CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 225Collaborative Teaching and InclusionInclusion and Disability in Education and SportTeacher Education and Leadership Studies

Exploring inclusion preservice training needs: a study of variables associated with attitudes and self‐efficacy beliefs

Romi, Shlomo, Leyser, Yona·2006·European Journal of Special Needs Education
DOI 10.1080/08856250500491880
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The study examined attitudes towards inclusion and sense of efficacy of 1155 Israeli preservice teachers and variables related to these beliefs. Participants responded to an Options related to inclusion scale, and a Teacher efficacy scale. Findings revealed strong support for the principle of inclusion, yet also support for segregated special education placements. Several concerns regarding inclusion were expressed, which were related to the area of classroom management and teacher instructional skills. Sense of efficacy scores on personal efficacy, social efficacy and efficacy regarding low‐achieving students were higher than those for teaching efficacy. Less support for inclusion was found for students in Arab (Muslim) colleges compared to students in Jewish colleges. These two groups were also different on self‐efficacy scores. The major area of study and experience was associated with the level of support for inclusion and to self‐efficacy scores. The progression in the training programme was associated with increased concerns and less support for inclusion. Female students were more supportive of inclusion than males, and had higher self‐efficacy scores. Implications for preservice education for general and special education students are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08856250500491880

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many universities worldwide had begun to infuse content regarding children with special needs; yet the addition of some content is not effective.

    “Romi and Leyser (2006) found that many universities worldwide had begun to infuse content regarding children with special needs; yet the addition of some content is not effective.”

    From Teacher Preparedness for a Changing Demographic of Language Learners (2011) · cites this paper as Romi and Leyser (2006)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Romi, S., & Leyser, Y.
Affiliations
  • Bar-Ilan University (IL)
  • Northern Illinois University (US)
Corresponding author
Romi, Shlomo
ORCID
Romi, Shlomo
Venue
European Journal of Special Needs Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2006-02
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
85-105
ISSN
  • 0885-6257 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-591X
DOI
10.1080/08856250500491880
OpenAlex
W2044851443
Cited by
225
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 18
FWCI
24.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
European Journal of Special Needs Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Collaborative Teaching and Inclusion
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Inclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
Keywords
inclusive education, pre-service teachers, attitudes toward inclusion, teacher self-efficacy, special education, classroom management, instructional skills, Arab-Jewish differences, gender differences, teacher professional development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review