A Critical Review of Self-Efficacy Questionnaires for Mathematics and Special Education Teachers in Inclusive Mathematics Classrooms

Arlyn B. Elorde^1, , Heidemae R. Tabor¹ and Laila S. Lomibao¹

¹University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

Cite this paper:
Arlyn B. Elorde, Heidemae R. Tabor and Laila S. Lomibao. A Critical Review of Self-Efficacy Questionnaires for Mathematics and Special Education Teachers in Inclusive Mathematics Classrooms. Journal of Innovations in Teaching and Learning. 2026; 6(1):43-51. doi: 10.12691/jitl-6-1-7

Abstract

Teacher self-efficacy is a key predictor of instructional quality, student engagement, and academic achievement. Inclusive mathematics classrooms require both mathematics and special education teachers to pair high self-efficacy with competencies in mathematics, differentiation, collaboration, and inclusive instructional practices. This literature review aims to investigate the self-efficacy scales currently used to measure the aforementioned competencies in inclusive mathematics classrooms. By conducting a systematic search of published studies from 2000 to 2025 using databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, and ERIC, and employing citation tracking according to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, the following analysis examined the characteristics, dimensions, and psychometric properties of seven instruments. Based on the results, all seven instruments have a satisfactory level of reliability and provide evidence of either construct or convergent validity; however, none of them cover the full set of competences required by both mathematics and special education teachers in inclusive classrooms. The most common self-efficacy dimensions include instruction, classroom management, collaboration, differentiation, behavior management, and pedagogical content knowledge of mathematics. Nevertheless, there is a gap in research on the relationships between self-efficacy and other education-related variables and a lack of specific validation of the instruments mentioned for inclusive mathematics classrooms. Therefore, current scales partially meet the requirements of measuring teacher self-efficacy in inclusive mathematics classes. This review recommends developing and validating a new self‑efficacy scale for inclusive mathematics classrooms, particularly in contexts where policies and curricula emphasize inclusive math education.

Keywords:
teacher self‑efficacy inclusive mathematics education SpEd collaboration measurement psychometric validity co‑teaching survey questionnaire

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, W. H. Freeman, New York, 1997.
[2]	M. Tschannen-Moran and A. W. Hoy, “Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct,” Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805, Oct. 2001.
[3]	U. Sharma, T. Loreman and C. Forlin, “Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices,” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21, Mar. 2012.
[4]	H. Roos, “Inclusive mathematics education: State-of-the-art research from Brazil and Germany,” ZDM Mathematics Education, 51(4), 573–589, Jun. 2019.
[5]	R. Lambert and P. Tan, “Conceptualizations of access in mathematics for students with disabilities,” Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 19(4), 247–260, Oct. 2017.
[6]	S. R. Powell, M. K. Driver and T. E. Julian, “Students with mathematics difficulty: Instructional considerations for inclusive classrooms,” Intervention in School and Clinic, 56(2), 85–92, Nov. 2020.
[7]	M. Friend, L. Cook, D. Hurley-Chamberlain and C. Shamberger, “Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education,” Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9–27, Jan. 2010.
[8]	M. C. Pugach and L. P. Blanton, “Enacting diversity in dual certification programs,” Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 254–267, Sep. 2012.
[9]	L. S. Shulman, “Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching,” Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14, Feb. 1986.
[10]	D. L. Ball, M. H. Thames and G. Phelps, “Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?” Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407, Nov. 2008.
[11]	J. McLeskey, M. S. Rosenberg and D. L. Westling, Inclusion: Effective practices for all students, Pearson, Boston, 2017.
[12]	L. G. Enochs, P. L. Smith and D. Huinker, “Establishing factorial validity of the Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument,” School Science and Mathematics, 100(4), 194–202, Apr. 2000.
[13]	A. Bandura, “Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales,” in Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, F. Pajares and T. Urdan, Eds., Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, 2006, 307–337.
[14]	M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, L. Shamseer, J. M. Tetzlaff, E. A. Akl, S. E. Brennan, R. Chou, J. Glanville, J. M. Grimshaw, A. Hróbjartsson, M. M. Lalu, T. Li, E. W. Loder, E. Mayo-Wilson, S. McDonald and D. Moher, “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, 372, n71, Mar. 2021.
[15]	M. Petticrew and H. Roberts, Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2006.
[16]	C. Okoli, “A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review,” Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(43), 879–910, Nov. 2015.
[17]	R. F. DeVellis, Scale development: Theory and applications, 4th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2017.
[18]	J. C. Nunnally and I. H. Bernstein, Psychometric theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994.
[19]	J. McLeskey, M.-D. Barringer, B. Billingsley, M. Brownell, D. Jackson, M. Kennedy, T. Lewis, L. Maheady, J. Rodriguez, M. C. Scheeler, J. Winn and D. Ziegler, High-leverage practices for inclusive classrooms, Routledge, New York, 2020.
[20]	S. L. Swars, C. J. Daane and J. Giesen, “Mathematics anxiety and mathematics teacher efficacy: What is the relationship?” School Science and Mathematics, 107(3), 84–92, Mar. 2007.
[21]	C. M. Rubie-Davies, A. Flint and L. McDonald, “Teacher beliefs, teacher characteristics, and school contextual factors: What predicts teacher self-efficacy?” Journal of Educational Research, 105(4), 255–264, Jul. 2012.
[22]	H. Savolainen, P. Engelbrecht, M. Nel and O.-P. Malinen, “Understanding teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive education: Implications for pre-service and in-service teacher education,” European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(1), 51–68, Feb. 2012.
[23]	O.-P. Malinen, H. Savolainen and J. Xu, “Beijing in-service teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusive education,” Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 64–70, Nov. 2013.
[24]	R. M. Klassen, V. M. Tze, S. M. Betts and K. A. Gordon, “Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise?” Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21–43, Mar. 2011.
[25]	M. Zee and H. M. Koomen, “Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher wellbeing: A synthesis of 40 years of research,” Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015, Dec. 2016.