinese adolescents [1]. The primary factors contributing to adolescent suicide include a lack of internalized values and external environmental pressures [2, 3]. During the phase of steady personality maturation, young college students are particularly susceptible to the influences of campus life [4]. Teachers’ behavioral orientation, particularly their differential treatment, constitutes a fundamental factor contributing to behavioral deviations in adolescents [5]. Differential teacher behavior, also known as unfair treatment, predominantly involves varying emotional or behavioral responses exhibited by teachers in their routine teaching and interactions with students [6]. Typically, such behaviors stem from teachers’ preconceived notions or attitudes shaped by their understanding of students’ diverse family backgrounds, academic performances, and personality traits, leading to differentiated treatment among students [7]. This differentiation manifests as favoring certain students while discriminating against or suppressing others [8]. Research indicates that teachers’ differential behavior significantly impacts students’ academic achievements, psychological traits, and social development. Teacher favoritism or neglect can influence students’ academic performance and motivation positively or negatively, respectively. Positive emotional support can enhance students’ self-esteem and confidence, while negative feedback may exacerbate anxiety and stress levels. Moreover, equitable treatment and constructive interactions from teachers foster students’ sense of belonging, enhance social skills, improve peer relationships, and promote the development of positive behavioral norms [9, 10].

Regarding the factors influencing teachers’ differential behavior, some scholars posit that students’ varied performances, encompassing their personalities, abilities, and family backgrounds, constitute the primary drivers [11]. However, a prevailing view among scholars suggests that teachers’ differential behaviors predominantly stem from the teachers themselves. Factors such as their personality traits, goal expectations, and behavioral orientations influence their overall assessment of students, leading to differential treatment [12, 13]. Research indicates that teachers with high self-efficacy are more inclined towards treating students as independent learners, aiming to influence their learning styles and address disruptive behaviors [14–16]. Conversely, studies have also found that teachers experiencing higher levels of job burnout and stress exhibit reduced tolerance towards students’ individualized performances, often resulting in differential behaviors [17]. In terms of perceiving teachers’ differential behaviors, studies highlight that students’ responses and experiences primarily reflect teachers’ instructional practices and daily educational interactions. Students’ emotional and behavioral changes, along with their perceptions, serve as indicators of teachers’ conscious or unconscious differential behaviors [18]. Therefore, students’ perceptions offer an objective means to quantify teachers’ differential behavior. As direct recipients of teacher actions, students observe firsthand the variations in classroom interactions, emotional responses, and resource allocations. Their experiential insights provide authentic and varied feedback, crucial for revealing the nuances of teachers’ differential treatment, whether intentional or unintentional. Consequently, such feedback forms a robust and genuine empirical basis for further research endeavors.

There are limited measurement tools available for assessing teachers’ differential behavior both domestically and internationally. Brophy et al. pioneered the use of a dual-observation system to quantify teachers’ differential behaviors based on interaction frequency and emotional communication in the classroom [19]. Subsequently, Weinstein developed the Teacher Treatment Inventory (TTI) [20] from students’ perspectives, widely utilized abroad primarily for evaluating teachers’ instructional practices, albeit lacking emotional factors. Chinese university education emphasizes quality and advocates for integrating cultural education with ideological and emotional development. Babad et al. expanded the dimension of emotional support in teachers’ differential behavior, developing the Perceived Teacher Behavior Questionnaire (PTBQ) [21]. However, this questionnaire is critiqued for its limited item count, uneven distribution, and incomplete coverage, resulting in limited adoption. Chinese scholar Fan Liheng addressed these gaps by formulating the Teacher Differential Behavior Scale, tailored to the realities of primary and secondary school students in China. This scale, evaluated from the student’s viewpoint, encompasses guidance, feedback, opportunity, and emotional aspects [22]. Nonetheless, the characteristic evaluation of teachers’ differential treatment lacks an objective measurement of students’ perceptions of such behaviors. Moreover, significant distinctions exist between college students and those in primary and secondary education. College students navigate a critical developmental phase from late adolescence to early adulthood, pivotal for shaping individual personalities, values, and lifestyles. This phase underscores academic advancement and independence in living, fostering heightened psychological and social maturation that enhances their ability to discern and respond to environmental stimuli. College students’ increased autonomy necessitates managing academic pursuits, personal responsibilities, social interactions, and crucial life decisions. Their autonomy also enables them to appraise the impact of differential teacher behavior more accurately, offering a nuanced perspective for research. Consequently, developing a measurement tool, such as the “perception of teacher differential behavior among young college students,” tailored to Chinese socio-cultural contexts, becomes imperative. Such a tool not only aids in understanding and improving college students’ psychological well-being but also guides enhancements in teaching effectiveness and educational quality. Understanding students’ evaluations of teacher behavior assists educators in refining instructional methods and attitudes, fostering a more equitable educational environment, and mitigating unintended disparities. Furthermore, research into college students’ perceptions of differential teacher behavior informs evidence-based educational policy formulation and implementation. By comprehensively exploring students’ experiences and needs, policymakers can devise rational strategies to promote educational equity, quality, and holistic student development effectively.

From the perspective of college students’ self-perception, this study selected 7,053 college students from 18 universities across 6 provinces and municipalities as participants. Employing both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the study aimed to delineate the structure of the Teacher Differential Behavior Scale. The findings are anticipated to serve as a foundational tool in mitigating teachers’ differential treatment, fostering the cultivation of appropriate life values among college students, and promoting their overall physical and mental well-being. Acknowledging the prolonged duration of university education and the substantial variability in individual developmental trajectories, the study encompassed both undergraduate (bachelor’s) and postgraduate students.

Materials and methods

Participants

From September to October 2022, using convenience sampling, six provinces (Shanghai, Jiangsu, Shandong, Anhui, Yunnan, and Gansu) were selected based on their GDP. Within these provinces, 18 colleges and universities were chosen, representing different levels of higher education (key undergraduate, general undergraduate, and junior college). Each institution distributed 400 questionnaires, totaling 7,200, with 7,053 valid responses recovered, resulting in a recovery rate of 97.96%. The sample comprised 3,032 males and 4,021 females. Participants were randomly divided into two groups, one of 3,526 and the other of 3,527, based on the initial serial number of their questionnaire (odd or even) to meet the research requirements. These groups were subjected to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), respectively, to determine the structure of the Perceived Teacher Differential Behavior Scale. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Kangda University of Nanjing Medical University (NO.2022-1) and the Medical Ethics Committee of Binzhou Medical University (NO.2022 − 280), and all participants signed the informed consent.

Questionnaire preparation process

Open-ended questionnaire and expert interviews

The initial perception teacher differential behavior Scale was developed using literature review and open-ended questionnaires. The open-ended questionnaire covered four main aspects: (1) What do you think teacher differential treatment refers to, based on your own experience? (2) Have you ever experienced differential treatment from a teacher, and if so, in what ways? (3) How do you think teachers’ differential behaviors manifest? (4) What qualities do you believe define a good teacher? Convenience sampling selected 58 college students from five universities in China, including 26 students from double first class universities, 18 from regular undergraduate institutions, and 14 from vocational colleges. Semi-structured online interviews were conducted with these participants, with their consent for audio recording obtained. The responses from these open-ended interviews were used to identify dimensions of perceived differential teacher behaviors and to formulate initial survey questionnaires. Additionally, a convenience sample of 10 psychology experts and 6 clinical psychologists participated in a questionnaire survey to define the construct, delineate its content, and establish measurement indicators for perceived teacher differential behavior. After two rounds of expert consultations, it was agreed that teachers’ differential behavior is primarily reflected in the fairness and impartiality of their treatment of students, encompassing two dimensions: prejudice and preference. Students perceive teachers’ differential behaviors mainly through emotional feedback, opportunity privilege, and behavior orientation.

Prepare the initial questionnaire

Based on the results of open-ended interviews and expert consultations, and drawing on Brophy and Good’s teacher expectancy cycle model, Weinstein’s teacher treatment inventory, and Babad’s teacher behavior questionnaire, we plan to develop a college students’ perception teacher differential behavior scale. This scale will encompass two dimensions: teacher bias and teacher favoritism. Each dimension will initially include items addressing teachers’ emotional feedback, opportunities granted, and behavior orientation. After compiling the initial questionnaire, a pilot survey will be conducted among sophomore college students to ensure that the content of each item is appropriate and comprehensible. Following revisions to the wording of the questionnaire, the initial test questionnaire will consist of 25 items, using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neutral, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree).

Efficiency standard measuring tool

Research suggests that differential treatment by teachers can lead to psychological stress and anxiety among students. Those who perceive themselves as being treated negatively or unfairly may experience heightened concerns about their academic performance and social interactions, potentially triggering or exacerbating symptoms of anxiety. Additionally, studies have shown that students who perceive differential teacher behavior may also experience reduced self-esteem, feelings of helplessness, and a pessimistic outlook. Students who are exposed to such negative environments over the long term may develop symptoms of depression as a result. To establish the construct validity of the perception of teacher differential behavior scale, anxiety and depression scales are used as external criteria for validation. A significant positive correlation between scores on the perception of teacher differential behavior scale and those on anxiety and depression scales would indicate a substantial relationship between the perception of teacher differential behavior and students’ psychological well-being. Utilizing anxiety and depression scales as external criterion measures helps verify whether the perception of teacher differential behavior scale effectively distinguishes students who perceive differential treatment and facilitates a deeper understanding of the potential negative psychological impacts of such treatment [23–25].

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD-7)

The scale, developed by Spitzer et al. [26], contains seven items designed to evaluate various aspects of anxiety: tension and anxiety, uncontrollable worry, excessive worry, inability to relax, inability to sit still, irritability, anger, and fear. The scale employs a scoring method ranging from 0 to 3, with responses indicating frequency from “not at all” to “almost every day.” Higher scores reflect greater levels of anxiety, with scores of 10–14 indicating moderate anxiety and 15–21 indicating severe anxiety. In this study, the scale demonstrated a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.965, indicating high internal consistency.

Patient health questionaire-9items (PHQ-9)

Developed by Kroenke et al. [27], this scale measures respondents’ feelings of depression over the past two weeks. The scale comprises nine items, assessing aspects such as loss of interest, low mood, sleep disturbances, fatigue, eating disorders, feelings of inferiority, difficulty concentrating, psychomotor retardation, and suicidal ideation. Each item is rated on a four-point Likert scale, from “never” (0 points) to " almost every day " (3 points). The total score, derived from summing the individual item scores, indicates the severity of depression, with higher scores reflecting greater levels of depression. In this study, the PHQ-9 scale demonstrated a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.950, indicating high internal consistency.

Data analysis

SPSS 22.0 was used for item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and reliability and validity test, and Mplus 8.3 was used for confirmatory factor analysis of the scale.

Results

Project analysis

With a sample of 3526 college students as participants, correlations between scores of each dimension and the total score were examined in the initial questionnaire. The Pearson correlation coefficients between each item and the total score exceeded 0.3, indicating a moderate level of correlation and suggesting good discriminant validity. Additionally, all items demonstrated critical ratio (CR) values in the discriminant validity test that reached significance at the 0.001 level, affirming their robustness in distinguishing between constructs.

Factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis

Based on a sample of 3526 participants, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was conducted to assess the suitability of factor analysis, yielding a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy at 0.962, indicating appropriateness for factor analysis. Subsequently, principal component analysis was performed using the maximum variance method, and a rotated factor loading matrix was obtained. Each factor was required to meet criteria including communalities greater than 0.3, eigenvalues exceeding 1, factor loadings above 0.40, and loading predominantly on a single factor. Following these criteria, 24 items were retained, forming two dimensions, with factor loadings and communalities detailed in Table 1. Exploratory factor analysis extracted two common factors, contributing to a cumulative variance of 76.576%. Factor one was named “teacher preference” and included 12 items, and factor two was named “teacher prejudice” and included 12 items.

