Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Self-efficacy and perceptions play a critical role in delivering high-quality inclusive education. However, most international quantitative studies in this field—particularly those focusing on preservice teachers—have adopted variable-centered approaches, which often yield inconsistent results. To address this gap, the present study employed a person-centered approach (i.e., Latent Profile Analysis) to identify distinct efficacy profiles for inclusive practices among 392 Chinese preservice teachers and to examine the predictors of profile membership, as well as the relationships between these profiles and perceptions of inclusive education. The findings revealed three distinct efficacy profiles—low, moderate, and high efficacy. Experiences with individuals with disabilities, inclusive or special education coursework, and beliefs about inclusive education emerged as significant predictors of profile membership. Furthermore, the profiles exhibited significant differences in sentiments, attitudes, and concerns toward inclusive education. The results suggest that teacher education programs should be differentiated according to preservice teachers’ efficacy levels and offer targeted interventions aimed at enhancing their self-efficacy and perceptions. This study contributes to the growing body of research on preservice teachers’ efficacy and perceptions by offering a nuanced, person-centered perspective on inclusive teacher preparation.

Plain Language Summary

Understanding Future Teachers’ Confidence in Inclusive Teaching in China

Preservice teachers’ confidence in their ability to teach students with disabilities, as well as how they view inclusive education, can greatly affect how well they support all learners in the classroom. However, many studies on this topic use methods that look at general trends across all participants, which means they often overlook important differences between individuals. To better understand these differences, this study looked at 392 preservice teachers in China and used a method called Latent Profile Analysis to group them based on their levels of confidence (self-efficacy) in teaching inclusively. We found three groups: one with low confidence, one with moderate confidence, and one with high confidence. The study also found that certain factors, including having personal experience with people with disabilities, taking courses on inclusive or special education, and holding positive beliefs about inclusion, were linked to higher confidence levels. Moreover, the three groups showed different feelings and attitudes about inclusive education. These results suggest that teacher training programs should not take a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, they should tailor their support based on preservice teachers’ current confidence levels and provide targeted strategies to help them feel more capable and positive about teaching all students. This study offers new insights into how teacher preparation can better support future educators in creating inclusive classrooms.

Keywords

person-centered approaches preservice teachers efficacy attitudes inclusive education

Introduction

Since the adoption of the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education, which emphasized the right to equitable educational opportunities for all learners regardless of their abilities, inclusive education has become a global priority in education (Long et al., 2025). In response, China has introduced a series of policies to support the inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2012). However, researchers caution that mere physical placement in general education settings does not ensure high-quality inclusion (Yao et al., 2024). High-quality inclusive education entails the full acceptance, active engagement, and appropriate support of students with disabilities within the school community (Xu et al., 2024). Realizing this vision requires more than policy change or structural reform; it depends fundamentally on teachers’ beliefs and professional competencies (Xin et al., 2024a, 2024b). In this regard, self-efficacy and perceptions—namely, sentiments, attitudes, and concerns—are widely recognized as critical psychological foundations for delivering high-quality inclusive education (Savolainen et al., 2020). Teachers with stronger self-efficacy and more positive perceptions of inclusive education are more likely to implement differentiated instruction, provide individualized support, and contribute to improved school outcomes for students with disabilities (Sharma & Nuttal, 2016; Yao et al., 2024).

Developing teacher efficacy for inclusive practices is a gradual process, with the preservice education phase playing a pivotal role (Specht et al., 2018). International studies in countries such as Australia (Gigante & Gilmore, 2018) and Canada (Metsala & Harkins, 2019) have examined a range of factors influencing preservice teachers’ efficacy, such as inclusive or special education coursework. However, findings from variable-centered studies remain mixed—for example, Wray et al. (2022) found that some studies report a significant effect of coursework on efficacy, while others find little or no impact. This inconsistency underscores the need for alternative approaches that more effectively account for individual differences in efficacy development. In response to these gaps, this study adopts a person-centered approach. This method identifies subgroups of individuals who share similar patterns across multiple variables (Sun & Yuan, 2024). Unlike variable-centered approaches that analyze group-level associations, person-centered methods highlight individual variation by revealing natural combinations of traits or behaviors (Huang et al., 2024). The person-centered approach facilitates a more nuanced understanding of Chinese preservice teachers by considering their diverse efficacy (Xin et al., 2024b). Specifically, identifying distinct efficacy profiles helps overcome the limitations of variable-centered analysis by revealing how key variables, such as coursework, contribute to predicting membership in a particular profile.

Despite growing interest in inclusive education, few studies in the Chinese context have systematically examined how preservice teachers’ efficacy shapes their perceptions—specifically sentiments, attitudes, and concerns—within a coherent analytical framework (Chen & Zan, 2018; Ding et al., 2024; Zhao, 2024). Understanding these relationships through an integrated, person-centered model can clarify whether and how strengthening efficacy leads to more positive perceptions of inclusive education, thereby informing targeted interventions in teacher education programs. Accordingly, this study examines the relations between distinct efficacy profiles and Chinese preservice teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive practices. By focusing on the underexplored Chinese context, it contributes to a more comprehensive and globally relevant understanding of efficacy development in teacher education.

Inclusive Education in China

“Learning in Regular Classrooms,” the localized form of inclusive education in China, has been recognized as a pragmatic response to international calls for educational equity since the 1980s (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2012). China’s inclusive education policies and practices have evolved through the combined influence of domestic legal frameworks, such as the revised Constitution and the Compulsory Education Law in the 1980s, as well as global movements, notably the Salamanca Statement in the 1990s (Xu et al., 2018). Initially, these efforts focused on increasing access to education for students with disabilities, aiming to meet basic enrollment targets (Xin et al., 2024a). In recent years, however, China has entered a new phase of inclusive education development (Liu, 2021). The enrollment rate of students with disabilities in compulsory education has surpassed 95%, and over half now attend mainstream schools (Ding & Peng, 2024). The focus of policy and practice has therefore shifted from access to quality, specifically, the quality of instruction and the learning experiences of students with disabilities in regular classrooms (Yao et al., 2024).

To enhance the quality of inclusive education, recent policies have made teacher education a strategic focus (Liu, 2021). As future educators, preservice teachers must acquire the competencies needed to implement inclusive practices effectively (Fan et al., 2021). Recognizing this need, the Special Education Promotion Plan (2014–2016) initiated reforms that required universities to integrate special education content into teacher education programs, aiming to prepare preservice teachers to support students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. The Second Special Education Promotion Plan (2017–2020) expanded these reforms by incorporating such content into both the curriculum and teacher qualification assessments, ensuring more consistent exposure to inclusive education. In 2020, the Guidelines for Strengthening the Work of Including Students with Disabilities in Compulsory Education further prioritized preservice teacher preparation by calling for the systematic implementation of special education coursework to strengthen inclusive teaching capacities. Most recently, the 14th 5-Year Plan for Special Education Development (2021–2025) institutionalized these changes by mandating compulsory special education courses and embedding them in teacher training accreditation standards. This progressive policy trajectory reflects not only a growing policy commitment to inclusion but also a direct attempt to shape preservice teachers’ efficacy by ensuring they are adequately trained, assessed, and certified to teach inclusively (Ding & Peng, 2024).

However, despite this strong policy foundation, implementation gaps remain. In practice, many teacher education programs still fail to equip preservice teachers with the necessary competencies for effective inclusive teaching (Liu, 2021). One critical issue is that these programs often overlook the diverse beliefs, efficacy levels, and perceptions among preservice teachers (Xin et al., 2024b). Since these psychological factors influence both engagement in training and the likelihood of adopting inclusive practices, neglecting them may compromise the effectiveness of teacher preparation (Five & Buehl, 2012). To date, China’s teacher education programs still lack the nuanced data on preservice teachers’ efficacy and perceptions regarding inclusive education, which are crucial for designing targeted, evidence-based interventions that can effectively translate inclusive education policies into meaningful classroom practices.

