View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Review of Instruments Measuring Special Educators' Competencies

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Review of Instruments Measuring Special Educators' Competencies
Language: English
Authors: Lee, Suk-Hyang, Kim, Yu-Ri (ORCID 0000-0002-3754-7398), Park, Jiyeon
Source: British Journal of Special Education. Dec 2020 47(4):422-451.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 30
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Special Education Teachers, Teacher Competencies, Measurement Techniques, Parent Teacher Cooperation, Family School Relationship, Cooperation, Test Validity, Test Reliability, Tests, Teacher Attitudes, Self Efficacy
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8578.12315
ISSN: 0952-3383
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to present a review of instruments developed to measure perceptions of special educators regarding their competencies and to provide a synthesis of research studies using these measurement instruments. A total of 29 studies were included in this review, and 20 instruments were used across the studies. The results were as follows. First, the majority of the instruments in this review were designed for assessing in-service special educators. Second, there was a shortage of instruments designed for measuring necessary competencies in family supports and collaboration with families. Third, reliability and validity were reported for only 11 of the instruments. Finally, most studies utilised the tools in surveys; only two studies used the tools to investigate the effectiveness of the teacher support programmes implemented in their experiments. These results are discussed, and implications for future studies are proposed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1278638
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE4ZKqI9txjTxiUG3wC2YDTAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAGFMCWEaDZLZxb__wIBEICBmuK1BUpk_K2fIptazR-14WFCWuDzMEK2tmGOJVuVgbTr9vmZ-ggmU_WHYt7ac10CYFvm1MIUZKIsELYDxkgL4nZJHzaZKXoPMkOS0B0rObH2ghBsCL1SRgzm3gDUQNDWoznYq9BVd2dvAZ7WeTnkh95pZGJm8BXv8TNG8HbdpYzYnbmAJ-OgqH2cUqGaJ5QbGb8H5NN4bZs8G5Q=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0147811431;bmp01dec.20;2020Dec30.02:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0147811431-1">A review of instruments measuring special educators' competencies </title> <p>The purpose of this study is to present a review of instruments developed to measure perceptions of special educators regarding their competencies and to provide a synthesis of research studies using these measurement instruments. A total of 29 studies were included in this review, and 20 instruments were used across the studies. The results were as follows. First, the majority of the instruments in this review were designed for assessing in‐service special educators. Second, there was a shortage of instruments designed for measuring necessary competencies in family supports and collaboration with families. Third, reliability and validity were reported for only 11 of the instruments. Finally, most studies utilised the tools in surveys; only two studies used the tools to investigate the effectiveness of the teacher support programmes implemented in their experiments. These results are discussed, and implications for future studies are proposed.</p> <p>Keywords: review of instruments; competencies; special educators; in‐service; pre‐service; measurement</p> <hd id="AN0147811431-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Due to changes in educational settings and in the demographics of children with disabilities, the roles and responsibilities of special educators have changed in recent years. Special educators are now asked to possess core knowledge and skills that enable them to perform a multitude of tasks related to educational planning and service delivery.</p> <p>In terms of the specific core knowledge and skills with which special educators need to be equipped, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC, 2012) highlights that special educators should have an understanding of learners and learning environments; knowledge of curricula, instructional planning and strategies, and assessment; and collaboration skills. Similarly, the teacher standards outlined by the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC, 2011) include an understanding of learner development and learning environments, content knowledge, instruction and evaluation.</p> <p>However, many special educators perceive that they do not have the knowledge and skills required for teaching students with disabilities and that they experience many challenges (Benitez et al., 2009; Bishop et al., 2010; Kindzierski et al., 2013; Werts et al., 2014). For example, according to a study that investigated perceptions of pre‐service special educators regarding their teaching competencies (Kim et al., 2015), teachers felt that they did not implement teaching competencies (for example, considering individual characteristics, writing lesson plans and practising effective teaching strategies) to a degree that was proportionate to the importance that they perceived these competencies to have. Several other studies have shown that special educators are poorly prepared to teach content knowledge for multiple grade levels and academic subjects (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; Gehrke & McCoy, 2007) and to collaborate with general education teachers and families (Conderman & Johnston‐Rodriguez, 2009; White & Mason, 2006). Other challenges that have been highlighted include implementing individualised educational programmes (White & Mason, 2006) and working with paraprofessionals (Gehrke & Murri, 2006). Thus, it is critical to find ways to enhance the competencies of special education teachers in order to ensure quality education for students with disabilities.</p> <p>The first step in enhancing the competencies of special educators is to examine the core competencies they need to possess and to investigate their perceptions of these. In other words, it is necessary to measure the perceptions of special educators regarding a range of their competencies using valid and reliable instruments. Many studies have developed instruments with which to assess a single domain (for example, Dingle et al., 2004; Hamdan et al., 2016) or multiple domains (for example, Conderman et al., 2013; Tschannen‐Moran & Hoy, 2001) of competency among special educators. However, because there is little research providing specific explanations of measurement instruments based on objective analyses, it is not easy to get useful information about them (that is, the purpose of the instrument, item contents and psychometric properties).</p> <p>The purpose of this study, therefore, is to present a review of instruments developed to measure perceptions of special educators regarding their competencies and to provide a synthesis of research studies that make use of these instruments. Based on findings from the literature review, recommendations are also presented for future research related to the measurement of special educators' competencies.</p> <hd id="AN0147811431-3">Method</hd> <p>A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted on instruments designed for measuring special educators' competencies. The PsychInfo, ERIC and PQDT (ProQuest Dissertations & Theses) Global online databases were searched for entries containing any combination of the terms 'special educator*', 'special teacher*', 'competenc*', 'perception*', 'knowledge*' and 'measur*'. Studies were included in this review if they met the following criteria:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> journal articles and dissertation studies published between 1995 and 2018; if any study published during the period used instruments that were developed before 1995, it was considered appropriate for this review (for instance, the Attitudes About Teamwork Survey (AATS) were developed by Natvig in 1993 and was employed in the study carried out by Malone and Gallagher published in 2010, so the AATS was included in this study);</item> <p></p> <item> studies employing measurement instruments to investigate special educators' competencies;</item> <p></p> <item> studies written in English.</item> </ulist> <p>Studies were excluded from this review if they met any of the following criteria:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> studies measuring special educators' competencies based only on certain states' standards;</item> <p></p> <item> studies employing instruments for teacher qualification exams;</item> <p></p> <item> studies measuring competencies of speech pathologists, paraeducators or general educators;</item> <p></p> <item> studies that lacked relevant information on the instruments used (for example, target respondents, description of items and domains, number of items).</item> </ulist> <p>Twenty‐nine studies were identified that met the selection criteria for this review. Because several instruments were used in more than one of these research studies, the final set of instruments numbered 20.</p> <p>Instruments were analysed by three authors according to criteria adapted from those outlined by Vignes et al. (2008). The criteria consisted of target respondents, attributes/coverage, item contents, the number of items, the type of scale and psychometric properties. Studies were also analysed across the following categories:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> author and date;</item> <p></p> <item> participants (for example, number of participants, certification area);</item> <p></p> <item> research design (for example, descriptive study, experimental study).</item> </ulist> <p>After the preliminary analyses of the instruments, the authors and one doctoral student independently cross‐checked instruments according to the criteria in order to ensure the reliability and objectivity of the analyses. When there was disagreement, authors re‐checked the article and reached consensus through discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0147811431-4">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0147811431-5">Description of instruments</hd> <p>The 20 instruments identified as meeting the inclusion criteria are presented in Table 1. Characteristics of the instruments were analysed in terms of target respondents, coverage, the number of items, the type of scale and psychometric properties.</p> <p>1 TableCharacteristics of the instruments</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">No.</th><th align="left">Title of the instrument</th><th align="left">Reference</th><th align="left">Target respondents<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></th><th align="left">Coverage<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></th><th align="left">Contents of items</th><th align="left">No. of items/type of scale</th><th align="left">Psychometric properties</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">Attitudes About Teamwork Survey (AATS)</td><td align="left">Natvig & Malone (1992)</td><td align="left">SE</td><td align="left">S (team‐work)</td><td align="left">(One's acceptance of or regard for) the team process in planning and implementing supports for children with disabilities</td><td align="left">13/5‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Content validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Construct validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha 0.76</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">Beginning Teacher Survey (survey) & Pedagogical skills observation protocol (observation)</td><td align="left">Nougaret (2002)</td><td align="left">First‐year SE</td><td align="left">S (classroom proficiency)</td><td align="left">(Observation and self‐assessment of) pedagogical competencies in (1) planning and preparation, (2) classroom environment and (3) instruction</td><td align="left">57 (16 for survey, 41 for obser‐vation)/4‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Content validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Construct validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">Competencies for teachers who teach children who are deaf or hard‐of‐hearing (DHH)</td><td align="left">Al‐Dababneh et al. (2016)</td><td align="left">SE, GE</td><td align="left">S (DHH)</td><td align="left">Competencies (attitudes, classroom environment, assessment, instructional planning strategies, team partnership, definition and communication skills) for special and general teachers of children who are DHH</td><td align="left">36/5‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Content validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Construct validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha 0.95</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">ECSE Teacher Self‐Efficacy Scale</td><td align="left">Bandura (1997); Guo et al. (2014)</td><td align="left">ECSE</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">Self‐efficacy in 5 areas including (1) efficacy to influence decision‐making, (2) efficacy to influence school resources, (3) instructional self‐efficacy, (4) disciplinary self‐efficacy and (5) efficacy to create a positive school environment</td><td align="left">19/5‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha 0.77–0.87</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(across sub‐scales)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">Essential competencies for special and general teachers</td><td align="left">Dingle et al. (2004)</td><td align="left">SE, GE</td><td align="left">S (inclusion)</td><td align="left">Competencies (knowledge, skills and dispositions) for special and general teachers working in inclusive settings</td><td align="left">34 for SE, 14 for GE/4‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Content validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">Knowledge of Discipline section of IDEA</td><td align="left">Cox (2015)</td><td align="left">SE</td><td align="left">S</td><td align="left">Knowledge of IDEA related to Functional Behavioral Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plan</td><td align="left">20/multiple choices, yes/no, sequencing</td><td align="left">Content validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">Knowledge of the elementary special education teacher's role to facilitate inclusion: a questionnaire</td><td align="left">Luedke (2000)</td><td align="left">ESE, GE, headteacher, district SE director</td><td align="left">S (inclusion)</td><td align="left">Competencies necessary for the elementary special education teacher to facilitate inclusion in terms of (1) administration of instruction, (2) assessment, (3) collaboration and (4) technology</td><td align="left">27/4‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">‐</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">Needs assessment of special educators who serve students with autism</td><td align="left">Hendricks (2007)</td><td align="left">SE</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">(Self‐evaluation of) knowledge of effective practices and implementation of those practices. Six domains are (1) general autism, (2) individualisation and support strategies, (3) communication, (4) social skills, (5) behaviour and (6) sensory motor development</td><td align="left">32/5‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Content validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha</td></tr><tr><td align="left">0.60–0.92</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(across sub‐scales)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">9</td><td align="left">Opinions Relative to Integration of Students with Disabilities (ORI)</td><td align="left">Antonak & Larrivee (1995)</td><td align="left">SE, GE</td><td align="left">S (inclusion)</td><td align="left">Attitudes to inclusion (benefits of integration, integrated classroom management, perceived ability to teach students with disabilities, special vs. integrated general education)</td><td align="left">25/6‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Criterion‐related validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Construct validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha 0.88</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">Perceptions of co‐teaching</td><td align="left">Hamdan et al. (2016)</td><td align="left">SE</td><td align="left">S (co‐teaching)</td><td align="left">Perceptions of co‐teaching in 4 areas (components, challenges, roles, willingness)</td><td align="left">27/5‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Construct validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha 0.81</td></tr><tr><td align="left">11</td><td align="left">Secondary Teachers Transition Survey (STTS)</td><td align="left">Benitez et al. (2009)</td><td align="left">SE</td><td align="left">S (transition)</td><td align="left">Transition competencies and capability to develop and deliver transition services; 'how prepared', 'how satisfied with the preparation' and 'how frequently implemented' are rated for each item across 6 domains including instructional planning, curriculum and instruction, transition planning, assessment, collaboration and additional competencies</td><td align="left">46/4‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha</td></tr><tr><td align="left">0.94–0.97</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(across sub‐scales)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">Special Education Competency Scale (SECS)</td><td align="left">Wigle & Wilcox (2003)</td><td align="left">Pre‐service SE</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">Competencies in 4 areas including (1) developing budgets and procuring funding, (2) recent changes impacting special educators, (3) assessment, programme development, transition and (4) understanding and interpreting data and information for students with disabilities, communicating with parents, ethical practices</td><td align="left">35/3‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">‐</td></tr><tr><td align="left">13</td><td align="left">Special Educators Efficacy Scale (SEES)</td><td align="left">Lombardo‐Graves (2014)</td><td align="left">Pre‐service SE</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">Confidence in performing teaching tasks and meeting the needs of students. Domains are (1) learner development and learner differences, (2) instruction and strategies and (3) curriculum content and planning</td><td align="left">23/11‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Construct validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha</td></tr><tr><td align="left">0.89–0.95</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(across sub‐scales)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">14</td><td align="left">Student Teacher Skill Survey</td><td align="left">King‐Sears et al. (2012)</td><td align="left">Pre‐service SE, Pre‐service GE</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">Skills that student teachers should demonstrate during the student teaching experience. Six domains are (1) instructional strategies, (2) learning environment, (3) behaviour, (4) instructional practice, (5) assessment and (6) professional practice</td><td align="left">55/5‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Face validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha 0.97</td></tr><tr><td align="left">15</td><td align="left">Teacher Perceptions of Self‐Determination Questionnaire (TPSDQ)</td><td align="left">Baffa (2009)</td><td align="left">SE, GE</td><td align="left">S (self‐ determination)</td><td align="left">Instructional delivery, value and knowledge in choice making, decision making, problem solving, goal setting, self‐advocacy, self‐management and self‐awareness</td><td align="left">7/5‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">16</td><td align="left">Teacher Preparedness and Confidence Survey</td><td align="left">Caniglia (2016)</td><td align="left">SE</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">Knowledge in 8 areas (learner development and individual learning differences, learning environments, curricular content knowledge, assessment, instructional planning and strategies, augmentative and assistive technology and communication, professional learning and ethical practice, collaboration)</td><td align="left">63/4‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Content validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Construct validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha 0.95</td></tr><tr><td align="left">17</td><td align="left">Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES)</td><td align="left">Tschannen‐Moran & Hoy (2001)</td><td align="left">SE</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">Capabilities important to good teaching in three areas (student engagement, classroom management and instructional practices)</td><td align="left">(Long form)</td><td align="left">(Long form)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">24/9‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Construct validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(Short form)</td><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha 0.94</td></tr><tr><td align="left">12/9‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">(Short form)</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="left">Construct validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha 0.90</td></tr><tr><td align="left">18</td><td align="left">Team Characteristics Survey (TCS)</td><td align="left">Malone (1993)</td><td align="left">SE</td><td align="left">S (teamwork)</td><td align="left">Perception of the extent to which the team on which the teacher serves demonstrates important performance characteristics: leadership, positive communication, co‐operation, balanced participation, topic clarity, role clarity, lack of frequent barriers, conflict resolution, equal power, and encouragement in giving and receiving input and feedback</td><td align="left">10/6‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Construct validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha 0.88</td></tr><tr><td align="left">19</td><td align="left">Then‐and‐Now survey</td><td align="left">Conderman et al. (2013)</td><td align="left">Pre‐service SSE</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">Confidence in transition planning, emotional and behavioural disorders, methods and collaboration</td><td align="left">25/5‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Construct validity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Pre 0.62–0.86</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Post 0.82–0.93</td></tr><tr><td align="left">20</td><td align="left">Work Areas of ECSE</td><td align="left">Holst & Pihlaja (2011)</td><td align="left">ECSE</td><td align="left">M</td><td align="left">Competence in 6 areas of ECSE, including (1) family‐initiated work, (2) knowledge of child development, (3) child assessment, (4) planning, implementation and evaluation of pedagogical activity, (5) identification of special needs, (6) services offered to families and multi‐professional collaboration</td><td align="left">44/5‐point Likert scale</td><td align="left">Cronbach's alpha 0.93</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Notes:</p> <ulist> <item>4 Attribute: the attribute to be measured, Coverage: whether the instrument measures multiple areas or a specific area.</item> <item>5 a SE: special educator, GE: general educator, ECSE: early childhood special educator, ESE: elementary special educator, SSE: secondary special educator.</item> <item>6 b M: multiple areas are measured, S: a specific area is measured.</item> </ulist> <p>Four instruments were designed for use with pre‐service special educators and the other 16 instruments were designed for in‐service special educators. Five instruments out of 20 were developed for use with both general and special education pre‐service and in‐service teachers. Four instruments specified target respondents based on the age range of the students whom the respondents taught. That is, two were designed for early childhood special educators, one was designed for elementary special educators, and one was designed for secondary special educators.</p> <p>Nine instruments were intended to measure multiple areas, while the other 11 were developed to measure specific areas. Among these 11 single‐area instruments, three dealt with inclusion and another three dealt with collaboration. The remaining five instruments dealt with classroom proficiency, teaching children who are deaf or hard of hearing, and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) knowledge on behaviour, transition and self‐determination.</p> <p>The number of items each instrument consisted of ranged between seven and 63. Two instruments contained fewer than 10 items, three instruments between 11 and 20 items, six instruments between 21 and 30 items, four instruments between 31 and 40 items, two instruments between 41 and 50 items and three instruments more than 51 items. The scales used also varied, from three points to 11 points. The most common was the five‐point Likert scale, which was used by nine instruments. The second most common type was the four‐point Likert scale, used in five instruments. One instrument did not use a point scale: the 'Knowledge of Discipline section of IDEA' included multiple choice questions, yes/no questions and sequencing questions.</p> <p>In terms of psychometric properties, only 11 instruments reported both reliability and validity. Consequently, reliability and validity were analysed separately. Fourteen instruments reported reliability, and their Cronbach's alphas were between 0.60 and 0.97. Among the 14 instruments that reported validity information, five reported more than two types of validity, four reported content validity and construct validity and the other one reported criterion validity and construct validity. Nine instruments reported only one type of validity: five reported only construct validity, three reported only content validity and one reported only face validity.</p> <hd id="AN0147811431-6">Research studies</hd> <p>Twenty‐nine studies were included in this review, each using one, or more than one, of the 20 instruments studied. The results of analysing these 29 studies across participants, methods and degree of utilisation can be seen in Table 2.</p> <p>2 TableCharacteristics of research studies using the instruments</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">No.</th><th align="left">Instrument</th><th align="left">References</th><th align="left">Participants</th><th align="left">Research method</th><th align="left">Note</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">Attitudes About Teamwork Survey (AATS)</td><td align="left">Malone & Gallagher (2010)</td><td align="left">184 SEs from K to Grade 5</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating relationship between attitudes toward teamwork and performance by reporting relations between AATS and TCS)</td><td align="left">TCS was used to measure team performance characteristics</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">Beginning Teacher Survey (title of survey) & Pedagogical skills observation protocol (title of observation tool)</td><td align="left">Nougaret (2002)</td><td align="left">40 first‐year SEs in 5 school districts in Virginia</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating teaching competence as perceived by teachers across certification types (traditional vs. alternative)</td><td align="left">Only 3 of the 4 domains in the original instrument were used: planning and preparation, classroom environment and instruction</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">Competencies for teachers who teach children who are deaf or hard‐of‐hearing (DHH)</td><td align="left">Al‐Dababneh et al. (2016)</td><td align="left">251 SEs and GEs from K to elementary school</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating competence of teachers working with children who are deaf and hard of hearing and comparing the competence across school types, teachers' background, and educational settings)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">ECSE Teacher Self‐Efficacy Scale</td><td align="left">Guo et al. (2014)</td><td align="left">28 ECSEs teaching children with language impairment</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating relations among teacher self‐efficacy, classroom quality and language and literacy gains of children with language impairment)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">Essential competencies for special and general teachers</td><td align="left">Dingle et al. (2004)</td><td align="left">46 GEs, 18 SEs, and 12 administrators at 36 elementary, middle and high schools in California</td><td align="left">Survey study (identifying and validating the competencies essential for special and general educators in inclusive settings, which had a mean of 3 or higher ('very important' and 'most important') on the 4‐point Likert scale for 50 items</td><td align="left">Items with a mean of 3 or higher were divided into three types: competencies that were essential for special educators, for general educators and for both working in inclusive settings</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">Knowledge of Discipline section of IDEA</td><td align="left">Cox (2015)</td><td align="left">205 SEs from K to 12</td><td align="left">Survey study (exploring special educators' overall knowledge of the discipline section of IDEA (2004) regarding Functional Behavioral Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plan, and comparing it across various teacher variables (for example, certification type, level of education, years of experience, and type, quality and time of training)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">Knowledge of the elementary special education teacher's role to facilitate inclusion: a questionnaire</td><td align="left">Luedke (2000)</td><td align="left">530 elementary GEs and SEs, headteachers and school district special education directors in Eastern Washington and North Central Idaho who serve students with disabilities in elementary grades K‐5 and K‐6</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating performance‐based competencies required for special educators to facilitate inclusion of students with disabilities into general education classrooms)</td><td align="left">The survey was not self‐reported, but used to investigate knowledge held by participants regarding the competencies actually performed and those that should be performed by the elementary special education teacher to facilitate inclusion</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">Needs assessment of special educators who serve students with autism</td><td align="left">Hendricks (2007)</td><td align="left">498 SEs from K to Grade 12</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating special educators' knowledge and implementation of educational practices critical for the success of students with autism)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">9</td><td align="left">Opinions Relative to Integration of Students with Disabilities (ORI)</td><td align="left">Kamphausen (2015)</td><td align="left">92 SEs and GEs from Grade 6 to Grade 12</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating relationship between teacher self‐efficacy and attitudes toward inclusion after controlling for teacher demographics)</td><td align="left">TSES short form was used to measure teacher self‐efficacy</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10</td><td align="left">Perceptions of co‐teaching</td><td align="left">Hamdan et al. (2016)</td><td align="left">240 SSEs</td><td align="left">Student survey (investigating the relationships among the challenge, readiness, and the role perceived by special educators who are implementing common approaches in inclusive classrooms)</td><td align="left">Keywords relating to items only in the original instrument were provided</td></tr><tr><td align="left">11</td><td align="left">Secondary Teachers Transition Survey (STTS)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">Alhossan (2015)</td><td align="left">101 SSEs in Saudi Arabia</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating teachers' perceptions of their preparation in transition competencies, their implementation of transition activities, and the extent to which transition competencies addressed the students' needs, for the preparation of special educators)</td><td align="left">The original STTS was modified by deleting 6 items from the original 46 items and dividing 2 items into 2 items each for clarity, resulting in 42 items in total. The rating scale for each item response was changed from a 4‐point to a 5‐point scale, and the criterion of satisfaction was eliminated and replaced with the criterion of coverage of transition needs</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Curry (2012)</td><td align="left">191 SEs at elementary, middle and high schools</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating the relationships among perceptions of teacher transitioning, preparedness, levels of training satisfaction and frequency of performing transition activities)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">Johnson (2014)</td><td align="left">80 SSEs (high school)</td><td align="left">Survey study (examining the relationships among teachers' perceptions of their frequency of performance across the transition domains)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">Titus‐Schmahl (2010)</td><td align="left">34 SSEs (high school)</td><td align="left">Survey study (determining special educators' perceptions of how prepared they are to transition students with special needs, how satisfied they are with their training and how often they perform these practices)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">Special Education Competency Scale (SECS)</td><td align="left">Callins (2005)</td><td align="left">11 pre‐service SEs</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating how pre‐service special educators were empowered in the areas of efficacy, competency and preparedness through their final internship by comparing pre‐test and post‐test data)</td><td align="left">TSES was used to measure teacher efficacy. Both quantitative and qualitative data on teacher efficacy, competency,and preparedness to teach reading were collected and analysed.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">13</td><td align="left">Special Educators Efficacy Scale (SEES)</td><td align="left">Lombardo‐Graves (2014)</td><td align="left">245 pre‐service SEs (43 in experimental group, 202 in control group)</td><td align="left">Experimental study (comparing intervention effects on teacher self‐efficacy between two groups using pre‐test/post‐test design)</td><td align="left">A 10‐week mentoring scheme was used as an intervention</td></tr><tr><td align="left">14</td><td align="left">Student Teacher Skill Survey</td><td align="left">King‐Sears et al. (2012)</td><td align="left">98 pre‐service SEs and GEs</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating self‐ratings of pre‐service special and general educators on student teaching across types of teacher (pre‐service SE vs. pre‐service GE) and certification (traditional vs. alternative)</td><td align="left">The student teaching skills to be measured derived from CEC Skills for Preparing Beginning Special Educators</td></tr><tr><td align="left">15</td><td align="left">Teacher Perception of Self‐Determination Questionnaire (TPSDQ)</td><td align="left">Baffa (2009)</td><td align="left">268 GEs and SEs at elementary, middle and high schools</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating perspectives on the instructional delivery, value and knowledge of self‐determination domains across general and special educators)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">16</td><td align="left">Teacher Preparedness and Confidence Survey</td><td align="left">Caniglia (2016)</td><td align="left">109 SEs from K to Grade 12</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating special educators' perceptions of preparedness and confidence to implement CEC Initial Special Education Teacher Preparation Standard and identifying specific types of support and training needed to meet the standard)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">17</td><td align="left">Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES)</td><td align="left">TSES long form</td><td align="left">Brown (2009)</td><td align="left">183 SSEs (high school)</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating teacher efficacy across various teacher variables (for example, gender, age, years of teaching, type of certification) and locations)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">Callins (2005)</td><td align="left">11 pre‐service SEs</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating how pre‐service special educators were empowered in the areas of efficacy, competency and preparedness through their final internship by comparing pre‐test and post‐test data)</td><td align="left">SECS was used to measure competency. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analysed.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Courtad (2009)</td><td align="left">73 pre‐service GEs and SEs</td><td align="left">Survey study (comparing the teaching self‐efficacy of two groups (pre‐service GEs and SEs) by analysing data collected 3 times throughout the term)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">Voris (2011)</td><td align="left">222 SEs at elementary, middle and high schools</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating relationships among teacher efficacy, job satisfaction and certification type (traditional vs. alternative)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">TSES short form</td><td align="left">Alford (2018)</td><td align="left">83 SEs and GEs from K to Grade 12</td><td align="left">Survey study (determining relationship between teacher self‐efficacy and job satisfaction)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">Dhah (2015)</td><td align="left">37 SSEs (middle school)</td><td align="left">Survey study (exploring relationship between instructional coaching and teacher self‐efficacy)</td><td align="left">A mixed‐methods approach was used, analysing data from quantitative survey and qualitative focus‐group interview</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Green (2012)</td><td align="left">194 SEs from K to Grade 12</td><td align="left">Survey study (examining relationship between certification types (traditional vs. alternative) and teacher efficacy)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hopman et al. (2018)</td><td align="left">147 SSEs (73 in experimental group, 74 in control group)</td><td align="left">Experimental study (investigating effects of programme offering universal classroom management strategies for teachers on teacher self‐efficacy, burnout symptoms and teaching behaviours)</td><td align="left">The Good Behaviour Game (GBG), a classroom‐based behavioural management programme, was used as an intervention for one year</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Kamphausen (2015)</td><td align="left">92 GEs and SEs at elementary and high schools</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating relationship between teacher self‐efficacy and attitudes toward inclusion after controlling for teacher demographics)</td><td align="left">ORI was used to measure attitudes toward inclusion</td></tr><tr><td align="left">McCarty (2013)</td><td align="left">663 SEs at elementary and middle schools</td><td align="left">Survey study (examining relationship between special educators' sense of efficacy and intent to leave)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">18</td><td align="left">Team Characteristics Survey (TCS)</td><td align="left">Malone & Gallagher (2010)</td><td align="left">184 SEs from K to Grade 5</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating relationship between attitudes toward teamwork and performance, reporting relations between AATS and TCS)</td><td align="left">AATS was used to measure attitudes toward teamwork</td></tr><tr><td align="left">19</td><td align="left">Then‐and‐Now survey</td><td align="left">Conderman et al. (2013)</td><td align="left">73 pre‐service SSEs</td><td align="left">Survey study (investigating implementation of a new block of courses and confidence associated with professional competencies)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr><tr><td align="left">20</td><td align="left">Work areas of ECSE competence areas</td><td align="left">Holst & Pihlaja (2011)</td><td align="left">218 preschool GEs and SEs</td><td align="left">Survey study (examining and comparing perceptions of kindergarten GEs and SEs on competence in early childhood special education)</td><td align="left"> </td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Notes:</item> <item>7 K: Kindergarten, SE: special educator, GE: general educator, ECSE: early childhood special educator, ESE: elementary special educator, SSE: secondary special educator.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0147811431-7">Participants</hd> <p>As shown in Table 3, the participants were divided into pre‐service special educators; special educators; and others (including general educators, special educators or administrators) in order to analyse the 29 studies across participants.</p> <p>3 TableAnalysis across participants</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Participants</th><th align="left">N</th><th align="left">%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Pre‐service teacher</td><td align="left">Pre‐service SE</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">10.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="left">Pre‐service SE + Pre‐service GE</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">6.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Special educator</td><td align="left">First‐year SE</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">3.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="left">SE (at schools across more than 2 levels of K‐12)</td><td align="char" char=".">8</td><td align="char" char=".">27.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="left">ECSE only</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">3.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="left">ESE only</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">0.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="left">SSE only</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">24.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Other</td><td align="left">GE, SE or administrator</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">24.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="left">Sum</td><td align="char" char=".">29</td><td align="char" char=".">100</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 Notes:</item> <item>8 SE: special educator, GE: general educator, ECSE: early childhood special educator, ESE: elementary special educator, SSE: secondary special educator.</item> </ulist> <p>There was a total of five studies (17.2%) targeting pre‐service special educators (see Table 3). Three of these targeted only pre‐service special educators, and two focused on pre‐service special and general educators both. There was a total of 17 studies (58.7%) targeting special educators (the largest percentage of any group). Among the studies targeting participants across different school levels, seven targeted only secondary special educators (the highest number of any group), one study targeted only early childhood special educators and no study targeted only elementary special educators. One study targeted first‐year special educators, and seven studies (24.1%) focused on general educators, special educators or administrators.</p> <hd id="AN0147811431-8">Research method</hd> <p>The 29 studies were divided into surveys and experimental studies depending on research methods. Of the 29 studies, 27 were survey studies and only two were experimental studies (Hopman et al., 2018; Lombardo‐Graves, 2014). The main purpose of most survey studies was to investigate and compare the present levels of the variables (for example, competency, needs, knowledge level, readiness and capacities) that the original instruments intended to measure. Of the survey studies, three investigated correlations among the different dependent variables (Guo et al., 2014; Kamphausen, 2015; Malone & Gallagher, 2010) and one study conducted a survey to develop an instrument (Dingle et al., 2004). More specifically, of the studies addressing correlations, Guo et al. (2014) investigated correlations of teacher efficacy, quality of class and acquisition of literacy in 28 early childhood special educators who teach children with language disorders, using the Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) Teacher Self‐Efficacy Scale. Kamphausen (2015) examined 92 special and general educators' teacher efficacy and attitudes toward inclusive education using the Teacher Self‐Efficacy Scale (TSES) and Opinions Relative to Integration of Students with Disabilities (ORI), respectively, along with the relationship between these two variables. In addition, Malone and Gallagher (2010) conducted two surveys for 184 elementary special educators using the AATS and Team Characteristics Survey (TCS), also investigating correlations between the two dependent variables.</p> <p>On the other hand, the two experimental studies investigated the effects of teacher support programmes, such as a 10‐week mentoring programme for 245 pre‐service special educators (Lombardo‐Graves, 2014) and Good Behaviour Games (GBG), a classroom‐based behavioural management programme for 147 secondary special educators (Hopman et al., 2018), on teacher self‐efficacy. The results of both studies indicate that the programmes were effective in increasing teacher self‐efficacy as perceived by pre‐service special educators and secondary special educators.</p> <hd id="AN0147811431-9">The degree of utilisation</hd> <p>The degree of utilisation of the 20 instruments under consideration was investigated by analysing the studies that used them. The results of the analyses show that most instruments were used in only one study, but several instruments were used in two or more studies. For example, the TSES (short form) was used in four studies targeting special educators (Dhah, 2015; Green, 2012; Hopman et al., 2018; McCarty, 2013) and in two studies targeting special and general educators (Alford, 2018; Kamphausen, 2015). The TSES (long form) was used in four studies targeting special educators, pre‐service special educators and pre‐service general educators (Brown, 2009; Callins, 2005; Courtad, 2009; Voris, 2011). In its two forms, the TSES showed the highest degree of utilisation among the 20 instruments, in terms of the number of studies using it and the variety of participants tested by it. In addition, the Secondary Teachers Transition Survey (STTS) was used in four studies of special educators (Alhossan, 2015; Curry, 2012; Johnson, 2014; Titus‐Schmahl, 2010).</p> <hd id="AN0147811431-10">Discussion</hd> <p>The aim of this study was to identify the instruments used to measure special education teachers' perceptions of their competencies from 1995 to 2018 and to review systematically the research studies that used those instruments. Based on the analyses of 20 instruments and the 29 studies that used those instruments, the main findings and their significance are discussed below.</p> <p>First, only four instruments were designed to measure special education teachers' perceptions of their competencies, while the other 16 instruments were designed for use with in‐service special educators. A similar trend was found in the research studies using the instruments: 17 studies out of 29 were conducted with in‐service special educators while only five were carried out with pre‐service special educators. In addition, only one instrument out of the 16 designed for use with in‐service special educators was intended for beginning special educators. Considering the importance of the required teacher competencies in delivering quality education for all (CEC, 2012; INTASC, 2011), there is a need to develop and validate more measurement tools to be used with pre‐service and beginning special education teachers.</p> <p>Second, the analyses of 20 instruments indicated a shortage of instruments available to measure special education teachers' perceptions of their competencies related to family supports and collaboration with families. Although the cultural and linguistic diversity of families is increasing for various reasons, such as growing refugee populations and increased international exchange, no instruments were found that assessed special educators' competencies in working with diversity. Only two instruments were found to assess collaboration with families, including the Special Education Competency Scale (SECS) and Work Areas of ESCE. Considering how important it is for special educators to possess competencies related to collaborating with and supporting families of students with disabilities, it is crucial that instruments be developed for measuring these competencies in special educators.</p> <p>Third, the findings relating to the development process and psychometric properties of measurement instruments indicated that only 11 instruments among 20 had reported reliability and validity. In other words, although assessing the reliability and validity of instruments is critical to ensuring that they measure what they are intended to measure, reliability and validity were presented for only half of the 20 instruments. When changes in behaviours or perceptions are being measured, it is important to use instruments with high psychometric properties to obtain objective research findings. Future studies need to report acceptable levels of validity and reliability in order to ensure high‐quality research.</p> <p>Fourth, the results of analysing the 29 studies indicated that most of them were survey studies that used the instruments to investigate special education teachers' perceptions of their competency or capacity, needs, knowledge level and degree of readiness, or else that compared the results across various variables; for example, type of teacher (general educator vs. special educator), certification (traditional vs. alternative), gender and teaching experience. There were only two experimental studies, both of which compared the effects of particular programmes (that is, mentoring and GBG) on experimental and control groups (Hopman et al., 2018; Lombardo‐Graves, 2014). The results show that instruments measuring special education teachers' perceptions regarding competencies have been used mainly for survey studies. It is important to seek ways to enhance teaching competencies by examining the competencies needed for special educators and comparing the differences across various variables. However, it is also meaningful to extend the scope and degree of utilisation of relevant instruments as a means of verifying the effectiveness of teacher support programmes in enhancing competencies of pre‐service special educators or special educators in order to train highly qualified teachers. It cannot be overemphasised that special educators can achieve significant improvement in teaching competencies through evidence‐based training and support strategies, just as students achieve improved outcomes through scientifically verified instructional strategies. To achieve this result, it will be necessary to conduct more scientifically designed studies employing the instruments reviewed here as dependent variables.</p> <p>There are several limitations on this study. First, there are many studies which use instruments developed in other studies to conduct surveys or to measure the effects of interventions and other programmes, but few studies explain the original instruments sufficiently. Even though the authors of this study have made efforts to describe the titles, number of items and characteristics of the instruments as accurately as possible, there are gaps in the information available. Second, seven of the instruments (35%) included in this study were developed in dissertations, some of which were never published. Dissertations have the advantage of showing in detail the process of developing instruments and original items, but the utilisation of instruments developed in dissertations is likely to be limited before the work is published. If these instruments were to be validated through repeated further studies, the numbers and structures of items they employ might change from the original versions.</p> <p>This study is significant in that no systematic review has yet sought to identify and synthesise the tools available to measure competencies of special educators and review the research studies that use these tools. The number of identified instruments (<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>) was far from satisfactory, considering that our search included the years from 1995 to the present. More efforts are needed to develop and validate these tools, which have three important applications. First, they enable special educators to assess their own strengths and weaknesses. Based on assessment results, teachers can seek to enhance their knowledge or to practise certain instructional strategies to supplement their teaching. Second, the tools can be used as useful assessments to develop pre‐service and in‐service programmes. Effective teacher training programmes must be based on an accurate understanding of the needs and desires of teachers, so there is no doubt that the existence of proper measurement tools will help to improve teacher training programmes. Third, the tools can be used to evaluate the outcomes of personnel preparation and in‐service teacher training programmes.</p> <p>No researcher would disagree that the development of instruments is painstaking work in terms of the time, costs and energy required in the process. Nevertheless, such work should be encouraged, because the tools serve as fundamental bases for in‐service and pre‐service professional development. We hope that more experimental studies will be conducted using the instruments introduced in this review and that more new instruments will be developed. 'What gets measured, gets done!'</p> <ref id="AN0147811431-11"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Al‐Dababneh, K. A., Al‐Zboon, E. K. & Akour, M. M. (2016) ' Competencies that teachers need for teaching children who are deaf and hard‐of‐hearing (DHH) in Jordan ', Deafness & Education International, 18 (4), 172 – 188.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alford, A. (2018) ' Job satisfaction and self‐efficacy score differences in general and special education teachers as measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey and Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (ProQuest No. 10817335).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alhossan, B. A. (2015) ' Secondary special education teachers' perceptions about their personnel preparation in transition competencies in Saudi Arabia '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (ProQuest No.10187108).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Antonak, R. F. & Larrivee, B. (1995) ' Psychometric analysis and revision of the opinions relative to mainstreaming scale ', Exceptional Children, 62, 139 – 149.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baffa, F. B. (2009) ' Self‐determination instructional delivery, value, and knowledge of general and special education teachers and across grade levels '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database(UMI No. 3374098).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1997) Self‐Efficacy: the exercise of control. New York : W. H. Freeman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bean, R. & Lillenstein, J. (2012) ' Response to intervention and the changing roles of schoolwide personnel ', Reading Teacher, 65, 491 – 501.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Benitez, D. T., Morningstar, M. E. & Frey, B. B. (2009) ' A multistate survey of special education teachers' perceptions of their transition competencies ', Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 6 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bishop, A. G., Brownell, M. T., Klingner, J. K., Leko, M. M. & Galman, S. A. (2010) ' Differences in beginning special education teachers: the influence of personal attributes, preparation, and school environment on classroom reading practices ', Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 75 – 92.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, B. E. P. (2009) ' Alabama high school special education teachers' efficacy beliefs in student engagement, instructional practices, and classroom management '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (ProQuest No. 3362647).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Callins, T. M. (2005) ' I've got the power!: Investigating pre‐service special educators' perceptions and abilities to teach reading to students with disabilities '. Doctoral dissertation [online at <ulink href="http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3803&context=etd">http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3803&context=etd</ulink> ].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caniglia, C. M. (2016) ' Special education teachers' reported preparedness and confidence to implement the 2012 CEC initial level special educator preparation standards '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (ProQuestNo. 10139774).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> CEC (Council for Exceptional Children) (2012) CEC Initial Level Special Educator Preparation Standards. Arlington, VA : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conderman, G. & Johnston‐Rodriguez, S. (2009) ' Beginning teachers' views of their collaborative roles ', Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53, 235 – 244.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conderman, G., Johnson‐Rodriguez, S., Hartman, P. & Kemp, D. (2013) ' Preparing preservice secondary special educators ', Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 57, 196 – 205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Courtad, C. A. (2009) ' Teaching self‐efficacy of general and special education preservice teachers '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 338113).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cox, T. M. (2015) ' Special education teachers' knowledge of the discipline section of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 as it relates to functional behavioural assessment and behaviour intervention plans '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3711045).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curry, V. E. (2012) ' An examination of the perception of special education teachers in the Mississippi delta toward their transition competencies '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3514671).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dhah, S. (2015) ' The relationship between job‐embedded professional development and special education teacher self‐efficacy in hard‐to‐staff middle schools '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3713712).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dingle, M., Falvey, M. A., Givner, C. C. & Haager, D. (2004) ' Essential special and general education teacher competencies for preparing teachers for inclusive settings ', Issues in Teacher Education, 13, 35 – 50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gehrke, R. S. & McCoy, K. (2007) ' Considering the context: differences between the environments of beginning special educators who stay and those who leave ', Rural Special Education Quarterly, 26 (3), 32 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gehrke, R. S. & Murri, N. (2006) ' Beginning special educators' intent to stay in special education: why they like it here ', Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 179 – 190.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, S. M. (2012) ' Teacher efficacy of alternative and traditionally certified special education teachers '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3528458).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo, Y., Dynia, J. M., Pelatti, C. Y. & Justice, L. M. (2014) ' Self‐efficacy of early childhood special education teachers: links to classroom quality and children's learning for children with language impairment ', Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 12 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamdan, A. R., Anuar, M. K. & Khan, A. (2016) ' Implementation of co‐teaching approach in an inclusive classroom: overview of the challenges, readiness, and role of special education teacher ', Asia Pacific Education Review, 17, 289 – 298.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hendricks, D. (2007) ' A descriptive study of special education teachers serving students with autism: knowledge, practice employed, and training needs '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3288685).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holst, T. K. & Pihlaja, P. M. (2011) ' Teachers' perceptions of their personal early childhood special education competence in day care ', Teacher Development, 15, 349 – 362.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hopman, J. A., van Lier, P. A., van der Ende, J., Struiksma, C., Wubbels, T., Verhulst, F. C., Maras, A., Breeman, L. D. & Tick, N. T. (2018) ' Impact of the good behaviour game on special education teachers ', Teachers and Teaching, 24, 350 – 368.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> INTASC (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium) (2011) INTASC Model Core Teaching Standards: a resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC : INTASC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, T. L. (2014) ' Transition competencies: an analysis of secondary special education teachers' perceptions of their frequency of performance '. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Southern University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamphausen, D. L. (2015) ' The relationship between teachers' self‐efficacy and attitudes toward inclusion among coteachers '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (ProQuestNo. 3728865).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y., Park, J. & Lee, S. (2015) ' Perceptions of Korean pre‐service special educators regarding teaching competencies for students with disabilities ', International Journal of Special Education, 30 (2), 107 – 118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kindzierski, C. M., O'Dell, R., Marable, M. A. & Raimondi, S. L. (2013) ' You tell us: how well are we preparing teachers for a career in classrooms serving children with emotional disabilities? ', Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 18, 179 – 195.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King‐Sears, M. E., Carran, D. T., Dammann, S. N. & Arter, P. S. (2012) ' Multi‐site analyses of special education and general education student teachers' skill ratings for working with students with disabilities ', Teacher Education Quarterly, 39 (2), 131 – 149.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lombardo‐Graves, M. (2014) ' The effect of a mentoring intervention on the teaching self‐efficacy of pre‐service special education teacher candidates '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3681944).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luedke, P. M. (2000) ' The elementary special education teacher's role to facilitate inclusion '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 9993993).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malone, D. M. (1993) ' Team characteristics survey '. Available from D. M. Malone, Early Childhood Program, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45221‐0105, USA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malone, M. & Gallagher, P. A. (2010) ' Special education teachers' attitudes and perceptions of teamwork ', Remedial and Special Education, 31, 330 – 342.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCarty, K. A. (2013) ' The relationship between special education teachers' sense of teacher efficacy and their intent to leave '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3560233).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Natvig, D. A. & Malone, D. M. (1992) Attitudes About Teamwork Scale. Augusta, GA : Medical College of Georgia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nougaret, A. A. (2002) ' The impact of licensure status on the pedagogical competence of first‐year special education teachers '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3042781).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Titus‐Schmahl, K. M. (2010) ' Special education teachers' perceptions of transition competencies and transition training '. Master's thesis, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 1485302).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen‐Moran, M. & Hoy, A. W. (2001) ' Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct ', Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783 – 805.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vignes, C., Coley, N., Grandjean, H., Godeau, E. & Arnaud, C. (2008) ' Measuring children's attitudes towards peers with disabilities: a review of instruments ', Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 50, 182 – 189.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Voris, B. C. (2011) ' Teacher efficacy, job satisfaction, and alternative certification in early career special education teachers '. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3492202).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Werts, M. G., Carpenter, E. S. & Fewell, C. (2014) ' Barriers and benefits to response to intervention: perceptions of special education teachers ', Rural Special Education Quarterly, 33 (2), 3 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, M. & Mason, C. Y. (2006) ' Components of a successful mentioning program for beginning special education teachers: perspectives from new teachers and mentors ', Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 191 – 201.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigle, S. E. & Wilcox, D. J. (2003) ' Changing roles and responsibilities of special educators; implications for teacher education ', Action in Teacher Education, 25, 27 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Suk‐Hyang Lee; Yu‐Ri Kim and Jiyeon Park</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1278638
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Review of Instruments Measuring Special Educators' Competencies
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lee%2C+Suk-Hyang%22">Lee, Suk-Hyang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kim%2C+Yu-Ri%22">Kim, Yu-Ri</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3754-7398">0000-0002-3754-7398</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Park%2C+Jiyeon%22">Park, Jiyeon</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Special+Education%22"><i>British Journal of Special Education</i></searchLink>. Dec 2020 47(4):422-451.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 30
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education+Teachers%22">Special Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Competencies%22">Teacher Competencies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measurement+Techniques%22">Measurement Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Teacher+Cooperation%22">Parent Teacher Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+School+Relationship%22">Family School Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperation%22">Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tests%22">Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/1467-8578.12315
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0952-3383
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The purpose of this study is to present a review of instruments developed to measure perceptions of special educators regarding their competencies and to provide a synthesis of research studies using these measurement instruments. A total of 29 studies were included in this review, and 20 instruments were used across the studies. The results were as follows. First, the majority of the instruments in this review were designed for assessing in-service special educators. Second, there was a shortage of instruments designed for measuring necessary competencies in family supports and collaboration with families. Third, reliability and validity were reported for only 11 of the instruments. Finally, most studies utilised the tools in surveys; only two studies used the tools to investigate the effectiveness of the teacher support programmes implemented in their experiments. These results are discussed, and implications for future studies are proposed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1278638
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1278638
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/1467-8578.12315
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 30
        StartPage: 422
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Special Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Competencies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measurement Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Teacher Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family School Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Review of Instruments Measuring Special Educators' Competencies
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lee, Suk-Hyang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kim, Yu-Ri
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Park, Jiyeon
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0952-3383
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 47
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Special Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1