Table 1 Exploratory factor analysis results of understanding teachers’ differential behavior

Project	Factors and Loading Values	Commonality	
Factor 1	Factor 2	
V21 The head teacher/counselor/tutor often criticizes me in front of others as being lazy and useless	0.960		0.922	
V24 head teacher/counselor/tutor often throws tantrums at me without me knowing why.	0.957		0.917	
V23 The head teacher/counselor/tutor often treated me in a way that embarrassed me.	0.956		0.916	
V19 The class teacher/counselor/tutor once punished me for no reason.	0.954		0.911	
V20 head teachers/counselors/tutors often tell me that they don’t like my performance in school.	0.953		0.911	
V22 If something happened, I was often the only one among my classmates to blame.	0.950		0.904	
V18 I was often regarded as a “whipping boy” or a black sheep by the head teacher/counselor/tutor at school.	0.946		0.898	
V15 The head teacher/counselor/tutor often punished me more than I deserved.	0.900		0.810	
V14 The head teacher/counselor/tutor used to beat me or train me in front of others.	0.897		0.805	
V17 The head teacher/counselor/tutor tube makes me embarrassed to nag in front of others about something I have said or done.	0.893		0.804	
V16 I find the class teacher/counselor/tutor inaccessible.	0.767		0.628	
V13 The class teacher/counselor/tutor punished me even for minor faults.	0.696		0.493	
V7 If I am facing a difficult task, I can feel the support from the head teacher/counselor/mentor.		0.892	0.814	
V6 When something goes wrong, I can feel the class teacher/counselor/tutor trying to encourage me and give me some comfort.		0.885	0.809	
V10 I feel that the class teacher/counselor/tutor respects my views.		0.884	0.814	
V11 I feel a warm, considerate and affectionate feeling with the head teacher/counselor/tutor.		0.881	0.781	
V8 The class teacher/counselor/mentor tried to encourage me to be the best.		0.877	0.773	
V9 The class teacher/counselor/tutor always showed me that they loved me.		0.862	0.744	
V12 The head teacher/counselor/tutor can listen and tolerate that I have different opinions from them.		0.862	0.763	
V3 The class teacher/counselor/tutor always influences me subtly and makes me a great person.		0.857	0.737	
V5 The class teacher/counselor/tutor’s punishment to me was fair and appropriate.		0.788	0.658	
V1 I can feel that he (she) likes me very much through the words of the class teacher/counselor/tutor.		0.779	0.607	
Compared with other students, the head teacher/counselor/tutor in V2 favors me more.		0.684	0.519	
The V4 class teacher/counselor/mentor can give me something that other students can’t.		0.609	0.439	
Eigenvalues	10.551	7.827	—	
Explanation rate (76.576%)	42.132	34.444	—	

In addition, the Bartlett test was conducted on the two dimensions of “teacher preference” and “teacher prejudice,” yielding KMO values of 0.954 and 0.966, respectively. Exploratory factor analysis was then performed, extracting three dimensions for both “teacher preference” and “teacher prejudice.” The contribution rates for these dimensions were 82.143% and 91.785%, respectively. Combining the two dimensions resulted in the formation of six common factors. The first factor was named “preference-emotional feedback” (F1), the second “preference-behavior orientation” (F2), the third “preference-opportunity privilege” (F3), the fourth “prejudice-emotional feedback” (F4), the fifth “prejudice-behavior orientation” (F5), and the sixth “prejudice-opportunity privilege” (F6). Each factor included four items, as detailed in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2 Exploratory factor analysis results of teachers’ preference behavior

Project	Factors and Loading Values	Commonality	
Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	
V6 When something goes wrong, I can feel the class teacher/counselor/tutor trying to encourage me and give me some comfort.	0.829			0.864	
V11 I feel a warm, considerate and affectionate feeling with the head teacher/counselor/tutor.	0.808			0.819	
V9 The class teacher/counselor/tutor always showed me that they loved me.	0.730			0.804	
V1 I can feel that he (she) likes me very much through the words of the class teacher/counselor/tutor.	0.701			0.851	
V10 I feel that the class teacher/counselor/tutor respects my views.		0.874		0.860	
V7 If I am facing a difficult task, I can feel the support from the head teacher/counselor/mentor.		0.835		0.856	
V8 The class teacher/counselor/mentor tried to encourage me to be the best.		0.781		0.785	
V3 The class teacher/counselor/tutor always influences me subtly and makes me a great person.		0.626		0.767	
V4 The class teacher/counselor/mentor can give me something that other students can’t.			0.881	0.825	
V12 The head teacher/counselor/tutor can listen and tolerate that I have different opinions from them.			0.861	0.824	
V2 Compared with other students, the head teacher/counselor/tutor in favors me more.			0.806	0.825	
V5 The class teacher/counselor/tutor’s punishment to me was fair and appropriate.			0.760	0.775	
Eigenvalues	6.230	2.180	1.446	—	
Explanation rate (82.143%)	49.192	20.89	12.05	—	

Table 3 Exploratory factor analysis results of teachers’ prejudice behavior

Project	Factors and Loading Values	Commonality	
Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	
V24 head teacher/counselor/tutor often throws tantrums at me without me knowing why.	0.877			0.951	
V23 The head teacher/counselor/tutor often treated me in a way that embarrassed me.	0.873			0.948	
V16 I find the class teacher/counselor/tutor inaccessible.	0.865			0.961	
V20 head teachers/counselors/tutors often tell me that they don’t like my performance in school.	0.853			0.935	
V13 The class teacher/counselor/tutor punished me even for minor faults.		0.898		0.934	
V21 The head teacher/counselor/tutor often criticizes me in front of others as being lazy and useless		0.879		0.956	
V14 The head teacher/counselor/tutor used to beat me or train me in front of others.		0.658		0.843	
V17 The head teacher/counselor/tutor tube makes me embarrassed to nag in front of others about something I have said or done.		0.625		0.865	
V22 If something happened, I was often the only one among my classmates to blame.			0.863	0.934	
V19 The class teacher/counselor/tutor once punished me for no reason.			0.840	0.928	
V18 I was often treated as a “whipping boy” or black sheep by the head teacher/counselor/tutor at school.			0.814	0.911	
V15 The head teacher/counselor/tutor often punished me more than I deserved.			0.630	0.849	
Eigenvalues	7.894	1.663	1.457	—	
Explanation rate (91.785%)	44.804	23.819	23.163	—	

Teacher preference refers to the evident favoritism or more positive attitudes and behaviors displayed by teachers towards certain students during interactions. This preference may be based on students’ personal characteristics, academic performance, personality traits, or other factors. Teacher prejudice typically involves unfair or inconsistent behaviors and attitudes exhibited by teachers towards different students. Specifically, teacher prejudice can be defined as differential treatment based on students’ characteristics such as academic achievements, gender, race, socioeconomic background, observed during classroom interactions or other student engagements. This differential treatment may be intentional or unintentional. Emotional feedback primarily encompasses the emotional responses and attitudes displayed by teachers during interactions with students. Such emotional feedback includes expressions, behaviors, and verbal responses exhibited by teachers towards different students. Positive emotional feedback involves praise, encouragement, support, care, enthusiastic interactions, while negative emotional feedback may include criticism, rebuke, indifference, neglect, negative body language, among others. Behavior orientation pertains to specific actions and strategies employed by teachers towards different students in teaching or other contexts. These actions and strategies reflect teachers’ attitudes, expectations, and levels of attention towards students, manifested through adjustments in teaching methods, variations in interaction styles, and differential allocation of resources. Opportunity privilege primarily involves teachers providing certain students with greater opportunities or special treatment compared to others during the educational process. These opportunities and privileges encompass academic opportunities, extracurricular activities, leadership roles, and preferential use of resources.

Confirmatory factor analysis

Using another sample of 3,527 college students, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the six-factor structural model of perceived teachers’ differential behaviors to test its stability. Figure 1 illustrates the standardized path coefficients. The factors “behavior orientation” and “opportunity privilege” under prejudice were combined into a single factor, resulting in “preference-behavior orientation,” “prejudice-behavior orientation,” and two other factors, “preference-emotional feedback,” and “prejudice-emotional feedback.” The CFA compared the fit indices of both the four-factor and six-factor models. The results indicated that the fit indices for the six-factor structural model were excellent, and the fit indices for the four-factor structural model were also satisfactory. Among them, the fit indices for teacher preference are as follows: χ2/df = 4.549, CFI = 0.990, TLI = 0.958, RMSEA = 0.070, SRMR = 0.062; for teacher prejudice, the fit indices are χ2/df = 8.352, CFI = 0.928, TLI = 0.907, RMSEA = 0.071, SRMR = 0.038, indicating good structural validity of both primary indicators of perception teacher differential behavior. In the second-order model, the fit indices for preference-emotional feedback are χ2/df = 5.577, CFI = 0.994, TLI = 0.983, RMSEA = 0.065, SRMR = 0.010; for preference-behavior orientation, they are χ2/df = 4.807, CFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.993, RMSEA = 0.061, SRMR = 0.006; for preference-opportunity privilege, they are χ2/df = 12.567, CFI = 0.942, TLI = 0.926, RMSEA = 0.073, SRMR = 0.069; for prejudice-emotional feedback, they are χ2/df = 6.919, CFI = 0.997, TLI = 0.990, RMSEA = 0.068, SRMR = 0.007; for prejudice-behavior orientation, they are χ2/df = 8.880, CFI = 0.982, TLI = 0.947, RMSEA = 0.071, SRMR = 0.018; for prejudice-opportunity privilege, they are χ2/df = 6.228, CFI = 0.997, TLI = 0.990, RMSEA = 0.067, SRMR = 0.005; indicating that the structural validity of the second-order model also meets appropriate levels (Table 4).

Fig. 1 Standardized roadmap of the six-factor structural model for understanding teachers’ differential behavior

Table 4 The fitting index and reliability of each dimension, six-factor and four-factor confirmatory factor analysis of the comprehension teacher Differential Behavior Scale

	χ2	df	χ2/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR	CR	Guttman split-half	
preference-emotional feedback	11.153	2	5.577	0.994	0.983	0.065	0.010	0.840	0.751	
preference-behavior orientation	9.614	2	4.807	0.998	0.993	0.061	0.006	0.929	0.936	
preference-opportunity privilege	25.134	2	12.567	0.942	0.926	0.073	0.069	0.790	0.624	
prejudice-emotional feedback	13.838	2	6.919	0.997	0.990	0.068	0.007	0.947	0.939	
prejudice-behavior orientation	17.760	2	8.880	0.982	0.947	0.071	0.018	0.911	0.894	
prejudice-opportunity privilege	12.576	2	6.288	0.997	0.990	0.067	0.005	0.963	0.963	
preference	232.031	51	4.549	0.990	0.958	0.070	0.062	0.956	0.933	
prejudice	425.959	51	8.352	0.928	0.907	0.071	0.038	0.980	0.957	
six factor	1016.005	237	4.287	0.950	0.919	0.066	0.068	0.917	—	
four factor	1323.579	246	5.380	0.933	0.892	0.072	0.073	

Reliability analysis

Using a sample of 3,527 college students, both internal consistency reliability and split-half reliability tests were conducted. The results demonstrated that the internal consistency reliability of the Comprehension Teacher Differential Behavior Scale was 0.917. Specifically, the internal consistency reliability for the teacher preference dimension was 0.956, with a split-half reliability of 0.933. For the teacher prejudice dimension, the internal consistency reliability was 0.980, with a split-half reliability of 0.957. The internal consistency reliability and split-half reliability for each factor ranged from 0.790 to 0.963 and from 0.624 to 0.963, respectively (Table 4).

Validity analysis

Construct validity

Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the six-factor structure of the Perceived Teacher Differential Behavior Scale was valid. Using data from a sample of 3,527 college students, item scores within each factor were summed. Pearson correlation analysis was then employed for pairwise comparisons within the factors. The analysis revealed that the correlations between the factors were moderate to high (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.307 to 0.767), which were lower than the correlations between each factor and its respective dimension (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.323 to 0.938). These results indicate that the six factors are independent and exhibit strong internal consistency. Furthermore, by employing the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) method to measure Discriminant Validity, it was determined that the square root of the AVE values exceeded the Pearson correlations with other related constructs, thereby confirming the presence of discriminant validity (Table 5).

Table 5 Presents the correlation matrix between each factor of the Perceived Teacher Differential Behavior Scale and the total score of the respective dimensions

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	
1.preference-emotional feedback	0.834								
2.preference-behavior orientation	0.767***	0.876							
3.preference-opportunity privilege	0.671***	0.688***	0.738						
4.prejudice-emotional feedback	-0.346***	-0.392***	-0.336***	0.912					
5.prejudice-behavior orientation	-0.307***	-0.316***	-0.326***	0.731***	0.853				
6.prejudice-opportunity privilege	-0.308***	-0.353***	-0.331***	0.761***	0.748***	0.932			
7.preference	0.922***	0.915***	0.891***	-0.434***	-0.356***	-0.388***	0.909		
8.prejudice	-0.346***	-0.357***	-0.323***	0.932***	0.926***	0.938***	-0.495***	0.932	
Note: *** P < 0.001, bold numbers on the diagonal represent the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and the lower triangle shows the Pearson correlations between dimensions

Empirical validity

The empirical validity analysis utilized the Generalized Anxiety Scale and the Depression Scale as criteria. The findings indicate a negative correlation between teacher preference and anxiety (-0.268) and depression (-0.287), whereas teacher prejudice shows a positive correlation with anxiety (0.342) and depression (-0.352). Specifically, correlations between each factor within teacher preference and anxiety/depression range from − 0.312 to -0.216, while those within teacher prejudice range from 0.317 to 0.361, all with a significance level of P < 0.001 (Table 6).

Table 6 Validation of the correlation between each factor and dimension of the comprehension

Teacher Differential behavior scale and anxiety and depression

	preference
emotional feedback	preference
behavior orientation	preference
opportunity privilege	prejudice
emotional feedback	prejudice
behavior orientation	prejudice
opportunity privilege	preference	prejudice	
GAD-7	-0.264***	-0.288***	-0.216***	0.349***	0.317***	0.341***	-0.268***	0.342***	
PHQ-9	-0.278***	-0.312***	-0.233***	0.361***	0.325***	0.350***	-0.287***	0.352***	
Note: *** P < 0.001

Invariance test

In this study, we conducted a thorough examination of measurement invariance to verify the consistency of the scales across various demographic variables (gender, age, grade, and type of school). Through the implementation of Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA), this research investigated whether the factor structures of the preference and bias scales related to teacher differential treatment remained invariant across different sub-samples. Specifically, the invariance testing was divided into three levels. Configural Invariance: Initially, it was confirmed that the basic structure of the model remained unchanged across all groups. This stage involved no constraints on factor loadings or intercepts, primarily verifying whether different groups have a common understanding of the structure of the scales. Metric Invariance: Building on the established configural invariance, constraints were applied to the factor loadings in the model to ensure that the understanding and sensitivity of responses to the items of the scale were consistent across sub-samples. The testing of metric invariance involved comparing the fit indices between the constrained and unconstrained models, commonly using indicators such as the Chi-square Difference Test, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Scalar Invariance: Further constraints were applied to the intercepts to test whether different groups had the same baseline scores on the scales. Scalar invariance is crucial for interpreting the scoring of the scales, ensuring that the scores can be compared fairly across different groups.

The results of the study indicate that across groups defined by gender, age, grade, and school type, both the teacher prejudice and preference scales, as well as their dimensional indices, demonstrated robust configural and metric invariance, with Comparative Fit Indices (CFI) exceeding 0.90 and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values below 0.08. Scalar invariance was also confirmed in most groups, evidenced by the stability of the Incremental Fit Indices, which showed minimal changes in the CFI (not exceeding 0.01) before and after the imposition of intercept constraints. The RMSEA and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) values exhibited consistent stability, indicating that the scales provide consistent and comparable scoring standards across different demographic groups. Through these systematic invariance tests, this research ensured that the scales possess equivalent measurement properties across diverse groups, thereby providing a solid foundation for further analysis and ensuring the broad applicability and accuracy of the research findings.

Discussion

To enhance the validity and reliability of the Comprehension Teacher Differential Behavior Scale, this study adheres to established procedures and standards in psychological measurement. Initially, the study draws upon dimensions and items from analogous scales, adapting them to reflect the realities of Chinese college students. Utilizing open-ended questionnaires and expert interviews, the study constructs initial questionnaires and specific items based on observed instances of comprehending teachers’ differential behaviors. Subsequent stages involve item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and empirical testing to assess the scale’s reliability and validity. These processes culminate in the formalization of a scale designed to measure Chinese college students’ perceptions of teacher differential behavior.

To ensure the scientific rigor of the scale, this study rigorously examined the Chinese college students’ perception of teacher differential behavior through a comprehensive, multi-perspective, multi-dimensional, and multi-channel approach. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that students’ perceptions of teachers’ behavior can be categorized into two distinct dimensions: teacher preference and teacher prejudice. Subsequent exploratory factor analyses conducted on these dimensions identified three factors each: emotional feedback, behavior orientation, and opportunity privilege. This structural framework aligns closely with the theoretical underpinnings of the study, resulting in the construction of a two-dimensional, six-factor scale comprising twenty-four items. In contrast to Weinstein’s teacher treatment scale abroad, which features dimensions such as “work and prescribed orientation,” “negative feedback and teacher guidance,” and “high expectations and opportunity choice,” this study introduces differentiated dimensions based on positive and negative impacts of teachers’ behavior. Specifically, emotional feedback corresponds to aspects of “negative feedback” and “high expectations,” while behavior orientation aligns with “work and prescribed orientation” and “teacher guidance.” Opportunity privilege encompasses facets of “opportunity choice,” expanding upon the original scale by addressing both positive and negative feedback in emotional interactions, diverse aspects of teachers’ behavior orientation, and multiple dimensions of opportunity privilege, including tolerance, understanding, discrimination, and isolation. These enhancements contribute to a more comprehensive and scientifically grounded measurement of teacher differential behavior perceptions among Chinese college students.

In this study, we rigorously designed and tested a psychometric scale to explore the impacts of teacher prejudice and preference on the mental health of university students, analyzing the responses from a diverse sample of 7053 participants. The student sample was stratified across various demographic variables, including age, gender, academic discipline, and institution type, ensuring that the findings could be generalized across the broader student population. This diversity is crucial in understanding the varied perceptions of teacher behavior and its psychological implications. The initial item analysis indicated all items had correlation coefficients with the total scale score greater than 0.3, confirming good discriminant validity, which suggests that the items were well-suited to differentiate between perceptions of teacher prejudice and preference. In the exploratory factor analysis, item loadings on their respective factors—teacher prejudice and teacher preference—ranged from 0.6 to 0.9. This high level of loading demonstrates that the items are highly representative of the underlying constructs they are intended to measure. Following EFA, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to validate the factor structure proposed by the EFA. The results were highly encouraging, with all principal components showing significant pairwise correlations, suggesting that the dimensions of teacher prejudice and preference are interrelated yet distinct constructs. The Composite Reliability (CR) for each factor exceeded 0.7, and split-half reliability scores were above 0.6, indicating that the scale is reliable for repeated use in diverse settings. These metrics underscore the internal consistency and stability of the scale. Structural validity was assessed using fit indices such as the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), both of which exceeded 0.9, while the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) were maintained below 0.8. These results affirm the scale’s structural integrity and its ability to accurately measure the constructs. Discriminant validity was further supported by moderate to high correlations among factors, which were distinct enough to validate each factor’s uniqueness. Empirical validity was robust, as demonstrated by significant correlations of the teacher prejudice and preference dimensions with students’ reported levels of anxiety and depression, highlighting the real-world applicability and relevance of the scale. The scale’s invariance across different demographic groups was tested to ensure that it measures the same constructs in the same way across different groups of students. This is crucial for applying the findings universally across the student population. The results confirmed that the scale is invariant, suggesting that the impacts of teacher prejudice and preference on student mental health are consistent across genders, ages, and other demographic variables. This study’s findings highlight the significant impact of teacher differential treatment on student mental health and underscore the necessity for educational institutions to address these behaviors proactively. The validated scale provides a valuable tool for identifying and quantifying the perceptions of teacher behavior, thereby facilitating targeted interventions aimed at improving the educational environment and student well-being.

In higher education teaching, teacher preference and teacher prejudice are critical dimensions that directly influence students’ learning experiences and educational equity. Addressing these issues requires systematic improvements in emotional feedback, behavior orientation, and opportunity privilege by university educators. Firstly, teachers’ emotional feedback significantly impacts students’ confidence and motivation. It is crucial to avoid teacher preference and prejudice in emotional feedback. Teachers should strive to provide consistent emotional feedback to all students, avoiding overt favoritism or neglect towards any individual. For instance, in praising, encouraging, or criticizing students, feedback should be based on specific behaviors and efforts rather than personal preferences or preconceived biases. When providing constructive criticism, teachers should maintain a supportive attitude and avoid undue harshness or leniency based on biases. Specific guidance should be offered to help students improve rather than merely dismissing their efforts. Secondly, teachers’ behavior orientation in teaching methods, classroom interactions, and student life directly affects students’ learning opportunities and engagement. Teachers should ensure balanced interaction with all students in the classroom, avoiding excessive attention or neglect towards certain individuals. Diverse questioning and interaction methods should encourage active participation from every student. In personalized teaching, teachers should assess each student’s needs and potential fairly, providing differentiated guidance and support based on academic requirements rather than personal preferences or biases. Ensure all students have equal access to personalized learning resources and assistance. Furthermore, opportunity privilege involves teachers’ decisions in resource and opportunity allocation, which profoundly impact students’ academic and career development. Teachers should adhere to transparent and fair standards when distributing academic resources, extracurricular opportunities, and recommendation letters. Open opportunities and selection criteria to all students ensure equal competitive opportunities. Active encouragement and support for students from diverse backgrounds and abilities should be promoted in various academic and extracurricular activities, avoiding limitations on certain students’ development opportunities due to biases. For example, teachers can implement open application and selection procedures to provide more students with opportunities to showcase their talents and potentials. Overall, university educators should remain vigilant against the unfair impacts of teacher preference and prejudice on students through fair and consistent emotional feedback, balanced classroom interactions, and transparent opportunity allocation. By creating a more just and inclusive learning environment, educators not only enhance educational equity and quality but also stimulate students’ motivation and potential for growth in a fair environment. Continuous reflection and improvement in teaching practices are essential for achieving educational equity and excellence in higher education.

Limitations

While the Comprehension Teacher Differential Behavior Scale demonstrates robust reliability and validity, certain areas for enhancement should be acknowledged. Firstly, the study’s sample selection was limited to 18 colleges and universities without considering students’ majors, potentially introducing sample bias. Secondly, the inclusion of key universities, public universities, and junior colleges excluded institutions without graduate programs, leading to a disproportionately small sample size of graduate students. Exploring the differential behavior between postgraduates and their supervisors is crucial due to the unique dynamics in this relationship. Future research could develop a separate scale focusing on differential behavior in postgraduate supervision contexts. Furthermore, teachers’ differential behavior reflects contemporary characteristics, necessitating ongoing refinement of its definition in alignment with current educational contexts.

In this study, exploratory factor analysis was employed primarily to investigate the dimensions and interrelationships among questionnaire items based on data, while also examining and improving the quality of the items. The study divided the same sample of respondents into two groups using odd and even numbers for exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, respectively. This approach demonstrated feasibility by enabling internal cross-validation of data within a relatively small sample, thereby conserving resources and time in data collection and partially controlling for internal consistency within the sample. However, this design also carries significant limitations. Because modifications to items and dimensions cannot be made after the exploratory factor analysis stage, suboptimal factor structures may enter the confirmatory factor analysis stage, potentially affecting model fit and the accuracy of research conclusions. Furthermore, this grouping method may compromise sample representativeness, particularly in smaller sample sizes, making it challenging to fully capture the characteristics of the entire population and impacting the robustness and external validity of the results. Therefore, despite its practicality under resource constraints, future research should consider conducting exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses on independent samples and allowing for item adjustments as necessary to enhance the validity and reliability of research findings.

Conclusions

The perception teacher differential behavior scale for Chinese university students is a crucial assessment tool designed to reveal and quantify teachers’ differential treatment of students during the educational process. Through systematic measurement, this scale aids educational researchers and administrators in gaining deeper insights into how teacher preferences and prejudices manifest in educational practices and their impacts on students. Comprising dimensions such as emotional feedback, behavior orientation, and opportunity privilege, each dimension consists of four items.

The scale covers two main dimensions: teacher prejudice and teacher preference, each encompassing variations in teachers’ behaviors across emotional feedback, behavior orientation, and opportunity privilege. These measurements not only illuminate teachers’ differential attitudes and behaviors towards students but also provide essential data for identifying unfair practices in education. Teachers’ emotional feedback directly influences students’ psychological well-being and academic motivation, with fair and consistent emotional feedback enhancing students’ self-esteem and learning enthusiasm. Behavior orientation determines students’ participation opportunities and learning experiences in the classroom, where balanced interaction and personalized teaching support facilitate optimal student development. Opportunity privilege concerns whether students can access academic resources and development opportunities equitably, and transparent and equitable opportunity allocation helps eliminate hidden inequalities in education. By employing the perception teacher differential behavior scale, educational institutions can identify instances of teacher preferences and prejudices during instruction, enabling targeted interventions to enhance educational equity and quality. This approach not only improves teaching practices, fostering fairness and equity in educational environments, but also enhances students’ motivation and academic performance, thereby contributing to overall educational advancement.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author contributions

Maomin Jiang had full access to, verified all the data in the study, and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of data analysis. Conceptualization and data curation: Maomin Jiang, Man-li Gu. Supervision: Nan Zhang. Methodology: Maomin Jiang, Yang Kong. Statistical analysis and programming: Maomin Jiang, Yang Kong. Software: Maomin Jiang. Visualization: Maomin Jiang. Writing-first draft: all authors. Writing-review & editing: all authors. Administrative, technical, or material support: all authors. Obtained funding: Nan Zhang, Yang Kong.

Funding

This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (no.72274023), Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of China (no.22YJA890037), Social Science Planning Fund of Shandong Province, China (no.22CGLJ01), Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China (no.ZR2022MG037).

Data availability

The data sets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Human ethics and consent to participate declarations

