Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The theoretical framework is correct, and the structure of the article and coherence of the ideas is correct as well.

The quantitative methodology is generally sound and appropriately implemented.

While the inclusion of qualitative data adds value to the study, the extremely limited sample constrains the interpretative scope of the findings. The authors should explicitly frame the qualitative component as an illustrative or explanatory element designed to complement and contextualize the quantitative results, rather than as a basis for broader generalization. Claims derived from the interview data should be formulated more cautiously, avoiding generalized statements and clearly acknowledging the exploratory nature of the qualitative evidence.

Also, in line 172 it says that four students did the interview, while in line 190 it says that only three did it. How many students did the interview?

As an inclusion criterion, students needed to have completed at least one semester of their education. Can you provide descriptive data of the distribution of the students per year of university? Are there any differences between students from first year and those from last year of university studies?

The discussion is largely descriptive and tends to reiterate the results rather than critically interpreting them. They could develop more on the practical implications of the results, engage more deeply with the notion of inclusion as an additional burden in teachers’ professional narratives; research on ambivalent attitudes toward inclusion, and literature on performative or declarative support for inclusion, where expressed endorsement does not necessarily translate into inclusive beliefs or practices.

The limitations and conclusions are generally well articulated. Nevertheless, the authors could strengthen these sections by placing greater emphasis on structural and systemic implications (beyond individual training deficits) and adopting a more cautious tone when drawing causal inferences from cross-sectional and exploratory data.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has a very good research design and clarity of the research questions. It is accepted for publication, because the conceptual and methdological consistency, the significance of the topic and discusion/conclusions are superior. The paper's contribution is important for Special and Inclusive Education.

The topic is original in the field.  "The aim of the study was to test if social contact, interest, training or personal characteristics influence pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and the social model of disability". Research questions are based on the purpose. Τhe research has value based on what is submitted: "Considering the diverse results and the lack of theoretical  models that explain pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, more empirical research is necessary". The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.  The references are appropriate.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the chance to review this paper. I recommend major revisions. Please see attached comments. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Be sure to edit carefully for grammar throughout, there are a lot of clunky sentences. 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript reports a mixed-methods study of pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education and their endorsement of the social model of disability. Quantitative findings indicate neutral to slightly positive attitudes toward inclusion and partial agreement with a social understanding of disability. Qualitative interview data add contextual nuance, highlighting participants’ concerns about working with pupils with SEN, most often attributed to perceived insufficient preparation in special education and inclusive pedagogy. The topic is relevant to teacher education and inclusion research, and the manuscript’s attempt to link disability conceptualizations with inclusion-related attitudes is of current relevance.

At the same time, the study’s interpretability is constrained by issues of construct definition, operationalization, and inferential ambition relative to measurement quality and sample size. In particular, the use of structural equation modeling appears disproportionate to the fragility of several indicators, the limited depth of some constructs, and the cross-sectional design. While the mixed-methods component is promising, integration between the quantitative and qualitative strands could be strengthened, and the qualitative analytic procedures would benefit from clearer safeguards against interpretive bias.

The manuscript defines attitudes toward inclusive education as a “tendency to respond more or less favorably toward inclusive practices in mainstream classrooms”. This definition is acceptable as a broad starting point, but it remains conceptually narrow. Many attitude frameworks distinguish cognitive beliefs, affective responses, and behavioral intentions or action tendencies. Treating attitudes as a single favorability construct risks conflating components that may have different antecedents and implications; for instance, contact may relate more closely to affective comfort, whereas training may be more predictive of perceived competence and behavioral intention.

Several key predictors (social contact, interest in further training, and practice experience) are operationalized in ways that may reduce interpretability and limit meaningful variance.

The manuscript employs structural equation modeling, which can be appropriate for theory-driven analyses. However, SEM is sensitive to measurement quality, sample size, distributional assumptions, and model complexity. Given the modest sample size and the use of relatively coarse indicators for several constructs, the stability and interpretability of parameter estimates may be limited, and model-based inferences should therefore be presented with greater caution.

Some recommendations extend beyond what the data can directly support, for example, broad claims that restructuring the educational system and current academic standards are key drivers of exclusion. Such statements may be defensible as contextual arguments, but they do not follow directly from the study’s measured variables and research questions.

The manuscript should more explicitly consider social desirability bias, particularly for self-reported inclusion attitudes and expressed interest in further training, as these biases could plausibly contribute to neutral to slightly positive response patterns and attenuate associations among constructs.

Overall, the manuscript addresses an important topic and offers a potentially useful mixed-methods perspective. However, the validity of the inferences is currently limited by narrow construct operationalization, coarse measurement of key predictors, and analytic choices that may overreach the strength of the data.

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf