Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article

A Psychometric Analysis of the Student Version of the Perceptions of Inclusion Questionnaire (PIQ)

Published Online:December 15, 2017https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000443

Abstract

Abstract. The German version of the Perception of Inclusion Questionnaire (PIQ), which is used to assess students’ emotional inclusion, social inclusion, and academic self-concept, was analyzed with the multi-unidimensional graded response model (GRM) and investigated for differential item functioning (DIF) between students with and without learning difficulties (LD). The PIQ was administered to 823 primary school students in Switzerland (Mage = 11.94, SD = 1.01 years), of which 190 were classified as having LD. Results show that the PIQ is a reliable instrument for assessing students’ perceptions of their inclusion at school, especially in the lower ranges of the scales. No bias was detected for any items of the PIQ’s three scales in relation to the exogenous variable LD, with the exception of one item that showed a minor deviation.

References

  • Baker, J. G., Rounds, J. B. & Zevon, M. A. (2000). A comparison of graded response and Rasch partial credit models with subjective well-being. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25, 253–270. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986025003253 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bossaert, G., de Boer, A., Frostad, P., Pijl, S. J. & Petry, K. (2015). Social participation of students with special educational needs in different educational systems. Irish Educational Studies, 34, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2015.1010703 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cheung, G. W. & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Choi, S. W., Gibbons, L. E. & Crane, P. K. (2011). lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Statistical Software, 39, 1–30. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • De Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of Item Response Theory. New York, NY: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • De Vroey, A., Struyf, E. & Petry, K. (2016). Secondary schools included: A literature review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20, 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1075609 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T. & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Embretson, S. E. & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Flora, D. B. & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Haeberlin, U., Moser, U., Bless, G. & Klaghofer, R. (1989). Integration in die Schulklasse. Fragebogen zur Erfassung von Dimensionen der Integration von Schülern FDI 4–6 [Integration in the classroom. Questionnaire for assessing dimensions of integration of students]. Bern, Switzerland: Haupt. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Huang, C. (2011). Self-concept and academic achievement: A meta-analysis of longitudinal relations. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kleinman, M. & Teresi, J. A. (2016). Differential item functioning magnitude and impact measures from item response theory models. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 58, 79–98. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kuo, T.-C. & Sheng, Y. (2016). A comparison of estimation methods for a multi-unidimensional graded response IRT model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00880 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Oh-Young, C. & Filler, J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 47, 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Powell, J. J. W., Edelstein, B. & Blanck, J. M. (2016). Awareness-raising, legitimation or backlash? Effects of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities on education systems in Germany. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 14, 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2014.982076 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rauer, W. & Schuck, K. D. (2003). FEESS 3-4. Fragebogen zur Erfassung emotionaler und sozialer Schulerfahrungen von Grundschulkindern dritter und vierter Klassen [Questionnaire for assessing emotional and social school experiences in third and fourth grades]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rechsteiner-De Stefani, B. (2016). Schulisches Integriertsein – eine Genderfrage? [School integration – a question of gender?] (Master’s thesis). Zurich, Switzerland: University of Applied Sciences in Special Needs Education. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Revelle, W. (2016). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research, Version 1.6.9. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Retrieved from https//cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/index.html First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. E. & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17, 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rubio, V. J., Aguado, D., Hontangas, P. M. & Hernández, J. M. (2007). Psychometric properties of an emotional adjustment measure: An application of the graded response model. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.23.1.39 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Ruijs, N. M. & Peetsma, T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4, 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ruijs, N. M., van der Veen, I. & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2010). Inclusive education and students without special educational needs. Educational Research, 52, 351–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2010.524749 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In W. J. van der LindenR. K. HambletonEds., Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85–100). New York, NY: Springer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schwab, S. (2015). Evaluation of a short version of the Illinois Loneliness and Social Satisfaction Scale in a sample of students with and without special educational needs. British Journal of Special Education, 42, 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12089 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schweizer, K. (2011). Some thoughts concerning the recent shift form measures with many items to measures with few items (Editorial). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 71–72. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000056 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Sheng, Y. & Wikle, C. K. (2007). Comparing multiunidimensional and unidimensional item response theory models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 899–919. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406296977 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tay, L., Meade, A. W. & Cao, M. (2015). An overview and practical guide to IRT measurement equivalence analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 18, 3–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114553062 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tracey, D. K., Marsh, H. W. & Craven, R. G. (2003). Self-concepts of preadolescents with mild intellectual disabilities. In H. W. MarshR. G. CravenD. M. McInerneyEds., International advances in self research (pp. 203–229). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol. New York, NY: United Nations. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Venetz, M., Tarnutzer, R., Zurbriggen, C. & Sempert, W. (2012). Emotionales Erleben im Unterricht und schulbezogene Selbstbilder [Emotional experiences in education and school related self-concepts]. Bern, Switzerland: SZH/CSPS. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Venetz, M., Zurbriggen, C. & Eckhart, M. (2014). Entwicklung und erste Validierung einer Kurzversion des “Fragebogens zur Erfassung von Dimensionen der Integration von Schülern (FDI 4–6)” von Haeberlin, Moser, Bless und Klaghofer [Development and first validation of a short version of the Questionnaire for measuring dimensions of integration of students (FDI 4-6) by Haeberlin, Moser, Bless, and Klaghofer]. Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 6, 99–113. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Venetz, M., Zurbriggen, C. L. A., Eckhart, M., Schwab, S. & Hessels, M. G. P. (2015). The Perceptions of Inclusion Questionnaire (PIQ). German Version. Retrieved from http://www.piqinfo.ch First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wirth, R. J. & Edwards, M. C. (2007). Item factor analysis: Current approaches and future directions. Psychological Methods, 12, 58–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.58 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar