Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x
Measuring teacher efficacy to implement
inclusive practices
Umesh Sharma1, Tim Loreman2 and Chris Forlin3
1
Monash University, Australia; 2Concordia University College of Alberta, Canada; 3Hong Kong Institute of Education,
Hong Kong
Key words: Pre-service training, teacher efficacy, inclusive education.
The purpose of this study was to develop an instru-
ment to measure perceived teacher efficacy to
teach in inclusive classrooms. An 18-item scale was
developed on a sample of 607 pre-service teachers
selected from four countries (Canada, Australia,
Hong Kong and India). Factor analysis of responses
from the sample revealed three factors: efficacy in
using inclusive instruction, efficacy in collaboration
and efficacy in dealing with disruptive behaviours.
The alpha coefficient for the total scale was 0.89.
Alpha coefficients for the three factors ranged from
0.85 to 0.93. Reliability analysis for the total scale
as well as factors for each country suggested that
the scale provides a reliable measure of pre-service
teacher perceptions of self-efficacy for inclusion
across different countries.
The inclusion of children with disabilities in regular class-
rooms is now a worldwide trend that has been growing in
popularity during the last three decades. Several developed
countries (e.g., USA, UK, Canada and Australia) have leg-
islation or policies that emphasise an inclusive model of
teaching students with diverse needs in regular class-
rooms. Similarly, several developing countries have now
formulated policies that support the broader principles of
inclusive education to educate students with specialised
needs (Kuyini and Desai, 2007; Wu-Tien, Ashman and
Yong-Wook, 2008). This change in the needs of students
at classroom level over this period of time has made it
necessary for universities to change their teacher educa-
tion practices (Nougaret, Scruggs and Mastropieri, 2005).
Some teacher registration bodies in Western countries
(e.g., New South Wales and Queensland in Australia) have
made it a mandatory requirement for all teachers to
complete a subject in special or inclusive education
(Subban and Sharma, 2006), or have made outcomes
related to inclusion mandatory in teacher preparation
programmes (see e.g., Alberta Education, 1997). The
requirement is based on the premise that without such
training, teachers will not be able to meet the needs of
diverse student populations in their classrooms (Kuyini
and Desai, 2007; Sharma, Forlin and Loreman, 2008;
Winter, 2006).
© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
· Volume •• · Number •• · 2011 ••–••
jrs3_1200 1..10
Inclusion is based on the philosophy that all students are
different in any number of ways (not limited to disability),
and in order to meet their learning needs, schools need to
adapt and change their practices (Kinsella and Senior, 2008;
Oliver, 1990). Under an inclusive philosophy, schools exist
to meet the needs of all students; therefore, if a student is
experiencing difficulties, the problem is with the schooling
practices not with the student. Implementing inclusive
education is not an easy task and requires significant change
to facilitate improvements in the way teachers have been
working in the classroom. Although an earlier common
misconception was that inclusion is just about placement of
students with diverse learning needs in regular classrooms,
more recently, researchers argue that it is much more than
placement (e.g., Winter, 2006). It is about ‘The quality of
the school experience and about how far they are helped to
learn, achieve and participate fully in the life of the school’
(DfES, 2004, p. 12).
Teacher education programmes now have a major respon-
sibility to ensure that new graduates are well prepared to
include all students into mainstream classrooms regardless
of individual difference (Winter, 2006). One way to deter-
mine if pre-service teachers are ready for this challenge is
to examine their perceived efficacy to implement inclusive
practices.
According to Bandura (1997), teachers’ perceived efficacy
influences both the kind of environment that teachers create
for their students as well as their judgements about different
teaching tasks they will perform to enhance student learn-
ing. Applying this theory to an inclusive education scenario,
a teacher with high teacher efficacy in implementing inclu-
sive practices would believe that a student with special
learning needs can be effectively taught in the regular class-
room. Alternatively, teachers with poor efficacy for imple-
menting inclusive practices would consider that there is
very little they can do to include a student with special
learning needs in a regular classroom, and thus they may be
disinclined to try. This theory implies that teachers’ sense of
efficacy affects their behaviour and actions, as well as con-
sequences of actions (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk and
Hoy, 1998). Gibson and Dembo (1984) found significant
differences in the teaching practices of high efficacious and
low efficacious teachers. Teachers with high self-efficacy
1
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
perceptions persisted with low-achieving students and
used better teaching strategies (e.g., less criticism for wrong
answers, better questioning) that allowed such students to
learn more effectively. Conversely, teachers with low self-
efficacy spent more time on non-academic tasks and used
less effective teaching strategies that hindered student
learning. Other researchers have also found that teachers
with efficacy for teaching tend to use more hands-on teach-
ing methods (Chan, 2008) and more humanistic approa-
ches (Woolfolk Hoy, Rosoff and Hoy, 1990). In summary,
high teacher efficacy can be viewed as a key ingredient to
create successful inclusive classroom environments. Some
researchers have even suggested that education reforms that
fail to address teacher efficacy are unlikely to be successful
and effective (DeMesquita and Drake, 1994; Sarason,
1990).
Teacher efficacy is also associated with improvement in
attitudes towards teaching in inclusive classrooms. In an
early comprehensive study of predicting teachers’ attitudes
to inclusion, Soodak, Podell and Lehman (1998) found that
teachers’ sense of teaching efficacy was one of the strongest
predictors of their attitudes to inclusion. They also found
that teachers with a low sense of efficacy demonstrated
anxiety and rejected the idea of including students with
special needs in their classrooms. Weisel and Dror (2006)
similarly investigated the effect of school organisation and
educational climate, and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy
(using Teacher Efficacy Scale) on the attitudes of 139 teach-
ers from 17 primary schools in Israel towards the inclusion
of students with disabilities. The researchers found that
teachers’ sense of self-efficacy was the single best predictor
of their attitudes towards inclusion. Also, teachers who
perceived a more positive school climate (e.g., supportive
leadership, collaborative planning and autonomy) tended
to express more positive attitudes towards inclusion. In
another Israeli study of 33 teachers, Almog and Shechtman
(2007) established that there were positive correlations
between teacher democratic beliefs, teacher efficacy and
effective strategies to work with students with difficult
behaviour problems. In a series of studies, Sharma et al.
(2008), Forlin, Loreman and Sharma (2009), and Sharma,
Moore and Sonawane (2009) examined the relationship
between pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion
with variables such as contact with people with disabilities,
knowledge of local legislation and policies, and confidence
level. The researchers found that confidence in teaching in
inclusive classrooms was the single best predictor of par-
ticipants’ attitudes.
Over the last two decades, more research has been con-
ducted, particularly to find out if the Western constructs
(such as teacher efficacy and the use of psychological mea-
suring instruments) are appropriate to non-Western contexts
(Cheung, 2006; Lin and Gorrell, 2001). Despite abundant
research on teacher efficacy in Western countries, such
research in non-Western contexts is limited. Ho (2000)
compared Australian and Hong Kong Chinese teachers’
efficacy. Based on the interview data, he concluded that the
two groups of teachers faced similar problems and they
2 © 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN
used similar kinds of strategies to deal with them. He also
found some differences between teachers. Although Austra-
lian teachers perceived that their major responsibilities are
the area of instruction and discipline, their Chinese coun-
terparts exhibited a strong sense of moral responsibility in
guiding students in their daily life. In a more recent study,
Ho and Hau (2004) compared 316 Australian and 411 Hong
Kong in-service teachers regarding their personal efficacy
in instruction, discipline, guidance and beliefs about exter-
nal influences. They found that both groups of teachers had
highly comparable factorial structure of teacher efficacy,
although personal guidance efficacy was more differenti-
ated from personal instruction and discipline efficacy
among Australian teachers. They found strong evidence for
‘cross cultural validity of the basic structure for the teacher
efficacy construct’ (p. 320). They concluded that ‘for teach-
ers who work in comparable modern school systems, there
are important criteria for judging their professional capabil-
ity in these domains of responsibility even when the cultural
context is different’. This suggests that teacher efficacy is a
construct that has cross-cultural validity. Researchers agree
that teacher efficacy is a context- and task-specific construct
(Bandura, 1997; Chan, 2008). In other words, a teacher
who has high teacher efficacy in teaching mathematics will
not necessarily have high efficacy in teaching languages.
Researchers have therefore recommended that teacher effi-
cacy should be examined in terms of task and context speci-
ficity (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001).
The need to design new teacher efficacy scales has received
renewed impetus with the introduction of fresh educational
reforms (Chan, 2008). Although several studies have exam-
ined teacher efficacy in general, studies examining teacher
efficacy in including students with diverse needs in regular
classrooms are limited. Some studies (Romi and Leyser,
2006; Weisel and Dror, 2006) that have examined teacher
efficacy to implement inclusive education have often
employed general teacher efficacy measures (e.g., Teacher
Efficacy Scale) (Gibson and Dembo, 1984). Other studies
have employed teacher efficacy scales based on a medical
conceptualisation of disability (e.g., Hutzler, Zach and
Gafni, 2005). Although these scales have good reliability
and validity, they continue to conceptualise disability from
a deficit perspective. Finkelstein (2001) argues that medical
conceptualisation of disability has hindered the progress of
inclusive education reform as the model is based on the
belief that if a child does not learn, then something is wrong
with the child and so the child should be separated and
taught in a special environment. Within this paradigm, dis-
ability is viewed as a form of illness or physical condition
which is intrinsic to the individual and believed to cause
significant disadvantage (Finkelstein, 2001; Oliver, 1990)
and as a result, the treatment of the condition revolves
around finding the cause of the problem within the indi-
vidual and solutions are mainly to control the impact of
disability. Although there is no question that disability often
does cause significant disadvantages for an individual,
those who are critical of the medical model ascribe the
root of such disadvantages to sources external to the indi-
vidual. Teaching inclusively is a challenge for teachers and

demands certain expertise. Teachers working in a social
paradigm use inclusive strategies and tend not to refer
children with ‘special’ needs to special schools. They do not
focus on the diagnosis of the child rather on their skills
to teach all children in their classrooms. The only tools that
teachers have are their ability, competence and attitude; the
context, thus, becomes more important (social model).
Considering that inclusion is a context-specific construct
and that there are some explicit skills required of teachers
to be successful in inclusive settings, there is a need to
design a scale that more holistically addresses the inclusion
context. The aim of the present study was to develop a scale
that can be used to measure perceived teacher efficacy to
teach in inclusive classrooms that will focus more on the
environment and teaching practices rather than on the indi-
vidual child, thus aiming to move away from a medical
model of disability.
Method
Participants
Participants for this study were pre-service teachers
enrolled in a teacher preparation programme. In order to
obtain a wide variation in responses and to make the scale
internationally relevant, pre-service teachers from six dif-
ferent universities were recruited from four countries
(one each from Canada, Australia, and Hong Kong, and
three from India). A total of 609 pre-service teachers par-
ticipated in the study (Canada = 130, Australia = 107,
Hong Kong = 97, India = 275). A large majority of par-
ticipants were female (n = 85%) aged 20–25 years (79%).
Procedure
Data were collected in one of the lectures by faculty directly
involved in the training of the pre-service teachers. The
participants were informed of the purpose of the study and
were made aware that the data would be used for interna-
tional comparison. They were also informed that participa-
tion in the research was completely voluntary and they
would not be identified in final data analysis. They had the
option of declining participation by not completing the
questionnaire.
Instrumentation. The Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Prac-
tices (TEIP) scale was developed to collect data from par-
ticipants. The procedure recommended by DeVellis (2003)
was used to develop the scale. The approach described by
DeVellis has gained significant acceptance among scale
developers and is used by them frequently (see e.g., Chen,
Gully and Eden, 2001; Cheung, 2006)
Item generation. The purpose of this phase of the study was
to define and then adequately capture the domains that best
represent teacher efficacy for inclusion. Relevant literature
on inclusive education (Danielson, 1996; Forlin et al., 2009;
Kuyini and Desai, 2007; Nougaret et al., 2005; Romi and
Leyser, 2006; Winter, 2006) and existing scales on teacher
efficacy (Gibson and Dembo, 1984; Tschannen-Moran et al.
1998; Woolfolk Hoy and Spero, 2005) were reviewed to
identify statements that allow the measurement of partici-
© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
pants’ teaching efficacy in implementing inclusive educa-
tion. The literature suggests that teachers need to have three
core areas of skills in order to teach effectively in inclusive
classrooms. These include having knowledge of content and
pedagogy (e.g., knowing students’ characteristics, selecting
instructional goals, adapting instruction to meet indivi-
dual needs, using co-operative learning) (Danielson, 1996;
Nougaret et al., 2005; Winter, 2006), managing classroom
environment and behaviour (e.g., designing the classroom
environment so as to prevent behaviour problems), and
the ability to work collaboratively with parents and para-
professionals (Groom and Rose, 2005). We were aware that
the literature we were reviewing was largely based on a
medical model and made a conscious effort to avoid includ-
ing any item that was based on a specific disability (such as
working with children with Down syndrome). The majority
of the items that were generated thus focussed on an indi-
vidual educators’ ability to include all learners by using
inclusive strategies rather than a narrow focus on one or
more disabilities. A total of 35 statements were produced.
All items were worded positively and they began with a
phrase such as: ‘I can . . . , I am confident . . . , or I am . . .’.
A decision was made to use a 6-point anchor system with
responses ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly
Agree (6), as this does not allow for a neutral response,
requiring pre-service teachers to make decisions about their
efficacy for each question.
Content validation. A Delphi approach was employed for
initial validation of the scale (Clayton, 1997). Six univer-
sity faculty (excluding the authors) working in the field of
special and inclusive education and educational psychol-
ogy were asked to evaluate the scale as a valid measure
to assess pre-service teacher efficacy in implementing
inclusive practices. The six university faculty were from
Canada (1), Australia (3), Hong Kong (1) and India (1).
All faculty had experience of preparing teachers or school
psychologists about various aspects of inclusive education
and had a good understanding of their local context.
Hinkin and Tracey’s (1999) approach was followed to
determine the content validity. This approach essentially
involved gauging agreement among experts about the
applicability of an item to measure a construct. The par-
ticipants were asked to comment on the usefulness of each
item in measuring teacher efficacy in implementing inclu-
sive practices using a scale ranging from 1 (does not or
hardly measures pre-service teacher efficacy to implement
inclusion) to 5 (definitely measures pre-service teacher
efficacy to implement inclusion). They also reported on
the clarity of items and instructions. Based on their rec-
ommendations, six items that obtained a rating of less
than two were deleted and minor changes were made to
some items. The scale was returned to the faculty for final
review and confirmation.
The revised scale was administered to the participants
