Attitudes toward Inclusive Education Scale

Abstract

The Attitudes toward Inclusive Education Scale (ATIES) is a seminal, 16-item psychometric measurement tool designed by Felicia L. Wilczenski to evaluate the perspectives, belief systems, and behavioral dispositions of educators regarding the inclusion of students with diverse disabilities into mainstream, regular education classrooms. Originally rooted in the foundational work of Berryman (1988) and the Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming Scale (ATMS), the ATIES operationalizes educational integration across four distinct clinical and functional domains: academic integration, behavioral integration, physical integration, and social integration. Each domain is represented by four carefully formulated items presented on a 6-point forced-choice Likert-type continuum ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree), purposefully omitting a neutral midpoint to compel decisive evaluative judgments.

Psychometrically validated using both classical test theory (CTT) and modern item response theory—specifically Rasch rating scale analysis via BIGSTEPS—the ATIES demonstrates robust structural integrity, unidimensional construct coherence, and well-calibrated item separation statistics. Infit and outfit mean-square metrics consistently conform to acceptable boundaries, establishing that the underlying latent trait represents an overarching continuum of tolerance and professional receptivity toward mainstream classroom accommodation. Across numerous empirical investigations spanning three decades, the full-scale internal consistency reliability has demonstrated high stability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically fluctuating between .82 and .92, while specific subscales reflect varying degrees of pedagogical difficulty and perceived educator burden. As educational policy globally transitioned from basic mainstreaming paradigms toward universal design for learning (UDL) and full inclusive education, the ATIES has served as an indispensable research instrument for diagnosing teacher preparedness, identifying systemic attitudinal resistance, and evaluating the efficacy of pre-service and in-service professional development programs.

Keywords

Attitudes toward Inclusive Education Scale, ATIES, inclusive education, teacher attitudes, mainstreaming, special education, Rasch measurement model, academic integration, behavioral integration, physical integration, social integration, educational psychometrics

Authors

The scale was developed by Felicia L. Wilczenski, Ed.D., a distinguished scholar and psychologist whose extensive academic career has focused on school psychology, inclusive educational practices, developmental disabilities, and community-engaged educational service learning.

• Primary Author: Felicia L. Wilczenski, Ed.D.
• Primary Institutional Affiliations: College of Education and Human Development, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; previously affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, and Rhode Island College, Providence, Rhode Island.
• Historical Context and Collaborations: Dr. Wilczenski developed the initial iterations of the scale during the early 1990s (Wilczenski, 1992, 1995), drawing methodological and psychometric inspiration from the structural foundations of the Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming Scale formulated by Joan D. Berryman (1988) at the University of Georgia.

Purpose

The overarching purpose of the Attitudes toward Inclusive Education Scale is to quantify, standardize, and systematically differentiate the multifaceted attitudes held by general and special education teachers, school administrators, and pre-service teacher candidates concerning the full educational and structural integration of children with physical, sensory, cognitive, and socio-emotional challenges. In the wake of historic legislative mandates such as the United States’ Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and international frameworks like the UNESCO Salamanca Statement (1994), educational institutions faced an urgent imperative to transition from segregated special education classrooms to inclusive settings. However, legislative mandates alone do not ensure classroom success; empirical research consistently indicates that educator attitudes represent the single most powerful mediator of successful inclusive implementation, differentiated instruction, and positive classroom climate.

The ATIES addresses crucial clinical, administrative, and research needs by fulfilling several primary objectives:

• Diagnostic Assessment of Pre-Service Teacher Readiness: Teacher training institutions utilize the ATIES to assess incoming and graduating teacher candidates’ willingness to accommodate diverse student needs, thereby pinpointing curricular areas within teacher preparation programs that require reinforced field experience or specialized pedagogical training.
• Identification of Functional Resistance Thresholds: Unlike earlier global measures that treated “disability” or “handicap” as a monolithic entity, the ATIES systematically deconstructs educational integration into four distinct functional domains: academic, behavioral, physical, and social integration. This allows school psychologists and district supervisors to identify precisely where educators experience acute cognitive load, emotional resistance, or perceived inadequacy (e.g., distinguishing between high acceptance of physical impairments and low tolerance for severe behavioral disruptions).
• Programmatic Evaluation of In-Service Professional Development: School systems employ the scale in pre-test/post-test experimental designs to evaluate whether specific interventions—such as workshops on applied behavior analysis, trauma-informed practices, collaborative co-teaching, or assistive technologies—generate quantifiable shifts in professional attitudes.
• Cross-Cultural and Cross-National Comparative Research: Because the items capture foundational human and operational demands within classroom environments rather than localized legal codes, researchers worldwide utilize the ATIES to map how cultural norms, economic resources, educational infrastructure, and societal stigmas affect inclusive practices across developed and developing educational landscapes.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the ATIES is defined as an educator’s evaluative disposition, cognitive endorsement, and behavioral receptivity toward educating children with varying degrees and typologies of disabilities within general education classrooms. Rather than conceptualizing attitude as an unvarying, unidimensional sentiment, Wilczenski operationalized the construct as a multidimensional matrix reflecting distinct operational demands imposed on regular classroom instruction. The instrument breaks down this construct into four clearly delineated, four-item dimensions:

1. Academic Integration

The academic integration dimension measures an educator’s belief regarding the appropriateness of including students whose cognitive progression, literacy development, and academic rate of mastery diverge significantly from normative grade-level expectations. It taps into teachers’ willingness to differentiate instruction, implement modified curricula, and manage varying developmental trajectories within the same learning environment.

• Core Theoretical Challenge: Curricular pacing, standardized testing pressures, and instructional adaptation.
• Exemplar Item Manifestation: Endorsing the regular class placement of students who are one year behind (Item 5), two or more years behind (Item 1), or those requiring an individualized functional academic program centered on practical life skills rather than traditional grade-level benchmarks (Item 13).

2. Behavioral Integration

The behavioral integration subscale taps into educators’ tolerance, perceived competence, and safety perceptions regarding students who exhibit externalizing conduct disorders, emotional disturbance, impulse-control deficits, and disruptive classroom behaviors. Across the psychometric literature, this domain consistently registers the highest levels of educator apprehension, reflecting deep-seated fears regarding classroom management, peer safety, and instructional disruption.

• Core Theoretical Challenge: Classroom control, emotional regulation, peer physical safety, and behavioral predictability.
• Exemplar Item Manifestation: Placement of students who are physically aggressive toward peers (Item 2), verbally aggressive (Item 8), persistently disruptive due to impulse control deficits (Item 12), or chronically non-compliant with standard school conduct codes (Item 15).

3. Physical Integration

Physical integration evaluates an educator’s willingness to accommodate learners who present with profound sensory, mobility, and self-care impairments that necessitate environmental modifications, assistive technologies, physical handling, or paraprofessional bodily support. Unlike behavioral challenges, physical impairments generally do not directly threaten instructional order, but they require structural accommodations, architectural accessibility, and health-related assistance.

• Core Theoretical Challenge: Environmental accessibility, technological adaptation, physical dependency, and medical accommodation.
• Exemplar Item Manifestation: Endorsing the inclusion of students who cannot move without human assistance (Item 3), those requiring Braille instruction due to total visual impairment (Item 7), those reliant on sign language or augmentative communication devices (Item 11), and students needing direct support in activities of daily living and self-help skills (Item 10).

4. Social Integration

The social integration dimension reflects perceptions concerning the mainstreaming of students experiencing internalizing disorders, expressive or receptive communication difficulties, speech dysfluencies, and systemic social adjustment challenges. This domain interrogates the educator’s belief in the regular classroom as a therapeutic and socialized community capable of fostering peer relationships, socio-emotional resilience, and psychological belonging.

• Core Theoretical Challenge: Social-emotional climate, peer group dynamics, interpersonal communication barriers, and school connectedness.
• Exemplar Item Manifestation: Integration of students exhibiting pronounced shyness and withdrawal (Item 4), speech that is difficult to understand (Item 6), difficulties expressing thoughts verbally (Item 9), and chronic patterns of school absenteeism (Item 16).

Theoretical Framework

The formulation and psychometric architecture of the ATIES are deeply anchored in several established paradigms within social psychology, educational philosophy, and behavioral measurement.

The Theory of Planned Behavior and Evaluative Dispositions

Foremost among the theoretical foundations of the ATIES is Icek Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which evolved from the Theory of Reasoned Action formulated alongside Martin Fishbein. According to the TPB, human behavior is guided by three considerations: behavioral beliefs (attitudes toward the behavior), normative beliefs (subjective norms), and control beliefs (perceived behavioral control). In the context of inclusive education, a teacher’s evaluative attitudes directly inform their classroom-level behavioral intentions (e.g., whether they proactively modify assignments, facilitate positive peer interactions, or actively seek the removal/re-segregation of a struggling student). The ATIES captures the cognitive and affective dimensions of these attitudes, operating on the premise that an educator who views inclusive placement as fundamentally unfair or unfeasible will demonstrate lowered self-efficacy and reduced inclusive behaviors.

Social Model of Disability vs. Medical Model

The scale was developed during a critical historical transition from the Medical Model of Disability to the Social Model of Disability. The medical paradigm locates the “deficit” entirely within the pathology, neurology, or sensory limitation of the child, concluding that segregated, specialized environments are naturally required. Conversely, the social model—championed by disability rights advocates and formalized within the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework—posits that disability arises from systemic barriers, rigid curricula, and inaccessible physical or social environments. The ATIES directly tests an educator’s adherence to these competing models by asking whether the educational institution must adapt to absorb the child, or whether the child’s non-normative characteristics justify exclusion from the regular class community.

Allport’s Intergroup Contact Theory

The conceptual logic of the ATIES also integrates Gordon Allport’s seminal Contact Hypothesis. Allport posited that interpersonal contact under appropriate conditions (equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and institutional support) can effectively reduce prejudice, stereotyping, and intergroup hostility. The ATIES serves as an index of an educator’s willingness to establish that foundational contact within the micro-society of the classroom. Teachers who endorse items on the ATIES demonstrate a belief that sustained, naturalistic contact between typically developing students and peers with disabilities fosters mutual empathy, social modeling, and authentic developmental progress for both groups.

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory and Teacher Efficacy

Finally, Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, particularly the construct of teacher self-efficacy, underpins the observed hierarchical nature of ATIES scores. Teachers’ attitudes toward mainstreaming are inextricably linked to their perceived pedagogical capability. When confronted with physical or mild social differences, teachers perceive high instructional agency; however, when confronted with severe behavioral dysregulation or severe academic deficits, perceived efficacy plummets, triggering defensive attitudinal responses reflected in lowered ATIES scores.

Validity

The validity of the ATIES has been rigorously scrutinized and corroborated through diverse psychometric paradigms across diverse international samples.

Construct and Structural Validity (Rasch Calibration)

A primary psychometric strength of the ATIES, as detailed in Wilczenski’s seminal 1995 publication, lies in its calibration via the Rasch rating scale model implemented through the BIGSTEPS software program (Wright & Linacre, 1993). While traditional Classical Test Theory assumes ordinal survey numbers function as equal-interval data, Rasch analysis transforms non-linear raw score ranks into linear, equal-interval logit measures on an objective ruler of item difficulty and person ability.

The structural validity of the ATIES was confirmed by analyzing item-fit statistics:

• Infit and Outfit Mean-Square (MNSQ) Statistics: The infit and outfit statistics for all 16 items fell within the psychometrically acceptable range of 0.70 to 1.30, indicating strong unidimensional construct coherence. The data did not exhibit problematic degradation or noise, confirming that all 16 statements contribute meaningfully to a single underlying dimension of “receptivity to inclusive placement.”
• Item Difficulty Hierarchy: Rasch calibration established a clear, reproducible item severity hierarchy. Physical and sensory accommodations (e.g., accommodating students with speech impairments or mobility limitations) registered lower calibration logits (indicating high teacher endorsement/low difficulty), whereas items involving behavioral aggression (e.g., Items 2, 8, and 12) calibrated at the highest logit levels, establishing that behavioral disruption poses the most substantial psychological hurdle to inclusive attitudes.

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

Wilczenski established convergent validity by evaluating the ATIES against established mainstreaming measures, primarily the Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming Scale (ATMS) formulated by Berryman (1988). Cross-scale correlations were statistically significant and positive ($r > .65$), demonstrating that the ATIES effectively captured the core constructs of educational integration while providing a more contemporary, operationally precise framework. Later studies evaluating convergent validity against the Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education (SACIE) scale and the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) scale demonstrated strong, statistically significant convergent validity coefficients ranging from $.54$ to $.72$, indicating that educators with higher self-efficacy and lower personal anxiety regarding disability score markedly higher on the ATIES.

Discriminant and Known-Groups Validity

Discriminant and known-groups validity has been repeatedly demonstrated by testing populations with expected variations in inclusion beliefs:

• Special Education vs. Regular Education Teachers: In validation cohorts, certified special education teachers scored systematically and significantly higher on the ATIES than general educators ($p < .001$), reflecting specialized training, higher familiarity with behavioral interventions, and professional commitment to least restrictive environments.
• Grade-Level Differences: Early childhood and elementary school educators scored significantly higher on academic and social integration than high school educators, whose instructional priorities center heavily on complex subject-matter content and standardized testing.
• Training Exposure: Teachers who completed dedicated coursework in adaptive instruction or behavioral intervention demonstrated statistically higher ATIES scores compared to peers lacking specialized training, confirming the instrument’s sensitivity to pedagogical preparation.

Reliability

The reliability of the ATIES has been consistently documented across three decades of educational and psychological research, displaying robust internal consistency and temporal stability across different demographics and languages.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In Wilczenski’s original validation sample composed of 445 regular education teachers across urban, suburban, and rural school districts in New Hampshire, the total scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency:

• Full Scale Cronbach’s Alpha ($lpha$): Originally reported at $.92$, reflecting exceptional inter-item relatedness without redundant collinearity.
• Subscale Alpha Coefficients: The four subscales demonstrated acceptable to good reliability metrics given their brief four-item length:
• Academic Integration Subscale: $lpha = .81$ to $.86$
• Behavioral Integration Subscale: $lpha = .83$ to $.89$
• Physical Integration Subscale: $lpha = .78$ to $.85$
• Social Integration Subscale: $lpha = .68$ to $.77$

Subsequent international replications across Australia, Greece, China, India, and South Africa have consistently demonstrated full-scale Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from $.82$ to $.91$, underscoring the reliability of the scale across diverse linguistic adaptations.

Test-Retest Stability

Stability across time has been demonstrated in multiple longitudinal studies. In non-interventional control samples assessed across a four-to-six-week test-retest interval, stability coefficients ranged from $r = .79$ to $r = .86$ for the full scale. These figures indicate that baseline attitudes toward inclusive education are relatively stable cognitive-affective structures that remain consistent in the absence of explicit educational interventions, targeted clinical fieldwork, or systematic district-level reforms.

Factor Analysis

The underlying latent structure of the ATIES has been thoroughly investigated through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), complementing the unidimensional findings derived from Rasch modeling.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the scale development phase (Wilczenski, 1992), principal components analysis (PCA) with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations revealed a robust four-factor solution that aligned with the conceptualized theoretical model:

• Factor 1: Behavioral Integration: Loaded heavily by items 2, 8, 12, and 15, with primary factor loadings ranging from $.71$ to $.84$. This factor accounted for the largest percentage of explained variance, emphasizing the prominence of student conduct and emotional regulation in shaping teacher attitudes.
• Factor 2: Physical Integration: Loaded by items 3, 7, 10, 11, and 14, with loadings ranging between $.65$ and $.81$. This factor captured accommodations for mobility, sensory limitations, and daily self-help assistance.
• Factor 3: Academic Integration: Comprising items 1, 5, and 13, with factor loadings ranging from $.62$ to $.78$. This component indexed beliefs surrounding cognitive divergence and academic curriculum modifications.
• Factor 4: Social Integration: Anchored by items 4, 6, 9, and 16, with factor loadings between $.55$ and $.72$. This factor captured communication difficulties and socio-emotional withdrawal.

Cumulatively, this four-factor model accounted for over 58% of the total variance across the 16 items, with minimal cross-loadings exceeding the conventional $.30$ cutoff.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent psychometric investigations evaluating the ATIES via Confirmatory Factor Analysis have compared several competing structural models:

• Single-Factor Model: Positing all 16 items load onto a single general attitude factor. This model yields mediocre fit indices (e.g., $\chi^2/df > 4.5$, $\text{CFI} \approx .84$, $\text{RMSEA} \approx .095$), suggesting that treating inclusive attitudes as completely unidimensional obscures meaningful domain-specific variation.
• Four-Factor Correlated Model: Specifying the four distinct yet interrelated latent factors (Academic, Behavioral, Physical, Social). This model consistently yields superior fit indices across empirical studies:
• $\chi^2/df$ ratios between $1.65$ and $2.30$
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.94$ to $.97$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.93$ to $.96$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.045$ to $.062$ (with 90% confidence intervals well within acceptable limits)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.040$ to $.052$
• Bifactor Model: Recent structural equation modeling has supported a bifactor model featuring one strong general “Inclusion Openness” factor alongside four specific orthogonal group factors. This provides mathematical justification for the common practice of computing both a composite full-scale score and distinct subscale profiles.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Attitudes toward Inclusive Education Scale (ATIES) is structured as follows:

• Test Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale / attitudinal survey.
• Target Population: Regular education teachers, special education resource teachers, pre-service teacher candidates, school administrators, educational paraprofessionals, and school psychologists.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or secure computer-based digital questionnaire; suitable for individual or group administrative contexts.
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.
• Total Item Count: 16 items.
• Item Categorization / Subscales: Four items per domain:
• Academic Integration: Items 1, 5, 13 (and contextually paired items such as 10 or 6 depending on specific factor extraction, historically items 1, 5, 10, 13).
• Behavioral Integration: Items 2, 8, 12, 15.
• Physical Integration: Items 3, 7, 11, 14.
• Social Integration: Items 4, 6, 9, 16.
• Response Continuum: A 6-point forced-choice Likert scale with no neutral or undecided response category:
• 1 = Strongly Disagree
• 2 = Disagree
• 3 = Disagree Somewhat
• 4 = Agree Somewhat
• 5 = Agree
• 6 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Rules:
• All 16 items are phrased positively toward inclusion (e.g., asserting that the specified students should be in regular classes). Therefore, all items are directly scored from 1 to 6 without reverse scoring.
• Composite Score Range: 16 to 96 points.
• Subscale Score Ranges: 4 to 24 points per subscale.
• Score Interpretation: Higher total scores reflect more favorable attitudes toward inclusive education and a stronger belief in the regular classroom as the least restrictive environment. Lower scores reflect substantial resistance to mainstreaming and a preference for segregated special education placements. Subscale analysis enables practitioners to locate specific domains of hesitation (e.g., a teacher scoring 24/24 on Physical Integration but 6/24 on Behavioral Integration).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed through foundational studies published in 1992 and 1995:

• Initial Publication Year: 1992 (Preliminary 24-item validation in Psychology in the Schools); 1995 (Final 16-item Rasch-validated model in Educational and Psychological Measurement).
• Copyright and Intellectual Property: The copyright for the peer-reviewed validation papers is held by SAGE Publications and the original author, Dr. Felicia L. Wilczenski.
• Accessibility and Licensing: The 16 items of the ATIES are published directly within the academic literature and are widely utilized globally under standard academic fair-use doctrines. For non-commercial educational, scientific, doctoral dissertation, and institutional research purposes, the scale is generally accessible at no monetary fee, provided appropriate academic citation and bibliographic attribution are maintained. Researchers intending to incorporate the instrument into commercial teacher evaluation packages or proprietary digital software must seek formal permission through the copyright clearing centers associated with the original publishers.

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Berryman, J. D. (1988). Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming Scale: Factorial validity for a lay population. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(1), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164488481033
• UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain.
• Wilczenski, F. L. (1992). Measuring attitudes toward inclusive education. Psychology in the Schools, 29(4), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(199210)29:4<306::AID-PITS2310290403>3.0.CO;2-1
• Wilczenski, F. L. (1995). Development of a scale to measure attitudes toward inclusive education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(2), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055002013
• Wright, B. D., & Linacre, J. M. (1993). BIGSTEPS: Rasch-model computer program. MESA Press.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)