Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Ricerche di Psicologia/Psychological Research Journal - Open Access

Articoli

No. 1 (2022)

Teachers’ representations and attitudes towards SLD diagnoses: Construction and preliminary validation of a questionnaire

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/rip2022oa13224
Submitted
febbraio 11, 2021
Published
2022-02-02

Abstract

This work presents a questionnaire developed to gather and explore teachers’ attitudes and representations in respect to the recent considerable increase of Specific Learning Disability (SLD) diagnoses in Italian schools. The RADSA questionnaire (acronym including the Italian equivalent of SLD: “DSA”) has been constructed on the basis of the reference literature and of 11 focus groups with 92 Italian primary school teachers (96.7% females, age M = 47.2 years, SD = 8.8). Transcripts of focus groups have been analyzed with T-Lab software (Lancia 2012, 2018) and contents have been converted in questionnaire items.
Subsequently, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA – Direct Oblimin rotation) was conducted on the responses of 111 Italian primary school teachers, mostly females (94.6%), who participated in the second phase of the study. The age range of this second sample was from 25 to 63 years (M = 46.1, SD = 9.34), with a mean length service of 20.18 (SD = 11.49).
RADSA questionnaire, thanks to its 62 items loading on 12 subscales, resulted capable of reflecting the complexity of the topic. It represents an assessment tool aimed at exploring teachers’ and educators’ attitudes towards SLD diagnosis, especially those representations that can undermine the quality of teacherstudent relationship. Since RADSA can identify the main attitudes concerning pupils with an SLD diagnosis, intervention targeted on a specific educational context can be designed on the basis of the results obtained from its administration. 

References

  1. AIP (2015). Codice Etico per la Ricerca in Psicologia. Associazione Italiana di Psicologia. https://www.aipass.org/node/11560.
  2. Annaloro, E. (2015). Senza Camice. Insegnare dopo la medicalizzazione della scuola. Educazione Democratica, 9, 83-93. http://educazioneaperta.it/ed9.
  3. APA (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx.
  4. Baker, J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher-child relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44(3), 211-229. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.02.002.
  5. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A Note on the Multiplying Factors for Various chi square Approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16(Series B), 296-298. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2984057. Accessed 31 May 2018.
  6. Brendgen, M., Wanner, B., & Vitaro, F. (2006). Verbal Abuse by the Teacher and Child Adjustment From Kindergarten Through Grade 6. PEDIATRICS, 117(5), 1585-1598. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2005-2050.
  7. Brendgen, M., Wanner, B., Vitaro, F., Bukowski, W. M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2007). Verbal abuse by the teacher during childhood and academic, behavioral, and emotional adjustment in young adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 26-38. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.26.
  8. Burden, R., & Burdett, J. (2005). Factors associated with successful learning in pupils with dyslexia: A motivational analysis. British Journal of Special Education, 32(2), 100-10. DOI: 10.1111/j.0952-3383.2005.00378.x.
  9. Caravita, S., & Miragoli, S. (2007). Stile educativo degli insegnanti e percezione del maltrattamento psicologico a scuola. Maltrattamento e Abuso all’Infanzia, 10(1), 11-28.
  10. Castelli, I. (2019). Introduction. The educational relationship: Some reflections from a psychological and from a pedagogical perspective. Ricerche di Psicologia, 1, 63-67.
  11. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245-276. DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10.
  12. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Reseach & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-8. http://pareonline.-net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7.
  13. Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of educational Psychology, 73(5), 642-650. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.642.
  14. Elliott, J. G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). The Dyslexia debate. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139017824.
  15. Florio, E. (2018). The operationalization of Adultcentrism and Black Pedagogy constructs to promote personal well-being in adult-child relationship: A first application in the context of teacher-student relationship and increase of Specific Learning Disorder diagnoses. University of Bergamo.
  16. Gandolfi, M. (2018). L’importanza di chiamarsi Ernesto e di essere mancini. Per un approccio connessionista complesso ai disturbi specifici dell’apprendimento (DSA). Ricerca Psicoanalitica, (2), 53-73. DOI: 10.3280/rpr2018-002004.
  17. Gibbs, S., & Elliott, J. (2008). Does Dyslexia Exist?. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3-4), 475-491. DOI: 10.1108/S0735-004X(2010)0000023013.
  18. Gibson, S., & Kendall, L. (2010). Stories from school: Dyslexia and learners’ voices on factors impacting on achievement. Support for Learning, 25(4), 187-193. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9604.2010.01465.x.
  19. Goussot, A. (2015). I rischi di medicalizzazione nella scuola Paradigma clinico-terapeutico o pedagogico?. Educazione Democratica, 15-47.
  20. Griffiths, C. B., Norwich, B., & Burden, B. (2004). Parental agency, identity and knowledge: Mothers of children with dyslexia. Oxford Review of Education, 30(3), 417-433. DOI: 10.1080/0305498042000260511.
  21. Gwernan-Jones, R., & Burden, R. L. (2010). Are They Just Lazy? Student Teachers’ Attitudes About Dyslexia. Dyslexia, 16, 66-86. DOI: 10.1002/dys.
  22. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141-151. DOI: 10.1177/001316446002000116.
  23. Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35(4), 401-415. DOI: 10.1177/001316447403400115.
  24. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
  25. Kerr, H. (2001). Learned Helplessness and Dyslexia: A Carts and Horses Issue?. Reading, 35(2), 82-85. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9345.00166.
  26. Kim, H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 38(1), 52. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52.
  27. Lampugnani, G. (2017). Vissuti e rappresentazioni del DSA. Focus sulla metodologia della ricerca per il campione di bambini e ragazzi con DSA. In L. Ghirotto (Ed.), Formare alla Ricerca Empirica in Educazione - Atti del Convegno Nazionale del Gruppo di Lavoro SIPED - Teoria e Metodi della Ricerca Empirica in Educazione. Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna, QuVi.
  28. Lancia, F. (2012). T-LAB pathways to thematic analysis. www.tlab.it. http://www.mytlab.com/tpathways.pdf.
  29. Lancia, F. (2018). T-LAB Plus 2018 - User’s Manual. www.tlab.it.
  30. Longobardi, C., Pasta, T., & Quaglia, R. (2009). La valutazione della relazione alunno-insegnante nei primi anni di scolarizzazione: il punto di vista del bambino attraverso il metodo grafico. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 2(1), 227-337. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3498/349832321024.pdf.
  31. Mehta, M. (2011). Use and abuse of specific learning disability certificates. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 20(2), 77-78. DOI: 10.4103/0972-6748.102471.
  32. MIUR (2011). Alunni con Disturbi Specifici di Apprendimento AA.SS. 2010/2011 e 2011/12. Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca - Direzione Generale per gli Studi, la Statistica e i Sistemi Informativi.
  33. MIUR (2015). L’integrazione scolastica degli alunni con disabilità. (F. Salvini, Ed.) (Vol. 2015). MIUR - Ufficio di Statistica.
  34. MIUR (2018). Gli alunni con Disturbi Specifici dell’Apprendimento (DSA) nell’a. s. 2016/2017. (F. Salvini, Ed.). MIUR - Ufficio Statistica e Studi.
  35. Muthén, B. O., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A Comparison of Some Methodologies for the Factor Analysis of Non-Normal Likert Variables: A Note on the Size of the Model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171-189. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/49m7794d.
  36. Nesbit, W. C., & Philpott, D. F. (2002). Confronting Subtle Emotional Abuse in Classrooms. Guidance & Counseling, 17(2), 32-38.
  37. Pasta, T., Mendola, M., Prino, L. E., Longobardi, C., & Gastaldi, F. G. M. (2013). Teachers’ Perception of the Relationship With Pupils Having Specific Learning Disabilities. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 7(1), 125-137. DOI: 10.5964/ijpr.v7i1.120.
  38. Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington: American Psychological Association. DOI: 10.1037/10314-000.
  39. Pianta, R. C., & Nimetz, S. L. (1991). Relationships between teacher and children: Associations with behavior at home and in the classroom. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12, 379-393. DOI: 10.1016/0193-3973(91)90007-Q.
  40. Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., Ashworth, K. E., & Lovelace, S. P. (2017). Specific Learning Disabilities. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. Cullen Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 286-299). New York and London: Routledge.
  41. Pumfrey, P. D., & Reason, R. (2013). Specific Learning Difficulties (Dyslexia): Challenges and Responses. New York and London: Routledge.
  42. Ramus, F. (2014). Should there really be a ‘Dyslexia debate’?. Brain, 137(12), 3371-3374. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awu295.
  43. Riddick, B. (1995). Dyslexia: Dispelling the myths. Disability & Society, 10(4), 457-474. DOI: 10.1080/09687599550023453.
  44. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate Statistic (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
  45. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: problems and remedies. In Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56-75). DOI: 10.1037/0008-400X.26.2.210.
  46. Westfall, P. H. (2014). Kurtosis as Peakedness, 1905 - 2014. R.I.P. The American Statisticians, 68(3), 191-195. DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2014.917055. Kurtosis.
  47. Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Journal of Emergency Primary Health Care (JEPHC), 8(3), 1-13. https://ajp.paramedics.org/index.php/ajp/article/view-File/93/90. Accessed 26 May 2018.
  48. Woodcock, S., & Vialle, W. (2016). An examination of pre-service teachers’ attributions for students with specific learning difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 252-259. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.021.
  49. World Medical Association. (2008). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. DOI: 10.3917/jib.151.0124.
  50. Zappella, M. (2017). Le epidemie di diagnosi nella scuola. Interview with Michele Zappella. (G. Ragazzini, Ed.). http://gruppodifirenze.blogspot.com/2017/06/le-epidemie-di-diagnosi-nella-scuola.html.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...