from four countries. The data from 609 participants were
subjected to analysis using Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences software. Reliability of the scale was computed
using Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency.
3
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
Table 1: Comparison of eigenvalues from PCA analysis, percentage of variance and the corresponding criterion values
obtained using parallel analysis
Factor Actual eigenvalues from PCA Percentage of variance
1 9.20
2 3.51
3 1.28
4 0.92
5 0.64
PCA, principal component analysis.
Inter-correlations between items were also computed to
identify any items that were highly inter-correlated (above
0.80). A decision was also made to delete items that had a
corrected item-scale correlation of less than 0.30. Two items
(Items 3 and 4) had very high correlations with Item 2. Item
27 had a poor item-to-scale correlation (r = 0.26). All three
items were deleted at this stage resulting in a 26-item scale.
Exploratory factor analysis. An exploratory factor analysis
was conducted on the 26 items to determine the factor
structure of the scale. Prior to undertaking analysis, data
were examined to determine suitability for factor analysis.
An examination of correlation matrix revealed many coef-
ficients of 0.30 or above. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value
for sampling adequacy was 0.93, exceeding the recom-
mended value of 0.60 (Pallant, 2009). Barlett’s test of sphe-
ricity (Barlett, 1954) was also highly significant, suggesting
that the data can be factor analysed. The sample size of 609
was sufficient to undertake factor analysis because it is
above the recommended numbers. Nunnally (1978) recom-
mends a ratio of 10 subjects to one item. Tabachnick and
Fidell (2001) recommend a sample size of 300 cases.
Examination of eigenvalues and scree plot analyses were
employed to determine the number of meaningful factors.
An initial solution based on the maximum likelihood
extraction method with no rotation revealed three factors
with eigenvalues above 1. Factors 4 and 5 had eigenvalues
of 0.919 and 0.644, respectively (see Table 1). Together,
they accounted for six per cent of the explained variance.
Scree plot analysis suggested the presence of four factors.
Parallel analysis was also undertaken to determine the
number of factors as this is more robust and accurate com-
pared with eigenvalues and scree plot tests, which tend to
overestimate the number of factors (Henson and Roberts,
2006). Parallel analysis involves subjecting random data
similar to the real data for a factor analysis. It is based on
the premise that meaningful components extracted from
real data will have larger eigenvalues than components
extracted from a similar random data set (Lautenschlager,
1989). Thus, the number of factors to retain is the number
of eigenvalues from the real data that have a value higher
than the eigenvalues obtained from a random sample. Par-
allel analysis suggested the presence of three factors (see
Table 1). Thus, three factors were retained.
An exploratory factor analysis of the correlation matrix
using a principal component analysis with varimax
4 © 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN
Criterion value from parallel analysis Decision
35.40 1.39 Accept
13.48 1.33 Accept
4.91 1.29 Accept
3.53 1.25 Reject
2.48 1.21 Reject
rotation was subsequently conducted to determine the
factor structure. Items were included in a factor if their
factor coefficient loading exceeded 0.40 as well as if the
item conceptually related to other items in the scale. Items
that loaded on more than one factor were deleted. Eight
items were deleted at this stage. Item 9 had a maximum
loading of 0.31 and items 16, 17, 18, 21 and 22 loaded on
more than one factor. Items 20 and 29 loaded on a factor
where they conceptually did not relate to the construct.
Factor analysis using the method described above was
re-run on the 18-item scale (see Table 2). The three retained
factors accounted for 64.5% of the explained variance.
Results
The final scale consisted of 18 items (see Appendix A),
which were randomised to provide an interspersing of the
three factors. The value of the total score was obtained by
adding the responses for each item and ranged from 18 to
108 with higher scores indicating that participants have a
high sense of perceived teaching efficacy for teaching in
inclusive classrooms. Factor 1 consisted of six items, which
accounted for 25.45% of the variance. This factor related
to a participant’s perceptions of their teaching efficacy in
using inclusive instruction and was named Efficacy to use
Inclusive Instructions (see Table 2). We used the term
‘inclusive instruction’ to refer to strategies that promote the
inclusion of all learners. Factor 2 consisted of eight items
which accounted for 19.8% of the variance. This factor
related to an individual’s perceptions of teacher efficacy
in working with parents and other professionals and was
named Efficacy in Collaboration. Factor three also had
six items. This factor related to self-perceptions of teaching
efficacy in dealing with disruptive behaviours and was
named Efficacy in Managing Behaviour. This factor
accounted for 19% of the variance. Cronbach alphas were
computed to determine the reliabilities of the three factors.
The alpha coefficients of the three factors were 0.93, 0.85
and 0.85, respectively. Table 2 presents factor loadings and
reliability statistics for the total scale and each of the three
factors. The reliability coefficient for the total scale was
0.89 suggesting that the scale has adequate reliability to
measure the construct. Alpha coefficients were also calcu-
lated to determine if the scale had good reliabilities (both
for the total scale and the three factors) for each of the
subsamples based on the country location of participants.
Table 3 presents results of the analysis. The alpha values for
the total scale were 0.87, 0.91, 0.89 and 0.84 for Canada,
Australia, Hong Kong and India, respectively, suggesting

Table 2: Varimax-rotated factor matrix, reliabilities
and summary statistics for 18 items retained in the
Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices scale (N = 607)
Item topic
Efficacy to use inclusive
instructions
Item 1 (Using variety of
assessments)
Item 2 (Providing
alternative explanations)
Item 5 (Designing
individualised learning
tasks)
Item 6 (Ability to gauge
student comprehension)
Item 7 (Working with very
capable students)
Item 8 (Making students
work in small groups)
Efficacy in collaboration
Item 19 (Assisting families
to help their children)
Item 23 (Work jointly with
professionals)
Item 24 (Involving parents
in school activities)
Item 25 (Making parents
feel comfortable)
Item 26 (Collaborating
with professionals)
Item 28 (Informing others
about laws and policies)
Efficacy in managing
behaviour
Item 10 (Ability to prevent
disruptive behaviour)
Item 11 (Controlling
disruptive behaviour)
Item 12 (Ability to calm a
disruptive student)
Item 13 (Getting children
to follow classroom rules)
Item 14 (Dealing with
physically aggressive
students)
Item 15 (Making
expectations clear)
Alpha coefficients
© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
that the scale is a reliable measure to assess teacher efficacy
across different cultures. Reliability scores for all three
factors ranged from 0.64 to 0.97, suggesting that the factors
Factor loadings also had adequate reliabilities for pre-service teachers
I II III Total across different countries.
Discussion
This paper describes the development of a scale to measure
0.85 the self-efficacy of teachers to implement inclusive class-
room practices. The rationale for designing a new scale was
0.90 based on the belief that teacher efficacy for inclusion is a
task-specific construct, and measurement of such a specific
0.79
task should be undertaken by employing a scale that explic-
itly captures the construct. We made a conscious decision
not to include items in the scale that were based on a label
(e.g., students with autism) as we know from our own
0.86 experience as well as from the literature available in this
field that teaching students with different abilities in regular
0.84 classrooms requires teachers to have specific strategies that
will work with all students. Teachers competent in using
effective teaching strategies, collaborating with others and
0.86
managing disruptive behaviours would likely be more effi-
cacious when teaching in an inclusive classroom. The final
18 items incorporated in the scale were gleaned from exist-
0.70 ing literature on inclusive education and teacher efficacy
studies. The scale was implemented using a purposeful
0.75
sample of 609 pre-service teachers from Canada, Australia,
Hong Kong and India. The scale was found to consist of
three factors that measured teacher efficacy with inclusive
0.84 instruction (Factor 1); with collaboration (Factor 2); and
with managing disruptive behaviours (Factor 3). Teachers’
0.77 responses on the three factors provide a general overview of
their teaching efficacy in relation to all students in their
0.71
class. In order to understand how efficacious a teacher is in
teaching an individual student (e.g., with significant learn-
ing needs), the scale can be used by taking into account the
0.59 learning needs of a particular student when responding to
each item. Information of this kind may be useful for
schools if they are concerned about not being able to effec-
tively include students with specific learning needs (e.g.,
0.78
students with behavioural difficulties). All three factors had
strong reliabilities ranging from 0.85 to 0.93. Further, there
were indications that this scale is suitable for international
0.81 use as the scale had adequate reliabilities for the subsamples
based on four separate countries.
0.77
The three factors obtained in the scale have practical rel-
0.68
evance for teacher educators. With the greater emphasis on
preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms, teacher educa-
tors often question what skills are necessary to implement
0.66 inclusive practices and how they can assess if teachers have
obtained adequate level of competency in them. In order to
successfully teach in inclusive classrooms, teachers need to
0.52 have skills in designing classrooms where the needs of all
students can be met (Nougaret et al., 2005) and where
all students feel safe and do not display any disruptive
0.93 0.85 0.85 0.89
behaviour (Nougaret et al., 2005). They must also have
the competence to work with adults such as parents and
allied health professionals (Danielson, 1996). If teachers
can attain these three core groups of skills, then they should
5
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

Table 3: Alpha coefficients for Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices total scale and the three factors
Countries
Australia Canada Hong Kong India
Total Scale 0.91 0.88 0.90 0.86
Efficacy to use inclusive instructions (Factor 1) 0.78 0.97 0.73 0.64
Efficacy in collaboration (Factor 2) 0.81 0.86 0.80 0.81
Efficacy in dealing disruptive behaviours (Factor 3) 0.83 0.88 0.86 0.79

be better prepared to successfully include all learners in
the classroom. The TEIP scale allows teacher educators to
measure the perceived efficacy of participants in these three
areas; thus, it can be used as an evaluation tool to discern if
pre-service teachers have obtained a reasonable level of
perceived efficacy before they complete their teacher train-
ing programmes. Although it is not possible to set a ‘bench-
mark’ mean score which pre-service teachers should attain
on the scale prior to graduation, a ‘pre’ and ‘post’ adminis-
tration of the scale (perhaps before and after the commence-
ment of a particular unit of work on inclusion) might be
helpful in measuring general progress and the impact the
unit of work undertaken has on teacher efficacy for inclu-
sion. Similarly, departments of education or school leaders
can use the scale to gauge an understanding of teacher
efficacy of their teacher population to work effectively
in inclusive classrooms, especially with new teachers who
may find inclusion challenging. A targeted professional
learning programme can then be designed to address areas
where teachers perceive that they lack competence.
different cross-cultural contexts (Milner and Woolfolk Hoy,
2003) and thus contribute to the further validity of the TEIP
scores.
The development of the TEIP scale is timely as teacher
educators and educational systems attempt to ensure that
they are adequately preparing teachers for working in inclu-
sive classrooms. Measuring teacher efficacy has clearly
been seen as task specific, yet to date, there has been no
suitable scale that targets teacher efficacy specifically in
relation to inclusive education. This scale provides a suit-
able measuring instrument that is developed from a socio-
cultural perspective of diversity rather than a medical model
of deviance. The initial findings indicate that the scale has
strong validity and reliability. Further research across dif-
ferent cultures and contexts will enable a more rigorous
evaluation of the scale and its suitability for measuring
teacher efficacy for inclusive education.

One limitation of the study was that no qualitative data Address for correspondence
were collected as the major purpose was to design a scale Umesh Sharma,
for quantitatively measuring teaching efficacy. We strongly Krongold Centre,
recommend that future users of the TEIP collect qualita- Faculty of Education,
tive data in the form of open-ended questions or classroom Monash University,
observations to make greater sense of the quantitative Room G10A,
data. A combination of qualitative and quantitative data Building 5,
will provide researchers with an in-depth understanding of Wellington Road,
teacher efficacy and about the factors that may contribute in Vic. 3800,
the formation of their efficacy as well as those that may Australia.
sustain high level of efficacy amongst teachers (Milner & Email: umesh.sharma@monash.edu.
Woolfolk Hoy, 2003). The qualitative data will also be
useful in making sense of the teacher efficacy construct in

6 © 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN
 Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

Appendix A Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practice (TEIP) Scale*

This survey is designed to help understand the nature of factors influencing the success of routine classroom activities in
creating an inclusive classroom environment. In an inclusive classroom students from a wide range of diverse backgrounds
and abilities learn together with necessary supports available to teachers and students.

Please circle the number that best represents your opinion about each of the statements.

Please attempt to answer each question

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree

SD D DS AS A SA
I can make my expectations 1 2 3 4 5 6
clear about student
behaviour (15)
I am able to calm a student 1 2 3 4 5 6
who is disruptive or noisy
(12).
I can make parents feel 1 2 3 4 5 6
comfortable coming to
school (25).
I can assist families in 1 2 3 4 5 6
helping their children do
well in school (19).
I can accurately gauge 1 2 3 4 5 6
student comprehension of
what I have taught (6).
I can provide appropriate 1 2 3 4 5 6
challenges for very
capable students (7).
I am confident in my ability 1 2 3 4 5 6
to prevent disruptive
behaviour in the classroom
before it occurs (10).
I can control disruptive 1 2 3 4 5 6
behaviour in the classroom
(11).
I am confident in my ability 1 2 3 4 5 6
to get parents involved in
school activities of their
children with disabilities
(24).
I am confident in designing 1 2 3 4 5 6
learning tasks so that the
individual needs of
students with disabilities
are accommodated (5).
I am able to get children to 1 2 3 4 5 6
follow classroom rules
(13).

© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN 7
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

Continued
SD D DS AS A SA
I can collaborate with other 1 2 3 4 5 6
professionals (e.g.,
itinerant teachers or
speech pathologists) in
designing educational
plans for students with
disabilities (26).
I am able to work jointly 1 2 3 4 5 6
with other professionals
and staff (e.g., aides, other
teachers) to teach students
with disabilities in the
classroom (23).
I am confident in my ability 1 2 3 4 5 6
to get students to work
together in pairs or in
small groups (8).
I can use a variety of 1 2 3 4 5 6
assessment strategies (e.g.,
portfolio assessment,
modified tests,
performance-based
assessment, etc.) (1)
I am confident in informing 1 2 3 4 5 6
others who know little
about laws and policies
relating to the inclusion of
students with disabilities
(28).
I am confident when dealing 1 2 3 4 5 6
with students who are
physically aggressive (14).
I am able to provide an 1 2 3 4 5 6
alternate explanation or
example when students
are confused (2).

*Numbers in parentheses indicate that item’s number in the original 29-item scale.

References Bandura, A. (1997) Self-Efficacy: the Exercise of Control.

Alberta Education (1997) ‘Ministerial order (016/97).
Teaching quality standard applicable to the provision
of basic education in Alberta.’ <http://education.
alberta.ca/department/policy/standards/teachqual.aspx>
(accessed 14 August 2009).
Almog, O. & Shechtman, Z. (2007) ‘Teachers’
democratic and efficacy beliefs and styles of coping
with behavioural problems of pupils with special
needs.’ European Journal of Special Needs Education,
22, pp. 115–29.
New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Barlett, M. S. (1954) ‘A note on the multiplying factors
for various chi square approximations.’ Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society, 16, Series B), pp. 296–8.
Chan, D. W. (2008) ‘Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy
among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong
Kong.’ Educational Psychology, 28, pp. 181–94.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M. & Eden, D. (2001) ‘Validation of
a new general self-efficacy scale.’ Organizational
Research Methods, 4, pp. 62–83.

8 © 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

Cheung, H. Y. (2006) ‘The measurement of teacher
efficacy: Hong Kong primary in-service teachers.’
Journal of Education for Teaching, 32, pp. 435–51.
Clayton, M. J. (1997) ‘Delphi: a technique to harness
expert opinion for critical decision-making
tasks in education.’ Educational Psychology,
14, pp. 373–86.
Danielson, C. (1996) Enhancing Professional Practice: A
Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
DeMesquita, P. B. & Drake, J. C. (1994) ‘Educational
reform and the self-efficacy beliefs of teachers
implementing non graded primary school programs.’
Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, pp. 291–302.
Department of Education and Skills (DfES) (2004)
Removing the Barriers to Achievement: Executive
Summary. Nottingham: DfES.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003) Scale Development. (2nd edn).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Finkelstein, V. (2001) ‘The social model of disability
repossessed.’ Leeds University Disability Studies
Archive. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/
archiveuk/finkelstein/soc%20mod%20repossessed.pdf
(accessed 18 February 2009).
Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U. & Earle, C. (2009)
‘Demographic differences in changing pre-service
teachers’ attitudes, sentiments and concerns about
inclusive education.’ International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 13, pp. 195–209.
Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. H. (1984) ‘Teacher efficacy: a
construct validation.’ Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, pp. 569–82.
Groom, B. & Rose, R. (2005) ‘Supporting the inclusion
of pupils with social, emotional and behavioural
difficulties in the primary school: the role of teaching
assistants.’ Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 5 (1), pp. 20–30.
Henson, R. K. & Roberts, K. (2006) ‘Use of exploratory
factor analysis in published research: common errors
and some comment on improved practice.’
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, pp.
393–416.
Hinkin, T. R. & Tracey, J. B. (1999) ‘An analysis of
variance approach to content validation.’ Organisation
Research Methods, 2, pp. 175–86.
Ho, I. T. (2000) Teachers Thinking about Student
Problem Behaviours and Management Strategies: a
Comparative Study of Australian and Hong Kong
Teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Sydney, Australia.
Ho, I. T. & Hau, K. T. (2004) ‘Australian and Chinese
teacher efficacy: similarities and differences in
personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and
beliefs in external determinants.’ Teaching and
Teacher Education, 20, pp. 313–23.
Hutzler, Y., Zach, S. & Gafni, O. (2005) ‘Physical
education students’ attitudes and self-efficacy towards
the participation of children with special needs in
regular classes.’ European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 20, pp. 309–27.
© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
Kinsella, W. & Senior, J. (2008) ‘Developing inclusive
schools: a systematic approach.’ International Journal
of Inclusive Education, 12, pp. 651–65.
Kuyini, A. B. & Desai, I. (2007) ‘Principals’ and
teachers’ attitudes and knowledge of inclusive
education as predictors of effective teaching practices
in Ghana.’ Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 7 (2), pp. 104–13.
Lautenschlager, G. J. (1989) ‘A comparison of
alternatives to conducting Monte Carlo analyses for
determining parallel analysis criteria.’ Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 24, pp. 365–95.
Lin, H. & Gorrell, J. (2001) ‘Pre-service teachers efficacy
beliefs in Taiwan.’ Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 32, pp. 17–25.
Milner, H. R. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2003) ‘Teacher
self-efficacy and retaining talented teachers:
a case study of an African American teacher.’
Teaching and Teacher Education, 19,
pp. 263–76.
Nougaret, A. A., Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. (2005)
‘Does teacher education produce better special
education teachers?’ Exceptional Children, 71, pp.
217–29.
Nunnally, J. O. (1978) Psychometric Theory. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Oliver, M. (1990) The individual and social models of
disability. Paper presented at Joint Workshop of the
Living Options Group and the Research Unit of the
Royal College of Physicians, Thames, UK.
Pallant, J. (2009) SPSS Survival Manual. (4th edn).
Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.
Romi, S. & Leyser, Y. (2006) ‘Exploring inclusion
pre-service training needs: a study of variables
associated with attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs.’
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21, pp.
85–105.
Sarason, S. B. (1990) The Predictable Failure of
Educational Reform. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C. & Loreman, T. (2008) ‘Impact of
training on pre-service teachers’ attitudes and
concerns about inclusive education and sentiments
about persons with disabilities.’ Disability and Society,
23, pp. 773–85.
Sharma, U., Moore, D. & Sonawane, S. (2009) ‘Attitudes
and concerns of novice teachers regarding inclusion of
students with disabilities into regular schools in Pune,
India.’ The Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
37, pp. 319–31.
Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M. & Lehman, L. R. (1998)
‘Teacher, student, and school attributes as predictors
of teachers’ responses to inclusion.’ Journal of Special
Education, 31, pp. 480–97.
Subban, P. & Sharma, U. (2006) ‘Primary school
teachers’ perceptions of inclusive education in
Victoria, Australia.’ International Journal of Special
Education, 21, pp. 42–52.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001) Using
Multivariate Statistics. (4th edn). New York:
HarperCollins.
9
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk, H. A. & Hoy, W. K.
(1998) ‘Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure.’
Review of Educational Research, 68, pp. 202–48.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001)
‘Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct.’
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17,
pp. 783–805.
Weisel, A. & Dror, O. (2006) ‘School climate, sense of
efficacy and Israeli teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion
of students with special needs.’ Education, Citizenship
and Social Justice, 1, pp. 157–74.
Winter, E. C. (2006) ‘Preparing new teachers for
inclusive schools and classrooms.’ Support for
Learning, 21, pp. 85–91.
10
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Rosoff, B. & Hoy, W. K. (1990)
‘Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about
managing students.’ Teaching and Teacher Education,
6, pp. 137–48.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Spero, R. B. (2005) ‘Changes in
teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: a
comparison of four measures.’ Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21, pp. 343–56.
Wu-Tien, W., Ashman, A. & Yong-Wook, K. (2008)
‘Education reforms in special education.’ In C. Forlin
& M.-G. J. Lian (eds), Reform, Inclusion & Teacher
Education: Towards a New Era of Special Education
in the Asia-Pacific Region, pp. 13–29. Abingdon:
Routledge.
© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN