Correction: A Teacher Leadership Model Validation for In-Service Teachers

Panya Akkaraputtapong^1*Hoa Thi Mai Nguyen²Ha Thanh Ngo²Nga Thi Hang Ngo³

• ¹Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
• ²University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
• ³Tay Bac University, Sơn La, Vietnam

Correction on: Akkaraputtapong P, Nguyen HTM, Ngo HT and Ngo NTH (2025) A teacher leadership model validation for in-service teachers. Front. Educ. 10:1503997. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1503997 Adding/removing text In the published article, there were minor mistakes in the main text. The statement for factor extraction criteria was displayed as "Upon the factor extraction, the author removed the items with factor loading less than ±0.40 (Hair et al., 2019), cross-loading items with less than 0.15 difference from its highest factor loading, and items having communalities less than 40 (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006)." There were errors related to authorship reference, pronoun agreement, and expression of the item communality threshold value.A correction has been made to the section 3 Results, subsection 3.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Paragraph 3: "Principal axis factoring was performed as this study focused on scale validation (Hair et al., 2019), and promax oblique rotation was employed because the factors were expected to be correlated (Hair et al., 2019). The number of plausible factors was determined as seven based upon the theoretical foundation (Watkins, 2018). Upon the factor extraction, the authors removed the items with factor loading less than ±0.40 (Hair et al., 2019), cross-loading items with less than 0.15 difference from their highest factor loading, and items having communalities less than 0.40 (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006). Factor extraction and rotation were rerun after the removal of each item, and a total of 21 items were removed along the process. The rerun seven-factor solution revealed that two factors obtaining less than two items, which would not yield a meaningful interpretation (Williams et al., 2010). These factors and their items were thus deleted (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006), and a five-factor solution was administrated. Three more items were also then removed based on the theoretical relevance." The original version of this article has been updated. This correction ensures clarity, accuracy, and proper attribution. These are essential for maintaining the integrity of scholarly communication and upholding the collaborative nature of academic work. Clarifying the statistical threshold also supports precise replication and interpretation of the study's methodological contribution to the field.