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Kangda University of Nanjing Medical University (NO.2022-1) and the Medical Ethics Committee of Binzhou Medical University (NO.2022 − 280), and all participants signed the informed consent.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. He Y Zhang Y Cui X Epidemiology of major childhood adversities and its effect on depression and suicide attempts in Chinese College students J Affect Disord 2021 281 331 7 10.1016/j.jad.2020.12.031 33341646
He Y, Zhang Y, Cui X, et al. Epidemiology of major childhood adversities and its effect on depression and suicide attempts in Chinese College students. J Affect Disord. 2021;281:331–7. 10.1016/j.jad.2020.12.03133341646 10.1016/j.jad.2020.12.031
2. Grande E Vichi M Alicandro G Suicide among adolescents in Italy: a nationwide cohort study of the role of family characteristics Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2020 30 7 1037 45 10.1007/s00787-020-01591-8 32617776
Grande E, Vichi M, Alicandro G, et al. Suicide among adolescents in Italy: a nationwide cohort study of the role of family characteristics. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;30(7):1037–45. 10.1007/s00787-020-01591-832617776 10.1007/s00787-020-01591-8
3. Rostad WL Basile KC Clayton HB Association among television and computer/video game use, victimization, and suicide risk among U.S. high school students J Interpers Violence 2018 36 5–6 2282 305 10.1177/0886260518760020 29502506
Rostad WL, Basile KC, Clayton HB. Association among television and computer/video game use, victimization, and suicide risk among U.S. high school students. J Interpers Violence. 2018;36(5–6):2282–305. 10.1177/088626051876002029502506 10.1177/0886260518760020
4. Lassila ET Estola E Kelchtermans G Coping with emotionally challenging expectations: Japanese beginning teachers and their relationships with students’ parents’ Teachers Teach 2021 27 5 423 37 10.1080/13540602.2021.1933417
Lassila ET, Estola E, Kelchtermans G, et al. Coping with emotionally challenging expectations: Japanese beginning teachers and their relationships with students’ parents’. Teachers Teach. 2021;27(5):423–37. 10.1080/13540602.2021.193341710.1080/13540602.2021.1933417
5. Harris MJ Rosenthal R Snodgrass SE The effects of teacher expectations, gender, and behavior on pupil academic performance and self-concept J Educational Res 1986 79 3 173 9 10.1080/00220671.1986.10885672
Harris MJ, Rosenthal R, Snodgrass SE. The effects of teacher expectations, gender, and behavior on pupil academic performance and self-concept. J Educational Res. 1986;79(3):173–9. 10.1080/00220671.1986.1088567210.1080/00220671.1986.10885672
6. She HC Fisher D The development of a questionnaire to describe science teacher communication behavior in Taiwan and Australia Sci Educ 2000 84 6 706 26 10.1002/1098-237x(200011)84:6<706::aid-sce2>3.0.co;2-w
She HC, Fisher D. The development of a questionnaire to describe science teacher communication behavior in Taiwan and Australia. Sci Educ. 2000;84(6):706–26. 10.1002/1098-237x(200011)84:6%3C706::aid-sce2%3E3.0.co;2-w10.1002/1098-237x(200011)84:6<706::aid-sce2>3.0.co;2-w
7. Gale A Examining black adolescents’ perceptions of in-school racial discrimination: the role of teacher support on academic outcomes Child Youth Serv Rev 2020 116 105173 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105173
Gale A. Examining black adolescents’ perceptions of in-school racial discrimination: the role of teacher support on academic outcomes. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;116:105173. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.10517310.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105173
8. Zhu M Urhahne D Rubie-Davies CM The longitudinal effects of teacher judgement and different teacher treatment on students’ academic outcomes Educational Psychol 2017 38 5 648 68 10.1080/01443410.2017.1412399
Zhu M, Urhahne D, Rubie-Davies CM. The longitudinal effects of teacher judgement and different teacher treatment on students’ academic outcomes. Educational Psychol. 2017;38(5):648–68. 10.1080/01443410.2017.141239910.1080/01443410.2017.1412399
9. Kyere E Karikari I Teegen BC The associations among teacher discrimination, parents’ and peer emotional supports, and African American Youth’s School bonding Families Society: J Contemp Social Serv 2020 101 4 469 83 10.1177/1044389419892277
Kyere E, Karikari I, Teegen BC. The associations among teacher discrimination, parents’ and peer emotional supports, and African American Youth’s School bonding. Families Society: J Contemp Social Serv. 2020;101(4):469–83. 10.1177/104438941989227710.1177/1044389419892277
10. Liao SR Lu YL Chen LY Influence of students’ academic performance and teachers’ perception of control on teachers’ differential behavior Psychol Dev Educ 2016 32 03 330 8 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2016.03.10
Liao SR, Lu YL, Chen LY, et al. Influence of students’ academic performance and teachers’ perception of control on teachers’ differential behavior. Psychol Dev Educ. 2016;32(03):330–8. 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2016.03.1010.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2016.03.10
11. Schafer ES Perceived discrimination in school: a longitudinal look at the impact on expectations and health J Racial Ethnic Health Disparities 2022 10.1007/s40615-022-01262-1
Schafer ES. Perceived discrimination in school: a longitudinal look at the impact on expectations and health. J Racial Ethnic Health Disparities. 2022. 10.1007/s40615-022-01262-110.1007/s40615-022-01262-1
12. Jiang S Dong L The effects of teacher discrimination on depression among migrant adolescents: mediated by school engagement and moderated by poverty status J Affect Disord 2020 275 260 7 10.1016/j.jad.2020.07.029 32734918
Jiang S, Dong L. The effects of teacher discrimination on depression among migrant adolescents: mediated by school engagement and moderated by poverty status. J Affect Disord. 2020;275:260–7. 10.1016/j.jad.2020.07.02932734918 10.1016/j.jad.2020.07.029
13. Bruneau E Szekeres H Kteily N Beyond dislike: blatant dehumanization predicts teacher discrimination Group Processes Intergroup Relations 2019 23 4 560 77 10.1177/1368430219845462
Bruneau E, Szekeres H, Kteily N, et al. Beyond dislike: blatant dehumanization predicts teacher discrimination. Group Processes Intergroup Relations. 2019;23(4):560–77. 10.1177/136843021984546210.1177/1368430219845462
14. Civitillo S Göbel K Preusche Z Disentangling the effects of perceived personal and group ethnic discrimination among secondary school students: the protective role of teacher–student relationship quality and school climate New Dir Child Adolesc Dev 2021 2021 177 77 99 10.1002/cad.20415 33942957
Civitillo S, Göbel K, Preusche Z, et al. Disentangling the effects of perceived personal and group ethnic discrimination among secondary school students: the protective role of teacher–student relationship quality and school climate. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2021;2021(177):77–99. 10.1002/cad.2041533942957 10.1002/cad.20415
15. Iqbal Z, Saleem K, Arshad HM. Measuring teachers’ knowledge of student assessment: development and validation of an MCQ test. Educational Stud. 2020:1–18. 10.1080/03055698.2020.1835615
16. Song H Liu B Luo L Effects of parent-child relationship and perceived teacher differential behavior on learning burnout among left-behind junior high school students in rural areas: a follow-up study Chin J Health Psychol 2022 30 05 763 7 10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2022.05.025
Song H, Liu B, Luo L, et al. Effects of parent-child relationship and perceived teacher differential behavior on learning burnout among left-behind junior high school students in rural areas: a follow-up study. Chin J Health Psychol. 2022;30(05):763–7. 10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2022.05.02510.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2022.05.025
17. Maene C, D’hondt F, Van Lissa CJ, et al. Perceived teacher discrimination and depressive feelings in adolescents: the role of national, regional, and heritage identities in flemish schools. J Youth Adolesc. 2022;12. 10.1007/s10964-022-01665-7
18. Lorenz G Subtle discrimination: do stereotypes among teachers trigger prejudice in their expectations and widen ethnic achievement gaps? Soc Psychol Educ 2021 24 2 537 71 10.1007/s11218-021-09615-0
Lorenz G. Subtle discrimination: do stereotypes among teachers trigger prejudice in their expectations and widen ethnic achievement gaps? Soc Psychol Educ. 2021;24(2):537–71. 10.1007/s11218-021-09615-010.1007/s11218-021-09615-0
19. Brophy JE Good TL Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for children’s classroom performance: some behavioral data J Educ Psychol 1970 61 5 365 74 10.1037/h0029908
Brophy JE, Good TL. Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for children’s classroom performance: some behavioral data. J Educ Psychol. 1970;61(5):365–74. 10.1037/h002990810.1037/h0029908
20. Babad E Teachers’ differential behavior Educational Psychol Rev 1993 5 4 347 76 10.1007/bf01320223
Babad E. Teachers’ differential behavior. Educational Psychol Rev. 1993;5(4):347–76. 10.1007/bf0132022310.1007/bf01320223
21. Weinstein RS Marshall HH Sharp L Pygmalion and the student: age and classroom differences in children’s awareness of teacher expectations Child Dev 1987 58 4 1079 10.2307/1130548 3608657
Weinstein RS, Marshall HH, Sharp L, et al. Pygmalion and the student: age and classroom differences in children’s awareness of teacher expectations. Child Dev. 1987;58(4):1079. 10.2307/11305483608657 10.2307/1130548
22. Fan LH, Jin SH. The structure of teachers’ differential behavior and its scale development [J]. Chin J Clin Psychol. 2008(02):131–4.
23. Liu X Cao X Gao W Does low self-esteem predict anxiety among Chinese college students? Psychol Res Behav Manage 2022 15 1481 7 10.2147/prbm.s361807
Liu X, Cao X, Gao W. Does low self-esteem predict anxiety among Chinese college students? Psychol Res Behav Manage. 2022;15:1481–7. 10.2147/prbm.s36180710.2147/prbm.s361807
24. Liu XQ Guo YX Zhang WJ Influencing factors, prediction and prevention of depression in college students: a literature review World J Psychiatry 2022 12 860 73 10.5498/wjp.v12.i7.860 36051603
Liu XQ, Guo YX, Zhang WJ, et al. Influencing factors, prediction and prevention of depression in college students: a literature review. World J Psychiatry. 2022;12:860–73.36051603 10.5498/wjp.v12.i7.860
25. Liu XQ Guo YX Xu Y Risk factors and digital interventions for anxiety disorders in college students: stakeholder perspectives World J Clin Cases 2023 11 1442 57 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i7.1442 36926387
Liu XQ, Guo YX, Xu Y. Risk factors and digital interventions for anxiety disorders in college students: stakeholder perspectives. World J Clin Cases. 2023;11:1442–57.36926387 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i7.1442
26. Spitzer RL Kroenke K Williams JB A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder Arch Intern Med 2006 166 10 1092 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 16717171
Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092. 10.1001/archinte.166.10.109216717171 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
27. Kroenke K Spitzer RL Williams JB The PHQ-9 J Gen Intern Med 2001 16 9 606 13 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x 11556941
Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–13. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x11556941 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
