Next Article in Journal
Wheelchair Provision for Children with Disabilities in Rural Thailand: The Roles of Family Support and Environmental Barriers in Daily Participation
Previous Article in Journal
Accessibility of Heritage Sites for Persons with Disabilities: Unlocking the Potential of the European Heritage Label
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Disabilities
Volume 6
Issue 2
10.3390/disabilities6020025
disabilities-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

Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Disability in Spain and Ecuador: A Comparative Analysis of Attitudinal Dimensions and Associated Factors

by
Patricia Solís García
1,
Alejandra Barreiro-Collazo
1,*,
Irlanda Armijos
2 and
Sara Real Castelao
3
1
Faculty of Educational Sciences and Humanities Education, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja, 26006 Logroño, Spain
2
Faculty of Education Sciences at PUCESE, Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador, Esmeraldas 08010065, Ecuador
3
Faculty of Education, Universidad de León, 24071 León, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Disabilities 2026, 6(2), 25; https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities6020025
Submission received: 10 January 2026 / Revised: 13 February 2026 / Accepted: 28 February 2026 / Published: 3 March 2026
Versions Notes

Abstract

Educational inclusion remains a global challenge, with teachers’ attitudes toward disability being crucial for the implementation of inclusive classroom practices. This study compares the attitudes toward disability of 252 teachers from Spain and Ecuador, two countries whose educational systems promote inclusion but differ in the maturity of their legislative and institutional frameworks. The aim was to examine cross-national differences in attitudes and analyze how personal and professional variables relate to these attitudes. A descriptive, observational, cross-sectional design was used. Data were collected through an online administration of the Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities Scale, Form G via non-probabilistic. The instrument assesses five attitudinal dimensions: capacity assessment, rights recognition, personal involvement, generic rating, and role assumption. Results showed that Spanish teachers reported significantly more positive attitudes than Ecuadorian teachers in all dimensions except role assumption. Among sociodemographic and professional variables, only Early Childhood Education training and prior experience working with individuals with disabilities consistently correlated with more favorable attitudes, while age and teaching experience demonstrated weak and inconsistent associations across countries. These findings underscore the influence of cultural, educational, and institutional contexts on teachers’ attitudes toward disability and highlight the need to reinforce both initial and ongoing preparation in inclusive education. Strengthening structured practicum experiences, socio-emotional competencies, and inclusion-focused coursework may contribute to more positive attitudes, while adapting training policies and inclusive practices to each country’s cultural characteristics is essential for effective and sustainable implementation.

1. Introduction

Educational inclusion has been recognized as a fundamental principle for ensuring equity and social justice within education systems. Supported by international frameworks such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [1] and the Sustainable Development Goals [2], inclusion aims to guarantee that all students—regardless of their abilities, skills, or personal circumstances—have access to quality education in inclusive environments. Although inclusive education encompasses multiple dimensions of diversity (e.g., cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic, and gender-related), this study focuses specifically on teachers’ attitudes toward disability as one key component of inclusive educational practice. However, despite regulatory advances, structural, cultural, and attitudinal barriers continue to hinder the effective implementation of inclusion in classrooms [3]. Inclusive education, understood as full inclusion, puts pressure on schools and teachers to transform traditional practices [4]. At the global level, international frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals highlight the central role of inclusive and equitable education in promoting long-term social sustainability. Research across diverse regions—including Asia, Latin America, Africa, and Oceania—emphasizes that teachers’ attitudes toward disability are critical for ensuring access, participation, and learning opportunities for all students. Studies grounded in sustainability perspectives show that inclusive teacher education, institutional support, and culturally responsive practices contribute to the development of educational systems that are socially just, resilient, and equitable. In this sense, teachers’ attitudes toward disability should be understood not merely as individual dispositions, but as a key mechanism for the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of inclusive education [5].
In Spain, inclusive education legislation began with Royal Decree 334/1985 [6], which initiated the integration of students with disabilities into ordinary schools. It was consolidated through the Organic Law on the Right to Education [7], which established foundational principles and mechanisms for enrolling students with disabilities in mainstream institutions while recognizing education as a universal right. These steps paved the way for a more comprehensive inclusive approach with the Organic Law on the General Organization of the Educational System [8], which deepened the framework by introducing specific support mechanisms such as adapted curricula, specialized teaching staff, and individualized education plans. These principles were reinforced by the Organic Law on Education [9] and its subsequent amendment [10], laying the foundation for an inclusive system that promotes equity and diversity in classrooms. However, despite this sustained legislative trajectory, significant challenges related to the effective implementation of inclusive policies remain, including persistent structural constraints within schools, limitations in initial and ongoing teacher training, and attitudinal barriers that continue to shape teachers’ responses to diversity [11]. In Ecuador, the rights recognized in the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador [12] regarding access to inclusive education for people with disabilities (art. 47) were formalized through the Organic Law of Intercultural Education [13] and Ministerial Agreement No. 295-13 [14], which outlines the regulations and mechanisms for including these students in mainstream schools, along with care in specialized institutions. However, implementation faces challenges such as regulatory unawareness and insufficient pedagogical resources [15]. Furthermore, it has been emphasized [16] that one of the main barriers in Ecuador’s educational system is attitudinal—often linked to negative practices among teaching staff. Legislatively, Spain and Ecuador show a trajectory of inclusion measures initiated 28 years apart (1985–2013), a temporal gap that has implications for the availability of structural supports, the depth and consistency of teacher training, the development of reasonable accommodations, and the consolidation of inclusive practices, as well as for the persistence of attitudinal barriers in everyday educational contexts [17,18].
Spain and Ecuador constitute distinct yet comparable educational contexts in terms of the regulatory, institutional, and training-related development of inclusive education. Despite these differences, teachers’ attitudes toward disability play a transversal and decisive role in the effective implementation of inclusive education in both systems [19,20,21,22]. These attitudes, encompassing affective, cognitive, and behavioral components, directly influence teachers’ willingness to adapt their pedagogical practices and to respond to the diverse needs of students [3,23]. Overall, the literature indicates that specific training and prior experience with disability are consistently associated with more favorable attitudes toward inclusion, although the strength and expression of these attitudes may vary depending on the type of disability and the characteristics of each educational system [18,23,24].
However, context-specific limitations shape how these attitudes are expressed and translated into practice. In Ecuador, although teachers generally acknowledge the importance of inclusion, persistent attitudinal barriers continue to hinder its effective implementation in everyday classroom practices [17]. In Spain, by contrast, despite a more developed regulatory framework promoting equity and diversity, teachers’ attitudes may still be constrained by enduring structural and regulatory barriers within educational institutions, such as insufficient specialized support staff, high student-teacher ratios limiting individualized adaptations, inadequate physical accessibility in school buildings, and administrative procedures hindering flexible curricular modifications [11].
Several factors associated with teachers’ attitudes toward disability have been examined in the literature. Among these, demographic variables, such as age and years of teaching experience, have shown mixed and context-dependent associations with attitudes toward inclusion. In some settings, including Spain, younger teachers tend to report more positive attitudes than their older counterparts, a pattern often attributed to more recent initial training aligned with inclusive principles [23,25]. However, in other contexts, such as Ecuador, the influence of age and teaching experience appears to be more limited or inconsistent [17].
Beyond demographic factors, formative and experiential variables have emerged as particularly relevant. Teachers with specific training in inclusive education and those with prior contact or direct experience working with students with disabilities tend to exhibit more favorable attitudes toward inclusion [3,26]. Both theoretical knowledge and practical experience play a significant role in shaping attitudes, as direct contact has been shown to reduce prejudice and increase openness toward inclusive practices [23]. Consistently, in both Spain and Ecuador, teachers who have worked in inclusive settings demonstrate more positive attitudes toward disability than those without such experience [11,17].
Despite the growing body of international research on teachers’ attitudes toward disability, important empirical, conceptual, and methodological gaps remain. From an empirical perspective, few studies have conducted direct cross-national comparisons, limiting the understanding of how cultural, institutional, and policy-related factors shape teachers’ attitudes in different educational systems [3]. Moreover, much of the existing literature relies on single-country samples and focuses on general attitudinal measures, offering limited insight into how specific dimensions—such as assessment of abilities, personal involvement, or role assumption—may vary across contexts [18].
From a conceptual and methodological standpoint, international research increasingly emphasizes the need to situate teachers’ attitudes within broader sociocultural and institutional frameworks, including school culture, inclusion policies, and sustainability-oriented educational reforms. However, empirical studies rarely integrate these systemic perspectives into their analytical models [6,23,27]. In addition, although attitudes are widely recognized as multidimensional—encompassing affective, cognitive, and behavioral components—most studies continue to privilege global scores over dimension-specific analyses [28]. Finally, while teacher training is consistently identified as a key determinant of attitudes toward disability, relatively few studies have examined how different types and stages of preparation (e.g., initial versus in-service training, general versus specialized coursework, or the quality and intensity of practicum experiences) relate to specific attitudinal dimensions, particularly in comparative contexts [3,18,23,26,29].
Taken together, these gaps underscore the need for cross-national research that integrates empirical comparison with a multidimensional and context-sensitive approach, allowing for a more precise examination of how personal variables and educational contexts jointly shape teachers’ attitudes toward disability. This study is informed by a multidimensional and contextual understanding of attitudes, integrating individual, institutional, and sustainability-oriented perspectives.
Despite these contributions, important research gaps remain. International studies have examined teachers’ attitudes toward disability, yet few have compared countries with different levels of development in inclusive education policies, teacher preparation systems, and institutional support. Moreover, most existing research focuses on single-country samples and does not analyse how contextual, sociocultural, and systemic factors shape attitudinal differences. These gaps highlight the need for cross-national studies that explore how personal variables and educational contexts jointly influence teachers’ attitudes toward disability. Addressing these issues is essential for advancing a more comprehensive and globally relevant understanding of inclusion.
Based on the general aim of comparing teachers’ attitudes toward disability in Ecuador and Spain, the following specific objectives were established: To compare teachers’ attitudes toward disability in Spain and Ecuador by analyzing differences in overall attitude scores and in specific attitudinal dimensions, including assessment of abilities and limitations, recognition or denial of rights, personal involvement, generic rating, and role assumption.
To examine cross-national differences in teachers’ disability-related knowledge and prior experience working with individuals with disabilities in Spain and Ecuador, using descriptive and comparative analyses to identify potential similarities or differences between both contexts.
To analyze the relationship between selected personal and professional variables and teachers’ attitudes toward disability by examining associations with age, years of teaching experience, and level of initial teacher training, and by comparing the observed patterns across Spain and Ecuador.
To provide greater conceptual clarity and to align the study objectives with the analytical framework, the specific research questions guiding this investigation are presented below. These questions operationalize the general aim of comparing teachers’ attitudes toward disability in Spain and Ecuador by explicitly specifying the attitudinal dimensions examined, the role of prior knowledge and experience, and the potential influence of selected personal and professional variables across both educational contexts.
RQ1. 
Are there statistically significant differences between teachers in Spain and Ecuador in overall attitudes toward disability and in the five attitudinal dimensions (assessment of abilities and limitations, recognition/denial of rights, personal involvement, generic rating, and role assumption)?
RQ2. 
Do teachers in Spain and Ecuador differ in self-reported disability-related knowledge and prior experience working with individuals with disabilities?
RQ3. 
How are age, years of teaching experience, and level of initial teacher training associated with teachers’ attitudes toward disability, and do these associations differ between Spain and Ecuador?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This study employed an ex post facto design based on the observation and analysis of variables without manipulating them. It was a descriptive, observational, and cross-sectional study conducted using an online questionnaire disseminated via email to collect the necessary data on teachers’ attitudes toward disability using the Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities Scale, Form G [30] for this purpose.
Statistical analysis of the data was carried out using SPSS software, version 25 for Windows. Descriptive analyses were used to compute frequencies, response percentages, and means of the items and sociodemographic variables assessed. Furthermore, the scale responses were coded both directly and inversely, as some statements were negatively worded (items: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, and 37). After recoding, a score close to six (the maximum) on any item reflects a positive attitude toward individuals with disabilities. In addition to statistical significance testing, effect sizes were calculated and reported to assess the magnitude and practical relevance of the observed differences. Cohen’s d was used for mean comparisons, chi-square effect size indicators were considered for categorical analyses, and correlation coefficients were interpreted as measures of effect size following conventional benchmarks.

2.2. Participants

The sample was selected through non-probabilistic convenience sampling, with participants chosen based on availability. Participation was voluntary, allowing individuals to freely decide to take part in the study, which encouraged willingness and collaboration. Before answering the questionnaire, participants were informed about the study’s purpose and assured of anonymity and confidentiality. This approach ensured ethical standards and transparency. This study was approved by the University’s Ethics Committee (PI:041/2024, 18 March 2024).
The sample consisted of 252 teachers, evenly divided between Spain (n = 126) and Ecuador (n = 126), ensuring geographic representation. Women represented 93.2% of the sample, reflecting the strong feminization of the teaching workforce in Early Childhood and Primary Education. Regarding educational level, 63.5% of participants held degrees in Primary/Baseline Education and 36.5% in Early Childhood/Initial Education. All participating teachers worked in Early Childhood or Primary Education, teaching areas such as literacy, mathematics, science, social studies, arts, and general classroom instruction. The students they served ranged from approximately 3 to 12 years old, corresponding to the typical age span of these educational stages. This distribution provided a sample with diverse instructional roles and direct experience in inclusive classrooms. Participants were recruited from different provinces in both countries and showed variation in age, teaching experience, and training pathways, providing heterogeneity within the sample.
Participants ranged in age from 20 to 87 years, with an average age of 36.49 years (SD = 11.95), representing a predominantly young adult population, though with age diversity. The lower age range corresponds to the specific case of “bachiller docente” (high school graduate teacher) in Ecuador, where individuals with only a high school diploma can begin teaching while simultaneously pursuing university studies. Teaching experience ranged from 0.5 to 38 years, with an average of 7.75 years (SD = 9.86), covering both experienced professionals and newcomers to the teaching profession, thereby offering a broad spectrum of professional experience.
Overall, 76.6% of participants reported knowing disability, while 23.4% stated they lacked training on the topic. Additionally, 51.6% reported having prior experience working with individuals with disabilities, versus 48.4% without such experience, indicating a fairly balanced distribution with a slight majority of experienced teachers.
Participants were recruited through a convenience sampling strategy, which facilitated access to teachers in both national contexts but may have introduced self-selection bias. Teachers with greater interest or prior engagement in inclusive education may have been more likely to participate. Consequently, the sample cannot be considered representative of national teacher populations in Spain or Ecuador, and the findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than generalizable. Future studies using probabilistic sampling procedures would strengthen the external validity of cross-national comparisons.

2.3. Instruments

The Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities Scale, Form G [30] was used. This scale assesses attitudes toward disability through 37 six-point Likert items, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” providing detailed information about attitudinal dimensions. The items are divided into five subscales:
Assessment of Abilities and Limitations: evaluates perceptions of the functional and cognitive capacities and limitations of individuals with disabilities.
—Recognition/Denial of Rights: assesses the respect for or limitation of the fundamental rights of this group.
—Personal Involvement: measures willingness to interact with, assist, and support people with disabilities.
—Generic Rating: provides an overall view of the attitude toward individuals with disabilities.
—Role Assumption: examines the readiness to take on roles such as caregiver, friend, or coworker interacting with people with disabilities.
Originally developed in the Spanish context, this scale has been widely used in other settings and with different age cohorts. Regarding its psychometric quality, the original version [30] presents adequate reliability indicators (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92) and validity for evaluating attitudes toward disability in general and toward physical, sensory, and intellectual disabilities [31].
Finally, sociodemographic questions (location, age, and gender) were included, along with others on education and experience with disability—factors identified as relevant in previous studies on educational professionals’ attitudes [26,29].
Although the Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities Scale, Form G [30] has been widely used in international research, its application in cross-national comparative studies requires consideration of cultural and contextual differences. In the present study, the instrument was administered in linguistically appropriate versions for each country, and internal consistency indices were examined separately for Spain and Ecuador. While reliability levels were acceptable, full measurement invariance across contexts was not formally tested. Therefore, results should be interpreted cautiously, acknowledging that sociocultural differences in disability conceptualization and educational policy contexts may influence item interpretation.

3. Results

Before analyzing the results of the scale, it was confirmed that the reliability of the designed instrument was maintained in the study sample, reaching a high level of internal consistency (α = 0.89). The reliability coefficients calculated by excluding different items did not show sufficient variation to justify the removal of any item, indicating that all items contribute significantly to the construct being measured. Likewise, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to assess the internal consistency of the scale among teachers from Spain (α = 0.80) and Ecuador (α = 0.87). The values obtained reflect high internal consistency in both groups, suggesting that the scale reliably measures the same construct in both cultural contexts. This result supports the stability and internal coherence of the applied instrument.
Subsequently, the remaining statistical analyses were conducted to address the study objectives.
First, Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of attitudes toward disability among teachers from Ecuador and Spain across the various dimensions evaluated. The results reveal notable differences between the two countries in almost all variables analyzed.
Although these differences were statistically significant in most dimensions, effect sizes indicated small to moderate magnitudes, suggesting that practical differences between contexts should be interpreted cautiously.
Regarding the “Assessment of Abilities and Limitations” dimension, Spanish teachers obtained a higher mean score (M = 4.97, SD = 0.57) compared to their Ecuadorian counterparts (M = 4.21, SD = 0.68), indicating a more positive evaluation of the abilities of individuals with disabilities. For the “Recognition/Denial of Rights” dimension, Spanish teachers also showed a higher mean (M = 5.07, SD = 0.36) compared to Ecuador (M = 4.10, SD = 0.69), suggesting a greater acceptance and recognition of the rights of individuals with disabilities among Spanish teachers. In the “Personal Involvement” dimension, teachers in Spain reached a mean of 5.80 (SD = 0.34). In contrast, those in Ecuador scored 5.12 (SD = 0.99), reflecting a higher level of personal commitment toward individuals with disabilities in the Spanish group. As for the “Generic Rating” dimension, Spain again presented a higher mean (M = 4.90, SD = 0.64) compared to Ecuador (M = 4.27, SD = 0.92). In the “Role Assumption” dimension, the mean scores between the two countries were more similar, with Ecuador scoring M = 4.40 (SD = 1.09) and Spain M = 4.50 (SD = 0.97), suggesting a comparable perception regarding the roles of individuals with disabilities. Finally, the overall score reflects a generally more favorable trend in Spain (M = 5.05, SD = 0.39) compared to Ecuador (M = 4.42, SD = 0.64), indicating more positive attitudes toward disability among Spanish teachers.
Secondly, scores in the specific dimensions of the scale were compared (Table 2). The results indicated that, for all variables except the “Role Assumption” dimension, p-values were below 0.05, demonstrating statistically significant differences between the mean scores of participants from Ecuador and Spain. In contrast, the “Role Assumption” dimension showed a p-value greater than 0.05, indicating that no significant differences were found in this variable.
To fulfill the second objective and compare the level of knowledge on topics related to individuals with disabilities, as well as experience or work in supporting them among teachers from Spain and Ecuador, a Chi-square test was conducted, given that the variables were categorical (Table 3). Regarding knowledge of disability-related topics, no statistically significant differences were found between teachers from both countries (χ2 = 1.084, p = 0.298). In total, 193 teachers reported knowing, while 59 did not, showing similar response patterns between Spain and Ecuador. Likewise, concerning experience or work with individuals with disabilities, no significant differences were observed between the two groups (χ2 = 0.778, p = 0.378).
A total of 129 teachers reported having experience, while 123 indicated they did not, with homogeneous distributions in both countries (Table 4).
The comparison between Spain and Ecuador shows that age has a weak or non-significant relationship with the attitudinal dimensions toward disability in both countries. However, in Spain, age exhibits negative and significant correlations with “Role Assumption” (r = −0.251, p < 0.01) and the total score (r = −0.210, p < 0.05), suggesting that as age increases, scores in these dimensions tend to decrease. In contrast, in Ecuador, age has a slight influence only on the “Assessment of Abilities and Limitations” dimension (r = −0.197, p < 0.05).
Regarding the relationship between attitudes and years of teaching experience (Table 5), in Spain, experience shows a weak but significant negative influence on “Role Assumption” (r = −0.220, p < 0.05) and the total score (r = −0.187, p < 0.05). However, in Ecuador, years of experience do not have a significant impact on any of the dimensions.
In the analysis of non-parametric correlations between teacher training (Early Childhood vs. Primary Education teachers) and the attitudinal dimensions toward disability (Table 6), significant differences were observed between Spain and Ecuador. In the case of Spain, a negative and significant correlation was found between training and the “Assessment of Abilities and Limitations” dimension (rs = −0.20, p < 0.001), indicating that Primary Education teachers tend to score lower in this dimension compared to Early Childhood teachers, reflecting less favorable attitudes. However, the correlations with other dimensions—such as “Recognition and Denial of Rights” (rs = 0.81, p < 0.001), “Personal Involvement” (rs = 0.74, p < 0.001), “Generic Rating” (rs = 0.77), and “Role Assumption” (rs = 0.60)—were positive and significant, suggesting that in these areas, Primary Education teachers show more favorable attitudes toward disability. At the general level, training showed a negative correlation with the total score of the scale (rs = −0.21), indicating that Primary Education teachers, on average, hold less positive attitudes compared to Early Childhood Education teachers.
In contrast, in Ecuador, the correlations were consistently positive across all dimensions evaluated. The most notable associations include “Recognition and Denial of Rights” (rs = 0.78, p < 0.001), “Personal Involvement” (rs = 0.74, p < 0.001), “Generic Rating” (rs = 0.71, p < 0.001), and “Role Assumption” (rs = 0.64, p < 0.001).
Similarly, a positive and significant correlation was observed with “Assessment of Abilities and Limitations” (rs = 0.52, p < 0.001) and with the total score of the scale (rs = 0.72, p < 0.001). These findings indicate that, in Ecuador, Primary Education teachers tend to hold more favorable attitudes toward disability across all dimensions of the scale.
Taken together, these findings address the study’s objectives by showing that (1) teachers in Spain consistently report more positive attitudes than those in Ecuador across almost all dimensions, (2) personal variables such as age, teaching experience, and training show different patterns of association in each country, and (3) initial training in Early Childhood Education and prior experience with disability emerge as the strongest positive correlates of attitudes. These patterns reflect both individual and contextual influences on attitudes. The differences observed align with structural and policy differences between countries, providing contextual support for cross-national comparisons.

4. Discussion

The results obtained in this study allow for the identification of significant differences in attitudes toward disability among teachers in Ecuador and Spain and for interpreting how these patterns relate to key personal and contextual variables.
In line with the first objective, Spanish teachers showed significantly more positive attitudes than Ecuadorian teachers across all dimensions except “Role Assumption.” These differences are consistent with disparities reported in the previous literature, particularly regarding the consolidation of inclusion policies, institutional support for inclusive education, and teacher preparation systems in each country. The lack of cross-national differences in ‘Role Assumption’ may reflect shared professional norms regarding teachers’ perceived responsibilities toward students with disabilities, which tend to remain relatively stable across educational systems.
Previous studies in Spain have shown that pre-service teachers across different educational stages generally exhibit positive attitudes toward people with disabilities [11,32,33]. These attitudes included dimensions such as “Assessment of Abilities and Limitations,” “Recognition/Denial,” and “Personal Involvement” [34]. In contrast, in the Ecuadorian context, previous research has found that the prevailing attitude toward inclusion among teachers tends to be indifferent, with a slight positive bias [21]. This finding was also reported in a study involving 650 teachers [35], where a neutral but slightly favorable attitude was observed. Similarly, other studies [36] found moderately favorable attitudes toward more inclusive approaches in a sample of 66 teachers. Conversely, neutral attitudes were also documented [37] in a group of 49 teachers in a study conducted in the city of Cuenca, Ecuador. In stark contrast, other study [38] reported a predominantly negative attitude toward inclusion in a sample of 15 teachers from the province of Esmeraldas, Ecuador, attributing this result mainly to a lack of knowledge about effective inclusive practices. This heterogeneity aligns with the more recent development of inclusive education policies in Ecuador and differences in teacher preparation.
Regarding the second objective, the results indicated that there are no significant differences between teachers from both countries in terms of knowledge about disability or their experience or work supporting individuals with disabilities. This pattern suggests comparable levels of self-reported exposure to disability-related issues in both contexts, although these indicators do not capture the quality or depth of training received [39,40]. It is worth noting that, given that inclusive education legislation in Ecuador has only been in place for approximately ten years, most of the training received by teachers in this context refers to professional development programs conducted after their university education.
Regarding the correlations between age and attitudes toward disability, it was found that age has a limited and variable impact across the two countries. In Spain, age was negatively correlated with “Role Assumption” and the total score, indicating that older teachers tend to exhibit slightly less favorable attitudes in these dimensions—a finding consistent with previous studies [25,26,36,41]. In Ecuador, age showed a significant negative correlation only with the “Assessment of Abilities and Limitations” dimension, suggesting a less pronounced effect compared to Spain. Regarding years of teaching experience, the results show that in Spain, this variable showed a slight negative association with “Role Assumption” and the total score. However, in Ecuador, experience did not show any significant associations with any of the dimensions, reflecting different patterns across the two contexts.
It is important to note that age and years of teaching experience are likely to be statistically related in teacher samples. In this study, both variables were analyzed separately to maintain comparability with previous research. However, because their effects cannot be fully disentangled in a cross-sectional design, the observed associations should be interpreted with caution and understood as patterns of association rather than indicators of causal influence, as age-related patterns may partially reflect differences in professional experience and vice versa.
Finally, the results revealed significant differences between the two countries, indicating that the level of training (Early Childhood vs. Primary Education) is associated with differences in attitudes toward disability. In Spain, the relationship between teacher training and attitudes toward disability is mixed, with negative associations in some dimensions and positive ones in others. Teachers trained in early childhood education displayed more favorable attitudes than those trained in primary education. This fact may be related to the more inclusive and developmentally oriented pedagogical approach of Early Childhood Education. In contrast, in Ecuador, the relationship is consistently positive; Primary Education teachers tend to have more favorable attitudes toward disability across all dimensions of the scale. These discrepancies could be attributed to the different university training programs in each country as well as to cultural, educational, or contextual factors that influence teachers’ attitudes toward disability—highlighting an important area for future research.
The findings of this study have important practical and theoretical implications. On the one hand, this research provides key information to strengthen teacher training by identifying specific areas for improvement in inclusion-related education—particularly in relation to the assessment of abilities, personal involvement, and role assumption in inclusive educational contexts. Similarly, the lack of correlation between self-reported knowledge and attitudes found in this study—in contrast to other studies where training is significantly associated with attitudes toward disability [42,43,44,45]—may be related to the generic or predominantly theoretical nature of some training initiatives, which may not adequately address classroom-level challenges such as limited resources or lack of support. This issue is particularly relevant in the Ecuadorian context and has already been reported in previous studies [17,46], On the other hand, this study broadens the understanding of attitudes toward disability in diverse cultural settings, addressing specific dimensions that have been previously underexplored. Finally, the differences identified between levels of training and countries underscore the importance of considering cultural and educational contexts when designing intervention programs aimed at promoting positive attitudes toward disability. Additionally, the fact that age and teaching experience showed limited and differing impacts across the two countries suggests that attitudes toward disability may be more strongly influenced by contextual and pedagogical factors than by demographic variables.
In addition to the personal variables examined in this study, other factors may also influence teachers’ attitudes toward disability. Previous research has highlighted the potential role of gender, personality traits (e.g., openness, empathy), self-efficacy for inclusive practices, the quality of prior contact with individuals with disabilities, and school-level variables such as institutional climate or the availability of specialized support. These variables were not included in the present analysis because the study focused on the most widely examined predictors in previous cross-national research—namely age, teaching experience, and initial training—allowing for greater comparability with the existing literature. Nevertheless, future studies should incorporate these additional personal and contextual factors to develop a more comprehensive explanatory model of teachers’ attitudes toward disability.
Building on these findings, several practical actions can be proposed to strengthen teachers’ attitudes toward disability. The results of this study showed that teachers with specific training in inclusive education, as well as those with prior experience working with individuals with disabilities, reported more positive attitudes. These patterns underscore the importance of incorporating structured and supervised practical experiences into initial teacher education, together with opportunities for meaningful, direct contact with students with disabilities in authentic school contexts. Moreover, the more favorable attitudes observed among Early Childhood Education teachers suggest the need to reinforce developmental perspectives, early intervention principles, and inclusive pedagogical strategies across all educational levels. Training programs should also systematically integrate modules aimed at developing socio-emotional competencies—such as empathy, positive expectations of student abilities, and constructive interpersonal engagement—which are essential for shaping the affective, cognitive, and behavioral components of attitudes. Finally, continuous professional development should be aligned with whole-school inclusion policies and supported by adequate institutional resources to enable teachers to apply inclusive practices consistently. These measures, rooted in the empirical evidence obtained in this study, may contribute to strengthening teachers’ attitudes toward disability and enhancing the quality and long-term sustainability of inclusive educational environments in both countries.
Beyond the specific findings of this study, these results point to a common international agenda: enhancing preparation in inclusive education across both initial and ongoing teacher education and ensuring that this preparation is supported by coherent school-level policies and adequate resources.
At the same time, country-specific recommendations can be derived from the present findings. In Spain, efforts should focus on reducing inconsistencies across degree programs and ensuring that inclusive education content is not distributed unevenly among Early Childhood and Primary Education degrees. Schools would also benefit from reinforcing structural supports, such as increased availability of specialist staff and smaller student–teacher ratios, to further strengthen teachers’ personal involvement and role assumption. In Ecuador, the priority lies in strengthening the inclusion and depth of disability-related content in university programs, expanding access to practical placements in inclusive environments, and ensuring that professional development initiatives go beyond theoretical training and offer concrete strategies adapted to resource-limited contexts. These country-specific recommendations, together with the universal measures identified above, may contribute to enhancing the quality and sustainability of inclusive education in diverse educational systems.
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, the use of non-probabilistic convenience sampling may have introduced selection bias, as participation depended on teachers’ voluntary involvement. Consequently, the results cannot be generalized to the broader population of teachers in Spain or Ecuador. Second, because all data were obtained through self-report measures, responses may be influenced by social desirability or subjective perception rather than actual classroom practices. Third, the cross-sectional ex post facto design does not allow causal inferences about the relationship between personal variables and attitudes toward disability; longitudinal or experimental approaches would be required to establish directionality. Fourth, no multivariate predictive models were conducted, which limits the ability to estimate the relative contribution of each personal variable. This decision was taken because age and teaching experience were highly correlated, and the characteristics of the convenience sample did not meet the assumptions required for reliable regression modelling. Finally, despite the comparison between two countries, contextual, cultural, and institutional differences in teacher education, inclusion policies, and school-level resources may affect the interpretation of cross-national differences.
Future research should move beyond cross-sectional designs and incorporate longitudinal or mixed-method approaches to examine how attitudes evolve over time and how they translate into actual classroom practices. Additionally, comparative studies including a broader range of countries with different levels of economic development and policy implementation would contribute to identifying global patterns and context-specific challenges. Developing and evaluating sustainable models of teacher education that strengthen inclusive competencies remains a key priority for advancing disability-inclusive educational systems.

5. Conclusions

This study provides evidence on attitudes toward disability in educational contexts in Spain and Ecuador, identifying both relevant similarities and differences. Specifically, Spanish teachers reported more positive attitudes across most dimensions, whereas “Role Assumption” showed similar patterns in both countries. In addition, no significant cross-national differences were found in teachers’ self-reported knowledge about disability or prior experience working with individuals with disabilities. The findings underscore the importance of promoting inclusive, initial, and ongoing training tailored to the specific characteristics of each sociocultural context from the earliest stages of teaching. It also emphasizes the need to ensure, through appropriate educational policies and budgets, that teachers have access to the resources and support necessary to implement inclusive practices effectively. Furthermore, the limited and context-dependent associations observed for age and teaching experience suggest that demographic variables alone do not sufficiently explain variations in attitudes toward disability.
Moreover, the differences and relationships identified highlight the need for further research into the factors that shape attitudes toward disability in different sociocultural settings, as well as the need to explore in future research how these attitudes relate to broader indicators of inclusion, such as school participation and placement of students with disabilities in mainstream educational contexts. Differences observed between levels of training in each country further underline the relevance of how inclusive content is structured within teacher education programs. Advancing inclusive education therefore requires coordinated efforts across teacher education, institutional support systems, and educational policy in order to translate positive attitudes into sustainable inclusive practices. Overall, the findings point to a shared international challenge: strengthening inclusive teacher preparation while ensuring coherent institutional support and adequate resources across educational systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.S.G., S.R.C., A.B.-C. and I.A.; methodology, P.S.G.; software, P.S.G.; validation, P.S.G.; formal analysis, P.S.G.; investigation, P.S.G., S.R.C. and A.B.-C.; resources, P.S.G., S.R.C., A.B.-C. and I.A.; data curation, P.S.G.; writing—original draft preparation, P.S.G., S.R.C., I.A. and A.B.-C.; writing—review and editing, P.S.G., S.R.C., A.B.-C. and I.A.; visualization, P.S.G., S.R.C., A.B.-C. and I.A.; supervision, P.S.G., S.R.C. and A.B.-C.; project ad-ministration, P.S.G., S.R.C. and A.B.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship or publication of this article.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Universidad Internacional de La Rioja (PI:041/2024, 18 March 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Disability Language/Terminology Positionality Statement

Person-first language (e.g., people with disabilities) is used throughout this article. This choice reflects the conventions commonly adopted in educational research, international policy frameworks, and legal documents related to inclusive education in both Spain and Ecuador. The use of person-first terminology aims to emphasize the individual before the disability and to align with inclusive educational discourse. However, the authors acknowledge that identity-first language is preferred in some communities and cultural contexts. Given that this study did not directly consult participants regarding language preferences, person-first language was adopted as a broadly accepted and contextually appropriate option for this cross-national comparative research.

References

  1. ONU. Convención Sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad [Internet]. Naciones Unidas. 2006. Available online: https://www.ohchr.org/es/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities (accessed on 1 December 2024).
  2. ONU. Estrategia de las Naciones Unidas Para la Inclusión de la Discapacidad [Internet]. Naciones Unidas. 2019. Available online: https://www.un.org/es/disabilitystrategy/sgreport (accessed on 1 December 2024).
  3. Lindner, K.T.; Schwab, S.; Emara, M.; Avramidis, E. Do teachers favor the inclusion of all students? A systematic review of primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2023, 38, 766–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Selisko, T.J.; Klopp, E.; Eckert, C.; Perels, F. Attitudes toward Inclusive Education from a Network Perspective. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and Education; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2020.
  6. España. Real Decreto 334/1985, de 6 de marzo, de Ordenación de la Educación Especial. Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE), 16 March 1985; Volume 65, pp. 6917–6920. Available online: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/rd/1985/03/06/334 (accessed on 11 December 2024).
  7. España. Ley Orgánica 8/1985, de 3 de julio, reguladora del Derecho a la Educación. Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE), 4 July 1985; Volume 159, pp. 21015–21022. Available online: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/1985/07/03/8 (accessed on 4 December 2024).
  8. España. Ley Orgánica 1/1990, de 3 de octubre, de Ordenación General del Sistema Educativo. Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE), 4 October 1990; Volume 238, pp. 28927–28942. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1990-24172 (accessed on 1 December 2024).
  9. España. Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación (LOE). Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE), 4 May 2006; Volume 106, pp. 17158–17207. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2006-7899 (accessed on 11 December 2024).
  10. España. Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación. Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE), 30 December 2020; Volume 340, pp. 122868–122953. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2020-17264 (accessed on 3 December 2024).
  11. Solís, P.; Real, S. Evaluación de la actitud del profesorado especialista hacia la inclusión educativa. Rev. Esp. Discap. 2023, 11, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ecuador. Asamblea Constituyente. Constitución de la República del Ecuador. Registro Oficial, 20 October 2008; p. 449. Available online: https://www.oas.org/juridico/pdfs/mesicic4_ecu_const.pdf (accessed on 13 December 2024).
  13. Ecuador. Ley Orgánica de Educación Intercultural (LOEI). Registro Oficial, 31 March 2011; p. 417. Available online: https://www.gob.ec/regulaciones/ley-organica-educacion-intercultural-0 (accessed on 1 December 2024).
  14. Ecuador. Acuerdo Ministerial N.º 295-13: Normativa referente a la atención a los Estudiantes con Necesidades Educativas especiales. Registro Oficial, 15 August 2013; p. 295. Available online: https://www.gob.ec/regulaciones/acuerdo-ministerial-0295-13-normativa-referente-atencion-estudiantes-necesidades-educativas-especiales-establecimientos-educacion-ordinaria-instituciones-educativas-especializadas (accessed on 3 December 2024).
  15. Arcos, N.; Garrido, C.; Balladares, J. La Inclusión Educativa en Ecuador: Una mirada desde las Políticas Educativas. Cienc. Lat. Rev. Cient. Multidiscip. 2023, 7, 6607–6616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mena-Chiluisa, L.; Alulima, L. Barreras para la inclusión de los estudiantes con necesidades educativas especiales, en la educación superior ecuatoriana. 593 Digit. Publ. CEIT 2021, 6, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Moreno-Rodríguez, R.; López-Bastías, J.L.; Carnicero, J.D. Formación en atención a necesidades educativas especiales: Modificación de la percepción de los maestros de Ecuador sobre la inclusión de estudiantes con discapacidad en el aula ordinaria. Rev. Nac. Inter. Educ. Inclusiva. 2020, 13, 139–152. [Google Scholar]
  18. Vlachou, A.; Tsirantonaki, S.S. The Importance of School Principals’ Values towards the Inclusive Education of Disabled Students: Associations between Their Values and Knowledge, Beliefs, Attitudes and Practices. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kielblock, S.; Woodcock, S. Who’s included and who’s not? An analysis of instruments that measure teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2023, 122, 103922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Moreno, M.I.; Morán, M.L.; Gómez, L.E.; Solís, P.; Alcedo, M.Á. Actitudes hacia las personas con discapacidad: Una revisión de la literatura. Rev. Esp. Discap. 2022, 10, 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Paredes, P.R.; Méndez, M.G.; Maldonado, G.J. Asociación de factores sociodemográficos y laborales con la actitud de los docentes hacia la inclusión de estudiantes con discapacidades. Educ. Pages 2023, 16, 134–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Solís, P.; Borja, V. Actitudes del profesorado de educación física hacia la inclusión de alumnos con discapacidad. Retos 2021, 39, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Avramidis, E.; Norwich, B. Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2002, 17, 129–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kamran, M.; Siddiqui, S.; Adil, M.S. Breaking Barriers: The Influence of Teachers’ Attitudes on Inclusive Education for Students with Mild Learning Disabilities (MLDs). Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sisto, M.; Pérez-Fuentes, M.; Gázquez-Linares, J.J.; Molero-Jurado, M. Actitudes hacia la inclusión educativa de alumnos con discapacidad: Variables relativas al profesorado y a la organización escolar en Educación Primaria. Rev. Electrón. Interuniv. Form. Profr. 2021, 24, 221–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Solís, P.; Arroyo, D. Actitudes docentes hacia alumnos con discapacidad, punto de partida para la educación inclusiva: Una perspectiva de género, edad y experiencia previa. Espiral Cuad. Profr. 2022, 15, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Boer, A.; Sip, J.P.; Minnaert, A. Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. Intern. J. Inclus. Ed. 2011, 15, 331–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Olli-Pekka, M.; Savolainen, H.; Engelbrecht, P.; Xu, J.; Nel, M.; Nel, N.; Tlale, D. Exploring teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices in three diverse countries. Teach. Teacher. Ed. 2013, 33, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Polo, M.; Aparicio, M. Primeros pasos hacia la inclusión: Actitudes hacia la discapacidad de docentes en Educación Infantil. Rev. Investig. Educ. 2018, 36, 365–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Verdugo, M.A.; Arias, B.; Jenaro, C. Actitudes Hacia las Personas con Minusvalía; Ministerio de Asuntos Sociales, INSERSO: Madrid, Spain, 1994.
  31. Verdugo, M.A.; Jenaro, C.; Arias, B. Actitudes sociales y profesionales hacia las personas con discapacidad: Estrategias de evaluación e intervención. In Personas con Discapacidad; Verdugo, M.A., Ed.; Perspectivas psicopedagógicas y rehabilitadoras; Siglo XXI: Calle Recaredo, Madrid, 2002; pp. 79–135. [Google Scholar]
  32. Garzón, P.; Calvo, M.I.; Orgaz, M.B. Inclusión educativa. Actitudes y estrategias del profesorado. Rev. Esp. Discapacidad. 2016, 4, 25–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Solís, P.; Real, S. Actitudes hacia la inclusión de estudiantes con discapacidad en profesorado de Secundaria. Profr. Rev. Curric. Form. Profr. 2023, 27, 267–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Macías, M.E.; Aguilera, J.L.; Sánchez, M.; Hernández, S. Un estudio transversal sobre las actitudes de los estudiantes de pregrado y máster en ciencias de la educación hacia las personas con discapacidad. REIFOP 2019, 22, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Clavijo, R.; López, C.; Cedillo, C.; Mora, C.; Ortiz, W. Actitudes docentes hacia la educación inclusiva en Cuenca. MASKANA 2016, 7, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tárraga-Mínguez, R.; Vélez-Calvo, X.; Pastor-Cerezuela, G.; Fernández-Andrés, M.I. Las actitudes del profesorado de Educación Primaria hacia la educación inclusiva en Ecuador. Educ. E Pesqui. 2020, 46, e229504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Asitimbay, D.I.; Dumancela, C.Y. Actitudes de Docentes Respecto a la Educación Inclusiva en una Unidad Educativa en Cuenca. Diploma Thesis, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador, 2018. Available online: https://dspace.ucuenca.edu.ec/items/f5c4861e-35cd-429e-81ee-a1b5c1dd796c (accessed on 20 December 2024).
  38. Valverde, K.M. Actitudes Docentes Ante la Inclusión Educativa en la Unidad Fiscomisional Don Bosco, de la Provincia de Esmeraldas. Master’s Thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador, 2021. Available online: https://repositorio.puce.edu.ec/items/08295c72-f1d7-4ad2-ab3e-e89ac5c61e04 (accessed on 10 October 2024).
  39. Vélez-Clavo, X.; Tárraga-Mínguez, R.; Fernández-Andrés, M.I.; Sanz-Cervera, P. Formación inicial de maestros en Educación Inclusiva: Una comparación entre Ecuador y España. Rev. Educ. Inclusiva. 2016, 9, 15–27. Available online: https://revistaeducacioninclusiva.es/index.php/REI/article/view/254 (accessed on 21 November 2024).
  40. González-Rojas, Y.; Triana-Fierro, D.A. Actitudes de los docentes frente a la inclusión de estudiantes con necesidades educativas especiales. Educ. Educadores. 2018, 21, 200–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Arcangeli, L.; Binkofski, F.; Guarnera, M.; Agnelli, S.; Colombo, D. Attitudes of mainstream and special-education teachers toward intellectual disability in Italy: The relevance of being teachers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Alcedo, M.A.; Gómez, L.E.; Aguado, A.L.; Arias, B.; González, R. Eficacia del contacto e información como técnicas de cambio de actitudes hacia personas con discapacidad en niños de Educación Primaria. Univ. Psychol. 2013, 12, 493–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. De Vroey, A.; Roelandts, K.; Struyf, E.; Petry, K. Inclusive classroom practices in secondary schools. Towards a universal teaching approach [Prácticas de aula inclusiva en escuelas secundarias. Hacia un enfoque de enseñanza universal]. In Professional Learning in Education; De-Wever, B., Vanderlinde, R., Tuytens, M., Aelterman, A., Eds.; Academia Challenges for teacher educators, teachers and student teachers; Academia Press: Gent, Belgium, 2016; pp. 179–202. Available online: https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/a7eba1c5-cf38-4c2e-9575-c104d05b4830/639595.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2024).
  44. Rebolledo, T. La formación inicial del profesorado de Educación Primaria y Secundaria en Alemania, España, Finlandia, Francia y Reino Unido. Rev. Esp. Educ. Compar. 2015, 25, 129–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sanahuja, J.M.; Mas, O.; Olmos, P. El rol de profesorado de apoyo en el aula regular de un instituto de educación secundaria. Rev. Complut. Educ. 2018, 24, 943–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Moreno-Rodríguez, R.; López, J.L.; Carnicero, J.D.; Garrote, I.; Sánchez, S. Teacher’s Perception on the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in the Regular Education Classroom in Ecuador. J. Ed. Traing. Stud. 2017, 5, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Table 1. Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations of Attitudinal Dimensions Towards Disability Between Teachers in Ecuador and Spain.
Table 1. Comparison of Means and Standard Deviations of Attitudinal Dimensions Towards Disability Between Teachers in Ecuador and Spain.
DimensionCountryMeanStandard Deviation
Assessment of Abilities and LimitationsEcuador4.210.68
Spain4.970.57
Recognition/Denial of RightsEcuador4.100.69
Spain5.070.36
Personal InvolvementEcuador5.120.99
Spain5.800.34
Generic QualificationEcuador4.270.92
Spain4.900.64
Role AssumptionEcuador4.401.09
Spain4.500.97
TotalEcuador4.420.64
Spain5.050.39
Table 2. T-Test for the Comparison of Mean Scores in Attitudinal Dimensions Towards Disability Between Teachers in Ecuador and Spain.
Table 2. T-Test for the Comparison of Mean Scores in Attitudinal Dimensions Towards Disability Between Teachers in Ecuador and Spain.
DimensionT-Statisticp-Value
Total9.31<0.001
Assessment of Abilities and Limitations9.57<0.001
Recognition/Denial of Rights13.71<0.001
Personal Involvement7.22<0.001
Generic Qualification6.28<0.001
Role Assumption0.750.44
Table 3. Chi-square analysis of knowledge about disability and prior experience working with individuals with disabilities among teachers from Spain and Ecuador.
Table 3. Chi-square analysis of knowledge about disability and prior experience working with individuals with disabilities among teachers from Spain and Ecuador.
Variableχ2Dfp-Value
Knowledge about disability1.08410.298
Prior experience with individuals with disabilities0.77810.378
Table 4. Parametric Correlations Between Age and Attitudinal Dimensions Towards Disability Among Teachers in Spain and Ecuador.
Table 4. Parametric Correlations Between Age and Attitudinal Dimensions Towards Disability Among Teachers in Spain and Ecuador.
CountryDimensionPearson CorrelationTwo-Tailed Significance Analysis
SpainAssessment of Abilities and Limitations−0.0950.289
Recognition/Denial of Rights−0.0970.280
Personal Involvement0.0520.567
Generic Qualification−0.1530.086
Role Assumption−0.2510.005
Total−0.2100.019
EcuadorAssessment of Abilities and Limitations−0.1970.027
Recognition/Denial of Rights−0.0440.621
Personal Involvement−0.1070.231
Generic Qualification0.0280.756
Role Assumption−0.0170.854
Total−0.0820.359
Table 5. Parametric Correlations Between Years of Teaching Experience and Dimensions of Attitudes Towards Disability in Teachers from Spain and Ecuador.
Table 5. Parametric Correlations Between Years of Teaching Experience and Dimensions of Attitudes Towards Disability in Teachers from Spain and Ecuador.
CountryVariablePearson CorrelationTwo-Tailed Significance Analysis
SpainAssessment of Abilities and Limitations−0.070.37
Recognition/Denial of Rights−0.070.42
Personal Involvement0.030.69
Generic Qualification−0.150.09
Role Assumption−0.220.01
Total−0.180.03
EcuadorAssessment of Abilities and Limitations−0.010.84
Recognition/Denial of Rights0.030.71
Personal Involvement−0.090.30
Generic Qualification−0.010.84
Role Assumption0.140.10
Total0.020.82
Table 6. Non-parametric correlations between the level of training (Infant or Primary Education teacher) and the dimensions of attitudes towards disability in teachers from Spain and Ecuador.
Table 6. Non-parametric correlations between the level of training (Infant or Primary Education teacher) and the dimensions of attitudes towards disability in teachers from Spain and Ecuador.
CountryDimensionSpearman CorrelationTwo-Tailed Significance Analysis
SpainAssessment of Abilities and Limitations−0.27<0.001
Recognition/Denial of Rights0.81<0.001
Personal Involvement0.74<0.001
Generic Qualification0.77<0.001
Role Assumption0.60<0.001
Total−0.21<0.001
EcuadorAssessment of Abilities and Limitations0.52<0.001
Recognition/Denial of Rights0.78<0.001
Personal Involvement0.74<0.001
Generic Qualification0.71<0.001
Role Assumption0.64<0.001
Total0.72<0.001
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

García, P.S.; Barreiro-Collazo, A.; Armijos, I.; Real Castelao, S. Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Disability in Spain and Ecuador: A Comparative Analysis of Attitudinal Dimensions and Associated Factors. Disabilities 2026, 6, 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities6020025

AMA Style

García PS, Barreiro-Collazo A, Armijos I, Real Castelao S. Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Disability in Spain and Ecuador: A Comparative Analysis of Attitudinal Dimensions and Associated Factors. Disabilities. 2026; 6(2):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities6020025

Chicago/Turabian Style

García, Patricia Solís, Alejandra Barreiro-Collazo, Irlanda Armijos, and Sara Real Castelao. 2026. "Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Disability in Spain and Ecuador: A Comparative Analysis of Attitudinal Dimensions and Associated Factors" Disabilities 6, no. 2: 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities6020025

APA Style

García, P. S., Barreiro-Collazo, A., Armijos, I., & Real Castelao, S. (2026). Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Disability in Spain and Ecuador: A Comparative Analysis of Attitudinal Dimensions and Associated Factors. Disabilities, 6(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities6020025

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop