04 SES 13 E, Measuring Social Participation with Different Methods
Referring to current studies about inclusive education, one can see that studies concentrated strongly on students’ academic achievement. In the previous decades, however, not only achievement variables but also socio-affective aspects have often been analyzed. Following Haeberlin, Moser, Bless, and Klaghofer (1989), three variables are especially in the focus of socio-affective outcome variables of inclusive education: academic self-concept, social inclusion and emotional inclusion (i.e., school well-being). The aim of this study is to investigate the perspectives of students, parents (mothers and fathers) and teachers with respect to these three variables. Our research question focuses on the consistency of the different ratings. Therefore, a multiple-indicator correlated trait-correlated method model with one method factor less than methods (CT-C[M-1]; Eid, Lischetzke, Trierweiler, & Nussbeck, 2003) was employed. To assess emotional inclusion, social inclusion and academic self-concept, the German version of the Perceptions of Inclusion Questionnaire (PIQ; Venetz, Zurbriggen, Eckhart, Schwab, & Hessels, 2015) was administered to students, their parents and teachers from 48 primary schools in Austria. Data were collected from 721 students (age = approx. 10.5 years). The results indicate that the PIQ represents a reliable instrument to capture social inclusion, emotional inclusion and academic self-concept from student’s, parent’s and teacher’s perspectives (.77 ≤ ω ≤ .97). The multitrait-multimethod analysis shows high to moderate correlations between the four different perspectives for the three subscales (.32 ≤ r ≤ .69, p <.01). With regard to the academic self-concept (.59 ≤ r ≤ .69, p<.01), the correlations were higher compared to social inclusion (.44 ≤ r ≤ .55, p<.01). Concerning emotional inclusion (.32 ≤ r ≤ .53, p<.01) the correlations between the four perspectives were a bit lower. The results of the CT-C(M-1) model indicate a substantial overlap of the four perspectives. Finally, implications for assessing the effectiveness of inclusive education, further research and practice will be discussed.
Eid, M., Lischetzke, T., Trierweiler, L. I., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2003). Separating trait effects from trait-specific method effects in multitrait-multimethod models: A multiple-indicator CT-C(M – 1) Model. Psychological Methods, 8(1), 38-60. Haeberlin, U., Moser, U., Bless, G., & Klaghofer, R. (1989). Integration in die Schulklasse. Fragebogen zur Erfassung von Dimensionen der Integration von Schülern FDI 4-6 [Integration in the classroom. Questionnaire for assessing dimensions of student integration: FDI 4–6]. Bern, CH: Haupt. Venetz, M., Zurbriggen, C.A.L., Eckhart, M., Schwab, S., & Hessels, M.G.P. (2015). The Perceptions of Inclusion Questionnaire (PIQ). German Version. Available from http://www.piqinfo.ch
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.