Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop a scale measuring inclusive school quality from parents’ perceptions (Parents’ perceptions of Inclusive School Quality, PISQ) and investigate the perceptions of Chinese parents of children with disabilities of inclusive school quality using the PISQ scale.
Method: The data for 78 parents of children with disabilities were used to measure the reliability and analyse the items of the PISQ scale. The data for 255 parents of children with disabilities were used to verify the construct validity and internal consistency of the PISQ scale and investigate parents’ perceptions of inclusive school quality in China. SPSS 21.0 and AMOS 24.0 were used for the statistical analyses.
Results: The newly developed PISQ scale was found to have good construct validity and reliability. The investigation of Chinese parents of children with disabilities indicated that parents’ perception of inclusive school quality in China was at a middle-high level and that the parents of children with ASD showed the lowest perception of inclusive school quality.
Conclusion: This study reports the development process of the PISQ scale and presents a valid scale for measuring inclusive school quality in the future. Additionally, this study provides implications for improving the inclusive practices of regular Chinese schools.
Keywords: Parents’ perceptions, Inclusive education, quality, scale development
Introduction
Inclusive education is a process of addressing and responding to the diverse needs of all learners despite their background, disabilities or other personal characteristics in general education activities and curriculum (Unesco 2009, Kurth and Gross 2014). In recent decades, developing inclusive educational practices has become a worldwide movement (Ferguson 2008, Ainscow et al. 2013). Successful inclusive education can not only provide equal access to education to all children but also, more importantly, provide appropriate education to students to achieve positive outcomes (Forlin 2010, Hodges et al. 2020). Parents of children with disabilities are important partners in inclusive education practices. Their perceptions of the quality of inclusive practices in schools can provide priority indicators for future inclusive school improvement (Carrington and Robinson 2006, Booth and Ainscow 2011). However, few studies have examined the inclusive school quality from parents’ perspective due to the lack of reliable and valid quality assessment scales (Pelatti et al. 2016, Soukakou et al. 2018). Thus, it is crucial to develop a valid scale to systematically measure the inclusive school quality from parents’ perspective. Research concerning this topic is of great importance in China, where the government has recently begun to pay attention to improving the inclusive education quality (Li 2015, Deng and Zhao 2019). Investigating the development level of inclusive school quality from the perspective of parents can provide important information to Chinese policy makers and practitioners to further promote inclusive education development, which could benefit 2.46 million children with disabilities of school age in China (National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China 2007). The current study is the first study conducted in mainland China to develop a scale measuring inclusive school quality.
Inclusive education in China
The Chinese government began to implement inclusive education in the 1980s (Deng and Manset 2000). Finance was an important reason for the Chinese government to include students with disabilities in ordinary schools (Deng and Manset 2000, Xiao 2005, Deng and Harris 2008) because after the publication of Compulsory Education Law of the People's Republic of China (The National People's Congress, 1986), the enrolment rate of students with disabilities became a quality index of school district performance (Deng and Manset 2000). However, it was too expensive to build special schools for the large number of students with disabilities (Xu et al. 2018). Including students with disabilities in regular schools was considered a cost-effective approach at that time (Xiao 2005).
Therefore, inclusive education in China has long indicated providing access to students with disabilities to regular schools instead of adapting school systems to provide high-quality education to all students (Deng and Poon-McBrayer 2013, Xu et al. 2018). In practice, ‘learning in regular classrooms’ is viewed as ‘sitting in regular classrooms’, indicating that students with disabilities are included only at the physical level but do not receive appropriate education (e.g. Gao et al. 2004, Xiao 2005). Due to the absence of support systems, the parents of children with disabilities have to provide the necessary support for their children’s successful inclusion (Cui 2017, Li 2018), causing heavy financial and mental pressures on these parents (Yang and Tuo 2019).
In recent years, the Chinese government begun to formulate policies to improve the quality of inclusive education after preliminarily solving the popularization of compulsory education for students with disabilities (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China 2017). Improving the quality of inclusive education has become an urgent task of inclusive education practices in China (Deng and Zhao 2019). It is necessary to survey the developmental level of inclusive education practices from the perspectives of different stakeholders, especially from the perspectives of parents, to provide priority indicators for improving inclusive education in China in the future (Chen et al. 2019).
Parents’ perceptions of inclusive school quality
Positive parental participation is critical for successful inclusive practices (Blair 2004, Carrington and Robinson 2006) and plays an important role in children's development (Spann et al. 2003, Hill and Taylor 2004, Şad and Gürbüztürk 2013). When parents and educators establish good relationships, individual education programmes for students with disabilities can be implemented effectively (Mackichan and Harkins 2013). Furthermore, parents’ perceptions of the quality of educational services could provide a fresh perspective for understanding the effectiveness of schools’ inclusive practices since parents are the most direct stakeholders of students with disabilities (Saulius et al. 2015). Therefore, parents' voices need to be captured in the process of measuring the inclusive quality of schools (Vizer-Karni and Reiter 2014, Saulius et al. 2015).
Although the literature emphasizes the importance of the involvement of parents of children with disabilities in school inclusion, few studies investigated parents’ perception of the quality of inclusive education (Pelatti et al. 2016) due to the lack of related quality assessment tools (Soukakou et al. 2018). Some studies measured the quality of school inclusion by investigating parental satisfaction. The results of these studies suggest that the parents of children with disabilities had medium to high levels of satisfaction with inclusive education (Laws and Millward 2001, Wong et al. 2015, Zanobini et al. 2018, Chen et al. 2019, Perry et al. 2020). For example, Zanobini et al. (2018) found that the parents of children with disabilities in Italy expressed high levels of satisfaction with inclusive practices in schools and reported their highest satisfaction with inclusive practices and lowest satisfaction with the environment and classmates’ and families’ acceptance. Huang (2013) suggested that parents in Taiwan had moderate satisfaction with inclusive education and scored parent-teacher communication the highest and peer interaction the lowest in terms of parental satisfaction. A study by Chen et al. (2019) showed that the parents of children with disabilities in mainland China were satisfied with their children's equal access to school and school support but were unsatisfied with the professional services and the government's policy regarding inclusive education.
Numerous studies concerning parental attitudes towards inclusive education also show parents’ perceptions of inclusive school quality to some extent. The results of previous studies were inconsistent. Some studies reported that parents were supportive of the inclusive placement of their children and were satisfied with the social benefits their children received and the welcome climate in schools (Gallagher et al. 2000, Leyser and Kirk 2004). However, some investigators found that the parents of children with disabilities reported less support for inclusion and were concerned about their children suffering from social isolation, lacking appropriate support and failing to make academic progress (Garrick Duhaney and Salend 2000, Seery et al. 2000, Loreman et al. 2009). The inconsistencies in the current findings were affected by child-related and parent-related variables. For example, the children’s grade levels (Starr and Foy 2012), types of disabilities (Kasari et al. 1999, Leyser and Kirk 2004), severity of disabilities (Palmer et al. 1998, Leyser and Kirk 2004) and parents’ educational and socioeconomic levels (Leyser and Kirk 2004, Zanobini et al. 2018) affected the parents’ perceptions of inclusive education.
There is no simple solution to the problem of how to evaluate the quality of education. We can comprehensively assess the educational quality only when the complexity of the quality construct is considered (Loreman et al. 2014, UNESCO 2014). The indicators of the scales of parental satisfaction and attitude towards inclusive education are not enough to comprehensively evaluate inclusive school quality. Developing a measurement scale to assess the inclusive school quality from the parents’ perspective is necessary. In addition, inclusive education is rooted in the traditional culture and education system of a country, resulting in variations across different states (Ahmmed 2013, Xu et al. 2018). Thus, it is necessary to develop a new instrument more suited for the Chinese cultural system to measure the perception of the quality of inclusion from parents’ perspective.
Scales measuring inclusive school quality from parents’ perspectives
Some researchers have developed scales to assess inclusive school quality from the perspectives of parents. To identify related measurement scales, we searched several important databases, such as ProQuest, PsycINFO and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), using several key words (e.g. inclusive education, parental perspective, parental satisfaction, and children with disabilities). The selection criteria included peer-reviewed articles in English or Chinese containing information related to inclusive school quality from parents’ perspective. Four survey scales were finally identified. The Index for Inclusion questionnaire developed by Booth and Ainscow (2011) included 56 questions for parents to evaluate the quality of the inclusion of their children’s school. The authors did not report the factors of this questionnaire. The Semantic Discrepancy between Perceived Importance and Experiences (SeDPIE) developed by Hotulainen and Takala (2014) was used to measure parents' views of the success of the integration of students with disabilities and includes 18 domains of inclusion, such as cooperation, improved learning outcomes and teachers’ teaching skills. The satisfaction of school inclusion survey developed by Crispiani and Giaconi (2009) includes four factors, namely, inclusive educational practices of schools, environment and special equipment, classmates’ and their families’ acceptance and support, and education and rehabilitation activities. The Questionnaire on the Development Level of Inclusion and Parents' Needs (DLIPN) developed by Chen et al. (2019) was used to investigate the satisfaction of parents of children with disabilities with inclusive practices in China. This questionnaire includes 38 items, but the authors did not explore the factors of the questionnaire and did not report its reliability.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the existing scales measuring inclusive school quality, we highlighted three criteria. The first criterion was the construct validity, which emphasizes that the scale should include a wide range of indicators considered critical for inclusive school quality (Saloviita 2015). The input-process-outcome model, which is among the most widely used measurement frameworks of inclusive education quality, was used to evaluate the construct validity of past scales (Kyriazopoulou and Weber 2009). An input indicator refers to any indicator provided to the system to achieve inclusive education. A process indicator refers to the practices of school jurisdictions, schools, and classrooms. The outcome diamond refers to the result of the inputs and processes (Kyriazopoulou and Weber 2009). The second criterion was brevity, which emphasizes that the scale should be brief and may include several scales (Saloviita 2015). The third criterion was reliability, which indicates the overall consistency of the measurement scale.
Few existing scales measuring the quality of inclusive education from parents’ perspectives met all three criteria listed above. Specifically, the Index for Inclusion questionnaire for parents and the DLIPN (Chen et al. 2019) included important components of input-process-outcome indicators. However, these two questionnaires only provided some items but did not further explore the related factors. Therefore, these two questionnaires lacked reliability. The SeDPIE (Hotulainen and Takala 2014), which includes 18 dimensions, has good reliability and construct validity but does not meet the brevity criteria. The satisfaction of school inclusion survey (Crispiani and Giaconi 2009) has good reliability but does not include the component of the inclusion outcome indicator.
In conclusion, few instruments have good construct validity, reliability and brevity in monitoring the quality of inclusive practices. Developing a scale meeting all three criteria set above can provide effective information regarding inclusion development from parents’ perspectives to education practitioners. Thus, the evaluating results could benefit inclusive education reform, especially in developing countries, where empirical research related to inclusive education is limited (Yan and Deng 2018). Additionally, based on the widely used input-process-outcome model and the reality of China's inclusion practice, the development of an inclusion quality measuring scale could help us determine the development status of China's inclusive education from the perspective of global inclusive education.
The aim of this study
The primary objective of this study was to develop a scale measuring inclusive school quality from parents’ perceptions (Parents’ perceptions of Inclusive School Quality, PISQ) and report the psychometric properties of the PISQ scale. The secondary objective of the research was to investigate the perception of Chinese parents of children with disabilities of the quality of inclusive school practices through the PISQ scale. We also investigated how child-related background variables could predict parents’ perceptions of the quality of inclusive schools.
Methods
The implementation of this study included four phases. Figure 1 presents a flowchart of the standardized phases of the study.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of the standardized phases of the study.
Phase I. Framework construction, items generation and content validation analysis
Constructing a framework for the measurement of inclusive school quality
The belief that inclusive education is an effort to construct a school system that responds to the diversity of needs of all students has been largely accepted in most Western countries (Savolainen 2009). However, in China, improving the enrolment rate of children with disabilities has been the primary motivation for the Chinese government to encourage children with disabilities to study in regular schools (Li 2015). Thus, inclusive education in China generally refers to including children with disabilities solely in regular classrooms rather than making schools more inclusive to all students (Deng and Poon-Mcbrayer 2013, Yada and Savolainen 2017). Based on the inclusion reality in China, in this study, we defined inclusive education as providing appropriate education to children with disabilities in regular classrooms.
The literature shows that parents’ perceptions of the inclusive education quality is multidimensional and involves different aspects, including the physical and psychological environments, teachers’ attitude and skills, curriculum and teaching adjustments, the process of teaching and learning, effective communication and learning outcomes (Starr and Foy 2012, Loreman et al. 2014, Zanobini et al. 2018). In this study, we defined inclusive school quality as regular schools providing appropriate education to children with disabilities at the input, process and outcomes levels.
We constructed a framework of inclusive school quality based on the input-process-outcome model that includes the following three subscales: the educational environment quality (EEQ) subscale, the teaching quality (TQ) subscale and the educational relationship quality (ERQ) subscale. The EEQ subscale measures parents' perceptions of schools’ accessible facilities and climates at the process level and included two dimensions, namely, the physical environment and the psychological environment, which are important factors affecting student development (Fraser 1986). The TQ subscale measures parents' perceptions of teaching support and children’s learning outcomes at the input and outcome levels and includes four dimensions, namely, teachers’ attitude and skills, teaching adjustment, evaluation adjustment and learning outcomes, which are the core of the quality monitoring framework (Wang and Li 2015) and are among the most important factors in the overall school quality (Parker et al. 2007). The ERQ subscale measures parents' perceptions of the quality of school-family-peer cooperation at the process level and includes the following three dimensions: family-school cooperation, parent-parent cooperation, and student–peer cooperation. Educational cooperation among schools, parents and peers provides important support for successful inclusive education (Swick and Hooks 2005, Lendrum et al. 2015, Hodges et al. 2020). The three subscales in this study cover the critical components of inclusive school quality and can systematically measure inclusive school quality.
After constructing the dimensions, we invited 17 experienced experts in the field to evaluate the appropriateness of the dimensions. All experts have at least a master's degree in special education and work in the field of inclusive education. The evaluation results showed that all experts considered the framework "very appropriate" or "relatively appropriate." The coefficient of variation was 0.09, showing a high consistency, indicating that the framework construct in this study has high expert validity.
Generating items for the PISQ scale
When we generated the initial items of the scale, we referred to existing scales that provided specific items in the literature, including the Index for Inclusion questionnaire for parents with 56 items (Booth and Ainscow 2011), The satisfaction of school inclusion survey with 19 items (Crispiani and Giaconi 2009) and the DLIPN developed by Chen et al. (2019) with 38 statements. The following criteria were used to include the items: the content conforms to the Chinese cultural context, and the focus is on the quality of education for children with disabilities rather than all children. The items that did not meet the criteria were excluded. For example, the items in the Index of Inclusion, i.e. “Being gay or lesbian or transgender is seen as an ordinary part of life” and “You are respected irrespective of the colour of your skin” were excluded because these items do not conform to the Chinese cultural context. Finally, we included 49 items from the Index for Inclusion questionnaire for parents, 8 items from the satisfaction of school inclusion survey, and 6 items from the DLIPN. We also generated 15 new items according to the implementation of inclusive education in China, such as “I work with other parents to support school or classroom activities.”
All authors assigned these items above to the related dimensions of the respective subscales according to the definition of each dimension independently. In total, 54 items were assigned to the same dimension by all authors, and 24 items had inconsistent results among the authors. Regarding the items with inconsistent allocation, we reached an agreed allocation opinion through repeated discussion and consensus building.
The initial version of the PISQ scale consisted of 78 items that were used to measure parents’ perceived inclusive school quality. Each item was scored using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Content validation of the selected items
We invited three parents of children with disabilities to determine whether each item was properly expressed. The following criteria for intentional sampling were applied: parents of at least one child with a disability who was studying at a regular school, parents who actively participated in their children's school education to ensure that they had enough information regarding inclusive schooling, and parents who voluntarily participated in the interviews. The one-to-one online interviews with each parent lasted 1–2 h. According to the parents' feedback, the language expression of 7 items was adjusted. For example, we adjusted the item “My child eats healthily at the school” to “The diet that the school provides can meet my child’s dietary needs” because some children have special dietary requirements.
After revising the language expression of the items, we used the Delphi Method to improve the validation of the scale. We invited 17 experts with rich experience in the inclusion practice field to evaluate the suitability of these 78 items. These 17 experts were consistent with those who previously evaluated the dimensions of the PISQ scale. To measure suitability, we used a Likert scale ranging from 1 (very inappropriate) to 5 (very appropriate). We calculated the mean score (M) and coefficient of variation (CV) according to all expert opinions. Items with a mean score greater than 4.5 (the 90th percentile of the 5-level scale) and a coefficient of variation lower than 0.2 were considered to have qualified expert validity (Mo et al. 2016).
The results showed that 59 of all 78 items met the standard of the mean score (M > 4.5) and that 65 of all 78 items met the standard of the coefficient of variation (CV < 0.2). According to the experts’ feedback, we revised the items that did not qualify for expert validity. In total, 19 items needed to be revised. During the modification process, 6 items were deleted. Among these items, 3 items were removed because they overlapped with each other, including the items “the teacher has no preference for any one child” and “The teacher can treat my child fairly”, and we only retained the latter. Three items were removed because the parents did not have information related to the items. For example, regarding the item “Lessons make good use of what my child has learnt outside school”, parents may not know the teacher's teaching content in the class. In addition, 13 items were modified due to the accuracy of the expressions.
Then, we invited the same 17 experts to evaluate these 72 items. The results showed that 71 of all items met the standard of the mean score (M > 4.5), and the remaining item had a mean score of 4.4. The coefficients of variation for all items were qualified (CV < 0.2). The evaluation results implied that the PISQ scale had a high content validity.
The final version of the PISQ scale consisted of 72 items with three subscales and was used to collect data from the participants. The EEQ subscale consisted of 16 items, the TQ subscale consisted of 38 items and the ERQ subscale consisted of 18 items.
Phase II. Pretesting the PISQ scale in a pilot study
A pilot study was carried to measure the reliability and analyse the items of the PISQ scale. Upon receiving approval by the institutional review board of the sponsoring university, we sent online questionnaires to parents of children with disabilities who study in regular schools in grades 1 to 9 through a WeChat group, which is a widely used social media platform in China. The parents volunteered to participate in the investigation. In the pilot study, we received 72 valid questionnaires of 100 questionnaires after removing those with obvious false answering tendencies and those with contradictory answers to the forward and backward scoring items.
Among the 72 parents of children with disabilities, 80.6% were mothers (N = 58), and 19.4% were fathers (N = 14). Regarding the educational background, 13.9% of the parents had a high school degree or below (N = 10), 56.9% of the parents had a bachelor’s degree (N = 41) and the remaining parents had at least a graduate degree (N = 21). Regarding the number of children raised, 63.9% of the parents had one child (N = 46), and 36.1% of the parents had more than one child (N = 26). Regarding the socioeconomic status (SES) of the participants, 18.1% of the parents were at a low level (N = 13), 72.2% of the parents were at a middle level (N = 52) and 9.7% of the parents were at a high level (N = 7).
The statistical analysis conducted during this stage, including Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, item/total correlation coefficients and comparisons of the extreme groups, were carried out using SPSS 21.0.
Phase III. Assessment of the psychometric properties and validity of the PISQ scale
Phase III aimed to verify the construct validity and internal consistency of the PISQ scale. The data collection procedures performed during this phase were the same as the data collection procedures performed in Phase II. The sampling consisted of 255 valid questionnaires after removing 50 invalid questionnaires.
Regarding the demographic information of the parents, 78.4% were mothers (N = 200), and 21.6% were fathers (N = 55). Regarding the educational background, 20.4% of the parents had a high school degree or below (N = 52), 61.6% of the parents had a bachelor’s degree (N = 157) and the remaining parents had at least a graduate degree (N = 46). Regarding the number of children raised, 67% of the parents had one child (N = 171), and 33% of the parents had more than one child (N = 84). Regarding participants’ SES, 19.6% of the parents were at a low level (N = 50), 68.6% of the parents were at a middle level (N = 175) and 11.8% of the parents were at a high level (N = 30). The demographic information of the children with disabilities of these participants is shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Demographic information of the children.
| Children’s information (N = 255) |
N | % |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Boy | 191 | 74.9 |
| Girl | 64 | 25.1 |
| Grade | ||
| 1–3 | 114 | 44.7 |
| 4–6 | 93 | 36.5 |
| 7–9 | 48 | 18.8 |
| Types of disabilities | ||
| ADHD | 54 | 21.2 |
| ASD | 72 | 28.2 |
| ID | 55 | 21.6 |
| SD | 14 | 5.5 |
| LD | 30 | 11.8 |
| Others | 30 | 11.8 |
Note: ADHD = Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; ASD = Autism spectrum disorder; LD = Learning disabilities; ID = Intellectual disabilities; SD = Sensory disabilities; and Others = Other types of disabilities, including physical disabilities, speech and language disabilities and multiple disabilities.
Given that the factor structure of the PISQ was clear according to the framework of inclusive school quality we constructed, in the formal study, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to verify the internal structure via a maximum likelihood estimation using AMOS 24.0. Additionally, the construct validity was measured by calculating the correlation between the dimensions and subscales and the correlation between the subscales and the whole scale using SPSS 21.0. Finally, the internal consistency was verified by employing Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients and split-half reliability by SPSS 21.0.
Phase IV. Using the PISQ scale to measure parents' perceptions of inclusive school quality in China
Phase IV aimed to use the PISQ scale to measure the quality of inclusive education perceived by parents of children with disabilities in China. The subjects in this stage were the same as the subjects in Phase III.
In this phase, the means and standard deviations of the PISQ were calculated by SPSS 21.0. Then, t-tests of the dependent variables were conducted to determine whether significant differences existed among the different subscales and dimensions. T-tests and one-way ANOVA were used to explore whether the child-related variables, including gender, grade and types of disabilities, had effects on the parents’ perceptions of inclusive school quality.
Results
Pretesting the PISQ scale in a pilot study
First, prior to performing any further measures, the reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The EEQ subscale, the TQ subscale, the ERQ subscale and the whole PISQ scale had alphas of 0.940, 0.967, 0.968, and 0.985, respectively, indicating a high level of inter-item consistency (Gablle and Wolf 1993, Wu 2009). To further comprehensively understand the internal consistency of the scale items, an inter-item correlation matrix was calculated. The value of each item was found to be positive, indicating that the items measured the same underlying characteristic.
Second, in the item analysis stage, we excluded one item with an item-total correlation lower than 0.3 from the TQ Subscale (r = 0.287, p < 0.01 and CR = 2.280, p < 0.01). The item was removed because it explained very little of the total variance and apparently did not share the same content area as the other variables. After excluding one item, the Cronbach’s alphas (α) of the TQ subscale and the whole PISQ scale were 0.968 and 0.985, respectively.
Assessment of the psychometric properties and validity of the final version of the PISQ scale
We performed a CFA, analysed the correlations between the dimensions and subscales, analysed the correlations between the subscales and the whole scale and assessed the validity and reliability of the scale.
In the confirmatory factor analysis, items with factor loadings no less than 0.50 and significant path coefficients were retained (Wu 2009). In addition, items with high cross loadings according to the correction index were removed (Dong and Yu 2007). Then, the remaining items were estimated again to obtain the final models. A confirmatory factor analysis of the subscales was first carried out, and the final models of the three subscales were determined. Then, the total PISQ scale was verified.
Based on the two criteria, all items in the EEQ subscale were retained. In the TQ subscale, 2 items were removed because their factor loadings were less than 0.5. In the ERQ Subscale, 1 item was removed because of its high cross loading with the latent variable “parent-parent cooperation”. The model fit indexes of the confirmatory factor analysis of the three subscales and the whole PISQ scale after the removal of the items are shown in Table 2. The CMIN/DF, NFI, RFI, IFI, TLI, CFI and RMSEA values were used to test the model fit. The fit is considered acceptable as follows: CMIN/DF ≤3.00, RMSEA ≤ 0.80, and TLI, CFI, and IFI ≥0.90 (Steiger 1990, Hu and Bentler 1999, Wu 2009). The data shown in Table 2 indicate that the model provided an acceptable fit to the data. In the four models, the standardized loadings of all items reached 0.50 and above and reached statistically significant levels. The factor loadings of the three subscales and the whole PISQ scale in the CFA analysis are presented in Tables 2–6.
Table 2.
Model fitting indexes of the CFA.
| CMIN/DF | NFI | RFI | IFI | TLI | CFI | RMSEA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EEQ | 2.099 | 0.945 | 0.932 | 0.971 | 0.963 | 0.970 | 0.066 |
| TQ | 2.533 | 0.872 | 0.858 | 0.918 | 0.909 | 0.918 | 0.078 |
| ERQ | 2.601 | 0.937 | 0.923 | 0.960 | 0.951 | 0.960 | 0.079 |
| PISQ | 2.371 | 0.984 | 0.967 | 0.991 | 0.980 | 0.991 | 0.073 |
Note: EEQ = Educational environment quality subscale, TQ = Teaching.
Quality subscale, ERQ = Educational relationship quality subscale, and PISQ = Parents’ perspective of inclusive school quality.
Table 3.
CFA loadings of the educational environment quality subscale.
| Item | Physical environment |
Psychological environment |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | P | Estimate | P | |
| Physical environment | ||||
| item 1 | 0.759 | 0.001 | ||
| item 2 | 0.721 | 0.001 | ||
| item 3 | 0.709 | 0.000 | ||
| item 4 | 0.903 | 0.001 | ||
| item 5 | 0.838 | 0.001 | ||
| item 6 | 0.775 | 0.001 | ||
| item 7 | 0.635 | 0.000 | ||
| Psychological environment | ||||
| item 8 | 0.794 | 0.001 | ||
| item 9 | 0.895 | 0.001 | ||
| item 10 | 0.902 | 0.001 | ||
| item 11 | 0.626 | 0.001 | ||
| item 12 | 0.624 | 0.000 | ||
| item 13 | 0.883 | 0.001 | ||
| item 14 | 0.889 | 0.000 | ||
| item 15 | 0.743 | 0.000 | ||
| item 16 | 0.710 | 0.000 | ||
Table 4.
CFA loadings of the teaching quality subscale.
| Item | Teaching adjustment |
Evaluation adjustment |
Learning outcomes |
Teachers’ attitude and skills |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | P | Estimate | P | Estimate | P | Estimate | P | |
| Teaching adjustment | ||||||||
| item 17 | 0.758 | 0.000 | ||||||
| item 18 | 0.861 | 0.000 | ||||||
| item 19 | 0.876 | 0.001 | ||||||
| item 20 | 0.907 | 0.000 | ||||||
| item 21 | 0.786 | 0.000 | ||||||
| item 22 | 0.879 | 0.000 | ||||||
| item 23 | 0.869 | 0.001 | ||||||
| item 24 | 0.886 | 0.001 | ||||||
| item 25 | 0.882 | 0.000 | ||||||
| Evaluation adjustment | ||||||||
| item 26 | 0.518 | 0.000 | ||||||
| item 27 | 0.585 | 0.000 | ||||||
| item 28 | 0.514 | 0.001 | ||||||
| item 29. | 0.624 | 0.000 | ||||||
| item 30 | 0.786 | 0.001 | ||||||
| item 31 | 0.786 | 0.001 | ||||||
| Learning outcomes | ||||||||
| item 32 | 0.690 | 0.000 | ||||||
| item 33 | 0.839 | 0.000 | ||||||
| item 34 | 0.829 | 0.000 | ||||||
| .item 35 | 0.805 | 0.000 | ||||||
| .item 36 | 0.808 | 0.001 | ||||||
| .item 37 | 0.823 | 0.000 | ||||||
| .item 38 | 0.921 | 0.001 | ||||||
| .item 39 | 0.894 | 0.001 | ||||||
| item 40 | 0.892 | 0.001 | ||||||
| .item 41 | 0.814 | 0.000 | ||||||
| item 42 | 0.811 | 0.001 | ||||||
| Teachers’ attitude and skills | ||||||||
| item 43 | 0.781 | 0.001 | ||||||
| item 44 | 0.885 | 0.001 | ||||||
| item 45 | 0.905 | 0.001 | ||||||
| item 46 | 0.897 | 0.001 | ||||||
| item 47 | 0.777 | 0.000 | ||||||
| item 48 | 0.610 | 0.000 | ||||||
| item 49 | 0.862 | 0.001 | ||||||
| .item 50 | 0.856 | 0.000 | ||||||
| item 51 | 0.864 | 0.001 | ||||||
Table 5.
