Development and psychometric evaluation of an instrument measuring subjective definitions of inclusion (FEDI)

Figures & data

Table 1. Comparison of the empirical findings from Piezunka, Schaffus, and Grosche (2017) and the theoretical review from Göransson and Nilholm (2014).

Piezunka, Schaffus, and Grosche (2017)	Göransson and Nilholm (2014)
(1) ‘inclusion as implementing the UN-CRPD’	(A) Placement definition – inclusion as placement of pupils with disabilities/in need of special support in general education classrooms
(2) ‘pragmatic definition with a focus on supporting students’ individual academic progress’	(B) Specified individualised definition – inclusion as meeting the social/academic needs of pupils with disabilities/pupils in need of special support
	(C) General individualised definition – inclusion as meeting the social/academic needs of all pupils
(3) ‘participation/acknowledgement/well-being’	(D) Community definition – inclusion as creation of communities with specific characteristics (which could vary between proposals)
(4) ‘inclusion as a utopia’

Table 2. Participants by professional background.

	Total Sample					Subsample I (CEFA)					Subsample II (CCFA)
	Female	Male	Diverse	Total		Female	Male	Diverse	Total		Female	Male	Diverse	Total
Deputy School Principal	0	2	0	2		0	1	0	1		0	1	0	1
District School Authorities	0	1	1	2		0	0	1	1		0	1	0	1
Others	2	1	0	3		1	1	0	2		1	0	0	1
Pre-Service Teacher	10	2	0	12		5	1	0	6		5	1	0	6
Research Associate	39	11	1	51		17	8	0	25		22	3	1	26
School Principal	1	0	0	1		1	0	0	1		0	0	0	0
Teacher	3	1	0	4		1	1	0	2		2	0	0	2
Teacher Assistant	2	0	0	2		1	0	0	1		1	0	0	1
University Professor	6	4	0	10		3	2	0	5		3	2	0	5
University Student	354	71	1	426		179	34	0	213		175	37	1	213
Total	417	93	3	513		208	48	1	257		209	45	2	256

Table 3. Students from teaching degree programs by type of teaching degree.

	Female	Male	Diverse	Total
Combined: Primary and Secondary Level I Education	3	0	0	3
Primary Education	63	4	0	67
Secondary Level I Education	58	20	0	78
Secondary Level II Education	48	13	0	61
Special Needs Education	150	28	1	179
Vocational Education	7	4	0	11
Total	329	69	1	399

Table 4. The complete set of items generated for the FEDI linked to their underlying dimensions.

Dimension (based on Piezunka, Schaffus, and Grosche 2017)	Manifestation	Code	Item
Lines of difference	Disability	DLB1	Inclusion means that students with and without disabilities learn together.
		DLB2	Inclusion means striving to strengthen the rights of people with disabilities.
	Overcoming social construction of categories	DLD1	Inclusion means that people can no longer be divided into categories.
		DLD2	Inclusion means that the diversity of all people cannot be expressed in categories.
	Several lines of difference and/or intersectionality	DLU1	Inclusion means that different forms of diversity (disability, gender, ethnicity, language, religion etc.) are considered.
		DLU2	Inclusion means that all people, regardless of gender, origin, religion, or ability, have the same value and the same rights.
		DLU3	Inclusion means that diversity is normal.
Legitimation of inclusion	Ethics	LE1	Inclusion focuses on the concept of human dignity.
		LE2	Inclusion focuses on the idea of a fairer society.
		LE3	Inclusion focuses on the idea of universal human rights.
		LE4	Inclusion focuses on the idea of equality for all people.
	Outcomes / students’ achievement	LO1	Inclusion focuses on the cognitive development of the students.
		LO2	Inclusion focuses on the learning development of the students.
		LO3	Inclusion focuses on the social and emotional development of the students.
		LO4	Inclusion focuses on the motor development of the students.
		LO5	Inclusion focuses on the sensory development of the students.
	Legal	LR1	Inclusion means implementing the requirements of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
		LR2	Inclusion is a legal requirement that must be met.
		LR3	Inclusion means implementing the legal right to participation and non-discrimination.
		LR4	Inclusion means implementing the legal right to education in the general school system.
Goals & aims of inclusion	Anti-discrimination	ZA1	The aim of inclusion is to reduce discrimination.
		ZA2	The aim of inclusion is that no one is excluded.
		ZA3	The aim of inclusion is that all people are treated equally
		ZA4	The aim of inclusion is that all people have equal rights.
	Effective (educational) support	ZF1	The aim of inclusion is that children receive optimal support based on their individual skills.
		ZF2	The aim of inclusion is that every child can learn at their own pace.
		ZF3	The aim of inclusion is to tailor teaching to the needs of each child.
	Access to regular schools	ZR1	In an inclusive school system, every child / adolescent has access to a general school.
		ZR2	In an inclusive school system, as few of the children with disabilities as possible attend a special school.
		ZR3	There are no special schools in an inclusive school system.
		ZR4	In an inclusive school system, all children and adolescents attend school in their neighbourhood.
		ZR5	An inclusive school system is an integrated school system.
		ZR6	An inclusive school system consists of general schools with specialised support programs.
		ZR7	In an inclusive school system, every child / adolescent has access to every general school.
	Social and political participation	ZT1	Inclusion means being part of the community.
		ZT2	Inclusion means that everyone has a say.
		ZT3	Inclusion means participating in social life.
		ZT4	Inclusion means empowering people to stand up for their rights.
		ZT5	Inclusion means being recognised as a human being.

Table 5. Properties of the FEDI items linked to their FEDI scales.

Item		Scale	Response Category (frequency in %)							λCEFA
			0	1	2	3	4	Mdn.	IQR	SSB	HEB	OAB	h^2CEFA	λCCFA	rit
ZR1	In an inclusive school system, every child / adolescent has access to a general school.	SSB	2.14	3.31	20.08	29.82	44.64	3	2	.705	.208	−.083	.546	.827	.722
ZR7	In an inclusive school system, every child / adolescent has access to every general school.	SSB	3.70	10.14	21.25	31.19	33.72	3	2	.762	.139	.063	.604	.713	.743
ZR3	There are no special schools in an inclusive school system.	SSB	12.67	21.64	30.02	21.25	14.42	2	2	.687	−.043	.081	.481	.516	.727
DLD2	Inclusion means that the diversity of all people cannot be expressed in categories.	SSB	2.34	7.99	16.76	33.72	39.18	3	2	.417	.367	.080	.315	.517	.558
ZR5	An inclusive school system is an integrated school system.	SSB	12.48	19.49	37.23	18.32	12.48	2	2	.529	.180	−.061	.316	.415	.638
LE2	Inclusion focuses on the idea of a fairer society.	HEB	1.56	3.70	16.96	40.94	36.84	3	1	.150	.650	.171	.474	.805	.723
ZT4	Inclusion means empowering people to stand up for their rights.	HEB	3.31	13.65	27.10	32.75	23.20	3	1	.051	.557	.132	.330	.737	.713
LE3	Inclusion focuses on the idea of universal human rights.	HEB	1.75	4.29	21.83	32.75	39.38	3	2	.146	.702	.099	.525	.722	.728
DLB2	Inclusion means striving to strengthen the rights of people with disabilities.	HEB	1.36	4.87	30.02	36.65	27.10	3	2	.045	.517	.179	.301	.534	.627
LR1	Inclusion means implementing the requirements of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.	HEB	1.95	7.02	28.27	31.97	30.80	3	2	.294	.508	−.016	.344	.409	.601
LO5	Inclusion focuses on the sensory development of the students.	OAB	9.75	26.9	46.98	13.26	3.12	2	1	.037	.023	.810	.658	.862	.809
LO4	Inclusion focuses on the motor development of the students.	OAB	13.84	31.19	43.66	8.19	3.12	2	1	.040	.104	.772	.609	.716	.764
LO1	Inclusion focuses on the cognitive development of the students.	OAB	6.82	20.86	46.39	19.69	6.24	2	2	−.013	.101	.725	.537	.719	.779
LO3	Inclusion focuses on the social and emotional development of the students.	OAB	5.07	14.42	41.72	29.24	9.55	2	1	−.055	.135	.520	.291	.624	.699
LO2	Inclusion focuses on the learning development of the students.	OAB	3.12	10.33	37.23	29.24	20.08	2	1	.060	.248	.457	.274	.573	.646

Note. SSB = school system-based perspective, HEB = human rights/ethics-based perspective, OAB = outcomes/achievement-based perspective. 0 = ‘not true’, 1 = ‘somewhat not true’, 2 = ‘partially true’, 3 = ‘rather true’, 4 = ‘true’. Mdn. = median, IQR = interquartile range, λ_CEFA = loadings from 2nd run CEFA, h²_CEFA = communalities from 2nd run CEFA, λ_CCFA = loadings from CCFA, r_it = corrected item-total-correlation.

Figure 1. Scree plot of observed data.

Figure 2. The model specified for the CCFA with empirical standardised coefficients and covariances.

Figure 3. DIF-analysis of the FEDI-items.

Table 6. MIV across university students attending a teaching degree programme for special needs education and for general education.

	χ^2	df	p	RMSEA	ΔRMSEA	CFI	ΔCFI	TLI
Configural Invariance	362.25	174	<.001	.074		.964		.957
Metric Invariance	393.56	186	<.001	.075	.001	.960	.004	.955
Scalar Invariance	393.56	183	<.001	.076	.001	.960	<.001	.954

Figure 4. Histograms of relative frequencies of the FEDI scores.

Table 7. Scale properties of the three FEDI scales.

				95%-CI
	M	SD	SE	LL	UL	Min.	Max.	Skew	Kurtosis	α	CR
SSB	2.59	0.75	0.03	2.52	2.65	0.2	4	−0.34	−0.21	.70	.81
HEB	2.87	0.67	0.03	2.81	2.93	0.6	4	−0.31	−0.25	.70	.85
OAB	2.01	0.71	0.03	1.94	2.07	0.0	4	−0.08	0.72	.79	.87

Note: SSB = school system-based perspective, HEB = human rights/ethics-based perspective, OAB = outcomes/achievement-based perspective. LL = lower limit of the 95%-CI, UL = upper limit of the 95%-CI. CR = composite reliability.

Table 8. Correlations between the FEDI scales, attitudes towards inclusion, and teachers’ sense of efficacy.

Variable	M	SD	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
1. SSB	2.59	0.75
2. HEB	2.87	0.67	.35**
			[.27, .42]
3. OAB	2.01	0.71	.08	.32**
			[−.01, .16]	[.24, .39]
4. PREIS	2.63	0.89	.35**	.44**	.20**
			[.27, .42]	[.36, .50]	[.12, .28]
5. TSES	6.53	0.75	.17**	.24**	.14**	.33**
			[.08, .25]	[.16, .32]	[.05, .22]	[.25, .40]

Note: SSB = school system-based perspective, HEB = human rights/ethics-based perspective, OAB = outcomes/achievement-based perspective, PREIS = attitudes towards inclusion, TSES = teachers sense of efficacy. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01.

Piezunka, Anne, Tina Schaffus, and Michael Grosche. 2017. “Vier Definitionen von schulischer Inklusion und ihr konsensueller Kern: Ergebnisse von Experteninterviews mit Inklusionsforschenden.” Unterrichtswissenschaft 45 (4): 207–222. doi:10.3262/UW1704207.

 Google Scholar

Göransson, Kerstin, and Claes Nilholm. 2014. “Conceptual Diversities and Empirical Shortcomings—A Critical Analysis of Research on Inclusive Education.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 29 (3): 265–280. doi:10.1080/08856257.2014.933545.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar