Review Reports - Inclusive Education as a Pillar of Sustainability: An Experimental Study on Students’ Attitudes Towards People with Disabilities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Inclusive Education as a Pillar of Sustainability: An Experimental Study of Students’ Attitudes Towards People with Disabilities

Abstract

The abstract is well written and provides a comprehensive overview of the manuscript.
Line 14: The authors mention 179 students; however, information regarding the source of data (e.g., university or region) is missing. Please also include the participants’ age range and specify the duration of the intervention.

Introduction

Line 55: The reference to “systemic reforms” could be elaborated—please specify which reforms are being discussed.
Lines 62–75: While the discussion on attitudes toward disability is important, it may not fit logically within the introduction. Since the introduction begins by defining key terms and later transitions into the authors’ perspectives, this section could be better positioned as an Authors’ Note or Reflexivity Statement to maintain the flow.
Line 73: Please elaborate on the educational inclusion policies mentioned, to provide clearer context regarding the broader framework of disability inclusion.
Lines 79–82: The phrase concerning “bodies/minds” is unclear—consider rephrasing for clarity.
Line 110: When mentioning “weak teacher preparation,” please clarify whether this refers to a lack of specific training in special education, or to a general deficit in teacher readiness despite training.
Lines 121–123: The statement about what colleges and universities “must do” suggests that institutions in LMICs lack the necessary support services—please clarify if this is the intended implication.
Lines 164–166: When noting that attitudes are predominantly negative, please specify whether the cited findings come from LMICs or WEIRD contexts to strengthen the argument’s contextual grounding.
Line 201: The mention of a lack of rigorous experimental studies would be strengthened by briefly summarizing the limited existing studies and their findings.
Throughout the introduction, several claims are supported by only one or two citations. Consider adding more references where claims are based on substantial prior research.
The aim and hypotheses are clearly stated and easy to follow.

Materials and Methods

In the Participants section, please report the mean age of participants.
Include the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied during participant selection.
Line 261: The cited reference is relatively dated; given contemporary awareness of disability, consider including more recent literature reflecting changing student attitudes.
Line 265: Under Procedure, indicate whether ethical approval was obtained for the study and which body granted it.
Lines 266–272: While videos are categorized as positive, negative, and neutral, please describe the process or criteria used to validate these classifications.
Line 328: For the contextualized scale, clarify whether it was pilot tested prior to administration.
Specify the interval between pre- and post-report the approximate time participants spent completing all measures.

Results and Discussion

It would enhance the Results section to begin with descriptive statistics and to state whether the assumptions for each hypothesis test were met.
Line 462: The link between decreased favorable attitudes and “cognitive saturation/desensitization” requires supporting evidence—please cite relevant studies.
Lines 487–491: The interpretation of results seems speculative; grounding it with empirical references would strengthen the discussion.
Line 530: Please specify the exact time interval referred to as the “short interval” between pre- and post-tests.
Line 531: Clarify how “immediate post-intervention assessment” is defined and how the intervention itself was operationalized.
Line 561: The absence of a formal debriefing raises ethical concerns, as debriefing is typically required for approval. This limitation substantially affects the study’s ethical robustness.
Line 600: The suggestion of an “Applied Empathy Lab” is interesting—however, it would be helpful to indicate whether any pilot work or prior evaluation has demonstrated its effectiveness.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for their careful reading, constructive feedback, and insightful suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and relevance of our manuscript. In what follows, I will explain step by step each modification made to the manuscript.

Comment 1: Abstract. Line 14: The authors mention 179 students; however, information regarding the source of data (e.g., university or region) is missing. Please also include the participants’ age range and specify the duration of the intervention.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have addressed this issue by specifying the institutional context, participants’ age range, and duration of the intervention in the Abstract. This addition clarifies the source of data (National University of Science and Technology Politehnica Bucharest, Romania), provides the demographic profile of participants (aged 20–23 years) and indicates that the intervention lasted approximately two weeks. These details enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the study. The revision is marked in red in the updated manuscript.

Comment 2: Introduction. Line 55: The reference to “systemic reforms” could be elaborated—please specify which reforms are being discussed.

Response 2: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have elaborated on the phrase “systemic reforms” in the Introduction (line 55) to specify the types of reforms being discussed. The revised sentence now clarifies that these reforms refer to changes in teacher training, curriculum adaptation, assessment practices, and institutional accessibility, all aimed at promoting inclusive education. This addition enhances conceptual precision and contextual understanding. The revision is marked in red in the updated manuscript.

Comment 3: Lines 62–75: While the discussion on attitudes toward disability is important, it may not fit logically within the introduction. Since the introduction begins by defining key terms and later transitions into the authors’ perspectives, this section could be better positioned as an Authors’ Note or Reflexivity Statement to maintain the flow.

Response 3: Thank you for this thoughtful observation. We agree that the section originally located in lines 62–75 reflects the authors’ reflexive stance on how disability was conceptualized, rather than theoretical exposition. To enhance the logical flow of the Introduction, we have relocated this passage to the end of the Introduction and labeled it as an “Authors’ Reflexivity Statement.” This adjustment clarifies its methodological and epistemological function while maintaining the original wording and intent. The revised positioning improves coherence between the theoretical framing and the study’s aims. The change is marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 4: Line 73: Please elaborate on the educational inclusion policies mentioned, to provide clearer context regarding the broader framework of disability inclusion.

