Development of a Questionnaire to Assess Bangladeshi Government
Primary School Teachers’ Training Needs for Inclusive Education
Md Abu Bakor Siddik・Norimune KAWAI『特別支援教育実践センター研究紀要』 第19号

別刷

広島大学大学院人間社会科学研究科附属特別支援教育実践センター
The Bulletin of the Center for Special Needs Education Research and Practice No.19
Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University
March 2021

特別支援教育実践センター研究紀要

第19号，13-23，2021＜Original Article＞

Development of a Questionnaire to Assess Bangladeshi Government
Primary School Teachers’ Training Needs for Inclusive Education
Md Abu Bakor Siddik*・Norimune Kawai**
Abstract
Bangladesh initiated inclusive education in state schools in 2010 and introduced reforms to the teacher
education program in 2015 for its effective implementation. However, studies have found that the current
teacher training is insufficient for government primary school teachers in Bangladesh. It is important tounderstand their needs to design more effective teacher training programs. This study developed aquestionnaire to reveal Bangladeshi government primary school teachers’training needs for inclusive
education. Development of the questionnaire was conducted in three stages: For Phase 1, the domains of
the teachers’ needs were identified; in Phase 2, domain items were developed and tested; and in Phase 3,
the psychometric properties of the tool were examined for reliability and validity. This research mainly
focuses on the results of the reliability and validity testing of the questionnaire. The questionnaireoriginally comprised 48 items within nine subscales. Eventually, 37 items were selected within eightsubscales after validity and reliability testing demonstrated good reliability, internal consistency, andconvergent validity. All but one of the subscales are distinct and unidimensional.
Keywords: Inclusive education, Primary school, Teacher training, Bangladesh

Introduction

Education Development Programs II and III (Ahsan,
Sharma, & Deppeler, 2012).

Although government primary schools (GPSs) in

However, researchers have found that GPSs

Bangladesh began to include children with special

face many challenges in enrolling students withneeds in 2005, inclusive education really began after

special needs, school management, and breaking

implementing the National Education Policy 2010

down social barriers, including teacher education(Ahsan, Deppeler, & Sharma, 2013). The in-service(Ahsan et al., 2012; Malak, 2013). Studies have also

training program was also reformed in 2015 so thatfound that existing prerequisite training programs

GPS teachers could learn to work appropriately withare not working effectively to improve teachers’

students with special needs (Ahsan, Tasnuba, Akter,attitudes and competencies (Siddik & Kawai, 2018).

Islam, & Miah, 2016; UNICEF, 2014). From 2007 to

Therefore, it is important to understand teacher

2012, the Directorate of Primary Education (DPE)training needs for inclusive education, so bothconducted training for GPS head-teachers, education

researchers and teachers can develop new teacher

officers, and teacher trainers in inclusive education

education programs to incorporate inclusivewith funding from the World Bank and the Japan

education.

International Cooperation Agency under Primary

Inclusive education is still a new approach inmany GPSs, and although it has been more than adecade since it was introduced, there have been

* Educational Development Course, Graduate School forInternational Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima
University, Japan.

2016). In Bangladesh, a GPS teacher candidate does** Division of Educational Sciences, Graduate School of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University,

Once employed by a GPS, teachers receive in-service

Japan.

insufficient training opportunities   (Ahsan et al.,not need to have a degree in education to teach.
training and work toward their Certificate in― 13 ―

Md Abu Bakor Siddik・Norimune Kawai

Education or Diploma in Primary Education. In

training needs for inclusive education (Streiner,

addition to this training, GPS teachers take part inNorman, & Cairney, 2015). Some questionnaires

short, subject-based, and refresher courses. However,measure a single phenomenon, while others measure

as inclusive education is still relatively unknown

multiple phenomena such as capacities (Polit & Beck,among GPS teachers, it is challenging to understand2006). The current questionnaire has multiple

their training needs when they do not know what

purposes for identifying GPS teachers’ training

they are. Consequently, the current study found aneeds according to teacher training components

challenge to collect data from GPS teachers by(Younas & Porr, 2018). To recognize theinterviewing them, as they could not provide enoughphenomenon, literature reviews, theories, andinformation. Moreover, there are no globallyconcept analyses were used to develop a survey

recognized tools to measure GPS teachers’training

questionnaire (Younas & Porr, 2018). Eighteen

needs, and a valid and reliable questionnairedomains were identified in the literature review.

instrument is needed.

They were sorted according to professional

The purpose of this study was to conduct anknowledge, professional practice, and professional

initial psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire toengagement, and the contents sorted from secondary

assess Bangladeshi GPS teachers’training needs fordata were categorized into teacher education

inclusive education. The psychometric evaluation

components (Ahsan et al., 2012; Dyson, Plunkett, &aimed to examine variance and nonresponse rates

McCluskey, 2018).

for the questionnaire’s items, each subscale’s
Phase 2: Development of the Items

unidimensionality, and construct validity.

From the 18 identified domains of teachers’

Methods

training needs, nine objectives were developed.
These have been listed in Columns 1 and 2 of Table

Development of the instrument was conducted1.

in three stages. In Phase 1, 18 domains of GPSteachers’ training needs were identified from a

Phase 3: Pilot Study and Psychometric Testing

literature review. In Phase 2, domain items were

Psychometric testing establishes the validity

developed and tested for clarity and relevance toand reliability of a questionnaire (Morgado, Meireles,

GPS teachers’ training needs for inclusive education.

Neves, Amaral, & Ferreira, 2017). This pilot study

In Phase 3, the psychometric properties of the tool

measured the content validity, construct validity,

were examined with a self-administered pilot study.

and internal consistency as part of the reliability

In Bangladesh, 15 types of educational

validity. The face validity of the questionnaire wasinstitutions provide primary education (DPE, 2014).

also assessed. Common validity and reliability

The current study is focused on only one kind of

measures were used.

institution called a GPS. According to Bangladesh’s
National Education Policy, 2010, all primary schools

Data Analysis

are supposed to accept children with special needs.

Descriptive statistics were used to assess the

GPS teachers in Bangladesh comprised thedemographics and characteristics of the study

population for this study. For the pilot study,

participants. The Aiken V value model was run forrespondents were selected from three divisions inmeasuring content validity using Microsoft Excel

Bangladesh.

2013 (Aiken, 1985). Moreover, SPSS Statistics 25.0
(IBM, 2017) was used to measure the correlation

Phase 1: Identification of Domains of Government

between items, subscales, and total values. Also,

Primary School Teachers’ Training Needs forprincipal component analysis (PCA) was run to

Inclusive Education

measure the commonalities of individual items.

The first phase in developing this questionnaire
was to outline its purpose and indicate GPS teachers’― 14 ―

Bangladeshi Government Primary School Teachers’ Training Needs
Table 1
Item-Total Score Correlations and Communalities for Pilot and Revised Scales
Objectives(1)

Contents fortraining on
inclusive education(2)

To measure
government
Motivation forprimary school
teaching children(GPS) teachers’
with special needs
attitudes towards
inclusive education.

To measure GPS
Positive attitudeteachers’ sentiments
towards children
towards inclusivewith special needs
education.

Questions(3)

Students who have difficulty expressing their thoughts
verbally should be in regular classes.

No change.

0.299*

0.580**

0.758

Accepted2.

Students who are less attentive should be in regularclasses.

No change.

0.499**

0.747**

0.895

Accepted3.

Students who require communicative technologies (e.g.,
No change.
Braille/sign language) should be in regular classes.

0.559**

0.881**

0.886

Accepted4.

Students who need an individualized academic program
No change.
(IEP) should be in regular classes.

0.525**

0.831**

0.891

Accepted

0.226

0.618**

0.834

Rejected

0.223

0.417**

0.761

Rejected****

I dread the thought that if I stay with a person withdisabilities, I could eventually end up with a disability.

6.

I tend to keep contact with people with disabilities, andNo change.
I finish this contact as quickly as possible.
No change.

0.385

0.634

0.838

Accepted

8.

I am afraid to look straight in the face of a person with
No change.
a disability.

0.553**

0.668**

0.798

Accepted

9.

I find it difficult to overcome my initial shock when
meeting people with severe physical disabilities.

No change.

0.354*

0.708**

0.841

Accepted10.

I can provide individual attention to students withspecial needs without hampering my class.

No change.

0.640**

0.781**

0.875

Accepted

No change.

0.619**

0.687**

0.838

Accepted

No change.

0.596**

0.831**

0.878

Accepted

I can manage tasks in time for inclusive classes.

No change.

0.603

**

**

0.732

0.677

Rejected

I am confident in my ability to prevent disruptive
behavior in the classroom.

No change.

0.638**

0.740**

0.884

Accepted

I am able to get children to follow classroom rules.

No change.

0.715**

0.884**

0.927

Accepted

No change.

0.734

**

**

0.831

0.830

Accepted

**

**

12.
To measure GPS
Classroom
teachers’ efficacy in13.
management for
using inclusive
children with special
instructions in the
14.
needs
classroom for
Teaching in a large
children with special
size class15.
needs.

I am confident in my ability to get students to work
together in pairs or small groups.

I am confident when dealing with students who are
16.
physically aggressive.

No change.

0.671

0.790

0.832

Accepted18.

I can use group teaching and peer teaching to teachmy students.

No change.

0.425**

0.517**

0.926

Accepted

19.

I am aware of using formative assessment in an
inclusive class.

No change.

0.464**

1.000**

0.864

Accepted

No change.

0.580**

0.734**

0.858

Accepted

No change.

-0.017-0.111

0.826

Rejected

I can use various assessment strategies (e.g., portfolio
22. assessment, modified tests, performance-based
assessments).

No change.

0.575**

0.359*

0.816

Accepted

I am able to work jointly with other professionals and23. staff (e.g., aides, other teachers) to teach students withdisabilities in the classroom.

No change.

0.588**

0.849**

0.871

Accepted

I can collaborate with other professionals (e.g., itinerant
24. teachers or speech pathologists) in designing
No change.
educational plans for students with disabilities.

0.599**

0.822**

0.823

Accepted

No change.

0.559**

0.890**

0.824

Accepted

No change.

0.653**

0.822**

0.851

Accepted

17. I can teach in a large size class.

I am aware of using summative assessment in an
20.
inclusive class.
Assessment ofchildren with special
I believe assessment strategies may vary among
21.
needs
students based on their special needs.

To measure GPSteachers’ efficacy incollaborating withstakeholders toestablish inclusive
Collaboration
education.
outside the schoolfor inclusive
education

The statement
was not clear,according to
the expert
panel’s review.
Therefore, thisstatement has
beenelaborated tomake it clear.

5.

I am well aware of seating arrangements in an
11.
inclusive classroom.

Collaboration inside
the school for
inclusive education

Correlation Correlation Communalities Remarks(7)(8)
with a total with subscale
score
total
(5)
(6)

1.

7. I would feel terrible if I had a disability.

Assessment andevaluation

Comments(4)25.

I can assist families in helping their children do well inschool.

I am confident in informing others who know little
26. about laws and policies relating to the inclusion of
students with disabilities.

― 15 ―

Md Abu Bakor Siddik・Norimune Kawai

Objectives(1)

Contents fortraining on
inclusive education(2)

Questions(3)

Comments(4)

Correlation Correlation Communalities Remarks(7)(8)
with a total with subscale
score
total
(5)
(6)

My school will not have enough funds to implement
integration successfully.

No change.

0.152

0.821**

0.805

Rejected

An inadequate level of paraprofessional staff will be
28. available to support integrated students (e.g., speechtherapist, physiotherapist, occupational therapist).

No change.

0.099

0.700**

0.853

Rejected

My school will have difficulty accommodating students
29. with various types of disabilities due to inappropriate
infrastructure, e.g., architectural barriers.

No change.

-0.0390.700**

0.919

Rejected

30.

Inadequate resources or special teachers will beavailable to support integration.

No change.

0.130

0.703**

0.674

Rejected31.

My school will not have adequate special education
instructional materials and teaching aids, e.g., Braille.

No change.

0.216

0.810**

0.777

Rejected

32.

Inadequate administrative support will be available toimplement the integration program.

No change.

0.136

0.757**

0.744

Rejected33.

My school management committee positively considers
No change.
my opinions.

0.425**

0.089

0.912

Rejected

No change.

0.643**

0.781**

0.818

Accepted

I can provide an alternative explanation, e.g., when
students are confused.

No change.

0.663**

0.712**

0.872

Accepted

I am confident in designing learning materials andtasks to meet the individual needs of students withdisabilities.

No change.

0.659**

0.801**

0.891

Accepted

I can accurately measure students’ levels ofcomprehension of the content of what I have taught.

No change.

0.356*

0.598**

0.823

Accepted

I can use teaching materials (e.g., multisensory teaching
No change.
aids) that are important for children with special needs.

0.712**

0.642**

0.835

Accepted

I think it is essential for GPS teachers to use sign
language in an inclusive classroom.

No change.

0.338*

0.744**

0.818

Accepted

I think it is essential for GPS teachers to use Braille in
an inclusive classroom.

No change.

0.422**

0.764**

0.718

Accepted

No change.

0.564**

0.867**

0.920

Accepted

No change.

0.563**

0.845**

0.863

AcceptedDefinition,
objectives, andI know the definitions and objectives of inclusive
purpose of inclusive 43.
education from the Bangladeshi perspective.
education from thenational perspective

No change.

0.385**

0.730**

0.820

AcceptedDefinition,
objectives, andTo measure GPS
purpose of inclusive
I know the definitions and objectives of inclusive
knowledge about
44.
education from an international perspective.
inclusive education. education from aninternational
perspective

No change.

0.560**

0.853**

0.884

Accepted

No change.

0.390**

0.737**

0.901

Accepted

No change.

0.295*

0.568**

0.838

Accepted

No change.

0.517

**

**

0.663

0.869

Accepted

0.618

**

**

0.909

Accepted27.

To measure GPS
Manage local
teachers’ concerns
resources forabout resources forinclusive education
inclusive education.

I can make my expectations clear about student
34.
behavior.
To measure GPS
35.
Teaching
teachers’ efficacy inapproaches forteaching approaches
children with special
for children with
36.
needs
special needs.
37.
Teaching aids forchildren with special 38.
To measure GPSteachers’ efficacy in needs
dealing with
Sign language
39.
disruptive behaviors
Braillewhen establishinginclusive education.
40.

I know the national laws and policies related to the
Education policy
41.
education of children with special needs.
and Acts forchildren with special
I know the international laws and policies related to
42.
needs
the education of children with special needs.

Introduction tochildren with special 45. I know the characteristics of special needs children.
needs
Understanding
diversity andindividual needs

46. I know about diversity.

Make school
accessible for all

I know how I can make my school accessible to48.
children with special needs.

47. I know about students’ individual learning needs.

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
*  Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

― 16 ―

No change.

0.701

Bangladeshi Government Primary School Teachers’ Training Needs

Domains of Government Primary School Teachers’
Training Needs for Inclusive Education

TEIP scale to measure teacher training needs inrelation to assessment and evaluation, along withThe literature review located 97 papers related

three additional items (19, 20, and 21) generated fromto teacher training for inclusive education in

the literature review. Four items (23, 24, 25, and 26)

Bangladesh, of which 25 papers noted teacher

were adapted from the TEIP scale to measure GPS

training needs. From these 25 papers, 18 recognizedteachers’ efficacy in collaboration with stakeholders

GPS teachers’ training needs. The identified training

to establish inclusive education (Sharma et al., 2012).

needs are as follows: motivation for teaching children

Seven items (27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 23, and 33) werewith special needs; positive attitude towards children

adapted from the Concerns about Integrated

with special needs; classroom management for

Education (CIE) scale to measure GPS teachers’

children with special needs; teaching in a large

concerns about resources for inclusive education

classroom; assessment of children with special needs;(Sharma & Desai, 2002). Four items (34, 35, 36, andcollaboration inside the school for inclusive37) were collected from the TEIP scale to measure

education; collaboration outside the school forthe efficacy of GPS teachers’ teaching approaches forinclusive education; management of local resources

children with special needs (Sharma et al., 2012).

for inclusive education; teaching approaches for

Three items (38, 39, and 40) were created from thechildren with special needs; teaching aids forliterature review findings to measure the efficacy ofchildren with special needs; sign language; Braille;

GPS teachers’ dealing with disruptive behaviors

policy and Acts related to education for children

when establishing inclusive education. Moreover,with special needs; definition, objectives, and purpose

eight items (41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48) wereof inclusive education from the national perspective;

created to measure teachers’ knowledge about

definition, objectives, and purpose of inclusive

inclusive education, with these items arising fromeducation from an international perspective;

the literature review findings. The objectives of all

introduction to children with special needs;

items and the subscales’ objectives are presented inunderstanding diversity and individual needs; andTable 1, Columns 1, 2, and 3.

making the school accessible for all. These needs arepresented in Table 1, Column 2.

Pilot Study and Psychometric Testing
The main questionnaire was written in English,

Development of Items

translated into Bengali, and checked by a university

From Phase 1 findings, 48 items were selected

professor working in the education field for more

for the proposed questionnaire. Four items (1–4)

than 15 years. The translated questionnaire waswere adapted from the attitude subscale of the

back-translated into English by two experts in the

Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive

education sector. Eventually, the Bengali translation

Education Revised (SACIE-R) scales to measure thewas evaluated against the English questionnaire. A

impact on GPS teachers of inclusive education

pilot study was held after the finalization of the(Forlin, Earle, Loreman, & Sharma, 2011). Five items

translation. A Google form was developed to collect(5–9) were adopted from the sentiment subscale ofdata from GPS teachers. The form’s link was

the SACIE-R scales to measure GPS teacher

disseminated among GPS teachers by the Primarysentiments towards inclusive education (Forlin et al.,Teachers Training Institute (PTI) instructors in2011). Four items (12, 14, 15, and 16) were adapted

three divisions. In the pilot study, 46 responses

from the inclusive classroom management part ofresponded.

the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practice (TEIP)
scale (Sharma, Loreman, & Forlin, 2012). Moreover,Face validity

five items (10, 11, 13, 17, and 18) were created toFace validity is the only qualitative measure ofmeasure GPS teachers’ efficacy in using inclusive

a questionnaire’s validity. This includes expert

instructions in the classroom for children with

opinions and reviews of the scales and items. After

special needs. One item (22) was adopted from theexperts review the questionnaire, the results are― 17 ―

Md Abu Bakor Siddik・Norimune Kawai

compared, and the questionnaire is modified. The

set an error rate for the questionnaire for themain limitation of face validity is that it is highly

current study at 5% (p < 0.05). Moreover, fromsubjective (Bolarinwa, 2015; Younas & Porr, 2018).

Aiken’s table standard of V coefficient, the value ofFive experts in the education sector were asked
to measure the face validity of the proposed

V for seven (7) experts with five (5) rating scales isminimal 0.75 (V ≥ 0.75). Within that measurement, allquestionnaire, considering the clarity of the wording,of the questions and statements in the proposed

the likelihood of the target audience being able toquestionnaire were more than 0.75, except one

answer the questions, the layout, and the style

statement in the demographic information section(Parsian & Dunning, 2009). Four reviewers were able

related to teachers’ disabilities. Therefore, thatto return their reviews on time. Among thequestion was omitted from further study.

reviewers, one was a university teacher in the
education faculty and had worked in education forConstruct validity

more than 15 years. Two reviewers were working

Construct validity comprises discriminant/for the PTI as instructors. The fourth was aconvergent validity and factorial validity andresearcher who had worked in the education sector

measures a scale’s consistency, conceptualization,

for more than 12 years.

and the underlying theory by compiling existing

The expert panel suggested changes to someresearch on the subject (Kimberlin & Winterstein,

wording and removing two items on the experience2008). In discriminant/convergent validity, a scale isof teaching children with special needs,  which wereused to compare the instrument with anotheron the face sheet. In Table 1, Column 4 shows the

instrument derived from the same theory, and theirexpert s’ remarks.

correlation is then determined. If the scale andinstrument are related each other, they areContent validity

convergently valid; however, if they are not, they

For content validity, multiple experts evaluate

are divergently valid (Streiner et al., 2015).

the scale, its items, the content (which is theConstruct validity is directly concerned withconceptual definition of the phenomenon), its

one variable’s theoretical relationship to otherattributes, and the items selected for its

variables (DeVellis, 1991). There are many ways tooperationalization. Unlike face validity, content

measure construct validity with an analysis ofvalidity is more structured, and validity can bevariance (ANOVA), correlation coefficients, anddetermined through expert consensus (Bolarinwa,

factor analysis (Roberts & Priest, 2006). Factor

2015; Younas & Porr, 2018).

analysis uses several factors to determine if the

An expert panel of seven members measured
the content validity of the proposed questionnaire.

characteristics relate to each other (Bryman &Cramer, 2004).

Among the members, three were education officers,
and four were PTI instructors.

Factor analysis is especially useful for exploring
the relationships among large numbers of variables,

In this study, the following formula, which was

extricating them, and identifying clusters ofproposed by Aiken (1985), was used to measure

variables that are intricately linked together (Roberts

content validity:& Priest, 2006). However, in the current pilot study,•V=∑s / [n (c-1)]

there were a total of 48 questions on the Likert• s = r - loscale, and the number of respondents was only 46.

Where,In this case, the number of participants was fewer• lo = lowest validity rating (1)than the number of items, and factor analysis was• c = highest validity rating (5)not an appropriate method to measure construct• r = number given by the experts

validity for the current pilot study (Field, 2009).
Therefore, the correlation coefficients among theAccording to Aiken (1985), right-tail probabilities

subscales and the correlation between the total and(p) for selected values of the validity coefficient (V)single item values were calculated to measure― 18 ―

Bangladeshi Government Primary School Teachers’ Training Needs

construct validity (Bolarinwa, 2015; Kudsi, Fenlon,

using inclusive instructions in the classroom for

Hill, & Baysan, 2020; Sangoseni, Hellman, & Hill,children with special needs) was convergently valid

2013; Torkian, Shahesmaeili, Malekmohammadi, &with D, E, G, and H subscales. Subscale D

Khosravi, 2020; Younas & Porr, 2018).

(Assessment and evaluation) was divergently valid
with subscale H and convergently valid with E, G,

Resultsand I subscales. Subscale E (Teachers’ efficacy incollaborating with stakeholders to establish inclusive

In the current study, a total of nine subscales

education) was divergently valid with subscale I andwere used to collect data from GPS teachers. Eachconvergently valid with G and H subscales. Subscale

subscale has a different objective to measure GPS

G (Teachers’ efficacy in teaching approaches forteachers’ training needs for inclusive education.

children with special needs) was convergently valid

Correlations between the total score and every

with H and I subscales. Subscale H (Teachers’ efficacy

single item were analyzed to measure the current

in dealing with disruptive behaviors for establishingquestionnaire’s construct validity. In the analysis,

inclusive education) was convergently valid with I

items number 5, 6, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 were not(Knowledge for inclusive education) subscale.

significantly correlated to the questionnaire’s total

According to the results described above, the Fscore. According to the analysis results, those items

subscale has the most divergent value with the

did not directly relate to the total score. However,other eight subscales among the nine subscales.

within the subscale, the correlations are statisticallyMoreover, this scale item was also divergently valid

robust, except for 21 and 33. Columns 5 and 6 in(-0.039 to 0.216) with the questionnaire’s total score.

Table 1 show the results.

Therefore, this subscale was removed from theItem 21 was: I believe assessment strategies may

proposed questionnaire.

vary among students based on their special needs.
Furthermore, item 33 was: My school management

Reliability measured by internal consistency

committee positively considers my opinions. Item 21

Internal consistency is the most commonly usedbelonged to the assessment and evaluation formeasure of reliability. A researcher determineschildren with special needs subscale, while item 33

internal consistency by collecting data and thenbelonged to the concern about resources for the

analyzing them using interitem correlation, theinclusive education section. Based on these analyses,

Kuder–Richardson index, or Cronbach’s alphaitems 21 and 33 were deleted.

(Bolarinwa, 2015).

Moreover, correlations between subscales were

Cronbach’s alpha is widely used in educational

also measured to see the relationships between the

research to measure the reliability of instruments,

subscales (Younas & Porr, 2018). In Table 1, theespecially for the data collected by a Likert scale

relationships among the subscales are shown. The(Oluwatayo, 2012). Moreover, Cronbach’s alpha takes

subscale F (Teachers’ concerns about resources forinto consideration the variance of each item

inclusive education) was not correlated with the(Cronbach, 1951). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient wasother subscales because these subscale questions

used to evaluate the reliability of the measurements

were much more related to school and not causallyfor the current pilot study. The results show that

related to teachers’ knowledge or skills. This

the reliability of the total scale measurements was

subscale was divergently valid with the other scales.

remarkably high (0.913). The reliability of 0.913

Subscale A (Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusivemeans that 91.3 percent of the observed score

education) was divergently valid with subscales B

variability was valid, and 8.7 percent was due toand D, and convergently valid with subscales C, E, G,

error (Field, 2009; Roberts & Priest, 2006). Moreover,H, and I. Subscale B (Teachers’ sentiments towards

all the nine subscales’ reliability measurements areinclusive education) was divergently valid withfrom 0.492–0.9, which means the subscales’ reliability

subscales D and I, and convergently valid with C, E,

was also acceptable. Table 2 shows the Cronbach’s

G, and H subscales. Subscale C (Teachers’ efficacy inalpha measurement values.

― 19 ―

Md Abu Bakor Siddik・Norimune Kawai
Table 2
Correlations among the subscales, including Cronbach’s alpha value

Correlations

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

Total

Item number in subscales

4

5

9

4

4

7

4

3

8

48

A. Teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusive education.

-

0.199

0.517**

0.21

0.588**

0.223

0.358*

B. Teachers’ sentiments
towards inclusive education.

0.199

-

0.401**

0.196

0.374*-0.006 0.514** 0.387**

C. Teachers’ efficacy inusing inclusive instructions
in a classroom for children
with special needs.

0.517** 0.401**

D. Assessment andevaluation

0.21

0.196

0.445**-

0.371*

E. Teachers’ efficacy incollaborating withstakeholders to establish
inclusive education.

0.588**

0.374*

0.620**

0.371*-

0.382** 0.434**
0.264

0.445** 0.620** -0.076 0.645** 0.454** 0.481**

-

0.223

0.300*-0.064 0.643** 0.505**

0.264-0.039F. Teachers’ concerns about
resources for inclusive-0.223 -0.006 -0.076 -0.039 -0.064
education.

0.338*-

0.254

0.367*-0.119G. Teachers’ efficacy inteaching approaches forchildren with special needs.

0.358*

0.514** 0.645**

0.338*

0.643**

0.254-

0.555**

0.347*

H. Teachers’ efficacy indealing with disruptive
behaviors for establishinginclusive education.

0.382** 0.387** 0.454**

0.223

0.505**

0.367*

0.555**-

0.375*

I. Teachers’ knowledge
about inclusive education.

0.434**

0.264

0.481**

0.300*

0.264-0.1190.347*

0.375*-

Cronbach’s alpha

0.766

0.579

0.9

0.662

0.856

0.8

0.684

0.492

0.886

0.913

Note: Significant correlations are presented in bold characters.

Commonalities show how common the

According to the result of the analysis, both items (13respondents’ answers are to the questions (Field,

and 30) were eliminated. Column 7 in Table 1 shows2009). According to Field (2009), with 30 or more

the communalities of the 48 items used for thevariables and communalities greater than 0.7 for all

current study.

variables, different solutions are unlikely. However,In order to increase the validity and reliability

with fewer than 20 variables and any lowof the questionnaire, 11 items were deleted. Items 5communalities (< 0.4), differences can occur. In theand 6 were deleted due to low correlations with thecurrent pilot study, among the 48 items, only two

total score, even though those items are

items have communalities of less than 0.7. Those twoconvergently valid as a subscale. Moreover, item 21

items were 13 (I can manage tasks in time forwas divergently valid with the total scale andinclusive classes) and 30 (Resources and teacher

subscale too. Therefore, those items were removed

numbers are for supporting inclusive education).

from the questionnaire. Item 13 had a low― 20 ―

Bangladeshi Government Primary School Teachers’ Training Needs

commonality that showed it was not clear to theinclusive education, but it had no strong correlation

respondent; therefore, it was deleted.

with the other eight subscales. This finding proves

Items 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 belong to thethat GPS teachers do not have much authority when

Teachers’ concern about resources for inclusive

using or managing school resources. Therefore, theeducation subscale. These six items are divergently

subscale was removed from the questionnaire.

valid with the total scale and subscales. Moreover,

Eleven items did not fulfill the validity and reliability

another item (33) in this subscale was convergently

requirements. Therefore those 11 items werevalid with the total score, but it was divergently

omitted, including one subscale. Eventually, 37 items

valid with its subscale. Additionally, this subscale

were accepted for the questionnaire, and those were

was divergently valid with all the other subscales.

categorized into eight subscales.

Therefore, the whole subscale (27-33) was deleted
from the questionnaire.

Items 5 and 6 were deleted for low correlation
with the total score, although these items were

In summary, items 5, 6, 13, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,

convergently valid as a subscale. Kumar (2016)

32, and 33 were removed from the proposedsuggests that if any items have a correlation of <questionnaire. All of the items and statistical values

0.30 with the total scale score, this proves low

are shown in Columns 5, 6, and 7 in Table 1.

construct validity. Moreover, item 21 wasdivergently valid with both the total scale and the

Discussion

subscale. Therefore, these items were removed fromthe questionnaire. Item 13 had low communality in

Inclusive education in Bangladesh is still in the
preliminary stages of development, and most GPS

responses indicating that this item was not clear to
respondents; therefore, it was deleted (Field, 2009).

teachers are not familiar with its concepts.

Limitations and Future Work

Moreover, GPS teachers are not yet required toundertake training in inclusive education. Therefore,
it was difficult to gather information from teachers

The questionnaire items introduced in thisabout their training needs. This study used a

study were selected from the literature review.

literature review to extract GPS teachers’ training

Therefore, teachers’ training needs were identified

needs for inclusive education. In addition, usingfrom the researchers’ perspective and not directly

Likert scale tools is much more effective forfrom GPS teachers or their teacher trainers. In thecollecting data from GPS teachers than open-ended

pilot study, respondents numbered only 46 GPS

questionnaires or interviews. Therefore, the current

teachers. For this reason, it was not possible toquestionnaire was developed to comprise 5-point

analyze factors between the current study’s

Likert scale questions and objective questions.

questionnaire items. In further research, factor

Bangladesh has been conducting studies on

analysis could be conducted after collecting a large

inclusive education for more than a decade; most ofquantity of data to see the extent of the sense of

the studies are related to teachers’ attitudes andbelonging factor in the current study’s questionnaire

efficacies. In the current study, most of the items

items.

were adapted from previous studies. Moreover, some

References

items were generated according to the findings ofthe literature review. From the 18 training needs
identified, 48 items were organized into nineAhsan, M. T., Deppeler, J. M., & Sharma, U. (2013).
Predicting pre-service teachers’ preparedness forobjectives with nine subscales within them.
The subscales related to teachers’ professional

inclusive education: Bangladeshi pre-service

knowledge, practice, and engagement. Among theteachers’ attitudes and perceived teaching-efficacy

nine subscales, two measured GPS teachers’

for inclusive education. Cambridge Journal of

attitudes toward inclusive education. One subscale

Education, 43(4), 517–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/

related to using school resources to implement0305764X.2013.834036― 21 ―

Md Abu Bakor Siddik・Norimune Kawai

Ahsan, M. T., Sharma, U., & Deppeler, J. M. (2012).

Kimberlin, C. L., & Winterstein, A. G. (2008). Validity

Exploring pre-service teachers’ perceived

and reliability of measurement instruments usedteaching-efficacy, attitudes, and concerns about

in research. American Journal of Health-System

inclusive education in Bangladesh. International
Journal of Whole Schooling, 8(2), 1–20. https://doi.

Pharmacy, 65, 2276-2284.
Kumar, A. (2016). Review of the steps for

org/EJ975715

development of quantitative research tools.

Ahsan, M. T., Tasnuba, T., Akter, M., Islam, M. K., &Advanced Practices in Nursing, 01(01), 1–4. https://Miah, A. S. M. J. (2016). Teacher education
programme in Bangladesh: Inclusiveness fordoi.org/10.4172/2573-0347.1000103
Kudsi, Z., Fenlon, M. R., Hill, K., & Baysan, A. (2020).

children with disabilities. Dhaka: ActionAid.

Developing a questionnaire to measure

Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing

psychological disturbance associated with tooth

the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational

loss. Journal of Dentistry, 98(April), 103353–103360,

and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012

103353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103353
Malak, M. S. (2013). Inclusive education in

Bolarinwa, O. (2015). Principles and methods ofBangladesh: Are pre-service teachers ready tovalidity and reliability testing of questionnaires

accept students with special educational needs inused in social and health science research.

regular classes? Disability, CBR & Inclusive

Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal, 22(4), 195–

Development, 24(1), 56–81. https://doi.org/10.5463/

201. https://doi.org/10.4103/1117-1936.173959

dcid.v24i1.191

Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2004). Quantitative data

Morgado, F. F. R., Meireles, J. F. F., Neves, C. M.,

analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A guide for social

Amaral, A. C. S., & Ferreira, M. E. C. (2017). Scalescientists. London: Routledge.

development: Ten main limitations andCronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and therecommendations to improve future researchinternal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3),practices. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica: Revista

297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555

Semestral Do Departamento de Psicologia da

DPE (Directorate of Primary Education) (2014).

UFRGS, 30(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-

Annual primary school census 2014. Dhaka: DEP

016-0057-1

http://dpe.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/

Oluwatayo, J. A. (2012). Validity and reliability issues

dpe.portal.gov.bd/publications/b490814d_522e_

in educational research. Journal of Educational

4f81_b0a0_8f8727feab27/Final APSC 2016.pdf

and Social Research, 2(May), 391–400. https://doi.

DeVellis, R. (1991). Scale development: Theory andapplications. Newbury Park: SAGE

org/10.5901/jesr.2012.v2n2.391
Parsian, N., & Dunning, T. (2009). Developing andDyson, M., Plunkett, M., & McCluskey, K. (2018).

Validating a Questionnaire to Measure Spirituality:

Australian professional standards for teachers. In

A Psychometric Process. Global Journal of HealthSuccess in Professional Experience (pp. 229–234).

Science, 1(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550703.014

v1n1p2
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rdindex: Are you sure you know what’s beinged). London: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.5555/2502692-

reported? Critique and recommendations. Research

Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2011).

in Nursing and Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.

The Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns aboutorg/10.1002/nur.20147

Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) scale forRoberts, P., & Priest, H. (2006). Reliability andmeasuring pre-service teachers’ perceptions about

validity in research. Nursing Standard (Royal

inclusion. Exceptionality Education International,

College of Nursing (Great Britain): 1987), 20(44),21(3), 50–65.

41–45. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2006.07.20.44.41.

IBM (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0. Armonk, NY:
IBM.

c6560
Sangoseni, O., Hellman, M., & Hill, C. (2013).

― 22 ―

Bangladeshi Government Primary School Teachers’ Training Needs

Development and validation of a questionnaire to

Health measurement scales: A practical guide toassess the effect of online learning on behaviors,

their development and use (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford

attitudes, and clinical practices of physical

University Press.

therapists in the United States regarding

Torkian, S., Shahesmaeili, A., Malekmohammadi, N.,evidenced-based clinical practice. The Internet& Khosravi, V. (2020). Content validity and test-

Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice,retest reliability of a questionnaire to measure11(2), 1–12

virtual social network addiction among students.

Sharma, U., & Desai, I. (2002). Measuring concerns

International Journal of High Risk Behaviors andabout integrated education in India. The Asia-

Addiction, 9(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.5812/

Pacific Journal on Disabilities, 5(1), 2–14.

IJHRBA.92353

Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012).

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) (2014).

Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive

Factsheet: Diploma in Primary Education. March.

practices. Journal of Research in Special

https://www.unicef.org/bangladesh/DPEd_Fact_

Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21.

Sheet_v1.2_140203.pdf

Siddik, M. A. B., & Kawai, N. (2018). Preparing

Younas, A., & Porr, C. (2018). A step-by-stepprimary level teachers for inclusive education inapproach to developing scales for survey research.

Bangladesh. Asian Journal for Inclusive Education,

Nurse Researcher, 26(3), 14–19. https://doi.

6(1), 49–71.

org/10.7748/nr.2018.e1585

Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015).

― 23 ―（2021．
2．
1受理）