Factors Influencing Preservice Teachers’ Efficacy for Inclusive Practices

Bandura’s (1977, 1997) social cognitive theory is widely recognized as an influential theoretical framework for explaining the factors that shape self-efficacy. Central to this framework, self-efficacy refers to an individual’s perception of their ability to achieve specific goals. In educational contexts, self-efficacy for inclusive practices reflects teachers’ confidence in their capacity to effectively support diverse learners through instruction, behavior management, and collaboration (Sharma et al., 2012).

To understand how self-efficacy develops, Bandura (1977, 1997) identified four primary sources: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states. These sources shape an individual’s sense of capability and influence their behavior across different contexts. Building on this theoretical foundation, social cognitive theory provides a valuable lens for understanding how preservice teachers develop the skills and confidence necessary for effective inclusive education (Long et al., 2025). In this context, preservice teachers’ efficacy for inclusive practices is shaped by both personal factors—such as their experiences and beliefs—and contextual factors, including their teacher education programs (Wray et al., 2022). Existing variable-centered research, however, has yielded inconsistent findings regarding the factors that influence efficacy, illustrating the complexity of these relationships (Gao, 2023; Metsala & Harkins, 2019). A significant gap remains in research that integrates these interrelated factors into a systematic analytical framework. Building on Wray et al.’s (2022) literature review, this study identifies several key factors that contribute to variations in preservice teachers’ efficacy for inclusive practices. These include gender, teacher education programs, experience with individuals with disabilities, knowledge of inclusive education, and beliefs about inclusion. By exploring these factors, the study aims to provide a clearer understanding of the factors that shape preservice teachers’ efficacy, offering valuable insights for the design of more effective teacher education programs.

Gender differences in efficacy have produced conflicting results. For example, female preservice teachers in Pakistan reported stronger efficacy (Shaukat et al., 2013), possibly reflecting a greater sense of empathy. In contrast, studies from Canada found male preservice teachers more confident in behavior management (Hutchinson et al., 2015; Specht et al., 2018), a result possibly shaped by gendered expectations of classroom authority. However, in contexts such as Australia and China, no gender-based patterns have been identified (Gao, 2023; Gigante & Gilmore, 2018; Wu & Luo, 2020).

Variables within teacher education programs, such as academic major and year of study, also show mixed associations. In Israel and Mexico, special education majors exhibited greater efficacy (Leyser et al., 2011; Romero-Contreras et al., 2013), likely due to richer practical experiences. However, this trend was not replicated in Saudi Arabia and China, where major studies found no statistically significant effect (Alnahdi & Schwab, 2021; Gao, 2023). Similarly, contradictions appear in the role of study duration: some studies report higher efficacy in senior cohorts (Gao, 2023; Romero-Contreras et al., 2013), while others found no such differences (Leyser et al., 2011; Metsala & Harkins, 2019). A longitudinal study in Canada even identified a developmental gain (Friesen & Cunning, 2020), whereas German data indicated a decline in efficacy over time, especially among physical education trainees (Braksiek, 2022).

Direct experience with people with disabilities often enhances preservice teachers’ efficacy, but this relationship is not universal. In Canada, such experience has been shown to support stronger efficacy in classroom management and collaboration (Metsala & Harkins, 2019). However, when examining specific teaching domains, such as inclusive physical education, only some forms of contact—particularly those involving structured intensity—were effective in boosting efficacy (Braksiek, 2022). In the Chinese context, studies have generally found weak or no associations between experience and efficacy (Chen & Zan, 2018; Wu & Luo, 2020; Zhang & Wu, 2022), suggesting that personal contact alone may be insufficient without meaningful reflection or institutional support.

Knowledge of inclusive education may influence the shaping of preservice teachers’ efficacy (Alsarawi & Sukonthaman, 2021). Coursework in inclusive or special education is often assumed to be a driver of efficacy, yet evidence remains inconsistent. While Spanish data show clear gains following targeted training (Gómez-Marí et al., 2023), Australian and Chinese studies observed no such changes (Woodcock et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2023). These variations may reflect differences in course design, learning time, and opportunities for applied engagement. Policy knowledge is another factor that appears to be influential: preservice teachers in multicultural studies who understood inclusion legislation felt more capable of applying inclusive practices (Loreman et al., 2013). In China, however, this connection is inconsistently supported—some studies confirm its importance (Wu & Luo, 2020; Zhang & Wu, 2022), while others suggest no significant effect (Chen & Zan, 2018).

Beliefs are closely linked to preservice teachers’ efficacy for inclusive practices (Xin et al., 2024b, 2025a). Rather than listing isolated findings, research across contexts suggests that beliefs aligned with student-centered instruction tend to enhance efficacy (Miesera & Gebhardt, 2018; Specht & Metsala, 2018). In contrast, negative or deficit-oriented beliefs are associated with lower efficacy (Metsala & Harkins, 2019), underscoring the importance of addressing belief systems in teacher preparation. Despite these international insights, research in the Chinese context remains limited and fragmented. Few studies systematically examine how specific beliefs relate to different aspects of efficacy, and beliefs are often treated as static background variables. Given China’s expanding inclusive education agenda, further research is needed to explore how belief transformation can support the development of efficacy.

Preservice Teachers’ Efficacy and Perceptions of Inclusive Education

Based on Bandura’s (1977, 1997) social cognitive theory, which posits a triadic reciprocal interaction among personal, environmental, and behavioral factors, teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion are shaped by the dynamic interplay of these elements. Central to this framework is self-efficacy—a key factor that not only influences attitudes but also motivates individuals to initiate and sustain inclusive practices. This theoretical lens provides a foundation for examining how self-efficacy interacts with these perceptions of inclusive education—namely, sentiments, attitudes, and concerns—and offers an integrated perspective on the psychological mechanisms underlying inclusive teaching behavior (Long et al., 2025). Rather than treating these perceptual constructs in isolation, it is important to examine preservice teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns concurrently—particularly in relation to self-efficacy—to gain a more comprehensive understanding of inclusive teaching behavior (Forlin et al., 2011). However, existing research has rarely investigated these interrelated factors within an integrated framework. Instead, most studies focus on isolated associations—such as those between efficacy and attitudes (Chen & Zan, 2018; Ding et al., 2024) or efficacy and concerns (Chen & Zan, 2018; Zhao, 2024)—with limited efforts to position these constructs within a systematic analytical model, particularly in the Chinese educational context.

Specifically, Sentiments toward inclusion are generally more favorable when self-efficacy is high. For example, in Hong Kong, preservice teachers confident in collaborating with families and professionals expressed more positive emotional engagement with students with disabilities (Li & Cheung, 2019), reinforcing the view that collaboration efficacy is linked not only to practical skills but also to affective readiness. In contrast, attitudinal findings are more fragmented. While Koliqi et al. (2023) found no relationship between attitudes and efficacy in Kosovo, other studies suggest more complex dynamics. Ding et al. (2024) demonstrated that self-efficacy can mediate the relationship between empathy and attitudes, highlighting the interdependence between emotional and cognitive processes. Meanwhile, concerns represent a distinct perceptual domain and have been less frequently examined in connection with efficacy. In the Chinese context, limited evidence indicates that higher self-efficacy is associated with reduced concerns, particularly regarding classroom management and behavioral disruptions (Chen & Zan, 2018; Zhao, 2024). However, these studies are primarily descriptive and fall short of uncovering the mechanisms through which efficacy may alleviate or buffer such concerns.