CFA loadings of the educational relationship quality subscale.
| Item | Family-school cooperation |
Parent-parent cooperation |
Students-peers cooperation |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | P | Estimate | P | Estimate | P | |
| Family-school cooperation | ||||||
| item 52 | 0.815 | 0.001 | ||||
| item 53 | 0.872 | 0.001 | ||||
| item 54 | 0.882 | 0.000 | ||||
| item 55 | 0.861 | 0.001 | ||||
| item 56 | 0.903 | 0.001 | ||||
| item 57 | 0.905 | 0.001 | ||||
| item 58 | 0.783 | 0.000 | ||||
| Parent-parent cooperation | ||||||
| item 59 | 0.824 | 0.001 | ||||
| item 60 | 0.859 | 0.001 | ||||
| item 61 | 0.923 | 0.001 | ||||
| item 62 | 0.895 | 0.001 | ||||
| item 63 | 0.764 | 0.001 | ||||
| Students–peers cooperation | ||||||
| item 64 | 0.844 | 0.001 | ||||
| item 65 | 0.796 | 0.001 | ||||
| item 66 | 0.861 | 0.001 | ||||
| item 67 | 0.886 | 0.001 | ||||
| item 68 | 0.871 | 0.000 | ||||
Table 6.
CFA loadings of the PISQ Scale.
| Factor | EEQ |
TQ |
ERQ |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | P | Estimate | P | Estimate | P | ||||
| EEQ | |||||||||
| Physical environment | 0.835 | 0.000 | |||||||
| Psychological environment | 0.882 | 0.001 | |||||||
| TQ | |||||||||
| Teaching adjustment | 0.939 | 0.001 | |||||||
| Teaching evaluation | 0.835 | 0.000 | |||||||
| Learning outcomes | 0.765 | 0.001 | |||||||
| Teachers’ attitude and skills | 0.967 | 0.000 | |||||||
| ERQ | |||||||||
| Family-school cooperation | 0.941 | 0.001 | |||||||
| Parent-parent cooperation | 0.738 | 0.001 | |||||||
| Student-peer cooperation | 0.789 | 0.001 | |||||||
Note: EEQ = Educational environment quality subscale, TQ = Teaching Quality subscale, ERQ = Educational relationship quality subscale, and PISQ = Parents’ perspective of Inclusive school quality.
The correlation between each dimension was lower than that between each dimension and each subscale, and the correlation between each subscale was lower than that between the PISQ scale and each subscale. The results show that the PISQ scale has good construct validity.
The Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient and split-half reliability of the EEQ Subscale, TQ Subscale, ERQ Subscale and whole PISQ scale were calculated. The Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient results were 0.949, 0.977, 0.966 and 0.988, and the split-half reliability results were 0.867, 0.942, 0.932 and 0.955, showing good internal consistency.
Finally, the PISQ scale was developed and consisted of 68 items and three subscales. The EEQ subscale had 16 items including the following two factors: the physical environment (7 items, such as “The school’s barrier-free facilities can meet my child’s needs”) and the psychological environment (9 items, such as “The school is against any forms of discrimination”). The TQ subscale had 35 items including the following 4 factors: teaching adjustment (9 items, such as “When teachers organize teaching, they take my child’s learning style and learning level into consideration”), evaluation adjustment (6 items, such as “During tests, the school makes adjustment (such as the number of questions, the difficulty of questions, or the time taken to do the questions, etc.) according to my child's special needs”), learning outcomes (11 items, such as “My child made progress in subject knowledge”) and teachers’ attitude and skills (9 items, such as “The teachers in the child’s class have been trained to work with students with disabilities”). The ERQ subscale had 17 items including the following 3 factors: family-school cooperation (7 items, such as “The teachers often tell me about my child’s performance in class”), parent-parent cooperation (5 items, such as “Parents of other students in my child’s class help me”) and student–peer cooperation (5 items, such as “The students in my child’s class know how to help my child”).
Parents' perceptions of inclusive school quality in China
Table 7 displays the means and standard deviations of the PISQ scores of the 255 participants in China. The total score of the PISQ was 3.94, and the scores of the three subscales varied from 3.76 to 4.16, showing that parents’ perceptions of inclusive school quality in China reached a middle-high level. Furthermore, the results showed that the total score of the EEQ was significantly higher than that of the TQ (t(254/2)=11.23, p < 0.01) and the ERQ (t(254/2)=8.75, p < 0.01).
Table 7.
Means and standard deviations of the PISQ scores of the total sample (n = 255).
| Score | ||
|---|---|---|
| (M ± SD) | ||
| Sub. EEQ | EEQ total score | 4.16 ± 0.73 |
| Physical environment | 4.16 ± 0.78 | |
| Psychological environment | 4.16 ± 0.78 | |
| Sub. TQ | TQ total score | 3.85 ± 0.79 |
| Teachers’ attitude and skills | 3.88 ± 0.91 | |
| Teaching adjustment | 3.76 ± 1.01 | |
| Teaching evaluation | 3.85 ± 0.76 | |
| Learning outcomes | 3.91 ± 0.77 | |
| Sub. ERQ | ERQ total score | 3.90 ± 0.81 |
| Family-school Cooperation | 3.95 ± 0.92 | |
| Parent-parent Cooperation | 3.92 ± 0.87 | |
| Student-peer cooperation | 3.80 ± 0.88 | |
| PISQ total score | 3.94 ± 0.75 | |
Note: Sub = Subscale, EEQ = Educational environment quality, TQ = Teaching quality, and ERQ = Educational relationship quality.
Regarding the differences among the dimensions of each subscale, the results showed that the score of teaching adjustment was significantly lower than that of the other three dimensions (t(254/2)=-2.55, p < 0.05; t(254/2)=-3.38, p < 0.01; and t(254/2)=-4.57, p < 0.01, respectively) in the TQ subscale. The scores of family-school cooperation and parent-parent cooperation were significantly higher than that of student-peer cooperation (t(254/2)=3.67, p < 0.01; and t(254/2)=3.37, p < 0.01, respectively) in the ERQ subscale.
Regarding the influence of the selected child-related variables on the PISQ total score and three subscales, the results revealed that only the types of disabilities had significant main effects on parents’ perceptions of the inclusive education quality (Table 8). Specifically, the types of disabilities had significant main effects on the EEQ score (F(1,249)=2.74, p < 0.05), the TQ score (F(1,249)=3.73, p < 0.01), the ERQ score (F(1,249)=3.34, p < 0.01) and the total PISQ score (F(1,249)=3.56, p < 0.01). By further applying an a posteriori comparison using Scheffe’s method (Wu 2009), we found that the TQ score, the ERQ score, and the total PISQ score of the parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were significantly lower than those of the parents of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Table 8.
Means and standard deviations of the PISQ scores in different types of disabilities in the total sample (n = 255).
| EEQ | TQ | ERQ | PISQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADHD (M ± SD) | 4.36 ± 0.68 | 4.14 ± 0.70 | 4.17 ± 0.76 | 4.20 ± 0.69 |
| ASD (M ± SD) | 3.94 ± 0.83 | 3.57 ± 0.85 | 3.65 ± 0.88 | 3.68 ± 0.82 |
| LD (M ± SD) | 4.11 ± 0.65 | 3.94 ± 0.67 | 3.98 ± 0.73 | 3.99 ± 0.63 |
| ID (M ± SD) | 4.22 ± 0.68 | 3.81 ± 0.84 | 3.87 ± 0.78 | 3.92 ± 0.75 |
| SD (M ± SD) | 4.46 ± 0.63 | 4.01 ± 0.58 | 4.22 ± 0.60 | 4.17 ± 0.56 |
| Others (M ± SD) | 4.13 ± 0.62 | 3.93 ± 0.71 | 3.83 ± 0.80 | 3.95 ± 0.69 |
| Total (M ± SD) | 4.16 ± 0.73 | 3.85 ± 0.79 | 3.90 ± 0.81 | 3.94 ± 0.75 |
Note: EEQ = Educational environment quality, TQ = Teaching quality, ERQ = Educational relationship quality, ADHD = Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ASD = Autism spectrum disorder, LD = Learning disabilities, ID = Intellectual disabilities, SD = Sensory disabilities, and Others = Other types of disabilities, including physical disabilities, speech and language disabilities and multiple disabilities.
Discussion
The main aim of the current study was to develop a reliable scale to measure inclusive quality from parents’ perspectives. The necessity of such a scale was confirmed by reviewing the existing literature, which showed that there were no scales with good validity and reliability for measuring inclusive school quality, especially in China.
A new 68-item scale, namely, parents’ perceptions of inclusive school quality (PISQ), was developed. During the development of the PISQ scale, we constructed the scale framework based on the input-process-outcome model, and the three subscales fully considered the complexity of the quality construct. During the process of generating the items, we not only referred to the items of existing scales but also invited parents of children with disabilities and experts to evaluate the selected items to ensure that the PISQ has good content validity.
The factor structure of the PISQ scale was verified, and the results of the confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model had an acceptable fit, indicating that the PISQ scale has good construct validity. The construct validity was further verified by the correlation between the dimensions and the subscales and the correlation between the subscales and the whole scale. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and split-half reliability were also calculated. In conclusion, the PISQ scale is a valid measurement instrument with good validity and reliability.
The current study shows that the overall inclusive school quality in China perceived by parents of children with disabilities was at a middle-high level. This result is consistent with previous studies in other countries (Knoche et al. 2006, Loreman et al. 2009, Zanobini et al. 2018) showing that parents express a high level of satisfaction with school inclusion in Canada and Italy. The high level of inclusive school quality perceived by parents in China indicates that the Chinese government's policies to promote the development of inclusive education in recent years have produced positive effects.
The results of this study further show that parents' perceptions of the educational environmental quality were significantly higher than those of the teaching quality and educational relationship quality, and the teaching quality scored the lowest among the parents, confirming previous studies in mainland China (Wang et al. 2011, Chen et al. 2019). These results further confirm that regular schools in China have created a supportive educational environment for students with disabilities, but great improvement is still needed in terms of the teaching quality and supportive relationship quality (Jiang et al. 2016, Deng and Zhao 2019). The results of the present study are not consisted with Zanobini et al (2018)’s study in an Italian sample and Li’s study in a sample from the Twain area. For example, Zanobini et al (2018) found that parents in Italy were most satisfied with the inclusive teaching practice and had the lowest satisfaction scores with the environment and classmates’ acceptance and families’ acceptance. Parents’ perception of the inclusive school quality varies across different countries or areas and likely relies on how inclusive education practice is implemented in different cultural contexts (Garrick Duhaney and Salend 2000, Zanobini et al. 2018).
The results of the one-way ANOVA showed that the parents of children with ASD had the lowest perception of the inclusive education quality and that this perception was significantly lower than that of parents of children with ADHD in terms of the PISQ score, educational relationship quality and teaching quality. One possible explanation for the distinction in this study may be that parents of children with ASD experienced more stress than parents of children with other types of disabilities, including ADHD (Estes et al. 2009, Dabrowska and Pisula 2010, Hutchison et al. 2016). A high level of parenting stress may negatively affect parents’ perception of support from others and even lead parents to reject social support (Wang, 2016), which likely has a negative effect on their perception of the inclusive school quality. Furthermore, most teachers in regular Chinese schools are more likely to support placing students with ASD in special schools because of their insufficient skills to meet the special needs of these children (Guan et al. 2017), which may explain why parents of children with ASD have low perceptions of the teaching quality.
Limitations of the study
Although the newly developed PISQ scale was proven to have good reliability and validity in a Chinese context, there are still several limitations in the current study. First, a possible limitation of the present study is related to the conceptualization of inclusive education when we developed the PISQ scale. We constructed the definition of inclusive education based on the interests of students with disabilities rather than the needs of all students in regular schools. Therefore, the measurement results of the PISQ scale cannot reflect whether regular schools are ready to meet all students’ needs. Moreover, the PISQ scale was developed using a sample of parents of children with disabilities who studied in grades 1-9; thus, the scale may not be fully applicable to young children’s parents’ perceptions of inclusive preschool quality.
Implications for practice
The present study contributes to future inclusive education practice in several important ways. First, the present study is among the first to develop a scale to measure inclusive school quality in a Chinese context. Our study offers a valid PISQ scale to systematically measure the perspectives of parents of children with disabilities of inclusive school quality. Inclusive education practitioners can adopt appropriate actions to promote inclusive practices according to the PISQ measurement results. Second, the survey findings of the PISQ scale in Chinese parents indicate that the government and school administrators should focus on improving the teaching quality and educational relationship quality in future inclusion practice in China. Third, our findings further imply that regular schools should provide more support to students with ASD by establishing good school-parent-classmate cooperative relationships and adjusting the teaching content and methods to ensure the provision of high-quality education to students with ASD.
Appendix: Parents’ perceptions of inclusive school quality (PISQ) scale
Instruction: This scale is about examining the quality of the inclusive education provided by the regular school for your child with disability. Please read each of the following items carefully and rate the inclusive education state your child received from your perceptions. Please circle the most appropriate number that corresponds to your answer. Please attempt to answer each question. We guarantee that the data will only be used for research and will not reveal your privacy.
| 1 strongly disagree (SD) 2 disagree (DA) 3 in general (IN) 4 agree (D) 5 strongly agree (SA) |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical Environment | SD | DA | IN | D | SA |
| 1.The physical environment of the school can guarantee the safety of my child (such as school gate, toilet, playground, corridor, and staircase). | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 2.The school’s barrier-free facilities can meet my child’s needs. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 3.The diet that school provides can meet my child’s dietary needs. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 4.The school provides a safe and orderly learning environment for my child. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 5.My child’s daily need for space can be met. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 6.The class size of the school is suitable for my child to learn effectively. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 7.The school has resource room. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Psychological Environment | SD | DA | IN | D | SA |
| 8.The school is against any forms of discrimination. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 9.The teachers treat my child fairly. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 10.The teachers accept my child. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 11.My child is treated as fair as other children when they go through the school admission procedures. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 12.My child has good friends at school. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 13.Teachers and students get on well together. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 14.The school guides other students to understand my child’s differences. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 15.My child isn’t rejected by other children in the class. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 16.There is no bullying among students. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Teaching adjustment | SD | DA | IN | D | SA |
| 17.My child can get additional rehabilitation training from teachers at school when my child needs it. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 18.My child can get extra support at school when my child needs it. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 19.The teachers try to arrange for my child to learn the same things as other students according to my child’s ability level. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 20.When teachers organize teaching, they take my child’s learning style and learning level into consideration. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 21.The school makes an individualized education plan for my child. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 22.The teaching content in class meets my child’s needs. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 23.Teachers give my child chances to impress in the classroom. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 24.In class, teachers help my child learn by group learning method. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 25.In class, teachers give my child individualized support. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Evaluation adjustment | SD | DA | IN | D | SA |
| 26.During the tests, the school makes adjustment (such as the number of questions, the difficulty of questions, or the time taken to do the questions, etc.) according to my child's special needs. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 27.When assigning homework, teachers make adjustment (such as the quantity of questions, the difficulty of questions or the time of answering questions, etc.) according to the special needs of my child. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 28.My child takes the school exams just like any other students. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 29.The school’s assessment of my child focuses on whether himself or herself is making progress rather than comparing with others. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 30.Teachers can see the merits of my child when they judge them. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 31.The school’s assessment of my child includes daily performance and final exams. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Learning outcomes | SD | DA | IN | D | SA |
| 32.My child made progress in subject knowledge. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 33.My child’s learning ability has improved. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 34.My child’s ability to communicate has improved. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 35.My child made progress in courtesy expressions. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 36.My child’s ability to properly express his or her demand has improved. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 37.My child’s ability to make friends has improved. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 38.My child’s ability to maintain the friendship has improved. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 39.My child’s self-control has improved. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 40.My child’s ability to understand others’ emotions has improved. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 41.My child’s ability to express his or her feelings has improved. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 42.My child’s challenging behaviors at school have decreased or rarely happen. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Teachers’ attitude and skills | SD | DA | IN | D | SA |
| 43. The teachers listen attentively to what I say about my child. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 44.The teachers actively find strategies to help my child. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 45.The teachers actively pay attention to my child. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 46.The teachers understand my child’s special needs. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 47.The teachers in my child’s class have been trained to teach students with disabilities. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 48.There are resource room teachers in my child’s school. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 49.The teachers have enough knowledge to implement the teaching activities related to my child. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 50.The teachers can deal with my child’s problems in the classroom. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 51.The teachers can educate my child according to the individualized education plan. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Family-school cooperation | SD | DA | IN | D | SA |
| 52.The teachers often tell me about my child’s performance in class. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 53.The teachers give me some suggestions to help my child. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 54.The teachers often ask me about my child. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 55.The teachers are interested in what I tell them about my child. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 56.The teachers actively discuss my child’s problems and related solutions with me. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 57. When the leaders in school make important decisions, they take into account parents’ opinions. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 58.The family-school communication channel provided by the school is open. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Parent-parent cooperation | SD | DA | IN | D | SA |
| 59.I get on well with other students’ parents in my child’s class. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 60.Parents of other students in my child’s class help me. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 61.Other students’ parents in my child’s class are willing to discuss their children’s education with me. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 62.Other students’ parents in my child’s class are willing to discuss with me about how to make the school or class better. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 63.I work with other students’ parents in my child’s class to support school or class activities. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Students– peers cooperation | |||||
| 64.When my child needs help in class, the classmates provide support. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 65.In the class, my child has opportunity to help others. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 66.The students in my child’s class know how to help my child. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 67.The students in my child’s class can see my child’s merits. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 68.During the break, other students are willing to play with my child. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Funding Statement
This research is supported by the Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University under a grant from the International Joint Research Project (ICER201904) and by Grant No. 18YJC880140 from the Department of Social Sciences, Ministry of Education, People’s Republic of China.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflicts of interest are reported by the authors.
References
- Ahmmed, M. 2013. Measuring perceived school support for inclusive education in Bangladesh: The development of a context-specific scale. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14, 337–344. [Google Scholar]
- Ainscow, M., Dyson, A. and Weiner, S.. 2013. From exclusion to inclusion: A review of international literature on ways of responding to students with Special Educational Needs In Schools. Enclave Pedagógica, 13, 13–30. [Google Scholar]
- Blair, M. 2004. How can schools meet the needs of minority ethnic pupils? Education Review, 17, 42–48. [Google Scholar]
- Booth, T. and Ainscow, M.. 2011. Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. [Google Scholar]
- Carrington, S. and Robinson, R.. 2006. Inclusive school community: Why is it so complex? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10, 323–334. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.H., Sun, Y., Shi, Y.N. and Du, Y.. 2019. A survey of the situation and need of disabled students in inclusive schools in Beijing——From the perspective of the parents. Chinese Special Education, 26, 28–33. [Google Scholar]
- Crispiani, P. and Giaconi, C.. 2009. Quality of life and school inclusion. Trento: Erickson. [Google Scholar]
- Cui, Y. M. 2017. Research of roles and function of aide teachers in regular school. Modern Special Education, 323, 19–25. [Google Scholar]
- Dabrowska, A. and Pisula, E.. 2010. Parenting stress and coping styles in mothers and fathers of pre-school children with autism and Down syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research: JIDR, 54, 266–280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Deng, M. and Harris, K.. 2008. Meeting the needs of students with disabilities in general education classrooms in China. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for. Exceptional Children, 31, 195–207. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, M. and Manset, A.G.. 2000. Analysis of the “Learning in Regular Classrooms” Movement in China. Mental Retardation, 38, 124–130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Deng, M. and Poon-McBrayer, K.F.. 2013. Inclusive education in China: Conceptualisation and realisation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 24, 143–156. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, M. and Zhao, H.. 2019. Current situation and developmental tendency of inclusive education in China in the new Era. Disability Research, 000, 12–18. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, Y. and Yu, G.L.. 2007. The development and application of an academic emotions questionnaire. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52, 852–860. [Google Scholar]
- Estes, A., Munson, J., Dawson, G., Koehler, E., Zhou, X. and Abbott, R.. 2009. Parenting stress and psychological functioning among mothers of preschool children with autism and developmental delay. Autism : The International Journal of Research and Practice, 13, 375–387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ferguson, D.L. 2008. International trends in inclusive education: The continuing challenge to teach each one and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23, 109–120. [Google Scholar]
- Forlin, C. 2010. Developing and implementing quality inclusive education in Hong Kong: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10, 177–184. [Google Scholar]
- Fraser, B.J. 1986. Classroom environment. Room Helm, 1-70, 92–119. [Google Scholar]
- Gablle, R.K. and Wolf, M.B.. 1993. Instrument development in the affective domain: Measuring attitudes and values in corporate and school settings. Boston, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
- Gallagher, P.A., Floyd, J.H., Stafford, A.M., Taber, T.A., Brozovic, S.A. and Alberto, P.A.. 2000. Inclusion of students with moderate or severe disabilities in education and community settings: Perspectives from parents and siblings. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 135–147. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, X.G., Cao, Z.Q. and Cai, M.S.. 2004. Construction and operation of support system for children with disabilities in general classrooms. Chinese Special Education, 4, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Garrick Duhaney, L.M. and Salend, S.J.. 2000. Parental perceptions of inclusive educational placements. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 121–128. [Google Scholar]
- Guan, W.J., Yan, T.R. and Deng, M.. 2017. A study on regular school teachers’ attitude towards the education placement of ASDs. Disability Research, 28, 85–90. [Google Scholar]
- Hill, N.E. and Taylor, L.C.. 2004. Parental school involvement and children’s academic achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 161–164. [Google Scholar]
- Hodges, A., Joosten, A., Bourke-Taylor, H. and Cordier, R.. 2020. School participation: The shared perspectives of parents and educators of primary school students on the autism spectrum. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 97, 103550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hotulainen, R. and Takala, M.. 2014. Parents’ views on the success of integration of students with special education needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18, 140–154. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M.. 1999. Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar]
- Hutchison, L., Feder, M., Abar, B. and Winsler, A.. 2016. Relations between parenting stress, parenting style, and child executive functioning for children with ADHD or autism. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 3644–3656. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, X. Y., Niu, S.S. and Deng, M.. 2016. Investigation report on basic situation of integrated education in ordinary primary and secondary schools in Beijing. Modern Special Education, 25, 22–27. [Google Scholar]
- Kasari, C., Freeman, S.F.N., Bauminger, N. and Alkin, M.C.. 1999. Parental perspectives on inclusion: Effects of autism and Down syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29, 297–305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Knoche, L., Peterson, C.A., Edwards, C.P. and Jeon, H.J.. 2006. Child care for children with and without disabilities: The provider, observer, and parent perspectives. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 93–109. [Google Scholar]
- Kurth, J.A. and Gross, M.. 2014. The Inclusion Toolbox: Strategies and Techniques for all Teachers. California: Corwin Press. [Google Scholar]
- Kyriazopoulou, M., and Weber, H. (Eds.). 2009. Development of a set of indicators – For inclusive education in Europe. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. [Google Scholar]
- Laws, G. and Millward, L.. 2001. Predicting parents' satisfaction with the education of their child with down's syndrome. Educational Research, 43, 209–226. [Google Scholar]
- Lendrum, A., Barlow A., and Humphrey, N.. 2015. Developing positive school relationships through structured conversations with parents of learners with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15, 87–96. [Google Scholar]
- Leyser, Y. and Kirk, R.. 2004. Evaluating inclusion: An examination of parent views and factors influencing their perspectives. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51, 271–285. [Google Scholar]
- Li, L. 2015. From scale to quality: Objective transformation and strategy adjustment of the development of Learning in regular class. Modern Primary and Secondary Education, 31, 16–18. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X. H. 2018. Effects of social support on the quality of life of parents of autistic children based on an empirical analysis of 509 parents. Population and Society, 34, 76–85. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X. J. 2015. An evaluation of preschool inclusive education in Nantou county. Master's Thesis, Nantou University. [Google Scholar]
- Loreman, T., Forlin, C. I. and Sharma, U.. 2014. Measuring indicators of inclusive education: A systematic review of the literature. International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, 165–187. [Google Scholar]
- Loreman, T., McGhie-Richmond, D., Barber, J. and Lupart, J.. 2009. Parent perspectives on inclusive education in rural Alberta, Canada. Exceptionality Education International, 19, 16. [Google Scholar]
- Mackichan, M. D. and Harkins, M. J.. 2013. IEP Inclusive education: Perceptions of parents of children with special needs of the Individual Program Planning process. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 3, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China . 2017. The second phase of special education promotion plan (2017-2020). http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A06/s3331/201707/t20170720_309687.html
- Mo, L.L., Fu, W.Q. and Xiao, F.. 2016. The Construction of the Indicators for Classroom Teaching Involving Disabled Students' Learning in Regular Classrooms—A Research Based on the Delphi Method. Chinese Journal of Special Education, 34, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
- National Bureau of Statistics of the People's Republic of China . 2007. The data of second national sample survey of the people with disability.http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/shehui/2006/html/fu3.htm.
- Parker, R.S., Cook, S. and Pettijohn, C.E.. 2007. School choice attributes: Positioning a private school. Services Marketing Quarterly, 28, 21–33. [Google Scholar]
- Palmer, D.S., Borthwick-Duffy, S.A., Widaman, K. and Best, S.J.. 1998. Influences on parent perceptions of inclusive practices for their children with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103, 272–287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pelatti, C.Y., Dynia, J.M., Logan, J.A.R., Justice, L.M. and Kaderavek, J.. 2016. Examining quality in two preschool settings: Publicly funded early childhood education and inclusive early childhood education classrooms. Child & Youth Care Forum, 45, 829–849. [Google Scholar]
- Perry, A., Charles, M., Zapparoli, B. and Weiss, J. A.. 2020. School satisfaction in parents of children with severe developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities: JARID, 33, 1448–1456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Şad, S.N. and Gürbüztürk, O.. 2013. Primary school students’ parents’ level of involvement into their children’s education. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13, 1006–1011. [Google Scholar]
- Saloviita, T. 2015. Measuring pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: Psychometric properties of the TAIS scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 66–72. [Google Scholar]
- Saulius, S., Audrone, D. and Dalia, L.. 2015. Parental involvement in inclusive education of children with special educational needs. Social Behavior & Personality an International Journal, 43, 327–338. 12). [Google Scholar]
- Savolainen, H. 2009. Responding to diversity and striving for excellence: The case of Finland. PROSPECTS, 39, 281–292. [Google Scholar]
- Seery, M.E., Davis, P.M. and Johnson, L.J.. 2000. Seeing eye-to-eye: Are parents and professionals in agreement about the benefits of preschool inclusion? Remedial and Special Education, 21, 268–278. 319. [Google Scholar]
- Soukakou, E., Evangelou, M. and Holbrooke, B.. 2018. Inclusive classroom profile: A pilot study of its use as a professional development tool. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22, 1124–1135. [Google Scholar]
- Spann, S., Kohler, F. and Soenksen, D.. 2003. Examining parents' involvement in and perceptions of special education services: An interview with families in a parent support group. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18, 228–237. [Google Scholar]
- Starr, E.M. and Foy, J.B.. 2012. In Parents’ voices: The education of children with autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 207–216. [Google Scholar]
- Steiger, J. H. 1990. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Swick, K.J. and Hooks, L.. 2005. Parental experiences and beliefs regarding inclusive placements of their special needs children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32, 397–402. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO . 2009. Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Paris, France: UNESCO. //unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000177849
- UNESCO . 2014. Higher education in the twenty-first century: Vision and action. http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm.
- Vizer-Karni, N. and Reiter, S.. 2014. Organizational conditions and school culture fostering inclusive education- findings of research among Israeli Arab teachers. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 60, 205–214. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.X., Peng, X. and Wang, Y.J.. 2011. An investigation report on the present integrated education in primary schools in Haidian District. Beijing. Chinese Journal of Special Education, 23, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, W. and Li, J.. 2015. Research on conceptual framework and analysis perspective of educational quality. Primary & Secondary Schooling Abroad, 34, 5–10. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, W.C. 2016. Social support and parental stress among parents of young children with autism spectrum disorder: an international comparison of United States and China. Doctor’s thesis, University of Pittsburgh.
- Wong, M.E., Poon, K.K., Kaur, S. and Ng, Z.J.. 2015. Parental perspectives and challenges in inclusive education in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35, 85–97. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, M. 2009. Structural equation model – Operation and application of AMOS. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, F. 2005. Mainstreaming in China history actuality perspectives. Chinese Special Education, 000, 3–7. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, S.Q., Cooper, P. and Sin, K.. 2018. The ‘Learning in Regular Classrooms’ initiative for inclusive education in China. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22, 54–73. [Google Scholar]
- Yada, A. and Savolainen, H.. 2017. Japanese in-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education and self-efficacy for inclusive practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 222–229. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, T.R. and Deng, M.. 2018. Regular education teachers’ concerns on inclusive education in China from the perspective of concerns-based adoption model. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y. and Tuo, X. J.. 2019. Reflections on the practice of accompanying students in the context of inclusive education. Journal of Suihua University, 039, 19–22. [Google Scholar]
- Zanobini, M., Viterbori, P., Garello, V. and Camba, R.. 2018. Parental satisfaction with disabled children’s school inclusion in Italy. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33, 597–614. [Google Scholar]