The Spanish Version of the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practice (TEIP) Scale: Adaptation and Psychometric Properties

Abstract

The Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practice (TEIP) scale is an instrument created by Sharma et al. to assess efficacy of instruction in inclusive settings. Despite its increase in use, the TEIP has not been validated with a Spanish teacher population. The aim of this study was to: (1) analyze the psychometric properties and factor structure of the TEIP scale in a sample of Spanish preservice teachers (N = 475; 80% female, 20% male), and (2) examine the level of self-efficacy for inclusive practices that teachers experience when they graduate from their training programs. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicate that a Spanish version (TEIP-ES) consisting of 15 items with a three-factor construct explains 64.65 percent of total variance. Item totalcorrelations ranged from .574 to .715, and factor loadings from .521 to .774. Convergent validity with measures of quality of teacher education (TE) programs and self-report of preparedness to teach in inclusive settings was good. In contrast, self-efficacy for inclusive practices was rated moderately low. Overall, these findings support the construct and convergent validity of the TEIP-ES and suggest that it is a useful instrument to measure self-efficacy for inclusion in Spanish preservice teacher populations. This manuscript reports the findings, discusses the implications for the improvement of TE programs, and suggests possible avenues for future related research.

Development and validation of a short form of the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices Scale (TEIP‐SF)

“…Exceptions were Item 6 ('I am confident in my ability to get students to work together in pairs or in small groups') and Item 12 ('I can make my expectations clear about student behavior'), which had cross-loadings >0.3 on other factors. Of these two items, only Item 12 has been observed to cause misfit in several other studies (Alnahdi, 2019;Cardona-Molto et al, 2020;Malinen, Savolainen, Engelbrecht, et al, 2013;Sharma & Jacobs, 2016).…”

“…Slight adaptations, such as discarding certain items, were nevertheless often necessary to reach an adequate model fit (e.g. Aiello et al, 2018; Cardona‐Molto et al, 2020; Malinen, Savolainen, & Xu, 2013; Miesera et al, 2019). Initial CFAs using data from our sample of teachers in Switzerland also revealed that the original solution with the three correlated factors as proposed by Sharma et al (2012) failed to reach an adequate fit to the data.…”

“…These three items were also frequent sources of misfit in previous studies (e.g. Cardona-Molto et al, 2020;Malinen, Savolainen, Engelbrecht, et al, 2013;Miesera et al, 2019;Mohamed Emam & Al-Mahdy, 2020;Park et al, 2016;Sharma & Jacobs, 2016) so they too were discarded.…”

“…The structure of three correlated factors was replicated for various countries and teacher samples (e.g. Alnahdi, 2019; Cardona‐Molto et al, 2020; Narkun & Smogorzewska, 2019; Savolainen et al, 2012). Often, however, slight modifications (e.g.…”

Adaptation of the Epistemological Belief Scale to Kosovo

“…Especially due to the cultural characteristics of education, the same scales have been observed to yield different results in different cultures. There are numerous studies on the adaptation of a scal e developed in a certain culture to a different culture in the literature (Cam et al, 2012;Cardona-Molto et al, 2020;Teo & Chai, 2012).…”