Response 4: Thank you for this helpful observation. We have clarified the reference to “educational inclusion policies” by specifying the broader international frameworks underpinning our conceptualization. Specifically, we now refer to UNESCO’s Education 2030 Framework for Action and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). This clarification, marked in red in the revised manuscript, strengthens the contextual link between our study and the global agenda for disability-inclusive education.

Comment 5: Lines 79–82: The phrase concerning “bodies/minds” is unclear—consider rephrasing for clarity.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the phrase “bodies/minds” could be ambiguous. Therefore, we have rephrased it to ensure conceptual clarity and academic precision. The revised sentence is marked in red in the manuscript.

Comment 6: Line 110: When mentioning “weak teacher preparation,” please clarify whether this refers to a lack of specific training in special education, or to a general deficit in teacher readiness despite training.

Response 6: Thank you for this insightful comment. We have clarified the expression “weak teacher preparation” to specify that it refers to insufficient training in inclusive and special education practices, rather than a general deficit in teacher readiness. The revised sentence is marked in red in the manuscript.

Comment 7: Lines 121–123: The statement about what colleges and universities “must do” suggests that institutions in LMICs lack the necessary support services—please clarify if this is the intended implication.

Response 7: Thank you for this observation. We agree that the previous wording might have implied that institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) lack adequate support services, which was not our intended meaning. We have revised the sentence to emphasize a normative recommendation rather than a contextual critique.

Comment 8: Lines 164–166: When noting that attitudes are predominantly negative, please specify whether the cited findings come from LMICs or WEIRD contexts to strengthen the argument’s contextual grounding.

Response 8: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have clarified the contextual basis of the cited findings by specifying that the evidence originates primarily from WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) contexts. The revised sentence is marked in red in the manuscript.

Comment 9: Line 201: The mention of a lack of rigorous experimental studies would be strengthened by briefly summarizing the limited existing studies and their findings.

Response 9: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have strengthened the argument about the lack of rigorous experimental studies by briefly summarizing the limited existing work. The revised sentence is marked in red in the manuscript.

Comment 10: Throughout the introduction, several claims are supported by only one or two citations. Consider adding more references where claims are based on substantial prior research.

Response 10: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We have strengthened the theoretical grounding of the Introduction by expanding the number and diversity of references supporting key claims. In several sections, additional citations have been included to reinforce statements regarding inclusive education frameworks, attitudinal formation, and intervention strategies. Furthermore, Ainscow (2020) and Avramidis & Norwich (2002) were added as seminal and internationally recognized works to enhance the conceptual depth of the discussion. These updates ensure a more comprehensive and well-supported theoretical foundation. All modifications are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 11: Materials and Methods. In the Participants section, please report the mean age of participants.

Response 11: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have added the mean age and standard deviation of participants in the Participants subsection of the Materials and Methods section to improve sample transparency.

Comment 12: Include the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied during participant selection.

Response 12: Thank you for this helpful comment. We have now added the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the Participants subsection of the Materials and Methods section. Specifically, inclusion criteria required participants to be undergraduate students currently enrolled in higher education, aged between 20 and 23 years, fluent in Romanian, and without self-declared disabilities (as the study focused on external attitudes toward disability). Exclusion criteria included incomplete responses to either the pre- or post-intervention assessments and failure to provide informed consent. This addition enhances the methodological transparency and replicability of the study.

Comment 13: Line 261: The cited reference is relatively dated; given contemporary awareness of disability, consider including more recent literature reflecting changing student attitudes.

Response 13: Thank you for this valuable observation. We agree that the original references (Nowicki, 2006; de Laat et al., 2013) were dated. Therefore, we have updated the sentence by incorporating more recent studies reflecting current attitudes toward disability among students (Strnadova et al., 2023; Abed et al., 2024). These additions ensure that the discussion aligns with contemporary research and current social understandings of inclusion.

Comment 14: Line 265: Under Procedure, indicate whether ethical approval was obtained for the study and which body granted it.

Response 14: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have revised the Procedure subsection to include a clear statement that the study received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board of the National University of Science and Technology Politehnica Bucharest (approval no. 9655/31.03.2025), as indicated in the Institutional Review Board Statement. We also clarified that all participants provided informed consent prior to participation and that a waiver for data processing consent was granted, as all data were fully anonymized. This revision improves the section’s clarity, conciseness, and ethical transparency.

Comment 15: Lines 266–272: While videos are categorized as positive, negative, and neutral, please describe the process or criteria used to validate these classifications.

Response 15: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have clarified the basis for categorizing the video stimuli as positive, negative, or neutral. A brief explanation was added in the Procedure section (Lines 330–335), noting that classification was based on theoretical and content-related criteria established in prior literature on media representations of disability (Ellis & Goggin, 2015) and confirmed through researcher consensus during pilot testing. This addition strengthens the methodological transparency of the study.

Comment 16: Line 328: For the contextualized scale, clarify whether it was pilot tested prior to administration.

Response 16: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have clarified that the contextualized 25-item Attitudes Toward People with Disabilities Scale was pilot tested for clarity and linguistic appropriateness prior to the main study. This information has been added in the 2.4. Data Collection, Research Instruments and Statistical Analyses section and is marked in red in the manuscript.

Comment 17: Specify the interval between pre- and post-report the approximate time participants spent completing all measures.

Response 17: Thank you for the observation. We have clarified that there was no time interval between the pre- and post-test phases and have specified that the entire procedure, including both testing sessions and the video stimulus, lasted approximately 10–12 minutes per participant. This clarification has been added to the Procedure section and is marked in red.

Comment 18: It would enhance the Results section to begin with descriptive statistics and to state whether the assumptions for each hypothesis test were met.

Response 18: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the Results section to include a brief statement on the examination of descriptive statistics and the verification of statistical assumptions (normality and homogeneity of variances). This addition ensures greater methodological transparency at the beginning of the Results section.

Comment 19: Line 462: The link between decreased favorable attitudes and “cognitive saturation/desensitization” requires supporting evidence—please cite relevant studies.

Response 19: Thank you for the observation. We have now supported this explanation with relevant and up-to-date references addressing cognitive saturation, emotional desensitization, and message fatigue effects.

Comment 20: Lines 487–491: The interpretation of results seems speculative; grounding it with empirical references would strengthen the discussion.

Response 20: Thank you for this valuable observation. We have revised the interpretation to remove speculative phrasing and grounded it in established empirical evidence. The discussion now refers to recent studies addressing emotional reactivity, stereotype activation, and desensitization processes (Briñol & Petty, 2020; Cikara & Van Bavel, 2014; Cameron & Payne, 2011; Neagu & Vieriu, 2025), providing a theoretically supported explanation for the observed effects.

Comment 21: Line 530: Please specify the exact time interval referred to as the “short interval” between pre- and post-tests.

Response 21: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. The text has been revised to specify that the pre- and post-tests were completed within approximately 10–15 minutes, as all study components were administered in a single session. This clarification ensures consistency with the information provided in the Procedure section.

Comment 22: Line 531: Clarify how “immediate post-intervention assessment” is defined and how the intervention itself was operationalized.

Response 22: We thank the reviewer for this helpful remark. The revised text now specifies that the immediate post-intervention assessment was administered directly after the video exposure, within the same online session. The intervention is explicitly described as the experimental manipulation involving exposure to one of three short (45-second) video clips — positive, negative, or neutral — depicting different representations of disability. This clarification improves methodological transparency.

Comment 23: Line 561: The absence of a formal debriefing raises ethical concerns, as debriefing is typically required for approval. This limitation substantially affects the study’s ethical robustness.

Response 23: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. The revised manuscript now clarifies that participants received a written debriefing immediately after completing the post-test, including an explanation of the study’s purpose, the use of contrasting video materials, and contact information for university psychological support services. This addition strengthens the ethical transparency and robustness of the research procedure.

Comment 24: Line 600: The suggestion of an “Applied Empathy Lab” is interesting—however, it would be helpful to indicate whether any pilot work or prior evaluation has demonstrated its effectiveness.

Response 24: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. The revised manuscript now clarifies that participants received a written debriefing immediately after completing the post-test, including an explanation of the study’s purpose, the use of contrasting video materials, and contact information for university psychological support services. This addition strengthens the ethical transparency and robustness of the research procedure.

We carefully revised the manuscript for language quality, improving academic clarity, conciseness, and stylistic coherence while keeping the original meaning unchanged. No conceptual or methodological modifications were made.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find this work very interesting, and it could be a contribution to society and the scientific community.

Profound changes are needed in the presentation of the methodology and results, as they are not adequately understood.

Full details are in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Abstract. I recommend indicating the results quantitatively (p-values and means) for a proper understanding.

Response 1: We appreciate this valuable suggestion. The abstract has been revised to include key quantitative indicators to enhance clarity and precision. Specifically, we now report the main ANOVA result (F(2,176) = 10.07, p < 0.001) and mean post-test scores for each video condition (M = 93.82, 85.88, and 82.67), as well as significant moderating effects of gender (p = 0.033) and tolerance level (p = 0.034). These additions provide a concise quantitative overview consistent with the statistical results reported in the manuscript.

Comment 2: Introduction. Regarding the study's hypotheses, it would be important to:

H1: Indicate why the use of videos is a tool (support it with references)
H2: Indicate whether sex or gender will be used, emphasizing the difference between the concepts.
H3: It is not possible to understand what "tolerance" refers to; the concept should be explored in more depth.

Response 2: We appreciate this valuable suggestion. The Introduction has been revised to clarify and support each hypothesis conceptually:

For H1, we added a concise justification for the use of emotionally valenced video materials, highlighting their well-documented effectiveness in eliciting empathy and attitude change through affective arousal, social modeling, and narrative persuasion (Braddock & Dillard, 2016; Briñol & Petty, 2020; Vezzali et al., 2014).

For H2, we specified that the study uses the term gender rather than sex, as it reflects socially constructed norms and role expectations influencing attitudes, rather than biological distinctions (Cikara & Van Bavel, 2014; Christov-Moore et al., 2014).

For H3, we elaborated the definition of tolerance as a socio-emotional disposition encompassing openness to diversity, emotional regulation in intergroup contexts, and the rejection of prejudice, citing a recent systematic review (Costantini et al., 2024).

These additions improve conceptual clarity and theoretical grounding while maintaining conciseness. All modifications have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 3: The ethics committee that approved the study must be explicitly indicated (institution, code).

Response 3: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have revised the Procedure subsection to include a clear statement that the study received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board of the National University of Science and Technology Politehnica Bucharest (approval no. 9655/31.03.2025), as indicated in the Institutional Review Board Statement. We also clarified that all participants provided informed consent prior to participation and that a waiver for data processing consent was granted, as all data were fully anonymized. This revision improves the section’s clarity, conciseness, and ethical transparency.

Comment 4: Study instruments: This is the section that presents the greatest difficulties, as they are not adequately explained.

-The structure, validity, and reliability of each of the instruments used must be described in depth.

-For the instrument: "The Elementary Tolerance Scale," it is not clear what tolerance refers to, and the complete structure of the instrument must be examined in depth to compare it with the results.

-The second instrument: "25-item scale developed for this study," must be fully explained, as it is not clear why the Cronbach's alpha value was obtained. I request an explanation of how the content validation, construct validation, piloting, and the results of the analyses were performed.

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s detailed observations regarding the description and validation of the study instruments, as well as the clarification of the statistical procedures. The section “2.4. Data Collection, Research Instruments and Statistical Analyses” has been substantially revised to provide a more comprehensive methodological account.

Specifically, we now include:

A detailed conceptualization of tolerance as a socio-emotional disposition encompassing openness to diversity, emotional regulation, and rejection of prejudice;
A thorough description of the Elementary Tolerance Scale, including item structure (9 items, 5-point Likert scale), translation–back translation procedures, and internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.68);
A full methodological account of the 25-item Attitude Scale toward People with Disabilities, including content validation by expert panel, construct validation through exploratory factor analysis (explaining 54.2% of variance), pilot testing (N = 30), and internal reliability (α = 0.917 in pilot; α = 0.903 in main sample);
Clarification of normality testing procedures (Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk), justification for using parametric statistics, and explicit mention of effect sizes (η² and Cohen’s d);
A note specifying that participant groups were defined a priori based on experimental conditions (video type: positive, negative, neutral) and tolerance level (median split), rather than through data-driven clustering.

These additions ensure conceptual clarity, methodological transparency, and full alignment with the reviewer’s recommendations. The revised section provides a complete overview of the instruments’ structure, reliability, and validity, as well as the statistical rationale supporting the inferential analyses.

Comment 5: Statistical analysis: It is necessary to first perform a normality analysis of the variables to determine what type of statistics to use.

Repeated measures comparisons should be used, as stated in the abstract and at the beginning of the methodology. In addition, determine whether to use ANOVA or the Friedman test if the methodology is nonparametric.

Indicate how the groups or clusters related to attitudes were generated (what are the cutoff scores that determine the groups, or if an unsupervised K-means cluster model was used).

Effect sizes need to be specified to allow for optimal interpretation of the results.

The p-value needs to be specified to interpret significance.

Response 5: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback on the statistical analysis procedures. The section “2.4. Data Collection, Research Instruments and Statistical Analyses” has been revised to include detailed methodological clarifications. Specifically, we have:

Conducted and reported normality tests (Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk), confirming that data met parametric assumptions;

Specified that repeated-measures comparisons were carried out using paired-sample t-tests for pre–post differences, while One-Way ANOVA was used for between-group analyses;

Clarified that nonparametric alternatives (e.g., Friedman test) were unnecessary, as assumptions were met;

Indicated that participant groups were defined a priori according to experimental conditions (video type: positive, negative, neutral) and tolerance level (via median split);

Explicitly reported effect sizes (η² and Cohen’s d) and p-values for all hypothesis tests.

These revisions enhance methodological transparency, confirm the appropriateness of the statistical approach, and ensure full alignment with the study’s quasi-experimental design.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors were able to address most of my comments and feedback. Thank you

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive feedback and for acknowledging the improvements made to the manuscript. We are very grateful for your time and constructive guidance throughout the review process.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the review.
I believe the article is now ready for publication.

Author Response

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for sharing your research results with us in the form of this article. Please find my comments on the revision in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: ”In General. The main point of the review is the way you define disability in the context of the study. Studies show that attitudes towards people with disabilities depend heavily on the severity of the disability in question (blindness as a purely sensory impairment vs. complex or multiple disabilities), as this is associated with different attributions of ability. In your study, however, disability is treated as a supposedly homogeneous construct as you do not clarify what type of disability you are referring to. This raises the question of the validity/meaningfulness of the results”.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have addressed this issue by clarifying the conceptualization of disability at the end of the first paragraph of the Introduction section. This revision acknowledges the heterogeneity of disabilities and explains our rationale for treating disability as a unified construct, in line with inclusive education policies and public discourse. The addition is marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2: ”There is a lack of discussion about the fact that the goals of inclusion are not automatically achieved through joint teaching, for example, but require appropriate embedding in educational settings. E.g., equity is not created through spatial commonality alone”.

