Next Article in Journal
Exploring Simulated Practice in Teacher Education: Opportunities to Professionalize the Teacher Role
Next Article in Special Issue
A Comparative Analysis of Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge of Reading Instruction and Their Confidence in Supporting Struggling Readers: A Study of India and England
Previous Article in Journal
Leveling up Learning: Enhancing Self-Directed Learning in Computer Applications Technology with Classcraft
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/educsci15020181
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Leadership for Educational Inclusion: Design and Validation of a Measurement Instrument

by
Daniela Zúñiga
1,*,
Gamal Cerda
2 and
Claudio Bustos Navarrete
1
1
Department of Psychology, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción 4030000, Chile
2
Department of Research Methodology and Information Technology Education, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción 4030000, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(2), 181; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020181
Submission received: 20 December 2024 / Revised: 24 January 2025 / Accepted: 27 January 2025 / Published: 4 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Early Childhood Education Policy: Impact on Children's Well-Being and Development)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This article addresses the validation of an instrument designed to measure organizational leadership practices for inclusion and evaluates the said instrument’s factorial structure and convergent validity. This work responds to the need for quantitative tools to assess how school principals promote inclusion, in recognition of its importance for guaranteeing student access to an equitable quality education at all levels, from early childhood education through high school. The above-referenced instrument was developed based on a comprehensive literature review and consultations with experts, resulting in a 36-item scale structured in six key dimensions: D1: Professional Development; D2: Inclusive Vision; D3: Support for the Teaching–Learning Process; D4: Building Networks; D5: Participation and Dialog, and D6: Resource Management. The validation process included a confirmatory factor analysis that supported the existence of a hierarchical structure of a general factor of leadership for inclusion that determines the aforementioned key dimensions, with adequate fit indices (χ2(588) = 1694.624, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.945, TLI = 0.941, RMSEA = 0.060, SRMR = 0.034) and high internal consistency in the general scale (α = 0.98, Ω = 0.96). In terms of convergent validity, the instrument showed significant and consistent correlations with related constructs such as teacher self-efficacy and pedagogical leadership. This study highlights the importance of leadership for inclusion as a central element of fostering participation and learning in diverse school contexts, by providing a reliable tool for continuous improvement of the school management team’s performance of its functions. Also, it is important input for education policymakers charged with formulating student equity, who recognize the enhanced well-being and active participation in the social environment that result from the greater inclusion of students in their educational communities.

1. Introduction

1.1. Leadership for Inclusion in Education

At the international level, inclusion in education is a relevant issue in the educational policies of various countries, promoting equity and access to educational opportunities for all students (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2021; United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF], 2022, 2023). This has occurred to such an extent that, today, inclusive education is considered an inalienable right of all students to attend classes with their peers, from the first years of formal schooling up until secondary education, regardless of their personal or social circumstances (Ramango & Naicker, 2022). Thus, the educational leadership finds itself challenged to achieve these important objectives because their role, and that of teachers and school principals, is fundamental for reducing the gaps within school communities (Ashikali et al., 2020). To this end, they must be informed of, use and implement a repertoire of practices (DeMatthews et al., 2020) that promote the creation of inclusive schools at the service of all of the students (Khaleel et al., 2021).
Inclusive practices driven by educational leaders not only promote equity but also establish a basis for all students to thrive in a quality educational environment, assuming that, in this process, multiple institutional dynamics and subsystems of the educational community interact to strengthen inclusion (Örücü et al., 2021). Neves et al. (2023) likewise emphasize that principals set the tone for inclusive practices within educational communities. This is indicative of the diversity of the school principal’s duties and the significant degree of commitment to supporting their teachers that is required of them.
There is empirical evidence that leadership of one type or another either enhances or hinders the objectives of inclusive education (Almanfaluthi, 2023). Thus, transformational leadership is a key factor for the effectiveness of educational institutions (López-Gorosave et al., 2010), as it promotes the shared distribution of responsibilities among the professionals of the institution, and this positively impacts how the educational community functions as well as the quality of the education imparted (Fullan, 2014; Izquierdo, 2016). On the other hand, pedagogical leadership has been associated with the promotion of reflective dialog and collective responsibility in the schools, aspects that reinforce the educators’ commitment to inclusion (Vanblaere & Devos, 2016). Moreover, this type of leadership facilitates the translation of the teachers’ personal resources, such as self-efficacy and autonomy, into pedagogical practices adapted to their students’ diverse needs (De Neve et al., 2015). Social justice-oriented leadership is useful to gain insight into and reduce school inequalities, at the same time that it promotes shared accountability among the faculty (Shaked, 2023).

