Empowering Teachers for Inclusive and Community-Based Education: Validation of the QVA-I Questionnaire

Abstract

This study presents the development, validation, and standardization of the QVA-I, a brief instrument designed to assess teachers’ perceived self-efficacy across four interrelated dimensions: the perceived effectiveness of their educational institution, the ability to design and implement inclusive teaching strategies, the quality of classroom relationships (particularly in the context of students with special educational needs), and the perceived relevance and application of their academic and professional training. Rooted in an ecological and community-oriented framework, the QVA-I conceptualizes teachers as active agents of transformation within their institutions and the broader community. A total of 718 teachers from preschool, primary, and lower secondary schools in Italy participated in the study. The psychometric analyses (including EFA and CFA) confirmed the instrument’s structural validity and internal consistency (α = 0.91), supporting a four-factor model aligned with theoretical expectations. The QVA-I offers a reliable and concise tool for research and intervention, particularly in contexts aiming to promote inclusive education, systemic collaboration, and school–community partnerships

1. Introduction

Among the various mechanisms through which the self-system and human agency operate, none is more central and pervasive than perceived self-efficacy, namely the individual’s belief in their ability to master specific activities, situations, or aspects of their psychological and social functioning [1,2]. The Canadian psychologist Albert Bandura first introduced the concept of self-efficacy in the 1970s [3], emphasizing that individuals are not passive spectators of environmental influences but active agents capable of making things happen, influencing reality, and exerting causal power. “Beliefs in personal efficacy are the most proximal indicators of human agency, that is, the capacity of the person to act consciously in the world, pursuing goals and personal standards. As such, they provide a measure of the ability to orchestrate one’s conduct and, therefore, one’s relationship with reality across the different contexts of individual activity” [1] (p. 9).

Perceived self-efficacy is the foundation of motivation, well-being, and human achievement, as well as of the ability to act transformatively and persevere even in the most challenging circumstances. If individuals do not believe that they can produce the desired effects through their actions, they have little incentive to act.

In the teaching profession, perceived self-efficacy refers to teachers’ beliefs in their ability to use their skills to facilitate learning, enhance the value of knowledge, foster each student’s potential, and achieve desired outcomes [4,5,6]. It reflects the teacher’s capacity to link their professional skills to the ability to engage students, to select the most effective teaching strategies, and to manage the classroom in a functional and effective way [7], achieving results even with the most fragile, unmotivated, or challenging students. As emphasized in the community psychology literature (e.g., [8,9]) teacher agency is not only a predictor of individual well-being and classroom success, but also a cornerstone of systemic transformation in schools as community-based institutions.

This not only impacts the teachers’ beliefs and professional performance but also directly affects students’ learning, their sense of school well-being, and their own self-efficacy. In this regard, the meta-analysis conducted by Hattie [10] shows that, alongside environmental or contextual factors, classroom management practices and teaching approaches have the strongest influence on student learning outcomes.

A thorough literature review conducted by Aiello et al. [11] highlights that teacher efficacy is a stable predictor of success in adopting inclusive practices. It plays a crucial role in enabling effective educational actions, as it is associated with openness, innovation, and perseverance in interacting with students with low academic achievement, reducing the tendency to separate them from the classroom group and instead promoting individualized and personalized learning paths.

Beyond inclusion, high teacher self-efficacy is a strong predictor of implementing effective teaching methodologies and creating a learning environment that fosters student success [3]. Conversely, teachers with low self-efficacy face greater difficulties managing students who exhibit problematic behaviors, display more negative attitudes, and are at higher risk of developing stress and professional burnout [7,12].

2. Contextual Challenges in the Italian Educational System

In recent years, the Italian educational system has undergone significant structural and socio-cultural changes, well-documented in national monitoring reports and legislative reforms. The progressive increase in classroom heterogeneity is confirmed by MIUR statistical data on the growing presence of students with Special Educational Needs [13] Legislative frameworks such as Law 170/2010 (Specific Learning Disorders), Law 107/2015 (“La Buona Scuola”), and the Legislative Decree 66/2017 (revised by Legislative Decree 96/2019) have explicitly promoted inclusive education, inter-institutional collaboration, and strengthened partnerships between schools, health services, and local authorities. These policy directions reflect broader socio-cultural transformations, including increasing socio-economic disparities between territories [13] and more diverse patterns of student needs documented by national observatories on school inclusion. Together, these developments have contributed to redefining teachers’ professional responsibilities and the systemic context in which educational practices unfold.

These transformations have profoundly reshaped the professional identity of teachers, requiring not only disciplinary expertise but also relational competence, ecological sensitivity, and the ability to navigate multi layered systems of intervention. These dynamics are aligned with what international frameworks, such as UNESCO [14] and the OECD “Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments” report [15] identify as growing global trends that require teachers to adopt broader ecological and community-based roles. Within this landscape, perceived self-efficacy emerges as a crucial determinant of teachers’ capacity to respond adaptively to situational pressures, to engage collaboratively with families and local services, and to sustain their motivation and professional agency in contexts marked by high emotional and organizational demands.

Despite the centrality of these issues, Italy still lacks brief and psychometrically robust instruments capable of capturing teachers’ perceived self-efficacy across the ecological and community oriented domains that characterize contemporary educational work. The QVA I was developed precisely to respond to this gap, offering a concise tool aligned with current systemic and inclusive perspectives.

3. Existing Instruments and Rationale for the Development of the QVA-I

The first attempt to measure perceived self-efficacy dates back to 1976, when researchers from the RAND Corporation developed two items, included in a broader questionnaire, to assess teachers’ level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements: “In the end, there is not much a teacher can do because most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on their family environment” and “If I really try hard, I can reach even the most difficult or unmotivated students” [16].

Among the instruments currently available in Italy for assessing this construct is the Italian translation and adaptation of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale [5,6]. This scale assesses self-efficacy beliefs across three factors: efficacy in student engagement, efficacy in instructional strategies, and efficacy in classroom management. It includes two versions: a long form with 24 items and a short form with 12 items. Responses are rated on a 9-point Likert scale.

The Scala di Efficacia Personale Percepita in ambito scolastico [1] is another instrument that, through 12 items on a 7-point Likert scale, measures teachers’ beliefs about their ability to successfully master critical situations encountered in their work activities.

The Échelle du Sentiment d’Efficacité Personnelle des enseignants en Gestion de Classe (ÉSEPGC) [17], adapted and validated in Italian by Gaudreau et al. [18], focuses on five dimensions of classroom management. The scale comprises 28 items divided into five subscales that represent, according to the authors, the key dimensions involved in classroom management: (1) resource management, (2) setting clear expectations, (3) student engagement with the learning task, (4) developing positive social relationships, and (5) managing challenging behaviors. Responses are provided on a 6-point Likert scale.

Another tool currently available is the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) developed by Sharma et al. [19]. It was designed to measure teachers’ self-efficacy in implementing inclusive classroom practices and promoting collaboration with families and other professionals. The TEIP has also been validated in Italian [11] and consists of 18 items rated on a 6-point Likert scale. It assesses three specific areas of competence necessary for implementing effective inclusive education: pedagogical and instructional knowledge, classroom management, and teamwork with all relevant stakeholders.

Finally, we mention the Questionario sull’Autoefficacia degli Insegnanti (QAI), developed to combine the constructs assessed by the SAED and TEIP [20]. It includes 25 items rated on a 6-point Likert scale.

Need for an Updated, Ecologically Grounded Instrument

Although several instruments have been developed or adapted for the Italian context, significant limitations remain in capturing the multidimensional and ecologically grounded nature of teachers’ perceived self-efficacy within contemporary educational settings. Existing scales—including those focused on instructional strategies, classroom management, or inclusive practices—tend to assess isolated domains of teacher functioning without integrating the broader systemic and community-based dimensions that increasingly shape educational work. Previous studies have similarly noted the lack of brief and ecologically grounded teacher self-efficacy instruments in the Italian context [11,18], reinforcing the need for updated tools aligned with current inclusion policies.

Furthermore, most available tools were designed in earlier phases of the Italian school system, prior to the profound transformations introduced by recent national guidelines on inclusion, inter-professional collaboration, and school–community partnerships. As a result, they only partially reflect the expanded professional responsibilities that today require teachers to coordinate with local services, engage families in meaningful ways, and contribute to the co-construction of inclusive learning environments.

A second limitation concerns the length and complexity of several existing measures, which may reduce feasibility in large-scale research or in combined assessment batteries. Short but psychometrically robust instruments are particularly needed in contexts where teachers’ time is limited and where self-efficacy must be evaluated alongside other psychological or organizational variables.

Finally, no currently available scale has been explicitly structured to examine self-efficacy across an ecological framework that integrates institutional functioning, collaborative planning, relational and inclusive competence, and the application of academic and professional training. This gap highlights the need for an updated instrument capable of reflecting the systemic nature of today’s educational challenges.

The QVA-I was developed to respond to these limitations, providing a concise, theoretically coherent, and community-oriented measure suitable for both research and applied settings. Although multiple instruments exist, significant limitations remain in capturing the multidimensional and ecologically grounded nature of teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in contemporary educational settings.

4. Materials and Methods

In the present study, we developed a Likert-scale questionnaire (Appendix A) ranging from 1 to 5. Although brief and easy to complete, the instrument aims to assess teachers’ perceived self-efficacy with respect to four key domains:

• Items 1–5: perception of the functioning of the institution in which the teacher works;
• Items 6–10: capacity for designing educational activities within the classroom and in collaboration with colleagues and local services, including extracurricular and interdisciplinary projects;
• Items 11–16: quality of relationships established with students, the ability to promote a positive classroom climate, and the inclusion of students with Special Educational Needs (SEN);
• Items 17–21: application of knowledge acquired during university education and/or ongoing professional development.

We opted for a short questionnaire format to make it more accessible to teachers, minimize the likelihood of missing responses, and facilitate its use in research in combination with other measurement scales. Below, we briefly describe the four areas of investigation. The creation of an inclusive school requires an updated and research-informed pedagogical culture capable of integrating evidence-based practices, interdisciplinary collaboration, and co-design processes within the school community. This synergy reflects “the ability of individuals to work together and the added value that emerges beyond the sum of individual competencies, which is all the greater when the results depend on their interactions” [1] (p. 10). This perspective is consistent with international research showing that inclusive educational environments emerge from coordinated pedagogical, relational, and organizational practices [15,21,22]. The first five items of our questionnaire are embedded within this conceptual framework, investigating the extent to which teachers perceive their institution as effective in promoting educational actions within the community, collaborating with health and social services, implementing interventions aimed at preventing early school leaving, involving families in the educational process, and providing continuous professional training aligned with students’ real needs. Section 2 explores teachers’ perception of their ability to design educational activities, both within their classroom and in collaboration with colleagues and territorial services, focusing on extracurricular and interdisciplinary projects. Teaching activity management is conceptualized as the capacity to organize lessons, establish effective educational routines, plan cross-disciplinary activities, manage classroom time and annual programming, and leave a positive impact on students through professional practice. Section 3 examines perceived self-efficacy in regulating social interactions within the classroom group—particularly concerning students with Special Educational Needs—and within the teaching team. The promotion of positive social relationships refers to the quality of interactions between teacher and students and among students themselves. These interactions, both verbal and non-verbal, are oriented toward cooperation and mutual support. Within this framework, class rules ensure effective functioning and clarify teachers’ expectations regarding social behavior. Good classroom management requires the teacher to be able to capture and maintain students’ attention on shared tasks. This reflects not only the quality of lesson planning but also the relational competence underpinning teacher–student interactions—respecting students’ learning rhythms, modulating verbal and non-verbal communication skills according to their subjectivity, classroom climate, and developmental stage—and the ability to support students with special educational needs. These dimensions are widely recognized in the literature as core components of effective inclusive teaching and classroom management, which rely on adaptive instruction, emotional attunement, and proactive relational work [1,5,8,15]. The final section focuses on the relationship between perceived agency and educational background, including both initial teacher education and ongoing professional development.

Previous research has highlighted that the educational and professional choices made during training significantly influence later professional development, shaping interests, perceived competencies, and the types of opportunities individuals tend to pursue [18].

4.1. Study Design

The present study adopted a cross-sectional design aimed at developing and validating the QVA-I questionnaire.

4.2. Participants

The questionnaire was administered to a sample of 718 teachers (

Table 1. Sample composition by school level, age, and teaching role.

Category	Group	n
School level	Preschool	109
	Primary	406
	Secondary	203
Age	25–44	179
	45–54	289
	>55	250
Role	Curricular	545
	Support	173

).

4.3. Instrument

The QVA-I is a 21-item self-report questionnaire designed to assess teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in inclusive and community-based educational contexts. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The instrument is structured into four theoretically grounded domains:

Institutional functioning (Items 1–5), assessing teachers’ perceptions of their school’s capacity to promote inclusive and community-oriented practices;

Instructional planning and design (Items 6–10), evaluating perceived competence in organizing classroom activities and collaborative projects;

Relational and inclusive competence (Items 11–16), focusing on classroom climate, behavioral regulation, and inclusion of students with Special Educational Needs;

Training and professional development (Items 17–21), examining the perceived integration of academic preparation and ongoing professional learning into daily practice.

The instrument was intentionally developed as a brief measure in order to ensure feasibility in applied research settings and reduce respondent burden while maintaining adequate content coverage across the four domains.

4.4. Item Development and Content Validity

The development of the QVA-I followed a theory-driven procedure. An initial pool of items was generated based on an extensive review of the literature on teacher self-efficacy, inclusive education, and community-oriented school practices, as well as national and international policy frameworks emphasizing school–community collaboration.

The preliminary version of the instrument was examined by a panel of five experts in educational psychology, inclusive education, and community psychology, who independently evaluated each item in terms of clarity, relevance, and alignment with the intended domain. Based on their feedback, redundant or ambiguous formulations were revised.

A pilot administration was conducted with a convenience sample of 30 teachers from preschool, primary, and lower secondary schools. Participants provided qualitative feedback regarding item clarity and comprehensibility. Minor linguistic adjustments were implemented, resulting in the final 21-item version of the QVA-I.

4.5. Procedure

The questionnaire was administered between 2024 and 2025 through an online survey platform. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Teachers were informed about the aims of the study prior to participation and provided informed consent electronically before accessing the questionnaire. No personally identifiable information was collected.

4.6. Data Analysis Strategy

The psychometric evaluation of the QVA-I followed a structured validation strategy. Given the exploratory nature of this initial study, both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted on the same dataset. Although cross-validation using independent subsamples is generally recommended, this approach is common in early-stage instrument development. Because QVA-I items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale and represent ordered categorical data, factor analyses were estimated using methods appropriate for ordinal indicators. Specifically, CFA was conducted using the robust weighted least squares estimator (WLSMV), which does not assume multivariate normality and provides more accurate parameter estimates and fit indices for ordinal data. EFA was used to explore the latent structure without imposing constraints, whereas CFA tested the adequacy of the hypothesized four-factor model derived from the theoretical framework. Subsequent analyses examined internal consistency (Cronbach’s α, total omega ωt, hierarchical omega ωh), convergent validity (Average Variance Extracted, AVE), and discriminant validity (Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio, HTMT). Linear regression analyses were conducted to assess associations between individual items and an external reference variable.

The reporting and interpretation of psychometric indices followed established methodological recommendations. Reliability coefficients were evaluated according to current guidelines [23,24]. Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed following [25], and model fit indices were interpreted in line with the criteria proposed by Hu and Bentler [26] and Kline [27]. All analyses were conducted according to widely accepted psychometric practices [28].

5. Results

5.1. Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics for individual items are presented in

Table 2. Item-level means (M) and standard deviations (SD).

Item	M	SD
1	3.7	1.0
2	3.5	1.0
3	3.6	1.0
4	3.6	1.0
5	3.5	1.2
6	4.1	0.8
7	4.2	0.7
8	4.2	0.7
9	4.4	0.6
10	3.6	1.0
11	4.2	0.7
12	4.3	0.7
13	3.9	0.7
14	4.2	0.7
15	3.7	0.8
16	4.3	0.7
17	4.1	0.8
18	3.9	0.9
19	3.9	1.0
20	3.8	0.9
21	4.0	0.8

. Means ranged from 3.5 to 4.4, indicating generally high levels of perceived self-efficacy across domains. Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s Alpha for each section of the QVA-I are presented in

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s Alpha for each section of the QVA-I.

Section	Items	M	SD	Cronbach’s α
Institutional functioning	1–5	3.6	1.0	0.87
Instructional planning and design	6–10	4.1	0.8	0.79
Relational and inclusive competence	11–16	4.1	0.8	0.83
Training and professional development	17–21	3.9	0.9	0.82
Total score	1–21	3.9	0.9	0.91

.

5.2. Internal Consistency

Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale was α = 0.91. Additional internal consistency indices were as follows: Guttman’s Lambda 6 = 0.93; total omega (ωt) = 0.93; hierarchical omega (ωh) = 0.63. The ωh value indicates that approximately 63% of the variance in total scores can be attributed to a general factor.

5.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) demonstrated good alignment with the theoretical structure of the questionnaire. Kaiser criterion indicated a three-factor solution, while parallel analysis suggested six factors. Some items (e.g., A17 and A16) displayed communalities below 0.40, whereas others (A15, A10, and A12) showed improved performance in models with a larger number of factors.

Despite minor discrepancies between the empirical findings and the theoretical model, the four-factor solution proved to be the most coherent with the original conceptual framework and the authors’ hypotheses. This configuration captures the underlying dimensions of perceived self-efficacy in teachers in a theoretically meaningful and statistically sound manner.

5.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The four-factor structure (F1: A1–A5; F2: A6–A10; F3: A11–A16; F4: A17–A21) was confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The model fit indices indicate an overall good model fit:

• χ²(164) = 964.42, p < 0.001;
• CFI = 0.981; TLI = 0.977 (excellent, >0.95);
• SRMR = 0.067 (good, <0.08);
• RMSEA = 0.083 (90% CI: 0.078–0.088), at the threshold between good and moderate fit.

Standardized factor loadings were generally high (>0.70), with peak values for items A12 (0.877), A7 (0.870), and A8 (0.858). Items A10 (0.648) and A15 (0.642) showed moderate but acceptable loadings (>0.40).

Explained variances (R²) mirrored this pattern: most items exceeded R² > 0.70, while A10 and A15 were around R² ≈ 0.42. Overall, the four-factor model demonstrated a good fit to the data, with minor localized issues that do not undermine the global structural integrity of the instrument.

5.5. Alternative Structural Models

Given the strong correlation observed between the instructional planning and design factor (F2) and the relational and inclusive competence factor (F3), we tested two alternative structural models to further evaluate the latent structure of the QVA-I: (a) a second-order factor model, in which the four first-order factors loaded on a single higher-order teacher self-efficacy factor, and (b) a bifactor model including one general factor and four specific orthogonal factors. Both alternative models showed global fit indices comparable to the correlated four-factor model (ΔCFI < 0.01; ΔTLI < 0.01; changes in RMSEA and SRMR negligible). These results indicate that although a strong general factor is present, the four domains retain sufficient specificity to justify their separate interpretation. Nonetheless, the overlap between F2 and F3 suggests that these subscales should be interpreted with caution and preferably in conjunction with the total score.

5.6. Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Reliability indices (Cronbach’s α and ω) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were computed for each factor.

F1: α = 0.868, ω = 0.871, AVE = 0.636.

F2: α = 0.791, ω = 0.827, AVE = 0.618.

F3: α = 0.825, ω = 0.832, AVE = 0.569.

F4: α = 0.789, ω = 0.818, AVE = 0.601.

All values exceeded the recommended thresholds (α/ω ≥ 0.70; AVE ≥ 0.50).

The HTMT value exceeded the recommended thresholds, indicating partial conceptual overlap.

5.7. Linear Regression Analysis

To further examine the relationship between QVA-I items and the external reference variable, linear regression analyses were conducted for each item (A1–A21).

Significant associations emerged for several items within Factor 1 (Institutional Functioning):

A1: β = 0.157, R² = 0.025, p < 0.001.

A2: β = 0.177, R² = 0.031, p < 0.001.

A3: β = 0.177, R² = 0.031, p < 0.001.

A4: β = 0.120, R² = 0.014, p = 0.001.

A5: β = 0.146, R² = 0.021, p < 0.001.

Additionally, item A15 showed a statistically significant association (β = 0.087, R² = 0.008, p = 0.019). No other items reached statistical significance.

5.8. Scoring Recommendations

The reliability indices (total α = 0.91; hierarchical ωh = 0.63) and the results of the alternative structural models support the use of the total QVA-I score as a global indicator of teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in inclusive and community-based educational contexts. The presence of a substantial general factor suggests that the total score captures a meaningful proportion of the shared variance across items.

Subscale scores corresponding to the four domains (institutional functioning, instructional planning and design, relational and inclusive competence, and training and professional development) may also be computed to examine domain-specific dimensions. However, given the high correlation observed between the instructional planning and design factor and the relational and inclusive competence factor, these two subscales should be interpreted with caution and preferably considered alongside the total score.

6. Discussion

Interpretative Implications and Community Relevance

Beyond its psychometric robustness, the QVA-I provides meaningful insights into how teachers conceptualize their professional agency within an increasingly complex and interdependent educational ecosystem. The four-factor structure reflects not only individual beliefs about pedagogical competence but also a broader capacity to function effectively within relational, organizational, and territorial dynamics that extend beyond the classroom. This indicates a progressive shift in the teaching role—from the mere delivery of instruction to the facilitation of inclusive, community-embedded learning processes, in which teachers act as key connectors across multiple systems.

The strong loadings and high internal consistency observed in the domains of institutional functioning and inclusive classroom climate underscore that teachers’ perceived self-efficacy is not a purely intrapersonal construct. Instead, it emerges from reciprocal interactions among multiple ecological layers, resonating with established ecological models of human and professional functioning [29]. This perspective aligns with the conceptualization of schools as community hubs in which teachers mediate between students, families, multidisciplinary services, and policy frameworks, often navigating competing demands and increasingly diversified student needs.

Furthermore, the QVA-I holds considerable potential for identifying professional development needs, informing targeted interventions, and evaluating the effectiveness of community-based educational initiatives. Its structure makes it suitable for use within participatory action research and collaborative inquiry processes, where teachers’ voices become central to co-constructing more equitable and inclusive educational environments. This orientation reflects key principles within community psychology, particularly the value-based emphasis on empowerment, social justice, and wellness promotion [8]. By offering a means to assess and strengthen teachers’ perceived agency, the QVA-I may contribute to reducing burnout, enhancing motivation, and fostering greater resilience within school communities. By foregrounding the teacher’s perspective and situating self-efficacy within an ecological and community-oriented framework, the QVA-I contributes to ongoing efforts to bridge individual competencies with collective educational transformation. Consistent with participatory and systemic approaches in community research, the instrument can be employed to co-design training pathways, shared evaluative frameworks, and collaborative practices that reinforce the ties between schools and their surrounding communities. In this sense, the QVA-I is positioned as both a diagnostic tool and a catalyst for promoting teacher agency and systemic change in inclusive educational settings.

7. Limitations

Despite the encouraging psychometric properties observed in this initial validation study, several limitations should be acknowledged in order to contextualize the findings and guide future research.

First, the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on the same dataset. Although this approach is common in early stages of instrument development, it does not provide the level of cross-validation achievable through independent subsamples. The absence of a split-sample strategy or replication on a separate cohort may inflate model fit indices and limit the generalizability of the factorial structure. Future studies should replicate the four-factor solution using independent samples and, where possible, apply multi-group confirmatory factor analysis to test measurement invariance across school levels, age groups, and professional roles.

Second, the study employed a cross-sectional design. Consequently, the temporal stability of the QVA-I was not assessed. Test–retest reliability and longitudinal analyses are needed to determine whether the instrument captures a relatively stable perception of professional self-efficacy or whether it is sensitive to contextual or organizational fluctuations over time. Longitudinal designs would also allow researchers to examine predictive validity, for example, by exploring associations between QVA-I scores and subsequent indicators of teacher well-being, burnout, professional engagement, or student outcomes.

Third, the sample consisted exclusively of teachers working within the Italian educational system. Although the instrument was intentionally grounded in the Italian legislative and institutional context, this cultural specificity may limit immediate generalization to other national settings. Educational systems differ substantially in terms of governance, inclusion policies, and community partnerships. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation studies are therefore necessary to establish the broader applicability of the QVA-I and to verify whether the ecological domains identified here retain structural stability in diverse socio-cultural environments.

Fourth, although discriminant validity was generally satisfactory, a particularly strong correlation emerged between the instructional planning and design factor and the relational and inclusive competence factor. This overlap may reflect the intrinsic interconnectedness of planning and relational work in inclusive educational settings; however, it also raises the possibility that the two domains are not fully distinct at the latent level. Future research could further investigate this issue through bifactor modeling, higher-order structures, or item refinement to enhance conceptual differentiation where theoretically justified.

Fifth, all data were collected through self-report measures. While perceived self-efficacy is inherently subjective and thus appropriately assessed via self-report, this method may be influenced by social desirability bias or by respondents’ implicit professional norms. The integration of complementary assessment strategies—such as peer evaluations, school-level indicators, or behavioral measures—would strengthen the ecological validity of the instrument and provide a more comprehensive picture of teacher agency.

Finally, although the QVA-I was designed as a brief and feasible instrument, its conciseness inevitably implies a trade-off between breadth and depth. Some nuanced aspects of teacher self-efficacy—particularly those related to intercultural competence, digital pedagogy, or crisis management—may not be fully captured within the current 21-item structure. Future refinements could explore modular extensions while preserving the instrument’s brevity and psychometric integrity.

Taken together, these limitations do not undermine the validity of the present findings but rather delineate a structured research agenda aimed at consolidating the QVA-I as a robust, culturally adaptable, and longitudinally sensitive measure of teacher self-efficacy in inclusive and community-based education.

8. Conclusions

The present study confirms that the QVA-I is a psychometrically robust and theoretically grounded instrument for assessing perceived self-efficacy in teachers across multiple ecological domains. The scale demonstrates excellent internal consistency and strong reliability indices, with a four-factor structure that reflects key dimensions of contemporary teaching practice: institutional functioning, instructional planning, relational and inclusive competence, and the integration of professional training into everyday work The QVA-I’s concise format enhances its feasibility in both research and applied contexts, making it suitable for use in conjunction with other psychological, organizational, or educational tools. Its design allows for efficient administration without sacrificing measurement depth or structural validity.

Importantly, the QVA-I extends beyond the assessment of individual beliefs: it offers a lens through which the evolving professional identity of teachers—within inclusive, collaborative, and community-based educational systems—can be understood and supported. As such, it may serve as a strategic resource for educational researchers, policymakers, and community psychologists aiming to promote teacher empowerment, reduce professional burnout, and foster systemic change in school environments.

Future research should aim to replicate and expand the validation on more diverse and heterogeneous samples, including teachers from upper secondary schools, vocational institutions, and intercultural settings. Longitudinal studies and cross-national adaptations may further establish the QVA-I as a valuable instrument for mapping and enhancing teacher agency in global educational landscapes.

Given its concise structure and systemic perspective, the QVA-I may serve as a culturally adaptable tool for international research and policy interventions aimed at strengthening inclusive and equitable education in diverse socio-cultural settings.