Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs  Volume 16
doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12047
The teacher efficacy for inclusive practices (TEIP)
scale: dimensionality and factor structure
Mi-Hwa Park,1 Dimiter M. Dimitrov,2 Ajay Das1 and Margaret Gichuru3
1
Murray State University; 2George Mason University; 3Western Kentucky University
Key words: self-efficacy, inclusion, pre-service teachers.
The Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP)
scale is designed to measure teacher-self efficacy
to teach in inclusive classrooms. The original study
identified three scale factors: efficacy in using
inclusive instruction (EII), efficacy in collaboration
(EC), and efficacy in managing behavior (EMB)
(Sharma et al., 2012). The purpose of our study was
to examine the TEIP scale for dimensionality and to
cross-validate its factor structure for pre-service
teachers in the context of early childhood educa-
tion. A bifactor model fit to the data revealed that
the TEIP scale is essentially unidimensional, that is,
there is one dominant latent factor and the origi-
nally found three scale factors (EII, EC, and EMB)
represent specific aspects of the general factor of
teacher self-efficacy to teach in inclusive class-
rooms. Along with providing validation evidence,
these findings have important implications for the
scoring on the TEIP scale using classical test analy-
sis or unidimensional item response theory models.
Introduction
The movement to provide free and appropriate public edu-
cation for young children with special needs has come
about due to the Individuals and Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (2004) and the position paper of Division
of Early Childhood and National Association for Education
of Young Children (DEC/NAEYC, 2009). As a result,
young children with special needs are increasingly receiv-
ing services in their neighbourhood early childhood educa-
tion centres. Appropriate service delivery to these children,
therefore, becomes critical.
The field of early childhood education is committed to
supporting the inclusion of children with special needs in
high-quality inclusive educational environments. The ser-
vices that young children with special needs receive will not
only depend on the severity of their disability, but also on
the knowledge and skills of the early childhood educators.
This notion, therefore, has brought about greater attention
on how early childhood educators are prepared to serve
children that have special needs (Abbitt and Klett, 2004;
Jarvis and Pell, 2004). Commensurate with this, there has
2 ª 2014 NASEN
 Number 1  2016 2–12
also been a growing interest in the way pre-service teachers
perceive and respond to children with disabilities. In addi-
tion, there has been a focus on whether pre-service teachers
are adequately prepared to provide effective instruction and
care to these young children with disabilities (Malone,
Straka and Logan, 2000; Sexton, Snyder and Wolfe et al.,
1996). Studies in different specialisation areas show that
self-perceptions on individuals’ confidence and competence
facilitate the connection between the training received and
how the practitioners utilise the currently attained knowl-
edge and skills (Das, Gichuru and Singh, 2013; Leyser,
Zeiger and Romi, 2011). Previous research also indicates
that teachers’ self-efficacy towards inclusion shapes stu-
dents’ achievement and behaviours as well as teachers’
attitudes and classroom management skills (Ahsan,
Sharma and Deppeler, 2012; Gibson and Dembo, 1984;
Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001). For example, Woolfolk
(2007) argued that teachers’ perceived teaching efficacy has
a direct correlation with students’ academic achievement. In
addition, those teachers who demonstrate greater perceived
teaching efficacy apply a number of behaviour management
strategies, and they use more effective teaching methods
(Guskey, 1988; Woolfolk, Rosoff and Hoy, 1990).
Some researchers have questioned whether pre-service
teachers are adequately prepared to face the challenges of
including special needs children with disabilities in their
future classrooms (e.g., Druckman and Bjork, 1994). Fur-
thermore, pre-service teachers themselves have indicated
that they do not consider themselves to be adequately pre-
pared to work with these children. For example, Mastropieri
and Scruggs (2000) reported that only about 25% of the
teachers believe that they possess the skills to implement
effective inclusion. McConkey and Bhlirgri (2003) con-
ducted a survey of 56 teachers working in 38 preschool in
Ireland and reported that even though most early childhood
educators were devoted to including children with autism in
their classrooms, a large number felt inadequately prepared
and lacked knowledge to meet the needs of these children.
In another study, Buell, Gamel-McCormick and Hallam
(1999) surveyed 189 family childcare providers and
reported that the providers expressed a number of concerns
when working with children with disabilities. The concerns
included a lack of knowledge about disabilities, an addi-
tional burden of caring for a child with a disability while at

the same time working with typically developing children
and the necessity of purchasing assistive technology.
Within the context of teacher preparedness for inclusive
education, a number of researchers have explored the
construct of teacher self-efficacy (e.g., Loreman, Sharma
and Forlin, 2013; Sharma, Loreman and Forlin, 2012;
Weisel and Dror, 2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are
commonly examined through the theoretical lens of
Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Labone, 2004;
Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001). Within this theoretical
framework, Bandura (1997) acknowledged the role that
cognitive factors play in the regulation of an individual’s
behaviour. He suggested that ‘cognitive processes mediate
change, but that cognitive events are induced and altered
most readily by experiences of mastery arising from effec-
tive performance’ (Bandura, 1997, p. 191). Thus, in order to
successfully complete a task, an individual needs certain
knowledge and skills in addition to a sense of confidence so
that one’s efforts will be successful. In other words, accord-
ing to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy refers to one’s beliefs
in their ‘capabilities to organize and execute the courses of
action required to produce given attainments’ (p. 3).
In the context of teaching, Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy
implies that self-efficacy is related to the amount of effort
that teachers put into their performance and their persever-
ance in challenging tasks (Pajares, 1996). Teachers with a
sense of low teaching efficacy may put little effort into their
work because they do not think they have the skills or
resources to make a difference in the lives of the students.
Furthermore, teachers with a sense of high teaching efficacy
would put forth an extensive amount of effort in the class-
room and would apply persistent efforts (Lamorey and
Wilcox, 2005).
While providing a strong support for the principle of inclu-
sion, previous research also focused on constructs related to
teachers’ instructional skills and behaviour management
strategies (Romi and Leyser, 2006). A number of specific
instructional strategies that early childhood educators would
particularly need in inclusive classrooms include embedded
instruction, differentiated instruction, and activity-based and
experiential learning. In spite of challenges experienced by
pre-service teachers in managing student behaviour in inclu-
sive settings, pre-service teachers that reported higher levels
of self-efficacy had more success in managing student
behaviour in inclusive classrooms (Main and Hammond,
2008; Mergler and Tangen, 2010). In addition, the pre-
service teachers expressed higher level of perceived teaching
efficacy in using inclusive instructions and the lowest level of
perceived teaching-efficacy in collaborating with others.
Another important factor in this regard is the need for
increased collaboration with student families and profes-
sionals (Bruder, Dunst and Mogro-Wilson, 2011; Odom,
Buysse and Soukakou, 2011). Collaboration among teachers
and other professionals is especially needed for pre-school
ª 2014 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 2–12
teachers because of the nature of their position. For example,
early childhood educators are required to collaborate with
speech, physical or occupational therapists to meet the needs
of children with disabilities in their classrooms (Friend and
Cook, 2013). The value of encouraging collaboration among
teachers, school professionals and parents is a growing
element in literature (Guo, Justice and Sawyer, 2011; Hoy
and Spero, 2005; McGinty, Justice and Rimm-Kaufman,
2008). Increased collaboration among school personnel is
viewed as strong predictors of successful classroom instruc-
tion (Marks and Louis, 1997; McGinty, Justice and
Rimm-Kaufman, 2008). Guo, Justice and Sawyer (2011)
note that collaboration is one of the main factors that may
enable teachers to improve their management of difficult
situations connected to teaching children with low level of
engagement, therefore supporting teachers’ self-efficacy. To
improve preschool teachers’ self-efficacy, it is critical to
promote collaboration among preschool teachers because
teachers’ higher level of collaboration is positively con-
nected to self-efficacy (Guo, Justice and Sawyer, 2011).
Contemporary approaches to measuring teacher efficacy are
based on Bandura’s (1977; 1997) social cognitive theory
concepts to teachers. For example, the teacher efficacy scale
(TES; Gibson and Dembo, 1984) is based on Bandura’s
self-efficacy and outcome expectancy dimensions of social
cognitive theory. The Gibson and Dembo’s TES consists of
16 items in Likert format, with nine items taping on per-
sonal teaching efficacy and seven items taping on general
teaching efficacy (GTE). However, some researchers have
challenged the validity of the TES, particularly in regard
to its GTE scale (e.g., Guskey and Passaro, 1994;
Tschannen-Moran, Hoy and Hoy, 1998).
Bandura (1977; 1997) also argued that self-efficacy is best
conceptualised and measured as a multidimensional con-
struct and that researchers would find the most utility from
self-efficacy by focusing on a specific context and activity
domain. That is, researchers should align a given activity
with self-efficacy for that activity rather than examining a
global assessment of self-efficacy. Following this logic,
Bandura (1990) developed a set of scales, titled multidi-
mensional scales of perceived self-efficacy (MSPSE), to tap
self-efficacy in nine domains: enlisting social resources,
academic achievement, self-regulated learning, leisure-time
skills and extracurricular activities, self-regulatory efficacy
(to resist peer pressure for high-risk behaviours), self-
efficacy to meet others’ expectations, social self-efficacy,
self-assertive efficacy and enlisting parental and community
support. In line with the logic behind the MSPSE and based
on an analysis of role expectations in Norwegian schools,
Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007) developed a multidimen-
sional 24-item Norwegian teacher self-efficacy scale
(NTSES) measuring six dimensions by four items each. The
dimensions were self-efficacy for instruction, adapting edu-
cation to individual students’ needs, motivating students,
keeping discipline, cooperating with colleagues and
parents, and coping with changes and challenges. Skaalvik
3
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 2–12
and Skaalvik (2010) used the NTSES to study relations
among perceived school context, teacher self-efficacy,
teacher burnout and teacher job satisfaction.
Other scales have also been developed to reflect the speci-
ficity of teacher efficacy in the context of a given subject
matter. For example, Riggs and Enochs (1990) developed a
subject matter instrument to measure efficacy for teaching
science, referred to as the science teaching efficacy belief
instrument (STEBI). This instrument is based on the TES
and also consists of two largely uncorrelated subscales:
personal science teaching efficacy and science teaching
outcome expectancy. In most applications, the STEBI con-
sists of 25 items with a five-point Likert-type scale. The
STEBI has been modified several times to address subject-
specific teaching. For example, one such modification
resulted in the mathematics teaching efficacy belief instru-
ment (MTEBI) for pre-service teachers (Enochs, Smith and
Huinker, 2000). The MTEBI consists of 21 items related to
two independent subscales, namely: 13 items on the personal
mathematics reaching efficacy subscale and eight items on
the mathematics teaching outcome expectancy subscale.
In the context of inclusive education of special needs chil-
dren, Sharma, Loreman and Forlin (2012) developed the
teacher efficacy for inclusive practices (TEIP) scale to
measure teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusive education and
analysed TEIP data collected in four different countries.
Based on results from an exploratory factor analysis (EFA),
Sharma, Loreman and Forlin (2012) identified three factors
that underlie the data for 18 items in the TEIP scale, namely:
efficacy to use inclusive instructions (EII), efficacy in col-
laboration (EC) and efficacy in managing behaviour (EMB).
In another study, the TEIP scale was used to examine differ-
ences in self-efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms across
demographic characteristics of pre-service teachers from
Canada, Australia, Hong Kong and Indonesia (Loreman,
Sharma and Forlin, 2013). The TEIP scale was also used to
identify variables that impact the perceived teaching efficacy
of pre-service teachers towards inclusive education in Ban-
gladesh (Ahsan, Sharma and Deppeler, 2012). Ahsan and his
colleagues reported an overall mean score of the perceived
teaching-efficacy of the pre-service teachers on the TEIP
scale equal to 4.84 (standard deviation = 0.52). Therefore,
they concluded that ‘the pre-service teachers had relatively
high level of perceived teaching-efficacy towards inclusive
education’ (Ahsan, Sharma and Deppeler, 2012, p. 10).
Purpose of the study
Given the increasing trend of using the TEIP scale in studies
on the readiness of pre-service teachers to teach in inclusive
classrooms (e.g., Loreman, Sharma and Forlin, 2013), it is
important to provide more rigorous cross-validation of this
scale. The original study on the scale (Sharma, Loreman
and Forlin, 2012) suggested a three-factor structure of the
scale data based on EFA. However, there are no cross-
validation studies of the proposed structure in the frame-
work of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Most
4 ª 2014 NASEN
importantly, there is no psychometric assessment of the
dimensionality of the scale and the nature of the three scale
factors identified in the original study, EII, EC and EMB.
Valid applications of the TEIP scale should be based on
information that reveals whether (1) the scale data are
essentially unidimensional, that is, whether there is one
dominant latent factor that underlies the examinees’ scores
on test items, and (2) the role of the three scale factors, EII,
EC and EMB, are they different dimensions or do they just
represent different aspects of one general factor of the tar-
geted teacher self-efficacy? Essential unidimensionality of
scale data is a key assumption in using either classical test
analysis or item response theory (IRT) for calibration and
scoring the responses on scale items (e.g., Nandakumar and
Yu, 1996). The search for answers of these key questions is
the motivation behind the efforts in this study.
The main purpose of this study is to cross-validate the
three-factor structure of the TEIP scale (Sharma, Loreman
and Forlin, 2012) in the context of interdisciplinary early
childhood education (IECE). It is important to note that the
TEIP scale and its previous practical applications were used
in the context of elementary, secondary and college educa-
tion across different countries, but not in early childhood
education in the USA. Of particular interest in this study is
to determine whether the TEIP scale data are essentially
unidimensional and whether the tree scale factors (EII, EC,
and EMB) represent different dimensions or they are just
specific aspects of the teacher self-efficacy in implementing
inclusive practices. Related to this purpose are the follow-
ing two research questions (RQs) addressed in the study.
RQ1. Do the study data support the three-factor struc-
ture of the TEIP scale?
RQ2. Do the scale factors EII, EC, and EMB represent
independent latent factors or they are just specific
aspects of a general factor of teacher self-efficacy in
implementing inclusive practices?
Method
Sample
This study was conducted at a regional university in Ken-
tucky, USA. Participants were 134 undergraduate students
who registered for the IECE programme. IECE prepares all
teachers who graduated from the university for their future
work on providing young children (infants, toddlers, pre-
schoolers and kindergarten children with and without dis-
abilities) and their families with an early intervention, care
and educational services. The data were collected at the
beginning of the fall 2012 semester and the spring 2013
semester. The breakdown of the sample by background
characteristics of the participants is (1) 67.2% with less than
10 hours of classroom observation of a child with disabili-
ties, (2) 77.6% with less than 10 hours of experience in
teaching children with disabilities, (3) 38.1% at the begin-
ning of the teacher training programme and (4) 32.1% major-
ing IECE, 53.% majoring elementary education and 14.2%
 Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 2–12

majoring learning and behaviour disorder. By gender and
ethnicity, the participants were 94% females and 91% White.
Instrumentation
As described earlier, the TEIP scale is designed to measure
perceived teacher efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms
(Sharma, Loreman and Forlin, 2012). The scale consists of
18 items scored on a six-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree somewhat, 4 = agree
somewhat, 5 = agree and 6 = strongly agree). The middle
category (‘neither agree nor disagree’) is omitted, most
likely with the purpose to eliminate the central tendency bias
that occurs when respondents avoid using extreme response
categories (e.g., Dimitrov, 2012, p. 10). An EFA conducted in
the original study on the scale (Sharma, Loreman and Forlin,
2012) resulted in three factors labelled EII, EC and EMB.
The reader may find the description of the items and their
grouping into EII, EC and EMB factors in the paper with the
original study (Sharma, Loreman and Forlin, 2012, p. 16).
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internal consistency
reliability of the data for the norming sample of pre-service
teachers with the original study (N = 609) is reported to be
0.89 for the total scale score and ranging from 0.85 to 0.93
for the scores on the three scale factors, EII, EC and EMB.
cally, item 20 (see Appendix A) is used here instead of item
8 in the TEIP scale: ‘I am confident in my ability to get
students to work together in pairs or in small group’
(Sharma, Loreman and Forlin, 2012, p. 19). As both items
are indicators of the same scale factor (EII), their ‘switch’ is
not problematic in this regard. In this study, the grouping of
items by latent factors (EII, EC or EMB) is based on the
EFA three-factor solution proposed in the original study on
the TEIP scale (Sharma, Loreman and Forlin, 2012, p. 16).
For the data in our sample (N = 134), the Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha for internal consistency reliability of the
scores was found to be (1) 0.977, for the entire scale of 18
Figure 1: A hypothesised confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) model with three correlated latent factors for the
teacher efficacy for inclusive practices (TEIP) structure.

In this study, we used an earlier survey version of the TEIP

scale that includes two additional items (items 6 and 20, see
Appendix A). Items 6 and 14 from the survey were
excluded from the analysis, after a preliminary test on data
fit, so 18 items were retained to address the RQs (RQ1 and
RQ2). With this, the 18 items used for the analysis in this
study are the same as those in the TEIP scale (Sharma,
Loreman and Forlin, 2012), with one exception. Specifi-

Figure 2: A bifactor model for the factor structure of the teacher efficacy for inclusive practices (TEIP) scale (see
Appendix A).

ª 2014 NASEN 5
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 2–12

items, (2) 0.929, for the EII factor, (3) 0.953, for the EC Table 1: Descriptive statistics for teacher efficacy for
factor and (4) 0.944, for the EMB factor (each scale factor inclusive practices (TEIP) items by specific domains
is measured by six items). Item/domain Item/total
Domain/item* Mean SD correlation correlation
Statistical data analysis Efficacy to use inclusive instruction
As the two RQs (RQ1 and RQ2) involve testing for
Item 1 (1) 3.89 1.10 0.84 0.79
hypothesised factor models of the TEIP scale, a CFA was
used to address both the RQs. First, the three-factor model Item 2 (2) 3.98 1.02 0.87 0.85
depicted in Figure 1 was used to address RQ1. Item 3 (5) 3.73 1.12 0.86 0.85
Item 4 (6) 3.92 1.01 0.87 0.85
The CFA model depicted in Figure 2 was tested for data fit Item 5 (7) 3.81 1.15 0.85 0.80
to address RQ2. Under this model, referred to as bifactor Item 20** 3.87 1.10 0.86 0.88
model, there is one general latent factor that underlies the
Efficacy in collaboration
scores on the respondents on the construct being measured
(here, teacher self-efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms) Item 13 (19) 4.01 1.20 0.905 0.861
and three specific latent factors (EII, EC and EMB) that Item 15 (23) 4.23 1.18 0.885 0.856
capture unique aspects of the construct. The general factor Item 16 (24) 3.95 1.18 0.932 0.912
is loading on all items of the scale, whereas each specific Item 17 (25) 4.23 1.25 0.927 0.880
factor is loading on a cluster of six items. All four factors Item 18 (26) 4.18 1.18 0.912 0.882
(one general and three specific) are uncorrelated because
Item 19 (28) 3.54 1.09 0.840 0.818
each specific factor accounts for the unique part of the
variance among the respective cluster of six items that is Efficacy in managing behaviour
unexplained by the general factor. An acceptable data fit of Item 7 (10) 3.82 1.05 0.915 0.851
the bifactor model would indicate that the TEIP scale data Item 8 (11) 3.84 1.01 0.911 854
are essentially unidimensional, with one general factor and Item 9 (12) 3.94 1.01 0.901 0.864
three specific latent factors (EII, EC and EMB) that repre- Item 10 (13) 4.11 1.04 0.924 0.911
sent unique aspects of teacher self-efficacy on teaching in
Item 11 (14) 3.53 1.16 0.828 0.744
inclusive classrooms. If this is the case, an important prac-
tical implication is that it is appropriate to analyse TEIP Item 12 (9) 4.18 1.11 0.845 0.853
scale data using classical or IRT procedures that assume Note: Given in parentheses are the item numbers used in Sharma, Loreman
essential unidimensionality and to score the performance of and Forlin (2012, p. 16).
the respondents on the general factor and on each of the *Items 6 and 14 from the 20-item teacher efficacy for inclusive practices
(TEIP) survey used in this study (see Appendix A) are excluded from the
specific factors (e.g., Chen, West and Sousa, 2006; Reise, analysis because of poor data fit under the confirmatory factor analysis
Morizot and Hays, 2007). (CFA) models depicted in Figures 1 and 2 [item 6 corresponds to item 8 in
Sharma, Loreman and Forlin, (2012, p. 16)].
**Item 20 is not included in the 18-item scale provided by Sharma,
The CFA analysis under the models in Figures 1 and 2 was Loreman and Forlin (2012, p. 16).
performed through the use of the computer program Mplus SD, standard deviation.
(Muthén and Muthén, 2010). It should be noted that the
CFA analyses were conducted by declaring in the Mplus for each item. Also, each item highly correlates with the
source code all dependent variables (18 items) as ‘categori- score on the corresponding domain-specific factor (EII, EC
cal’, to take into account that these variables are not treated or EMB) and with the total score on the entire TEIP scale.
as continuous but, instead, as ordered categorical variables. This classical psychometric information about the scale
Technically, this means that the CFA analysis is based on items, coupled with the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
the polychoric correlations among the items, which are reported earlier, provide evidence of high internal consis-
more appropriate for categorical variables, instead of the tency of the measures for the TEIP scale and each of the three
Pearson correlations, which are appropriate for continuous domain-specific factors (EII, EC and EMB).
variables (e.g., Dimitrov, 2012, p. 104; Finney and
DiStefano, 2006; Muthén and Muthén, 2010). As described earlier, the testing for data fit under the factor
models depicted in Figures 1 and 2 was performed in the
Results framework of CFA using the computer program Mplus.
Basic descriptive statistics for the respondents’ scores on
individual items of the TEIP scale are provided in Table 1. As The results for data fit under the CFA models depicted in
described earlier, each item is scored on a six-point Likert Figures 1 and 2 are summarised in Table 2. The goodness-
scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree, with of-fit indices reported in Mplus for CFA with categorical
a theoretical average of 3.50 for the item score. The exami- variables, are (1) chi-square (χ2) test, (2) comparative fit
nation of the mean item scores in Table 1 shows that the index (CFI), (3) Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), (4) root mean
pre-service teachers in the study sample tend to score some- square error of approximation (RMSEA) and (5) weighted
what higher than the theoretical average (3.50) on the scale root mean square residual (WRMR). A statistically

6 ª 2014 NASEN
 Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 2–12

Table 2: Testing for data fit of the three-factor and bifactor models for the structure of the teacher efficacy for
inclusive practices (TEIP) scale
90% CI for RMSEA
Model χ2 df CFI TLI WRMR RMSEA LL UL
Three factors 260.58 132 0.994 0.993 0.886 0.085 0.070 0.100
Bifactor model 181.56 117 0.997 0.996 0.651 0.064 0.045 0.082

CFI, comparative fit index; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; LL, lower limit; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation;
TLI, Tucker–Lewis Index; UL, upper limit; WRMR, weighted root mean square residual.

significant χ2 (p < 0.05) does not support data fit, but this rule Table 3: Standardised factor loadings under the
does not play a critical role in the decision on data fit as the bifactor model of the teacher efficacy for inclusive
χ2 test is very sensitive to sample size (e.g., Dimitrov, 2012, practices (TEIP) scale
p. 104). Rather, the assessment of model fit is based on the Domain-specific factors
joint evaluation of the fit indices, with cutting scores as Item TEIP general factor EII EC EMB
follows: (1) CFI > 0.95 for an excellent fit and CFI > 0.90 for
1 0.787 0.471
an acceptable fit; (2) TLI > 0.95 for an excellent fit and TLI
> 0.90 for an acceptable fit; (3) WRMR = 0.00 indicates a 2 0.874 0.286
perfect data fit, but in practice WRMR < 1.00 is used to 3 0.851 0.046
indicate an adequate fit; and (4) RMSEA = 0.00 indicates a 4 0.872 0.015
perfect fit, but in practice RMSEA ≤ 0.05 is used to indicate 5 0.818 0.021
an adequate data fit; using the 90% confidence interval for
20 0.907 0.111
RMSEA, an excellent data fit is indicated when the lower
13 0.849 0.301
value of this interval is close to (or includes) zero and its
upper value is smaller than 0.08 (e.g., Hu and Bentler, 1999; 15 0.874 0.236
Yu and Muthén, 2002). 16 0.919 0.214
17 0.860 0.417
Under the guidelines for model fit, the examination of 18 0.900 0.216
the results in Table 2 indicates that the three-factor
19 0.820 0.170
model, depicted in Figure 1, provides an acceptable data
7 0.822 0.464
fit. Also, the three latent factors were found to be highly
correlated, namely (1) 0.95 between EII an EC, (2) 0.94 8 0.858 0.440
between EII and EMB, and (3) 0.90 between EC and 9 0.877 0.267
EMB. These high correlations suggest that it is meaning- 10 0.945 0.174
ful to test for a bifactor model with one general latent 11 0.738 0.336
factor and three domain-specific latent factors (EII, EC
12 0.876 0.018
and EMB). The results in Table 2 indicate that the bifactor
model in Figure 2 provides better data fit compared Note: In bold are statistically significant factor loadings (P < 0.05).
with the three-factor model in Figure 1 by the criteria for EC, efficacy in collaboration; EII, efficacy to use inclusive instruction;
EMB, efficacy in managing behaviour.
all goodness-of-fit indices. For example, the WRMR,
which is particularly relevant for CFA models with cat-
egorical variables, is smaller under the bifactor model
(WRMR = 0.651) compared with the three-factor model of the variance in item 1, which is not explained by the
(WRMR = 0.886). general factor. Likewise, the squared factor loading for
item 2, (0.286)2 = 0.0818, shows that the EII factor
The standardised factor loadings under the bifactor model accounts uniquely for 8.18% of the item variance. The
are provided in Table 3. As can be seen, all factor loadings loadings for the remaining four items on the EII factor are
on the general factor are statistically significant and sub- not statistically significant, which indicates that the
stantial in magnitude, with a range from 0.738 to 0.945; residual variance in these items, after taking into account
(typically, loadings higher than 0.40 are considered the variance explained by the general factor, does not
salient). For proper interpretation of the loadings on the quite relate to the specificity that is captured by the EII
domain-specific factors, it is important to reiterate that factor. The factor loadings on the other two specific latent
these factors account for unique variation in their items, factors, EC and EMB, are all statistically significant, with
after controlling for the item variation explained by the the exception of the loading of item 12 on EMB. Thus, the
general factor. For example, the squared factor loading for items associated with the EC and EMB latent factors are
item 1 on the domain-specific factor EII, (0.471)2 = significant measures of the specific aspects of the targeted
0.2218, indicates that the EII factor accounts for 22.18% construct (TEIP) represented by these two factors.

ª 2014 NASEN 7
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 2–12
Discussion
The TEIP scale is developed to measure self-efficacy of
school teachers to teach in inclusive classrooms (Sharma,
Loreman and Forlin, 2012). The importance of using valid
TEIP measures stems from the conception that teacher’s
self-efficacy is critical in providing high-quality preschool
programmes and increasing development and learning out-
comes of young children (Mashburn, Pianta and Barbarin
et al., 2008). In spite of government investment to provide
high-quality preschool programmes, reports suggest that
one third of US preschool programmes do not meet the set
standards and are of low quality (LoCasale-Crouch, Konold
and Pianta et al., 2007), and yet one factor that is connected
to teacher’s effectiveness to classroom instruction is the
sense of self-efficacy (Guo, Piasta and Justice et al., 2010;
Justice, Mashburn and Hamre et al., 2008).
A teacher’s ability to promote inclusion in early childhood
classrooms is a critical component that directly contributes
to the teacher’s effectiveness, even though many teachers
view themselves as inadequately prepared to support chil-
dren’s learning in inclusive settings (Darling-Hammond,
2006; Dozier and Berlotti, 2000). With the TEIP scale
(Sharma, Loreman and Forlin, 2012), this aspect of teacher-
self efficacy is measured by items associated with the scale
factor EII. Another factor measured by the TIEP scale
(Sharma, Loreman and Forlin, 2012) is the sense of collabo-
ration in fostering teachers’ self-efficacy. Collaboration
among preschool teachers validates and expands their
knowledge of content and pedagogy, factors that increase the
teacher’s sense of efficacy (Guo, Justice and Sawyer, 2011).
A third scale factor in the TEIP scale relates to EMB. This
factor reflects the conception that teacher’s self-efficacy
towards inclusion shapes students’ achievement and
behaviours as well as teachers’ attitudes and classroom man-
agement skills (Ahsan, Sharma and Deppeler, 2012; Gibson
and Dembo, 1984; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001).
The original study on the TEIP scale of 18 items suggested
a three-factor structure of the scale based on results from an
EFA. The main purpose of this study was to cross-validate
the proposed three-factor structure of the TEIP scale for the
study population of pre-service teachers. The focus was to
test whether (1) the TEIP data are essentially unidimen-
sional, that is, there is one dominant factor that underlies the
scale scores, and (2) the latent factors EII, EC and EMB are
different dimensions or they represent specific aspects of a
unidimensional TEIP construct. The answer to these ques-
tions is of critical importance for the choice of appropriate
approaches to the analysis of TEIP scale data (e.g., both
classical and IRT-based test analyses assume essentially
unidimensional data).
There are several findings related to the purpose of this
study. First, the cross-validation of the TEIP scale in the
context of CFA supports the grouping of items on the EII,
EC and EMB factors as proposed in the original study on
the scale (Sharma, Loreman and Forlin, 2012). In addition,
8 ª 2014 NASEN
it was found that these factors are highly correlated, thus
suggesting the presence of a general factor of teacher self-
efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms. It should be
reminded that one item in the TEIP scale reported in
Sharma, Loreman and Forlin (2012) was replaced by an
item from an earlier survey version of the scale. Specifi-
cally, item 20 in the survey (see Appendix A) was used here
instead of one item in the TEIP scale (see item 8 in Sharma,
Loreman and Forlin, 2012, p. 19). This was done for con-
sideration of data fit in testing the two CFA models in this
study (see Figures 1 and 2), and it is not considered as
problematic to the factorial structure of the scale as both
items serve as indicators of the same latent factor, EII.
The second finding in this study is that the TEIP scale data
is essentially unidimensional, with one dominating general
dimension and three specific latent factors that represent
unique aspects of the targeted construct, namely: EII, EC
and EMB. An important practical implication of this finding
is that it is appropriate to score the teachers’ performance on
the entire TEIP scale and on each of its specific aspects (EII,
EC and EMB) using classical test analysis or IRT models.
A brief comparison of the factorial structure of the TEIP, as
identified in this study, with the factorial structures of other
scales on teacher self-efficacy also deserves attention. As
described in the introduction, the Bandura’s conception of
self-efficacy as a multidimensional construct has been
reflected in the development of self-efficacy scales, which
consist of two or more independent subscales. For example,
the MSPSE (Bandura, 1990) consists of nine subscales, the
NTSES consists of six subscales (Skaalvik and Skaalvik,
2007), the TES (Gibson and Dembo, 1984) consists of two
subscales and the STEBI (Riggs and Enochs, 1990) also
consists of two subscales. In contrast, the factorial valida-
tion of the TEIP scale in this study resulted in essential
unidimensionality, with one dominating general dimension
and three specific latent factors that represent unique
aspects of the targeted construct (self-efficacy of school
teachers to teach in inclusive classrooms). The essential
unidimensionality of the TEIP scale can be explained by the
relatively limited context of teacher self-efficacy targeted
by the scale, whereas scales that measure broader aspects of
self-efficacy are multidimensional.
Limitations of the study
One limitation of this study is the relatively small sample
size (N = 134), which typically results in larger standard
errors of parameter estimates under the confirmatory model
of data analysis. Although the stability of relationship
between the latent factors and their observed indicators
under the CFA model used in this study prevented serious
inflation in parameter estimates, the results should be inter-
preted with caution. Another limitation is the restricted
demographic make-up of the sample, with 94% females and
91% White participants, which does not allow for
generalisation of the study findings over males and non-
White ethnic groups.
 Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 2–12

In conclusion, we trust that the findings in this study

provide both researchers and educators with valuable infor- Address for correspondence
mation about the nature of the TEIP scale (Sharma, Dimiter M. Dimitrov,
Loreman and Forlin, 2012) and its psychometric depend- Graduate School of Education,
ability in measuring teacher self-efficacy to teach in inclu- George Mason University,
4400 University Drive,
sive classrooms as a key factor for quality education of MS 6D2, Fairfax,
children with disabilities. Additional studies on using the VA 22030-4444,
TEIP scale with larger samples and diverse populations of USA.
pre-service teachers in the context of early childhood edu- Email: ddimitro@gmu.edu.
cation are recommended in an ongoing process of the vali-
dation of this scale.

Appendix A: Self-efficacy in implementing inclusive practices scale

This survey is designed to help us understand the nature of factors influencing the success of routine classroom activities in
creating an inclusive classroom environment. 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
1 I can use a variety of assessment strategies (for example, 1 2 3 4 5 6
portfolio assessment, modified tests, performance-based
assessment, etc.).
2 I am able to provide an alternate explanation or example when 1 2 3 4 5 6
students are confused.
3 I am confident in designing learning tasks so that the individual 1 2 3 4 5 6
needs of students with disabilities are accommodated.
4 I can accurately gauge student comprehension of what I have 1 2 3 4 5 6
taught.
5 I can provide appropriate challenges for very capable students. 1 2 3 4 5 6
6* I am confident in my ability to get students to work together in 1 2 3 4 5 6
pairs or in small groups.
7 I am confident in my ability to prevent disruptive behaviour in 1 2 3 4 5 6
the classroom before it occurs.
8 I can control disruptive behaviour in the classroom. 1 2 3 4 5 6
9 I am able to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy. 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 I am able to get children to follow classroom rules. 1 2 3 4 5 6
11 I am confident when dealing with students who are physically 1 2 3 4 5 6
aggressive.
12 I can make my expectations clear about student behaviour. 1 2 3 4 5 6
13 I can assist families in helping their children do well in school. 1 2 3 4 5 6
14* I can improve the learning of a student who is failing. 1 2 3 4 5 6
15 I am able to work jointly with other professionals and staff 1 2 3 4 5 6
(e.g., aides, other teachers) to teach students with disabilities
in the classroom.
16 I am confident in my ability to get parents involved in school 1 2 3 4 5 6
activities of their children with disabilities.
17 I can make parents feel comfortable coming to school. 1 2 3 4 5 6

ª 2014 NASEN 9
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 2–12

SD D DS AS A SA
18 I can collaborate with other professionals (e.g., itinerant 1 2 3 4 5 6
teachers or speech pathologists) in designing educational
plans for students with disabilities.
19 I am confident in informing others who know little about laws 1 2 3 4 5 6
and policies relating to the inclusion of students with
disabilities.
20 I am confident in adapting school-wide or state-wide 1 2 3 4 5 6
assessment so that students with all disabilities can be
assessed.
Note. This survey is an earlier version of the teacher efficacy for inclusive practices (TEIP) scale that does not include items 6 and 20 (Sharma, Loreman and Forlin, 2012, p. 16).
In the present study, items 6 and 14 were excluded after a preliminary test for data fit, so 18 items were retained for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) under the models depicted
in Figures 1 and 2.

References DEC/NAEYC (2009) Early Childhood Inclusion: A Joint

Abbitt, J. T. & Klett, M. D. (2004) ‘Identifying influences Position Statement of the Division for Early
on attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs towards Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the
technology integration among pre-service educators.’ Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Chapel Hill:
Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology The University of North Carolina, FPG Child
in Education, 6, pp. 28–42. Development Institute.
Ahsan, M. T., Sharma, U. & Deppeler, J. M. (2012) Dimitrov, D. M. (2012) Statistical Methods for Validation
‘Exploring pre-service teachers’ perceived of Assessment Scales in Counseling and Related
teaching-efficacy, attitudes and concerns about Fields. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
inclusive education in Bangladesh.’ International Association.
Journal of Whole Schooling, 8 (2), pp. 1–20. Dozier, T. & Berlotti, C. (2000) Teacher Quality
Bandura, A. (1977) ‘Self-efficacy: toward a unifying Initiative. Washington, DC: US Department of
theory of behavioral change.’ Psychological Review, Education.
84, pp. 191–215. Druckman, D. & Bjork, R. A. (eds) (1994) Learning,
Bandura, A. (1990) Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Remembering, Believing: Enhanced Human
Academic Efficacy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Performance. Washington, DC: National Academy
Bandura, A. (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Press.
Control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Enochs, L., Smith, P. L. & Huinker, D. (2000)
Bruder, M. B., Dunst, C. J. & Mogro-Wilson, C. (2011) ‘Establishing factorial validity of the mathematics
‘Confidence and competence appraisals of early teaching efficacy beliefs instrument.’ School Science
intervention and preschool special education and Mathematics, 100, pp. 194–202.
practitioners.’ International Journal of Early Finney, S. J. & DiStefano, C. (2006) ‘Non-normal and
Childhood Special Education, 3 (1), pp. 13–37. categorical data in structural equation modeling.’ In
Buell, M. J., Gamel-McCormick, M. & Hallam, R. A. G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (eds), Structural
(1999) ‘Inclusion in a childcare context: experiences Equation Modeling: A Second Course,
and attitudes of family childcare provider.’ Topics pp. 269–314. Greenwich, CT: Information Age
in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, Publishing.
pp. 217–24. Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2013) Interactions: Collaboration
Chen, F. F., West, S. G. & Sousa, K. H. (2006) ‘A Skills for School Professionals. (7th edn). Boston,
comparison of bifactor and second-order models of MA: Pearson Education.
quality of life.’ Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. H. (1984) ‘Teacher efficacy:
pp. 189–225. a construct validation.’ Journal of Educational
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006) Powerful Teacher Psychology, 76, pp. 569–82.
Education: Lessons from Exemplary Programs. Guo, Y., Justice, M. & Sawyer, B. (2011) ‘Exploring
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. factors related to preschool teachers’ self-efficacy.’
Das, A. K., Gichuru, M. & Singh, A. (2013) Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, pp. 961–8.
‘Implementing inclusive education in Delhi, India: Guo, Y., Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M. & Kaderavek, J.
regular school teachers’ preferences for professional (2010) ‘Relations among preschool teachers’
development delivery modes.’ Professional self-efficacy, classroom quality and children’s
Development in Education, 39 (5), pp. 698–711. language and literacy gains.’ Teaching and Teacher
doi:10.1080/19415257.2012.747979. Education, 26, pp. 1094–103.

10 ª 2014 NASEN

Guskey, T. R. (1988) Improving Student Learning in
College Classrooms. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas Publishers.
Guskey, T. R. & Passaro, P. D. (1994) ‘Teacher efficacy:
a study of construct dimensions.’ American
Educational Research Journal, 31, pp. 627–43.
Hoy, A. W. & 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.
Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999) ‘Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional
criteria versus new alternatives.’ Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, pp. 1–55.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, § 602, 118 Stat. 2647
(2004).
Jarvis, T. & Pell, A. (2004) ‘Primary teachers’ changing
attitudes and cognition during a two-year science
in-service programme and their effect on pupils.’
International Journal of Science Education, 26,
pp. 1787–811.
Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A., Hamre, B. & Pianta, R.
(2008) ‘Quality of language and literacy instruction
in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils.’ Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, pp. 51–68.
Labone, E. (2004) ‘Teacher efficacy: maturing the
construct through research in alternative paradigms.’
Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, pp. 341–59.
Lamorey, S. & Wilcox, J. (2005) ‘Early Interventionist
Self-Efficacy Scale: a measure and its applications.’
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20 (1),
pp. 69–85.
Leyser, Y., Zeiger, T. & Romi, S. (2011) ‘Changes in
self-efficacy of prospective special and general
education teachers: implication for inclusive
education.’ International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 58 (3), pp. 241–55.
LoCasale-Crouch, J., Konold, T., Pianta, R., Howes, C.,
Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., &
Barbarin, O. (2007) ‘Observed classroom quality
profiles in state-funded pre-kindergarten programs and
associations with teacher, program, and classroom
characteristics.’ Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
22, pp. 3–17.
Loreman, T., Sharma, U. & Forlin, C. (2013) ‘Do
pre-service teachers feel ready to teach in inclusive
classrooms?’ Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 38, pp. 27–44.
Main, S. & Hammond, L. (2008) ‘Best practice or most
practiced? Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about effective
behaviour management strategies and reported
self-efficacy.’ Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 33 (4), pp. 28–39.
Malone, D. M., Straka, E. & Logan, K. R. (2000)
‘Professional development in early intervention:
creating effective inservice training opportunities.’
Infants and Young Children, 12, pp. 53–62.
ª 2014 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 2–12
Marks, H. M. & Louis, K. S. (1997) ‘Does teacher
empowerment affect the classroom? The implication
of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and
student academic performance.’ Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, pp. 245–75.
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer,
J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M.,
Early, D., & Howes, C. (2008). Measures of
classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s
development of academic, language, and social skills.
Child Development, 79 (3), pp. 732–49.
Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (2000) The Inclusive
Classroom: Strategies for Effective Instruction.
Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall/Merrill.
McConkey, R. & Bhlirgri, S. (2003) ‘Children with
autism attending preschool facilities: the experience
and perceptions of staff.’ Early Child Development
and Care, 173 (4), pp. 445–52.
McGinty, A. S., Justice, L. M. & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E.
(2008) ‘Sense of school community for preschool
teachers serving at-risk children.’ Early Education &
Development, 19, pp. 361–84.
Mergler, A. G. & Tangen, D. (2010) ‘Using
microteaching to enhance teacher efficacy in
pre-service teachers.’ Teaching Education, 21 (2),
pp. 199–210.
Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (2010) Mplus User’s
Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nandakumar, R. & Yu, F. (1996) ‘Empirical validation of
DIMTEST on nonnormal ability distributions.’ Journal
of Educational Measurement, 33, pp. 355–68.
Odom, S. L., Buysse, V. & Soukakou, E. (2011)
‘Inclusion for young children with disabilities: a
quarter century of research perspectives.’ Journal of
Early Intervention, 33 (4), pp. 344–56.
Pajares, F. (1996) ‘Self-efficacy beliefs in academic
settings.’ Review of Educational Research, 66,
pp. 533–78.
Reise, S. P., Morizot, J. & Hays, R. D. (2007) ‘The role
of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality
issues in health outcomes measures.’ Journal of
Quality of Life Research, 16, pp. 19–31.
Riggs, I. & Enochs, L. (1990) ‘Toward the development
of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy
belief instrument.’ Science Education, 74,
pp. 625–38.
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.
Sexton, D., Snyder, P., Wolfe, B., Lobman, M.,
Stricklin, S. & Akers, P. (1996) ‘Early intervention
inservice training strategies: perceptions and
suggestions from the field.’ Exceptional Children,
62, pp. 485–95.
Sharma, U., Loreman, T. & Forlin, C. (2012) ‘Measuring
teaching efficacy to implement inclusive practices.’
11
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16 2–12
Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 12,
pp. 12–21.
Skaalvik, E. M. & Skaalvik, S. (2007) ‘Dimensions of
teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors,
perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher
burnout.’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 99,
pp. 611–25.
Skaalvik, E. M. & Skaalvik, S. (2010) ‘Teacher
self-efficacy and teacher burnout: a study of relations.’
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, pp. 1059–69.
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Hoy, A. W. (2001) ‘Teacher
efficacy: capturing an elusive construct.’ Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17, pp. 783–805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W. & Hoy, W. K. (1998)
‘Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure.’ Review of
Educational Research, 68, pp. 202–48.
12
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 (2),
pp. 157–74.
Woolfolk, A. E. (2007) Educational Psychology.
(10th edn). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B. & Hoy, W. K. (1990)
‘Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about
managing students.’ Teaching and Teacher Education,
6, pp. 137–48.
Yu, C. Y. & Muthén, B. (2002) Evaluation of Model Fit
Indices for Latent Variable Models with Categorical
and Continuous Outcomes. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
ª 2014 NASEN