Research Gaps

The literature examining factors that influence preservice teachers’ efficacy for inclusive practices—and its relationship with their perceptions of inclusion—reveals considerable inconsistencies. Cross-national differences in inclusive education policies and teacher preparation systems further contribute to the inconsistencies in the literature. In countries like Canada, inclusive education is supported by longstanding national policies and well-established teacher training frameworks (Loreman et al., 2013). By comparison, countries such as China have less developed or more recently introduced systems (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2012). These systemic disparities likely influence how preservice teachers perceive and engage with inclusive practices. Given China’s distinctive educational, sociocultural, and policy environment (Ding & Peng, 2024), it is crucial to examine how relevant factors shape preservice teachers’ efficacy and their perceptions of inclusion.

Another reason for these inconsistencies may be the failure to account for heterogeneity in preservice teachers’ efficacy (Huang et al., 2024; Sun & Yuan, 2024). Most existing studies adopt a variable-centered approach, which assumes population homogeneity and treats individuals as responding similarly to comparable experiences, such as coursework or exposure to inclusive settings. However, this assumption overlooks the reality that preservice teachers may interpret and respond to such experiences in diverse ways. While variable-centered approaches provide general trends, they fall short of offering empirical foundations for differentiated training. In contrast, person-centered approaches—such as latent profile analysis (LPA)—allow researchers to identify distinct efficacy profiles within a population. These approaches yield a more nuanced understanding of what predicts profile membership and how these profiles relate to perceptions of inclusive education, thereby informing more targeted and responsive teacher education interventions.

Present Study

This study adopts a person-centered approach to identify profiles of Chinese preservice teachers’ efficacy for inclusive practices, examine the predictors of profile membership, and investigate the relations between these profiles and perceptions of inclusive education. The following research questions guide this study:

What distinct efficacy profiles for inclusive practices can be identified among Chinese preservice teachers?

Do gender, major, year of study, experience with individuals with disabilities, inclusive or special education coursework, awareness of inclusive education policies, and beliefs about inclusive education predict efficacy profile membership?

Are there significant differences in sentiments, attitudes, and concerns toward inclusive education across efficacy profiles?

Method

Participants and Processes

This study was part of a larger mixed-method research project examining preservice teachers’ preparedness for inclusive education at a Chinese normal university (Xin et al., 2020, 2025b). In China, “normal universities” are comprehensive institutions of higher education with a strong historical focus on teacher education. While many have evolved into multidisciplinary universities, they continue to play a central role in the national teacher preparation system. Such institutions exist in nearly every province and are widely recognized for their academic excellence and pivotal role in cultivating future educators.

Ethical approval was granted by the University Committee on Human Research Protection at the authors’ home institution. Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling method from the School of Education at the Chinese normal university. Eligible participants met the following criteria: (a) being full-time undergraduate students enrolled in education-related programs (including preschool education, primary education, special education); (b) having varied levels of exposure to coursework or field experiences related to inclusive education; and (c) voluntarily agreeing to participate in the study. Data were collected through a paper-based questionnaire survey. Questionnaires, along with an instruction letter outlining the survey’s purpose and procedures, were sent to preservice teachers who had agreed to participate voluntarily. Participation was entirely voluntary, with no incentives provided. To ensure confidentiality, all questionnaires were completed anonymously. After completion, participants sealed their responses in pre-stamped envelopes and returned them to the designated location. Of the 506 questionnaires distributed, 445 were returned, resulting in a response rate of 87.94%. To ensure data quality, we excluded responses that (a) had more than 10% of the questions unanswered, (b) exhibited uniform answers across all items, or (c) displayed visual patterns, such as wavy lines. Ultimately, 392 valid questionnaires were included in the analysis. The demographic details of the sample are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Basic Information of the Participants.

Demographic information	n (%)
Gender
Male	22 (5.61)
Female	370 (94.39)
Major
General education	319 (81.38)
Special education	73 (18.62)
Year of study
First- and second-year	240 (61.22)
Third- and fourth-year	152 (38.78)
Experience with people with disabilities
No	211 (53.83)
Yes	181 (46.17)
Inclusive or special education coursework
No	247 (63.01)
Yes	145 (36.99)
Awareness of inclusive education policies
Low	171 (43.62)
Moderate	67 (17.09)
High	154 (39.29)
Beliefs about inclusive education
Weak	34 (8.67)
Moderate	48 (12.24)
Strong	310 (79.08)

Instruments

The research instruments consisted of three sections. The first section collected basic information, including gender, major, year of study, experience with people with disabilities, inclusive or special education coursework, awareness of inclusive education policies, and beliefs about inclusive education (Wray et al., 2022).

The second section utilized the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) Scale, developed by Sharma et al. (2012). This scale consists of 18 items, divided into three dimensions: efficacy in inclusive instruction (6 items, e.g., “I am confident in my ability to have students work together in pairs or small groups”), efficacy in collaboration (6 items, e.g., “I am confident in my ability to involve parents in school activities for their children with disabilities”), and efficacy in behavior management (6 items, e.g., “I can manage disruptive behavior in the classroom”). Responses were rated on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). In this study, the overall internal consistency coefficient for the TEIP scale was .91, with coefficients for the three dimensions ranging from .79 to .86. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a good model fit (χ²/df = 2.72, CFI = .93, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .07).

The third section employed the Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) Scale, revised by Forlin et al. (2011). This scale consists of 15 items, divided into 3 subscales. The attitudes subscale includes five items that assess general attitudes toward inclusive education and the instruction of students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms (e.g., “Students who are inattentive should be in regular classes”). The concerns subscale comprises five items that gauge the level of concern about including students with disabilities in their own classrooms (e.g., “I am concerned that my workload will increase if I have students with disabilities in my class”). The sentiments subscale consists of five items that measure comfort levels or emotional responses when engaging with people with disabilities (e.g., “I am afraid to look a person with a disability straight in the face”). Responses were measured on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The attitudes dimension was scored positively, with higher scores indicating more favorable attitudes toward inclusive education. In contrast, the concerns and sentiments dimensions were scored negatively, meaning that higher scores in these dimensions represented less concern and more negative emotions. For the concerns and sentiments subscales, reverse scoring was applied, where items worded negatively were re-scored so that a higher score would indicate a more positive perception, aligning with the positive scoring method of the attitudes dimension. This adjustment ensures consistency in interpreting higher scores as indicating more positive responses across all dimensions. In this study, the overall internal consistency coefficient for the SACIE-R scale was .69, with subscale values ranging from .60 to .74. Although somewhat modest, these values fall within the acceptable range for complex social constructs (DeVellis, 1991) and are comparable to those reported in prior international studies employing the SACIE-R scale (Forlin et al., 2011; Savolainen et al., 2020). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed an acceptable model fit (χ²/df = 1.83, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .05).

Data Analysis

We first analyzed the means, standard deviations, and correlations using SPSS 25.0. Next, LPA was conducted in Mplus 8.3 to identify the number of profiles in preservice teachers’ efficacy for inclusive practices. LPA is a person-centered statistical approach that assumes individuals within a profile share similar characteristics, while those between profiles differ in meaningful ways (Huang et al., 2024). This method enables the identification of subgroups (profiles) based on participants’ responses to multiple indicators of efficacy, providing a more nuanced understanding of individual differences (Sun & Yuan, 2024). We generated and evaluated multiple profile solutions based on their data fit, using six fit statistics to assess model adequacy (Peugh & Fan, 2013). Specifically, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and sample-size-adjusted BIC (SSA-BIC) are used to evaluate model fit, with lower values indicating better fit. The likelihood ratio test indices, Lo-Mendell-Rubin (LMR) and the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT), assess whether the k-category model fits the data significantly better than the k − 1 category model when the p-value reaches significance. Entropy evaluates classification accuracy, with values ranging from 0 to 1. When entropy is .6, approximately 20% of individuals are misclassified, while an entropy value of .8 indicates that classification accuracy exceeds 90%. In this study, the optimal profile solution was determined based on the following criteria: lower AIC, BIC, and SSA-BIC values compared to other profile solutions; higher entropy (preferably > .80) relative to other solutions; and significant LMR and BLRT results (p < .05). Additionally, the theoretical meaning of the solutions was considered when selecting the best profile structure (Huang et al., 2024; Sun & Yuan, 2024). Following this, we exported the profile membership variable to an output file and used SPSS 25.0 to examine the differences in the efficacy of preservice teachers in implementing inclusive practices across profiles via ANCOVA. This analysis allowed us to investigate whether preservice teachers with varying efficacy profiles exhibited significant differences in their TEIP scores.

Furthermore, we applied the Robust Three-Step (R3STEP) approach (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) with multinomial logistic regression in Mplus 8.3 to examine whether variables such as inclusive or special education coursework predicted membership in specific efficacy profiles. This method accounts for classification uncertainty in latent profiles and provides robust estimates of the effects of these variables on profile assignment. Finally, the Bolck–Croon–Hagenaars (BCH) approach (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) was also implemented in Mplus 8.3 to assess significant differences across profiles in key variables such as attitudes toward inclusive education, while accounting for potential classification errors. This method improves the precision of statistical tests by correcting for misclassifications that may occur when assigning individuals to latent profiles.

Findings

The means, standard deviations, and correlations for preservice teachers’ efficacy and attitudes toward inclusion are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation of Each Construct.

Constructs	M ± SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Efficacy in inclusive instruction	4.43 ± .66	—
2. Efficacy in behavior management	4.00 ± .74	.67**	—
3. Efficacy in collaboration	4.28 ± .79	.67**	.58**	—
4. TEIP	4.23 ± .64	.89**	.87**	.858**	—
5. Sentiments	2.68 ± .53	.26**	.19**	.32**	.29**	—
6. Attitudes	2.43 ± .48	.21**	.08	.19**	.18**	−.04	—
7. Concerns	2.15 ± .51	.27**	.30**	.32**	.34**	.48**	.05	—
8. SCAIE-R	2.42 ± .34	.37**	.28**	.41**	.41**	.75**	.48**	.77**	—

Note. The same applies to the following tables.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Profiles of Preservice Teachers’ Efficacy for Inclusive Practices

We conducted four latent profile analyses, and Table 3 summarizes the iterative process used to identify the optimal number of profiles. The BLRT did not provide clear guidance in determining the ideal number of profiles. While the AIC, BIC, and SSA-BIC values continued to decline until the four-profile solution, they plateaued at the three-profile solution. Additionally, the LMR values were significant only up to the three-profile solution. The entropy for the three-profile solution was excellent (.92 > .90). Thus, the three-profile structure was identified as the best solution.

Table 3.

Model Fit Statistics for Profile Solutions.

Model	AIC	BIC	SSA-BIC	Entropy	BLRT (p)	LMR (p)	Proportion of each profile
1. Profile model	19,415.60	19,558.57	19,444.34	–	–	–	–
2. Profile model	17,862.32	18,080.74	17,906.23	0.89	<.01	<.01	.47/.53
3. Profile model	17,195.89	17,489.77	17,254.97	0.92	<.01	<.05	.09/.34/.57
4. Profile model	16,880.60	17,249.92	16,954.84	0.90	<.01	.29	.03/.48/.27/.22

Table 4 presents the hypothesized profile names for each profile, along with the ANCOVA results for the efficacy dimensions. Preservice teachers in the low efficacy profile (n = 34, 8.67%) scored the lowest across all three dimensions of the TEIP scale, indicating the most limited perceived capacity to design inclusive lessons, manage student behavior, and collaborate with others in supporting students with disabilities. In contrast, preservice teachers in the high efficacy profile (n = 134, 34.18%) achieved the highest scores across all three dimensions, reflecting a strong perceived capacity in these areas. The largest group, the moderate efficacy profile (n = 224, 57.14%), fell between the low and high efficacy profiles, representing an intermediate level of perceived efficacy for inclusive practices. These differentiated efficacy profiles not only suggest potential disparities in how preservice teachers may implement inclusive education but also call for teacher education programs to be tailored to the developmental needs of each efficacy group.

Table 4.

The Exploration of the Means and Standard Deviations for Three Profiles Solutions.

Efficacy dimensions	1. Low efficacy profile			2. Moderate efficacy profile			3. High efficacy profile			F _{(2, 391)}	$η_{p}^{2}$	Pairwise comparison
Efficacy dimensions	M	95% CI	SD	M	95% CI	SD	M	95% CI	SD	F _{(2, 391)}	$η_{p}^{2}$	Pairwise comparison
Efficacy in inclusive instruction	3.18	[2.97, 3.39]	.60	4.27	[4.22, 4.32]	.38	5.02	[4.95, 5.09]	.41	308.17**	.61	3 > 2 > 1
Efficacy in behavior management	2.75	[2.53, 2.96]	.62	3.79	[3.73, 3.85]	.47	4.66	[4.57, 4.73]	.48	254.77**	.57	3 > 2 > 1
Efficacy in collaboration	2.97	[2.70, 3.24]	.78	4.06	[3.99, 4.13]	.54	4.98	[4.91, 5.06]	.45	237.22**	.55	3 > 2 > 1
TEIP	2.96	[2.78, 3.14]	.51	4.03	[4.00, 4.07]	.26	4.88	[4.82, 4.93]	.33	600.77**	.76	3 > 2 > 1

Predictors of Preservice Teachers’ Efficacy Profiles for Inclusive Practices

The R3STEP method was used to explore the predictors of efficacy profile membership. Table 5 presents the results of the multinomial logistic regression analysis, with the moderate efficacy profile specified as the reference group. The odds ratio (OR) represents the ratio of the probability that a preservice teacher with a specific characteristic belongs to a given profile compared to the probability that a preservice teacher in the reference group belongs to the same profile. An OR greater than 1 indicates a higher likelihood of being assigned to that profile, while an OR less than 1 indicates a lower likelihood. Specifically, preservice teachers without experience with individuals with disabilities were more likely to fall into the low efficacy profile (p = .04), while those with such experience had significantly greater odds of belonging to the high efficacy profile (p < .01). This highlights the importance of providing meaningful opportunities for direct engagement with individuals with disabilities during teacher preparation. Additionally, completion of inclusive or special education coursework was associated with higher efficacy (p = .04), reinforcing the value of targeted coursework in building professional confidence. Positive beliefs about inclusion also significantly predicted membership in the high efficacy profile (p = .04), suggesting that fostering inclusive values is equally important. Overall, these results underscore the importance of comprehensive teacher education programs that integrate practical experience, pedagogical training, and belief development to prepare preservice teachers for the complex demands of inclusive classrooms.

Table 5.

Results of Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis of Different Profiles.

Antecedents	Low efficacy profile			High efficacy profile
	β	SE	OR	β	SE	OR
Gender	−.15	.88	.86	−.38	.65	.68
Major	.84	.37	2.32	−.69	.43	.50
Year of study	.28	.47	1.32	−.09	.31	.91
Experience with people with disabilities	−.87*	.47	.42	1.12**	.36	3.06
Inclusive or special education coursework	−.05	.42	.95	.61*	.30	1.84
Awareness of inclusive education policies	−.20	.45	.82	−.20	.30	.82
Beliefs about inclusive education	.62	.48	1.86	.88*	.43	2.41

Relations Between Efficacy Profiles and Perceptions of Inclusion

The BCH analysis was conducted to examine how the mean levels of sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education varied across profiles. As shown in Table 6, the overall Chi-square test results indicated significant differences in preservice teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education across the profiles (ps < .05), except for attitudes, which did not differ significantly between the low and moderate efficacy profiles (p = .29). Specifically, the high efficacy profile scored highest on each SACIE-R dimension and the overall mean, indicating that these teachers exhibited more positive emotional engagement, attitudes, and fewer concerns toward inclusive education. The moderate efficacy profile scored second, while the low efficacy profile scored the lowest on these dimensions and the overall mean. These results imply that a preservice teacher’s efficacy level is likely to influence their sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education. Therefore, designing personalized interventions for preservice teachers based on their efficacy profiles could help enhance their emotional engagement, attitudes, and reduce concerns toward inclusive education, particularly for those with lower efficacy levels.

Table 6.

Difference Comparison of Each Profile in Outcomes.

Outcomes	Mean (SE)			Chi-square
Outcomes	1. Low efficacy profile	2. Moderate efficacy profile	3. High efficacy profile	Overall	1 vs. 2	1 vs. 3	2 vs. 3
Sentiments	2.39 (.10)	2.64 (.03)	2.84 (.05)	19.86**	5.42*	16.01**	10.66**
Attitudes	2.27 (.10)	2.38 (.03)	2.55 (.05)	11.42**	1.13	6.81**	8.83**
Concerns	1.87 (.09)	2.06 (.03)	2.38 (.05)	39.36**	3.80*	23.77**	30.34**
SCAIE-R	2.18 (.07)	2.36 (.02)	2.59 (.03)	50.62**	6.21*	29.02**	38.07**

Discussion

This study adopts person-centered approaches, revealing three distinct efficacy profiles—low, moderate, and high—among Chinese preservice teachers, providing a new perspective on the international literature regarding preservice teachers’ efficacy in inclusive practices. It finds that preservice teachers with experience interacting with individuals with disabilities, completing inclusive coursework, or holding positive beliefs are more likely to fall into the high efficacy profile. In contrast, those without such experiences tend to fall into the low efficacy profile. Moreover, the high-efficacy profile demonstrates the most positive sentiments and attitudes and the fewest concerns about inclusive education, followed by the moderate and low efficacy profiles. These person-centered findings shed new light on the factors that shape preservice teachers’ efficacy in inclusive practices and how their efficacy levels relate to their perceptions of inclusion, offering valuable guidance for designing differentiated teacher education programs.

Three Efficacy Profiles for Inclusive Practices Among Chinese Preservice Teachers

By adopting a person-centered approach, this study addresses a critical gap in the literature—namely, the failure of prior variable-centered research to account for heterogeneity in the efficacy of preservice teachers. Using latent profile analysis, we identified three distinct efficacy profiles among Chinese preservice teachers: low efficacy (characterized by significantly low values in inclusive instruction, collaboration, and behavior management), moderate efficacy (moderate values across all dimensions), and high efficacy (significantly high values across all dimensions). These findings are consistent with those of Sun and Yuan (2024), who reported the same self-efficacy profiles among Chinese teachers of English as a foreign language, indicating a significant degree of heterogeneity in teacher self-efficacy. Similarly, Huang et al. (2024) found comparable low, moderate, and high self-efficacy profiles among Singaporean lower secondary school teachers, each showing consistent scores across the three dimensions, yet with significant differences between profiles. Together, these results provide a more robust foundation for designing differentiated training interventions that address teachers’ varying needs and ultimately support the effective implementation of inclusive education in diverse classroom settings.

In this study, the moderate efficacy profile was the largest (57.14%), followed by high efficacy (34.18%) and low efficacy (8.67%). These results align with previous variable-centered studies from China (Chen & Zan, 2018; Wu & Luo, 2020) and internationally (Pov & Kawai, 2024), which show that preservice teachers’ efficacy for inclusive practices is generally moderate to high (Long et al., 2025). Importantly, the identification of these distinct profiles in our person-centered approach provides meaningful insights into preservice teachers’ preparedness to implement inclusive practices in real classrooms (Huang et al., 2024; Sun & Yuan, 2024). Teachers with low efficacy, who lack confidence in inclusive instruction, collaboration, and behavior management, require foundational training—such as structured practicum experiences, intensive mentorship, and scaffolded exposure to inclusive classrooms. Those with moderate efficacy may demonstrate uneven strengths across these domains, highlighting the need for targeted support in areas such as student behavior management. In contrast, high-efficacy preservice teachers tend to approach inclusion with greater initiative and adaptability, suggesting opportunities to further enhance their skills through advanced, experience-based learning in inclusive settings. Taken together, these findings suggest that although Chinese preservice teachers’ efficacy for inclusive education has improved during their training, there remains considerable room for growth and a need for more substantial, differentiated support.

The predominance of a moderate efficacy profile in this study can be attributed to several contextual factors within China’s current teacher education system and the evolving landscape of inclusive education. In recent years, China has introduced a series of national policies to improve the quality of inclusive education by enhancing preservice teachers’ knowledge and competencies through formal training (Ding & Peng, 2024). While these policies have had some positive impact, their practical implementation still faces significant challenges (Liu, 2021). For instance, many preservice teachers have heavy course loads, leaving limited room to incorporate inclusive or special education training into their schedules (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2012). Moreover, inclusive education courses are typically elective rather than compulsory in most teacher education programs, and their quality often varies depending on institutional resources and faculty expertise (Feng et al., 2016). These systemic limitations, coupled with the still-developing conceptual and practical understanding of inclusive education in the Chinese context, may contribute to a concentration of preservice teachers within the moderate efficacy profile (Xin et al., 2024a, 2024b).

Experience, Coursework, and Beliefs as Predictors of Efficacy Profile Membership

By adopting a person-centered approach, this study identified distinct combinations of factors associated with each profile, providing a more nuanced understanding of the factors that predict preservice teachers’ membership in specific efficacy profiles. The results demonstrated that experience with people with disabilities, inclusive or special education coursework, and beliefs about inclusive education influenced the likelihood of membership in an efficacy profile.

First, preservice teachers with experience interacting with individuals with disabilities were more likely to belong to the high-efficacy profile, while those without such experience were more likely to be in the low-efficacy profile. These findings align with international research, showing that exposure to individuals with disabilities is positively associated with preservice teachers’ efficacy (Braksiek, 2022; Metsala & Harkins, 2019). Specht et al. (2016) further argue that positive personal experiences with marginalized groups, such as individuals with disabilities, can reduce stereotypical perceptions by encouraging preservice teachers to see students as individuals rather than as a homogeneous group. These findings suggest that integrating direct and positive interactions with individuals with disabilities into preservice teachers’ training is crucial for fostering a higher efficacy profile and improving their ability to implement inclusive education. According to Bandura’s (1977, 1997) social cognitive theory, mastery experiences—direct personal experiences with tasks—are key to developing self-efficacy. In the context of inclusive education, experience interacting with individuals with disabilities can, to a certain extent, constitute such mastery experiences, as they provide preservice teachers with authentic opportunities to engage with the realities of inclusive education. These interactions not only help them understand the practical challenges and effective support strategies but also reduce stereotypical perceptions by fostering a more individualized view of students (Braksiek, 2022; Metsala & Harkins, 2019). In the Chinese context, however, opportunities for direct contact with individuals with disabilities tend to be limited, particularly within general teacher education programs (Feng et al., 2016; Liu, 2021). The limited presence of field-based experiences in current preservice training programs highlights the need for their integration, as such experiences have proven critical in fostering higher efficacy and inclusive teaching competencies.

Second, preservice teachers who had completed inclusive or special education coursework were more likely to belong to the high-efficacy profile rather than the moderate-efficacy profile. However, the absence of such coursework was not associated with a greater likelihood of belonging to the low-efficacy profile compared to the moderate one. These results suggest that coursework can contribute to higher levels of efficacy; however, its effects are likely to vary depending on individual differences among preservice teachers. Such variability in response may help explain the inconsistent findings in prior research: while Woodcock et al. (2012) and Zhao et al. (2023) reported no significant effects of coursework on efficacy, Gómez-Marí et al. (2023) found notable improvements. According to Bandura’s (1977, 1997) social cognitive theory, the impact of coursework may be understood through two key mechanisms: vicarious experiences and verbal persuasion. For high-efficacy individuals, vicarious experiences in inclusive or special education coursework—such as observing peers or instructors overcome challenges—reinforce their confidence. Positive feedback from instructors and peers further sustains their motivation. In contrast, for individuals with low efficacy, these vicarious experiences may have a limited impact if they lack the foundational knowledge or confidence to interpret them effectively. Similarly, verbal persuasion in coursework—through encouragement from instructors and peers—can boost the confidence of high-efficacy individuals but may not sufficiently address the self-doubt of low-efficacy individuals. For them, more direct mastery experiences or additional support may be necessary. In China, most inclusive or special education coursework is offered as an elective in teacher education programs and often lacks both depth and practical orientation (Feng et al., 2016). While such coursework may help some preservice teachers build confidence, its limited practical component may reduce its effectiveness, particularly for those with low initial efficacy (Liu, 2021).

Third, preservice teachers who held positive beliefs about inclusive education were more likely to belong to the high-efficacy profile rather than the moderate-efficacy profile. In contrast, weak beliefs were not associated with a greater likelihood of belonging to the low-efficacy profile compared to the moderate one. These findings support previous research highlighting the strong connection between beliefs about inclusive education and self-efficacy for inclusive practices (Miesera & Gebhardt, 2018; Metsala & Harkins, 2019; Specht & Metsala, 2018). In other words, stronger beliefs in the value of inclusive education may bolster preservice teachers’ confidence and perceived competence in implementing inclusive practices. According to Bandura’s (1977, 1997) social cognitive theory, efficacy is influenced by physiological and affective states. Although beliefs about inclusive education are cognitive, they are closely tied to emotional and physiological responses (Five & Buehl, 2012). For example, strong beliefs may foster more positive emotions, which can indirectly enhance self-efficacy. However, this study found that weak beliefs about inclusive education do not significantly hinder preservice teachers’ efficacy or prevent them from moving from a low- to a moderate-efficacy profile. In the Chinese context, preservice teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education are often influenced by social norms, policy discourse, and limited exposure to inclusive models (Xin et al., 2020). While positive beliefs may support the development of efficacy, the gap between belief and practice remains wide due to the lack of institutional support and real-life implementation models (Xin et al., 2024b, 2025a). Taken together, these finding suggests that while beliefs matter, other factors may play a more critical role in fostering efficacy growth and shaping teachers’ confidence and competence in inclusive practices, a possibility that warrants further investigation in future research (Five & Buehl, 2012).

Differences in Perceptions of Inclusion Across Efficacy Profiles

This study identified significant differences in preservice teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education across different efficacy profiles. Those in the high-efficacy profile reported the most positive perceptions of inclusion, followed by the moderate-efficacy profile, whereas the low-efficacy profile was associated with more negative perceptions. These findings address a key gap in the literature: whereas most prior studies have examined the impact of self-efficacy on individual psychological dimensions—such as sentiments, attitudes, or concerns—this study explores their interrelated dynamics within a person-centered framework. By adopting this integrative perspective, our results also reinforce existing research on the links between efficacy and sentiments (Li & Cheung, 2019), attitudes (Ding et al., 2024), and concerns (Chen & Zan, 2018; Zhao, 2024).

According to Bandura’s (1977, 1997) social cognitive theory, the dynamic interaction of personal, environmental, and behavioral factors shapes educators’ attitudes toward inclusive education, with self-efficacy playing a central moderating role. In contexts where external support for inclusion is limited, such as in China—where implementation remains uneven and institutional backing is often lacking (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2012)—self-efficacy becomes a crucial internal resource. It influences how preservice teachers interpret inclusion-related challenges and approach inclusive teaching (Long et al., 2025). First, stronger self-efficacy is associated with more positive emotional dispositions (Li & Cheung, 2019). Preservice teachers with high efficacy feel more comfortable and less anxious when working with students with disabilities. Given that Chinese teacher education programs often offer limited exposure to such students (Feng et al., 2016), this confidence enables more constructive engagement and helps foster a supportive classroom climate. Second, high-efficacy individuals are more likely to endorse inclusive education as beneficial for all learners and believe they can implement it effectively (Ding et al., 2024). This optimistic outlook counters widespread skepticism in China, where concerns about feasibility and limited institutional support remain prevalent (Xin et al., 2024a, 2024b). Third, self-efficacy helps reduce concerns about the practical challenges of inclusion, such as large class sizes, standardized testing pressures, and insufficient training (Xu et al., 2018). Preservice teachers with higher efficacy tend to anticipate success rather than failure, which cultivates a proactive and resilient stance when navigating these structural barriers (Chen & Zan, 2018; Zhao, 2024).

However, some studies, such as Koliqi et al. (2023), reported no significant correlation between attitudes and self-efficacy in Kosovo, which aligns with the current study’s finding that attitudes toward accepting students with disabilities did not significantly differ between the low- and moderate-efficacy profiles. These findings suggest that the impact of efficacy on attitudes may be nonlinear, potentially subject to a threshold effect. Specifically, transitioning from a low to a moderate efficacy profile may not be sufficient to alter attitudes toward inclusion. A higher level of efficacy might be required to trigger such a shift. In China, where inclusive education is still in development, preservice teachers may maintain an intermediate attitude even as their efficacy improves (Chen & Zan, 2018). This stability implies that efficacy must exceed a critical threshold to drive substantial improvements in attitudes. Furthermore, attitudes are not shaped solely by efficacy; personal values, cultural context, and external support systems also play a role (Long et al., 2025). In the Chinese context, where inclusive education policies are increasingly promoted but societal acceptance of disability remains limited (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2012), self-efficacy alone may not be enough to change deeply rooted attitudes. Therefore, while efficacy is crucial, the broader educational and cultural context—such as limited exposure to inclusive practices and entrenched cultural perceptions—may also shape how attitudes evolve.

Implications for Teacher Education

Our study offers several important implications for teacher education. Our findings reveal not only significant heterogeneity in preservice teachers’ efficacy, but also that these varying efficacy profiles are associated with distinct differences in sentiments, attitudes, and concerns toward inclusive education. These differences underscore the importance of prioritizing efficacy development within teacher education programs by acknowledging and responding to the diverse needs of preservice teachers. At the policy level, nationally guided initiatives are needed to acknowledge the diversity of efficacy profiles among preservice teachers. Policies should mandate differentiated and targeted training opportunities across the teacher education continuum, including frameworks for the early assessment of efficacy and the design of personalized instructional pathways. At the practice level, teacher educators are encouraged to utilize tools such as self-report questionnaires and reflective journals to assess efficacy levels and tailor interventions accordingly. Such diagnostic practices enable more precise and responsive support aligned with individual developmental needs.

Moreover, our findings demonstrate that experience with individuals with disabilities, coursework in inclusive or special education, and beliefs about inclusive education are significant predictors of preservice teachers’ efficacy profile membership. These results suggest that teacher education policies should systematically embed these elements within program structures. National guidelines should encourage all teacher education programs to incorporate structured fieldwork with individuals with disabilities, ensure access to high-quality coursework in inclusive and special education, and include components designed to promote inclusive beliefs and values. At the implementation level, several strategies can be adopted.

First, regardless of efficacy profiles, all preservice teachers should have structured and sustained opportunities for direct, positive interactions with individuals with disabilities throughout their training. These interactions—whether through service-learning programs in special schools and inclusive classrooms, or structured observational assignments in mainstream settings with students with disabilities—help preservice teachers develop essential skills and build confidence in inclusive education (Specht & Metsala, 2018). Strengthening efficacy through such experiences is foundational for fostering more positive sentiments and attitudes, as well as alleviating concerns about inclusion. To maximize their impact, these placements should be scaffolded with preparatory seminars and guided debriefing that encourage meaningful reflection. This is particularly crucial for those in the low efficacy group, who tend to hold more negative sentiments and heightened concerns. For these individuals, increasing the duration, frequency, and depth of engagement—particularly opportunities for co-teaching alongside experienced inclusive educators—can effectively challenge misconceptions, improve self-perceptions of competence, and reinforce inclusive dispositions.

Second, teacher educators should intentionally design coursework and practicum components that foster collaboration among preservice teachers across different efficacy profiles. Peer collaboration not only enriches professional learning but also promotes efficacy through vicarious experiences and social persuasion—two key sources of self-efficacy. Structured activities, such as case-based group discussions, collaborative lesson planning with differentiation goals, and peer coaching during microteaching, can provide meaningful opportunities for modeling, feedback, and shared reflection. Preservice teachers with high efficacy—who typically express more positive sentiments and fewer concerns—can serve as peer role models, helping others visualize and internalize effective inclusive practices. For those with moderate or low efficacy, such interactions can enhance motivation and perceived capability. Embedding social persuasion mechanisms—such as formative feedback, peer evaluations, and goal-setting conferences—can further strengthen efficacy and contribute to improved attitudes and reduced concerns about inclusion. This approach may be especially beneficial for those with moderate efficacy, who demonstrate foundational readiness, and for those with low efficacy, who benefit most from repeated, peer-supported exposure to inclusive practices.

Third, greater attention should be paid to shaping the inclusive beliefs of preservice teachers, particularly those with low and moderate efficacy, as underlying belief systems significantly influence the development of self-efficacy (Fives & Buehl, 2012). Strengthening inclusive beliefs—especially concerning the capabilities of students with disabilities and the value of classroom diversity—can serve as a critical foundation for building efficacy (Xin et al., 2024b, 2025a). Teacher education programs should incorporate explicit coursework that focuses on the values, rights-based rationale, and long-term societal benefits of inclusive education. Activities such as analyzing case studies, engaging in structured policy debates, maintaining reflective journals, and exploring the lived experiences of individuals with disabilities can promote deeper ideological commitment. Assignments that link inclusive education to broader themes of equity, social justice, and diversity—both within China and globally—may further reinforce inclusive values. When belief-oriented strategies are combined with experiential and collaborative approaches to efficacy development, they may create a positive feedback loop: stronger beliefs foster higher efficacy, which in turn cultivates more positive attitudes and fewer concerns. Such multidimensional interventions are particularly valuable for preservice teachers with low or moderate efficacy, helping them develop into confident, committed, and inclusion-ready professionals.

Limitations

The limitations of this study are as follows. First, the relatively small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings to a broader population. The sample was drawn from a single normal university, which may not fully represent preservice teachers in regions with varying levels of exposure to inclusive education and differences in teacher training policies. Therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to preservice teachers in other parts of China, particularly in areas where inclusive education policies or teacher training programs are less developed or differently implemented. Second, the relatively low Cronbach’s alpha values for the attitudes (.60) and sentiments (.61) subscales raise concerns about the internal consistency of these measures, warranting caution when interpreting group differences in sentiments, attitudes, and concerns. Future studies should consider refining these subscales or validating them with larger and more diverse samples to enhance their reliability. Third, this study employed a cross-sectional design, meaning that data were collected at a single point in time. This design limits the ability to observe changes in preservice teachers’ efficacy, sentiments, attitudes, and concerns over an extended period. As such, while this study identifies correlations, it does not provide causal inferences. Future research using a longitudinal approach would offer more profound insights into how preservice teachers’ efficacy and attitudes evolve, particularly in relation to their ongoing experiences with inclusive education training and classroom practices.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Weihao Xin

Ethical Considerations

The Ethics Review Committee of the authors’ university stated that the procedures involving human participants in this study were consistent with the ethical standards of the authors’ university and the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to Participate

Prior to participation, all participants were informed about the study’s purpose and required to sign an informed consent form.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Planning Project of Zhejiang Provincial Philosophy and Social Science (Grant No. 26NDJC182YB), the Scientific Research Fund of the Zhejiang Provincial Education Department (Grant No. Y202558075), and the Hangzhou Normal University Graduate Student Research Project (Grant No. 2025HSDYJSKY109).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

The data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Alnahdi

G. H.

Schwab

(2021). Special education major or attitudes to predict teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching in inclusive education. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 680909. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.680909

Alsarawi

Sukonthaman

(2021). Preservice teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and self-efficacy of inclusive teaching practices. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 70(5), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2021.1922992

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.

Braksiek

(2022). Pre-service physical education teachers’ attitude toward, and self-efficacy in, inclusive physical education: Measurement invariance and influence factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, Article 103547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103547

Chen

Zan

(2018). A study on the attitudes, worries, and efficacy of pre-service early childhood education students towards inclusive education. Modern Special Education, (14), 40–46.

DeVellis

R. F.

(1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage.

Deng

Poon-McBrayer

K. F.

(2012). Reforms and challenges in the era of inclusive education: The case of China. British Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2012.00551.x

Ding

Chen

(2024). Relationship between empathy and attitude toward inclusive education among tuition-free undergraduate normal students of normal university: The mediating role of teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Wuyi University, (5), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.14155/j.cnki.35-1293/g4.2024.05.003

10.

Ding

Peng

(2024). Historic evolution, characteristics, experience, problems, and trends of learning in regular classes in China. Modern Special Education, (20), 4–12.

11.

Fan

Zhang

Wang

(2021). A study on the elements of policy implementation and its countermeasures in preservice teachers’ inclusive literacy training. Chinese Journal of Special Education, (12), 16–20.

12.

Feng

Wang

(2016). A survey study on the current status of inclusive education courses in ordinary normal education majors in China. Chinese Journal of Special Education, (1), 9–15+29.

13.

Fives

Buehl

M. M.

(2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In Harris

K. R.

Graham

Urdan

Graham

Royer

J. M.

Zeidner

(Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (pp. 471–499). American Psychological Association.

14.

Forlin

Earle

Loreman

Sharma

(2011). The sentiments, attitudes and concerns about inclusive education revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring pre-service teachers’ perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 21(3), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v21i3.7682

15.

Friesen

D. C.

Cunning

(2020). Making explicit pre-service teachers’ implicit beliefs about inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(14), 1494–1508. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1543730

16.

Gao

(2023). Study on the current status and influencing factors of self-efficacy for inclusive education among normal students majoring in pedagogy. Liaoning Normal University.

17.

Gigante

Gilmore

(2018). Australian preservice teachers’ attitudes and perceived efficacy for teaching in inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(14), 1568–1577. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1545875

18.

Gómez-Marí

Pastor-Cerezuela

Tárraga-Mínguez

(2023). Analysis of the impact of an inclusive education-training course on the attitudes and the self-efficacy of pre-service teachers. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 26(3), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.558021

19.

Huang

Zhang

Zhu

A. Y. F.

Gong

Kong

H. M. R.

(2024). Distinguishing subtypes of self-efficacy among secondary school teachers: A latent profile analysis. Journal of Teacher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871241234872

20.

Hutchinson

N. L.

Minnes

Burbidge

Dods

Pyle

Dalton

C. J.

(2015). Perspectives of Canadian teacher candidates on inclusion of children with developmental disabilities: A mixed-methods study. Exceptionality Education International, 25(2), 42–64. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v25i2.7724

21.

Koliqi

Zabeli

(2023). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes and the factors influencing their formation regarding inclusive education in Kosovo. British Journal of Special Education, 50(3), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12463

22.

Leyser

Zeiger

Romi

(2011). Changes in self-efficacy of prospective special and general education teachers: Implication for inclusive education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58(3), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2011.598397

23.

K. M.

Cheung

R. Y. M.

(2019). Pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy in implementing inclusive education in Hong Kong: The roles of attitudes, sentiments, and concerns. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 68(2), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1678743

24.

Liu

(2021). Issues and suggestions on the preparation of special education teachers in the new era. Journal of Educational Studies, (2), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.14082/j.cnki.1673-1298.2021.02.008

25.

Long

Sharma

Subban

(2025). Teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy toward inclusive education in mainland China: A meta-analysis. Cogent Education, 12(1), Article 2526872. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2526872

26.

Loreman

Sharma

Forlin

(2013). Do pre-service teachers feel ready to teach in inclusive classrooms? A four country study of teaching self-efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n1.10

27.

Metsala

J. L.

Harkins

M. J.

(2019). An examination of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs about inclusive education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(2), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419873060

28.

Miesera

Gebhardt

(2018). Inclusive vocational schools in Canada and Germany. A comparison of vocational pre-service teachers’ attitudes, self-efficacy and experiences towards inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(5), 707–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2017.1421599

29.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2017). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide (Version 8). Authors.

30.

Peugh

Fan

(2013). Modeling unobserved heterogeneity using latent profile analysis: A Monte Carlo simulation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(4), 616–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.824780

31.

Pov

Kawai

(2024). Pre-service teachers’ preparation for inclusive practices in Cambodia: Experience, self-efficacy and concerns about inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 25(1), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12715

32.

Romero-Contreras

Garcia-Cedillo

Forlin

Lomelí-Hernández

K. A.

(2013). Preparing teachers for inclusion in Mexico: How effective is this process? Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(5), 509–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2013.836340

33.

Savolainen

Malinen

O. P.

Schwab

(2020). Teacher efficacy predicts teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion – A longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(9), 958–972. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1752826

34.

Sharma

Loreman

Forlin

(2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x

35.

Sharma

Nuttal

(2016). Can teachers’ self-reported efficacy, concerns, and attitudes toward inclusion scores predict their actual inclusive classroom practices? Australasian Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2015.14

36.

Shaukat

Sharma

Furlonger

(2013). Pakistani and Australian pre-service teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy towards inclusive education. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 23(2), 1–16.

37.

Specht

McGhie-Richmond

Loreman

Mirenda

Bennett

Gallagher

Young

Metsala

Aylward

Katz

Lyons

Thompson

Cloutier

(2016). Teaching in inclusive classrooms: Efficacy and beliefs of Canadian preservice teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1059501

38.

Specht

J. A.

Metsala

J. L.

(2018). Predictors of teacher efficacy for inclusive practice in pre-service teachers. Exceptionality Education International, 28(3), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v28i3.7772

39.

Sun

Yuan

(2024). A latent profile analysis of EFL teachers’ self-efficacy: Associations with their emotional intelligence and teaching innovation behavior. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12685

40.

J. Y.

Luo

(2020). A survey study on the self-efficacy of Beijing’s preschool education students in implementing inclusive education. Modern Special Education, (12), 7–14.

41.

Woodcock

Hemmings

Kay

(2012). Does study of an inclusive education subject influence pre-service teachers’ concerns and self-efficacy about inclusion? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n6.5

42.

Wray

Sharma

Subban

(2022). Factors influencing teacher self-efficacy for inclusive education: A systematic literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117(2), Article 103800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103800

43.

Xin

Jia

Liu

Wang

Chen

A. L. R.

(2020). A study on the relationship between pre-service teachers' beliefs about students and roles of teachers in special education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(11), 1218–1236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1514667

44.

Xin

Liu

Ruppar

A. L.

Yao

(2024a). ‘Does the loss outweigh the gain?’: Inclusive teachers' belief systems about teaching students with intellectual disabilities in Chinese elementary classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(8), 1569–1590. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2008533

45.

Xin

Liu

Yao

(2025a). Measuring Chinese inclusive teachers' beliefs about teaching students with disabilities: Scale development and validation. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2025.2452330

46.

Xin

Liu

Zhang

Yao

(2024b). A person-centred examination of inclusive teachers' beliefs about teaching students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Profiles and relations to teacher efficacy. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 70(8), 1507–1519. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2023.2196470

47.

Xin

Zhang

(2025b). Is everything (im) possible? Exploring the belief systems of Chinese pre-service special education teachers regarding students with moderate and severe intellectual disability. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2025.2452856

48.

S. Q.

Cooper

Sin

(2018). The ‘Learning in Regular Classrooms’ initiative for inclusive education in China. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(1), 54–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1348547

49.

S. Q.

Zhu

Smith

(2024). Primary school students’ perceptions of class environment and their attitudes towards inclusive education in China. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 71(4), 590–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2022.2138834

50.

Yao

Liu

Chen

(2024). Much more than just being present: Participation of children with intellectual disabilities in mainstream schools. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 70(5), 833–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2022.2152161

51.

Zhang

(2022). A survey on the self-efficacy of inclusive education for Chinese music student-teachers. Teacher Education Forum, (3), 91–97.

52.

Zhao

Lin

Jia

(2023). The impact of special education course on preschool education undergraduates’ attitudes, concerns, and efficacy towards inclusion. Modern Special Education, (6), 61–68.

53.

Zhao

(2024). A study on the relationship between self-efficacy and concerns regarding inclusive education among preservice preschool education teachers in vocational colleges. Journal of Guangxi Vocational Normal University, (3), 72–79.

A Person-Centered Analysis of Chinese Preservice Teachers’ Efficacy for Inclusive Practices: Profiles,Predictors,and Differences in Inclusion-Related Perceptions

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

Inclusive Education in China

Factors Influencing Preservice Teachers’ Efficacy for Inclusive Practices

Preservice Teachers’ Efficacy and Perceptions of Inclusive Education

Research Gaps

Present Study

Method

Participants and Processes

Instruments

Data Analysis

Findings

Profiles of Preservice Teachers’ Efficacy for Inclusive Practices

Predictors of Preservice Teachers’ Efficacy Profiles for Inclusive Practices

Relations Between Efficacy Profiles and Perceptions of Inclusion

Discussion

Three Efficacy Profiles for Inclusive Practices Among Chinese Preservice Teachers

Experience, Coursework, and Beliefs as Predictors of Efficacy Profile Membership

Differences in Perceptions of Inclusion Across Efficacy Profiles

Implications for Teacher Education

Limitations

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References