Promoting Inclusive Education Through School Leadership: The Mediating Role of Principal Self-Efficacy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an importante topic in educational governance, organizational sociology, and inclusive education.  It examines the role of school principals’ self-efficacy in the relationships between leadership styles, school culture, and the implementation of inclusive policies and practices in Greek primary and lower-secondary schools.

The study is based on a substantial sample (N = 452) and validated measurement instruments.  However, the manuscript requires Major Revision, to reinforce its theoretical framework, improve statistical reporting,  and offer a more critical interpretation of the organizational findings.

1. Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Clarity

1.1. Explicit Definition of Core Dimensions in the Introduction

In the introduction (section 1), the authors mention "four dimensions of inclusive policy and practice implementation" but do not identify or explain them. These dimensions should be clearly introduced and defined early in the manuscript to ensure consistency between the theoretical framework and the measurement model.

1.2. Differentiating Transformational and Transactional Leadership

The discussion of leadership styles in Section 2.3 requires greater analytical depth. The authors should clarify the theoretical distinction between transformational and transactional leadership and explain its relevance to the empirical findings. In particular, they should discuss why transactional leadership did not show a significant association with the Normative Expectations dimension of school culture.

1.3. Leadership Efficacy and Structural Context

The manuscript places strong emphasis on principals’ self-efficacy, giving less attention to structural, material, and policy constraints. The authors should more explicitly discuss how institutional pressures (such as performativity, accountability demands, and unequal school resources) shape the way leadership efficacy is translated into practice.

2. Methodological Rigor and Empirical Presentation

2.1. Psychometric Validation

In Section 4.1, the manuscript reports restructuring the Leadership for Inclusion Questionnaire (LEI-Q) from a two to a four-factor model. However, the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) fit indices are only mentioned in a note to Table 2 as being “available upon request.” This is a significant methodological limitation. To support the construct and discriminant validity of the measures, the authors should report the exact global fit indices in the main text or in formal supplementary material.

2.2. Table Layout and Formatting:

Table formatting and visual consistency: All tables should be carefully reformatted to improve their structure and readability. The current column misalignment and truncated values make the statistical results difficult to interpret.

Table 3 (Correlation Matrix): The table is visually misaligned and difficult to read. The authors should present a clean and complete Pearson correlation matrix, with clearly labeled coefficients and exact p-values, to allow proper assessment of bivariate relationships and potential multicollinearity.

Table 4 (Hierarchical Regression): The content is useful, but the current formatting makes interpretation more difficulty. I recommend a clearer hierarchical regression table, with properly labeled columns (predictor, B , SE, 𝛽, p) and R²/ ΔR² reported by step, as well as removal of crossed‑out or overlapping text to improve readability.

2.3. Incomplete Mediation Reporting (PROCESS)

Table 5 reports only indirect effects. The authors should also report the direct and total effects, and clearly identify the mediator and sample size, to provide a more complete mediation analysis.

2.4. Interpretation of Variance Overlap

In Step 3 of the regression, the school culture dimensions are no longer statistical significance. The authors should explain this result more clearly in the discussion, noting that it may reflect overlap in variance among the predictors and possible multicollinearity.

2.5. Methodological Limitations, Causal Mitigation, and Scope

The discussion and conclusion sections should more clearly acknowledge the study’s limitations. As the design is cross-sectional and correlational, the mediation analyses cannot establish temporal order or causality, so causal language should be softened throughout the manuscript (using "associations" or "indirect pathways").  

Given the focus on promoting inclusive education through school leadership, the manuscript places strong emphasis on principals’ agency. It could be further strengthened by more explicitly situating this agency in relation to structural and institutional constraints.

Finally, since this manuscript reports only the quantitative phase of a mixed-methods study, it would be helpful to more clearly define its empirical scope and to briefly acknowledge the limits of survey data in capturing school micropolitics and informal resistance.

Author Response

Comment 1.1 Explicit Definition of Core Dimensions in the Introduction:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. We agree that the four dimensions of inclusive policy and practice implementation should be made explicit earlier in the manuscript. The Introduction has therefore been revised to identify and briefly define the four dimensions examined in the study—Inclusive Leadership and School Culture, School–Community Inclusive Policies, Inclusive Teaching and Assessment Practices, and Student and Family Empowerment—thereby strengthening the alignment between the conceptual framing and the subsequent measurement and analytical model.

 

 

Comment 1.2. Differentiating Transformational and Transactional Leadership:

Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that the theoretical distinction between transformational and transactional leadership is important for interpreting the observed relationships with school culture. Section 2.3 already distinguishes transformational leadership, with its emphasis on shared vision, collective commitment, intellectual stimulation, and individualised support, from transactional leadership, which is primarily concerned with role clarity, monitoring, exchange relationships, and the achievement of predefined objectives. We have now strengthened this discussion by explicitly considering the different capacity of these leadership orientations to influence the normative dimensions of school culture.

Specifically, we clarify that transformational leadership may be more closely associated with processes through which established beliefs and expectations are collectively reconsidered, whereas transactional leadership primarily regulates behaviour within existing organisational arrangements and may therefore be less strongly associated with changes in deeply embedded normative expectations. This distinction is also explicitly connected to the empirical finding in the Discussion, where we interpret the non-significant association between transactional leadership and Normative Expectations in relation to the limited capacity of compliance- and regulation-oriented practices, by themselves, to transform the normative foundations of school culture.

Comment 1.3. Leadership Efficacy and Structural Context

Thank you for this important observation. We agree that principal self-efficacy should not be interpreted independently of the structural and institutional conditions within which leadership is enacted. Although the manuscript already addressed this issue in the theoretical framework and Discussion, we have strengthened this dimension further.

Specifically, Section 2.2 now more explicitly conceptualises leadership self-efficacy as situated agency whose translation into inclusive practice may be enabled or constrained by accountability and performativity pressures, professional discretion, unequal staffing and specialist provision, and the availability of material and organisational resources. We have also strengthened the Discussion to clarify that efficacy beliefs themselves are shaped by institutional conditions and that accountability and performativity pressures may delimit the forms of inclusive action principals perceive as possible or legitimate.

These revisions reinforce an interpretation of self-efficacy as relationally and institutionally situated rather than as an individual attribute capable of overcoming structural barriers independently.

Comment 2.1. Psychometric Validation

Thank you for highlighting the need for greater transparency regarding the psychometric evaluation of the LEI-Q. We agree that the principal CFA fit indices should be available within the present manuscript rather than only being referred to as available upon request.

The psychometric validation of the Greek LEI-Q constituted a substantial independent analysis and has since been published as a dedicated validation study (Tsirantonaki & Vlachou, 2026). To maintain the focus of the present article while ensuring sufficient methodological transparency, we have now reported the exact global fit indices for the revised four-factor model in Section 4.1: χ²(431) = 698.49, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.62, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .05, and SRMR = .06. These indices indicate good model fit.

We have also revised the note to Table 2 to provide an explicit reference to the published validation study, where the complete cross-validation procedure, including EFA and CFA results, factor loadings, explained variance, reliability estimates, and model evaluation, is reported. This approach provides the key psychometric evidence required for interpretation of the present study while avoiding unnecessary duplication of an already published full validation analysis.

Comment 2.2. Table Layout and Formatting

Thank you for this helpful comment. We have carefully revised the presentation and formatting of the statistical tables to improve clarity, consistency, and readability.

Specifically, Table 3 has been replaced with a complete Pearson correlation matrix presenting the bivariate associations among the main variables included in the analyses. This revised presentation provides a clearer overview of the relationships among principal self-efficacy, transformational and transactional leadership, the four dimensions of school culture, and inclusive leadership practices, while also facilitating assessment of the degree of overlap among the predictors. Statistical significance is clearly indicated in the table, with exact p-values reported in the text for findings requiring specific attention, including the non-significant association between transactional leadership and Normative Expectations.

Table 4 has also been fully reformatted to provide a clearer presentation of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Predictors are now organised by analytical step, with unstandardised coefficients (B), standard errors (SE), standardised coefficients (β), and statistical significance clearly reported. R² and ΔR² are also reported for each step, allowing the incremental contribution of successive predictor blocks to be readily evaluated. Formatting inconsistencies and alignment problems in the previous version have been corrected.

Comment 2.3. Incomplete Mediation Reporting (PROCESS)

Thank you for this helpful recommendation. We agree that the mediation analyses should be reported more comprehensively. We have therefore revised Section 4.4 and Table 5 to explicitly identify the sample size (N = 452), the mediator (principals’ self-efficacy), and the structure of the eight separate PROCESS Model 4 analyses. Table 5 has also been expanded to report the direct effects (c′) alongside the bootstrapped indirect effects (ab) and their 95% confidence intervals.

We also revisited the original archived mediation outputs in response to the reviewer’s request for total effects. These records contain the path coefficients, direct effects, and bootstrapped indirect effects used in the original analyses, but do not retain the corresponding total-effect coefficients as separate PROCESS estimates. Rather than reconstructing and presenting these retrospectively as original PROCESS output, we have reported the available effects transparently and expanded the table accordingly.

Comment 2.4. Interpretation of Variance Overlap

Thank you for this observation. We agree that the attenuation of the school culture coefficients in the final regression model required clearer interpretation. We have therefore expanded the Discussion to distinguish between bivariate associations and unique predictive contributions within the multivariable model.

Specifically, we now clarify that the school culture dimensions showed significant bivariate associations with inclusive leadership practices, but did not explain substantial additional unique variance once principal self-efficacy and transformational leadership were entered simultaneously. We interpret this pattern as reflecting shared explanatory variance among conceptually related leadership, efficacy, and organisational constructs rather than an absence of association between school culture and inclusive practice. We have also clarified that the regression diagnostics did not indicate problematic multicollinearity and have therefore avoided attributing the attenuation specifically to multicollinearity.

Comment 2.5a. Cross-sectional design and causal language

Thank you for this important clarification. We agree that the cross-sectional and correlational design does not permit conclusions regarding temporal ordering or causality. The manuscript already acknowledged this limitation in both the Method and Discussion; however, we have further revised the wording in the Results and Conclusion to avoid causal interpretation of the mediation findings.

Specifically, references to self-efficacy as a causal “mechanism” have been softened and are now described as significant indirect associations or indirect pathways. We have also explicitly reiterated that the observed mediation effects are consistent with the proposed theoretical model but do not establish temporal or causal sequencing.

Comment 2.5b. Structural and Institutional Constraints

Thank you for reinforcing this important point. We agree that principals’ agency and self-efficacy need to be interpreted within the structural and institutional conditions in which leadership is enacted. This aspect of the comment has been addressed in conjunction with Comment 1.3.

Specifically, we strengthened the theoretical discussion in Section 2.2 to clarify that the translation of leadership self-efficacy into inclusive action is conditioned by institutional and material circumstances, including accountability and performativity pressures, professional discretion, staffing and specialist provision, and access to material and organisational resources. The Discussion likewise emphasises that self-efficacy is relationally and institutionally situated rather than an individual capacity capable of overcoming structural barriers independently.

We therefore retained the manuscript’s focus on principal self-efficacy while more explicitly situating leadership agency within the organisational and policy conditions that enable or constrain inclusive action.

Comment 2.5c. Empirical Scope and Limits of Survey Data

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The manuscript already identifies the study as the quantitative phase of a broader explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. We have nevertheless strengthened the Limitations section to clarify more explicitly the empirical boundaries of the present analysis.

Specifically, we now acknowledge that self-report survey data are well suited to identifying patterns of association across a substantial sample but cannot fully capture school micropolitics, informal resistance, negotiated relationships, or the context-specific organisational processes through which inclusive policies and practices are enacted and contested. We also clarify that these processes fall within the scope of the qualitative phase of the broader mixed-methods study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a highly compelling and socially valuable educational domain by examining how school leadership styles and organizational culture shape the implementation of inclusive policies and practices, specifically focusing on the mediating role of principal self-efficacy. Assembling a robust quantitative database of 452 public school principals in Greece provides the study with outstanding statistical power and adds a meaningful regional contribution to the literature on educational administration. The theoretical integration of Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory with Full-Range Leadership models and critical school culture paradigms is exceptionally sophisticated. The manuscript is well-written, logically structured, and the discussion section displays a commendable level of academic depth, particularly in its nuanced defense of how transactional coordination provides the structural scaffolding necessary to make progressive, transformational visions actionable in practice.

To further elevate the empirical rigor and overall alignment of this promising study, a few methodological and conceptual areas would benefit from refinement. First, under the ethical statement, it is noted that formal approval from an Institutional Review Board was not sought due to local institutional practices at the time. For high-impact international journals, providing additional clarity on this point is crucial. The authors are encouraged to supplement this section by documenting the specific national regulatory frameworks or institutional guidelines in Greece that officially exempt anonymous, non-sensitive survey research among adult professionals from board-level reviews, thereby ensuring complete compliance with international publishing standards.

Regarding the research design, because the study utilizes a cross-sectional correlational survey where all variables were measured simultaneously, establishing definitive temporal precedence or unidirectional causality is statistically challenging. The manuscript occasionally employs causal or directional verbs, describing self-efficacy as the primary mechanism through which leadership orientations are translated into practice. To align the text precisely with the static nature of the data, the authors should systematically replace active causal phrasing with association-based or predictive terminology. Additionally, the discussion would be enriched by briefly exploring the possibility of reverse-causality, acknowledging that the successful execution of inclusive practices may itself act as a powerful mastery experience that dynamically reinforces a principal's self-efficacy over time .

The empirical model's validity could be further strengthened by addressing the potential influence of Common Method Variance, as all primary variables were collected simultaneously from the school principals. Principals often operate under professional and normative expectations to over-report inclusive implementation and self-efficacy . Running a diagnostic statistical check, such as Harman's Single-Factor Test or a Confirmatory Factor Analysis with a latent common method factor, would provide robust empirical evidence that single-source bias does not confound the explained variance. Acknowledging the nested nature of the data—where principals are clustered within regional districts—as an organizational limitation would also add valuable methodological depth.

In terms of data presentation and analytical reporting, the manuscript would benefit from greater transparency. The footnote in the psychometric section indicates that detailed model fit indices and factor loadings for the adapted Greek versions of the questionnaires are reported elsewhere or available upon request . Incorporating these primary confirmatory factor analysis parameters directly into the main text or as supplementary material is standard quantitative practice and would transparently establish construct validity. Furthermore, the hierarchical regression model in Table 4 currently enters the self-efficacy mediator in the first step. Restructuring the regression to enter demographic covariates and independent leadership predictors first, followed by the mediator in the final step, would better align with standard hierarchical analytical procedures and isolate incremental predictive utility more clearly.

A few minor structural and editorial details should be addressed to ensure the draft is fully polished. The abstract and methodology frame the study as the quantitative phase of a broader explanatory sequential mixed-methods project. Since this specific paper reports exclusively on the quantitative data, removing the mixed-methods label and presenting it as a standalone quantitative study prevents the paper from appearing fragmented, while plans for the qualitative phase can be relegated to the future research section. A thorough proofreading pass is recommended to translate the minor bilingual column headers in Table 3 and Table 5 from Turkish to English and to correct the cross-reference on page 11 that mistakenly refers to "Figure 5" instead of "Figure 3." Addressing these parameters will result in a highly robust, professional, and impactful publication.

To further enrich the manuscript’s theoretical foundation and contextualize the findings within contemporary international literature on inclusive education, the authors are highly encouraged to ground their arguments in key studies exploring the systemic philosophy of inclusion and collaborative school environments. Specifically, the conceptualization of inclusive school culture in Section 2.1 would be significantly strengthened by integrating Sardohan-Yıldırım (2023), who frames inclusive education within the social model of disability and human rights, emphasizing that successful inclusion demands a radical shift in educational philosophy and systemic structures rather than minor administrative adjustments. Furthermore, to bolster the arguments regarding the practical negotiation of school climate, the authors should reference Alharthi and Evans (2017), whose work highlights that fostering a genuinely inclusive school culture is an ongoing, relationally negotiated process that relies heavily on administrative support, structured professional development, and the active facilitation of collaborative teaming among educators to overcome deeply entrenched barriers. Incorporating these recent perspectives will help the authors bridge the theoretical gap between individual principal self-efficacy and the broader cultural transformations necessary for sustainable inclusive practices.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript addresses a highly compelling and socially valuable educational domain by examining how school leadership styles and organizational culture shape the implementation of inclusive policies and practices, specifically focusing on the mediating role of principal self-efficacy. Assembling a robust quantitative database of 452 public school principals in Greece provides the study with outstanding statistical power and adds a meaningful regional contribution to the literature on educational administration. The theoretical integration of Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory with Full-Range Leadership models and critical school culture paradigms is exceptionally sophisticated. The manuscript is well-written, logically structured, and the discussion section displays a commendable level of academic depth, particularly in its nuanced defense of how transactional coordination provides the structural scaffolding necessary to make progressive, transformational visions actionable in practice.

To further elevate the empirical rigor and overall alignment of this promising study, a few methodological and conceptual areas would benefit from refinement. First, under the ethical statement, it is noted that formal approval from an Institutional Review Board was not sought due to local institutional practices at the time. For high-impact international journals, providing additional clarity on this point is crucial. The authors are encouraged to supplement this section by documenting the specific national regulatory frameworks or institutional guidelines in Greece that officially exempt anonymous, non-sensitive survey research among adult professionals from board-level reviews, thereby ensuring complete compliance with international publishing standards.

Regarding the research design, because the study utilizes a cross-sectional correlational survey where all variables were measured simultaneously, establishing definitive temporal precedence or unidirectional causality is statistically challenging. The manuscript occasionally employs causal or directional verbs, describing self-efficacy as the primary mechanism through which leadership orientations are translated into practice. To align the text precisely with the static nature of the data, the authors should systematically replace active causal phrasing with association-based or predictive terminology. Additionally, the discussion would be enriched by briefly exploring the possibility of reverse-causality, acknowledging that the successful execution of inclusive practices may itself act as a powerful mastery experience that dynamically reinforces a principal's self-efficacy over time .

The empirical model's validity could be further strengthened by addressing the potential influence of Common Method Variance, as all primary variables were collected simultaneously from the school principals. Principals often operate under professional and normative expectations to over-report inclusive implementation and self-efficacy . Running a diagnostic statistical check, such as Harman's Single-Factor Test or a Confirmatory Factor Analysis with a latent common method factor, would provide robust empirical evidence that single-source bias does not confound the explained variance. Acknowledging the nested nature of the data—where principals are clustered within regional districts—as an organizational limitation would also add valuable methodological depth.

In terms of data presentation and analytical reporting, the manuscript would benefit from greater transparency. The footnote in the psychometric section indicates that detailed model fit indices and factor loadings for the adapted Greek versions of the questionnaires are reported elsewhere or available upon request . Incorporating these primary confirmatory factor analysis parameters directly into the main text or as supplementary material is standard quantitative practice and would transparently establish construct validity. Furthermore, the hierarchical regression model in Table 4 currently enters the self-efficacy mediator in the first step. Restructuring the regression to enter demographic covariates and independent leadership predictors first, followed by the mediator in the final step, would better align with standard hierarchical analytical procedures and isolate incremental predictive utility more clearly.

A few minor structural and editorial details should be addressed to ensure the draft is fully polished. The abstract and methodology frame the study as the quantitative phase of a broader explanatory sequential mixed-methods project. Since this specific paper reports exclusively on the quantitative data, removing the mixed-methods label and presenting it as a standalone quantitative study prevents the paper from appearing fragmented, while plans for the qualitative phase can be relegated to the future research section. A thorough proofreading pass is recommended to translate the minor bilingual column headers in Table 3 and Table 5 from Turkish to English and to correct the cross-reference on page 11 that mistakenly refers to "Figure 5" instead of "Figure 3." Addressing these parameters will result in a highly robust, professional, and impactful publication.

To further enrich the manuscript’s theoretical foundation and contextualize the findings within contemporary international literature on inclusive education, the authors are highly encouraged to ground their arguments in key studies exploring the systemic philosophy of inclusion and collaborative school environments. Specifically, the conceptualization of inclusive school culture in Section 2.1 would be significantly strengthened by integrating Sardohan-Yıldırım (2023), who frames inclusive education within the social model of disability and human rights, emphasizing that successful inclusion demands a radical shift in educational philosophy and systemic structures rather than minor administrative adjustments. Furthermore, to bolster the arguments regarding the practical negotiation of school climate, the authors should reference Alharthi and Evans (2017), whose work highlights that fostering a genuinely inclusive school culture is an ongoing, relationally negotiated process that relies heavily on administrative support, structured professional development, and the active facilitation of collaborative teaming among educators to overcome deeply entrenched barriers. Incorporating these recent perspectives will help the authors bridge the theoretical gap between individual principal self-efficacy and the broader cultural transformations necessary for sustainable inclusive practices.

 

Author Response

Comment 1. Common Method Variance

Thank you for raising this important methodological consideration. We agree that the simultaneous collection of the primary study variables from a single respondent source creates the possibility of common method variance and socially desirable responding. We have therefore strengthened the Limitations section to make this issue more explicit, including the particular possibility that normative expectations surrounding inclusive education may influence principals’ reports of both their inclusive practices and leadership efficacy.

We considered the suggested post-hoc diagnostic procedures. However, we elected not to use Harman’s single-factor test as evidence for the absence of common method variance, given the recognised limitations of this procedure as a diagnostic test. Similarly, introducing a post-hoc latent common method factor would require an additional measurement model that was not specified as part of the original analytical framework. We therefore chose the more conservative approach of explicitly acknowledging potential common method variance as a limitation rather than interpreting a post-hoc diagnostic as demonstrating its absence. We have also retained our recommendation that future research triangulate principals’ reports with teacher, student, parent, and observational data.

Comment 1b. Potential Clustering Within Regional Contexts

Thank you for this useful observation. We agree that broader geographical and administrative contexts may introduce shared organisational influences that are not captured in an individual-level analysis.

The present dataset was analysed at the principal level and did not include a regional clustering structure specified for multilevel modelling. We have therefore avoided characterising the sample as formally nested within regional districts. However, we have added a limitation acknowledging that potential clustering associated with broader geographical or administrative contexts was not modelled and that unobserved regional or local organisational influences cannot be excluded.

We further note that future studies incorporating explicit regional identifiers and an adequate number of clusters could examine such contextual variation using multilevel analytical approaches.

Comment 2. Psychometric Reporting and Construct Validity

Thank you for this important recommendation. We agree that the principal confirmatory factor analysis parameters should be directly available in the manuscript rather than described as “available upon request.” This issue has been addressed in the revised version.

Specifically, Section 4.1 now reports the exact global fit indices for the revised four-factor LEI-Q model: χ²(431) = 698.49, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.62, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .05, and SRMR = .06. The previous wording indicating that these results were “available upon request” has also been removed.

The complete psychometric validation of the Greek LEI-Q—including the EFA and CFA procedures, item-level factor loadings, explained variance, reliability estimates, and model evaluation—has been published as a dedicated peer-reviewed validation study (Tsirantonaki & Vlachou, 2026). We have therefore retained a concise presentation of the principal CFA parameters in the present manuscript and provided an explicit reference to the published validation study for the complete item-level psychometric results, thereby ensuring transparency while avoiding duplication of an already published validation analysis.

Comment 3. Ordering of Predictors in the Hierarchical Regression

Thank you for this thoughtful suggestion. We carefully considered the proposed restructuring of the hierarchical regression. We have retained the original ordering of predictors because the sequence of entry was theoretically determined and was designed to address the specific analytical purpose of Hypothesis 2 rather than to test a generic covariate-adjusted model.

In the hierarchical regression, principal self-efficacy is treated as a predictor of inclusive leadership practices, alongside leadership styles and school culture. Its role as a mediator is examined separately under Hypothesis 3 using PROCESS Model 4. We therefore do not treat self-efficacy as a mediator within the hierarchical regression itself or assume that its position in the separate mediation model requires it to be entered in the final regression step.

The ordering of the hierarchical model reflects the theoretical framework developed in Section 2.4, which identifies principal self-efficacy as a central explanatory construct and specifically examines the additional variance accounted for by transformational leadership and, subsequently, transactional leadership and school-culture dimensions beyond self-efficacy. The Method section accordingly specifies that predictors were entered in theoretically informed blocks.

We also elected not to introduce demographic covariates post hoc, as these variables were not specified as components of the conceptual model or Hypothesis 2. Adding them at the revision stage would alter the analytical question and the pre-specified theoretical structure of the model rather than simply improve its reporting. We have therefore retained the original hierarchical regression, while ensuring that its theoretical rationale and incremental interpretation are clearly stated in the manuscript.

Comment 4. Mixed-Methods Framing and Scope of the Present Article

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that the present manuscript should read clearly as a self-contained quantitative study and should not give the impression that mixed-methods findings are reported within this article. We have therefore revised the Abstract to describe the study directly as a cross-sectional quantitative investigation involving 452 school principals.

We have retained the brief description of the broader explanatory sequential mixed-methods project in Section 3.1 for methodological transparency. Importantly, this section already states explicitly that “This article reports exclusively the quantitative phase” and identifies the design employed in the present study as cross-sectional and correlational. We therefore consider that the current wording clearly distinguishes the design and empirical scope of this article from that of the broader research project.

In addition, the Limitations and Future Research section now explicitly acknowledges the boundaries of the quantitative survey data and identifies the qualitative phase as the component intended to examine micropolitical processes, informal resistance, negotiated relationships, and context-specific organisational dynamics in greater depth.

Comment 5. Editorial Details and Cross-References

Thank you for drawing our attention to these editorial points. We carefully re-checked both the original submitted manuscript and the revised version in response to this comment. However, we were unable to identify the issues described. Tables 3 and 5 are presented entirely in English, and we could not locate any Turkish-language column headings in either the original submission or the revised manuscript. Similarly, we were unable to locate the cited cross-reference to “Figure 5” or “Figure 3”; the manuscript contains neither of these figure references. It only contains one figure, Figure 1.

We therefore did not make specific changes in response to these two points, as we did not want to introduce revisions for issues that we could not identify in the submitted manuscript. We nevertheless conducted an additional proofreading and consistency check and corrected minor typographical and formatting issues where identified. If these comments refer to a specific element that is not visible in our manuscript file, we would be grateful for further clarification.

Comment 6. Suggested References and Theoretical Contextualisation

Thank you for suggesting these additional references. In accordance with the journal’s guidance regarding reviewer-recommended citations, we carefully examined both studies and considered their relevance to the theoretical framework of the present manuscript.

We elected not to incorporate these references because the specific theoretical points for which they were suggested are already supported by literature more directly aligned with the constructs and educational level examined in the present study. The systemic and rights-based conceptualisation of inclusive education in Section 2.1 is grounded in established scholarship addressing inclusive education as a transformation of educational cultures, structures, and practices rather than as an individual-level or administrative adjustment. Similarly, the manuscript’s discussion of collaborative school cultures, professional learning, organisational support, and relational processes is already supported by research directly concerned with inclusive school leadership and school-level organisational change.

Sardohan-Yıldırım (2023) primarily reports the psychometric adaptation of an attitudes-to-disability questionnaire in a higher-education context, while Alharthi and Evans (2017) examines special education teachers’ attitudes towards teaching students with learning disabilities and collaborative practices in Saudi middle schools. Although both studies contribute to the broader inclusive-education literature, their empirical focus is less directly aligned with the present study’s emphasis on school leadership, principal self-efficacy, organisational culture, and inclusive policy and practice implementation. We therefore retained the existing, more directly relevant theoretical sources rather than adding citations that would not substantively extend the argument.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is theoretically grounded, well-structured, and methodologically robust. The authors effectively addressed previous feedback and avoided causal claims for cross-sectional data.

The manuscript is ready for publication after two minor checks:

• Remove the duplicate reference to Maurice, Buhere, & Aloka (2024) on page 26.
• Double-check the values reported in Table 5 for the indirect effect of Transactional Leadership on Student and Family Empowerment (Effect = .277, 95% CI [.171, .292]) against the original PROCESS output, simply to confirm that the point estimate and upper bound were transcribed correctly.

Author Response

Thank you for drawing our attention to this. We carefully re-checked the values against the original PROCESS output and confirmed that the point estimate for the indirect effect (.277) was correctly reported, while the upper bound of the 95% bootstrap confidence interval contained a transcription error. The correct confidence interval is [.171, .392], rather than [.171, .292]. This has now been corrected in Table 5 and in the corresponding Results text. The corrected result is therefore: indirect effect = .277, 95% CI [.171, .392].

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and for identifying these final points. Both issues have now been corrected in the revised manuscript.