According to the Fisher r-to-z transformation (Lenhard & Lenhard, 2014), there was a significant correlation difference between factors F1 and F2 (p = .01), revealing a higher correlation with the ULSMV estimator ([r.sub.12] = .691) than with the MLER estimator ([r.sub.12] = .598).
The adjustment with MLER for the three-factorial model following the item distribution by Moliner (2004) was worse than that for the three-factorial item distribution in which item "D.1" loads in the procedural factor.
Results indicated that whereas adjustment of the model with MLER was acceptable, results for the ULSMV meant a mediocre adjustment.
In order to check if the loading factors depend on the sample's characteristics, several EFA both with MLER and ULSMV were performed, splitting the sample up with regards to gender, the job position, and the type of organization (Table 7).
This three-factorial structure has been found using both estimation methods, MLER and ULSMV, with the RMSEA value suggesting a worse adjustment of the model with the ULSMV, as well as a higher correlation between the distributive and the procedural factors for this estimator than for the MLER.
Preliminary analyses from the Common Planning Time Project of the MLER SIG of the American Educational Research Association show that the most common activity teachers engage in during CPT meetings is discussing individual student needs (Mertens, Flowers, Anfara, & Caskey, 2010).
The Center for Prevention Research and Development at the University of Illinois is a collaborating partner with the MLER SIG on this project and retains all right and ownership of the survey instrument utilized in this study.