Response 2: Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that inclusive education cannot be reduced to the spatial placement of students with and without disabilities in shared environments. In response, we have added a paragraph in the Introduction section to emphasize that true inclusion requires systemic embedding, including pedagogical, curricular, and institutional adaptations. This conceptual clarification is now supported by both classical and recent literature (Florian & Black‑Hawkins, 2011; Yang et al, 2025). The new content is clearly marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 3: ”In some places in the introduction, there is a lack of literature references to support the argument, e.g., on „educational inclusion as prerequisite for building democratic societies”

Response 3: Thank you for this observation. We agree that some of the claims in the introduction needed stronger theoretical support. In particular, we have addressed the point regarding educational inclusion as a prerequisite for building democratic societies by adding a key scholarly reference. Specifically, we have revised the relevant sentence to highlight that inclusion fosters participation, equity, and the recognition of diversity as a civic value, as supported by Slee (2011). The addition is clearly marked in red in the revised manuscript, and the full reference has been included in the bibliography.

Comment 4: ”1.1 Formation of Attitude. The term “neurotypical” comes as a surprise at this point or remains without specification, since disability is not further differentiated in the entire study and therefore autism spectrum disorder or neurodivergent, among others, is not defined”.

Response 4: Thank you for this helpful observation. We agree that the use of the term “neurotypical” was not fully consistent with the conceptual framing of the study, as we did not differentiate between specific types of disabilities such as autism spectrum disorder. To maintain clarity and coherence, we have revised the sentence in section 1.1 Formation of Attitude by replacing “neurotypical students” with “students without disabilities.” This adjustment ensures alignment with the general approach of treating disability as a unified category. The revision is marked in red in the updated manuscript.

Comment 5: ”1.2 Chancing attitudes. Why do you use the variable gender as a separate hypothesis? You can either explain why this hypothesis is interesting for the study. Or you present other studies that show an effect of gender, which is why you want to validate this effect”.

Response 5: Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that the inclusion of gender as an independent hypothesis required further clarification. To address this, we have revised the Aim and Objectives section to include a theoretical rationale for testing gender, supported by empirical findings that report gender-related differences in attitudes toward people with disabilities (Nowicki, 2006; de Laat et al., 2013). This addition provides conceptual grounding for Hypothesis 2 and is marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 6: ”2.1 Variables and research design. Independent variable 4: You use gender as a variable, but raise the variable as biological sex (male, female). There is a contradiction here. What about non-binary students? In addition, different correlations must be taken into account for gender in connection with individual attitudes than for biological sex. Please take this into consideration”.

Response 6: Thank you for this important observation. We acknowledge the conceptual distinction between gender and biological sex, and agree that this required clarification in the manuscript. To address this, we have revised section 2.1 Variables and Research Design to explicitly state that gender was operationalized as biological sex, based on self-identification with the binary categories “male” or “female.” We also acknowledged the absence of non-binary options as a limitation and a direction for future inclusive research. This clarification is marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 7: ”2.2 Participants. Why is the residence (urban vs. rural areas) of the students surveyed if it does not play a role later in the evaluation?”

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the residence variable (urban vs. rural) was not essential for the current study, as it was not included in the hypotheses or statistical analyses. Therefore, we have removed all references to this variable from section 2.2 Participants in order to maintain methodological consistency and clarity.

Comment 8: ”Did you also consider the students' field of study? It can be assumed that students of social subjects have a more tolerant attitude towards disabilities (e.g. because they have already had contact with people with disabilities). Please take this into consideration””.

Response 8: Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that students’ field of study may influence their attitudes toward people with disabilities, particularly in disciplines such as social sciences where prior exposure is more likely. However, this information was not collected in the current study. We have acknowledged this omission as a methodological limitation in section 2.2 Participants, and have recommended that future research consider academic background when examining attitudinal differences. The addition is marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 9: ”2.3 Procedure. You do not give information about how the video stimuli were selected. Why does the negative stimuli show a teenager with a disability dependent on paternal support? Why is the neutral stimuli designed as a landscape and not as a video with people without disabilities? And why isn’t there a link to educational settings?”

Response 9: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that the rationale behind the selection of video stimuli required further clarification. We have now added a detailed explanation in section 2.3 Procedure to justify the affective framing of the positive, negative, and neutral videos, drawing on recent literature in affective multimedia research and disability media representations. Specifically, we clarified why the neutral video used nature scenery (to avoid unintended emotional priming), and acknowledged the absence of educational context as a limitation. These revisions are now included in the manuscript and marked in red.

Comment 10: ”5. Conclusions. a) The aspect of social desirability when completing the questionnaire is not mentioned at all; however, some items (e.g. people with disabilities are annoying) are formulated very offensively; this should at least be discussed in the limitations of the study”

Response 10: Thank you for this valuable observation. We agree that the risk of social desirability bias should be acknowledged, particularly given the sensitive nature of some questionnaire items. We have now included a dedicated paragraph in the Limitations section of the manuscript, discussing how this bias may have influenced participants’ responses and suggesting ways to address it in future research. The new text is marked in red in the revised version.

Comment 11: ”Conclusions b) How do you conclude that the changes would be long-lasting (last sentence in the first paragraph)?”

Response 11: Thank you for this insightful comment. We acknowledge that the original phrasing could imply a level of durability that was not empirically tested within the scope of this study. To address this, we have revised the conclusion to clarify that our findings support immediate attitudinal improvements, and that further research is necessary to assess the long-term stability of these changes. The revised sentence appears in the first paragraph of the Conclusions section and is marked in red.

Comment 12: ””Conclusions c) The negative video reproduces the perception that people with severe disabilities are dependent; how do you differentiate here between compassion and rejection, especially for students with low tolerance? Or how do you derive a change in attitude from this?”

Response 12: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that differentiating between genuine attitudinal change and emotional responses such as compassion or discomfort is critical—especially in the case of students with low tolerance exposed to negative video stimuli. To address this, we have added a clarification at the end of the sub-section “The Role of Tolerance in Attitude Formation” within the Discussion section. The new paragraph acknowledges the possibility of pity-based or conformity-driven reactions and proposes future methodological refinements to assess the authenticity of attitudinal change. The revision is marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 13: ”Conclusions. d) Regarding the idea of intelligent educational platforms: There is no reference here to the biases of the algorithms, which lead to distortions, especially in the context of disability. Please provide references”.

Response 13: Thank you for this important observation. We fully agree that algorithmic bias represents a critical concern in the development of intelligent educational platforms, especially in relation to disability. To address this issue, we have revised the Implications for Public Policy subsection by adding a dedicated paragraph on the risks of algorithmic discrimination and its potential to undermine inclusive goals. We have also integrated recent literature on algorithmic fairness, data representativeness, and transparency to support the discussion and to emphasize the importance of inclusive and responsible AI design. These additions are marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 14: ”Conclusions. e) In the conclusion, you are talking about practical insights for policy and curriculum development. Please name some to provide examples”.

Response 14: Thank you for pointing out the need for more specific policy and curricular examples in the conclusion. In response, we have expanded the Implications for Public Policy subsection to include concrete suggestions, such as incorporating disability studies into university curricula, embedding empathy development modules into teacher training, and implementing national standards for inclusive pedagogy accreditation. We have also suggested institutional tools such as attitude monitoring for quality assurance. These additions are clearly marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is relevant, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals and the requirements of modern educational practice.
The research methods and hypotheses are clearly and specifically defined. Structurally, the author of the article presents the results of the study in accordance with the hypotheses. The conclusions are important for the development of further research.
The manuscript corresponds to the journal's profile. The list of references corresponds to the content and topic.
Comments: The review of the scientific literature on the study topic could be supplemented by taking into account the extent to which attention is paid to tolerance in inclusive education in different countries, for example, in third world countries. It would be worthwhile to emphasise the relevance of the problem of tolerance in relation to people with disabilities, as well as the presence of various types of bullying, etc.

Author Response

Comment 1: The review of the scientific literature on the study topic could be supplemented by taking into account the extent to which attention is paid to tolerance in inclusive education in different countries, for example, in third world countries. It would be worthwhile to emphasise the relevance of the problem of tolerance in relation to people with disabilities, as well as the presence of various types of bullying, etc.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable and constructive suggestion. In response, we have expanded the Introduction section to explicitly address the role of tolerance in inclusive education across different national contexts, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. We now highlight recent empirical findings that underscore how tolerance remains underdeveloped despite inclusive policy efforts, and how students with special educational needs continue to experience significantly higher rates of bullying. Furthermore, we have included relevant MDPI-sourced studies published in the last five years, covering both primary and higher education contexts, including recent data from Colombia. The revised paragraph now draws attention to systemic barriers and the emotional dimensions of inclusion, supporting the reviewer’s call for emphasizing both the social-emotional and structural aspects of inclusive education globally.

The inserted text can be found in the Introduction section, after the paragraph ending in “...as a civic value (Slee, 2011),” and is clearly marked with newly added references (Carmona & Montanero, 2025; Deroncele-Acosta & Ellis, 2024; Carrillo Sierra et al., 2025). The new content is clearly marked in red in the revised manuscript.

We are confident that these additions significantly strengthen the contextual and international relevance of the manuscript and appreciate the reviewer’s insight in prompting this enhancement.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for your article! Unfortunately, I cannot recommend the publication. First and foremost I have ethical concerns regarding your intervention: the video stimuli supports negative stereotypes of persons with disabilities as being helpless and a burden to relatives. Additionally, the instrument that you employ is, in terms of content, too close to your stimuli. "People with disabilities are altruistic", "People with disabilities are a burden to others", "People with disabilities help those around them" are items which have direct implications from the videos. Although you report a high reliability of this instrument the items seem to cover a wide range of attitudes and do not appear to be concise with the theory you bring forward. Please also consider that the number of items influences you Cronbach's alpha.

Following are a number of less essential aspects to your article in case you want to develope your research further:

The abstract lacks a description of the sample.
Throughout there is lack of adequate sources. This is most prominent with a clear definition regarding inclusion, disability and attitudes.
In line 71 it is unclear which is the source to the citation.
There is a lack of theoretical background to the relationship between attitudes toward persons with disabilities, tolerance, and gender.
You should clarify the distinction between disability and attitudes toward inclusion.
The time between pre- and post test appears to be too short.
Statistical symbols should be written in cursive throughout.

Kind Regards

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the time, effort, and critical perspective offered in the evaluation of our manuscript. We deeply appreciate the constructive feedback and acknowledge the ethical and methodological concerns raised, which have helped us significantly improve the manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment, along with the corresponding revisions implemented.