1.2. Evaluating Organizational Leadership Practices for Inclusion

The evaluation of leadership practices for inclusion in schools is of crucial importance, given the consistent evidence pointing to inclusion leadership as a determining factor for the improvement of educational quality and the promotion of equity in learning. It therefore follows that the proper instruments must be accessible to evaluate the practices developed by principals to promote inclusion. Unlike traditional leadership assessments, inclusive practices require the placement of a particular focus on collaboration, communication and support for individual student needs (Leithwood et al., 2020).
Recent studies have called attention to the need for leadership approaches to inclusion that are adapted to the specific requirements of a given educational context (Randel et al., 2018; Reyes et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2018). This implies that each context or territory should be sufficiently flexible, with the willingness to introduce innovation in its practices in response to the changing needs of students and the school environment. The ability to adapt to these particularities is essential in order to ensure effective and sustainable inclusion, especially in territories with a high degree of cultural, economic and/or social diversity.
While most studies on leadership and inclusion employ qualitative methodologies such as observation and interviews, these methods do not always allow for generalizing findings to other educational contexts. Examples are the case studies by DeMatthews and Mueller (2021), Emerick (2022), García-Carmona et al. (2021), Luddeckens et al. (2022), Valdés and Gómez-Hurtado (2019). These authors studied primary and secondary schools and employed observation and interviews to explore different facets of leadership for inclusion. The case studies highlight the need to also develop quantitative approaches that evaluate leadership for inclusion, adapted to the particularities of the specific territory, as is the case of Chile.
It should be noted that the ongoing research on leadership for educational inclusion underscores the fact that, due to the inherent complexity and diversity of its constitutive concepts, various forms of leadership have emerged with the capacity of fostering inclusion in the educational communities. However, none of these forms engage with all the aspects of leadership for inclusion in a comprehensive, totalizing way, and, for this reason, at present there exists a paucity of instruments for carrying out an exhaustive assessment of inclusive leadership. Among the pertinent surveys are “Social Justice Leadership Scale (SJLS)” by Özdemir and Kütküt (2015); Flood’s “Social Justice Behavior Scale (SJBS)” (Flood, 2019), on critical reflection by school principals; and “LEI-Q Leading Inclusive Education in Compulsory Education Centers” (León et al., 2018), a scale that evaluates the leadership practices of principals and their impact on inclusion, mainly with regard to the openness of educational centers and teaching–learning processes. However, it leaves out such dimensions as resource management and strengthening an inclusive educational vision. Also in Chile, Marco para la Buena Dirección y el Liderazgo Escolar (MINEDUC, 2015) incorporates tools with a social justice-oriented leadership approach. That said, as tools primarily conceived as support resources for management teams, their psychometric properties have not been sufficiently studied.
In view of the above, this study addresses the growing need to evidence leadership practices for inclusion that promote and guarantee the equitable participation of students in educational establishments, specifically in Chile, but also extend to other contexts or countries with the same requirements. To respond to the said need, this study objective was to analyze the factorial structure and convergent validity of an instrument designed to measure organizational leadership practices for inclusion.

2. Materials and Methods

An instrument design was adopted according to the classification by Ato et al. (2013) that focuses on the analysis and evaluation of psychometric properties. The instrument’s primary purpose was to ensure the quality of the measurement scales through the evaluation of fundamental aspects such as validity and reliability.

2.1. Construction of the Instrument

The design process followed the steps recommended for building scales applied in research (Muñiz & Fonseca-Pedrero, 2019), based on exhaustive reviews of the literature on inclusive leadership in the educational field and on consultations with academics and education professionals. A total of 407 research articles were systematically reviewed in the screening phase and 74 articles touching on relevant theoretical models and prior studies to identify the key dimensions of the construct. In parallel, the opinions of thirteen participants were compiled, which included five school principals and eight academics and university researchers with experience in educational inclusion and/or education leadership. For more information, please consult Zúñiga et al. (2024).
A preliminary version of the scale was thus developed, with 46 items distributed in four dimensions:
Promote inclusion-oriented professional development in the educational community (7 items); define a direction toward the inclusion of all students in the educational community (6 items); support the teaching process to favor the inclusion in learnings of all students (13 items); and redesign the organization as an accessible and inclusive educational community (20 items).
The preparation of the initial instrument proposal was followed by a process of validation based on expert judgment to ensure compliance with the criteria of pertinence, relevance, clarity and sufficiency of instrument items. To this end, 18 experts in educational inclusion and/or educational leadership evaluated the dimensions and items, applying a guide that measured the degree of convergence with each criterion. Items with a degree of consensus between 80% and 100% were retained. Those with 70% to 79% were revised, and those with less than the preestablished minimum of 69% were discarded.
The revisions and comments regarding the categories of sufficiency and relevance vis à vis the initially proposed dimensions led to the subdivision of the dimension designated as follows: “Redesign the organization as an accessible and inclusive educational community”, originally composed of 20 statements, into three new dimensions, as follows: networking with families and the local community (5 items); promoting participation and dialog within the educational community (7 items); and effective resource management for student access (4 items).
With respect to the experts’ observations, these enabled modifications to the wording of the statements that made them easier to understand, duplicate or redundant assertions were merged, and, if one of several contiguous assertions did not actually apply to one same statement, the nonapplicable content was moved to its appropriate context. This process culminated in an instrument with six dimensions and 36 items, and adjustments were made to reflect the educational establishment’s leadership practices for inclusion as precisely as possible.
Subsequently, in order to analyze the full understanding of the respondents’ statements, cognitive interviews were individually conducted with the three incumbent teachers. The results drew attention to the need for more clarity in the wording of 16 items. Additional details were added to the instructions at the start of the instrument and each section and a description of each dimension.
In an intermediate stage, the participation of a new group of experts was added through the Delphi method. Seven experts in inclusion, leadership, and/or psychology evaluated the 36 items in the instrument based on the criterion of relevance. An online form was used posing the question, “In your opinion, should this item be included in the instrument?”. The criterion of expert consensus used before was once again applied. The outcome was the adjustment of just three items; thus, the structure of 36 items and six dimensions was left unchanged.
Finally, there followed the second stage of cognitive interviews. Three more teachers were interviewed individually to verify the applicability of the changes made and whether they were clearly understood. This led to modifications in the wording of five items, adding specific examples to each statement to better adapt them to the context of the teachers’ classroom performance.

2.2. Instruments Used in This Study

2.2.1. Leadership for Educational Inclusion

The instrument’s structure consists of 36 items distributed in six major dimensions that measure leadership for inclusion. The six dimensions are as follows: the promotion of professional development in inclusion (7 items); the definition of a vision of inclusive education (7 items); supporting teaching–learning to foster inclusion (6 items); the creation of collaborative networks with the families and the local community (5 items); the fostering of participation and dialog in the educational community (7 items); and the management of resources to facilitate student access (4 items). The full version is found in Appendix A. The responses to the scale items were collected using a 7-point Likert Scale designed to evaluate the degree of concordance with the practice evidenced by the establishment from the teachers’ point of view. The values ranged from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” (7).

