Questionnaire on the Training Profile of a Learning Therapy Specialist: Creation and Validation of the Instrument

This article provides a description of the creation and validation process for a questionnaire designed to analyze the initial training received by students of degree programs in pre-primary and primary education, specializing in learning therapy. The instrument consists of 175 items in three sections: the first collects sociodemographic data; the second analyzes the initial training received; and the third and final section analyzes the perception of this initial training. The questionnaire was subjected to a double validation process: an evaluation by a panel of experts and a pilot group, these permitted the validation of the content and construct, as well as the corresponding reliability assessment. The results confirm the validity of the questionnaire with an excellent reliability index, allowing the effective evaluation of the training profile of learning therapy specialists.


Introduction
Special education is a discipline that deals with the education of children with disabilities, addressing their specific needs as have been identified over time [1].
The General Education Act of 1970 saw the first mention of special education and with it a new teacher profile-the learning therapist-responsible for providing the specific educational support necessary in the classroom.
According to article 19 of the Order of 20 August 2010, this professional has multiple responsibilities such as adapting the curriculum to address student needs, developing and adapting materials, providing assistance to teachers, tutoring students with special educational needs and coordinating with mainstream teachers, orientation teams and other professionals who may be involved with these students [2]. They will also work and coordinate with families to ensure effective communication and avoid contradictions that may hinder student learning [3].
All of these functions are designed to improve teaching-learning outcomes, to build student autonomy and active participation in society [4], with the cooperation of all teachers, at all educational levels, in order to develop student potential and meet established objectives [5].
We therefore understand that this is a professional who will engage with a very heterogeneous group with a broad spectrum of needs, both in mainstream and specialized schools. This will require the appropriate training as set forth in the World Report on Disability (2011) [6], which states: "The appropriate training of mainstream teachers is crucial if they are to be confident and competent in teaching children with diverse educational needs. The principles of inclusion should be built into teacher training programs, which should be about attitudes and values not just knowledge and skills" (p. 222).

1.
Analysis of the content validity and construct of the questionnaire "Profile of the specialist in Learning Therapy" 2.
Analysis of the reliability of the questionnaire "Profile of the specialist in Learning Therapy"

Design
This research applied a descriptive methodology for an objective and verifiable analysis of a specific population. A questionnaire was used to collect information as the easiest and most commonly used tool in the field of education [26].

Instrument
An initial review of existing questions revealed that there are no questionnaires that evaluate the training received by teachers of pre-primary and primary education specializing in learning therapy. Given the diversity of the students with whom they will be working, and the wide range of needs to be addressed, we proceeded to create a questionnaire that asks a series of questions encompassing their knowledge of these needs and how to address them.
The questions were created taking into account the persons to whom they were addressed, aiming to be clear and concise. The questionnaire is of considerable length. This aspect was carefully considered, and it was difficult to reduce the number of items addressing all the aspects deemed necessary for training and intervention.
The questionnaire is structured in three sections. The first deals with sociodemographic data, the second consists of 10 subscales that measure the training profile of the students' information, using a Likert scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is "I don't know" and 5 is "I know a lot", finally, the third section analyzes their opinions of their initial training, using both open questions and questions using the same Likert scale.
This structure allowed us to make a comprehensive analysis of the specialist teacher by completing the questionnaire in full, or a partial analysis merely using the training subscale.
The initial questionnaire consisted of 186 items. The sections on sociodemographic data and initial training consisted of 15 questions while that on academic training consisted of 171 questions divided into 10 subscales, this structure is illustrated in Table 1 below: More generally, the experts were also asked to consider if any information or items should be added or eliminated, and any other aspects they wished to comment on.
Furthermore, the questionnaire was posed to a pilot group consisting of 32 recent graduates in pre-primary and primary education specializing in learning therapy, a sample similar to the group we aimed to study. The role of this group was to answer the questionnaire and offer a qualitative analysis, indicating at the end of each block their observations and considerations, the same as the group of experts. They were also asked to evaluate the suitability and length of the questionnaire and the time given for completion.

Procedure
An initial review was conducted of the existing questionnaires used to determine the profile of the learning therapy specialist. It was found that there were no questionnaires that collect the information necessary to effectively evaluate this professional profile. The next step was the creation of a questionnaire covering the theoretical and practical aspects considered necessary for an effective evaluation of the training received by these specialists.
A group of experts was then consulted to validate the questionnaire, which was subsequently posed to a pilot group to verify that the included items were appropriate. A qualitative evaluation was used in both cases.
Once this information was collected, an analysis was made of the corresponding data.

Data Analysis
The validity of the content and construct was analyzed by means of a panel of experts and a pilot group. A reliability test (Cronbach's alpha) of the complete scale and the various subscales was also conducted.
In all cases, data were analyzed using the SPSS statistical software, version 24.

Results
The results are presented in two parts. The first part analyzed the validity of the content and construct by means of a panel of experts and a pilot group, the second calculated the homogeneity index of the items and the final reliability test of the complete scale and each of the subscales.

Panel of Experts and Pilot Group
Based on the evaluation by the panel of experts, the following modifications, additions, or eliminations were made: a.
ASD block-the following items were added: i. I can create an agenda according to the needs of the ASD students, considering different levels of abstraction. ii. I can create materials to develop the social skills of ASD students.

b.
Visual impairment block-the following item was eliminated as being repetitive: i. I am familiar with Braille print. c.
Hearing impairment block-dactylology and fingerspelling were specified in the item referring to deaf-blindness. d. Personality disorders block-three items referring to the classification of dysfunctions in the DSM-V in A, B and C were eliminated as irrelevant from an educational point of view, but the specific needs produced by these dysfunctions are relevant.
Based on the opinions of the panel of experts, the indicated items were added or removed ( Table 2). The initial questionnaire consisted of 186 items, later reduced to 184 items: eight in the sociodemographic section and 176 in the training section after the modification of items related to "Autism Spectrum Disorder", "Visual impairment", "Hearing impairment" and "Personality disorders". Table 2. Final distribution of items by the dimensions of the questionnaire.

Dimension
Nº Items Initially The pilot group did not suggest any changes, considering the items to be appropriate, except with regard to the length of the questionnaire. It was decided not to make changes in the length given the importance of the information evaluated.

Reliability Assessment
The questionnaire was administered to a pilot group of 32 students in order to determine their comprehension of the items and analyze the construct validity.
To analyze the construct validity, a homogeneity test was conducted of the items of each subscale to eliminate those with low discrimination (<20) or those with a low correlation but above 20, and thus increase the reliability of the instrument if eliminated. A reliability test was also conducted using Cronbach's alpha, before and after eliminating the items with low correlation to verify the difference. Table 3 shows the results of these tests, showing how the elimination of a number of items enhanced the reliability of the scale, not the instrument as a whole in the training section. The reliability index of the instrument is good or excellent in all scales according to the criteria of George and Mallery (2003, p. 231) [28]. After the validation of the content and the construct, the final questionnaire had a total of 175 items, of which, 160 corresponded to the training section, configured into different subscales. The final questionnaire is provided in Appendix A.

Discussion and Conclusions
This work describes the process of validation of a questionnaire created to analyze the training profile of learning therapy specialists. A number of studies provide a general assessment of the university training of mainstream teachers [29][30][31][32] and for more specific teacher profiles such as specialists in physical education [33], music [34] or foreign languages [35]. However, when we looked at specialists in learning therapy, we found that many studies analyze more general aspects of pre-primary and primary teacher training in the area of educational diversity and inclusion, making use of instruments designed for this type of analysis [14], but not for the profile of the learning therapy specialist. Thus, the present work aims to validate an instrument that will allow the analysis of the training in this professional field.
This section offers some of the principal conclusions drawn from the results of the analysis of the design and psychometric properties of the questionnaire.
Firstly, we assessed the content and construct validity using a panel of experts of an appropriate number according to previous studies [36][37][38]. These experts performed a qualitative analysis to determine the suitability of both the questionnaire as a whole and each of the items. Certain minor changes were made to improve the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was subsequently analyzed for homogeneity, eliminating those items with low correlations and therefore enhancing the reliability of the subscales. We determined that the reliability was excellent in general terms and good to excellent in the different subscales.
The work has allowed us to develop an important instrument for evaluating the training profile of the learning therapy specialist, a professional who must address the highly diverse needs of a highly diverse set of students. To do this effectively, it is essential that these professionals have the appropriate training. The assessment of learning therapists will reveal the current reality in order to identify areas for improvement, starting with initial professional training, with clear and objective criteria.
However, there are certain limitations to the present study that should be noted. Firstly, the questionnaire may be too long, a possible impediment to those who need to complete it. Secondly, the size of the pilot group was limited and should be expanded in order to have a more substantial and generalizable data set.
Author Contributions: L.M.M. and E.V.L. worked jointly on the data processing and on the composition of the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Questionnaire on the training profile-learning therapy specialists Sociodemographic data:

Qualification:
Degree in pre-primary education. Degree in primary education  Sensory disabilities: If you are currently a teacher, what training was lacking for the appropriate attention to learning diversity?
After responding to the questionnaire, in what area did you receive the BEST training in university?
After responding to the questionnaire, in what area did you receive the WORST training in university?