The Teacher Efficacy in Deafblindness Education Scale (TEDE) was developed to expand the construct of self-efficacy to teach children with deaf-blindness.
Methods
Eighty-seven special educators in the United States were asked to rate their confidence to perform a variety of tasks that are associated with teaching children who are deaf-blind on 36 Likert-type items and to respond to open-ended questions on teaching children who are deaf-blind.
Results
Analyses based on item response modeling indicated strong internal consistency and split-half reliability coefficients. Construct modeling indicated good respondent and item fit.
Discussion
The study provides evidence of the validity of a construct of teacher self-efficacy to teach children with deaf-blindness. Suggestions for future iterations of the TEDE were offered in addition to suggestions for future research on self-efficacy in teaching children with deaf-blindness.
Implications for practitioners
The development of the TEDE and the analysis of its scores can help educators to understand self-efficacy and its importance in supporting students with deaf-blindness. Practitioners who provide technical service to teachers of students with deaf-blindness may find value in the construct of self-efficacy and the TEDE as a tool to measure it.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshtonP. T., & WebbR. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement.New York: Longman.
2.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
3.
BanduraA. (1994). Self-efficacy. In RamachaudranV. S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior: Vol. 4 (pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press.
4.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.New York: W. H. Freeman.
5.
BanduraA. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In PajaresF., & UrdanT. (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
6.
BrownellM. T., & PajaresF. M. (1999). Teacher efficacy and perceivedsuccess in mainstreaming students with learning and behavior problems. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 154–164.
7.
CapraraG. V., BarbaranelliC., BorgogniL., & StecaP. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 821–832.
8.
ChuS. (2011). Teacher efficacy beliefs toward serving culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education: Implications of a pilot study. Education and Urban Society, 43, 1–26.
9.
CornA. L., & FerrellK. (2000). External funding for training and research in university programs in visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairments & Blindness, 94, 372–384.
10.
GuskeyT., & PassaroP. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627–643.
11.
HartmannE. (2010). Understanding teachers’ self-efficacy to support children with deaf-blindness. AER Journal: Insight, 3, 37–72.
12.
HensonR. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 137–150.
13.
JennettH. K., HarrisS. L., & MesibovG. B. (2003). Commitment to philosophy, teacher efficacy, and burnout among teachers of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33, 583–593.
KlassenR. M., BongM., UsherE. L., ChongW. H., HuanV. S., WongI., & GeorgiouT., (2009). Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 67–76.
16.
LuceK. H., WinzelbergA. J., DasS., OsborneM. I., BrysonS. W., & TaylorC. B. (2007). Reliability of self-report: Paper versus online administration. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1384–1389.
17.
MasseL. C., HeeschK. C., EasonK. E., & WilsonM. (2006). Evaluating the properties of stage-specific self-efficacy scale for physical activity using classical test theory, confirmatory factor analysis and item response modeling. Health Education Research, 21, 33–46.
18.
MeijerC. J. W., & FosterS. F. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral chance. Journal of Special Education, 22, 378–384.
19.
McLetchieB. A. B., & MacFarlandS. Z. C. (1995). The need for qualified teachers of students who are deaf-blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 81, 244–248.
20.
McLetchieB. A. B., & RiggioM. (1997). Competencies for teachers of students who are deafblind.Watertown, MA: Perkins School for the Blind Press.
21.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
RiggioM., & McLetchieB. A. B. (2008). Deafblindness: Educational service guidelines.Watertown, MA: Perkins School for the Blind Press.
23.
SoodakL. C., PodellD. M., & LehmanL. R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school attributes as predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion. Journal of Special Education, 31, 480–497.
24.
SotoG., & GoetzL. (1998). Self-efficacy beliefs and the education of students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 134–143.
25.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Tschannen-MoranM., & Woolfolk HoyA. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.
27.
Tschannen-MoranM., Woolfolk HoyA., & HoyW. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
28.
WengL. J. (2004). Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 956–972.
29.
WilsonM. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach.London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
