Paula C. Neves1,2
Carla Serrão2,3
Fátima Sousa-Pereira2,4
Inês Marques Bessa2Tatiana Sarmento2
Cláudia Andrade1,2*- 1Instituto Politecnico de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
- 2Instituto Politecnico do Porto Centro de Investigacao e Inovacao em Educacao, Porto, Portugal
- 3Instituto Politecnico do Porto, Porto, Portugal
- 4Instituto Politecnico de Viana do Castelo, Viana do Castelo, Portugal
Illegitimate tasks, though increasingly studied in organizational behavior, remain underexplored in schools, especially among Portuguese teachers. Assessing them is crucial, as they may undermine teachers’ roles, increase stress, and harm well-being and effectiveness. The Bern Illegitimate Tasks Scale (BITS) is a self-report tool assessing perceptions of illegitimate tasks—those needless or unrelated to one’s role—categorized as unreasonable or unnecessary. This study adapted the BITS for Portuguese teachers. The scale showed good factorial validity and internal consistency for both unnecessary and unreasonable task subscales. Confirmatory analysis supported a two-factor model with good fit, and multiple-group analyses confirmed configural metric invariance across teacher samples. Thus, the Portuguese BITS demonstrates solid psychometric properties and is suitable for research with Portuguese teachers.
Introduction
In daily professional activities, individuals are often required to perform tasks that they feel are not aligned with their role expectations, or that are completely unnecessary due to their redundant nature. Semmer et al. (2010) refer to such tasks as ‘illegitimate tasks’: duties assigned to employees but perceived as outside their formal responsibilities. They are categorized as unreasonable—outside occupational norms and duties—or unnecessary, meaning they ‘should not have to be carried out at all because they do not make sense’ (Semmer et al., 2010).
In recent years, illegitimate tasks have gained attention as a key source of work stress, harming employees’ mental health and well-being (Ding and Kuvaas, 2023). Illegitimate tasks can be understood within the framework of the SOS (Stress-as-Offence-to-Self) theory, which posits that preserving self-image is a basic need and threats to self-esteem create psychological tension (Semmer et al., 2007). According to this theory, work tasks are perceived as illegitimate, whether unnecessary or unreasonable, signal disrespect toward employees and may threaten their professional identity. This threat may cause ‘stress-as-disrespect (Semmer et al., 2007) negatively affecting employees’ health and well-being (Semmer et al., 2015, 2019).
The personal and work-related consequences of performing (IT) illegitimate tasks have been examined across different countries (e.g., China: Ouyang et al., 2022; Sweden: Anskär et al., 2022; Turkey: Akyurek and Can, 2022) and in various economic sectors, including healthcare (e.g., Moncayo-Rizzo et al., 2024), policing (Fein and McKenna, 2022), and education (Fila et al., 2023). Findings consistently show that IT negatively affects individuals and organizations, with research linking it to burnout across sectors (Munir et al., 2017; Semmer et al., 2015; Werdecker and Esch, 2021). Moreover, IT has been linked to increased work stress (Semmer et al., 2015) and a range of negative outcomes including poor sleep quality (Pereira et al., 2014), altered cortisol levels (Kottwitz et al., 2013), and end-of-day states and withdrawal behaviors (Sonnentag and Lischetzke, 2018). Research also shows that IT triggers negative emotions—resentment, anger, and irritability (Semmer et al., 2015; Stocker et al., 2010; Munir et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2018)—and affects life beyond work by increasing work–family conflict (Andrade and Neves, 2024; Zhao et al., 2025).
At the organizational level, IT can foster counterproductive behaviors, such as workplace deviance (Wan et al., 2021), cyberloafing (Ma and Xie, 2024), and other forms of counterproductive work behavior (Schulte-Braucks et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2018).
However, the legitimacy of a task is context-dependent, shaped by the circumstances under which it is performed and by an individual’s perception of their role responsibilities (Semmer et al., 2007). A task is perceived as illegitimate only when is imposed highlighting that legitimacy is not an inherent quality of the task itself but is attributed by the worker within a given situation. Recent studies conducted in the Portuguese context show that, after the aggregation of schools of different educational levels into clusters—a process that intensified the centralization of decisions and the formalization/standardization of rules and procedures—there was a significant increase in the tasks assigned to teachers. This increase mainly affects tasks of an administrative nature, often perceived by teachers as bureaucratic (Alonso et al., 2022; Oliveira et al., 2022; OECD, 2018; Varela et al., 2018). Although school bureaucracy is not, in itself, necessarily coercive or harmful (Hoy and Sweetland, 2001), it is known that in highly bureaucratized organizations with reduced autonomy, workers tend to perform tasks without understanding their relevance or control over the objectives they aim to achieve (Ingersoll, 2005), which can lead to the perception of such tasks as illegitimate. Portuguese reports (Alonso et al., 2022) show that the overload associated with bureaucratic procedures that consume time, generate fatigue, and are often considered useless, is not always accompanied by clarification about their relevance, which can reinforce the feelings about their uselessness and lead to the perception of their illegitimacy. This highlights that although the concept of illegitimate tasks is relatively recent, the literature consistently recognizes it as a salient workplace stressor, associated with a wide range of adverse consequences for both employee well-being and organizational functioning. Additionally, several studies on teachers’ work have highlighted the overload of administrative tasks imposed on Portuguese teachers, as well as their high levels of stress, which exceed the average recorded across OECD countries (European Commission, EACEA, and Eurydice, 2021; OECD, 2018). Considering that illegitimate tasks constitute occupational stressors with significant impacts on emotional, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions, on physical and mental health, and on work–family relations (Qin, 2022), and given that associations between both BITS factors and emotional exhaustion have already been documented in a Swedish sample (Stengård et al., 2024), it is essential to continue validating the instrument for use in different countries, thereby strengthening the consolidation of research in this field.
Illegitimate tasks and the teaching profession
Although teaching often raises debates about role boundaries (Gaikhorst et al., 2017; Shavard, 2023), studies across countries (Akyurek et al., 2020; Shaya et al., 2024; van Niekerk et al., 2021) show that teachers also report unnecessary and unreasonable tasks (e.g., performing repetitive tasks across different platforms, handling duties that should be assigned to administrative staff). Such tasks are a source of stress and negatively affect well-being (Shaya et al., 2024; Ali et al., 2018). These effects can include depression, turnover, stress, anxiety, burnout, and impacts on teachers’ work identity (Chapana and Vásquez, 2024). Akyurek and Can (2022) highlighted that unnecessary tasks reduce professional identification and perceived prestige, while unreasonable tasks mainly harm well-being. Faupel et al. (2016) found that only unnecessary tasks negatively affect self-assessed performance, promoting unproductive behaviors and lowering teachers’ sense of work meaningfulness. Although some studies use qualitative methodology (van Niekerk et al., 2021; Faupel et al., 2016) to study IT in teaching populations, a large proportion of studies use the BITS in its original form (Semmer et al., 2007), whether among higher education faculty (Fila et al., 2023), private school teachers (Shaya et al., 2024), or teachers from various levels of education simultaneously (Akyurek and Can, 2022). Considering that teaching is a specific profession and the BITS was not designed for use with teachers, this study aims to validate the BITS questionnaire for use with teachers in the Portuguese educational context.
The BITS has already been adapted for use with Portuguese speakers (Neves et al., 2023).
However, Portugal’s educational system is unique, with school clusters integrating multiple levels and kindergartens under centralized management, which may influence IT perceptions. Validation is therefore needed to test the scale’s structure and item interpretation in this context. This study thus evaluates the robustness of the BITS with Portuguese teachers.
Methods
Sample
The study included 345 teachers (83.3% female) with a mean of 50 years old (M = 50). Most held a bachelor’s (60.5%) or master’s degree (35.8%), with an average of 23.6 years’ experience (SD = 11.03). The majority worked at the main school site (62.2%) and in public education system (65.9%).
Of the teachers, 41.8% had a legally reduced schedule based on age and years of service. Most were permanent staff members (65.9%), with 22.1% on temporary contracts, and 12% belonged to a pedagogical zone staff. Participants taught across departments: 22.1% in Mathematics and Experimental Sciences, 21.8% in Languages, 20.3% in the 1st cycle of basic education, 16.3% in Arts, 10.6% in Social Sciences and 8.9% in Preschool Education. A majority (65.9%) were teaching at the 2nd or 3rd cycles of basic education, or at secondary, vocational, or higher education levels.
Regarding health status, 42.7% rated it as fair, while 15.5% reported it as poor or very poor. Most participants reported having children under their care (45%) and indicated an average commuting time from work to home of 35.92 min (SD = 28.53).
Bern illegitimate task scale (BITS)
The BITS (Semmer et al., 2010), is a self-report measure composed of 8 items organized in two dimensions: unreasonable tasks (4 items) and unnecessary tasks (4 items) (Table 1). The items are answered on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (from “never” to “frequently”). A sample item for unreasonale tasks “Do you have work tasks to take care of which you believe should be done by someone else.” and for unnecessary tasks “Do you have work tasks to take care of, which keep you wondering if they have to be done at all” The total scale had an internal consistency of α = 0.89. The subscales for unnecessary and unreasonable tasks showed internal consistency coefficients of 0.82 and 0.91 respectively, indicating high reliability (Marôco, 2014).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Data collection procedures
Data was collected through a questionnaire created using the Google Forms platform. The instrument was reviewed by multiple team members and underwent a pilot test focused on assessing clarity, relevance, and initial comprehension through participant feedback prior to dissemination. The online survey was distributed by email to teachers from three Portuguese Schools of Education (Coimbra, Porto, Viana do Castelo) and via social media through outreach to professional teaching webpages or associations using snowball convenience sampling; eligibility required at least one year of experience as a preschool educator or teacher. Participation was anonymous, and all individuals provided their informed consent to participate in the study. Informed consent was mandatory to start the questionnaire. Contact details for questions and further information regarding the research were provided. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Polytechnic of Porto (PA06/CE/24). Data collection occurred between September 30th and December 9th of 2024.
Data analysis
Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS (version 29) and Jamovi (version 2.3.28). As a preliminary step, descriptive statistical analyses were performed. The normality of the variables was assessed based on guidelines for skewness (< |3|) and kurtosis (< |10|), as recommended by Kline (2016). Additionally, a univariate outlier analysis was conducted, using a standardized score below 3.29 as the reference (Kline, 2016). Regarding the reliability of the BITS scale, its internal consistency and that of its factors were analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α), with values equal to or greater than 0.60 considered acceptable (Cronbach, 1951). To examine the structure of the BITS scale, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted based on the original two-factor model proposed by Semmer et al. (2010). In accordance with Kline’s (2016) recommendations, the fit of the confirmatory models was assessed using the following fit indices: the normed chi-square ratio (χ2/df; Wheaton et al., 1977), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990). A good overall model fit is indicated when χ2/df is less than 2, the CFI is greater than 0.90, and the RMSEA falls between 0.05 and 0.08 (Marôco, 2014).
Additionally, measurement invariance was tested using Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across groups defined by four different work-related variables: years of service, the presence of supervisory or leadership position, reduced working hours, and workplace location. Configural, metric, and scalar invariance models were tested sequentially. The instrument was considered non-invariant if the following criteria for variation (Δ) in fit indices between models were met, following the hierarchical order of constraints (i.e., configural, metric, and scalar): ΔCFI ≤ − 0.010, ΔRMSEA ≥ 0.015, ΔSRMR ≥ 0.010 (Chen, 2007; Cheung and Rensvold, 2002; Svetina et al., 2019).
Results
Descriptive analyses
The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test indicated that the data did not follow a normal distribution (p < 0.001). Nevertheless, skewness (Sk = −0.53) and kurtosis (K = −0.11) values fell within the acceptable range for normality. No outliers or missing data were detected in the sample.
Descriptive statistics for the overall BITS scale and its subscales are presented in Table 1. The mean score for the total BITS scale was 3.75 (SD = 0.82), corresponding to responses between “sometimes” and “often.” For the subscales, the mean score for unnecessary tasks was 4.00 (SD = 0.79), while the unreasonable tasks subscale had a mean score of 3.50 (SD = 1.07).
BITS scale structure validation
The initial model, consisting of 8 items and two factors, demonstrated poor fit indices, with most values deviating substantially from the reference intervals, χ2(19) = 217, p < 0.001; χ2/df = 11.42; CFI = 0.89; RMSEA = 0.17; SRMR = 0.058. To improve model fit, modification indices were examined, revealing a significant covariance between the measurement errors of items 1 and 2. Both items focus on questioning the necessity or meaningfulness of work tasks, which can lead respondents to answer them in a similar way beyond what the underlying factor alone would predict. Incorporating this covariance resulted in improvement of the indices but the overall model fit remained with poor fit, χ2(18) = 113, p < 0.001; χ2/df = 6.28; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.12; SRMR = 0.05. A subsequent analysis of the modification indices revealed a significant covariance between the error terms of items 7 and 8. These items capture an emotional discomfort associated with specific work tasks, creating shared variance that is not fully explained by the factor alone. After including this covariance, the revised model demonstrated a substantially better fit, χ2(17) = 44.2, p < 0.001; χ2/df = 2.6; CFI = 0.985; RMSEA = 0.07; SRMR = 0.034.
The final model structure is represented in Figure 1. The figure displays the standardized factor loadings for each item, the measurement errors and the inter-factor correlation between the constructs. Factor loadings for the Unnecessary Tasks factor range from 0.58 to 0.81, while those for the Unreasonable Tasks factor range from 0.76 to 0.95, indicating that all items load substantially on their respective constructs. The inter-factor correlation between the two factors is 0.66, suggesting a moderate association while maintaining distinctiveness between the two constructs.
Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis of the BITS with standardized loadings and inter-factor correlation.
Regarding convergent and discriminant validity for the 8-item model, the composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) for the factors Unnecessary Tasks and Unreasonable Tasks were 0.821 and 0.539, and 0.911 and 0.721, respectively. These results demonstrate good internal consistency (CR > 0.7) and adequate convergent validity (AVE > 0.5), suggesting that the items reliably measure their intended constructs (Hair et al., 2014).
To test model consistency across subgroups, measurement invariance was examined for four variables. For Years of Service, three groups were compared: up to 10 years, 10–20 years, and over 20 years. Configural invariance was supported, indicating that the model structure was consistent across groups, χ2(51) = 81.5, p = 0.004; χ2/df = 1.60; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.07; SRMR = 0.04. However, metric invariance, referring to the equality of factor loadings, was not verified, ∆χ2(63) = 17.1, p = 0.003. Next, invariance was tested between teachers with and without a Leadership Role. Configural invariance was again supported, indicating consistent model structure, χ2(34) = 68.7, p < 0.001; χ2/df = 2.02; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.08; SRMR = 0.04. Yet, metric invariance was not verified, ∆χ2(40) = 3.2, p = 0.001. Invariance was also examined based on teachers’ Workplace Location—whether they worked at the main school or in a peripheric school. Configural invariance was supported, χ2(34) = 72.9, p < 0.001; χ2/df = 2.14; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.08; SRMR = 0.04, however, metric invariance was not, ∆χ2(40) = 6.3, p < 0.001. Invariance was also tested between teachers with and without Reduced Working Hours. In this case, configural invariance was not supported, indicating that the model structure differs across groups, χ2(38) = 241, p < 0.001; χ2/df = 6.34; CFI = 0.89; RMSEA = 0.18; SRMR = 0.06. Since metric invariance was not supported across the four subgroups, indicating that the factor loadings were not equivalent, scalar invariance was not examined for these subgroups.
Discussion
The present study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the BITS scale in a sample of teachers, focusing on its factor structure, internal consistency, and measurement invariance across groups defined by work-related variables. Overall, the findings provide support for the validity and reliability of the instrument in this context. Results showed a two-factor structure (unnecessary tasks and unreasonable tasks) with an adequate fit. The differentiation between unnecessary and unreasonable tasks reinforces the theoretical rationale for the two-factor structure of the scale. Moreover, the confirmatory factor analysis results initially showed poor fit for the original two-factor model. However, after allowing for error covariances between items 1 and 2, and between items 7 and 8, the model demonstrated acceptable fit indices. This suggests that while the two-factor model proposed by Semmer et al. (2010) is largely applicable, certain items may share variance beyond their underlying constructs, potentially due to similarities in item wording or content overlap. This finding is consistent with validation studies in other cultural and occupational contexts, which have also required minor model adjustments to achieve satisfactory fit (e.g., Ma and Peng, 2019). Nonetheless, the high internal consistency coefficients observed for the overall scale and its subscales indicate that the BITS remains a reliable measure of illegitimate tasks in this population. The observation that unnecessary tasks arise more frequently than unreasonable tasks suggests that teachers are routinely assigned activities that, although extraneous to core pedagogical objectives, have become institutionalized within school cultures or policy routines. Such institutionalization may signal a structural form of disregard for teachers’ professional time and expertise, consistent with the theoretical premises of the Stress-as-Offense-to-Self (SOS) model (Semmer et al., 2007). Moreover, the absence of measurement invariance among teachers working reduced hours raises questions regarding how institutional role expectations are recalibrated under varying workload arrangements. Teachers with reduced hours may be subject to distinct configurations of role definitions and responsibilities, which in turn shape their evaluative judgements concerning what constitutes legitimate tasks. In fact, the results of the measurement invariance analysis raise some important considerations that should be noted. Configural invariance was supported across the groups (i.e., years of service, leadership roles, and workplace location) suggesting that the overall factorial structure of the BITS is stable across these subgroups. Yet, metric invariance was not established for these variables, indicating that the strength of the factor loadings differs between groups. This implies that teachers with different professional trajectories or roles may not interpret the scale items in the same way, limiting direct comparability of scores across these groups. For instance, those in leadership positions may perceive certain tasks as more legitimate due to their managerial responsibilities, whereas teachers with more years of service may interpret task assignments differently based on accumulated experience and expectations. The most critical result emerged in relation to reduced working hours. In this case, even configural invariance was not supported, suggesting that the basic factor structure of the BITS does not hold consistently across these groups. This finding suggests that teachers with reduced workloads experience different organizational expectations, which may shape how they judge task legitimacy. It raises questions about whether the conceptualization of illegitimate tasks applies equally to both groups, or whether contextual adaptations of the instrument are needed.
Overall, findings show both strengths and limitations of the BITS scale. After minor refinement, it demonstrated good consistency and factorial validity, supporting its use with teachers. However, because our data comes from a non-probabilistic snowball convenience sample likely to over-represent more digitally connected, the generalizability of these findings to the wider teacher population is limited. Yet, the absence of full invariance warns against comparing subgroups, especially those with and without reduced working hours. Future research should investigate potential sources of non-invariance, such as differences in organizational structures, role definitions, or cultural interpretations of task legitimacy. Additionally, qualitative studies employing semi-structured interviews or focus groups to examine how teachers subjectively interpret particular tasks as illegitimate could complement these findings by exploring how teachers perceive unnecessary and unreasonable tasks in their daily work. Longitudinal research would also further enable the assessment of how illegitimate tasks influence mental health, intentions to leave the profession, and performance trajectories over time. Additional studies could evaluate whether interventions such as professional development or organizational restructuring attenuate perceptions of illegitimate tasks. Finally, it will be important to extend the application of the scale to diverse cultural and linguistic contexts, with particular attention to Lusophone educational settings.
In conclusion, this study contributes to the growing literature on illegitimate tasks by validating the BITS scale in the educational sector. While the results confirm its reliability and partial construct validity, they also underscore the importance of testing measurement equivalence before making group comparisons. Addressing these psychometric challenges will strengthen future research on the implications of illegitimate tasks for teachers’ well-being and school organizational functioning. Despite these limitations, the BITS constitutes an important instrument for school leaders and education policymakers seeking to assess task allocation and identify sources of role strain. For instance, the scale can be used alongside systematic audits of task-assignment policies, and integrated into broader institutional initiatives aimed to reinforcing professional boundaries. In addition, the BITS may serve as a diagnostic tool for designing targeted interventions intended to reduce administrative overload and enhance teachers’ professional autonomy. Briefly, the BITS may be used at the school level to identify patterns of administrative overload and inform task redistribution, and at the policy level to highlight how centralized procedures shape perceptions of task legitimacy.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
Participation was anonymous, and all individuals provided their informed consent to participate in the study. Informed consent was mandatory to start the questionnaire. Contact details for questions and further information regarding the research were provided. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Polytechnic of Porto. Data collection occurred between September 30th and December 9th of 2024.
Author contributions
PN: Investigation, Software, Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Supervision, Visualization, Project administration, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Formal analysis, Resources, Validation, Methodology. CS: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. FP-P: Writing – review & editing. IB: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. TS: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. CA: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Software, Writing – original draft, Resources, Validation, Data curation, Project administration, Conceptualization, Visualization, Methodology, Formal analysis.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Akyurek, S. S., and Can, O. (2022). Illegitimate tasks and occupational outcomes: the impact of vertical collectivism. Evid. Based HRM. 10, 155–173. doi: 10.1108/EBHRM-02-2021-0025
Akyurek, S., Zargham Ullah Khan, D., Mehta, A. M., Naqvi, F. N., and But, J. M. (2020). Strategies adopted by teachers against illegitimate tasks: qualitative research involving Turkish education sector. PalArch's J. Archaeol. Egypt Egyptol. 17, 6670–6684. doi: 10.1108/EBHRM-02-2021-0025
Ali, G., Hameed, W., and Naveed, F. (2018). The effect of task illegitimacy on the wellness of employees. UCP Manag. Rev. 2, 5–20.
Alonso, R., Romão, P., and Delgado, P. (2022). Burocracia docente en Portugal: conocer para actuar Professorado, revista de curriculum e formacion del profesorado 26, 341–365. doi: 10.30827/profesorado.v26i2.21268
Andrade, C., and Neves, P. C. (2024). Illegitimate tasks and work–family conflict as sequential mediators in the relationship between work intensification and work engagement. Adm. Sci. 14:39. doi: 10.3390/admsci14030039
Anskär, E., Falk, M., and Sverker, A. (2022). ‘But there are so many referrals which are totally … only generating work and irritation’: a qualitative study of physicians’ and nurses’ experiences of work tasks in primary care in Sweden work tasks in primary care in Sweden. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care 40, 350–359. doi: 10.1080/02813432.2022.2139447,
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107, 238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238,
Chapana, C. E. P., and Vásquez, M. E. G. (2024). Illegitimate tasks and their association with burnout in the educational context. Role of job identity. Cienc. Psicol. 18, 1–12. doi: 10.22235/cp.v18i2.3771
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 14, 464–504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheung, G. W., and Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 9, 233–255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16, 297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555
Ding, H., and Kuvaas, B. (2023). Illegitimate tasks: a systematic literature review and agenda for future research. Work Stress. 37, 397–420. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2022.2148308
European Commission, EACEA, and Eurydice (2021). Teachers in Europe: Careers, development and well-being (Eurydice report) Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Faupel, S., Otto, K., Krug, H., and Kottwitz, M. A. (2016). Stress at school: a qualitative study on illegitimate tasks during teacher training. Front. Psychol. 7, 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01410.,
Fein, E. C., and McKenna, B. (2022). Depleted dedication, lowered organisation citizenship behaviours, and illegitimate tasks in police officers. J. Manage. Organ. 30, 1264–1286. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2021.68
Fila, M., Semmer, N., and Kern, M. (2023). When being intrinsically motivated makes you vulnerable: illegitimate tasks and their associations with strain, work satisfaction, and turnover intention. Occup. Health Sci. 7, 189–217. doi: 10.1007/s41542-022-00140-w
Gaikhorst, L., Beishuizen, J., Roosenboom, B., and Volman, M. (2017). The challenges of beginning teachers in urban primary schools. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 40, 46–61.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2014) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC
Hoy, W. K., and Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: the meaning and measure of enabling school structures. Educ. Adm. Q., 2001 37, 296–321. doi: 10.1177/0013161012196933
Ingersoll, R. M. (2005). “The anomaly of educational organizations and the study of organizational control” in The social organization of schooling. eds. L. V. Hedges and B. Schneider (New York: Russell Sage Foundation), 91–110.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th Edn New York: The Guilford Press.
Kottwitz, M. U., Meier, L. L., Jacobshagen, N., Kälin, W., Elfering, A., Hennig, J., et al. (2013). Illegitimate tasks associated with higher cortisol levels among male employees when subjective health is relatively low: an intra-individual analysis. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 39, 310–318. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3334,
Ma, J., and Peng, Y. (2019). The performance costs of illegitimate tasks: the role of job identity and flexible role orientation. J. Vocat. Behav. 110, 144–154. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.11.012
Ma, Q., and Xie, Y. (2024). The effects of illegitimate tasks on task crafting and cyberloafing: the role of stress mindset and stress appraisal. Behav. Sci. 14. doi: 10.3390/bs14070600,
Marôco, J. (2014). Análise de equações estruturais: Fundamentos teóricos, software & aplicações. 2nd Edn. Pero Pinheiro. Report Number
Moncayo-Rizzo, J., Alvarado-Villa, G., and Cossio-Uribe, C. (2024). The impact of illegitimate tasks on burnout syndrome in a healthcare system: a cross-sectional study. Int. J. Nursing Studies Adv. 6:100185. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100185,
Munir, H., Jamil, A., and Ehsan, A. (2017). Illegitimate tasks and their impact on work stress: the mediating role of anger. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 18, 545–566.
Neves, P. C., Andrade, C., Paixão, R., and da Silva, J. T. (2023). Portuguese version of Bern Illegitimates Task Scale: adaptation and evidence of validity. BMC Psychology, 11, 27. doi: 10.1186/s40359-023-01061-1
OECD (2018). O que dizem os docentes e diretores sobre os respetivos trabalhos. Talis 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris. volume II. 1–8. doi: 10.1787/19cf08df-en
Oliveira, M., Mota, L., and Romão, P. (2022). Burocracia docente e a avaliação interna das aprendizagens: A perceção dos diretores portugueses. Sensos-e 9, 72–78. doi: 10.34630/sensose.v9i2.4304
Ouyang, C., Zhu, Y., Ma, Z., and Qian, X. (2022). Why employees experience burnout: an explanation of illegitimate tasks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19158923,
Pereira, D., Semmer, N. K., and Elfering, A. (2014). Illegitimate tasks and sleep quality: an ambulatory study. Stress. Health 30, 209–221. doi: 10.1002/smi.2599,
Schulte-Braucks, J., Baethge, A., Dormann, C., and Vahle-Hinz, T. (2019). Get even and feel good? Moderating effects of justice sensitivity and counterproductive work behavior on the relationship between illegitimate tasks and self-esteem. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 24, 241–255. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000112,
Semmer, N. K., Jacobshagen, N., Meier, L., and Elfering, A. (2007). “Occupational stress research: the stress-as-offense-to-selfperspective” in Occupational health psychology: European perspectives on research, education and practice. eds. J. Houdmont and S. McIn- tyre, vol. 2 (Norte: ISMAI Publishing), 43–60.
Semmer, N. K., Jacobshagen, N., Meier, L. L., Elfering, A., Beehr, T. A., Kälin, W., et al. (2015). Illegitimate tasks as a source of work stress. Work Stress. 29, 32–56. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2014.1003996,
Semmer, N. K., Tschan, F., Jacobshagen, N., Beehr, T. A., Elfering, A., Kälin, W., et al. (2019). Stress as offense to self: a promising approach comes of age. Occupational Health Science 3, 205–238. doi: 10.1007/s41542-019-00041-5,
Semmer, N. K., Tschan, F., Meier, L. L., Facchin, S., and Jacobshagen, N. (2010). Illegitimate tasks and counterproductive work behavior. Appl. Psychol. 59, 70–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00416.x
Shavard, G. (2023). Teachers’ collaborative work at the boundaries of professional responsibility for student wellbeing. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 67, 741–753. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2022.2042851
Shaya, N., Mohebi, L., Pillai, R., and Abukhait, R. (2024). Illegitimate tasks, negative affectivity, and organizational citizenship behavior among private school teachers: a mediated–moderated model. Sustainability 16:733. doi: 10.3390/su16020733
Sonnentag, S., and Lischetzke, T. (2018). Illegitimate tasks reach into afterwork hours: a multilevel study. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 23, 248–261. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000077,
Steiger, J. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivar. Behav. Res. 25, 173–180. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr25024,
Stengård, J., Leineweber, C., and Berthelsen, H. (2024). Illegitimate work tasks: an investigation of psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the BITS instrument and its suitability in human versus ‘non-human’ service occupations. BMC Public Health 24, 1–13. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19393-x,
Stocker, D., Jacobshagen, N., Semmer, N. K., and Annen, H. (2010). Appreciation at work in the Swiss armed forces. Swiss J. Psychol. 69, 117–124. doi: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000013
Svetina, D., Rutkowski, L., and Rutukowski, D. (2019). Multiple-group invariance with categorical out comes using updated guildlines: an illustration using M plus and the lavaan/semtools packages. Structural Equation Model. 27, 111–130. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2019.1602776
van Niekerk, Z., Goosen, S., and Adams, S. P. (2021). Illegitimate tasks of primary school teachers at selected schools in the western cape: a reality for a developing country? SA J. Ind. Psychol. 47, 1–12. doi: 10.4102/SAJIP.V47I0.182
Varela, R., Oliveira, H. M., and Rolo, D. 2018. Inquérito Nacional sobre as Condições de Vida e Trabalho na Educação em Portugal (INCVTE) fenprof: Lisboa.
Wan, W., Wang, A., and Li, L. (2021). Temporal leadership and employee workplace deviance: the role of perceived illegitimate tasks. Soc. Behav. Pers. 49. doi: 10.2224/sbp.10386
Werdecker, L., and Esch, T. (2021). Burnout, satisfaction and happiness among German general practitioners (GPs): a cross-sectional survey on health resources and stressors. PLoS One 16:e0253447. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253447
Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., and Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociol. Methodol. 8, 84–136. doi: 10.2307/270754
Zhao, L., Long, T., Hai, S., and Currie, R. A. (2025). Can't erase it from my mind: how and when daily illegitimate tasks shape employee afterwork rumination and downstream behavioral consequences. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 98:e70039. doi: 10.1111/joop.70039
Keywords: illegitimate tasks, occupational well-being, psychometric validation, scale adaptation, teachers
Citation: Neves PC, Serrão C, Sousa-Pereira F, Bessa IM, Sarmento T and Andrade C (2026) Portuguese version of Bern illegitimate task scale: validation for the teaching context. Front. Educ. 11:1713712. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1713712
Edited by:
Elisabetta Lombardi, eCampus University, ItalyReviewed by:
Agnieszka Muchacka-Cymerman, Humanitas University in Sosnowiec, PolandSofia Mastrokoukou, University of Salerno, Italy
Copyright © 2026 Neves, Serrão, Sousa-Pereira, Bessa, Sarmento and Andrade. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Cláudia Andrade, bWNhbmRyYWRlQGVzZWMucHQ=