2.2.2. Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS)

The instructional leadership instrument, or the PIMRS, was validated in Chile in the Spanish language by Fromm et al. (2016). It measures the instructional leadership developed by school principals, applying the teachers’ perspective. The responses are structured in a 5-point Likert-type scale, where 1 is equivalent to “Almost never” and 5 to “Almost always”. The scores measure the frequency with which a given practice is performed by the principal. The factor structure of the instrument is divided into three dimensions: the definition of the school’s mission (10 items); the administration of the instructional program (15 items); and the promotion of a positive learning climate (25 items). Model fit results for the Chilean version were adequate, with fit indices of CFI = 0.964, TLI = 0.962 and RMSEA = 0.050.

2.2.3. Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES)

The short version of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES, Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001) evaluates teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in three main dimensions: effectiveness in instructional strategies (4 items); effectiveness in classroom management (4 items); and effectiveness in student engagement (4 items). In the scale’s 5-point Likert-type responses, 1 is equivalent to “Not at all” and 5 to “Very much”, as measures of the teacher’s perceived self-efficacy. Prior to the construction of the leadership for inclusion instrument, the scale was validated for the Chilean context during 2023. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate its factorial structure. The results confirmed the validity of the proposed theoretical model, with good fit indices obtained of χ2(51) = 213.29, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.975, TLI = 0.968, RMSEA = 0.089.

2.3. Data Collection

Twenty-three (23) educational establishments were chosen to participate in a ministerial project for the promotion of an effective leadership culture in collaboration with the school communities. This project is part of a larger network of 67 educational establishments. The principals and respective sponsors of this study were notified to request their written consent to participate. The schools that agreed to do so made arrangements for teachers to have time away from class to be informed of this study and the areas designated where they could respond to the questionnaire. The application process took place online between April and July 2024 through the SurveyMonkey platform. The link inviting all of the schools’ teachers was sent by e-mail. The estimated time for answering the questionnaire was approximately 30 min. This was, however, flexible, and the respondents could take more than one session to finish answering. The questionnaire platform made allowance for answering at different times to minimize the influence of external factors such as fatigue or interruptions. The questionnaire included the following five sections: first, informed consent; second, sociodemographic information on the participant; third, the leadership for educational inclusion scale, this study’s central instrument; fourth, the TSES teacher self-efficacy scale; and fifth and last, the PIMRS instructional leadership scale.
The entire process of instrument construction and application received the approval of the Ethics, Bioethics and Biosafety Committee of the Vice-Rectory of Research and Development of Universidad de Concepción, Chile. This guaranteed confidentiality, voluntary participation and data protection.

2.4. Participants

The sample selection was performed by means of multistage sampling. In the first stage, 23 establishments that met the selection criteria were invited to take part. Of these 23, 21 institutions responded affirmatively. In the second stage, the teaching staff of the establishments were invited to participate. Around 65% of the teachers invited completed the online questionnaire on a voluntary basis and on the condition of anonymity.
The final sample was made up of 371 teachers from state-funded and certified primary and secondary schools of Chile, with a mean age of M = 40.8 years (SD = 10.7). The majority of the participants were females (75.5%) aged between 23 and 68 years, while the male group (23.7%) ranged in age from 23 to 63 years.

2.5. Data Analysis

For data analysis, R software version 2024.04 was used. The data were uploaded from an Excel file containing the responses collected from, initially, 591 teachers who participated in the instrument’s application. The responses were filtered to eliminate missing values (NA), and the study criteria of inclusion/exclusion were reviewed for each participant in the sample. This made it possible to work with a final database of 371 cases, which thus became the definitive sample. (The research database download link is available in the Data Availability Statement section). An analysis was performed of the descriptive of each item that made up the leadership for inclusion instrument, including means, standard deviations (SD), skewness and kurtosis. Next, a correlation matrix was calculated between the items to identify possible relationships and redundancies among the instrument’s questions.
It was decided to carry out a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) rather than an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) as the instrument was designed based on a clear theoretical hypothesis of the underlying factorial structure as evidenced by the systematic review and the conducted interviews. According to Ullman (2006), a CFA allows for testing predefined theoretical models and evaluating the validity of the proposed structure by comparing structured and unstructured covariance matrices, ensuring a more rigorous and specific fit with the data, which is not feasible with an exploratory technique such as the EFA. Three factorial models with theoretical justification were evaluated. First of all, a unifactorial model was tested, in which all scale items were assumed to load on a single, overall factor of leadership for inclusion. Subsequently, a multifactorial six-dimensional model was opted for, wherein each dimension represented a specific construct of leadership for inclusion that would exclusively load the item corresponding to the dimension in question. In the final stage, a hierarchical model was adjusted, postulating the existence of a general leadership factor for second-order inclusion, over and above the previously identified specific dimensions.
Estimations were performed for each model with the Maximum Likelihood Robust (MLR) estimator and evaluations of the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). In determining the suitability of a model, the recommendations of the literature were followed. For the CFI and TLI, values above 0.95 are considered adequate (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Williams & O’Boyle, 2011). For the RMSEA, values between 0.05 and 0.08 indicated an adequate fit, and values above 0.10 are considered insufficient (Browne & Cudeck, 1992). Finally, for the SRMR, a value of less than 0.05 is desirable, although values of up to 0.08 can be accepted (Hu & Bentler, 1999). To determine the convergent validity of the instrument, a correlation matrix was performed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. This matrix included the dimensions of the Leadership for the Educational Inclusion instrument, as well as the PIMRS and TSES.
Finally, for each of the dimensions and at the total level of the instrument, the descriptive analyses and reliability indexes were reported with the instrument’s Alpha and Omega coefficients.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Item Analysis

The initial descriptive analyses of each item were carried out and are presented in Table 1. Overall, the means range from M = 5.02 (Item 3) to M = 5.67 (Items 14 and 17), indicating a positive trend towards the high end of the scale (1 to 7). The standard deviations vary between SD = 1.13 and SD = 1.44, reflecting a moderate dispersion in the participants’ answers.
With respect to skewness, the values show that most of the items present distributions that are slightly skewed to the right (negative skewness), which reinforces the tendency of responses to be concentrated in the upper part of the scale. In relation to kurtosis, some items present high values, such as item 16 (1.91) and item 17 (1.94), indicating distributions with more pronounced peaks compared to a normal distribution. By contrast, item 6 (0.14) or item 27 (0.16) present kurtosis values close to 0, suggesting distributions that more approximate normality.

3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Firstly, the unifactorial model was tested; all items of the scale were assumed to load onto a single general factor of leadership for inclusion. The model did not fit adequately with the data: χ2(594) = 3213.852, p < 0.001, χ2 normalized = 5.41; the fit indicators were lower than expected: CFI = 0.841, TLI = 0.831, with an RMSEA = 0.102, IC 95% [0.097; 0.107], p < 0.001, and SRMR = 0.048.
A six-dimensional model was then evaluated, in which each dimension represented a specific construct related to leadership for inclusion. This multifactorial model assumed that each item loaded solely onto the corresponding dimension. The results of the CFA indicated a better fit with the data in comparison with the unifactorial model, the values of fit: χ2(579) = 1604.177, p < 0.001, χ2 normalized = 2.77, with relative fit indicators considered acceptable: CFI = 0.949, TLI = 0.944, RMSEA = 0.058, IC 95% [0.053; 0.064], p < 0.001, and SRMR = 0.030.
Since Model 2 showed markedly high correlations between factors varying between 0.798 and 0.928, and considering that, theoretically, the factors contribute to the overall construct, it is both empirically and theoretically appropriate to adopt a hierarchical model. The proposed hierarchical model reflects the underlying theoretical structure and addresses the multidimensional nature of leadership for inclusion. This model, which incorporates a second-order factor to represent the general construct of leadership for inclusion, also demonstrates a good fit with the data: χ2(588) = 1694.624, p < 0.001, χ2 normalized = 2.88, with relative fit indicators, CFI = 0.945, TLI = 0.941, RMSEA = 0.060, with a confidence interval of 95% [0.055; 0.066], p < 0.001, besides an SRMR of 0.034, reinforce the model’s validity (Figure 1).
Upon comparing Model 2 and Model 3, the latter being a hierarchical model including a second-order factor, no statistically significant difference in terms of fit was found between them, using a likelihood ratio test, χ2(9) = 14.475, p = 0.106. This lack of significant difference suggests that, although Model 3 presents slightly lower fit indicators, the differences are not substantially significant, which justifies its choice as an adequate simplification with a sound theoretical basis.
Therefore, Model 3 was chosen as the final instrument that ensured adequate convergent dimensional validity.

3.3. Convergent Validity Analysis

To assess the degree to which the dimensions of leadership for inclusion correlate to each other and to related constructs and to evidence that, in effect, they measure the same underlying concept, the correlations with the dimensions of the PIMRS and TSES scales were analyzed. As observed in Table 2, the highest correlations were found among the dimensions of the leadership for inclusion and instructional leadership instruments, thus reinforcing the convergent validity of the leadership for inclusion instrument. These results indicate that leadership for inclusion is more closely linked to the instructional leadership practices developed by school principals. The lowest correlation was between D4: Network Creation and LP2: Curriculum Management (r = 0.54, p < 0.001), and the highest was between D5: Participation and Dialog and LP1: Definition of the School Mission (r = 0.66, p < 0.001).
Likewise, moderate correlations were found between the dimensions of the leadership for inclusion and teacher self-efficacy instruments. The lowest correlation was observed between D4: Creation of Networks, and AU2: Classroom Management (r = 0.20, p < 0.001), while the highest was found between D3: Supported Teaching–Learning process, and AU1: Instructional Strategies (r = 0.34, p < 0.001).
In their totality, the obtained correlations confirm that the leadership for inclusion instrument measures constructs related to and consistent with the dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and pedagogical leadership.

3.4. Analysis of Descriptive and Internal Consistency

Overall, according to the data in Table 3, the six dimensions of the leadership for inclusion instrument showed means higher than 5.14. The values ranged from 5.14 for D1: professional development, and 5.47 for D2: inclusive vision. The standard deviations, which vary between 1.00 and 1.21, reflect a moderate dispersion in the data.
The skew values of the instrument’s dimensions, as is the case of the items, are indicative of distributions that are slightly skewed to the right. As for kurtosis, the values are relatively low and remain within a range of 0.03 to 0.58. This indicates distributions approximate to normality, though with slight differences in the shape of the curves.
On the other hand, the internal consistency of the six dimensions and of the instrument in its totality was evaluated by means of Cronbach’s Alpha (α) and McDonald’s Omega (Ω) coefficients and showed excellent reliability. The coefficients α and Ω for the individual dimensions ranged from 0.91 to 0.96 and reached 0.98 and 0.96, respectively, for the instrument total.

4. Discussion

This study is an important step forward, having provided an instrument for evaluating leadership practices for inclusion in Chilean educational establishments. An initial and notable aspect of this study was the meticulous process to create the instrument. It included a thorough systematic review of the literature and multiple rounds of interviews with experts and principals, followed by expert judgments and cognitive interviews. Thanks to this process, the multidimensional structure of leadership for inclusion was verified and reflected in the proposed six dimensions. An additional consideration of special relevance is that educational institutions operate in complex organizational climates, influenced by different factors that directly and indirectly affect the students (Alonso-Tapia et al., 2020), as confirmed by the theoretical findings.
The robustness of the theoretical concept and its operationalization in dimensions and practices of leadership for inclusion are backed by the good fit indices obtained in the factor analyses, which reinforce the validity of the proposed model and its potential applicability in varied educational contexts. More specifically, its multidimensional structure addresses aspects that are critical for the implementation of inclusive practices, such as resource management, the pedagogical process and educational vision.
These characteristics differentiate the proposed instrument from others in use at the international level. For example, instruments such as the SJLS (Özdemir & Kütküt, 2015) and the SJBS (Flood, 2019) are narrower in scope, focusing mainly on the specific foci of social justice, in accordance with the perspectives of each one.
Similarly, although the LEI-Q Leading Inclusive Education (León et al., 2018) mainly focuses on assessing community openness and teaching–learning processes, the instrument presented in this study adds key dimensions that are essential for promoting equitable, quality education in the Chilean context, such as resource management and a strategic vision of inclusion.
Another fundamental characteristic of the instrument is that it has been designed to cater to the particularities of the Chilean educational context, and other, similar contexts.
Recent studies have emphasized that leadership approaches for inclusion need to be adapted to each specific educational context (Randel et al., 2018), given the significant variations in organizational dynamics, social challenges and local regulations in different countries and regions. While the linguistic adaptation of other, similar international instruments may seem to be a viable alternative, such instruments would not adequately respond to the complexities of local conditions that have direct effects on the leadership practices for inclusion applied in those contexts.
Another noteworthy point is the fact that conducting this study from the teachers’ perspective enabled capturing more objective observations regarding the principals’ performance. By focusing on third party perceptions rather than on self-evaluations, this approach helps to reduce the risk of biases associated with social desirability. According to Marfán et al. (2021), the use of questions prepared for the teachers will diminish the desirability bias of the work carried out by the principal and his or her management teams.
As a reaffirmation of the above argument, the convergent validity of the instrument was confirmed through correlations with related constructs, such as teacher self-efficacy and pedagogical leadership. In this analysis, pedagogical leadership showed stronger correlations (r > 0.48, p < 0.001) compared to teacher self-efficacy, which showed lower correlations (r < 0.34, p < 0.001). This may be due to the fact that, in the first case, the principal’s practices were directly evaluated, while, in the second case, the teachers self-evaluated their performance. The difference in perspective between evaluating others and evaluating oneself is a salient point to consider. The foregoing is reflected in Bandura (1997), who maintained that self-efficacy was deeply influenced by the personal perception of one’s own capabilities, which may introduce an inherent subjectivity into evaluations of this type. Conversely, upon basing the instrument of pedagogical leadership on some individuals’ observations of others, it could then reflect concrete, observable practices and be indicative of a more direct relationship with the construct of leadership for inclusion. This, in turn, according to Leithwood et al. (2020), is a point that raises the objectivity of the measurements and the instrument’s external validity.
A limitation of this study is its cross-sectional design, which impeded the analysis of how leadership practices for inclusion evolve over time or adapt to normative or contextual changes. The authors project that future longitudinal studies can be undertaken for evaluating the sustained impact of leadership practices for inclusion and, additionally, evaluate variables such as academic achievement, organizational climate and student coexistence as possibly related to leadership for inclusion.
There is yet another possibility for the future projection of this study. The sample included a variety of publicly funded schools; however, analyzing the behavior of the factorial structure’s validity in other educational contexts such as private schools or schools in remote rural areas could yield additional evidence regarding the instrument’s potential for widespread use and its adaptability, as well as any adjustments needed to reflect the particularities of each of these contexts.

5. Conclusions

The instrument developed in this study not only provides reinforcement to the work carried out by management teams in different education contexts; it also enhances the quality of the education imparted to students from their first years of formal schooling, through middle and high school. The instrument also represents an input for the decision making that is part and parcel of the design and implementation of governmental education policies. Because it provides sound, contextualized, evidentiary data on leadership practices for inclusion, it can serve to orient strategies for the promotion of equity and inclusion in education systems starting from the earliest years of schooling. Education policymakers will therefore find the instrument useful for identifying priority areas for interventions and for designing programs that will address the needs of individual educational establishments, strengthening equal access to a quality education in the process.
As a final point, the instrument may likewise be useful to management teams as a training tool and guide in programs for professional development in inclusive practices and for strengthening the competencies required of leaders of different types of educational communities. Although it has been designed to be applied in the Chilean educational context, it does have potential for being adapted and validated by other countries that have similar characteristics, for the purpose of generating comparative evidence on leadership for inclusion practices in different educational systems.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://osf.io/xhmye/?view_only=a94465476bb64fc497095c5eb45dc5a2 (accessed on 20 December 2024), Figure S1. Hierarchical Model 3 factor load distribution diagram; Dataset S1: Research database.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.Z., G.C. and C.B.N.; methodology, D.Z., G.C. and C.B.N.; software, D.Z. and C.B.N.; validation, D.Z., G.C. and C.B.N.; formal analysis, D.Z., G.C. and C.B.N.; investigation, D.Z.; resources, D.Z.; data curation, D.Z. and C.B.N.; writing—original draft preparation, D.Z.; writing—review and editing, D.Z., G.C. and C.B.N.; visualization, D.Z.; supervision, G.C. and C.B.N.; project administration, D.Z.; funding acquisition, D.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by ANID BECAS DOCTORADO NACIONAL, grant number 21201071, Chile.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics, Bioethics, and Biosafety Committee of the Vice-Rectory of Research and Development of Universidad de Concepción, Chile (protocol code 1220-2022, approved in July 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available in Dataset S1: Research database, which can be accessed at https://osf.io/xhmye/?view_only=a94465476bb64fc497095c5eb45dc5a2 (accessed on 20 December 2024).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Centro de Liderazgo Educativo para la Mejora en Red, Centro + Comunidad, sponsored by the Universidad de Concepción, Chile (Decree No. 113 of the MINEDUC), for their support during the research process.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Structure: Leadership Instrument for Educational Inclusion

DimensionsItems1234567
D1: Promote the development of the educational community’s professional staff in themes of inclusion.1. Carry out actions to identify and attend to the need for training in aspects of inclusion in each employee group of the educational community, for example, teachers, teaching assistants and other professional staff.
2. Organize activities such as workshops, seminars of reflection, team meetings, and others, centering these activities on themes of inclusion and adapted to the specific needs of each employee group in the educational community.
3. Facilitate opportunities for both intra- and extramural educational community events so that each employee group can carry out activities focused on inclusive topics.
4. Actively respond to teachers’ concerns and needs related to the implementation of inclusive classroom practices.
5. In collaboration with the teachers, form a working group for inclusion to analyze, discuss and suggest improvements in teaching practices and student learning progress.
6. Support teachers in the collaborative exploration and discussion of strategies and knowledge around inclusion, fostering a culture of inquiry and continuous learning.
7. Offer specific strategies and resources to support the actions of teachers in implementing inclusive educational practices.
D2: Define a guiding vision to promote the inclusion of all students in the educational community. 8. In collaboration with the entire educational community (teachers, teaching assistants, other professional staff, students and families), develop and update the Proyecto Educativo Institucional (Institutional Educational Project—PEI) to ensure the incorporation of inclusive values and practices.
9. In collaboration with the entire educational community, define a clear vision and set concrete objectives to promote and ensure inclusion.
10. Periodically circulate information in the entire educational community on the vision of inclusion, its objectives, goals and specific actions to be adopted toward achieving more inclusive education.
11. Ensure that inclusion guidelines and goals are supported and understood by all the members of the educational community.
12. Develop ongoing monitoring of the proposed goals, objectives and proposed targets of inclusion.
13. Lead by example to promote inclusive values such as respect, tolerance, justice, equality, rights, sustainability, trust, empathy, love, acceptance and participation.
14. Promote an inclusive environment in the educational community through the use of respectful language that recognizes identitary diversity.
D3: Support the teaching process to favor the inclusion of all students in learning activities. 15. Ensure that teachers’ temporal and spatial activities, in-school as well as non-teaching ones, mainly focus on the aspects of the teaching–learning process of all their students.
16. Respect the teachers’ autonomy regarding how to carry out an inclusive teaching–learning process.
17. Facilitate the teachers’ tailoring of the curriculum to their classroom practice to meet the educational needs of all their students in promoting inclusive and flexible teaching.
18. Ensure the availability of support specialists (i.e., sign interpreters, psychologists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, physical therapists and others) inside and outside the classroom, to cover the specific needs of the students and the educational community.
19. Free up spaces for collaboration between teachers and support professionals to plan and evaluate learning experiences, in accordance with the students’ characteristics and needs.
20. To further adapt and enrich the learning experience, encourage the creation and use of assessment tools such as guidelines, questionnaires, rubrics and others, for gathering information on the students’ interests and needs.
D4: Manage internal and external networks to foster collaboration within the educational community.21. They establish networks of active collaboration with different social and health organizations, companies, foundations and other educational establishments to share and learn from effective inclusion experiences.
22. They facilitate the local community’s access to the school’s facilities and resources for a richer inclusive culture.
23. They coordinate communication and mediation actions with the families to assist them with their inclusion-related challenges. Said actions can include collaboration with external specialists and entities.
24. They promote communication with the families and their active participation in the learning process, inside as well as outside the educational establishment.
25. They form alliances with the families to provide guidance and support in decision making in relation to the students. The scope of these alliances covers educational as well as daily life aspects, including socioemotional support, matters of well-being and health, among others.
D5: Promote the participation of and communication among the all of the members of the educational community to encourage inclusion. 26. They motivate teachers to create opportunities for their students to engage in dialog and freely express their opinions and needs.
27. They create conditions such as elections, assemblies, surveys, forums, discussion groups and opinion spaces, to guarantee all of the students’ active participation in decision making.
28. They cultivate an environment of respect and good communication. They ensure that all the actors, including students and their guardians, participate and collaborate actively in the educational community.
29. They facilitate the understanding and socialization of teachers regarding current educational policies, laws and regulations, adapting them to the characteristics and needs of all the students.
30. They systematically organize a calendar of activities to encourage interaction and cooperation among the students, for the purpose of constructing a harmonious school environment and preventing conflictive situations.
31. They promote the participation of the entire educational community in the development and updating of a plan for managing the school community’s coexistence, including clear protocols and procedures for managing conflicts between students.
32. They implement timely interventions for managing and resolving grievances between professional staff. Said interventions are constructive and foster a collaborative, respectful work environment.
D6: Administers the educational community’s resources to promote their accessibility for all the students. 33. They equitably distribute material and human resources to serve all the members of the educational community, considering their characteristics and ensuring that their needs are met.
34. In coordination with the sponsor, ensure access to and adequate allocation of financial resources to serve the needs and requirements of the members of the educational community.
35. Organizes the roles and responsibilities of the professional staff in order to serve all of the courses and students in accordance with their characteristics and needs.
36. They supervise and coordinate any modifications to the establishment’s infrastructure for easy access by all members of the educational community as well as to meet the latter’s needs.

References

  1. Almanfaluthi, M. (2023). Psychological factors influencing leadership, diversity and equality for better inclusive education practices. International Journal of Membrane Science and Technology, 10(4), 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alonso-Tapia, J., Quijada, A., Ruiz, M., Huertas, J., Ulate, M., & Biehl, M. (2020). A cross-cultural study of the validity of a battery of questionnaires for assessing school climate quality. Psicología Educativa, 26(2), 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ashikali, T., Groeneveld, S., & Kuipers, B. (2020). The role of inclusive leadership in supporting an inclusive climate in diverse public sector teams. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(3), 497–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ato, M., López, J. J., & Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología, 29(3), 1038–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company. [Google Scholar]
  6. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. DeMatthews, D., Billingsley, B., McLeskey, J., & Sharma, U. (2020). Principal leadership for students with disabilities in effective inclusive schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(5), 539–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. DeMatthews, D. E., & Mueller, C. (2021). Leadership for inclusive schools: Practices, challenges, and future directions. In A. Harris, M. S. Jones, & J. B. Huffman (Eds.), Leading schools in challenging times: Eye to the future (pp. 123–138). Emerald Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. De Neve, D., Devos, G., & Tuytens, M. (2015). The importance of job resources and self-efficacy for beginning teachers’ professional learning in differentiated instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Emerick, M. R. (2022). Diversity ideology and school leadership: Obscuring inequities for emergent bilingual students in career and technical education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58, 223–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Flood, L. D. (2019). A new way forward for social justice researchers: Development and validation of the Social Justice Behavior Scale. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 4, 303–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fromm, G., Hallinger, P., Volante, P., & Chung, W. (2016). Validating a Spanish version of the PIMRS: Application in national and cross-national research on instructional leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(3), 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  14. García-Carmona, M., Fuentes-Mayorga, N., & Rodríguez-García, A. M. (2021). Educational leadership for social justice in multicultural contexts: The case of Melilla, Spain. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 20, 76–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Izquierdo, D. (2016). ¿Qué hacen los directores de centros escolares? Las prácticas de dirección en España a partir de los estudios internacionales PISA y TALIS. Revista Complutense de Educación, 27, 1193–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Khaleel, N., Alhosani, M., & Duyar, I. (2021). The Role of School Principals in Promoting Inclusive Schools: A Teachers’ Perspective. Frontier in Education, 6, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. León, M. J., Crisol, E., & Arrebola, R. M. (2018). Las tareas del líder inclusivo en centros educativos de zonas desfavorecidas y favorecidas. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia Y Cambio en Educación, 16(2), 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. López-Gorosave, G., Slater, C., & García-Garduño, J. (2010). Prácticas de dirección y liderazgo en las escuelas primarias públicas de México. Los primeros años en el puesto. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 8(4), 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Luddeckens, J., Anderson, L., & Östlund, D. (2022). Principals’ perspectives of inclusive education involving students with autism spectrum conditions: A Swedish case study. Journal of Educational Administration, 60, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Marfán, J., Muñoz, G., Weinstein, J., & Sembler, M. (2021). School leadership policy and change in principals’ practices. Evidence after a decade of reforms in Chile (2009–2019). Leadership and Policy in Schools, 22(4), 857–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ministerio de Educación de Chile [MINEDUC]. (2015). Marco para la buena dirección y el liderazgo escolar; Centro de Perfeccionamiento, Experimentación e Investigaciones Pedagógicas (CPEIP). Available online: https://bibliotecadigital.mineduc.cl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12365/2239/mono-593.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 1 December 2024).
  24. Muñiz, J., & Fonseca-Pedrero, E. (2019). Diez pasos para la construcción de un test. Psicothema, 31(1), 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Neves, C., Almeida, A., & Ferreira, M. (2023). Headteachers and inclusion: Setting the tone for an inclusive school. Education Sciences, 13(2), 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Örücü, D., Arar, K., & Mahfouz, J. (2021). Three contexts as the post-migration ecology for refugees: School principals’ challenges and strategies in Turkey, Lebanon, and Germany. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 20(1), 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Özdemir, M., & Kütküt, B. (2015). Sosyal Adalet Liderliği Ölçeği’nin (SALÖ) Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 16(3), 201–218. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ramango, S. P., & Naicker, S. R. (2022). Conceptualizing a framework for school leaders as they foster an inclusive education culture in schools. Journal of Education (South Africa), 6(86), 85–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Reyes, M., Domínguez, D., & Domínguez, R. (2023). Liderazgo del director en la gestión escolar. Revista De Climatología, 23, 3940–3948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shaked, H. (2023). How social justice leadership complements instructional leadership, leadership and policy in schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 22, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ullman, J. B. (2006). Structural equation modeling: Reviewing the basics and moving forward. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(1), 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF]. (2022). Education, children on the move and Inclusion in Education. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/reports/education-children-move-and-inclusion-education (accessed on 1 December 2024).
  35. United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF]. (2023). Nudos críticos de las políticas educativas para la inclusión de niños, niñas y adolescentes con necesidades educativas especiales. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/chile/informes/nudos-cr%C3%ADticos-de-las-pol%C3%ADticas-educativas-para-la-inclusi%C3%B3n (accessed on 1 December 2024).
  36. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2021). Políticas de educación inclusive Estudios sobre políticas educativas en América Latina. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379487 (accessed on 1 December 2024).
  37. Valdés, R., & Gómez-Hurtado, I. (2019). Competencias y prácticas de liderazgo escolar para la inclusión y la justicia social. Perspectiva Educacional, Formación de Profesores, 58(2), 47–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vanblaere, B., & Devos, G. (2016). Relating school leadership to perceived professional learning community characteristics: A multilevel análisis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Williams, L. J., & O’Boyle, E. (2011). The myth of global fit indices and alternatives for assessing latent variable relations. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 350–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, Y., Tim Goddard, J., & Jakubiec, B. A. E. (2018). Social justice leadership in education: A suggested questionnaire. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 3(1), 53–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zúñiga, D., Cerda, G., & Bustos, C. (2024). Explorando dimensiones y prácticas organizacionales de liderazgo para la inclusión: Un estudio cualitativo con académicos y directores de establecimientos educativos de Chile. Perspectiva Educacional. Formación de Profesores, 63(1), 86–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 15 00181 g001
Figure 1. Hierarchical model 3 factor load distribution diagram. Note: Professional Development: D1 LfI; Inclusive Vision: D2 LfI; Supported Teaching–Learning Process: D3 LfI; Creation of Networks: D4 LfI; Participation and Dialog: D5 LfI; and Resource Management: D6 LfI.
Figure 1. Hierarchical model 3 factor load distribution diagram. Note: Professional Development: D1 LfI; Inclusive Vision: D2 LfI; Supported Teaching–Learning Process: D3 LfI; Creation of Networks: D4 LfI; Participation and Dialog: D5 LfI; and Resource Management: D6 LfI.
Education 15 00181 g001
Table 1. Descriptive data of the instrument items.
Table 1. Descriptive data of the instrument items.
ItemsMSDAKItemsMSDAK
Item 15.211.37−0.941.12Item 195.431.15−0.530.40
Item 25.221.41−0.920.87Item 205.351.15−0.570.95
Item 35.021.39−0.740.52Item 215.191.25−0.480.42
Item 45.181.38−0.780.69Item 225.321.22−0.681.07
Item 55.251.28−0.680.55Item 235.281.15−0.601.30
Item 65.071.30−0.500.14Item 245.311.13−0.641.69
Item 75.041.34−0.590.38Item 255.231.16−0.450.73
Item 85.621.23−1.031.75Item 265.491.17−0.751.22
Item 95.501.17−0.731.01Item 275.321.22−0.460.16
Item 105.411.21−0.570.55Item 285.551.16−0.710.70
Item 115.361.19−0.741.37Item 295.401.16−0.581.00
Item 125.211.18−0.360.35Item 305.371.17−0.530.50
Item 135.511.25−0.921.38Item 315.411.27−0.941.40
Item 145.671.15−0.740.67Item 325.291.33−0.800.90
Item 155.031.39−0.790.65Item 335.261.36−0.740.57
Item 165.611.13−0.881.91Item 345.031.44−0.590.24
Item 175.671.14−0.931.94Item 355.441.22−0.831.25
Item 185.501.23−0.891.48Item 365.371.24−0.821.21
Note: M: median; SD: standard deviation; A: asymmetry; and K: kurtosis.
Table 2. Correlations between dimensions of leadership for inclusion and teacher self-efficacy/instructional leadership.
Table 2. Correlations between dimensions of leadership for inclusion and teacher self-efficacy/instructional leadership.
DimensionsAU1AU2AU3LP1LP2LP3
D1: Professional Development0.32 **0.28 **0.28 **0.53 **0.48 **0.61 **
D2: Inclusive Vision0.33 **0.25 **0.26 **0.61 **0.54 **0.59 **
D3: Supported Teaching–Learning Process0.34 **0.26 **0.30 **0.59 **0.50 **0.59 **
D4: Creation of Networks 0.28 **0.20 **0.24 **0.56 **0.54 **0.58 **
D5: Participation and Dialog0.34 **0.27 **0.29 **0.66 **0.61 **0.60 **
D6: Resource Management0.31 **0.23 **0.25 **0.65 **0.55 **0.58 **
Note: AU1: Effectiveness in instructional strategies; AU2: Effectiveness in classroom management; AU3: Effectiveness in student engagement; LP1: Definition of the school mission; LP2: Curriculum management; LP3: Development of a positive learning climate.** Sig. p < 0.001.
Table 3. Descriptive data of the instrument’s dimensions and Alpha and Omega coefficients.
Table 3. Descriptive data of the instrument’s dimensions and Alpha and Omega coefficients.
DimensionsMSDAKαΩ
D1: Professional Development5.141.21−0.620.490.960.96
D2: Inclusive Vision5.471.06−0.520.460.950.95
D3: Supported Teaching–Learning Process5.431.00−0.500.580.910.91
D4: Creation of Networks5.271.05−0.380.540.930.93
D5: Participation and Dialog5.401.04−0.390.030.940.94
D6: Resource Management5.281.17−0.550.460.910.91
Scale Total5.341.00−0.360.030.980.96
Note: M: median; SD: standard deviation; A: asymmetry; K: kurtosis; α: Cronbach’s alpha; and Ω: McDonald’s omega.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zúñiga, D.; Cerda, G.; Bustos Navarrete, C. Leadership for Educational Inclusion: Design and Validation of a Measurement Instrument. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 181. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020181

AMA Style

Zúñiga D, Cerda G, Bustos Navarrete C. Leadership for Educational Inclusion: Design and Validation of a Measurement Instrument. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(2):181. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020181

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zúñiga, Daniela, Gamal Cerda, and Claudio Bustos Navarrete. 2025. "Leadership for Educational Inclusion: Design and Validation of a Measurement Instrument" Education Sciences 15, no. 2: 181. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020181

APA Style

Zúñiga, D., Cerda, G., & Bustos Navarrete, C. (2025). Leadership for Educational Inclusion: Design and Validation of a Measurement Instrument. Education Sciences, 15(2), 181. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020181

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop