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

References

• Ainscow, Mel, Tony Booth, and Alan Dyson. 2006. Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, Michael W., and Robert Cudeck. 1992. “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit.” Sociological Methods and Research 21 (2): 230–258. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bühner, Markus. 2011. Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion. München: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Cattell, Raymond B. 1966. “The Scree Test for the Number of Factors.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 1 (2): 245–276. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Fang Fang. 2007. “Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 14 (3): 464–504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, Eunseong. 2016. “Making Reliability Reliable: A Systematic Approach to Reliability Coefficients.” Organizational Research Methods 19 (4): 651–682. doi:10.1177/1094428116656239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly, Alice Hendrickson, and Shelly Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Egener, Lea, David Scheer, Désirée Laubenstein, and Conny Melzer. 2019. “Fragebogen zur Erfassung subjektiver Definitionen von Inklusion (FEDI).” doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.24022.40002.
   Google Scholar
• Eid, Michael, and Katharina Schmidt. 2014. Testtheorie und Testkonstruktion. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, Peter, Alan Dyson, Filiz Polat, Graeme Hutcheson, and Frances Gallannaugh. 2007. “Inclusion and Achievement in Mainstream Schools.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 22 (2): 131–145. doi:10.1080/08856250701267808.
   Google Scholar
• Field, Andy. 2017. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs, Douglas, and Lynn S. Fuchs. 1998. “Competing Visions for Educating Students with Disabilities Inclusion Versus Full Inclusion.” Childhood Education 74 (5): 309–316. doi:10.1080/00094056.1998.10521956.
   Google Scholar
• Garrido, Luis E., Francisco J. Abad, and Vicente Ponsoda. 2011. “Performance of Velicer’s Minimum Average Partial Factor Retention Method with Categorical Variables.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 71 (3): 551–570. doi:10.1177/0013164410389489.
   Web of Science ®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
• Graham, Linda J, and Ilektra Spandagou. 2011. “From Vision to Reality: Views of Primary School Principals on Inclusive Education in New South Wales, Australia.” Disability and Society 26 (2): 223–237. doi:10.1080/09687599.2011.544062.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosche, Michael. 2015. “Was ist Inklusion? Ein Diskussions- und Positionsartikel zur Definition von Inklusion aus Sicht der empirischen Bildungsforschung.” In Inklusion von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf in Schulleistungserhebungen, edited by Poldi Kuhl, Petra Stanat, Birgit Lütje-Klose, Cornelia Gresch, Hans Anand Pant, and Manfred Prenzel, 17–39. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-06604-8.
   Google Scholar
• Grosche, Michael. 2017a. “Brücken bauen, statt einreißen! Introspektion der quantitativ-empirischen Sonderpädagogik zur Ermöglichung einer inter- Und transdiskursiven Zusammenarbeit.” In Sonderpädagogik zwischen Wirksamkeitsforschung und Gesellschaftskritik, edited by Désirée Laubenstein, and David Scheer, 41–61. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
   Google Scholar
• Grosche, Michael. 2017b. “Eine Analyse der Funktion von quantitativen Daten für evidenzbasierte Entscheidungen zur Ermöglichung der Zusammenarbeit von quantitativen und nicht-quantitativen Forschungszugängen.” Sonderpädagogische Förderung heute 62 (4): 360–371.
   Google Scholar
• Hair, Jr., Joseph F., G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2017. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Heine, Joerg-Henrik. 2020. “pairwise: Rasch Model Parameters by Pairwise Algorithm” (version 0.4.5-1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pairwise.
   Google Scholar
• Horn, John L. 1965. “A Rationale and Test for the Number of Factors in Factor Analysis.” Psychometrika 30 (2): 179–185. doi:10.1007/BF02289447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1): 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen, Terrence D., Sunthud Pornprasertmanit, Alexander M. Schoemann, Yves Rosseel, Patrick Miller, Corbin Quick, Mauricio Garnier-Villarreal, et al. 2019. “SemTools: Useful Tools for Structural Equation Modeling” (version 0.5-2). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/semTools/index.html.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, Henry F. 1960. “The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 20 (1): 141–151. doi:10.1177/001316446002000116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavale, Kenneth A., and Steven R. Forness. 2000. “History, Rhetoric, and Reality: Analysis of the Inclusion Debate.” Remedial and Special Education 21 (5): 279–296. doi:10.1177/074193250002100505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krischler, Mireille, Justin J. W. Powell, and Ineke M. Pit-Ten Cate. 2019. “What Is Meant by Inclusion? On the Effects of Different Definitions on Attitudes toward Inclusive Education.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 34 (5): 632–648. doi:10.1080/08856257.2019.1580837.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lishinski, Alex. 2018. lavaanPlot: Path Diagrams for Lavaan Models via DiagrammeR. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lavaanPlot.
   Google Scholar
• Loreman, Tim. 2014. “Measuring Inclusive Education Outcomes in Alberta, Canada.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 18 (5): 459–483. doi:10.1080/13603116.2013.788223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lüke, Timo, and Michael Grosche. 2016. Professionsunabhängige Einstellungsskala Zum Inklusiven Schulsystem (PREIS). figshare. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.2245630.
   Google Scholar
• Lüke, Timo, and Michael Grosche. 2018a. “Konstruktion und Validierung der Professionsunabhängigen Einstellungsskala zum Inklusiven Schulsystem (PREIS).” Empirische Sonderpädagogik 10 (1): 3–20.
   Google Scholar
• Lüke, Timo, and Michael Grosche. 2018b. “What Do I Think About Inclusive Education? It Depends on Who Is Asking. Experimental Evidence for a Social Desirability Bias in Attitudes towards Inclusion.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 22 (1): 38–53. doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1348548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lüke, Timo, and Michael Grosche. 2018c. “Implicitly Measuring Attitudes towards Inclusive Education: A New Attitude Test Based on Single-Target Implicit Associations.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 33 (3): 427–436. doi:10.1080/08856257.2017.1334432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makoelle, T. M. 2014. “Pedagogy of Inclusion: A Quest for Inclusive Teaching and Learning.” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5 (20): 1259–1267. doi:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p1259.
   Google Scholar
• Mandl, Heinz, and Günter L. Huber. 1983. “Subjektive Theorien von Lehrern.” Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht 30: 98–112.
   Google Scholar
• Masters, Geoff N. 1982. “A Rasch Model for Partial Credit Scoring.” Psychometrika 47 (2): 149–174. doi:10.1007/BF02296272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moosbrugger, Helfried, and Karin Schermelleh-Engel. 2012. “Exploratorische (EFA) und konfirmatorische Faktorenanalyse (CFA).” In Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion, edited by Helfried Moosbrugger and Augustin Kelava, 325–343. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20072-4_13.
   Google Scholar
• Netemeyer, Richard G., William O. Bearden, and Subhash Sharma. 2003. Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Nilholm, Claes, and Kerstin Göransson. 2017. “What Is Meant by Inclusion? An Analysis of European and North American Journal Articles with High Impact.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 32 (3): 437–451. doi:10.1080/08856257.2017.1295638.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Connor, Brian P. 2000. “SPSS and SAS Programs for Determining the Number of Components Using Parallel Analysis and Velicer’s MAP Test.” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 32: 396–402.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
• Przibilla, Bodo, Friedrich Linderkamp, and Philipp Krämer. 2018. “Subjektive Definitionen von Lehrkräften zu Inklusion—Eine explorative Studie.” Empirische Sonderpädagogik 10 (3): 232–247.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (version 3.6.0). http://www.r-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Revelle, William. 2019. Package ‘Psych’: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research (version 1.8.12). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/psych.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rizopoulos, Dimitris. 2018. ‘Ltm’: An R Package for Latent Variable Modelling and Item Response Theory Analyses (version 1.1-1). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ltm/ltm.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Yves. 2012. “Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of Statistical Software 48: 2. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Yves. 2018. ‘Lavaan’: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling (version 0.6-3). http://lavaan.org.
   Google Scholar
• RStudio. 2019. RStudio (version 1.2.1335). https://rstudio.com.
   Google Scholar
• Salisbury, Christine L. 2006. “Principals’ Perspectives on Inclusive Elementary Schools.” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 31 (1): 70–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satorra, Albert. 2000. “Scaled and Adjusted Restricted Tests in Multi-Sample Analysis of Moment Structures.” In Innovations in Multivariate Statistical Analysis, edited by R. D. H. Heijmans, D. S. G. Pollock, and A. Satorra, 233–247. Boston, MA: Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-4603-0_17.
   Google Scholar
• Savolainen, Hannu, Olli-Pekka Malinen, and Susanne Schwab. 2020. “Teacher Efficacy Predicts Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion – A Longitudinal Cross-Lagged Analysis.” International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–15. doi:10.1080/13603116.2020.1752826.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheer, David. 2020. Schulleitung und Inklusion: Empirische Untersuchung zur Schulleitungsrolle im Kontext schulischer Inklusion. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-27401-6.
   Google Scholar
• Scheer, David, Lea Egener, Désirée Laubenstein, and Conny Melzer. 2020. “Definitions of Inclusion Questionnaire (FEDI).” doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.35740.85121/1.
   Google Scholar
• Scheer, David, Markus Scholz, Astrid Rank, and Christian Donie. 2015. “Inclusive Beliefs and Self-Efficacy Concerning Inclusive Education among German Teacher Trainees and Student Teachers.” Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 14 (3): 270–293. doi:10.1891/1945-8959.14.3.270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schermelleh-Engel, Karin, Helfried Moosbrugger, and Hans Müller. 2003. “Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures.” Methods of Psychological Research Online 8 (2): 23–74. https://www.dgps.de/fachgruppen/methoden/mpr-online/issue20/art2/mpr130_13.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Schulze, Sarah, Timo Lüke, Anne Schröter, Katharina Krause, and Jan Kuhl. 2019. “Replikationsstudie zur Testgüte der Professionsunabhängigen Einstellungsskala zum Inklusiven Schulsystem – ein Beitrag zur Validierung.” Unterrichtswissenschaft 47 (2): 201–219. doi:10.1007/s42010-018-00034-3.
   Google Scholar
• Starczewska, Ania, Alan Hodkinson, and Gill Adams. 2012. “Conceptions of Inclusion and Inclusive Education: A Critical Examination of the Perspectives and Practices of Teachers in Poland.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 12 (3): 162–169. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01209.x.
   Google Scholar
• Sung, Jung Gyung, and Conny Melzer. 2014. “Die Auswirkungen praktischer Erfahrungen auf die Selbstwirksamkeit von Studierenden der Sonderpädagogik in Korea - Implikationen für die Lehrerausbildung im Hinblick auf inklusive Bildungssysteme.” Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik 65 (8): 280–288.
   Google Scholar
• Svetina, Dubravka, Leslie Rutkowski, and David Rutkowski. 2020. “Multiple-Group Invariance with Categorical Outcomes Using Updated Guidelines: An Illustration Using Mplus and the lavaan/semTools Packages.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 27 (1): 111–130. doi:10.1080/10705511.2019.1602776.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tschannen-Moran, Megan, and Anita Woolfolk-Hoy. 2001. “Teacher Efficacy: Capturing an Elusive Construct.” Teaching and Teacher Education 17: 783–805. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urton, Karolina, Jürgen Wilbert, and Thomas Hennemann. 2014. “Attitudes towards Inclusion and Self-Efficacy of Principals and Teachers.” Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12 (2): 151–168.
   Google Scholar
• Velicer, Wayne F. 1976. “Determining the Number of Components from the Matrix of Partial Correlations.” Psychometrika 41 (3): 321–327. doi:10.1007/BF02293557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waitoller, Federico R., and Alfredo J. Artiles. 2013. “A Decade of Professional Development Research for Inclusive Education: A Critical Review and Notes for a Research Program.” Review of Educational Research 83 (3): 319–356. doi:10.3102/0034654313483905.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werning, Rolf. 2010. “Inklusion zwischen Innovation und Überforderung.” Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik 61 (8): 284–291.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, James M., Douglas J. Tataryn, and Richard L. Gorsuch. 1996. “Effects of under- and Overextraction on Principal Axis Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation.” Psychological Methods 1 (4): 354–365. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.4.354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, Hao, and Ryne Estabrook. 2016. “Identification of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models of Different Levels of Invariance for Ordered Categorical Outcomes.” Psychometrika 81 (4): 1014–1045. doi:10.1007/s11336-016-9506-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwick, William R., and Wayne F. Velicer. 1982. “Factors Influencing Four Rules For Determining The Number Of Components To Retain.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 17 (2): 253–269. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr1702_5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwick, William R., and Wayne F. Velicer. 1986. “Comparison of Five Rules for Determining the Number of Components to Retain.” Psychological Bulletin 99 (3): 432–442. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar