Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study aims to develop and validate the scale on the perceptions and knowledge of trainee teachers regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities (PERKIN), designed to assess the perceptions and knowledge of pre-service teachers regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities. Grounded in the recognition of inclusive education as a key pillar for quality and equitable education, this research addresses the need for diagnostic tools to identify strengths and gaps in teacher preparation. The study was conducted in three phases: (a) expert judgement, where the content validity index was calculated; (b) exploratory factor analysis (EFA); and (c) confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The EFA was conducted with a sample of 342 students from the education faculties of several Spanish universities, while the CFA was conducted with an independent sample of 1,006 future teachers. The final version of the instrument includes 35 items grouped into 4 dimensions: acquired skills, innovative teaching competencies, inclusive organisational awareness, and cultural beliefs about disability. CFA results indicated an acceptable model fit (RMSEA = 0.053; CFI = 0.741; TLI = 0.722), and high internal reliability (total α = .90). In addition, test-retest reliability (r = .92) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.91) confirmed the temporal stability of the instrument. The PERKIN scale is concluded to be a psychometrically robust and useful tool for assessing the inclusive preparedness of pre-service teachers, offering guidance for training interventions and educational policies aimed at fostering inclusive and quality education.

Keywords

inclusive education higher education disability teaching competences university curricula teacher training scale validation

Introduction

Inclusive education has evolved significantly in recent decades: initially considered an ideology (Filippou et al., 2025), it is now recognised as a moral and legal imperative. It is understood as an educational approach that seeks to ensure that all students, regardless of their characteristics, abilities or needs, have access to quality education in regular settings (Kefallinou et al., 2020). Some authors conceive inclusive education not only as a pedagogical model but as the foundation of the right to education, on which all other rights depend (Korkie et al., 2025; Woodcock et al., 2022). A right on which the guarantee of all other rights emanates or depends (Lindner & Schwab, 2020). Furthermore, inclusive education is a cornerstone for building a future society that is democratic, inclusive, and sustainable (Casanova, 2020; Maeda et al., 2021; Saiz-González et al., 2025; Van Mieghem et al., 2020).

The increasing social demand for equity is evident in various international frameworks—such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (ONU, 2006), the Incheon Declaration (2015), and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development—which emphasise the need to ensure inclusive education for students with disabilities (Flores, 2023). These declarations identify inclusive education as a key challenge for educational systems, emphasising the need for specific training in inclusion during initial teacher education (Barikzai et al., 2025; Santos-González, 2022) so that future teachers are prepared to implement it effectively and confidently. In response, several European countries have begun reforming their teacher education policies to strengthen inclusion within their educational systems, addressing the shortcomings in initial training that hinder effective implementation (Florian & Camedda, 2020; Kefallinou et al., 2020).

Reinforcing this idea, it is essential to highlight that teachers play a crucial role in transforming educational environments and addressing the diversity present within them (Iarskaia-Smirnova et al., 2025). Their role in mainstream schools is invaluable for students with disabilities, to the extent that the success of inclusive education depends mainly on the preparation of teachers (Berikkhanova et al., 2021). However, their concerns and attitudes towards inclusive education pose a barrier to its implementation (Rojas et al., 2019). Hence, in recent years, initial teacher education has become increasingly relevant, as it is viewed as a crucial aspect of future learning and professional development (Pua et al., 2021). Furthermore, the social changes and educational challenges of recent times make it essential to have training programmes that focus on knowledge of inclusion to respond to the current needs of future teachers and be able to take on the challenge of offering inclusive teaching (Woodcock et al., 2022).

In the context of initial teacher education, it is imperative to emphasise the need to cultivate awareness of and respect for diversity, as well as to foster the recognition of prejudices and stereotypes that could negatively impact teaching and learning processes (Medina-García et al., 2021). This involves preparing future educators to understand and address the diverse needs and abilities of students, including developing skills to adapt the curriculum, employ different teaching strategies and evaluate each student’s progress in an individualised manner (Higueras-Rodríguez et al., 2023). This new paradigm recognises and values diversity in the classroom, fostering an environment where each student feels accepted, respected, and supported in their learning process (Akbarovna, 2022) and which benefits all students, regardless of whether they have a disability (Lindner et al., 2023).

Therefore, the comprehensive training of prospective teachers in inclusive competencies, understood as skills and attitudes that enable people to interact effectively and respectfully with individuals of diverse cultures, abilities, genders, and contexts, should be promoted as an essential element of their teacher preparation.

Having established the importance of initial teacher training for inclusive education, it becomes essential to identify the core components that should guide such training. Rodríguez Fuentes and Caurcel Cara (2020) argues that quality training in disability and inclusion requires equipping teachers with professional competencies to support students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. These competencies include the ability to adapt teaching to students’ diverse needs and the development of inclusive attitudes that foster respectful and effective interaction across differences. Therefore, initial training should begin with the identification of individual learning needs and the adaptation of teaching strategies to address the diversity within each classroom (Chohan & Hu, 2020). This requires knowledge of appropriate methodological strategies (Arnaiz et al., 2021) and targeted knowledge not only of disability but also of inclusion itself (Medina-García et al., 2021). It is also essential to address broader systemic issues, such as school culture and organisational change, as identified by Kefallinou et al. (2020). Equally important is the promotion of teachers’ creativity, enabling them to generate innovative and flexible strategies for inclusive education (Li & Ruppar, 2021). Ultimately, teacher training should foster an understanding of education as a process of human development rooted in inclusive values (Alonso-Sainz, 2021), while also considering the guidelines of the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EADSNE) on teacher education for inclusion. This report outlines core competencies for pre-service teachers, such as valuing learner diversity, providing support and maintaining high expectations for all students, collaborating effectively, and engaging in lifelong professional development (Fernández-Valero et al., 2025). These competencies form the foundation of a flexible framework that can be applied across teacher education programmes (Smith, 2021).

Recent literature offers a comprehensive analysis of inclusive competencies in teacher education, highlighting a shared consensus on the need for further training in this area (Spörer et al., 2020). However, most studies focus on theoretical competencies and teachers’ attitudes or concerns regarding disability inclusion in the classroom (Murdaca et al., 2018). Few studies examine additional key competencies—such as school-wide organisational and cultural factors or the role of creativity in managing disability inclusion—despite their significance (Kefallinou et al., 2020; Li & Ruppar, 2021). The review of the current scientific literature (Rojo-Ramos et al., 2022; Saloviita, 2020) reflects the relevance of the situation that is the focus of the main objective of this study, which is to investigate the knowledge and perception that future teachers have about the inclusion of students with disabilities, in order to find out what is the future of inclusive education in the aspects previously identified as deficient when addressing this issue. This study aims to address this challenge by designing and validating an evaluation instrument to identify gaps in initial teacher training and their impact on achieving inclusive, high-quality education. To this end, the Perceptions and Knowledge Scale of Trainee Teachers on the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities (PERKIN) was developed to assess trainee teachers’ understanding and attitudes towards disability inclusion. The development of the PERKIN scale draws on previous validated instruments and empirical contributions from recent studies (Aldabas, 2020; Daniel & Cooc, 2018; Kefallinou et al., 2020; Li & Ruppar, 2021; O’Rourke & Houghton, 2006; Roca-Hurtuna & Sanz-Ponce, 2023).

The review of the current scientific literature (Bosse et al., 2018) reflects the relevance of the situation that is the focus of the main objective of this study, which is to investigate the knowledge and perception that future teachers have about the inclusion of students with disabilities, in order to find out what is the future of inclusive education in the aspects previously mentioned. With the challenge of analysing, through the design and validation of an evaluation instrument, the deficits present in the initial training of future teachers and how these affect the achievement of inclusive and quality education. To this end, a pre-assessment instrument has been developed to measure the perceptions and knowledge of trainee teachers regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in the classroom, known as the Perceptions and Knowledge Scale of Trainee Teachers on the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in the Classroom (PERKIN). For the construction of the instrument, it should be noted that previous contributions have laid the foundations for the creation of this new scale based on previous studies for its construction (Aldabas, 2020; Bosse et al., 2018; Daniel & Cooc, 2018; Li & Ruppar, 2021; O’Rourke & Houghton, 2006; Roca-Hurtuna & Sanz-Ponce, 2023).

Ultimately, this research aims to contribute to the improvement of initial teacher training in inclusive education for students with disabilities by developing a valid and valuable tool for educational management. The goal is to enhance inclusion by incorporating aspects that have been understudied until now, such as school culture, organisational structure, and creativity.

In the fields of education and psychology, it is essential to have tools that accurately identify the attitudes and opinions of the various stakeholders involved (Crisol-Moya et al., 2020; De Oliveira et al., 2023). This information not only helps to understand educational phenomena better but is also crucial for pedagogical decision-making, policy design, and the implementation of interventions tailored to real needs. In this context, the construction of valid and reliable instruments becomes particularly important.

Although various scales addressing this topic have been developed (Chathuranga et al., 2024; Fehervari, 2023; Grześkowiak et al., 2021), the present study is considered relevant for the development of a new instrument for several reasons. First, a lack of tools specifically adapted to the educational context has been identified. Second, many existing instruments do not account for initial teacher training related to disability. Finally, the proposed instrument aims to provide a critical, integrative, and contextualised perspective that complements existing approaches and addresses the needs identified in educational practice.

Finally, the research questions that articulate the research are the following: (1) How do prospective teachers perceive their preparation on issues of educational inclusion during their initial teacher education? (2) What are the main shortcomings of initial teacher education about educational inclusion? (3) What barriers do future teachers face in implementing inclusive practices in the classroom, and how can they be overcome?

Materials and Methods

The PERKIN questionnaire was developed and adapted based on previous instruments validated in earlier studies (Aldabas, 2020; Bosse et al., 2018; Daniel & Cooc, 2018; O’Rourke & Houghton, 2006; Roca-Hurtuna & Sanz-Ponce, 2023). Following Abdul et al. (2022), the instrument was developed in three phases: preliminary, exploratory, and final. The validity of the initial version was assessed through expert judgement, widely recognised as a robust method in social science research (Shih & Mabon, 2021). This method enhances reliability by promoting democratic meaning construction among experts, ensuring the inclusion of informed perspectives and avoiding biased group influence. Anonymity also prevents dominant individuals from influencing others’ opinions in group settings (Chen et al., 2019). The second phase focused on identifying the scale’s structure and dimensions using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Finally, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the structural model of the scale in the study sample.

Participants

To avoid overfitting, two independent samples were collected for each type of factor analysis (Aranda-Vega et al., 2023). This approach ensures an adequate sample size for statistical reliability and generalisability (Vankelecom et al., 2024). The first step sought to identify the underlying dimensions of the questionnaire through EFA.

Data were collected from students in Faculties of Education across several Spanish universities. A total of 342 participated in the first phase (EFA).

The second sample (CFA) included 1,006 trainee teachers from the same universities involved in the EFA phase. These participants were surveyed specifically for the confirmatory analysis (Table 1). The sample was selected by non-probability convenience sampling, including students from the collaborating faculties who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. Although the sampling was non-random, the large sample size ensures adequate statistical representativeness, exceeding the recommended 10:1 ratio of participants to items (Yousuf et al., 2023).

Table 1.

Distribution of the Sample by Provinces (EFA-CFA).

EFA			CFA
Provinces	Frequency	Percentage	Provinces	Frequency	Percentage
Algeciras	1	0.3	Algeciras	3	0.3
Alicante	1	0.3	Alicante	35	3.5
Almería	98	28.7	Almería	271	26.9
Cádiz	2	0.6	Cádiz	6	0.6
Catania	1	0.3	Catania	3	0.3
Córdoba	3	0.9	Córdoba	9	0.9
Granada	211	61.7	Granada	538	53.5
Huéscar	2	0.6	Huéscar	6	0.6
Ibiza	1	0.3	Ibiza	3	0.3
Jaén	2	0.6	Jaén	6	0.6
Las Palmas	1	0.3	Las Palmas	3	0.3
Málaga	12	3.5	Málaga	35	3.5
Murcia	2	0.6	Murcia	6	0.6
Navarre	1	0.3	Navarre	3	0.3
Raddusa	1	0.3	Raddusa	1	0.1
Rome	1	0.3	Rome	3	0.3
Seville	1	0.3	Seville	70	7.0
Toledo	1	0.3	Toledo	3	0.3
Total	342	100	Greece	1	0.1
			París	1	0.1
			Total	1,006	100

The final sample of 1,006 participants substantially surpassed the minimum required for a 37-item scale (n = 370), ensuring statistical robustness, thus meeting the established criteria for psychometric studies. Furthermore, this sample size was validated using a statistical formula based on the total number of students enrolled in the Faculties of Education in Spain (N = 64,665), using a confidence level of 95 % and a maximum margin of error of 10 %, which supports the representativeness and statistical robustness of the sample (Wang et al., 2024).

Participants in this first stage (EFA) ranged in age from 18 to 45 years (M = 21.08 years; SD = 3.242), with 68 (19.9%) males, 271 (79.2%) females, and 3 (0.9%) indicating a non-binary gender. In the second stage (CFA), participants ranged in age from 18 to 52 years (M = 21.25; SD = 3.873); of these participants, 241 (24.0%) were male, 756 (75.1%) were female, and 9 (0.9%) identified as non-binary. Additional socio-demographic variables are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Sociodemographic Variables (EFA and CFA).

Variable	AFE
Variable	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	68	19.9
	Female	271	79.2
	Non-binary	3	0.9
Grade that are enrolled	Early childhood education	142	41.5
	Primary education	105	30.7
	Social education	1	0.3
	Pedagogy	91	26.6
	Master’s degree (education)	3	0.9
Course in which you are currently enrolled	1st Degree	56	16.4
	2nd Degree	147	43.0
	3rd Degree	117	34.2
	4th Degree	15	4.4
	1st Master	2	0.6
	2nd Master	1	0.3
	Double degree	4	1.2
Ownership of your university centre	Public	339	99.1
Ownership of your university centre	Private	3	0.9
I have a disability	Yes	4	1.2
I have a disability	No	338	98.8
HPEWD	Yes	21	6.1
HPEWD	No	321	93.9
AFC
Gender	Male	241	24.0
	Female	756	75.1
	Non-binary	9	0.9
Grade that are enrolled	Early childhood education	415	41.3
	Primary education	315	31.3
	Social education	3	0.3
	Pedagogy	264	26.2
	Master’s degree (education)	9	0.9
Course in which you are currently enrolled	1st Degree	168	16.7
	2nd Degree	432	42.9
	3rd Degree	340	33.8
	4th Degree	45	4.5
	1st Master	6	0.6
	2nd Master	3	0.3
	Double degree	12	1.2
Ownership of your university centre	Public	990	98.4
Ownership of your university centre	Private	16	1.6
I have a disability	Yes	12	1.2
I have a disability	No	994	98.8
HPEWD	Yes	60	6.0
HPEWD	No	946	94.0

Note. EFA = Análisis factorial exploratoria; AFC = Análisis factorial confirmatorio; HPEWD = Has People with Disabilities in their Personal or Family Environment.

Instrument

The adaptation and validation of the PERKIN questionnaire began with a literature review and an analysis of existing instruments on the topic, including instruments such as those by Aldabas (2020), O’Rourke and Houghton (2006), Roca-Hurtuna and Sanz-Ponce (2023), and Bosse et al. (2018), all of which assess teacher or student perceptions related to disability and inclusion. Among the reviewed tools, the instrument by Daniel and Cooc (2018) was selected for adaptation, given its accessible language, conceptual clarity, and robust psychometric properties (Klimeckil et al., 2018). Moreover, it offers an innovative approach to defining and diagnosing inclusion-related constructs.

The initial instrument consisted of 37 items; each scored along a Likert-type scale with 5 response options. Responses range from “not at all” (1) to “very much” (5).

The Spanish translation of the items was carried out by the version by Rojo-Ramos et al. (2022), ensuring contextual relevance for the target population. Content validity was examined to ensure the instrument accurately reflected the intended dimensions. Both clarity and relevance of the items were considered. In the initial phase, expert judgement was used to calculate the Content Validity Index (CVI), assessing agreement on each item’s clarity, relevance, and representativeness. Interquartile ranges were used to assess the level of agreement among experts. Based on these results, adjustments and modifications were made to refine and optimise the initial version of the questionnaire. Experts included professionals in educational institutions and university researchers specialising in disability and inclusion (Chorna et al., 2021). In total, sixteen experts from different universities collaborated: six researchers specialised in attention to diversity, seven experts in social inclusion, integration and citizenship, and three with lines of research directly related to the subject of the study.

Experts received the instrument by email for individual evaluation. The scale method was used to rate from 1 to 4 (1—I do not agree at all with the wording and/or the content of the item; 2—I partially agree with the wording and/or the content of the item; 3—I strongly agree with the wording and/or the content of the item; 4—I strongly agree with the wording and/or the content of the item) the importance of each item. Experts also assessed the questionnaire’s readability and relevance for trainee teachers, as well as the comprehension and wording of the items (Fernández et al., 2022). Qualitative feedback led to both major and minor revisions of several items. These modifications considered the indications of Gambluch and Vallejo (2022) for inter-rater agreement. The mean score of each item was analysed, with values equal to or above 2.5 considered acceptable. The median was used as the reference value for each item. Additionally, an ambiguity coefficient was calculated to assess the degree of dispersion in expert agreement using the interquartile range (IQR). If the difference between the 75th percentile (P75) and the 25th percentile (P25) was 0.0 or 1, the item was accepted or slightly adjusted. A difference between 1 and 2 indicated the need for revision and reformulation. Values greater than 2 led to the item being rejected due to high disagreement among experts. The final structure of the instrument was validated through factor analysis.

Procedure and Collection of Information

This study aims to analyse future teachers’ knowledge and perceptions about the inclusion of students with disabilities and to enhance initial teacher training through the development of a diagnostic tool for inclusive education.

A convenience sampling method was used, selecting participants based on accessibility and availability within the study timeframe (Caycho-Rodríguez et al., 2023). The sample size (N = 1,006) was determined using a statistical formula based on the total number of education students in Spain (N = 64,665; INE, 2024), ensuring representativeness. The formula applied a 95% confidence level and a 10% margin of error, ensuring statistical adequacy (Hu et al., 2022). The questionnaire was administered individually to volunteer students from various Spanish universities.

The questionnaire was administered individually to volunteer students from various Spanish universities. Although the participants were adults, their involvement followed ethical and legal guidelines for research with human subjects. Students completed the questionnaire in classroom settings under teacher supervision, with an average completion time of 12 to 20 min. Notably, Erasmus students required no additional language support, as they were proficient in the host country’s official language. This process adhered to the ethical principles outlined in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its 2013 revision in Brazil. Additionally, the study followed the protocol approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Granada.

Data Analysis

In the preliminary phase, the questionnaire was validated through expert evaluation. These experts had extensive experience in disability and diversity, both in educational practice and academic research within Spanish institutions. Their expertise included the assessment and diagnosis of factors linked to inclusive education.

Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS (version 28), starting with descriptive statistics and tests for normality (Loffing, 2022). An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was then performed, employing principal axis factoring with Oblimin rotation based on the assumption of correlated factors (Nguyen & Waller, 2023). The internal consistency of the scale was assessed through Cronbach’s alpha, with a reliability threshold set at α = .90. In the second phase, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out using the latest version of Jamovi, an open source software for data analysis and statistical testing.

Results

Preliminary item analysis was followed by the calculation of key dispersion statistics. Table 3 shows expert responses and the decisions regarding the items’ content validity in terms of clarity and relevance. Although no items were eliminated, most required modifications based on interquartile range values (P75–P25 ≤ 1 or 2; Table 3). Table 4 presents the 37 items included in the validation process; 13 of them received ratings above 4 out of 5.

Table 3.

Results of the Expert Judgement Regarding the Content Validity Coefficient (CVC), Based on the Level of Agreement Concerning the Relevance and Clarity of the Questionnaire Items.

Ítems	25	50	75	P 75–25	Decision
1	2.25	4.00	4.00	1.75	Modify
2	2.25	4.00	4.00	1.75	Modify
3	2.25	3.00	4.00	1.75	Modify
4	2.25	4.00	4.00	1.75	Modify
5	2.00	4.00	4.00	2.00	Modify
6	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
7	3.00	3.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
8	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
9	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
10	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
11	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
12	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
13	3.25	4.00	4.00	0.75	Modify
14	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
15	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
16	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
17	2.25	4.00	4.00	1.75	Modify
18	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
19	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
20	3.25	4.00	4.00	0.75	Modify
21	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
22	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
23	3.00	3.50	4.00	1.00	Modify
24	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
25	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
26	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
27	3.00	3.50	4.00	1.00	Modify
28	3.00	3.50	4.00	1.00	Modify
29	4.00	4.00	4.00	0.00	Accept
30	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
31	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
32	2.25	4.00	4.00	1.75	Modify
33	3.00	4.00	4.00	1.00	Modify
34	2.25	3.50	4.00	1.75	Modify
35	4.00	4.00	4.00	0.00	Accept
36	4.00	4.00	4.00	0.00	Accept
37	4.00	4.00	4.00	0.00	Accept

Table 4.

Mean and SD of the Items From the Scale on Perceptions and Knowledge of Pre-service Teachers About the Inclusion of Students With Disabilities in the Classroom.

Item no	Mean	SD
1. I have received sufficient training to adapt a single task to the different levels of students with disabilities.	3.15	1.099
2. I have acquired the necessary skills to assess the progress of students with disabilities, taking into account their characteristics and needs.	3.23	1.088
3. I have the ability to teach and support students with disabilities in developing competencies for their educational stage, reducing educational inequalities.	3.28	1.114
4. I am familiar with and able to use different tools that ensure accessibility to university for students with disabilities, such as easy reading, augmentative and alternative communication systems, among others.	3.08	1.166
5. I know how to apply various teaching methods adapted to the characteristics of students’ diverse personal learning environments.	3.25	1.093
6. I am familiar with and can apply the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to support student education in inclusive classrooms.	2.98	1.103
7. I know how to use various technological applications that promote the participation of all students with disabilities.	3.30	1.097
8. I believe the training received regarding the organisation and adaptation of spaces to meet the needs of students with disabilities has been adequate.	3.18	1.157
9. I have received training on human rights, justice, and equity that supports the inclusive education of students with disabilities.	3.30	1.085
10. I have knowledge of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.	2.79	0.912
11. I am capable of using my creativity to adapt activities and materials to the individual needs of students with disabilities.	3.77	0.893
12. I am capable of creatively designing new classroom spaces to adapt them to the physical, sensory, and educational needs of students with disabilities.	3.65	0.944
13. I believe in creativity and innovation as fundamental pillars of inclusion.	4.28	0.778
14. I am capable of evaluating the impact of innovative teaching processes in the field of inclusive education.	3.49	0.974
15. Continuing professional development programmes for teachers should include the development of creativity as a strategy to improve teaching quality for the inclusion of students with disabilities.	4.14	0.901
16. I believe that the various educational curricula allow teachers to carry out innovative teaching projects, which is key to providing an appropriate educational response to students with disabilities.	3.49	0.986
17. I consider myself capable of creating innovative activities to inclusively support students with disabilities.	2.73	1.111
18. I believe that the educational support teacher for students with disabilities should be outside the regular classroom.	2.28	1.335
19. I believe the resources available to schools and their organisation are sufficient and appropriate to achieve real inclusion.	2.61	1.109
20. I believe that school governance bodies, such as leadership teams, must be highly involved in implementing mechanisms that promote true inclusion.	4.27	0.907
21. I think a clear organisation of content in the school’s official documents facilitates the inclusion of students.	4.20	0.876
22. I believe there are currently sufficient financial resources to meet the diverse needs of students.	3.07	1.150
23. True inclusion fundamentally depends on the provision of human, financial, and material resources.	3.57	1.001
24. I believe attention to the diversity of students with disabilities decreases when sufficient resources are lacking.	3.35	1.179
25. Attention to the diversity of students with disabilities can be implemented in each and every area of the curriculum.	3.92	0.947
26. Time management is a necessary element to support students with disabilities.	4.50	0.726
27. I believe that students with disabilities who receive support outside the classroom obtain higher quality education.	4.23	0.967
28. I believe that students with disabilities can form lasting friendships with their peers in a mainstream environment.	2.94	1.180
29. I believe in schools as agents that enable educational and social inclusion.	4.51	0.734
30. I believe that students with disabilities can actively participate in all activities in their community.	4.35	0.836
31. I believe that diversity is beneficial, even if it may slow down the usual functioning of society.	4.32	0.787
32. Although I am aware of the need to support students with disabilities, I believe they interrupt the learning of the majority.	4.25	1.034
33. I believe that the presence of students with disabilities in the classroom enriches the entire educational community.	2.57	1.422
34. The best way to support students with disabilities is in specialised schools.	4.07	1.006
35. It is the duty of mainstream educational institutions to support all students, regardless of their characteristics.	3.14	1.227
36. A student with a disability can be in the same places as their peers.	4.41	0.864
37. The inclusion of students with disabilities should be a key aspect of my professional teaching development.	4.49	0.784

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed four distinct dimensions within the scale (Mir et al., 2020). The analysis was conducted using the principal component extraction method. Prior to this, principal axis factoring with Oblimin rotation was selected, given the expected correlation among factors (Nguyen & Waller, 2023); Kaiser normalisation was then applied. Items with commonalities equal to or greater than 0.30 were retained (Clayson, 2023). Multiple criteria were used to determine the number of factors and to select items for deletion. Items with factor loadings less than 0.30 or with a commonality coefficient less than 0.30 were eliminated (Jiang & Yu, 2024). EFA and internal consistency analyses were repeated after each item removal to minimise impact on the factor structure and reliability (Ariati et al., 2023; Castro-Schilo & Russo, 2021; Forber-Pratt et al., 2020; Appendix A, Table A1). This factor analysis was validated by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO), which yielded a value of 0.915, and by Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, with a value of X² = 7,263.864 and a significance level of p = .00. The four factors extracted accounted for 63.58% of the total variance. The results of the factor analysis are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Rotated Component Matrix.

Items	Factors				Dimension	Cronbach
Items	1	2	3	4	Dimension	Cronbach
5	0.852				Knowledge	.94
3	0.829
4	0.822
8	0.814
2	0.808
6	0.782
1	0.740
14	0.724
11	0.720
12	0.719
10	0.713
7	0.703
16	0.548
30		0.744			Competences	.90
29		0.727
31		0.709
37		0.668
36		0.662
20		0.658
27		0.651
21		0.644
32		0.630
25		0.609
13		0.598
34		0.598
15		0.596
28			0.730		Inclusive awareness	.82
33			0.688
35			0.678
24			0.358
26			0.364
22				0.578	Beliefs and culture	.87
19				0.530
18				0.527
23				0.500
Eigenvalues	4.294	3.599	3.036	2.742
% Explained variance	6.236	5.270	3.837	3.028
% Cumulative explained variance	50.071	55.341	59.178	62.206
KMO	0.915
Bartlett’s test of sphericity	X² = 7,263.864
Bartlett’s test of sphericity	Sig. ≤ 0.01

Note. Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Oblimin rotation with Kaiser normalisation.

Four dimensions emerged from the rotated component matrix. The first factor, named “Capabilities,” relates to knowledge acquired during university training for supporting students with disabilities. It reflects self-perceived competence in addressing disability in educational contexts (Karal & Wolfe, 2018). Additionally, it exhibits optimal internal scale consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha value of.94. This dimension included 13 items assessing knowledge and confidence in addressing student needs related to disability.

The second dimension, “Innovative Teaching Competencies,” assesses future teachers’ ability to implement inclusive and creative strategies for students with disabilities. It also has a reliability above the minimum required values (Cronbach’s alpha of .90). There are a total of 13 indicators or items. These address competencies in innovative teaching for students with disabilities from an inclusive perspective. The third factor, “Inclusive Organisational Awareness,” reflects understanding of school-wide structures and strategies needed to support students with disabilities (α = .82). It includes five items focused on school organisation and systemic support for inclusion.

The fourth dimension, “Beliefs and Culture,” explores attitudes and cultural values about disability inclusion in future teaching practice, with four items addressing these considerations in prospective teachers, yielding a reliability of α = .87. These dimensions offer a novel contribution to literature, as they have not been previously addressed in this integrated form. The results obtained are in line with previous studies (Fuentes et al., 2021; Lipka et al., 2020), which addressed similar dimensions.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Following the EFA, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the adequacy of the indicators in representing the latent constructs (Geramipour, 2021; Lopez-Pedersen et al., 2020). The CFA was performed on a sample of 1,006 participants using Jamovi (Figure 1). To carry out the CFA, the CMIN (Cb, minimum value of the discrepancy) was analysed with an x2 distribution (Table 6).

Figure 1.

Structural equation modelling.

Table 6.

Goodness-of-Fit (1/3).

Model	NPAR	CMIN	DF	p	CMIN/DF
Default model	111	5,560.336	554	.000	10.037
Saturated model	665	0.000	0
Independence model	70	19,925.723	595	.000	33.489

Note. CMIN = Cb, minimum discrepancy value.

This test was conducted with N = 1,006 participants and analysed with Jamovi software in its latest version 26 (Figure 1).

The chi-square minimum discrepancy statistic (CMIN) was examined as an indicator of model fit (Table 6).

However, as noted by previous studies (Casas & González-Carrasco, 2021; Fujikawa et al., 2023), chi-square tests may be unreliable with large samples. Thus, alternative indices such as the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) were also considered. These indices assess the fit between the observed and predicted covariance matrices (Gacek et al., 2022; Park, 2021). The CFI, TLI, and RMSEA values indicated an acceptable model fit (Tungkunanan, 2020). Although values close to 1.00 for CFI and TLI indicate a good fit (Cuadrado et al., 2023; Ramos et al., 2021), the results of this study (CFI = 0.741; TLI = 0.722) suggest a moderate fit (Table 7).

Table 7.

Goodness of Fit (2/3).

Model	NFI	IFI	TLI	CFI
Default model	0.721	0.742	0.722	0.741
Saturated model	1.000	1.000		1.000
Independence model	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000

Note. NFI = normed fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative.

According to Fernández-Archilla et al. (2020) and Pegalajar (2020), RMSEA values below 0.06 indicate excellent fit—criteria met in this study (Table 8).

Table 8.

Goodness of Fit (3/3).

Model	RMSEA
Default model	0.050
Independence model	0.090

Note. RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.

The model shows an acceptable level of congruence and supports the hypothesis of construct multidimensionality. The final model of the PERKIN scale consisted of 35 items representing 4 latent dimensions (see Figure 1).

Reliability of the Scale

After confirming the 35-item structure through CFA, internal consistency was reassessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The overall reliability of the instrument was α = .90. Internal consistency by dimension was as follows: Capabilities (13 items): α = .94; Innovative Teaching Competencies (13 items): α = .89; Inclusive Organisational Awareness (5 items): α = .86; Beliefs and Culture (4 items): α = .88. These values exceed the threshold of α ≥ .70, indicating high internal consistency (Durak et al., 2010). To complement Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega was also calculated, yielding ω ≥ .84, which confirms the robustness and stability of the measurements provided by the scale (Barbosa et al., 2024).

Construct validity was further supported by structural equation modelling (SEM), which confirmed the instrument’s psychometric soundness. Additionally, the scale demonstrated strong applicability to the target population. The EFA phase identified items with strong psychometric performance and led to a four-factor structure. The CFA subsequently confirmed this configuration, supporting its validity. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Perceptions and Knowledge Scale of Trainee Teachers on Classroom Inclusion of Students with Disabilities (PERKIN) is a reliable measurement tool as it meets the recommended psychometric properties (Satici et al., 2021).

Test-retest Reliability

Test–retest reliability was examined using responses from two time points in the study. Although each phase included different samples, a subset of repeated respondents enabled the calculation of test–retest reliability. The results indicated strong temporal stability of the instrument. Specifically, the Pearson correlation coefficient between both applications was r = .92, p < .001, indicating a strong positive relationship between responses at both time points. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was.91 (95% CI: .86–.95), confirming excellent consistency between administrations. These results support the temporal reliability of the PERKIN scale and reinforce its usefulness as a consistent tool for assessing prospective teachers’ knowledge and perceptions regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities.

Discussion

The main objective of this study was to develop an instrument to assess the knowledge and perceptions of prospective teachers about educational inclusion and disability. This tool is intended to improve teacher training programmes by identifying key areas for development. Previous research has shown that initial teacher training is crucial for ensuring effective and sustainable inclusive education (Arnaiz-Sánchez et al., 2023; Iarskaia-Smirnova et al., 2025), as it affects both the acquisition of technical knowledge and the consolidation of attitudes and values favourable to diversity.

The validation phase confirmed the instrument’s internal consistency and its relevance, as highlighted by expert reviewers. Experts provided qualitative feedback through open-ended questions, offering critical insights into the clarity, relevance, and coherence of the items (Jury et al., 2023). Likewise, the validation process of the instrument was developed following a rigorous methodology widely supported in the scientific literature (Palomino et al., 2025), in which content validity and semantic clarity of the items were prioritised. These aspects are fundamental in the design of instruments for inclusive educational contexts, as noted in previous studies (Mann et al., 2024).

Empirical results reveal the need to strengthen initial training in inclusive education and diversity awareness. Participants expressed varied perceptions of their preparedness to work with students with disabilities, highlighting specific training gaps in university curricula. This supports Gezer et al. (2025), who stress the role of future teachers in co-designing inclusive educational resources, as their involvement facilitates the adoption of inclusive practices from the early stages of their training.

Based on expert input, several items were reworded to improve clarity and avoid misinterpretation (Mann et al., 2024). To ensure inter-rater agreement, the procedure followed the guidelines established by Palomino et al. (2025). Items were retained if their mean and median scores exceeded 2.5, and if at least 50% of raters assigned values above that threshold. An ambiguity coefficient based on interquartile range (IQR) was also used to measure rater dispersion. This ensured alignment with validity thresholds. Firstly, the validity and reliability of the questionnaire were assessed by consulting experts in the field, who qualitatively evaluated the instrument’s suitability for future teachers through open-ended questions.

The wording and comprehension of the items were also modified to avoid confusion in the responses (Mann et al., 2024). Experts recommended substantial modifications to several items. Following the guidelines proposed by Gutiérrez-Castillo et al. (2023) for assessing inter-rater agreement, the mean of each item was examined, requiring values equal to or above 2.5. The median was used as the item’s representative score, and the 50th percentile (P50) was expected to reach at least 2.5. Additionally, an ambiguity coefficient was calculated to assess the degree of dispersion in expert ratings based on the interquartile range. This procedure allowed the instrument’s validity to be aligned with established validation standards. As Fernández et al. (2022) point out, this method preserves the anonymity and independence of expert evaluations, thereby enhancing the objectivity and reliability of the instrument’s evaluation. The Likert-type items showed acceptable reliability and internal consistency. These results are consistent with previous studies using similar instruments (Sorkhi et al., 2022).

In the second phase, statistical analyses confirmed the psychometric robustness of the instrument. The high KMO value (0.915) further supported the suitability of the instrument for factor analysis. Two items were removed due to low statistical contribution, resulting in a final version of thirty-five items. This elimination responded to both low communality criteria and a low contribution to the variance explained, thereby ensuring that the retained items were truly representative of the proposed latent factors.

The final questionnaire consisted of four dimensions with strong internal consistency. EFA confirmed the relevance and psychometric quality of the retained items. The four resulting dimensions—Teacher Education, Innovation, Organisational Awareness, and Cultural Beliefs—showed acceptable inter-factor correlations. As Van Mieghem et al. (2020) argue, accessibility is key in educational measurement tools. In this regard, the PERKIN scale offers stronger psychometric performance than previous instruments (Aldabas, 2020; Bosse et al., 2018; Daniel & Cooc, 2018; O’Rourke & Houghton, 2006; Roca-Hurtuna & Sanz-Ponce, 2023). The instrument also prioritised inclusive, accessible, and non-stigmatising language—an advance over prior tools.

Previous studies addressed related constructs but lacked a comprehensive focus on initial teacher education for inclusion. Compared to O’Rourke and Houghton (2006), this study is based on a considerably larger sample, enhancing the representativeness of its findings. Unlike Daniel and Cooc (2018), this study places initial teacher education at the centre of inclusive education implementation—an area often overlooked. Roca-Hurtuna and Sanz-Ponce (2023), in contrast, employed a mixed-methods design focused on descriptive comparisons of students’ perceptions about inclusion and employability. This study contributes to a growing body of research exploring inclusive teacher preparation through robust psychometric validation. This research goes further than previous work by combining EFA and CFA to strengthen the scale’s psychometric validity.

A key distinction lies in the methodology, as this study employs CFA to analyse latent structure, while other studies such as those by Roca-Hurtuna and Sanz-Ponce (2023) relied on descriptive and comparative analysis of means. The present study integrates a confirmatory factor analysis to explore the correlations between items and dimensions. This methodological difference reflects an evolution in the analysis techniques employed, providing a deeper understanding of the underlying structure of the data collected. This study’s larger and more targeted sample (N = 1,006) enhances the generalisability of its findings. While the previous study focused on 360 students with various university degrees, the current study concentrates exclusively on students from the Faculty of Education (1,006 students), which is more in line with the research objective. In terms of reliability, this study outperforms previous tools—for example, Bosse et al. (2018) reported α = .79, while PERKIN achieved α = .94. This improvement strengthens the instrument’s validity and the robustness of the findings.

Unlike previous studies (Aldabas, 2020; Bosse et al., 2018; Daniel & Cooc, 2018; Kefallinou et al., 2020; Li & Ruppar, 2021; O’Rourke & Houghton, 2006; Roca-Hurtuna & Sanz-Ponce, 2023), it should be noted that the study developed includes the vision of future teachers who will have the responsibility of working with students and being able to change this perception and/or motivation towards student inclusion. Finally, the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis method presented is considered more exhaustive than the study developed by Aldabas (2020), as it includes PFA, applying the principal component extraction method and Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalisation. In the first validation phase (EFA), it was demonstrated that the items exhibited good psychometric performance and that the instrument was structured into four dimensions with adequate levels of correlation. In addition, the composite consistency index (CCI) was calculated for each dimension, with values above 0.80, which reinforces the internal consistency of the instrument across its subscales. At this stage, it is important to emphasise that the results obtained during the questionnaire’s validation and adaptation process exceeded those reported for the original scales on which it was based (Lecerf & Canivez, 2018). This suggests that the instrument demonstrates strong validity and reliability within the intended field of application. Furthermore, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), conducted through Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), confirmed that the estimated coefficients aligned positively with theoretical expectations (Mendo et al., 2016; Ruales et al., 2020). The construct validation process supported the model’s excellent psychometric properties, reinforcing its suitability for the target population (Tomé-Fernández et al., 2019). Overall, the results indicate a good model fit and high reliability, positioning the instrument as a valuable tool for future researchers and practitioners in education seeking to evaluate teachers’ perceptions and knowledge. Furthermore, the data sample obtained from this newly designed instrument stands out, as it is more representative compared to samples from scales previously designed by authors such as O’Rourke and Houghton (2006) and Roca-Hurtuna and Sanz-Ponce (2023), which increases the transferability of the phenomenon in question. Moreover, its innovative approach is due, in part, to the scarcity of previous research (Aldabas, 2020; Bosse et al., 2018; Kefallinou et al., 2020; Li & Ruppar, 2021; O’Rourke & Houghton, 2006) that considers initial teacher education as a crucial aspect for the implementation of educational inclusion, an aspect that the new scale (PERKIN) considers. The study is particularly relevant to the analysis of initial teacher training in the inclusion of students with disabilities. With all these results, a more psychometrically accurate exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis process is observed than that proposed by other studies (Aldabas, 2020). In line with the above, this research addresses the shortcomings identified in other studies (Aldabas, 2020; Bosse et al., 2018; Li & Ruppar, 2021; O’Rourke & Houghton, 2006) regarding the exploration of additional competencies related to inclusive education, such as organisational, cultural or creativity aspects. Regarding the reliability of the instrument, the new scale (PERKIN) shows an excellent Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (.94), in contrast to previous scales, such as that of Bosse et al. (2018), which exhibits a reliability of .79. Hence, the importance of this study, as noted by authors such as Chorna et al. (2021), is evident: the development towards more inclusive classrooms has led to significant changes in teachers’ roles and responsibilities. However, these changes are often implemented without prior analysis of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards this process, which could significantly hinder progress on inclusion. Research on teacher thinking suggests that perceptions and attitudes are key elements in the processes of thought, action, and readiness to change in response to specific challenges. Research, such as Saloviita (2020), confirms that attitudes play a crucial role in understanding the development of the teacher’s instructional process and behaviour in the classroom. The results also show that teachers need to be prepared to deal with the diversity of their students, but current training is insufficient. Studies such as those by Fernández et al. (2022) highlight that the lack of teacher training leads to prejudices and obstacles to inclusion, as well as a lack of understanding of the legal framework and clarity about education from a diversity and recognition perspective. This is why this research becomes relevant, as the construction and validation of this instrument will help determine what knowledge future teachers possess and provide guidelines and orienting directives that allow for the establishment of lines of action to improve these teaching and learning processes.

Conclusion

This study resulted in the development and validation of the PERKIN scale, a psychometric instrument to assess future teachers’ perceptions and knowledge about educational inclusion and disability. The scale was built through a rigorous methodological process that included expert judgement, EFA, and CFA. The result is a valid and reliable tool for diagnosing essential competencies in initial teacher training. The final structure includes 35 items across 4 dimensions: university education (α = .94), teacher innovation (α = .89), inclusive awareness (α = .86), and cultural beliefs about inclusion (α = .88). This not only allows for a detailed assessment of the inclusive competencies of trainee teachers but also provides a comprehensive and contextualised view of the critical aspects that need to be strengthened in teacher education plans. The strong reliability and acceptable model fit indices confirm its utility as a diagnostic instrument for teacher training.

This research offers an innovative and valuable contribution to inclusive teacher education, both conceptually and methodologically. The PERKIN scale stands out for including underexplored areas such as pedagogical innovation and cultural attitudes towards disability, often absent in earlier tools. Which are fundamental aspects for comprehensive teacher training consistent with the principles of equity and social justice. These results have practical implications for policymakers and teacher education programmes. The scale enables the identification of specific training gaps, thereby guiding strategic actions for improvement in initial training programmes. This is especially important in contexts where educational quality and equity depend on teachers’ ability to address diversity. This is especially relevant given the lack of existing assessment tools focused on identifying gaps in trainee teachers’ inclusive competencies. The PERKIN scale addresses this need by offering a theoretically grounded instrument centred on effective teaching for students with disabilities (Pua et al., 2021).

The findings inform both teacher education practices and institutional policy decisions. Firstly, the PERKIN scale is presented as a valuable and accurate diagnostic tool for identifying strengths and weaknesses in the preparation of future teachers regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities. It can guide the design of training plans tailored to the real needs of future educators, promoting more contextualised, reflective, and practice-oriented preparation. As a scientifically sound and socially relevant tool, the PERKIN scale supports progress towards more inclusive and equitable education systems.

At the university level, the scale can be used as an initial assessment tool in teacher training programmes to adjust training interventions, integrate content on inclusion into curricula, and promote active methodologies aimed at educational equity. Its application can also foster self-reflection in trainee teachers by revealing beliefs and attitudes that may hinder or facilitate inclusive practices. For institutions and policymakers, the scale offers comparable data across programmes, cohorts, or universities to guide improvement. This facilitates the implementation of continuous improvement strategies and strengthens commitment to the 2030 Agenda, ensuring equitable and quality access for all students, including those with disabilities.

In summary, the PERKIN scale provides a solid foundation for future research on inclusive competencies and the effects of teacher education policies. It also enables longitudinal and comparative studies to track the development of inclusion training and its connection to effective classroom practice.

Limitations

A key limitation is the absence of focus group interviews during the item construction phase. Although the items were formulated based on a rigorous theoretical review, the participation of students or other key stakeholders at this stage could have enriched the content validity and provided additional nuance. Future research should integrate qualitative techniques—such as focus groups—into the initial development phase. Additionally, quantitative procedures like parallel-form reliability and split-half tests could complement this process.

This study was limited to a specific population, which may constrain the generalisability of findings beyond the national context. Moreover, vocational or non-educational trainees were not included in the sample. This limits the applicability of the results to broader trainee populations. The study relied on a quantitative approach centred on questionnaire validation. Complementary methods—such as interviews or focus groups—could yield deeper insights, especially within the specific research context.

These qualitative methods help capture participants’ perspectives and experiences more holistically, thereby complementing the quantitative findings from the questionnaire. While the statistical analyses were rigorous, the inclusion of alternative analytical methods could have broadened the understanding of trainee teachers’ views on inclusion and disability. Future studies should consider combining both approaches to gain a more comprehensive picture of the topic.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Table A1.

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Items	Extraction
I have received sufficient training to adapt a single task to the different levels of students with disabilities.	0.572
I have acquired the necessary skills to assess the progress of students with disabilities, taking into account their characteristics and needs.	0.659
I have the ability to teach and support students with disabilities in developing competencies for their educational stage, reducing educational inequalities.	0.708
I am familiar with and able to use different tools that ensure accessibility to university for students with disabilities, such as easy reading, augmentative and alternative communication systems, among others.	0.691
I know how to apply various teaching methods adapted to the characteristics of students’ diverse personal learning environments.	0.740
I am familiar with and can apply the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to support student education in inclusive classrooms.	0.631
I know how to use various technological applications that promote the participation of all students with disabilities.	0.539
I believe the training received regarding the organisation and adaptation of spaces to meet the needs of students with disabilities has been adequate.	0.674
I have received training on human rights, justice, and equity that supports the inclusive education of students with disabilities.	0.084
I have knowledge of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.	0.546
I am capable of using my creativity to adapt activities and materials to the individual needs of students with disabilities.	0.650
I am capable of creatively designing new classroom spaces to adapt them to the physical, sensory, and educational needs of students with disabilities.	0.650
I believe in creativity and innovation as fundamental pillars of inclusion.	0.514
I am capable of evaluating the impact of innovative teaching processes in the field of inclusive education.	0.596
Continuing professional development programmes for teachers should include the development of creativity as a strategy to improve teaching quality for the inclusion of students with disabilities.	0.519
I believe that the various educational curricula allow teachers to carry out innovative teaching projects, which is key to providing an appropriate educational response to students with disabilities.	0.384
I consider myself capable of creating innovative activities to inclusively support students with disabilities.	0.140
I believe that the educational support teacher for students with disabilities should be outside the regular classroom.	0.511
I believe the resources available to schools and their organisation are sufficient and appropriate to achieve real inclusion.	0.582
I believe that school governance bodies, such as leadership teams, must be highly involved in implementing mechanisms that promote true inclusion.	0.512
I think a clear organisation of content in the school’s official documents facilitates the inclusion of students.	0.495
I believe there are currently sufficient financial resources to meet the diverse needs of students.	0.619
True inclusion fundamentally depends on the provision of human, financial, and material resources.	0.602
I believe attention to the diversity of students with disabilities decreases when sufficient resources are lacking.	0.552
Attention to the diversity of students with disabilities can be implemented in each and every area of the curriculum.	0.452
Time management is a necessary element to support students with disabilities.	0.769
I believe that students with disabilities who receive support outside the classroom obtain higher quality education.	0.489
I believe that students with disabilities can form lasting friendships with their peers in a mainstream environment.	0.616
I believe in schools as agents that enable educational and social inclusion.	0.786
I believe that students with disabilities can actively participate in all activities in their community.	0.601
I believe that diversity is beneficial, even if it may slow down the usual functioning of society.	0.578
Although I am aware of the need to support students with disabilities, I believe they interrupt the learning of the majority.	0.744
I believe that the presence of students with disabilities in the classroom enriches the entire educational community.	0.672
The best way to support students with disabilities is in specialised schools.	0.627
It is the duty of mainstream educational institutions to support all students, regardless of their characteristics.	0.599
A student with a disability can be in the same places as their peers.	0.509
The inclusion of students with disabilities should be a key aspect of my professional teaching development.	0.559

ORCID iDs

Marta Medina-García

José Manuel Ortiz-Marcos

Ana Isabel Invernón-Gómez

Lina Higueras-Rodríguez

Ethical Considerations

Approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Granada.

Author Contributions

A.I..I-G. and M.M-G. conceived the hypothesis of this study. J.M.O.-M. participated in the data collection. J.M.O.-M. and L.H-R. analysed the data. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the statistical analysis data and wrote the article with significant contributions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Part of this work has been funded by the project Knowledge of inclusion and disability in prospective teachers: keys to achieving inclusive education. Reference: PPJIA2023-104. Principal Investigators: María Lina Higueras-Rodríguez and Marta Medina-García.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data is available and can be consulted on request.

References

Abdul

Roslan

S. R.

Mohammad

Abdullah

Musa

(2022). Development and validation of a new gadget addiction scale (screen dependency scale) among pre-school children in Malaysia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416916

Akbarovna

A. S.

(2022). Inclusive education and its essence. International Journal Of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research, 11(01), 248-254. https://www.gejournal.net/index.php/IJSSIR/article/view/182/156

Aldabas

(2020). Special education teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness to teach students with severe disabilities in inclusive classrooms: A Saudi Arabian perspective. SAGE Open, 10(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020950657

Alonso-Sainz

(2021). Educación para el desarrollo sostenible: una visión crítica desde la Pedagogía [Education for Sustainable Development: A critical approach from Pedagogy]. Revista Complutense de Educación, 32(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.6833

Aranda-Vega

E. M.

Ortiz-Marcos

J. M.

Tomé-Fernández

(2023). Adaptation and validation of the social skills scale for intercultural primary school pupils. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1213355

Ariati

Pham

Vogler

J. S.

(2023). Constructivist learning environments: Validating the community of inquiry survey for face-to-face contexts. Active Learning in Higher Education, 26(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874231183642

Arnaiz-Sánchez

De Haro-Rodríguez

Caballero

C. M.

Martínez-Abellán

(2023). Barriers to educational inclusion in initial teacher training. Societies, 13(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13020031

Arnaiz-Sánchez

Frutos

A. E.

García

S. A.

de Haro Rodríguez

(2021). Formación del profesorado para la construcción de aulas abiertas a la inclusión. Revista De Educación, 393, 37–67. http//doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2021-393-485

Barbosa

A. D. S.

Crispim

M. C.

da Silva

L. B.

da Silva

J. M. N.

Barbosa

A. M.

Morioka

S. N.

(2024). How can organizations measure the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria? Validation of an instrument using item response theory to capture workers’ perceptions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(4), 3607–3634. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3432

10.

Barikzai

Bharathi

S. V.

Perdana

(2025). Digital learning initiatives forging inclusive education in post-conflict nations. Cogent Education, 12(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2457904

11.

Berikkhanova

Ospanova

Yermenova

Zharmukhametova

Sultanova

Urazbaeva

(2021). The effectiveness of the training model of the future teacher in conditions of inclusive education. International Journal of Education and Practice, 9(4), 670–686. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2021.94.670.686

12.

Bosse

Jaeuthe

Lambrecht

Bogda

Koch

Spörer

(2018). Students’ perspective on inclusion: The development of a measurement instrument for the assessment of attitudes towards inclusive learning. Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 4, 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101641

13.

Casanova

M. A.

(2020). Miradas de futuro: educación inclusiva para la sociedad democrática. Una revisión en el tiempo [Looking to the future: inclusive education for a democratic society. A review over time]. Avances En Supervisión Educativa, 33, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.23824/ase.v0i33.683

14.

Casas

González-Carrasco

(2021). Analysing comparability of four multi-item well-being psychometric scales among 35 countries using children’s worlds 3rd wave 10 and 12-year-olds samples. Child Indicators Research, 14, 1829–1861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-021-09825-0

15.

Castro-Schilo

Russo

(2021). Fitting structural equations models with interactive and dynamic tools in JMP^® Pro. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(5), 794–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1854764

16.

Caycho-Rodríguez

Valencia

P. D.

Vilca

L. W.

Lee

S. A.

Carbajal-León

Vivanco-Vidal

Saroli-Araníbar

Reyes-Bossio

White

Rojas-Jara

Polanco-Carrasco

Gallegos

Cervigni

Martino

Palacios

D. A.

Moreta-Herrera

Samaniego-Pinho

Rivera

M. E. L.

Figares

A. B.

Gallegos

W. L. A.

(2023). COVID-19 Bereavement in Ten Latin American Countries: Measurement Invariance of the Pandemic Grief Scale and Its Relation to Suicidal Ideation. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 88(2), 591–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228211048566.

17.

Chathuranga

M. M. N.

Gunawardane

H. N. R.

Dissanayake

T. W. M. P. S

. (2024). A quantitative exploration of management undergraduates’ readiness for diversity and inclusion in the university environment. Studies in Higher Education, 50(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2328359

18.

Chen

C. C.

Wang

Y. R.

Guo

Y. L. L.

Wang

Y. C.

M. M.

(2019). Short-term prediction of extremely hot days in summer due to climate change and ENSO and related attributable mortality. Science of the Total Environment, 661, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.168

19.

Chohan

S. R.

(2020). Strengthening digital inclusion through e-government: Cohesive ICT training programs to intensify digital competency. Information Technology for Development, 28(1), 16–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2020.1841713

20.

Chorna

Broda

Golosnichenko

Grushchenko

Sadchenko

(2021). Barriers of people with disabilities in exercising constitutional right to higher education. Revista de la universidad del zulia, 12(35), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.35.20

21.

Clayson

P. E.

(2023). The psychometric upgrade psychophysiology needs. Psychophysiology, 61(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14522

22.

Crisol-Moya

Romero-López

M. A.

Caurcel-Cara

M. J.

(2020). Active methodologies in higher education: Perception and opinion as evaluated by professors and their students in the teaching-learning process. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01703

23.

Cuadrado

Domínguez-Herrera

Luque

Moyano

Tabernero

(2023). Construction and validation of the Perception of Attention to Diversity Scale (PADS). Education and Urban Society, 55(5), 555–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245211069945

24.

Daniel

J. R.

Cooc

(2018). Teachers’ perceptions of academic intrinsic motivation for students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 52(2), 101–112. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918765276

25.

De Oliveira

R. B.

Bidarra

Rebelo

P. V.

Alferes

. (2023). Attitudes and perceptions of teacher self-efficacy and collaborative practices in the context of inclusive education for students with special educational needs in Portuguese schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 39(5), 659–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2023.2275407

26.

Durak

Senol-Durak

Gencoz

(2010). Psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale among Turkish university students, correctional officers, and elderly adults. Social Indicators Research, 99(3), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9589-4

27.

Fehervari

(2023). Theroleofteachers’ views and attitudes in the academic achievement of Romastudents. Journal for Multicultural Education, 17(3), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-08-2022-0104

28.

Fernández

A. G.

Marín

F. R.

Ramírez

E. S.

Díaz

J. E. G.

(2022). Validation of a questionnaire about environmental literacy through expert judgement. Revista eureka sobre enseñanza y divulgación de las ciencias, 19(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2022.v19.i3.3101

29.

Fernández-Archilla

J. A.

Álvarez

J. F.

Aguilar-Parra

J. M.

Trigueros

Alonso-López

I. D.

Echeita

(2020). Validation of the index for inclusion questionnaire for compulsory secondary education students. Sustainability, 12(6), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062169

30.

Fernández-Valero

Ortega

M. G.

Mcwilliam

R. A.

(2025). Measuring home activities and participation of children receiving early childhood intervention services in Spain. Early Childhood Education Journal, 53, 1835–1850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01704-x

31.

Filippou

Acquah

E. O.

Bengs

(2025). Inclusive policies and practices in higher education: A systematic literature review. Review of Education, 13(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70034

32.

Flores

M. A.

(2023). Teacher education in times of crisis: Enhancing or deprofessionalising the teaching profession? European Journal of Teacher Education, 46(2), 199–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2023.2210410

33.

Florian

Camedda

(2020). Enhancing teacher education for inclusion. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1707579

34.

Forber-Pratt

A. J.

Merrin

G. J.

Mueller

C. O.

Price

L. R.

Kettrey

H. H.

(2020). Initial factor exploration of disability identity. Rehabilitation Psychology, 65(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000308

35.

Fuentes

Pérez-Padilla

de la Fuente

Aranda

(2021). Creation and validation of the Questionnaire on Attitudes towards Disability in Higher Education (QAD-HE) in Latin America. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1927997

36.

Fujikawa

Son

Hayashi

Kondo

Eto

(2023). Translation, adaptation, and validation of the Tolerance of Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors (TAMSAD) scale for use in Japan. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04391-1

37.

Gacek

Krzywoszanski

Fusinska-Korpik

(2022). The revised Edward Zigler Yale-Personality Questionnaire (EZPQ) for persons with intellectual disability: A new four-factor structure in confirmatory factor analysis. Current Psychology, 41(5), 2772–2785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00797-y.

38.

Gambluch

A. C.

Vallejo

A. P.

(2022). Quality assessment of a digital resource designed and applied to ELE learning. Etic net-revista cientifica electronica de educacion y comunicacion en la sociedad del conocimiento, 22(2), 258–282. https://doi.org/10.30827/eticanet.v22i2.26135

39.

Geramipour

(2021). Rasch testlet model and bifactor analysis: How do they assess the dimensionality of large-scale Iranian EFL reading comprehension tests? Language Testing in Asia, 11(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00118-5

40.

Gezer

Kim

S. Y.

Lee

O. E.

(2025). Validation of self-efficacy questionnaire of online learning for students with disabilities in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 37(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09386-x

41.

Grześkowiak

Załuska

Kwiatkowska-Ciotucha

Kozyra

(2021). People with disabilities in the workplace: Results of a survey conducted among Polish and Finnish employers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(20), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010934

42.

Gutiérrez-Castillo

J. J.

Palacios-Rodríguez

Martín-Párraga

Serrano-Hidalgo

(2023). Development of digital teaching competence: Pilot experience and validation through expert judgment. Education Sciences, 13(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010052

43.

Higueras-Rodríguez

Ortiz-Marcos

J. M.

Medina-García

Invernón-Gómez

A. I.

(2023). Impulsando metodologías cooperativas en el aula: claves para el logro de la atención a la diversida [Promoting cooperative methodologies in the classroom: keys to achieving attention to diversity]. In López Meneses

Bernal Bravo

(Eds.), Educación, tecnología, innovación y transferencia del conocimiento (pp. 1155–1162). Dykinson.

44.

Lin

T.-E.

Zhao

(2022). Unimse: Towards unified multimodal sentiment analysis and emotion recognition. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 7837–7851. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.563

45.

Iarskaia-Smirnova

Bolshakov

Walker

(2025). Inclusive education in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus: Comparing parental satisfaction. Children and Youth Services Review, 169, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.108087

46.

INE (Statistics National Institute). (2024). University students statistics. https://www.ciencia.gob.es/Ministerio/Estadisticas/SIIU/Estudiantes.html.

47.

Jiang

(2024). Developing and validating a teachers’ digital competence model and self-assessment instrument for secondary school teachers in China. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 8817–8842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12182-w

48.

Jury

Laurence

Cèbe

Desombre

(2023). Teachers’ concerns about inclusive education and the links with teachers’ attitudes. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1065919.

49.

Karal

M. A.

Wolfe

P. S.

(2018). In-service training for special education teachers working with students having developmental disabilities to develop effective transition goals. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 66(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2018.1518809

50.

Kefallinou

Symeonidou

Meijer

C. J.

(2020). Understanding the value of inclusive education and its implementation: A review of the literature. Prospects, 49(3–4), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09500-2

51.

Klimeckil

O. M.

Sander

Vuilleumier

(2018). Distinct Brain Areas Involved in Anger versus Punishment during Social Interactions. Scientific Reports 8(1), 1–12. http//doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28863-3.

52.

Korkie

Beyers

Swanepoel

(2025). Teaching inclusive education: A contextual higher education analysis. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1445612

53.

Lecerf

Canivez

G. L.

(2018). Complementary exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the French WISC–V: Analyses based on the standardization sample. Psychological Assessment, 30(6), 793–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000526

54.

Ruppar

(2021). Conceptualizing teacher agency for inclusive education: A systematic and international review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 44(1), 42–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406420926976

55.

Lindner

K. T.

Schwab

(2020). Differentiation and individualisation in inclusive education: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1813450

56.

Lindner

K. T.

Schwab

Emara

Avramidis

(2023). Do teachers favor the inclusion of all students? A systematic review of primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 38(6), 766–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2023.2172894

57.

Lipka

Khouri

Shecter-Lerner

(2020). University faculty attitudes and knowledge about learning disabilities. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(5), 982–996. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1695750

58.

Loffing

(2022). Raw data visualization for common factorial designs using SPSS: A syntax collection and tutorial. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.808469

59.

Lopez-Pedersen

Mononen

Korhonen

Aunio

Melby-Lervåg

(2020). Validation of an early numeracy screener for first graders. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(3), 404–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1705901

60.

Maeda

Hashimoto

Sato

(2021). Creating a positive perception toward inclusive education with future-oriented thinking. BMC Research Notes, 14(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-021-05882-4

61.

Mann

Kennedy-Wood

Gilmore

(2024). The role of parents in facilitating safe, quality, inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities: The position of the Disability Royal Commission. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 11(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/23297018.2024.2337756

62.

Medina-García

Higueras-Rodríguez

García-Vita

M. d. M.

Doña-Toledo

(2021). ICT, disability, and motivation: Validation of a measurement scale and consequence model for inclusive digital knowledge. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136770

63.

Mendo

León del Barco

Felipe

Polo del Río

M.I.

Palacios

(2016). Evaluación de las habilidades sociales de estudiantes de Educación Social. Revista De Psicodidáctica, 21(1), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1387/RevPsicodidact.14031

64.

Mir

A. A.

Chattopadhyay

Pramanick

Gautam

Mir

S. A.

Koley

Saha

(2020). Psychometric validation of the psoriasis disability index questionnaire (Translated Bengali Version): A cross-sectional study. Journal of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, 24(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.4103/jdds.jdds_38_19

65.

Murdaca

A. M.

Oliva

Costa

(2018). Evaluating the perception of disability and the inclusive education of teachers: The Italian validation of the Sacie-R (Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education - Revised Scale). European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(1), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1267944

66.

Nguyen

H. V.

Waller

N. G.

(2023). Local minima and factor rotations in exploratory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 28(5), 1122–1141. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000467

67.

ONU. (2006). General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved December 13, 2006 from, https://www.refworld.org/es/leg/instcons/agonu/2006/es/131873

68.

O’Rourke

Houghton

(2006). Students with mild disabilities in regular classrooms: The development and utility of the student perceptions of classroom support scale. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 31(4), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250601050310

69.

Palomino

M. C. P.

Montes

D. A.

Valdivia

E. M.

(2025). Evaluation of dialogical learning in higher education: Psychometric validation of a questionnaire. International Journal of Instruction, 18(1), 619–634. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2025.18134a

70.

Park

E. Y.

(2021). Factor structure of the short-form of center for epidemiological studies depression scale for people with physical disabilities. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.536499

71.

Pegalajar

M. C.

(2020). Percepciones del docente en formación hacia la respuesta educativa en centros de educación especial. Diseño y propiedades psicométricas de una escala [Perceptions of trainee teachers towards educational responses in special education centres. Design and psychometric properties of a scale]. Bordón. Revista De Pedagogía, 72(2), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.13042/Bordon.2020.74291

72.

Pua

D. J.

Peyton

D. J.

Brownell

M. T.

Contesse

V. A.

Jones

N. D.

(2021). Preservice observation in special education: A validation study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420920382

73.

Ramos

Pérez

Chiva

Moral

(2021). Validation of a scale of attention to diversity for university teachers. Educación XX1, 24(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.28518

74.

Roca-Hurtuna

Sanz-Ponce

(2023). The perception of university students towards people with disabilities and their labor insertion. Education Sciences, 13(1), 1–16. http://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010079

75.

Rodríguez Fuentes

Caurcel Cara

M. J

. (2020). Analysis of pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Relieve, 26(1), 1–22. http://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.26.1.16196

76.

Rojas

López

Echeita

(2019). Significados de las prácticas escolares que buscan responder a la diversidad desde la perspectiva de niñas y niños: Una aproximación a la justicia educacional [The significance of school practices that seek to respond to diversity from the perspective of girls and boys: An approach to educational justice]. Perspectiva Educacional. Formación de Profesores, 58(2), 23–46. http://doi.org/10.4151/07189729-Vol.58-Iss.2-Art.912

77.

Rojo-Ramos

Gomez-Paniagua

Barrios-Fernandez

Garcia-Gomez

Adsuar

J.C.

Sáez-Padilla

Muñoz-Bermejo

(2022). Psychometric properties of a questionnaire to assess Spanish primary school teachers’ perceptions about their preparation for inclusive education. Healthcare, 10(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10020228

78.

Ruales

S. T. P.

Agirdag

Van Petegem

(2020). Development and validation of the multicultural sensitivity scale for pre-service teachers. Multicultural Education Review, 12(3), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2020.1808926

79.

Saiz-González

de la Fuente-González

Sierra-Díaz

Uría-Valle

(2025). Inclusive education and physical education in Spain: A qualitative analysis of teachers’ perspectives. Education Sciences, 15(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010108

80.

Saloviita

(2020). Teacher attitudes towards the inclusion of students with support needs. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12466

81.

Santos-González

(2022). Atención a la diversidad e inclusión educativa: formación inicial del profesorado y autopercepción de competencias [Attention to diversity and educational inclusion: initial teacher training and self-perception of competencies]. Ciencia y Educación, 6(3), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.22206/cyed.2022.v6i3.pp7-20

82.

Satici

Gocet-Tekin

Deniz

M. E.

Satici

S. A.

(2021). Adaptation of the fear of COVID-19 scale: Its association with psychological distress and life satisfaction in Turkey. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19(6), 1980–1988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00294-0

83.

Shih

W.-Y.

Mabon

(2021). Understanding heat vulnerability in the subtropics: Insights from expert judgements. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 63, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102463

84.

Smith

(2021). Educating teachers for the future school- the challenge of bridging between perceptions of quality teaching and policy decisions: Reflections from Norway. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(3), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.190

85.

Sorkhi

Akbarzade

Nedjat

Khosravi

Nazemipour

Memari

A.-H.

Mansournia

M. A.

(2022). Validity and reliability of the Persian version of the world health organization quality of life disabilities module. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 28(1), 240–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/17446295221123867

86.

Spörer

Lenkeit

Bosse

Hartmann

Ehlert

Knigge

(2020). Students’ perspective on inclusion: Relations of attitudes towards inclusive education and self-perceptions of peer relations. International Journal of Educational Research, 103(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101641

87.

Tomé-Fernández

Ortiz-Marcos

J. M.

Olmedo-Moreno

E. M.

(2019). Educational environments with cultural and religious diversity: Psychometric analysis of the cyberbullying scale. Religions, 10(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10070443

88.

Tungkunanan

(2020). Learning model of undergraduate students: Confirmatory factor analysis. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 665–678. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13345a

89.

Van Mieghem

Verschueren

Petry

Struyf

. (2020). An analysis of research on inclusive education: A systematic search and meta review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(6), 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1482012

90.

Vankelecom

Loeys

Moerkerke

(2024). How to safely reassess variability and adapt sample size? A primer for the independent samples t test. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 7(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231212128

91.

Wang

L. X.

Graubard

B. I.

Katki

H. A.

(2024). Representative pure risk estimation by using data from epidemiologic studies, surveys, and registries: Estimating risks for minority subgroups. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 187(2), 358–373. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrsssa/qnad124

92.

Woodcock

Sharma

Subban

Hitches

(2022). Teacher self-efficacy and inclusive education practices: Rethinking teachers’ engagement with inclusive practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103802

93.

Yousuf

M. I.

Anwer

Anwar

(2023). Empirical characterization of graph sampling algorithms. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 13(66), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-023-01060-5

Educating for Inclusion: PERKIN,the Scale That Measures Future Teachers’ Perceptions

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Participants

Instrument

Procedure and Collection of Information

Data Analysis

Results

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Reliability of the Scale

Test-retest Reliability

Discussion

Conclusion

Limitations

Footnotes

Appendix A

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References