This is an electronic reprint of the original article.

This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.

Author(s): Saloviita, Timo

Title: Measuring pre-service teachers' attitudes towards inclusive education : Psychometric

properties of the TAIS scale

Year: 2015

Version:

Please cite the original version:

Saloviita, T. (2015). Measuring pre-service teachers' attitudes towards inclusive
education : Psychometric properties of the TAIS scale. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 52 (November), 66-72. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.09.003

All material supplied via JYX is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and
duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that
material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or
print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be
offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user.
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 1

Measuring preservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: Psychometric

properties of the TAIS scale

Timo Saloviita

University of Jyvaskyla

Timo Saloviita, Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyvaskyla

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Timo Saloviita,

University of Jyvaskyla, Department of Teacher Education, P.O. Box 35, 40014 Jyvaskylan

yliopisto, Finland. E-mail: [email protected]

Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 2

Abstract

The Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education (TAIS) scale was designed to measure

pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, as defined in the Salamanca Statement of

UNESCO. The 10-item scale was developed using a sample of 185 final-year pre-service

subject teachers. It was validated in four subsequent studies with various samples of teachers

and pre-service teachers. The unidimensionality of the scale was established in all samples

except the first-year students, and its validity was confirmed in psychometric analyses. The

scale is suggested for use in intervention studies aiming to develop positive attitudes towards

inclusion among teachers and pre-service teachers.

Keywords: inclusive education, scale development, attitude, pre-service teacher, factor

analysis
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 3

Measuring Pre-service Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education: Psychometric

Properties of the TAIS Scale

1. Introduction

It has been widely acknowledged that the demands on schools and teachers are

becoming increasingly complex in the modern society (e.g. OECD, 2005). The OECD report

(p. 97) describes the new challenges facing schools as follows:

Society now expects schools to deal effectively with different languages and student

backgrounds, to be sensitive to culture and gender issues, to promote tolerance and

social cohesion, to respond effectively to disadvantaged students and students with

learning or behavioural problems.

Attempts to successfully tackle these demands have been conceptualised in the idea of

inclusive education, first launched as an international goal by the United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization in the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), and

recently defined as non-discriminatory quality education for all in a way that respects

diversity and the different needs of students (UNESCO, 2009).

The demand for inclusive education became part of the international legal framework

through the enactment of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (United

Nations, 2006). According to Article 24.1 of the convention, “State Parties shall ensure an

inclusive education system at all levels” (United Nations, 2006, p. 16). Inclusion has now

been established as a key concept in the educational policy of many international

organizations, including the United Nations (2006), UNESCO (1994), the OECD (2005), the
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 4

WHO (2011), the European Commission (2010a), The Council of the European Union (2010),

and the European Agency of Special Needs Education (EADSNE, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012).

The growing international commitment to human rights has led to the view that separate

educational facilities for diverse populations represents a threat to their equal rights as citizens.

While initially having a special focus on children with disabilities, inclusion is now used to

refer to full learner diversity, including gender, sexual orientation, ethnic, cultural, linguistic or

religious background, socio-economic status, disability and special educational needs

(European Agency of Special Needs Education, 2010, p. 7). Inclusive education has become a

vehicle for resisting all kinds of rejection, be it based on disability, race, gender, poverty or

other forms of difference.

A recent conclusion of the Council of the European Union confirmed that the excellence

of educational systems and the pursuit of social inclusion of all citizens should not be seen as

mutually exclusive but as complementary goals, stating that “successful inclusion of pupils

with special needs in mainstream settings benefits all learners” (2010, pp. 4–5). The aim is a

high performing school system committed to both equity and excellence.

The most enduring attainment of the international movement on inclusive education

might well have been the vastly increased knowledge regarding how to promote inclusion in

the classroom. The number of research articles and textbooks on inclusive education has

grown exponentially (e.g. UNESCO, 2001). This research has identified the central

importance of teacher education and especially pre-service teacher education in the pursuit of

inclusive schools (WHO, 2011; UNESCO, 2001, 2008; European Agency for Development

in Special Needs Education, 2010). The WHO World Report on Disability (2011) deemed the

appropriate training of mainstream teachers crucial in achieving confident and competent

teachers for children with diverse educational needs. According to the report, “The principles
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 5

of inclusion should be built into teacher training programmes, which should be about

attitudes and values not just knowledge and skills” (WHO, 2011, p. 222). This emphasis is in

line with empirical findings on the importance of teacher characteristics to learner

achievement. When the contributions of student, home, school, teacher, curricula, and

teaching-related variables were compared, it was found that the variables relating to the

teacher characteristics had the largest effect on learning (Hattie, 2009). In particular, the

accepting relationship towards the child has been confirmed as an influential factor associated

with good learning outcomes (Cornelius-White, 2007).

1.1 Measuring teacher attitudes towards inclusive education

In order to study the effects of teacher training programmes, it is fundamental to be able

to use psychometrically sound instruments to measure the attitudes of teachers and

pre-service teachers towards inclusive education. Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive

education have been an object of extensive study for decades (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; de

Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2011; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996) whereby the number of studies

amount to several hundred (de Boer et al., 2010). Typically, each study has used its own

method/s to measure teacher attitudes. Generally, however, these studies have not paid much

attention to the psychometric properties of their measuring instruments to the extent that the

exact wordings of the variables assessing teacher attitudes are not reported.

Attempts have also been made to construct reliable and valid scales to measure teacher

attitudes towards inclusion. The development of psychometrically sound scales is advisable

because such scales improve the reliability and validity of the measurements and provide

possibilities for comparative studies and further theoretical development. Some examples of

scales developed thus far are given in Table 1. The list is based on a preliminary,

unsystematic literature search from some main electronic databases, including ERIC,
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 6

PsycINFO, Academic Search Elite, ProQuest Education Journals, ProQuest Psychology

Journals and PsycARTICLES, using “attitudes”, “teacher”, “teacher attitudes”, “pre-service

teachers” and “inclusion” as keywords. In all, 144 studies on teachers’ or pre-service teachers’

attitudes towards inclusion were found. The means of measuring these attitudes were

examined, and the study was added to the list presented in Table 1 if the following three

conditions were fulfilled: a) the items of the attitude scale were given in the study, b) some

psychometric data on the scale was reported, for example, reliability or factor structure, and c)

the attitude scale was used in at least one other study to further examine its validity. Without

seeking a precise description of the current situation, Table 1 provides an overall picture of

some of the main instruments developed in the field.

1.2 Aim of the study

Considering the fact that a great number of scales have been developed for this purpose,

one could ask whether there is a need for additional scales. However, there are no absolute

criteria for an ideal scale measuring teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. The characteristics

of a good scale depend on several factors, including the specific purpose of the research. In

the present study, five criteria were underscored. The first criterion was construct validity. In

order to warrant good construct validity, the scale should encompass a wide array of themes

considered critical in the implementation of inclusive education. The second criterion was

brevity. The scale should be sufficiently brief to ease its enclosure into questionnaires, which

may include several other scales. However, the level of brevity should not be achieved

through reduced coverage of the target construct. The third criterion was internal consistency

as a measure of reliability. A good scale requires that the items have sufficiently high

intercorrelations with each other. This indicates that they measure the same construct. The

fourth criterion was unidimensionality. This requirement was based on the theoretical
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 7

assumption that teacher attitudes towards inclusion ideally contain only one dimension

extending from acceptance to rejection. If it is possible to construct a one-dimensional scale,

it would make further analysis simpler and more understandable. The fifth criterion was

simplicity. The items should be easy to understand and answer.

No one of the existing scales presented in Table 1 fulfilled all of the five criteria listed;

especially, unidimensionality was not acquired by any of the scales. In fact,

unidimensionality was not always a requirement because the content of some scales was

divided into distinct domains. The reliability of all scales listed in Table 1 was good. The

length of the scales varied between 12 and 30 items, and many scales were quite short.

However, the shortest scale, MTAI-SF (Stoiber, Gettinger, & Goetz, 1998), was developed

on the basis of a sample containing both parents and teachers and, therefore, did not purely

represent the perspective of teachers. The construct validity of some scales could be

questioned. The PIE scale of Moberg (1997) mainly contained items about facts and not

values, example “All students will receive appropriate education and related services in

regular education”. Such statements of fact could very well be rejected by persons who may

otherwise support inclusion. Therefore, the scale seemed to measure quite extremist attitudes

rather than a wide array of opinions.

The aim of this study was to develop a scale that would incorporate all the five criteria

set above. The planned target group for the application of the scale were pre-service and

in-service teachers. The scale development process consisted of several phases. In study I, the

new scale was constructed stepwise on the basis of psychometric analysis using a sample of

pre-service subject teachers as participants. In Finland, subject teachers work mainly at junior

secondary education level in grades 7–9. In the subsequent four studies, additional samples

were used to investigate and confirm the validity and reliability of the scale.
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 8

2. Study I: Construction of a New Scale

The first phase of the construction of the scale involved devising an initial definition of

inclusive education, writing an initial pool of items, collecting data and reducing the number

of items on the basis of stepwise psychometric analysis. Following this, the properties of the

new scale were analysed using content analysis, item analysis and analyses of dimensionality

or structure. Finally, the construct validity of the scale was evaluated.

2.1 Definition of the concept

The concept of inclusive education, having been born and spread a few years earlier in

some disability organizations, such as TASH in the US, became internationally famous

through the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994). The definition of inclusion given in the

Salamanca Statement was summarized in the second chapter of the declaration as follows:

“Those with special educational needs must have access to regular schools which should

accommodate them within a child-centred pedagogy capable of meeting these needs”

(UNESCO, 1994, p. viii). Thus, positive attitudes towards inclusive education means accepting

all children in mainstream classrooms and making necessary accommodations for them. The

concept of inclusive education incorporated the brand new idea that even those groups, such as

children with severe disabilities, who were previously unacceptable within mainstream

classrooms can and should be integrated with the provision of adequate support. The emphasis

of the concept was strongly on the outcome – actual inclusion through various means of

support – and not on the more or less speculative processes hopefully leading towards

inclusion.

2.2 Writing an initial pool of items

Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 9

A pool of survey items was developed by the author on the basis of contemporary

discussion on various dimensions of inclusive education. All of the items were meant to

measure the opinion of the respondent concerning the placement of a child with special

educational needs (SEN) either in a mainstream classroom or in a special education

classroom. In order to foster heterogeneity, different wordings and ideas were tested in

creating the pool of items. Cullen, Gregory and Noto (2010) described three critical

dimensions in the attitudes and beliefs of teachers towards inclusive education: a) attitudes

towards students in inclusive settings, b) beliefs about professional roles and responsibilities

and c) beliefs about the efficacy of inclusion. The item pool contained items from all of these

groups. Each item was written in the form of a claim to be answered using a 4-point Likert

scale with four alternatives: 1) strongly disagree, 2) disagree, 3) agree or 4) strongly disagree.

2.3 Participants and data collection

A total of 185 pre-service subject teachers were contacted during their university course

on educational psychology organized as a part of their studies in the department of teacher

education. The questionnaire was delivered to the participants at the beginning of the lecture,

and it was stressed that participation was both anonymous and voluntary and that it was

acceptable to opt out. The procedure used here and in the subsequent studies followed the

ethical standards of the National Advisory Board on Research Ethics in Finland (2009). The

questionnaire was returned by almost all students present at the lecture comprising 73% of all

students who were graded on this study module.

The mean age of the participants was 25 years (SD = 4). Among them, 75.7% were

female, and 24.3% were male. A total of 157 participants replied to all the items presented,

and 168 replied to all the items retained in the final scale.

2.4 Reduction of the number of items

Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 10

The reliability of the initial scale containing 65 items was α = .95. A stepwise reduction

of items was performed on the basis of item/total correlation coefficients and Cronbach’s alfa

coefficient until the number of items was reduced to 10. As a first step, those items whose

correlations with the sum total of the scale were less than .25 were removed from the scale.

Six items were excluded on the basis of this criterion, among them “The place of learning is

not the most important thing; the quality of teaching is”, “I rely on the high quality of

teaching in special education classrooms”, and “School integration is not a yes-or-no question

– it must be considered case by case”. These items were omitted in order to clean up the test

pattern from those items which explained very little of the total variance and apparently did

not share the same content area with other variables. After omitting these six items, the value

of Cronbach’s alfa (α) remained the same as before.

In the next phase, only those items whose correlation with the sum total of the scale

was higher than r = .600 were retained. Eleven items survived this criterion. The reliability of

the scale consisting of these items was α = .89. Among the items removed in this phase were,

for example: “If a child cannot be educated in a mainstream classroom, he should be moved

immediately to a special classroom” (r = .519), “I am willing to teach a student with special

educational needs in my classroom” (r = .528), and “More research is needed before children

with special educational needs can be placed into mainstream classrooms” (r = .521).

One item with the lowest correlation (.611) was removed from the scale: “The

education of children with mild learning problems should be arranged in mainstream

classrooms with the provision of adequate support”. The wording of this item was similar to

two other remaining items, the sole difference being the SEN category mentioned. The

omission did not change the value of the reliability of the scale.

2.5 Properties of the final scale

Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 11

The items remaining in the final scale of the “Teacher Attitudes towards Inclusive

Education Scale” (TAIS) are presented in Table 2. The reliability of the scale was α =.89. The

correlation of this 10-item scale with the original 65-item scale was r = .94, which meant that

the new scale explained 88% of the variance of the original scale. In order to arrive at a sum

total to indicate a more positive attitude towards inclusive education, the values of six items

(1, 3, 5, 6, 8) were reversed before counting them together.

2.5.1 Content analysis

A content analysis of the items indicated that four types of content remained in the

scale: a) issues concerning outcomes of inclusion, b) the rights of the child, c) the workload

of the teacher and d) general value statements on the desirability of inclusive placements

(Table 2). This richness and variety in the content strengthen the construct validity of the

scale and correspond with the analysis of Cullen, Gregory and Noto (2010) on the three

dimensions of teacher attitudes towards inclusion mentioned earlier.

