Development and validation of a short form of the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices Scale ( <scp>TEIP‐SF</scp> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High self‐efficacy is a marker of successful teaching and is, therefore, a subject of great interest to research on inclusive education. One of the most frequently used instruments to assess such beliefs is the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practice (TEIP) scale. Although used widely, some studies did not precisely replicate the original factor structure, and no short form of the TEIP scale currently exists, although this could enhance measurement efficiency. This study (1) systematically assessed the TEIP scale's factor structure and psychometric properties, (2) identified potentially problematic items and developed a more concise short form of the scale, and (3) evaluated its dimensionality and criterion and convergent validities using three validation samples of teachers in three different countries (486 in Switzerland, 189 in Australia and 276 in Canada). Compared to the full‐length TEIP scale, the TEIP‐SF uses half the items, demonstrates better model fit and reveals a clearer distinction of domain‐specific factors. In conclusion, the TEIP‐SF represents a concise, efficient means of assessing teachers' self‐efficacy about teaching in inclusive classrooms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".