Comment 1: “First and foremost I have ethical concerns regarding your intervention: the video stimuli support negative stereotypes of persons with disabilities as being helpless and a burden to relatives.”

Response 1: We fully understand and acknowledge this important ethical concern. In the revised version, we have inserted an explicit ethical reflection into the “4. Discussion” section (subsection: The Impact of Video Content on Attitudes) that directly addresses this issue. We now clearly state that, although the negative video was based on real-life portrayals, it risks reinforcing harmful stereotypes of individuals with disabilities as helpless or dependent. We emphasize the importance of avoiding such tropes in future research and propose the development of ethically curated materials that maintain experimental validity while respecting the dignity and diversity of lived experiences of persons with disabilities. The new content is clearly marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2: “Additionally, the instrument that you employ is, in terms of content, too close to your stimuli. 'People with disabilities are altruistic', 'People with disabilities are a burden to others', 'People with disabilities help those around them' are items which have direct implications from the videos.”

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this important methodological observation. In the revised manuscript, we added a new paragraph marked in red to the “Limitations” section to explicitly address the partial conceptual overlap between some video content and specific items from the attitude scale. We acknowledge that this could lead to priming effects or demand characteristics, despite the instrument’s high internal consistency.

Comment 3: “Although you report a high reliability of this instrument, the items seem to cover a wide range of attitudes and do not appear to be concise with the theory you bring forward.”

Response 3: We appreciate this observation and have revised the “Materials and Methods” – Section 2.4 to better clarify the theoretical foundation of the attitude scale. Specifically, we now state that the 25-item scale was constructed based on the tripartite model of attitudes (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005), which includes cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. This justification ensures that the breadth of attitudinal dimensions assessed by the instrument is theoretically coherent and not arbitrary. The new content is clearly marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 4: “Please also consider that the number of items influences your Cronbach's alpha.”

Response 4: We acknowledge this statistical consideration and have included it in the updated Limitations section. While our instrument demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.903), we recognize that Cronbach’s alpha is influenced by the number of items, and high reliability does not automatically imply conceptual precision. We added this clarification to improve methodological transparency. The new content is clearly marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 5: ”The abstract lacks a description of the sample”.

Response 5: We respectfully note that the abstract already includes a description of the sample, as required. Specifically, it states: "A total of 179 students completed pre- and post-intervention assessments..." This ensures that readers are informed about the participant group from the outset. However, we remain open to rephrasing this sentence if further clarification is considered necessary.

Comment 6: ”Throughout there is lack of adequate sources. This is most prominent with a clear definition regarding inclusion, disability and attitudes”.

Response 6: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the need for stronger theoretical grounding through clear definitions of the core concepts underpinning our study. In response, we have thoroughly revised the Introduction section to explicitly define inclusive education, disability, and attitudes toward people with disabilities, using up-to-date and peer-reviewed sources published in the last five years, in line with journal expectations.

Specifically, we now define inclusive education as “a transformative approach that aims to eliminate barriers and promote full participation for all learners, especially those with disabilities, through systemic reforms in pedagogy, curriculum, and institutional culture” (Oswal et al., 2025; Anderson et al., 2024). We present disability as a dynamic interaction between individual impairments and environmental barriers that hinder active engagement in academic and social life, consistent with current inclusive frameworks (Sadzaglishvili et al., 2025). Furthermore, attitudes are now conceptualized as multidimensional constructs comprising cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that significantly shape inclusion outcomes in educational contexts (Sadzaglishvili et al., 2025; Abed et al., 2024).

These conceptual clarifications have been integrated seamlessly into the Introduction section, after the paragraph that acknowledges the broad conceptualization of disability used in the current study. We believe that these additions not only address the reviewer's concerns but also enhance the overall theoretical robustness and clarity of our manuscript. The new content is clearly marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 7: ”Throughout there is lack of adequate sources. This is most prominent with a clear definition regarding inclusion, disability and attitudes”.

Response 7: We appreciate this important remark. To address the concern, we have supplemented the introduction with recent MDPI references that provide clear definitions of inclusive education, disability, and attitudes. These additions strengthen the conceptual framework and align the manuscript with current scholarly discourse. All sources are properly cited and included in the revised reference list.

Comment 8: ”In line 71 it is unclear which is the source to the citation”.

Response 8: We thank the reviewer for this observation. The citation at line 71 has been clarified by adding a precise bibliographic reference to a recent MDPI source (Yang, Wang & Xiu, 2025). The reference has also been added to the bibliography.

Comment 9: ” There is a lack of theoretical background to the relationship between attitudes toward persons with disabilities, tolerance, and gender”.

Response 9: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need for a stronger theoretical grounding of the relationships between attitudes toward persons with disabilities, tolerance, and gender. In response, we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Introduction section to clarify the theoretical rationale for including gender and tolerance as moderating variables in our design. This paragraph highlights recent research indicating that female students tend to express more empathetic and favorable attitudes, while higher tolerance levels are associated with reduced bias and greater social acceptance. The cited literature reinforces the multidimensional nature of inclusive attitudes and supports our conceptual framework. We believe this addition adequately addresses the reviewer’s concern by linking key individual differences to established theoretical models of attitudinal change. The new content is clearly marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 10: ” You should clarify the distinction between disability and attitudes toward inclusion”.

Response 10: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the need to clarify the distinction between disability and attitudes toward inclusion. In response, we have expanded the theoretical background within the Introduction to explicitly differentiate between these two constructs. Specifically, we now define disability as the interaction between impairments and contextual barriers that restrict participation, in line with contemporary inclusive education frameworks. In contrast, attitudes toward inclusion are presented as the evaluative responses—cognitive, emotional, and behavioral—held by others (e.g., peers, educators) toward integrating individuals with disabilities in mainstream environments. This clarification helps reinforce the theoretical coherence of the manuscript and highlights the relevance of attitudinal change for effective inclusion.

Comment 11: ” The time between pre- and post test appears to be too short”.

Response 11: We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In response, we have added a clarification in the Limitations section, explicitly addressing the short time interval between the pre- and post-test assessments. We acknowledge that this may affect the durability of the observed attitudinal changes and have suggested that future studies incorporate delayed post-tests or longitudinal designs to address this issue. The added paragraph is clearly marked in the revised manuscript.

Comment 11: ”Statistical symbols should be written in cursive throughout”.

Response 11: We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to formatting consistency. In response, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and ensured that all statistical symbols (e.g., t, p, F, M, SD) are now presented in italic format, as per academic style guidelines. This correction has been applied consistently throughout the text and tables.

In summary, we have made all suggested revisions to address the reviewer’s ethical and methodological concerns. We believe these improvements significantly enhance the clarity, rigor, and ethical integrity of the manuscript. We are grateful for the reviewer’s insightful critique and hope that the revised version is now suitable for publication.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you very much for considering the suggestions for improvement. In my opinion, this has greatly improved the quality of the article!

Author Response

Thank you for your encouraging note. We’re glad the revisions have strengthened the article and we’re grateful for your constructive guidance throughout the process.

With thanks,
The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I cannot recommend the publication of this article due to ethical concerns. I am aware that you have taken this into consideration and state that future studies should not replicate harmful tropes. Nonetheless, the publication of this article would do exactly this.

Kind regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your careful reading and for engaging with the ethical dimensions of this study. To preclude any possible misinterpretation, the current version explicitly frames the negative-valence material as an object of critical analysis, not as an acceptable representation.

For transparency, we detail below the ethically relevant revisions implemented in this round (all changes are marked in the manuscript in blue and bold to facilitate review):

Up-front Ethical Note (immediately after the Abstract). This note explicitly repudiates deficit-based representations and states that any description of the negative stimulus is intentionally minimal and used solely for scientific transparency. In this way, we make the ethical stance visible from the outset and clarify that the “negative” is analyzed as an object of critique, not as an acceptable representation.
Methods — ethical clarifications and harm-reduction measures. In this section we added two short paragraphs that clarify the study’s critical intent, justify the deliberate limitation of descriptive detail (harm reduction), and state our commitment to ethically curated, co-designed stimuli in future work with persons with disabilities and community representatives. Thus, the ethical safeguards are included in the procedural section, so that the ethical framing is part of the method, not only of the discussion.
Minimalist redrafting of the negative-stimulus description. In the Procedure and Discussion sections, person-/situation-specific wording was replaced with a single sentence that situates the clip as a commonly circulating deficit-based media narrative used strictly as an object of critique; we added a clear disclaimer that we do not endorse this framing. Thus, scientific transparency is preserved without reiterating or normalizing the problematic representation.
Limitations — coherent synthesis and forward-looking orientation. The section now closes with a single integrating sentence that brings together (a) durability of effects — the recommendation for delayed/longitudinal post-tests, (b) stimulus–item proximity — and ways to avoid it (clearer conceptual separation and, where appropriate, indirect/implicit measures), and (c) the move toward ethically co-designed materials. The note urging caution in interpreting internal reliability (alpha relative to the number of items) remains in Limitations as a transparency statement. Thus, ethical and methodological risks are acknowledged in a unified way and paired with concrete safeguards for future studies.
Appendix 1 — ethical preface to the attitude instrument. We added an ethical note clarifying that negatively worded items (e.g., “burden”) are used solely to detect bias, do not imply endorsement, and are interleaved with positive/neutral items to limit priming and social desirability. This change places the ethical rationale directly alongside the instrument, reducing the risk that items are read at face value and aligning measurement with the article’s harm-reduction stance.

These updates build on substantial revisions already present from the previous round and retained here: clarified conceptual grounding for inclusion, disability, and attitudes (including a direct distinction between disability and attitudes toward inclusion); the justification for treating disability as a unified construct for the present analysis (consistent with inclusive-education policy and public discourse); acknowledgment of the short pre–post interval and potential social-desirability effects; as well as recognition of stimulus–item proximity and practical routes to reduce priming/demand in future research.

Overall, the revised manuscript does not reproduce the harmful trope; rather, it problematizes it under explicit ethical safeguards, reports sensitive content minimally, and sets out a clear pathway for future co-designed replications with persons with disabilities and community representatives. We believe these interventions directly address the ethical concern raised and provide solid conditions for substantive evaluation in line with the journal’s standards. We remain fully available for any targeted clarifications or minor editorial adjustments you may consider necessary.

Sincerely,