Research in Developmental Disabilities 113 (2021) 103941

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Developmental Disabilities

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/redevdis

Can school teachers’ willingness to teach ASD-inclusion classes be

increased via special education training? Uncovering
mediating mechanisms☆
Yasemin Kisbu-Sakarya a, *, Ceymi Doenyas b
a
Koç University, Department of Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey
b
Koç University Research Center for Translational Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Number of reviews completed is 2 Changing teacher willingness to teach inclusive classes is critical in achieving optimal outcomes
for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The present study investigated the mechanisms
Keywords: underlying the effects of a teacher training in special education strategies for students with ASD
Attitudes toward inclusive education on mainstream school teachers’ behavioral intentions toward inclusive education. Specifically,
Autism spectrum disorder
the role of attitudes and autism self-efficacy were explored as mediators in this process. The
Autism self-efficacy
sample comprised 763 mainstream school teachers from eleven cities in Northeastern Turkey who
Inclusive education
Special education training participated in an intensive training that included special education strategies for students with
ASD, evidence-based special education applications, and inclusive education practices. Statistical
mediation analyses revealed that the training increased teachers’ willingness to teach inclusive
classes and intention to implement special education techniques in the regular education class­
room through increasing their autism self-efficacy. However, though attitudes toward inclusive
education was a significant predictor of both willingness to teach inclusive classes and intent to
use special education techniques, the training did not improve attitudes. Based on these findings,
additional strategies or components to change attitudes toward inclusive education were rec­
ommended to be integrated into the teacher training programs on special education strategies for
inclusive education.

What this paper adds

The benefits of inclusive education for ASD are not always matched by an intention on the teacher’s part to implement it. One way
to increase this may be to equip them better by giving them special education training. In this study, we examined the mechanisms
through which teacher trainings that provide the necessary knowledge and skills to work with children with ASD can influence
behavioral intentions towards teaching inclusive education. Results showed that the training increased teachers’ behavioral intentions
through increasing their autism self-efficacy. However, though attitudes toward inclusive education predicted behavioral intentions,

☆
Author notes: The special education training evaluated in this manuscript is developed and delivered by TOHUM Autism Early Diagnosis and
Education Foundation. The interpretations and conclusions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
policies or views of TOHUM Autism Foundation. We deeply thank the general manager of the TOHUM Autism Foundation, project coordinator,
project team, training developers, teachers, and consultants of the project for their help and suggestions during the study
* Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Koç University, Rumelifeneri Yolu, 34450 Sariyer, Istanbul, Turkey.
E-mail address: ykisbu@ku.edu.tr (Y. Kisbu-Sakarya).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2021.103941
Received 30 April 2020; Received in revised form 6 March 2021; Accepted 15 March 2021
Available online 5 April 2021
0891-4222/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Kisbu-Sakarya and C. Doenyas Research in Developmental Disabilities 113 (2021) 103941

the training failed to improve attitudes. Current findings may help to create more effective teacher training programs to foster inclusive
education.

1. Introduction

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a social communication disorder with no known cure and increasingly rising global prevalence,
with the most current estimate showing 1 in 54 children to be affected (Maenner, Shaw, & Baio, 2020). In addition to the social
difficulties individuals with ASD experience, many of them can manifest language and communication problems, struggle with
following and learning from an unmodified curriculum, and have atypical behaviors such as repetitive, self-stimulatory, and stereo­
typic responses (Simpson, de Boer-Ott, & Smith-Myles, 2003) that make the regular classroom setting a challenge. Including children
with ASD into the social settings of daily life and especially involving them in not only intensive special education sessions but also in
inclusive education in mainstream schools (i.e., regular public or private schools that a child with ASD can attend where they can get
support with regard to their special educational needs, NHS website, 2019) allows them to practice their skills with their typically
developing peers. This can lead to positive social outcomes for children with ASD and perception of them by their peers as capable and
belonging in their classes, which can help children with ASD become more integrated and better functioning members of society
(Ferraioli & Harris, 2011). Yet, the current situation shows that inclusive education systems are not implemented at a level that
matches their benefits for these students. Although education is a right for all and legally binding legislations for inclusive education
have been passed in many countries, the implementation of inclusion practices for students with ASD significantly varies across
countries (van Kessel et al., 2020). Even though the proportion of children with ASD attending mainstream schools increased after the
adoption of inclusion policies, substantial barriers still exist for a successful integration to occur (Mandy et al., 2016). Therefore, it is an
important mission to find ways to increase the quality of the implementation of inclusive education. To achieve this, factors that may
be hindering such integration should be determined and targeted interventions that specifically address those factors should be
created. One potential factor comes from observations on real-life implementations of inclusive education. Though teachers are
supposed to include children with ASD and other disabilities in their classroom as long as it is confirmed by the school administration,
in reality, many school teachers may be unwilling to accept them, integrate special education techniques into their teaching, and teach
inclusive classes (Gregor & Campbell, 2001). Influencing teachers’ intentions to teach inclusive classes is critical in achieving optimal
outcomes for students with ASD. However, no studies to date have explored the mechanisms involved in changing such behavioral
intentions, though there is evidence that knowledge of ASD and special education and previous experience with special needs students
correlate with better attitudes toward inclusion (Burke & Sutherland, 2004). To explore this issue and find ways to combat it, the
present study tested whether an in-service teacher training program on special education strategies for students with ASD can change
mainstream school teachers’ willingness to teach inclusive education and investigated the mechanisms through which such behavioral
intentions can be modified. Specifically, using statistical mediation modeling, we tested whether special education training changed
school teachers’ autism self-efficacy and attitudes toward inclusive education and if these mediators, in turn, influenced their will­
ingness to teach inclusive classes and intentions to implement special education techniques in class. These effects and mediators are
important to dissect, as previous evidence suggests that general education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education predict their
use of empirically supported interventions for ASD in classrooms (Segall & Campbell, 2012). Understanding the elements underlying
such findings is important in guiding interventions targeting teachers. Teaching inclusive education classes effectively was the end
behavior that we were interested in exploring as a result of the training program; yet it is not always practical or feasible to assess these
long-term outcomes. In the current study, following the widely accepted theory of planned behavior (1991, Ajzen, 1985), teachers’
behavioral intentions to teach inclusive classes served as the proxy for their behavior and the mediating variables – specifically autism
self-efficacy and attitudes toward inclusive education – influencing this intention were evaluated.

1.1. Factors contributing to teachers’ willingness to teach ASD-inclusion classes

Education for individuals with ASD can be considered mainly under two headings: special education and inclusion. The former,
special education commonly includes programs based on Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) principles that systematically manipulate
the environment to increase the desired academic and social behaviors (Cooper, 1982). Special education can be subdivided into
different programs such as intensive behavior analytic interventions and eclectic (mixed-method) interventions (Howard, Stanislaw,
Green, Sparkman, & Cohen, 2014). It is usually recommended to start early and intensively to get optimal outcomes, as children with
ASD who are considered to have optimal outcomes by no longer meeting ASD diagnostic criteria and having reached regular cognitive
functioning are found to have had earlier and more intensive interventions compared to children with high-functioning ASD (Orinstein
et al., 2014). The latter, inclusive education, places students with disabilities into the same classrooms with typically developing
students. A fundamental premise of inclusive education is providing children with disabilities access to the core curriculum with the
needed modifications and instructional support from technology and educators. This requires mainstream school teachers to make
more extensive accommodations as is or as the topics get more difficult (Downing & Peckham-Hardin, 2007). Although there exist
several barriers for making these accommodations, including the structural ones, one important driving factor is the willingness of the
teachers to teach inclusive classes (Pace & Aiello, 2016; Yan & Sin, 2014). Below, we discussed whether equipping the teachers by
providing them the knowledge on special education techniques may work as an effective strategy to contribute to the behavioral
intentions of teachers to implement special education practices in class and make the necessary accommodations into their inclusive
classrooms. We discussed through which mechanisms a positive effect of a teacher training on behavioral intentions may occur, as such
factors may emerge as important targets of special education trainings for school teachers.

2
Y. Kisbu-Sakarya and C. Doenyas Research in Developmental Disabilities 113 (2021) 103941

We specifically focused on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education and self-efficacy for teaching students with ASD as the
training’s mechanisms of change, following the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (1991, Ajzen, 1985). According to the TPB, in­
dividuals are more likely to perform a behavior as their intention to perform that behavior is stronger. And intention is highly driven by
attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms. Subjective norms refer to the individual’s belief about whether others
approve the behavior, which leads him/her to think positively about engaging in that behavior. A positive attitude toward the behavior
leads to stronger intentions as it constitutes a favorable evaluation of the behavior. Perceived behavioral control comprises self-efficacy
and TPB suggests that higher self-efficacy will lead to better intentions as it is an indicator of perceived ease an individual has in order
to perform the behavior. TPB is highly used in prevention and intervention research (Hackman & Knowlden, 2014; Montaño &
Kasprzyk, 2015; Romano & Netland, 2008), especially in health behavior studies, yet, it also has a growing use in educational research
(Cheon, Lee, Crooks, & Song, 2012; Davis, Ajzen, Saunders, & Williams, 2002; Lee, Cerreto, & Lee, 2010; Martin & Kulinna, 2004) as
well as in ASD (Campbell, 2010; Finke, Hickerson, & McLaughlin, 2015; Ingersoll, Straiton, Casagrande, & Pickard, 2018). In the
current study, we focused on attitudes and self-efficacy as mediators for the effectiveness of a teacher training on improving behavioral
intentions to teach inclusive classes. Below, we discussed how knowledge and training on special education strategies and ASD can
positively influence teachers’ autism self-efficacy and attitudes, and how these two mediators may be linked to willingness to teach
inclusive classes.
Several studies showed that mainstream teachers generally lack knowledge on ASD and this was associated with negative attitudes
toward inclusive education. For example, results of a survey conducted with early childhood preservice teachers enrolled in an un­
dergraduate educational psychology course revealed the possession of more misconceptions than correct knowledge about ASD and
these misconceptions were accompanied by negative views towards inclusive classrooms (Barned, Knapp, & Neuharth-Pritchett,
2011). A similar study in Sweden found that preschool teachers had neutral attitudes towards including children with ASD in gen­
eral classrooms. Yet, positive attitudes towards children with ASD significantly correlated with their special education knowledge as
indicated by the special education classes taken, which also positively correlated with inclusion attitudes, suggesting that as knowl­
edge about special education and ASD increases, attitudes toward children with ASD and their inclusion may become more positive as
well (Engstrand & Roll-Pettersson, 2014). Furthermore, although special education teachers hold more positive attitudes toward
teaching children with ASD as compared to general education teachers (Hernandez, Hueck, & Charley, 2016), a study in Spain found
that there is variability in their need for educational strategies relevant to ASD. As special education teachers in mainstream schools
reported their need for information on teaching and interacting with students with ASD (Rodríguez, Saldana, & Moreno, 2012), we
expected that they would also benefit from such training and as a result have better attitudes. We, therefore, expected that the current
special education training for teachers in mainstream schools would contribute to both general and special education teachers’
willingness to teach inclusive classes through improving their attitudes toward teaching inclusion classes.
Attitudes are important as they were shown to influence the use of effective inclusion strategies, where teachers who had less
positive attitudes towards mainstreaming students with learning disabilities used effective instructional strategies less frequently
compared to teachers with positive attitudes towards mainstreaming (Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995). However, even when teachers hold
positive attitudes about inclusion, they may still refrain from teaching inclusive classes as they may not feel self-sufficient to take on
this task (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer, 1999). Self-efficacy is described as one’s belief about the ability to perform an
action and argued to be area-specific by Bandura (1977). In teachers of learners with ASD, self-efficacy was significantly predicted by
preparedness to use effective practices (Accardo, Finnegan, Gulkus, & Papay, 2017). Self-efficacy for teaching students with ASD also
had a significant positive association with teacher engagement and student individualized education program outcomes (Love, Toland,
Usher, Campbell, & Spriggs, 2019). According to the TPB, while attitude is a significant predictor of intention, self-efficacy signifi­
cantly adds to the prediction of intention as well as having a direct effect on behavior after intention is controlled for (de Vries, Dijkstra,
& Kuhlman, 1988). This relationship between self-efficacy and behavioral intentions has been implied in the literature for teachers’
willingness to accept students with disabilities into regular classes. In one study, when questioned, the majority of participating
teachers reported favorable attitudes toward mainstreaming and said that if they were given the option, they would accept special
education students to their classroom, yet when a pilot session was administered, most disagreed to inclusive classes because they did
not feel qualified to address the needs of special needs children without supportive assistance (Barton, 1992). Self-efficacy for teaching
students with ASD is expected to be enhanced by teachers’ knowledge of special education techniques. For instance, general education
teachers reported less self-efficacy than special education teachers (Buell et al., 1999) and mainstream secondary school teachers
reported lower self-efficacy in teaching students with ASD and in coping with ASD-related behaviors as compared to special education
needs coordinators (Humphrey & Symes, 2013). Self-efficacy for teaching students with ASD was shown to be distinct from general
teaching self-efficacy, though they were positively associated with each other (Love, Findley, Ruble, & McGrew, 2020). Due to this
distinction, ASD-specific self-efficacy was explored in the present study.
Furthermore, in addition to general teachers, we also expected special education teachers in mainstream schools to experience an
increase in their autism self-efficacy as a result of the training, as they had less experience in dealing with pupils with ASD compared to
special education teachers in special schools and have faced a more challenging environment in the inclusive education context, which
might lead them to have relatively low self-efficacy for teaching students with ASD.

1.2. Present study

The current study used mediation analysis to identify the mechanisms through which an in-service special education training may
change the behavioral intentions of school teachers in mainstream schools towards inclusive education. In evaluating interventions,
mediation analysis is used to test two parts of a program. The first part is the action theory, represented by the a path in Fig. 1, which

3
Y. Kisbu-Sakarya and C. Doenyas Research in Developmental Disabilities 113 (2021) 103941

tests whether the program was successful in changing the mediator (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Judd & Kenny, 1981; MacKinnon, 2008). A
failure of the action theory would indicate that the program was not successful in changing the hypothesized mediator. The second part
is the conceptual theory, represented by the b path, that justifies whether the hypothesized mediator is related to the outcome variable.
A failure of the conceptual theory would indicate that the suggested theoretical assumption does not hold. Through the examination of
both the action and theory paths and the mediated effects, this study aimed to understand whether the training was successful in
changing teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching students with ASD and attitudes towards inclusive education and whether these mediating
variables were associated with behavioral intentions to teach inclusive classes (Fig. 2). We tested our model in a large sample of school
teachers in Turkey, where previous studies showed that Turkish teachers reported an insufficiency of education and specialist support
for inclusive education (Gunduz, 2015; Ozdemir, 2010).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants comprised 763 mainstream school teachers (67.6 % female) from eleven cities in Northeastern Turkey. Nearly half of
them were special education branch teachers employed in mainstream schools (53 %). The age range of the participants was 22–61
years, with a mean of 34.64 years (SD = 7.90). A considerable percentage of participants reported that they had previous experience
with a student with ASD (65.8 %), had a student with ASD (57.4 %) and attended a course on ASD (48.1 %). In this sample, 158
teachers had no experience of teaching a student with ASD previously, currently, or attended a course on ASD (20.7 %).

2.2. Procedure

Program implementation and data collection spanned over eleven months, where teachers participated in the study at different
time periods. The intervention was delivered by a non-governmental organization (NGO) focused on ASD. Teachers were randomly
assigned to control and experimental groups. The control group participants (n = 400) later received the training from a different
teacher after they had served under the control condition. For the general education teachers, the sample sizes for the control and
intervention groups were 208 and 146, respectively. And for the special education teachers, the sample sizes for the control and
intervention groups were 189 and 214, respectively. Data were collected from the participants in the intervention group right after the
training. The duration of the intensive training was four and a half days (approximately 30 h in total) and was developed and delivered
by a team of academics whose area of expertise was special education. The trainings, attended by approximately 20–35 participants at
a time, took place in a meeting room arranged by the NGO. Participants were provided a full training handbook and a guideline on the
use of education materials for special education. Teachers received in-service credit for their participation in the training. They were
not followed after the intervention delivery as the protocol between the Ministry of Education and the implementing NGO did not
allow for such a long-term tracking of the teachers.
The content of the program was designed to train teachers in implementing applied behavior analysis strategies to increase socially
meaningful behavior and decrease interfering behaviors through systematic behavioral intervention (Alberto & Troutman, 2013; Baer,
Wolf, & Risley, 1968), and teach new skills and knowledge to children with ASD in inclusive classrooms. The four and a half-day
program comprised the following modules:

• Using positive reinforcement when teaching behaviors and skills to children with ASD as the positive behavior is more likely to be
repeated when reinforced (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007; Miltenberger, 2016; Sarafino, 2012);
• Discrete trial instruction as a structural teaching technique based on one-on-one instructions to the child until s/he learns the new
skill or behavior (Leblanc, Ricciardi, & Luiselli, 2005);
• Preparing activity schedules with pictures and hints so that children with ASD can complete activities by themselves (McClannahan
& Krantz, 1999);
• Teaching self-care skills;
• Defining behaviors when teaching specific behaviors and skills;
• Designing and implementing intervention plans for students with ASD and behavior problems;

Fig. 1. Single Mediator Model.

4
Y. Kisbu-Sakarya and C. Doenyas Research in Developmental Disabilities 113 (2021) 103941

Fig. 2. Hypothesized Mediation Model.

• Video-based modeling that involved teaching students with disabilities skills through videos that included step-by-step instructions
(Mechling, 2005; Olçay Gül & Vuran, 2018);
• Social stories to teach students with ASD scripts for appropriate behaviors in different situations (Gray & Garand, 1993);
• Incidental teaching focused on teaching communication skills to children with ASD in a natural environment (Fenske, Krantz, &
McClannahan, 2001);
• Script-fading procedure to teach social interaction skills (Birkan, 2011; Krantz & McClannahan, 1998); and
• Information about ASD, evidence-based special education applications, inclusive education practices, and relevant procedures.

2.3. Measures

Participants first filled a demographics questionnaire assessing their age, gender, professional experience, educational experience
on ASD, and experience with individuals with ASD. They then completed the following self-report questionnaires that were translated
into Turkish via the translation back-translation method.

2.3.1. Teacher self-efficacy for teaching students with ASD

To measure teachers’ beliefs of their capabilities to perform tasks relevant to teaching students with ASD, Autism Self-Efficacy Scale
for Teachers (ASSET) was used (Ruble, Toland, Birdwhistell, McGrew, & Usher, 2013). Specifically, teachers were asked to rate how
confident they felt that they could carry out assessments and classroom-based practices specific to the needs of students with ASD (e.g.,
“Organize the classroom to increase opportunities for learning for this student”; “Communicate and work effectively with this student’s
parent(s) or caregiver”; “Generate teaching activities for this student”). The scale consisted of 30 items that used a 5-point Likert scale
response system (1 = I do not feel confident at all, 5 = I feel very confident). Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was .97.

2.3.2. Teacher autism attitudes

The 14-item Autism Attitude Scale for Teachers (AAST) (Olley, DeVellis, DeVellis, Wall, & Long, 1981) measuring attitudes toward
including children with ASD into public schools was used (e.g., “It is unfair to ask teachers to accept children with autism into their
school”; “Children with autism are too impaired to benefit from the activities of a normal school”). Each response was completed on a
5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items were recoded so that higher scores indicated positive
attitudes. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was .73.

2.3.3. Behavioral intentions

Two questions that were adapted from Jones (2009) assessed the behavioral intentions of teachers towards teaching classrooms
with students with ASD. Items were “I am willing to teach classes inclusive of children with autism” and “I intend to implement special
education techniques for children with autism in my class”. Each response was completed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

2.4. Data analysis

Univariate analyses were utilized to compare group differences in baseline characteristics. Statistical mediation analysis was used
to examine the hypothesized relationships among variables and understand the underlying mechanisms of the training effects. A
mediated effect occurs when a predictor variable influences a mediator (a path), and that mediator, in turn, changes the outcome (b
path). The mediated effect was computed as the product of a and b paths, ab, which estimated the effect of the training on the outcome
variable achieved through the mediator. The direct effect, c’, was the effect of the training on the outcome variable that was not
mediated through the mediator(s). The model was estimated with Mplus 7.4 software (Muthén & Muthén, 2011). Mediators were let to
be correlated in our parallel mediation model. To obtain an estimate of each mediated effect, the estimates of the a and b, shown in
Table 3, were multiplied. As the test of significance, 95 % bootstrapped confidence limits for each mediated effect were computed. A
confidence interval not containing zero indicated that the effect was significant at an alpha level of .05. For each of the outcomes (i.e.,
willingness to teach an inclusive education class and intent to use special education techniques in the class), two mediated effects were

5
Y. Kisbu-Sakarya and C. Doenyas Research in Developmental Disabilities 113 (2021) 103941

estimated, one through self-efficacy for teaching students with ASD and one through attitudes. Furthermore, mediation models were
estimated using a multi-group approach, stratified by teacher type (i.e., special education teachers and mainstream school teachers) in
order to explore potential differences in the mediated effects.

3. Results

Correlations among study variables are provided in Table 1. Sample characteristics across groups are given in Table 2. Chi-square
and t-test results showed that experimental and control groups did not significantly differ in terms of sex, having a family member with
ASD, knowing someone with ASD, having experience with a student with ASD in class, and having completed a course on ASD.
However, the groups significantly differed with regard to age (p = .03) and marginally significantly differed with regard to having
previous one-to-one experience with a student with ASD (p = .08) (Table 2). Therefore, we controlled for these two variables in the
mediation analyses by regressing the mediators on them. We also compared the general and special education teachers in terms of
baseline covariates through chi-square and t-test analyses. General and special education teachers did not significantly differ in terms
of age, sex, and having a family member with ASD. However, as can be expected, special education teachers were significantly more
likely to know someone with ASD (p < .01), have experience with a student with ASD in class (p < .001), and complete a course on ASD
(p < .001).

3.1. Mediated effects

Table 3 provides the unstandardized path estimates, corresponding standard errors, and standardized path estimates for the
models. The model fit the data well (χ2(8) = 14.344, p = .073, RMSEA = .046, CFI = .99, SRMR = .019). For mainstream school
teachers, the mediated effects of the training through teacher self-efficacy for teaching students with ASD on willingness to teach an
inclusive education class and intent to use special education techniques in the class were significant (ab=.16 (.05), 95 % CI [.09, .27];
ab=.16 (.04), 95 % CI [.09, .25], respectively). This supported the hypothesis that the training increased teachers’ self-efficacy for
teaching students with ASD, which in turn increased their behavioral intentions. The mediated effects of the training through attitudes
toward inclusive education on willingness to teach in an inclusive education class and intent to use special education techniques in the
class were not significant (ab=− .01 (.03), 95 % CI [− .07, .06]; ab=− .003 (.02), 95 % CI [− .04, .03], respectively). Specifically,
although attitudes toward inclusive education was a significant predictor of both willingness to teach and intent to use special edu­
cation techniques, the training failed to change these attitudes.
Similar results were obtained for special education teachers, as expected. The mediated effects of the training through autism
efficacy on willingness to teach an inclusive education class and intent to use special education techniques in the class were significant
(ab = .08 (.03), 95 % CI [.02, .14]; ab = .05 (.02), 95 % CI [.02, .11], respectively). This supported the hypothesis that the training
increased self-efficacy for teaching students with ASD, which in turn increased behavioral intentions. The mediated effects of the
training through attitudes toward inclusive education on willingness to teach an inclusive education class and intent to use special
education techniques in the class were not significant (ab = .01 (.04), 95 % CI [− .06, .10]; ab = .004 (.02), 95 % CI [− .04, .05],
respectively). Even though attitudes toward inclusive education was a significant predictor of both willingness to teach and intent to
use special education techniques, they were not improved by the training.

4. Discussion and conclusions

Inclusive education is critical for creating behavioral improvements in individuals with ASD and integrating them into society.
However, not all teachers may be willing to include children with ASD in their classrooms or to implement special education practices
that enable the acquisition of various skills and knowledge by children with ASD. One way to increase teachers’ behavioral intentions
toward inclusive education may be to equip them better by giving them special education training. In this study, we examined the
following two mechanisms through which teacher trainings providing the necessary knowledge and skills to work with children with
ASD may influence teachers’ behavioral intentions: autism self-efficacy and attitudes. Our results indicated that, as expected based on
the TPB, teacher special education training programs can be effective in increasing teachers’ behavioral intentions toward inclusive
education through increasing their self-efficacy for teaching students with ASD. In line with Sachs’ theoretical models (1988, 1990),
one would also expect that teachers’ self-efficacy will continue developing through experiences of success when they apply the
strategies they have learned in the training in their inclusive classrooms.

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations between study variables.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Age 34.64 7.90 —

2. Autism self-efficacy 3.83 .84 − .05 —
3. Attitudes toward ASD 3.83 .51 − .23** .21** —
4. Intent to implement special education techniques in class 4.32 .76 − .03 .37** .30** —
5. Willingness to teach an inclusive class 3.90 1.01 − .16** .36** .41** .52** —
**
p < .01.

6
Y. Kisbu-Sakarya and C. Doenyas Research in Developmental Disabilities 113 (2021) 103941

Table 2
Sample characteristics across groups.
Variable Experimental Control Statistic p value

Age 35.29 (8.06) 34.05 (7.71) 2.16a .03

Female 67.77 % 67.42 % .01b .92
Has a family member with autism 2.50 % 2.76 % .01b .82
Knows somebody with autism 32.68 % 30.23 % .04 b .50
Has experience with a student with autism 66.94 % 64.74 % .06 b .25
Had a student with autism 60.72 % 54.45 % .06 b .08
Attended a course on autism 46.78 % 49.25 % .05 b .47
a
t-value.
b
contingency coefficient.

Table 3
Path estimates for multiple group mediation models.
Outcome Variables

Predictor Variables Autism Attitudes toward Willingness to teach an Intent to implement special
self-efficacy autism (M2) inclusive class education techniques in class (Y2)
(M1) (Y1)
β (SE) B β (SE) B β (SE) B β (SE) B

Mainstream school teachers (n = 347)

Training (X) .51** (.09) .28 − .01 (.06) − .01 − .03 (.10) − .02 − .12 (.08) − .08
Autism self- .32** (.07) .31 .31** (.05) .37
efficacy (M1)
Attitudes toward .62** (.10) .33 .29** (.09) .19
autism (M2)
Special Education Teachers in mainstream schools (n = 400)
Training (X) .18* (.07) .13 .01 (.05) .01 − .03 (.09) − .01 .04 (.07) .03
Autism self- .44** (.08) .28 .30** (.06) .26
efficacy (M1)
Attitudes toward .72** (.11) .35 .39** (.08) .26
autism (M2)
*
p < .05.
**
p ≤ .001.

Regarding attitudes toward inclusive education as a mediator, the present findings offered important insights in light of the action
theory and conceptual theory paths of the mediation analysis (Fig. 1). In line with the TPB, results showed that positive attitudes were
contributing to teachers’ behavioral intentions toward inclusive education. This indicated a successful conceptual theory for our
mediation model. However, the training was not effective in creating a significant change in attitudes, indicating a failure in the action
theory part. Our results about attitude change aligned with previous studies that did not find a positive effect of inclusive education
training on changing teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education (Diken & Sucuoğlu, 1998; Kayili, Kocyigit, Dogru, & Ciftci, 2010).
Our study conducted one and two decades after these studies, with Turkish mainstream school teachers, on ASD showed a similar
outcome about the relationship between teacher training and attitudes. Nevertheless, the results conflict with other information-based
trainings that led to a positive change in teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion (Johnson & Howell, 2009; Killoran, Woronko, & Zar­
etsky, 2014; Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008). Changing attitudes is a challenging task in psychological research and several major
theories exist on prejudice reduction and attitude change (see Bohner & Dickel, 2011 for a review). A major theoretical approach
pertaining to inclusive education is the associative-propositional evaluation (APE) model that predicts that attitudes can be improved
as a result of changing one of the following two processes that interact with each other: (1) the associative process that requires the
presentation of stimulus or information that will create an affective reaction, and (2) the propositional process that requires the
validation of activated information on the basis of cognitive consistency. A recent systematic review of interventions to change at­
titudes toward inclusion in preservice teachers put the interventions into three categories based on the APE model: interventions that
provided (1) information, (2) practical field experience, or (3) combination of information and practical field experience (Lautenbach
& Heyder, 2019). A closer examination of the reviewed studies emphasized that the content and delivery-related features might
explain the failure of the current training in changing attitudes. It is possible that the current intervention was limited with regard to
the materials and information given to the participants. Furthermore, the current intervention was delivered intensively in four and a
half days, which did not allow practicing or processing the information as the APE model suggests. We therefore suggest the revision of
the current and similar information-based trainings following these recommendations.
Teacher trainings teaching the necessary knowledge and skills to work with children with disabilities hold important value for
student outcomes. Yet, it is not enough to only aim at increasing access to the available training programs; the content of the training
should also be structured in such a way to improve the behavioral intentions of teachers to use evidence-based teacher practices for
ASD in their classrooms. Creating comprehensive teacher training programs that incorporate components that play a role in increasing
their intentions to implement inclusive education practices in their classroom will help refine traditional teacher training programs by

7
Y. Kisbu-Sakarya and C. Doenyas Research in Developmental Disabilities 113 (2021) 103941

going beyond their current status of simply transferring knowledge about special education techniques. The current study emphasized
the importance of revising such content so that attitudes and self-efficacy are ensured to be improved, as they are linked to behavioral
intentions toward inclusive education. Developing and delivering training programs that foster an educational setting where children
with ASD can benefit the most given their differences is an important mission that has consequences for the education, acceptance, self-
concept, and overall well-being of individuals with ASD around the world. The present study was but one attempt at showing the
effective elements of training programs that can produce a change in such behavioral intentions of teachers toward inclusive edu­
cation, thereby hopefully instigating more acceptance in school communities for children with ASD and students with special needs in
general. Finally, even though, the present study was specifically focused on children with ASD, the training effects may spillover to all
children with special education needs as teachers may generalize their attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the inclusion of all
students with disabilities. Furthermore, even though the present training has focused on students with ASD, the findings shed light on
the mediational variables that were influenced by the teacher training programs and which amongst them were effective in creating
change in behavioral intentions of teachers toward inclusive education.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Yasemin Kisbu-Sakarya: Conceptualization, Methodology, Analysis, Writing- Original draft preparation, Approval of the final
submitted version. Ceymi Doenyas: Conceptualization, Writing- Original draft preparation, Approval of the final submitted version.

Acknowledgement

This project was funded by TANAP Social and Environmental Investment Programs.

References

Accardo, A. L., Finnegan, E. G., Gulkus, S. P., & Papay, C. K. (2017). Teaching reading comprehension to learners with autism spectrum disorder: Predictors of teacher
self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Psychology in the Schools, 54(3), 309–323.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Action control (pp. 11–39). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2013). Applied behaviour analysis for teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis 1. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 91–97.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Barned, N. E., Knapp, N. F., & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2011). Knowledge and attitudes of early childhood preservice teachers regarding the inclusion of children with
autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32(4), 302–321.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–Mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Barton, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ opinions on the implementation and effects of mainstreaming. ERIC Document No. ED 350 802.
Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers attitudes toward increased mainstreaming: Implementing effective instruction for students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(2), 87–94.
Birkan, B. (2011). Otizmli çocuklara konuşma becerilerinin öğretimi: Replikli öğretim. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 12(01), 57–73.
Bohner, G., & Dickel, N. (2011). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 391–417.
Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M., & Scheer, S. (1999). A survey of general and special education teachers’ perceptions and in service needs concerning
inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 46(2), 143–156.
Burke, K., & Sutherland, C. (2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: Knowledge vs. Experience. Education, 125, 2.
Campbell, M. (2010). An application of the theory of planned behavior to examine the impact of classroom inclusion on elementary school students. Journal of
Evidence-based Social Work, 7(3), 235–250.
Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior.
Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054–1064.
Cooper, J. O. (1982). Applied behavior analysis in education. Theory Into Practice, 21(2), 114–118.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis. Ohio: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Davis, L. E., Ajzen, I., Saunders, J., & Williams, T. (2002). The decision of African American students to complete high school: An application of the theory of planned
behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 810.
de Vries, H., Dijkstra, M., & Kuhlman, P. (1988). Self-efficacy: The third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioural intentions. Health
Education Research, 3(3), 273–282.
Diken, I. H., & Sucuoğlu, B. (1998). Sınıfında zihin engelli çocuk bulunan ve bulunmayan sınıf öğretmenlerinin zihin engelli çocukların kaynaştırılmasına yönelik
tutumlarının karşılaştırılması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 2(03), 25–39.
Downing, J. E., & Peckham-Hardin, K. D. (2007). Inclusive education: What makes it a good education for students with moderate to severe disabilities? Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 16–30.
Engstrand, R. Z., & Roll-Pettersson, L. (2014). Inclusion of preschool children with autism in Sweden: Attitudes and perceived efficacy of preschool teachers. Journal of
Research in Special Educational Needs, 14(3), 170–179.
Fenske, E. C., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (2001). Incidental teaching: A not-discrete-trial teaching procedure. In C. Maurice, G. Green, & R. M. Foxx (Eds.),
Making a difference: Behavioral intervention for autism (pp. 75–82). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Ferraioli, S. J., & Harris, S. L. (2011). Effective educational inclusion of students on the autism spectrum. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 41(1), 19–28.
Finke, E. H., Hickerson, B., & McLaughlin, E. (2015). Parental intention to support video game play by children with autism spectrum disorder: An application of the
theory of planned behavior. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 46(2), 154–165.
Gray, C. A., & Garand, J. D. (1993). Social stories: Improving responses of students with autism with accurate social information. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 8(1), 1–10.
Gregor, E. M., & Campbell, E. (2001). The attitudes of teachers in Scotland to the integration of children with autism into mainstream schools. Autism, 5(2), 189–207.
Gunduz, A. (2015). Özel ve devlet ilkokullarındaki birinci sınıf kaynaştırma öğrencilerinin akademik başarılarına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Master’s thesis. Çanakkale
Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
Hackman, C. L., & Knowlden, A. P. (2014). Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior-based dietary interventions in adolescents and young adults: A
systematic review. Adolescent Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, 5, 101.
Hernandez, D. A., Hueck, S., & Charley, C. (2016). General education and special education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Journal of the American Academy of
Special Education Professionals, 79, 93.

8
Y. Kisbu-Sakarya and C. Doenyas Research in Developmental Disabilities 113 (2021) 103941

Howard, J. S., Stanislaw, H., Green, G., Sparkman, C. R., & Cohen, H. G. (2014). Comparison of behavior analytic and eclectic early interventions for young children
with autism after three years. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(12), 3326–3344.
Humphrey, N., & Symes, W. (2013). Inclusive education for pupils with autistic spectrum disorders in secondary mainstream schools: Teacher attitudes, experience
and knowledge. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(1), 32–46.
Ingersoll, B., Straiton, D., Casagrande, K., & Pickard, K. (2018). Community providers’ intentions to use a parent-mediated intervention for children with ASD
following training: An application of the theory of planned behavior. BMC Research Notes, 11, 1–6.
Johnson, G. M., & Howell, A. J. (2009). Change in pre-service teachers attitudes toward contemporary issues in education. International Journal of Special Education, 24
(2), 35–41.
Jones, J. P. (2009). Preservice teacher attitudes and intentions toward an inclusive educational environment: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Doctoral
dissertation. USA: Clemson University. Retrieved from https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/
&httpsredir=1&article=1461&context=all_dissertations.
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5(5), 602–619.
Kayili, G., Kocyigit, S., Dogru, S. Y., & Ciftci, S. (2010). Kaynaştırma eğitimi dersinin okul öncesi öğretmeni adaylarının kaynaştırmaya ilişkin görüşlerine etkisi.
Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(20), 48–65. Burdur.
Killoran, I., Woronko, D., & Zaretsky, H. (2014). Exploring preservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18, 427–442.
Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1998). Social interaction skills for children with autism: A script-fading procedure for beginning readers. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 31(2), 191–202.
Lautenbach, F., & Heyder, A. (2019). Changing attitudes to inclusion in preservice teacher education: A systematic review. Educational Research, 61(2), 231–253.
Leblanc, M. P., Ricciardi, J. N., & Luiselli, J. K. (2005). Improving discrete trial instruction by paraprofessional staff through an abbreviated performance feedback
intervention. Education & Treatment of Children, 76–82.
Lee, J., Cerreto, F. A., & Lee, J. (2010). Theory of planned behavior and teachers’ decisions regarding use of educational technology. Journal of Educational Technology
& Society, 13(1), 152–164.
Love, A. M., Findley, J. A., Ruble, L. A., & McGrew, J. H. (2020). Teacher self-efficacy for teaching students with autism Spectrum disorder: Associations with stress,
teacher engagement, and student IEP outcomes following COMPASS consultation. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 35(1), 47–54.
Love, A. M., Toland, M. D., Usher, E. L., Campbell, J. M., & Spriggs, A. D. (2019). Can I teach students with Autism Spectrum disorder?: Investigating teacher self-
efficacy with an emerging population of students. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 89, 41–50.
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Maenner, M. J., Shaw, K. A., Baio, J., Baio, J., Washington, A., Patrick, M., & Dietz, P. M. (2020). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8
years—Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2016. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 69, 1–12.
Mandy, W., Murin, M., Baykaner, O., Staunton, S., Hellriegel, J., Anderson, S., … Skuse, D. (2016). The transition from primary to secondary school in mainstream
education for children with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 20(1), 5–13.
Martin, J. J., & Kulinna, P. H. (2004). Self-efficacy theory and the theory of planned behavior: Teaching physically active physical education classes. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(3), 288–297.
McClannahan, L. E., & Krantz, P. J. (1999). Activity schedules for children with autism: Teaching independent behavior. Woodbine House.
Mechling, L. (2005). The effect of instructor-created video programs to teach students with disabilities: A literature review. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20,
25.
Miltenberger, R. G. (2016). Behavior modification principles and procedures. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Montaño, D. E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. Health behavior: Theory, research
and practice, 70(4), 231.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2011). Mplus User’s Guide. 1998–2011. Los Angeles, California: Muthén and Muthén.
NHS website. (2019). Advice about school. Nhs.UK. July 31 https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/autism/autism-and-everyday-life/school/#:%7E:text=mainstream%
20school%20%E2%80%93%20a%20regular%20school,children%20with%20special%20educational%20needs.
Olçay Gül, S., & Vuran, S. (2018). Ögrencilere kendi davranıslarını yönetmeyi gösterme. Applied behavior analysis (pp. 349–365). Ankara: Nobel.
Olley, J. G., DeVellis, R. F., DeVellis, B. M., Wall, A. J., & Long, C. E. (1981). Suggestions for administration of the autism attitude scale for teachers. Chapel Hill, NC:
Division TEACCH at UNC. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED2049422).
Orinstein, A. J., Helt, M., Troyb, E., Tyson, K. E., Barton, M. L., Eigsti, I. M., … Fein, D. A. (2014). Intervention history of children and adolescents with high-
functioning autism and optimal outcomes. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics: JDBP, 35(4), 247.
Ozdemir, H. (2010). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin kaynaştırma uygulamasına ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Yüksek lisans tezi (yayınlanmamış). Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitüsü İlköğretim Anabilim Dalı Sınıf Öğretmenliği Bilim Dalı.
Pace, E. M., & Aiello, P. (2016). Deciding to act: Teachers’ willingness to implement inclusive practices. Education Sciences & Society-Open Access Journal, 7(1), 1.
Rodríguez, I. R., Saldana, D., & Moreno, F. J. (2012). Support, inclusion, and special education teachers’ attitudes toward the education of students with autism
spectrum disorders. Autism Research and Treatment, 2012.
Romano, J. L., & Netland, J. D. (2008). The application of the theory of reasoned action and planned behavior to prevention science in counseling psychology. The
Counseling Psychologist, 36(5), 777–806.
Ruble, L., Toland, M., Birdwhistell, J., McGrew, J., & Usher, E. (2013). Preliminary Study of the Autism Self-Efficacy Scale for Teachers (ASSET). Research in Autism
Spectrum Disorders, 7(9), 1151–1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.06.006.
Sachs, J. (1988). Teacher preparation, teacher self-efficacy and the regular education initiative. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 327–332.
Sachs, J. J. (1990). The self-efficacy interaction between regular educators and special education students: A model for understanding the mainstreaming dilemma.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 13(3-4), 235–239.
Sarafino, E. P. (2012). Applied behavior analysis principles and procedures for modifying behavior. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Segall, M. J., & Campbell, J. M. (2012). Factors relating to education professionals’ classroom practices for the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorders.
Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6(3), 1156–1167.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about
persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), 773–785.
Simpson, R. L., de Boer-Ott, S. R., & Smith-Myles, B. (2003). Inclusion of learners with autism spectrum disorders in general education settings. Topics in Language
Disorders, 23(2), 116–133.
van Kessel, R., Steinhoff, P., Varga, O., Breznoščáková, D., Czabanowska, K., Brayne, C., … Roman-Urrestarazu, A. (2020). Autism and education—Teacher policy in
Europe: Policy mapping of Austria, Hungary, Slovakia and Czech Republic. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 105, Article 103734.
Yan, Z., & Sin, K. F. (2014). Inclusive education: Teachers’ intentions and behaviour analysed from the viewpoint of the theory of planned behaviour. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(1), 72–85.