2.5.2 Item analysis

The sum total distribution was slightly positively skewed with a skewness of .241 and a

standard error of .194. The value of kurtosis was .841, indicating that observations were

clustered more around the centre of the distribution compared with the normal distribution.

The mean of the items varied from 2.0 to 3.1 on a scale from 1 to 4, which meant that the

item difficulty did not vary significantly. The standard deviations of the items varied

between .67 and .80, thus guaranteeing at least a moderate variance for each item. The

intercorrelations of the test items were mostly on a moderate level, indicating that the items

were not too close to each other. The proportion of negative versus positive assertions on

inclusion was 6/4. Thus, the tendency to answer in the direction of the statement was

optimally balanced.
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 12

2.5.3 Dimensionality

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the 10-item scale in order to study its

latent dimensions. The correlations between the items were high and did not go below r =.27

in any case. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was also highly significant, Χ2 (45) = 694.417, p

= .000, indicating the suitability of data for factor analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure

of sampling adequacy was 0.90, which was excellent. The normalcy of the sum total

distribution of the scale was confirmed by the value of the skewness = -.111 while the

standard error of the skewness was .187. An initial solution using the principal axis extraction

method confirmed the strong unidimensionality of the scale. The first factor had an

eigenvalue of 5.0, explaining 44.6% of the total variance, while the eigenvalue of the second

factor remained below 1. The Cattell scree test also supported the conclusion of the

unidimensionality of the scale.

2.5.4 Validity

Test validity “refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the

interpretation of test scores entailed by proposed uses of tests” (American Educational

Research Association et al., 2002, p. 9). Validity is not a property of the measurement but has

to do with the interpretation of the test scores for the proposed uses. Therefore, a rationale

needs to be presented regarding the applicability of the test to the planned use (American

Educational Research Association et al., 2002).

The Teacher Attitudes towards Inclusion Scale (TAIS) is proposed to predict the

predisposition of an in-service or pre-service teacher to accept a child with special

educational needs into a mainstream classroom. Traditionally, attitudes have been divided

into three camps: cognitive, affective and behavioural (Hollander, 1971, p. 238). In

considerations of attitudes towards inclusive education, the cognitive component would

Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 13

contain statements on the proposed positive or negative consequences of inclusion as well as

its technical feasibility. The affective component would contain statements on the desirability

of inclusion and on its fit with other important values, for example, the rights of the child.

Finally, the behavioural component has to do with the readiness of the teacher to act

according to the expressed cognitive and affective beliefs and views and promote inclusion in

practice. This classical division, however, may not be very helpful because the three elements

are intricately intertwined.

Another way to analyse the item contents would be to ask whether they contain factual

or normative statements. The analysis of the item contents is presented in Table 2. Three

items on the scale clearly contained normative statements expressing what “should” be done

(items 2, 4 and 7). These items were value statements articulating the normative desirability

of inclusion and were theoretically the most unproblematic in relation to the construct under

measurement. Similarly, two items pertained to the “right” of the child to a certain treatment

(items 3 and 9). These items were also akin to a value rhetoric because in ordinary speech,

“rights” are typically cited metaphorically without direct reference to specific written

legislation.

Two items evaluating the workload of the teacher in inclusive education were selected

in the final scale (items 5 and 8). On an initial reading, it could seem that these items measure

a construct that differs from the desirability of inclusion. However, at least in the target group

of this scale, there was correlation between the attractiveness of inclusion and the judgements

made regarding the expected workload of teachers. The three remaining items (1, 6 and 10)

assessed the expected learning outcomes of children in different settings. These items were

fact statements which correlated with evaluations concerning the desirability of inclusion.
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 14

Even if the items were selected on the basis of a highly mechanical psychometric

procedure from the pool of 65 original items, the end result indicates richness of content and

the presence of several key themes surrounding the discussion on inclusion, such as the civil

rights of children, expected educational outcomes and the workload of teachers (Dyson, 1999;

Gunnþórsdóttir & Jóhannesson, 2014). This versatility adds to the content validity of the scale

or the extent to which the scale represents various sides of the construct of interest (American

Educational Research Association et al., 2002, pp. 18–19).

3. Study II

The aim of the second study was to extend the use of the scale from pre-service

teachers to in-service teachers and to further evaluate its psychometric properties with a fresh

sample in order to cross-validate the results. The participants of the second study were 65

in-service teachers from class levels 1 to 6 in three municipalities in Eastern Finland.

Permission for the study was first granted from the principals of the schools. Out of 38

schools, 11 accepted the invitation to participate in the study. It was explained that the object

of the study was to investigate the attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education. It was

stressed that individual teachers would not be identified and that participation in the study

was voluntary. With the help of the school staff, the questionnaires were delivered to all

teachers in the participating schools. The questionnaires were then returned by post. Of all

teachers in the study schools, 58% returned the questionnaire. Among the respondents, 72%

were women, and 28% were men. Their mean age was 45 years, with a minimum of 25 and a

maximum of 65 years.

The scoring of the items was changed from the four-item scale to a five-item scale by

adding a midpoint of “neither agree nor disagree”. This was done in order to obtain more
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 15

variance in the distribution which, in the first sample, was strongly centred on the mean. The

change in scoring was retained in all subsequent studies.

The reliability of the scale was α = .90. The principal axis factor analysis confirmed the

unidimensionality of the scale. The first factor had an eigenvalue of 5.3 and explained 49.1%

of the total variance. The Cattell scree test equally confirmed the unidimensionality of the test

structure.

4. Study III

The aim of the third study was to validate the findings of the earlier studies with yet

another sample of pre-service subject teachers. The aim was also to study the discriminant

validity of the scale with a scale measuring teacher efficacy in implementing inclusive

practices. The concept of self-efficacy is derived from Bandura who defines it as “beliefs in

one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given

attainments” (1997, p. 3). Teachers’ self-efficacy has been understood as the confidence

which teachers hold about their individual and collective capability to influence student

learning (Klassen, Tze, Betts, & Gordon, 2011). Sharma, Loreman and Forlin (2012)

developed an 18-item scale to measure teachers’ self-efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms

(TEIP).

The participants of the third study were 170 pre-service subject teachers attending the

final lecture of their university teacher education. They comprised 90% of all students

participating in the final study module. The data were collected at the start of the lesson by

means of a questionnaire. It was emphasized that participation was voluntary, confidential,

and did not affect the evaluation of the students’ study attainment. The mean age of the

participants was 26.0 years (SD = 3.1). Among them, 64.5% were female, and 35.5% were

male.
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 16

The reliability of the scale was α = .89. The principal axis factor analysis produced one

factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1. The eigenvalue of the first factor was 4.97,

confirming the unidimensionality of the scale. The Cattell scree test also confirmed this

unidimensionality. The correlation between the sum total scores of the TAIS and TEIP scales

was r = .048, indicating good discriminant validity of the TAIS compared with the construct

of self-efficacy towards inclusion (TEIP).

The confirmatory factor analysis was performed in order to test whether the expected

one-factor model of the TAIS scale obtained in the pilot study would fit the data on a new

sample of final-year pre-service subject teachers. For this purpose, the Mplus 7.3. software

and the standard missing-at-random approach (supposing that data are missing at random)

were used (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). The parameters of the models were estimated

using the full information maximum likelihood estimation with standard errors that are robust

to non-normality (MLR estimator). When estimating the parameters in the model, this

method uses all observations in a data set without imputing the missing values. The ten items

in the scale were set to load on one factor.

The results indicated that the model lacked adequate fit to the data, as measured by Chi

square statistics, χ2 (45) = 640.062, p =.000, which should be nonsignificant. However, when

the model was additionally interpreted using a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and a

Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) as fit indices, their values (CFI =.928, and TLI = .908) supported

acceptable fit, being above the value 0.9 (Bentler, 1990; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Steiger, 1990).

Finally, the root mean square error of approximation gave a result of RMSEA = .085, with

values below 0.05 denoting a good fit and values from 0.06 to 0.08 indicating a reasonable fit

(Steiger, 1990).

5. Study IV
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 17

A fourth study was performed to further analyse the psychometric properties of TAIS

with a sample of first-year educational sciences students. The convergent and divergent

validity of the scale was studied by correlating the TAIS scores with the subscales of the

SACIE-R scale (Forlin, Earle, Loreman, & Sharma, 2011). This 15-item scale measures

pre-service teachers’ perceptions in three constructs of inclusive education. The dimension of

sentiments measures comfort levels when engaging with people with disabilities; the

dimension of acceptance evaluates the acceptance of learners with different needs; and the

dimension of concerns measures possible problems, identified or expected, when

implementing inclusion. Of these dimensions, attitudes are closest to the contents of TAIS

while concerns are the most distant from it.

The participants of the fourth study were 186 students of education attending a

university lesson on educational psychology during the first year of their studies. The data

were collected at the start of the lesson by means of a questionnaire. It was explained that

participation was voluntary, confidential and did not affect the evaluation of the students’

study attainment. Among the participants, 89.2% were female, and 10.8% were male. Their

mean age was 21 years. Among them, 36% were pre-service kindergarten teachers, 28%

pre-service classroom teachers, 22% pre-service special education teachers, and 14% majored

in educational science and adult education.

The reliability of the scale was α = .81. The principal axis factor analysis produced two

factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1. The eigenvalues were 3.79 and 12.7, respectively.

After the promax rotation was performed, two items loaded high in the second factor: “The

workload of the teachers should not be augmented by compelling them to accept children

with special educational needs in their classrooms” and “Integrated children with special

educational needs create extra work for teachers in mainstream classrooms.” Thus, the second
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 18

factor expressed workload concerns while the first factor expressed accepting attitudes. The

correlation of these two factors was r = .532. The correlation of the TAIS and SACIE

attitudes subscale was r = .526**, with the SACIE concerns subscale recorded as r = -.357**

and the SACIE sentiments subscale recorded as r = -.106.

6. Study V

The aim of the fifth study was to cross-validate the results by using a sample of

final-year pre-service classroom teachers as subjects. In this study, the discriminant validity

of the scale was again measured by comparing the results with the TEIP, the scale measuring

teacher efficacy in implementing inclusive practices (Sharma, Loreman, & Forlin, 2012). The

participants were individually given the questionnaire on the occasion of their last study

requirement, the finals, during the year 2014. It was explained that participation was

voluntary, confidential and did not affect the evaluation of their study attainment. The

questionnaire was returned by 53 students. The mean age of the participants was 28.9 years

(SD = 6.5). Among them, 75.5% were female, and 24.5% were male.

The reliability of the scale was r = .90. The principal axis factor analysis produced one

factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1. The eigenvalue of the first factor was 5.37, thus

confirming the unidimensionality of the scale. The result of the Cattell scree test also

confirmed this unidimensionality. The correlation between the sum total scores of the TAIS

and TEIP scales was r = .09, indicating good discriminant validity of the TAIS compared

with the construct of self-efficacy towards inclusion (TEIP).

7. General Discussion

The present study was performed in order to develop a short, reliable and

one-dimensional scale to measure pre-service teachers’ and teachers’ attitudes towards

inclusive education as defined in the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994). The need for
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 19

such a scale was confirmed by reviewing the existing scales, which, though demonstrating

good psychometric qualities, contained several latent dimensions.

In this study, a new 10-item scale “Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education”

(TAIS) was developed, and its psychometric qualities were examined in five samples. The

original pilot study was performed with a sample of final-year pre-service subject teachers.

The subsequent samples consisted of a) in-service teachers, b) another sample of final-year

pre-service subject teachers, c) first-year students of education who were mainly pre-service

teachers and d) final-year pre-service classroom teachers.

The reliability of the scale was good for all samples, varying between α = .81 and .90.

The unidimensionality of the scale was examined by using exploratory factor analysis in four

samples and confirmatory factor analysis in one sample. Unidimensionality was

demonstrated in three samples, admitting that the confirmatory factor analysis with a second

sample of pre-service subject teachers did not provide a perfect model fit. However, even if

χ2 was significant, two other fit indices indicated that the model afforded a reasonable fit to

the data. In the sample of first-year students of education, the factor structure clearly broke

down into two dimensions, the first factor expressing attitudes and the second factor

expressing workload concerns towards inclusion. The interpretation of the differing results is

that first-year students of education could support inclusive education, and at the same time

agree on its workload problems, while among older students and in-service teachers, the

tendency to express concerns was associated with more negative attitudes towards the

desirability of inclusive education. This finding needs additional study for confirmation.

The content validity of the scale was examined by analysing the content of the items

selected for the final version. The convergent validity of the scale was demonstrated by its

positive correlation with the “Attitudes” domain in the SACIE-R scale and its negative
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 20

correlation with the “Concerns” domain in the same scale (Forlin et al., 2011). The divergent

validity of the scale was demonstrated through its low correlation with the teacher

self-efficacy scale TEIP (Sharma et al., 2012) and the “Sentiments” domain of the SACIE-R

scale (Forlin et al., 2011).

Some of the limitations of this study include the small sample size in most cases.

However, it has been shown that even samples below N = 100 can be applicable to factoring,

if, as in the studies presented here, the communalities are high, factors are well determined,

and computations converge to a proper solution (MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong,

1999). The shortness of the scale should not be considered a problem if, as in this case, the

reliability is on an acceptable level and the contents of the scale shows richness and variety.

The high correlation of the 10-item scale with the original 65-item scale indicated that it

explained the majority of the variance of a much longer scale. The validity of the TAIS scale

needs to be further confirmed in future studies using different populations. It is recommended

that the content validity and convergent validity of the scale be examined by comparing its

results with those obtained with some other scales presented in Table 1. Also, the properties of

the scale need to be studied in different teacher categories and different countries. Because the

scale was developed using a sample of pre-service teachers, its validity in the populations of

in-service teachers needs further study.

7.1 Conclusions

The TAIS scale seems to show satisfactory psychometric properties and could be

recommended as a unidimensional measure of attitudes towards inclusive education among

advanced pre-service teachers and teachers. There are several applications for this kind of

scale. Most importantly, it can be used to evaluate the outcomes of teacher training

programmes aiming to promote positive attitudes towards inclusion. The scale may prove
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 21

useful both in comparative and intervention studies around inclusive education, for example, in

developing teacher education in universities or in supporting inclusive education in schools.

Additional study is recommended concerning its applicability in different populations.

8. Acknowledgements

9. References

Alvarez McHatton, A., & McCray, E. D. (2007). Inclination toward inclusion: Perceptions of

elementary and secondary education teacher candidates. Action in Teacher Education,

29, 25–32. doi:10.1080/01626620.2007.10463457

Antonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of the opinions

relative to mainstreaming scale. Exceptional Children, 62, 139–149.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &

National Council on Measurement in Education. (2004). Standards for educational and

psychological testing. Washington DC: Author.

Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A

review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129–147.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Cochran, H. K. (1998). Differences in teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education as

measured by the scale of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive classrooms (STATIC).

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research

Association, Chicago, IL. October, 14–16.

Council of the European Union (2010, May 11). Council conclusions on the social dimension

of education and training. Brussels. Retrieved from

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/114374.pdf
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 22

Cullen, J. P., Gregory, J. L., & Noto, L. A. (2010). The teacher attitudes toward inclusion scale

(TATIS). Paper presented February 11, 2010 at the meeting of the Eastern Educational

Research Association. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509930

De Boer, A., Sip Jan Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Regular primary schoolteachers’

attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal

of Inclusive Education, 15, 331–353.

Dyson, A. (1999). Inclusion and inclusions: Theories and discourses in inclusive education. In

H. Daniels & P. Garner (Eds.), Inclusive education. World yearbook of education (pp.

36–53). London: Kogan Page.

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2009). Key principles for

promoting quality in inclusive education. Recommendations for policy makers. Odense:

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Retrieved from

http://www.european-agency.org/

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2010). Teacher education for

inclusion. International literature review. Odense: European Agency for Development in

Special Needs Education. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org/

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2011). Teacher education for

inclusion across Europe. Challenges and opportunities. Odense: European Agency for

Development in Special Needs Education. Retrieved from

http://www.european-agency.org/

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2012). Teacher education for

inclusion. Profile of inclusive teachers. Odense: European Agency for Development in

Special Needs Education. Retrieved from http://www.european-agency.org/

Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 23

European Commission (2010a, November 15). European disability strategy 2010-2020: A

renewed commitment to a barrier-free Europe. Brussels. Retrieved from

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0636:FIN:EN:PDF

Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2011). The sentiments, attitudes, and

concerns about inclusive education revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring pre-service

teachers’ perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 21, 50–

65.

Gunnþórsdóttir, H., & Jóhannesson, I. A. (2014). Additional workload or a part of the job?

Icelandic teachers’ discourse on inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive

Education, 18, 580–600.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to

achievement. London: Routledge.

Hollander, E. P. (1971). Principles and methods of social psychology (2nd ed.). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy

research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational

Psychology Review, 23, 21–43.

Larrivee, B., & Cook, L. (1979). Mainstreaming: A study of the variables affecting teacher

attitude. The Journal of Special Education, 13, 315–324.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong S. (1999). Sample size in factor

analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99.

Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 24

Moberg, S. (1997). Inclusive educational practices as perceived by prospective special

education teachers in Estonia, Finland, and the United Stated. International Journal of

Rehabilitation Research, 0, 29–40.

Moberg, S. (2003). Education for all in the North and the South: Teachers’ attitudes towards

inclusive education in Finland and Zambia. Education and Training in Developmental

Disabilities, 38, 417–428.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide. (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:

Muthén & Muthén.

National Advisory Board on Research Ethics in Finland (2009). The Ethical Principles of

Research in the Humanities and Social and Behavioural Sciences and Proposals for

Ethical Review. Retrieved from:.

http://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/eettisetperiaatteet.pdf

OECD (2005). Teachers matters. Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers.

Paris: OECD. Retrieved from

http://www.oecd.org/education/school/attractingdevelopingandretainingeffectiveteacher

s-finalreportteachersmatter.htm

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion,

1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59–74.

Sharma, U., & Desai, I. (2002). Measuring concerns about integrated education in India. Asia

and Pacific Journal on Disability, 5, 2–14.

Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement

inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12, 12–21.

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation

approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.

Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 25

Stoiber, K. C., Gettinger, M., & Goetz, D. (1998). Exploring factors influencing parents’ and

early childhood practitioners’ beliefs about inclusion. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 13, 107–124.

UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs

Education. World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality.

Salamanca, Spain, June 7–10, 1994.

UNESCO (2001). Understanding and responding to children’s needs in inclusive classrooms.

A guide for teachers. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001243/124394e.pdf

UNESCO (2008). Conclusions and recommendations of the 48th Session of the International

Conference on Education (ED/BIE/CONFINTED 48/5). Geneva: UNESCO, IBE.

Retrieved from

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Policy_Dialogue/48th_ICE/CONFIN

TED_48-5_Conclusions_english.pdf

UNESCO (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved

from http://unesdoc.UNESCO.org/images/0017/001778/177849e.pdf

United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. New York:

United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/index.html

WHO (2011). World report on disability. World Health Organization. Retrieved from

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789240685215_eng.pdf

Wilczenski, F. L. (1992). Measuring attitudes towards inclusive education. Psychology in the

Schools, 29, 307–312.

Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 26

Table 1

Scales measuring teacher attitudes towards mainstreaming or inclusive education

Study Acronym N of items Original Reliability Structure

sample

Alvarez et al., 2007 ATI 22-28 preservice α = .91 missing

Antonak & Larrivee, 19951 ORI 30 preservice α = .83 4 factors

Cochran, 1998 STATIC 20 teachers α = .89 4 factors

Cullen et al., 2010 TATIS 14 teachers α = .82 3 factors

Forlin et al., 2011 SACIE-R 15 preservice α = .74 3 factors

Larrivee & Cook, 1979 ORM 30 teachers α = .89 5 factors

Moberg, 1997, 2003 PIE 19-20 preservice α = .86 4 factors

Sharma & Desai, 2002 CIES 21 teachers & α = .91 4 factors

principals

Stoiber et al., 1998 MTAI-SF 12 teachers & α = .80 3 domains

parents

Stoiber et al., 1998 MTAI 28 teachers & α = .91 3 domains

parents

Wilczenski, 1992 ATIES 16 teachers & α = .71 - 4 factors

preservice .89

1) Revision of the ORM Scale

Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 27

Table 2

Items of the Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education Scale (TAIS): Means, Standard

Deviations and Item/Total Correlations from Study 1 (n = 168)

Item M SD r
Expected outcomes
1. Children with special educational needs learn best in their own special 2.29 .71 .67
education classes where they have specially trained teachers. (R)
6. The best result is achieved if each child with special educational needs is 2.50 .78 .77
placed in a special education classroom that best suits him/her. (R)
10. The learning of children with special educational needs can be effectively 3.05 .71 .60
supported in mainstream classrooms as well.
Rights of the child
3. It is the right of a child with special educational needs to get into a special 1.99 .80 .58
education classroom. (R)
9. A child with special educational needs should be moved to a special 2.60 .71 .61
education classroom in order not to violate his/her legal rights. (R)
Workload of the teacher
5. Teachers’ workload should not be augmented by compelling them to accept 2.12 .78 .58
children with special educational needs in their classrooms. (R)
8. Integrated children with special educational needs create extra work for 2.47 .67 .56
teachers in mainstream classrooms. (R)
Inclusion as a value
2. The education of children with emotional and behavioural problems should 2.60 .73 .60
be arranged in mainstream classrooms with the provision of adequate
support.
4. Children with attention deficit/hyperactive disorder (ADHD) should be 2.91 .74 .63
admitted in mainstream classrooms with adequate support.
7. The education of students with special educational needs should be 2.88 .71 .63
arranged as far as possible in mainstream classrooms.

Note: Scoring of items marked with R is reversed when counting the sum total.
Running head: MEASURING ATTITUDES 28

Table 3

Psychometric Properties of the TAIS Scale: Summary of Four Studies

Study N Participants Reliability Factor structure Divergent and

No. (α) convergent validity
1 168 Final-year .89 One factor
pre-service subject Eigenvalue = 5.0
teachers
2 65 In-service teachers .90 One factor
Eigenvalue = 5.3
3 170 Final-year .89 One factor Teacher self-efficacy
pre-service subject Eigenvalue = 5.0 (TEIP) r = .048
teachers
4 186 First-year students of .81 1) Attitudes Inclusion: SACIE-R
education Eigenvalue = 3.8 Sentiments r = -.106
2) Concerns Attitudes r = .526**
Eigenvalue = 1.3 Concerns r = -.357**
5 53 Final-year .90 One factor Teacher self-efficacy
pre-service Eigenvalue = 5.4 (TEIP) r = .090
classroom teachers