Comparing priority ranking of inclusive education indicators using multi-criteria decision-making methods: children with locomotor disabilities vs. physical disabilities

Figures & data

Table 1. Indicators of effective inclusive education (IEIE) for an inclusive school.

Domains	Description of Indicators
Academic Teaching and Learning	This includes: Extra time consumption, Class-size, Teaching strategies, Curriculum, Workload, Discipline in class, Diversity in class
Availability of appropriate Support (from school/ Government authorities)	This includes: Student-Teacher ratio, Administrative support, Participation of CWSN in co-curricular activities, Enrolment of CWSN, Performance of school w.r.t. the performance of CWSN, Are you a differently-abled, Type of disability- you belong, Severity of disability, Community (SC/ST/OBC/ General), Academic achievement, Academic performance, financial support, Policies w.r.t. implementation of inclusive education.
Availability of appropriate Facilities and resources	This includes: Availability of a therapeutic care centre for CWSN, Availability of Paraprofessional Staff, Availability of resources to implement accessible features into the school, Availability of special training for regular teachers and staff, Availability of vocational training courses and facilities in school, Availability of resource room and other facilities.
Teacher’s (Education & Training)	This includes Educational qualification, Teaching experience, Trained /Untrained teachers w.r.t. CWSN, Proficient or not w.r.t. operating special devices & equipment used by CWSN, Trained to teach self-care skills to students, Awareness about universal design of learning.
Teacher’s Attitude	This includes: Attitude-negative/positive, Awareness & Sensitization w.r.t. CWSN
Socio-Cultural	This includes Community attitude, Traditional beliefs and practices, Parents/ Community involvement, Acceptability and mutual respect b/w students, ill-treatment/ abuse.
Infrastructure & Accessible Built Environment	This includes: Accessibility to site entry and school premises, Accessibility to vertical and horizontal movement, Accessibility to wash & and other facilities, Accessibility to exit, way-finding and communication, Accessibility to academic spaces, Accessibility to extra-curricular activities areas, Accessibility to digital infrastructure.

Figure 1. Excerpt of the survey questionnaire.

Figure 2. Summarizes the responses from school stakeholders regarding the importance of various IEIE in Primary Schools with respect to the inclusion of CwLDs.

Figure 3. Summarizes the responses from school stakeholders regarding the importance of various IEIE in Primary Schools with respect to the inclusion of CwPDs.Note: here for both cases (CwLDs and CwPDs) in Figures 1 & 2, legends; 1- Class-Size, 2- Teaching Strategies, 3- curriculum, 4- Student-Teachers Ratio, 5- Administrative support, 6- Participation of CWSN in co-curricular activities, 7- Enrollment of CWSN, 8- Are you differently-abled, 9- Type of disability- you belong, 10- Severity of disability, 11- financial support, 12- Policies, 13- Availability of therapeutic care center, 14- Availability of paraprofessional staff, 15- Availability of resources, 16- Special training for regular teachers & staff, 17- Vocational training courses, 18- Teacher’s educational qualification, 19- Teaching experience, 20- Trained/Untrained w.r.t. CWSN, 21- Proficient or not w.r.t. operating special devices, 22- Awareness about UDL, 23- Teacher’s Attitude, 24- Awareness & sensitization w.r.t. disability, 25- Parents/Community involvement, 26- Acceptability & mutual respect, 27- Accessibility to site entry and school premises, 28- Accessibility to vertical and horizontal movement, 29- Accessibility to wash and other facilities, 30- Accessibility to exit, way-finding and communication, 31- Accessibility to academic spaces, 32- Accessibility to extra-curricular activities, 33- Accessibility to digital infrastructure.

Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Test (to assess response reliability of data in case of CwLDs inclusion perspective).

S.no	Variables description	Values	Internal consistency	Range of coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha	Reliability level
1	Number of Items (K)	33	Formula (α) = K/K-1* [1-(∑ s^2y/∑ s^2x)]	More Than 0.90	Excellent
2	Sum of the item variance (∑ s^2y)	47.6897		0.80–0.89	Good
3	Variance of total score (∑ s^2x)	390.5408	α = 0.905	0.70–0.79	Acceptable
4	Cronbach’s Alpha (α)	0.9053		0.60–0.69	Questionable
5	Reliability Level	Excellent	(As 'α' is more than 0.90)	Less than 0.59	Unacceptable

Note: As Cronbach’s Alpha (α)= 0.905 which is more than the 0.90 level, it shows excellent reliability for the data set in the case of CwLDs.

Table 3. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient Test (to assess response reliability of data in case of CwPDs inclusion perspective).

S.no	Variables description	Values	Internal consistency	Range of coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha	Reliability level
1	Number of Items (K)	33	Formula (α) = K/K-1* [1-(∑ s^2y/∑ s^2x)]	More Than 0.90	Excellent
2	Sum of the item variance (∑ s^2y)	45.8266		0.80-0.89	Good
3	Variance of total score (∑ s^2x)	347.8369	α = 0.895	0.70-0.79	Acceptable
4	Cronbach’s Alpha (α)	0.8953		0.60-0.69	Questionable
5	Reliability Level	Good	(As 'α' is more than 0.90)	Less than 0.59	Unacceptable

Note: As Cronbach’s Alpha (α)= 0.895 which comes in between 0.80-0.90 level, it shows Good reliability for the data set in the case of CwPDs.

Table 4. Effective Inclusive Education Indicator’s Priority List Using RIDIT Analysis for both the cases of inclusion (CwLDs and CwPDs) in Mainstream Primary School.

Indicators	In Case of data related to inclusion of CwLDs			In case of data related to inclusion of CwPDs
	(ρi)	W	Rank	(ρi)	W	Rank
1. Class-Size	0.541	9.7	22	0.469	5.547	10
2. Teaching Strategies	0.562	22.1	24	0.500	0.001	17
3. Curriculum w.r.t. CWSN	0.517	1.6	19	0.474	3.857	11
4. Student-Teachers Ratio	0.476	3.3	14	0.412	44.427	6
5. Administrative support	0.612	72.5	30	0.550	14.224	25
6. Participation of CWSN in Co-curricular activities	0.576	33.0	27	0.579	35.868	29
7. Enrolment of CWSN	0.380	83.8	5	0.383	79.059	4
8. Are you a differently-abled /CWSN	0.377	86.8	4	0.351	127.430	1
9. Type of disability- you belong	0.339	150.3	1	0.356	120.508	2
10. Severity of disability	0.351	127.4	3	0.365	104.451	3
11. Inadequate financial support	0.562	22.5	25	0.546	12.467	24
12. Policies w.r.t. implementation	0.527	4.1	20	0.546	12.136	23
13. Availability of Therapeutic care centre	0.347	136.0	2	0.477	3.157	12
14. Availability of Paraprofessional Staff	0.444	18.3	7	0.535	7.010	20
15. Availability of Resources to implement accessible features	0.561	21.3	23	0.540	9.164	21
16. Availability of Special training	0.504	0.1	18	0.499	0.003	16
17. Availability of Vocational training	0.491	0.5	17	0.477	3.037	13
18. Educational Qualification	0.478	2.7	16	0.562	22.293	27
19. Teaching Experience	0.397	61.6	6	0.554	16.552	26
20.Trained /Untrained w.r.t. CWSN	0.586	42.5	28	0.390	69.624	5
21. Proficient or not w.r.t. operating Special Devices & Equipment.	0.565	24.1	26	0.570	28.060	28
22. Awareness about UDL	0.614	75.1	31	0.457	10.432	7
23. Teacher’s Attitude (Negative/ Positive)	0.610	69.3	29	0.604	62.191	31
24. Awareness, Sensitization w.r.t. disability	0.669	165.0	33	0.623	86.708	33
25. Parents/ Community Involvement	0.620	82.9	32	0.620	82.442	32
26. Acceptability & Mutual Respect b/w students and teachers,	0.529	4.9	21	0.582	39.143	30
27. Site Entry and School Premises	0.468	5.8	11	0.487	1.022	14
28. Vertical and Horizontal Movement	0.463	7.8	10	0.498	0.035	15
29. Wash and Other Facilities	0.461	8.6	9	0.465	6.896	9
30. Exit, Way-Finding and Communication	0.471	5.0	13	0.523	3.171	19
31. Academic Spaces	0.456	11.1	8	0.460	9.346	8
32. Extra-Curricular Activities	0.470	5.2	12	0.504	0.083	18
33. Digital Infrastructure	0.477	2.9	15	0.543	10.716	22
	W =	1367.8		W =	1031.06

Note: Here, ρi indicating the mean RIDIT score for the respective response as per their level of importance. Here, in case of CwLDs, Kruskal-Wallis (W) = 1367.84; and in case of CwPDs, Kruskal-Wallis (W) = 1031.061; chi-squared χ2(33 – 1) = 46.194 at 0.05 significance level; indicating statistically distinct perception scores for all indicators; ‘R’ = rank of the indicator with lower the ρi, the higher the rank.

Table 5. Effective Inclusive Education Indicator’s Priority List Using Grey Relation Analysis (GRA) for both the cases of inclusion (CwLDs and CwPDs) in Mainstream Primary School.

Indicators	S1	S2	d1	d2	In Case of data related to inclusion of CwLDs			In Case of data related to inclusion of CwPDs
					TSGC	AGG	R	TSGC	AGG	R
1.	5	1	1	0	302.71	9.173	21	343.09	10.397	10
2.	5	1	1	0	289.46	8.771	26	333.20	10.097	15
3.	5	1	1	0	317.65	9.626	18	341.11	10.337	12
4.	5	1	1	0	336.84	10.207	12	357.69	10.839	6
5.	5	1	1	0	273.31	8.282	30	304.33	9.222	26
6.	5	1	1	0	288.67	8.747	27	295.08	8.942	29
7.	5	1	1	0	381.97	11.575	4	385.53	11.683	3
8.	5	1	1	0	372.98	11.302	5	392.52	11.895	2
9.	5	1	1	0	394.25	11.947	2	401.81	12.176	1
10.	5	1	1	0	384.62	11.655	3	384.98	11.666	4
11.	5	1	1	0	291.56	8.835	25	309.05	9.365	23
12.	5	1	1	0	312.00	9.455	20	308.78	9.357	24
13.	5	1	1	0	400.04	12.123	1	341.57	10.351	11
14.	5	1	1	0	355.27	10.766	7	316.31	9.585	20
15.	5	1	1	0	293.84	8.904	24	317.04	9.607	19
16.	5	1	1	0	325.24	9.856	17	331.66	10.050	16
17.	5	1	1	0	327.60	9.927	16	339.90	10.300	13
18.	5	1	1	0	313.40	9.497	19	300.80	9.115	27
19.	5	1	1	0	358.57	10.866	6	305.43	9.255	25
20.	5	1	1	0	284.92	8.634	28	375.01	11.364	5
21.	5	1	1	0	299.43	9.074	23	300.53	9.107	28
22.	5	1	1	0	273.91	8.300	29	352.07	10.669	7
23.	5	1	1	0	270.99	8.212	32	285.27	8.644	31
24.	5	1	1	0	253.27	7.675	33	278.91	8.452	33
25.	5	1	1	0	271.45	8.226	31	279.68	8.475	32
26.	5	1	1	0	302.69	9.172	22	289.85	8.783	30
27.	5	1	1	0	337.16	10.217	11	334.18	10.127	14
28.	5	1	1	0	339.89	10.300	10	314.44	9.528	21
29.	5	1	1	0	340.89	10.330	9	345.49	10.469	9
30.	5	1	1	0	336.31	10.191	13	321.21	9.734	18
31.	5	1	1	0	344.26	10.432	8	348.79	10.569	8
32.	5	1	1	0	336.16	10.187	14	331.59	10.048	17
33.	5	1	1	0	332.16	10.065	15	313.32	9.495	22

Note: Here S1: Smax, S2: Smin; d1: dmax; d2 : dmin; TSGC: total sum of GRA coefficient; AGG:Avg. GRA Grade; R: rank.

Table 6. Effective Inclusive Education Indicator’s Priority List using TOPSIS Method for both the cases of inclusion (CwLDs and CwPDs).

Indicators	In Case of data related to inclusion of CwLDs				In Case of data related to inclusion of CwPDs
	($d_J^{+}$) value	($d_J^{-}$) value	($C_J^{*}$) value	Rank	($d_J^{+}$) value	($d_J^{-}$) value	($C_J^{*}$) value	Rank
1.	0.004353	0.004765	0.5226	22	0.003761	0.005519	0.5947	12
2.	0.004441	0.004671	0.5127	23	0.004113	0.005242	0.5603	18
3.	0.004533	0.005022	0.5256	21	0.003819	0.005423	0.5867	14
4.	0.004184	0.005268	0.5573	17	0.002314	0.005942	0.7197	4
5.	0.004864	0.004358	0.4726	31	0.003985	0.005028	0.5578	19
6.	0.004680	0.004536	0.4922	26	0.004455	0.004718	0.5143	29
7.	0.003379	0.006074	0.6425	7	0.002973	0.006188	0.6755	6
8.	0.002318	0.006339	0.7323	4	0.001991	0.006579	0.7677	1
9.	0.002008	0.006596	0.7666	2	0.002859	0.006567	0.6967	5
10.	0.001964	0.006528	0.7687	1	0.001968	0.006438	0.7659	2
11.	0.004554	0.004713	0.5086	24	0.004216	0.004979	0.5415	24
12.	0.004421	0.004929	0.5272	20	0.004170	0.004877	0.5391	25
13.	0.003402	0.006282	0.6487	6	0.003753	0.005407	0.5902	13
14.	0.004173	0.005574	0.5719	15	0.004105	0.004959	0.5471	21
15.	0.004527	0.004602	0.5041	25	0.004596	0.004930	0.5175	28
16.	0.004453	0.005145	0.5360	19	0.004010	0.005322	0.5703	16
17.	0.004234	0.005215	0.5519	18	0.003812	0.005406	0.5865	15
18.	0.002715	0.005551	0.6715	5	0.004173	0.004854	0.5377	26
19.	0.002218	0.006191	0.7363	3	0.004161	0.005008	0.5462	22
20.	0.004790	0.004440	0.4810	28	0.002351	0.006261	0.7270	3
21.	0.004930	0.004589	0.4821	27	0.004583	0.004671	0.5047	30
22.	0.005014	0.004284	0.4608	32	0.003868	0.005709	0.5961	11
23.	0.004804	0.004334	0.4743	30	0.004691	0.004445	0.4865	32
24.	0.005525	0.003811	0.4082	33	0.004934	0.004296	0.4654	33
25.	0.005863	0.005372	0.4781	29	0.005780	0.005485	0.4869	31
26.	0.004754	0.006470	0.5764	14	0.004960	0.006171	0.5544	20
27.	0.004660	0.006514	0.5830	11	0.004315	0.006499	0.6010	10
28.	0.004592	0.006599	0.5897	10	0.003282	0.006404	0.6612	7
29.	0.004580	0.006625	0.5912	9	0.004199	0.006734	0.6159	9
30.	0.004721	0.006478	0.5784	13	0.004766	0.006202	0.5655	17
31.	0.004536	0.006709	0.5966	8	0.004157	0.006823	0.6214	8
32.	0.004670	0.006485	0.5813	12	0.005216	0.006164	0.5416	23
33.	0.00477	0.006344	0.5708	16	0.005170	0.005823	0.5297	27

Note: Here, (${\mathrm{d}}_{\mathrm{J}}^{+}$): separation measures from positive ideal solution, (${\mathrm{d}}_{\mathrm{J}}^{-}$): separation measures from negative ideal solution, (${\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{J}}^{\mathrm{*}}$) = represents an index value ranging from 0 to 1. A higher index value indicates superior alternative performance.

Table 7. Comparative Ranking of IEIE Using TOPSIS, RIDIT, and GRA for both the cases of inclusion (CwLDs and CwPDs).

Indicators		In Case of data related to inclusion of CwLDs			In Case of data related to inclusion of CwPDs
		RIDITRank	GRARank	TOPSISRank	RIDITRank	GRARank	TOPSISRank
1	Class-Size	22	21	22	10	10	12
2	Teaching Strategies	24	26	23	17	15	18
3	Curriculum w.r.t. CWSN	19	18	21	11	12	14
4	Student-Teachers Ratio	14	12	17	6	6	4
5	Administrative support	30	30	31	25	26	19
6	Participation of CWSN in Co-curricular activities	27	27	26	29	29	29
7	Enrolment of CWSN	5	4	7	4	3	6
8	Are you a differently-abled /special child	4	5	4	1	2	1
9	Type of disability- you belong	1	2	2	2	1	5
10	Severity of disability	3	3	1	3	4	2
11	Inadequate financial support	25	25	24	24	23	24
12	Policies w.r.t. implementation of inclusive education	20	20	20	23	24	25
13	Availability of Therapeutic care centre	2	1	6	12	11	13
14	Availability of Paraprofessional Staff	7	7	15	20	20	21
15	Availability of Resources to implement accessible features into the School	23	24	25	21	19	28
16	Availability of Special training for Regular Teachers & staff	18	17	19	16	16	16
17	Availability of Vocational training courses and facilities in school	17	16	18	13	13	15
18	Educational Qualification	16	19	5	27	27	26
19	Teaching Experience	6	6	3	26	25	22
20	Trained /Untrained w.r.t. CWSN	28	28	28	5	5	3
21	Proficient or not w.r.t. operating Special Devices & Equipment used by CWSN.	26	23	27	28	28	30
22	Awareness about UDL	31	29	32	7	7	11
23	Teacher’s Attitude (Negative/ Positive)	29	32	30	31	31	32
24	Awareness & Sensitization w.r.t. disability,	33	33	33	33	33	33
25	Parents/ Community Involvement	32	31	32	32	32	31
26	Acceptability & Mutual Respect b/w students and teachers,	21	22	29	30	30	20
27	Accessibility to Site Entry, School Premises	11	11	14	14	14	10
28	Accessibility to Vertical and Horizontal Movement	10	10	10	15	21	7
29	Accessibility to Wash and Other Facilities	9	9	09	9	9	9
30	Accessibility to Exit, Way-Finding and Communication	13	13	13	19	18	17
31	Accessibility to Academic Spaces	8	8	08	8	8	8
32	Accessibility to Extra-Curricular Activities	12	14	12	18	17	23
33	Accessibility to Digital Infrastructure	15	15	16	22	22	27

Table 8. Spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient between RIDIT, GRA and TOPSIS for both cases of inclusion (CwLDs and CwPDs).

Spearman’s rho		In case of CwLDs			In Case of CwPDs
		RIDIT Rank	GRA Rank	TOPSIS Rank	RIDIT Rank	GRA Rank	TOPSIS Rank
CwLDs_ RIDIT Rank	Correlation Coefficient	1.000	.991**	.953**	.577**	.569**	.584**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001
	N	33	33	33	33	33	33
CwLDs_ GRA Rank	Correlation Coefficient	.991**	1.000	.931**	.607**	.597**	.612**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	<.001	.	<.001	<.001	<.001	<.001
	N	33	33	33	33	33	33
CwLDs_ TOPSIS Rank	Correlation Coefficient	.953**	.931**	1.000	.534**	.526**	.530**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	<.001	<.001	.	.001	.002	.002
	N	33	33	33	33	33	33
CwPDs_ RIDIT Rank	Correlation Coefficient	.577**	.607**	.534**	1.000	.991**	.932**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	<.001	<.001	.001	.	<.001	<.001
	N	33	33	33	33	33	33
CwPDs_ GRA Rank	Correlation Coefficient	.569**	.597**	.526**	.991**	1.000	.899**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	<.001	<.001	.002	<.001	.	<.001
	N	33	33	33	33	33	33
CwPDs_ TOPSIS Rank	Correlation Coefficient	.584**	.612**	.530**	.932**	.899**	1.000
	Sig. (2-tailed)	<.001	<.001	.002	<.001	<.001	.
	N	33	33	33	33	33	33

** . Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Note: In case of inclusion of CwLDs, Spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient between RIDIT and GRA is 0.991, between RIDIT and TOPSIS is 0.953, between GRA and TOPSIS is 0.931 (see Table 8). In case of inclusion of CwPDs, Spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient between RIDIT and GRA is 0.991, between RIDIT and TOPSIS is 0.932, and between GRA and TOPSIS is 0.899 (see Table 8), which is significant at the 99% confidence level and indicating a positive rank order relationship among the three methods for both cases. But when a comparison was done on spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient between CwLDs and CwPDs ranking (see Table 8); it was 0.577, 0.569 and 0.584 for comparison between CwLDs-RIDIT versus CwPDs-RIDIT, CwPDs-GRA and CwPDs-TOPSIS respectively, it was 0.607, 0.597 and 0.612 for comparison between CwLDs-GRA versus CwPDs-RIDIT, CwPDs-GRA and CwPDs-TOPSIS respectively, and it was 0.534, 0.526 and 0.530 for comparison between CwLDs-TOPSIS versus CwPDs-RIDIT, CwPDs-GRA and CwPDs-TOPSIS respectively, which was not significant at the 99% confidence level and not indicating a positive rank order relationship among the three methods. Although TOPSIS, RIDIT, and GRA are established methods with consistent results (among individual case of inclusion), but RIDIT offers an extra statistical test (Kruskal-Wallis) to validate results. Furthermore, Spearman’s rank correlation indicates a strong alignment between RIDIT, GRA, and TOPSIS rankings (among each case ranking of inclusion of CwLDs/CwPDs) (see Table 8). Hence, while all methods yield acceptable results, RIDIT's prioritization of IEIE is preferred for individual case of inclusion (CwLDs and CwPDs) separately.