Mv

EO

a

ARR1A

KIPAE

1

trFH2lDjhAe

asdcpsvatw

UU

0d

Early Childhood Research Quarterly 27 (2012) 478– 488

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Early Childhood Research Quarterly

easuring quality in inclusive preschool classrooms: Development andalidation of the Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP)

lena P. Soukakou ∗

xford University, United Kingdom

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 29 April 2010eceived in revised form2 December 2011

a b s t r a c t

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an observation measure designed to assess class-room quality in inclusive preschool programs, the Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP). Developing the ratingscale entailed systematic fieldwork in inclusive settings and review of the literature on preschool inclu-sion. Results from the validation study showed that the measure has good inter-rater agreement, is inter-

ccepted 19 December 2011

eywords:nclusionrogram qualityssessment

nally consistent, and shows a good factor structure. Correlations with other measures of classroom qualityprovided initial evidence for construct validity. This paper argues that traditional measures used to assessquality in early childhood classrooms are useful but may not be sufficient in capturing dimensions of qual-ity that pertain particularly to the support for children with disabilities included in preschool programs.

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

arly childhood education

. Introduction

Inclusion of children with disabilities in early childhood educa-ion settings has become a key issue in the fields of educationalesearch, policy and practice around the world (Florian, 2005;rankel, Gold, & Ajodhia-Andrews, 2010; Odom et al., 2004; Spiker,ebbeler, & Barton, 2011; Wall, Kisker, Peterson, Carta, & Hyun-Joo,006). Increased political commitment to inclusion through federal

egislation, such as the US reauthorization of the Individuals withisabilities Act (IDEA) in 2004, and more recent policies, such as a

oint position statement on inclusion by the Division of Early Child-ood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC) and the Nationalssociation for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), havessentially promoted high-quality inclusion (DEC/NAEYC, 2009).

According to the latest annual report to US Congress in 2007,pproximately 48% of children ages 3–5 years with disabilitiespend at least 80% of their time in inclusive settings with typicallyeveloping peers, while 25% receive services in specialized or self-ontained settings (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). Inclusiverograms may take various forms (e.g., Head Start, child care) and

ervices can be implemented in multiple ways (e.g., itinerant ser-ices, co-teaching). In spite of its varying organizational contextsnd service delivery models, the inclusive classroom appears to behe most prevalent type of learning context for preschool childrenith disabilities.

∗ Correspondence address: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute,niversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB #8180, Chapel Hill, NC 27599,nited States. Tel.: +1 9196995983.

E-mail addresses: elena.soukakou@unc.edu, elenasoucacou@hotmail.com

885-2006/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.003

Parallel to public policy, findings from early childhood researchhave shown that children’s progress across various areas ofdevelopment is associated with the quality of early childhoodprograms (Burchinal et al., 2000; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001;Peisner-Feinberg & Yazejian, 2010; Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons,Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2004). The important relationshipbetween classroom quality and positive outcomes for children’sdevelopment has motivated parents, teachers, researchers, and pol-icy makers to assess and enhance the quality of preschool programs(Friedman & Amadeo, 1999).

However, in contrast with the literature on early child care,only a limited amount of research has studied aspects of quality inpreschool inclusive classrooms (Gallagher & Lambert, 2006; Odom& Bailey, 2001; Spiker et al., 2011). A few studies have specificallyassessed overall levels of program quality in inclusive preschoolsusing direct observational measures. La Paro, Sexton, and Snyder(1998) examined aspects of program quality in 58 community-based preschool settings, which included segregated and inclusivepreschools. Quality of the classroom environments was assessedusing two direct observation measures, the Early Childhood Envi-ronment Rating Scales (ECERS; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998),and the Classroom Practices Inventory (CPI; Hyson, Hirsh-Pasek,& Rescorla, 1990). The CPI measures appropriate and inappropriateclassroom practices based on Developmentally Appropriate Prac-tice (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Findings showed that, overall,quality in both segregated and inclusive programs was moderately

good with both types of settings meeting similar levels of qualityon the two measures. Buysse, Wesley, Bryant, and Gardner (1999)assessed the quality of 62 inclusive classrooms and 118 classroomswith only typically developing children and found that inclusive

esear

ptPfoq

p2qactds

imdtba

aiosiqfite&ctB

mibdEsissmpitammcmpo

hsi(apC

E.P. Soukakou / Early Childhood R

rograms had significantly higher scores on the ECERS comparedo the non-inclusive classrooms. In comparison to the study of Laaro et al. (1998), this study reported overall lower levels of qualityor both types of programs with 26% of the inclusive classrooms andnly 8% of the typical classrooms meeting levels of “good” overalluality as measured by the ECERS scale.

These studies examined the quality in inclusive settings usingrogram quality measures such as the ECERS-R (Harms et al., 1998,005) and the CPI (Hyson et al., 1990), designed to assess the overalluality in early childhood programs. These measures, while validnd useful for measuring the intended aspects of quality in earlyhildhood classrooms, were not developed specifically to assesshe quality of classroom practices and supports for children withisabilities that are included. For this reason, they might not beufficient for assessing quality in inclusive preschool classrooms.

The ICP was designed to complement existing program qual-ty measures by assessing those aspects of classroom practice that

ight be necessary for meeting the developmental needs of chil-ren with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. The contribution ofhe ICP above and beyond existing program quality measures cane described in terms of the target group as the focus of assessmentnd the nature of classroom practices that are being measured.

With regard to the focus of assessment, ratings on the ICPre made by observing the children with identified disabilitiesn a classroom as a group. Scores on each item represent theverall quality of practices implemented with the children toupport their diverse developmental needs in the classroom. Thiss a fundamental difference between the ICP and other programuality measures, which produce overall quality ratings resultingrom the average rated performance of practices with all childrenn the classroom. An emerging concern about this approach ishat it might be “averaging out” the quality of classroom practicesxperienced by the children with identified disabilities (Soucacou

Sylva, 2010). In fact, a widely held assumption is that “younghildren with disabilities can experience low-quality in classeshat are otherwise rated as being of high quality” (Wolery, Pauca,rashers, & Grant, 2000, p. 3).

With regard to the kind of classroom practices assessed by theeasure, quality indicators in the ICP have predominately been

nformed by literature on preschool inclusion to reflect evidence-ased practices that support the individual needs of children withisabilities, while promoting their participation in the group. TheCERS-R includes one item that measures the quality of provi-ions for children with disabilities, as well as additional indicatorsntegrated within the scale’s items. While these indicators mea-ure practices that promote inclusion, many of these tend to assesstructural elements of quality (e.g., availability of adaptive equip-ent and materials for children with disabilities) and general

rovisions more so than specific classroom-level practices andnstructional supports. For example, an ECERS-R indicator withinhe item examining provisions for children with disabilities broadlyssesses the extent to which “modifications made in the environ-ent, program, and schedule so that children can participate inany activities with others.” The ICP extends existing quality indi-

ators by assessing more in depth the practices with which adultsight support various areas of need (e.g., forming and sustaining

eer relationships), as well as by focusing on additional dimensionsf inclusion (e.g., membership).

More recently, a new generation of “domain-specific” measuresave also been designed, validated, and used in early childhoodettings focusing on more instructional aspects of classroom qual-ty. Examples include the Classroom Assessment Scoring System

CLASS; Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008), that rates practicescross three domains of classroom experience: emotional sup-ort, classroom organization, and instructional support; the Earlyhildhood Environment Rating Scale-Extension (ECERS-E; Sylva,

ch Quarterly 27 (2012) 478– 488 479

Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2003), which measures provisions forparticular curriculum content areas (e.g., language, literacy, math,and science); and the Early Language and Literacy ClassroomObservation measure (ELLCO; Smith & Dickinson, 2002). How-ever, similar to other program quality measures, these tools arenot designed to assess practices that are thought to promote thelearning experiences of children with disabilities included in theclassroom. For example, the CLASS manual states that, “CLASS codesshould reflect the experiences of the typical or average student inthe classroom.” (Pianta et al., 2008, p. 11).

In a review of measures designed specifically to assess the qual-ity of inclusion in early childhood programs, very few measureshave been found to serve this purpose. The Quality of InclusiveExperiences Measure (QuIEM; Wolery et al., 2000) was designedto assess the quality of individual children’s experiences in inclu-sive settings. The measure assesses the quality of: program goalsand purpose; staff supports and perceptions; accessibility andadequacy of the physical environment; participation and engage-ment; adult–child contact and relationships; individualization; andchild–child contacts and interactions. The ICP shares many of thetheoretical assumptions underlying the development of the QuIEM.The QuIEM uses a combination of target child observation with timesampling and event recording methods for assessing the quality ofindividual children’s experiences, as well as a rating scale to mea-sure dimensions of program quality. The ICP uses a 7-point ratingscale that can be used to assess the quality of classroom practicesfor a group of children with identified disabilities. Also, the QuIEMis designed to be administered over a period of several days andrequires extensive interviewing for scoring. The ICP is designed tobe administered in approximately two hours and most informationis gathered through direct observation.

Another measure, the SpeciaLink Child Care Inclusion PracticesProfile and Principles Scale (Irwin, 2005) includes 11 items thatassess the quality of inclusive practices, such as staff training andintegration of therapies, as well as six items that assess a pro-gram’s commitment to principles of inclusion. The SpeciaLink EarlyChildhood Inclusion Quality Scale covers domains of quality pre-dominately at a programmatic level, more so than focusing on spe-cific classroom strategies that are being implemented. As such, andaccording to the authors, the measure can be administered in pro-grams without children with special needs to assess their inclusioncapacity (Irwin, 2005). Although both measures deserve impor-tant consideration, published information on their psychometricproperties is needed to enable reliable and valid use in research.

The present study built on a recognized premise that whatconstitutes quality in classrooms where diverse learners such aschildren with disabilities require additional supports, is possiblymore multifaceted than what current theoretical frameworks ormeasures describe (Gallagher & Lambert, 2006; Odom & Bailey,2001; Spiker et al., 2011; Wolery et al., 2000). In response to a lackof validated instruments designed specifically to measure the qual-ity of classroom support provided for children with special needs ininclusive settings, a new observation measure, the Inclusive Class-room Profile (ICP) was conceptualized, designed, and validated inan effort to enhance quality in inclusive settings. The purpose of thispaper is to describe the development and validation of the ICP. Thefirst part describes the steps involved in designing the observationmeasure followed by the study for validating the new instrument.

2. Development of the Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP)

2.1. Conceptual framework

At the very start of an attempt to measure a construct, suchas quality of inclusive classroom practice, it is important to dis-close the main perspectives that influence how the concept is

4 esear

bgctTt(D

1

2

3

4

5

6

80 E.P. Soukakou / Early Childhood R

eing understood and described. In this study, six fundamentaluiding principles integrate research within the fields of earlyhildhood and early childhood special education, extending fromhe 90s (Bricker, 1995; Buysse & Bailey, 1993) to the present date.hese principles reflect some of the most current research syn-heses and theoretical perspectives on early childhood inclusionBuysse, 2012; Buysse & Hollingsworth, 2009; National Professionalevelopment Center on Inclusion, 2009).

. Rather than just an issue of enrollment in the classroom, high qualityinclusion is reflected in the quality of practices and supports pro-vided in the classroom (Dockrell & Lindsay, 2008; Mittler, 2000;Wolery et al., 2000). According to this principle, in the ICP, ratingsare contingent on the quality of practices and learning experi-ences that take place in the classroom.

. The desired goals of children with and without disabilities includedin preschool classrooms include a sense of membership, positivesocial relationships and friendships, and support to maximize theirlearning potential. Key features of a high-quality inclusive programinvolve access, participation, and supports (DEC/NAEYC, 2009). Inaccordance with the joint position statement of the Division forEarly Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Edu-cation of Young Children (NAEYC), indicators in the ICP assessthe extent to which classroom practices enable access and par-ticipation in a wide range of learning opportunities, offer allchildren equal opportunities to be active members of the class-room community, and provide the necessary supports to meettheir individualized needs.

. High-quality inclusion reflects a system of practices, which are inter-related. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (1979) provided auseful framework for considering the various, interconnectedsystems that shape preschool inclusion. This model is highlyrelevant to the development of the ICP as it suggests thatquality assessment should reflect the interdependent relation-ship between elements of the inclusive classroom ecology(Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Odom et al., 2004). For example, withinthe same ICP item, “Adaptations of space and materials” indica-tors measure two interrelated dimensions of quality, the levelof accessibility of space and materials, as well as how adults usethem to support peer interactions.

. Adult–child social interactions are a principal mechanism by whichclassroom experiences influence development (La Paro, Pianta, &Stuhlman, 2004). Research strongly supports the significant rolethat high-quality, sustained, reciprocal adult–child interactionsplay in children’s development (Greenspan, 2003; Kontos &Wilcox-Herzog, 1997). In the ICP, quality indicators of adultsupport are described in the context of adult interactions withchildren.

. Specialized instructional strategies and interventions are a majoraspect of supportive inclusive programs (Odom et al., 2004). Animportant assumption guiding the conceptualization of the ICPis that classroom practices that have research support are morelikely to meet the needs of young children with disabilities inordinary settings. For example, naturalistic instruction, whichincludes a set of practices such as incidental teaching methods,embedded strategies, scaffolding strategies, and peer-mediatedinterventions have empirical support and are generally encour-aged in inclusive classrooms (Carta, 1995; Odom, 2000; Odomet al., 2004).

. Classroom practices that support children with special needs inmainstream classrooms are individually and dynamically goal ori-

ented (Carta, 1995; Odom, 2000; Odom & Wolery, 2003). The roleof individualization is essential to the conceptualization of theICP, because it views quality of classroom practices as a reflec-tion of the extent to which they support individual needs andpromote identified goals.

ch Quarterly 27 (2012) 478– 488

2.2. Sample for devising the ICP

The sample for designing the rating scale consisted of nine inclu-sive classrooms in Oxfordshire, UK. Of these settings, four wereused for the initial development of the rating scale, and five wereused for piloting. The study received permission by the Central Uni-versity Research Ethics Committee (CUREC) to conduct the study.The British Educational Research Association (BERA) and BritishPsychological Society’s (BPS) ethical guidelines were followed asrequired by the ethics review board (British Educational ResearchAssociation, 2000; British Psychological Society, 2004).

Settings were purposefully selected to represent a range of pop-ulations and environments. “Inclusive” was operationally definedas any classroom which: (a) Served children 2.5–5 years old; and(b) Served at least one child with identified disabilities based onthe national school identification process. According to this pro-cess, identification of children’s needs takes place progressivelythrough three stages: 1. Early Years Action (EYA), 2. Early YearsAction Plus (EYA+), and 3. Statement of Special Education Needs.A child is placed on EYA when there is sustained concern aboutmeeting the early learning goals outlined in the UK National Cur-riculum (DfEE, 2000). When teacher support alone does not appearto help children make adequate progress as defined by local author-ity standards, children may receive additional in-class support bya learning support assistant that is provided by the Local Author-ity (EYA+). Further concerns about a child can lead to a requestfor a statutory assessment for the child, which usually results in a“statement of special educational needs,” a document that outlinesassessment results, as well as short- and long-term goals for thechild (similar to a US Individualized Education Plan). In this study,inclusive classrooms were selected if they served at least one childthat was either receiving additional in-class support (EYA+) or hada Statement of Special Educational Needs (DfES, 2001).

2.3. Steps for devising the ICP

Developing the ICP involved a multi-step, iterative process,which took place within five phases: (1) Exploratory research, (2)Conceptualization, (3) Item generation, (4) Expert review, and (5)Piloting. These steps follow a classical test theory approach thathas commonly informed and guided scale construction in research(Spector, 1992).

2.3.1. Exploratory researchThe purpose of this phase was to explore the concept of inclu-

sive classroom practices more broadly in the literature, as well aswithin the field of practice in English settings. A purely conceptualexamination of this construct was not sufficient in the absence ofa reached consensus regarding the nature of classroom practicesthat support the inclusion of children with special needs. There-fore, in this exploratory stage, it was important to consult withearly childhood staff, policy makers, and professionals in order toconceptualize quality.

Eighteen exploratory nonparticipant observations, each lastingthree hours, in four classrooms were conducted over a period of fivemonths. Information on the physical and social environment of theclassrooms, the daily activities, and children’s social experienceswas gathered through classroom observation notes. Informationwas also gathered on the roles assumed by adults and their involve-ment in activities and interactions with children. An importantobjective of these observations was to conceptualize shared goalsfor children with special needs in inclusive settings. These served

as a starting point from which classroom practices that can supportthose goals could, in turn, be delineated. A synthesis of exploratorydata and review of the literature enabled the conceptualization ofthe following shared goals: Development of social relationships and

esear

ftsvha

tsitmwCfStJACot

2p

tbiiq2arscimaivneiwapt

2

iiiasbTdeiitw

E.P. Soukakou / Early Childhood R

riendships with others; development of functional communica-ion skills; development of critical thinking and problem solvingkills; development of emotional competence; and children’s moti-ation to learn. A detailed description of each of these is not possibleere, but these are outlined, as they guided further the conceptu-lization of classroom practices.

Review of the literature involved examining inclusive policies inhe UK and international contexts, existing program quality mea-ures, interventions designed to support children with disabilitiesn early childhood classrooms, as well as research investigatinghe relationship between various components of inclusive environ-

ents and children’s outcomes. The UK Code of Practice for childrenith special educational needs (DfES, 2001); the Division for Earlyhildhood (DEC) Recommended Practices: A Comprehensive Guide

or Practical Application in Early Intervention and Early Childhoodpecial Education (Sandall, Hemmeter, Smith, & McLean, 2005) andhe DEC companion guide for program assessment (Hemmeter,oseph, Smith, & Sandall, 2001); the guidelines for Developmentallyppropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs (Bredekamp &opple, 1997); and a most recent comprehensive review of researchn preschool inclusion (Odom et al., 2004) are examples of litera-ure that served as a road map for delineating inclusive practices.

.3.2. Conceptualization of quality of inclusive classroomractices

Exploratory research offered the groundwork for understandinghe various ways by which classroom practices were implementedy various stakeholders in the day to day life of inclusive settings

n the UK. The next step in the development process involved spec-fying the domains of practices that would “cover” the spectrum ofuality in the ICP and what would not be covered (Viswanathan,005). A synthesis of exploratory data and literature on the waysdults might support children’s experiences in the classroomevealed two categories of practices: First, adult support includedtrategies that aimed to scaffold children’s learning and meethildren’s needs in the context of classroom activities and peernteractions. Second, inclusive adaptations involved embedding or

odifying activities, space, and materials. The concept of inclusivedaptations (S.L. Recchia, personal communication, October 2005)s essential in the ICP, as it embodies the importance of adjustingarious elements of the classroom that accommodate individualeeds (individualization) while also encouraging children’s activengagement in the group (inclusiveness). Following this pathway,n the ICP inclusive practices were conceptually defined as “practices

hich deliberately adapt the classroom’s environment, activities,nd instruction in ways that encourage access and active partici-ation in the group, through supports that might differ from childo child.”

.3.3. Item generationAfter delineating the domains of quality, the following step

nvolved operationalizing these into items by breaking them downnto smaller observable dimensions, generating indicators for eachtem, and applying specific criteria to enable reliable measurementnd differentiation of “low quality” from “high quality.” To createpecific items, an “emergent item generation” approach was usedy which new items guided the development of subsequent items.hat is, instead of creating a set of items a priori and then movingirectly to develop indicators for each of them, the development ofach one item guided the generation of other items. For example, an

tem initially defined as “adult involvement in peer interactions,”ncluded one indicator measuring how adults help children nego-iate peer conflict. Further literature review of this area coupledith observation of this item in classrooms provided additional

ch Quarterly 27 (2012) 478– 488 481

information on strategies for supporting peer conflict, which, inturn, became a separate item.

2.3.4. Expert reviewThe constructed items were subjected to expert review where

quantitative and qualitative ratings enabled assessment of themeasure’s content and structure. Reviewers included a researchprofessor in the field of special education, an educational psy-chologist with experience in using early childhood environmentmeasures for professional development and research, a principalresearcher who had carried out a national study of early childhoodquality in the UK, and a senior early childhood teacher with teach-ing experience in preschool inclusive settings. Reviewers rated theimportance of each of the scale’s items on a 5-point scale (1 = NotImportant, 5 = Very important). The ratings of four reviewers rangedfrom 3 (Moderately important) to 5 (Very important) among allitems. The means of all item ratings ranged between 4 (Important)and 5 (Very important), with 75% of the ratings scoring above amean rating of 4.5 suggesting that experts considered the items ashighly important according to their definition of quality. Reviewersalso completed an open-ended questionnaire on the scale’s con-tent and structure. Reviewers’ comments focused on definitions ofvarious terms and described practices, and suggested further clar-ification of concepts such as “accessing” materials, “monitoring”children’s involvement in play, and “sustained,” “reciprocal” socialinteractions to enable reliable measurement.

2.3.5. PilotingFollowing the expert review process, the rating scale was revised

and piloted in five inclusive classrooms to test its content, struc-ture, and use. Settings included three government funded and twoindependent preschool classrooms. Classrooms included a rangebetween two and six children with special needs. Through pur-posive sampling, the pilot classrooms were selected in order toconsider how quality indicators “behaved” in settings that variedin terms of number of children with disabilities and type of set-ting (independent playgroup versus state-maintained nursery). Itwas also important to review administration issues, such as, timerequired to administer and score the scale. The rating scale wascompleted once for each classroom. Piloting revealed the need tofurther clarify several concepts and to modify a few indicatorsand their scoring criteria. For example, an indicator assessing theextent to which adults encouraged representational play, requiredbroadening its specificity, as piloting revealed instances in whichthe majority of children under observation had not mastered thiskind of play, and as such, underscoring this practice might havenot resulted in valid measurement. For this reason, that indica-tor was broadened by assessing the extent to which children areoffered opportunities to engage in social play. Specific exampleswere added to demonstrate the different ways in which adultsmight encourage various forms of social play for children withdiverse profiles. Such revisions enabled a final version of the ratingscale which was then subjected to a formal validation study.

2.4. Description of the Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP)

The ICP is a 7-point Likert-type scale with the lowest degreeof quality (1) representing practices that are considered harmful orhighly inappropriate and the highest degree (7) reflecting practicesthat are thought to promote inclusion while nurturing individual-ization. The ICP includes 11 items and following a similar format asthe ECERS-R rating scale, each item consists of a set of quality indi-

cators that take the form of descriptions of behaviors to be rated(see Appendix A for an example of the format of an ICP item). TheICP assesses inclusive practices at the classroom level and, there-fore, domains such as professional development opportunities for

482 E.P. Soukakou / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 27 (2012) 478– 488

Table 1ICP description of items (N = 11 items).

ICP items Description

1. Adaptations of space and materials/equipment Assesses the extent to which adults adapt the space, furniture and materials topromote children’s learning and social experience in the classroom

2. Adult involvement in peer interactions Assesses quality of adult engagement in supporting reciprocal, sustained peerinteractions

3. Adults’ guidance of children’s play Evaluates adults’ engagement and scaffolding of children’s play4. Conflict resolution Evaluates adults’ involvement in supporting conflict resolution5. Membership Assesses the extent to which children have equal opportunities to assume social roles

and responsibilities in the classroom6. Adult–child social communicative interactions Evaluates the reciprocity, sustainability and content of adult–child verbal and

non-verbal social interactions7. Support for social communication Assesses the extent to which adults promote and facilitate functional, social

communication skills among children with and without difficulties8. Adaptation of group activities Assesses the extent to which adults adapt group activities to promote active

engagement and meet individualized needs9. Transitions between activities Assesses the extent to which transitions are organized and adapted to prepare

children for activities10. Feedback Evaluates the frequency and nature of feedback provided to individual and group of

childrAssessactivit

scaIoeRiqIaiaaoo

3

iaosedit

3

sdct

bwatoht

Three measures were selected and administered in all 45 class-rooms in addition to the ICP to assess construct validity. Thesemeasures were selected because they have been widely used ineducational research to measure classroom quality and have been

Table 2Classroom characteristics (N = 45 classrooms).

Classroom characteristics M SD Min Max

Number of children per classroom 23.25 12.78 4 70Number of children with disabilities per 2.48 2.78 1 17

11. Planning and Monitoring of Children’s Individual Needs and Goals

taff are not measured in the ICP. Also, practices related to specificurriculum domains such as literacy, numeracy, and science werelso not intended to be measured by the ICP. Table 1 describes theCP items. Assessment of items is predominately based on directbservation. A few indicators are assessed through interview andvaluation of documentation, such as monitoring progress systems.atings are made by observing all children with identified disabil-

ties as a group. The rating scale might also be used to assess theuality of practices with individual children. As the focus of the

CP is on practices that support high-quality inclusion, practicesre always being observed in the context of children’s daily activ-ties and interactions with their peers. The ICP was designed to bedministered in a 2-hour observation period. Currently, the ICP isvailable for use in research. Training prior to administration is rec-mmended and related information along with the measure can bebtained upon contacting the author.

. Validation of the Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP)

The validation of the rating scale was in reality the sixth phasen the development of the ICP. The purpose of this phase was tossess the measure’s psychometric properties in a diverse samplef settings using formal reliability and validity tests. The validationtudy addressed the following research questions: 1. What is thevidence for inter-rater agreement on the scale? 2. What is the evi-ence for the internal consistency reliability of the scale? 3. What

s the evidence for the factor structure of the scale? and 4. What ishe evidence for the construct validity of the scale?

.1. Sample for validating the ICP

The newly developed rating scale was validated in 45 inclu-ive classrooms in three counties in the UK. “Inclusive” was againefined as any early childhood classroom which served at least onehild with a disability according to the national school identifica-ion system.

Across all classrooms, 112 children had an identified disabilityased on the national school identification process. Of the childrenith disabilities, 42% had received a formal statutory assessment by

multidisciplinary team. The other 58% were most commonly iden-

ified based on various teacher assessments and/or assessments byther professionals (e.g. speech-therapist). For each child reportedaving a disability (N = 112) teachers were asked by a researchero identify if the child demonstrated a disability in one or more

enes the extent to which IEP goals are being planned, implemented in dailyies, and how children’s progress is being monitored

developmental areas. Based on teacher report, 32% presented withlanguage-communication difficulties; 10% with social-emotionalneeds; 13% with a physical-sensory disability, 21% presented withboth language/communication and social/emotional difficulties,8% had language/communication and physical/sensory disabili-ties, and 15% were identified having a global developmental delay(combination of language/communication; social/emotional andphysical/sensory disabilities).

Of the 45 classrooms, 67% were government maintained, 31%were private early childhood inclusive classrooms and 2% werea combination of the above. In most classrooms (71%), childrenreceived additional support by a learning support assistant on aweekly basis. Table 2 presents the main child and teacher charac-teristics across the 45 classrooms.

Most classrooms (73%) had at least one teacher with a Qual-ified Teacher Status (QTS) based on the UK teacher qualificationsystem (e.g., bachelor degree or post graduate certificate in educa-tion). Of the 196 adults present across all classrooms (including paidstaff and volunteers), 92% had some kind of formal qualifications inchildcare based on the UK national qualifications framework. How-ever, interestingly, only in four settings (9%) was there at least oneteacher who had received formal training in supporting childrenwith disabilities. In these cases, it was the main teacher who hadreceived formal training (e.g., diploma or Masters degree in Spe-cial Education). The majority of staff had attended conference talkson special education related issues and/or had received one-dayprofessional development sessions.

3.2. Measures

classroomAge of children with disabilities (months) 50.49 9.00 30 72Number of staff per classroom 4.54 1.62 2 9Number of years of experience of staff 10.87 8.68 0.25 45

esear

fpcttqfmIg

3(

coesPPoes1iscsPta2

ioofsoFwagropfio

3(

sbaaLIapc1Eca

E.P. Soukakou / Early Childhood R

ound to have adequate psychometric properties, including strongredictive validity (relationship between scale scores and child out-omes) in nationally representative US and UK samples. Given thathe ICP would be validated in the UK, this was particularly impor-ant. The availability of additional measures designed to assessuality of inclusive practices would have been a useful additionor comparison with the ICP, but in the absence of such validated

easures, the ICP was correlated with measures which, like theCP, assess dimensions of classroom quality in early childhood pro-rams.

.2.1. Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised editionHarms et al., 1998, 2005)

First published in 1980 and revised in 1998, the measureomprehensively assesses program quality through structuredbservation. Using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 representing “inad-quate practice” and 7 “excellent practice”), the ECERS-R includeseven subscales measuring the quality of Space and furnishings;ersonal care routines; Language-Reasoning; Activities; Interaction;rogram structure; and Parents and staff. The ECERS-R scale is onef the most widely used assessment measures of early childhoodnvironments and has been extensively validated and used in large-cale program quality research in many countries (Harms et al.,998, 2005; Perlman, Zellman, & Vi-Nhuan, 2004). Assessment of

nter-rater reliability has shown high levels of agreement (.92 Pear-on product moment and .86 Spearman rank order). Total internalonsistency of the scale was found to be .92. Subscale internal con-istencies were calculated at .76 for Space and furnishings, .72 forersonal care routines, .83 for Language-Reasoning, .88 for Activi-ies, .86 for Interaction, .77 for Program structure and .71 for Parentsnd staff (Harms et al., 2005; Sakai, Whitebook, Wishard, & Howes,003).

The ECERS-R was selected for comparison with the ICP becauset met the above requirements for research support and it wasne of the main measures that served as a foundation for devel-ping the ICP. Given that the ECERS-R also measures provisionsor children with disabilities, correlations between the two mea-ures could provide important information about the contributionf the ICP items above and beyond those included in the ECERS-R.ive subscales that assess classroom-level provisions and practicesere administered in the validation sample. These included Space

nd furnishings, Language-Reasoning, Activities, Interaction, and Pro-ram structure. A decision for not administering the Personal careoutines and the Parents and staff subscales was made at the timen the grounds that these subscales assess broader programmaticrovisions that extend beyond classroom level (e.g., opportunitiesor professional growth). However, the potential contribution ofnformation collected by these measures to the construct validityf the ICP is discussed in the final section of this paper.

.2.2. Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-ExtensionECERS-E; Sylva et al., 2003)

Sylva et al. (2003) extended the ECERS-R with a new ratingcale to assess curriculum provision in England. The ECERS-E isased on the Desirable Learning Outcomes of the Curriculum Guid-nce for the Foundation Stage, England’s national curriculum for 3-nd 4-year-old-children (DfEE, 2000). It consists of four subscales:iteracy, Mathematics, Science, and Diversity (Sylva et al., 2003).nter-rater agreement on the ECERS-E measure was established in

longitudinal study examining the relationship between quality ofreschool provision and children’s development in a sample of 141lassrooms (Sylva, Sammons, Melhuish, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart,

999). In that sample, the ECERS-E was strongly correlated with theCERS-R total score (r = 0.78, p < .01). Inter-rater agreement was cal-ulated on 25 randomly chosen classrooms as a percent of exactgreement between raters and using a mean weighted kappa value

ch Quarterly 27 (2012) 478– 488 483

(�). The mean percentage of exact agreement ranged from 85.2 to97.6. The mean kappa value across setting visits ranged from 0.83 to0.97. Multi-level statistical analyses have shown the ECERS-E to bea significant predictor of children’s cognitive, language, and literacyskills (Sylva et al., 2006).

Of the ECERS-E measure, the Diversity subscale was selected forcomparison with the ICP. Ratings on this subscale have been foundto have strong predictive validity against child outcomes in a UKnationally representative sample (Sylva et al., 2006). This particularsubscale was also selected as it includes one item that specificallyassesses classroom-level practices for meeting children’s individ-ual needs. The other subscales of the ECERS-E measure were notselected for comparison with the ICP as they measure specific cur-riculum domains of the UK’s national curriculum. Given that theICP is not designed to measure a particular curriculum and theECERS-E is an extensive measure of curriculum provision, requiringapproximately 2–3 hours of observation, the Diversity subscale wasconsidered the most appropriate measure to include for exploringthe ICP’s construct validity.

3.2.3. Caregiver Interaction Scale (Arnett, 1989)The CIS is an observation rating scale that measures one par-

ticular dimension of classroom quality in depth, the quality ofteacher-child interactions. It consists of 26 items assessing fourdimensions of teacher interaction: Positive relationships, Punitive-ness, Detachment, and Permissiveness. The extent to which itemsreflect observed behaviors is assessed on a 4-point scale with 1representing “not at all” and 4 “very much.” The author does notreport information on the validity of the scale. Agreement betweenobservers is reported at a level of 80%. The CIS has been used exten-sively in large-scale studies that have demonstrated high internalconsistency (Maxwell, McWilliam, Hemmeter, Ault, & Schuster,2001) as well as predictive validity particularly of social outcomesfor preschool children (Mathers & Sylva, 2007; Peisner-Feinberg& Burchinal, 1997). The CIS measure, like the other two measuresmet the descriptive criteria for inclusion and was administered asa whole in all 45 classrooms.

3.3. Procedures

3.3.1. Training for inter-rater agreement on the ICPTo establish inter-rater reliability for the ICP, a second observer

with previous experience in using classroom quality measureswas trained over a two-day workshop. Initial training involvedintroducing the rating scale followed by a practice visit at a localpre-k classroom and a discussion on administration and scoringprocedures. The second day of training involved a second prac-tice observation followed by a final workshop where the trainedresearcher and main rater compared their ratings and furtherclarified items, terms and scoring instructions. Two additionalclassroom observations were completed with no consultationbetween the two researchers. After meeting a reliability trainingproficiency criterion of a kappa score of 0.80 or above maintainedfor two consecutive observations, the formal reliability procedurewas carried out in a separate sample.

3.3.2. Training in using the ECERS-R, ECERS-E, and CISFormal training in all three measures was provided to the main

researcher by senior researchers with previous experience in usingthe above instruments. Training involved two full- day sessionson the content, administration and scoring of the instruments, aswell as four practice visits in early childhood classrooms in Oxford,

UK. Practice visits were followed by two-hour workshops duringwhich the trainer and trainee discussed issues related to scoringand administration. When this training was completed, a formalinter-rater agreement exercise for each instrument was carried out

484 E.P. Soukakou / Early Childhood Resear

Table 3Inter-rater agreement on the ECERS-R, ECERS-E and CIS (N = 8).

Measures Mean weighted kappa scores (�)

ECERS-R Total composite (5 subscales) 0.85ECERS-R Space and Furnishings 0.84ECERS-R Language and reasoning 0.91ECERS-R Activities 0.85ECERS-R Interaction 0.81ECERS-R Program structure 0.85ECERS-E Diversity Subscale 0.73CIS Total composite 0.88CIS Positive Relationships 0.62

is

3

pdatad

4

4

tiacscTsisaso

4

rpf

TD

ment with three additional validated measures designed to assessdimensions of classroom quality. These are the ECERS-R (Harmset al., 1998), ECERS-E (Sylva et al., 2003), and the CIS (Arnett, 1989).Correlations were computed between the total score of the ICP and

.52Feedback

Moni toring IEP’s

CIS Punitiveness 0.91CIS Permissiveness 0.99CIS Detachment 0.98

n eight classrooms. Table 3 presents the mean weighted kappacores for each of the three measures.

.3.3. Administration of measuresAdministration of all instruments involved structured, non-

articipant observation. Each classroom was visited twice on twoifferent occasions for 2.5 hours. On the first visit, the researcherdministered the ICP and the ECERS-E measure. On the second visito the same classroom, the researcher administered the ECERS-Rnd CIS instruments. Formal observation usually began when chil-ren arrived to the setting.

. Results

.1. Descriptive statistics on ICP’s items and composite score

Item ratings showed good variability with scores falling fromhe lower to the higher end of the scale. The mean rating for mosttems fell in the midrange of the rating scale (between 3.0 and 4.0)lthough individual items were not normally distributed acrosslassrooms. One of the scale’s items, called “Conflict resolution,”cored “Not applicable” in 35 classrooms, because conflict amonghildren with special needs and their peers had not been observed.herefore, ratings on this item were not included in the compositecore. To compute a composite score, a mean across the 10 remain-ng items was calculated for each classroom. This total compositecore of the ICP was normally distributed across classrooms with

mean of 3.34 falling in the middle of the 7-point scale and atandard deviation of 0.67. Table 4 presents descriptive statisticsf individual items.

.2. Inter-rater agreement

Inter-rater agreement on the ICP was established in 10 class-ooms (separate from the sample used for the development andiloting of the ICP) and was calculated using weighted kappa scoresor the scale’s items. Results suggested that independent observers

able 4escriptive statistics of ICP individual scale items.

Scale items M SD Min Max

Item 1 (space & materials) 3.82 1.13 1.00 6.00Item 2 (peer interactions) 2.53 0.99 1.00 5.00Item 3 (guidance for play) 3.82 0.93 1.00 6.00Item 4 (conflict resolution) 3.20 0.91 2.00 4.00Item 5 (membership) 2.51 1.12 2.00 6.00Item 6 (social interactions) 3.26 0.58 1.00 4.00Item 7 (communication) 3.35 1.26 1.00 7.00Item 8 (group activities) 4.54 1.19 3.00 6.00Item 9 (transitions) 3.06 1.03 1.00 6.00Item 10 (feedback) 3.36 1.20 1.00 7.00Item 11 (plan & monitor individual goals) 3.31 1.06 1.00 5.00

ch Quarterly 27 (2012) 478– 488

trained in using the scale were highly consistent in their ratingsof individual items. The mean weighted kappa for all items acrossclassrooms was 0.79. The weighted kappa scores for the itemsranged from 0.45 to 0.93, with items 8 (.45) and item 9 (.60) fallingin the 0.40–0.60 “fair” range (Robson, 2002).

4.3. Internal consistency

Cronbach’s alpha analysis for the 10 items of the ICP suggestedthat the scale’s items were internally consistent ( ̨ = 0.79).

4.4. Structural validity

An exploratory factor analysis was initially conducted to explorethe factor structure of the ICP. We used a maximum likelihoodextraction with a quartimin rotation. Quartimin is an oblique rota-tion which allows for correlated factors. Examination of the screeplot and eigenvalues supported a one-factor solution with thefirst factor accounting 39.1%. (eigenvalue = 3.91 of the variance).The two- and three-factor solutions had eigenvalues equal to 1.28and 1.03, respectively, although there is a clear break after thefirst factor. Further, the structure matrix (factor loadings) of thesesolutions did not imply theoretically meaningful constructs. Giventhe poor evidence for their existence as meaningful latent vari-ables, the second and third factors were rejected and only theone factor solution was retained. A confirmatory factor analysiswas conducted to further test the assumption of unidimension-ality. A one-factor model filled the assumptions and showed goodvalues for model fit. (Model fit indices were: �2 = 35.164, df = 35,p = 460, CMIN/df = 1.005, RMSEA = .010, NNFI = .998, and CFI = .998.)Fig. 1 shows the factor loadings for the individual ICP items. As it canbe seen from the figure, items 5 (Membership) and 9 (Transitions)presented lower structural coefficients in this model. Excludingthese two items from the model did not result into significantimprovement of the measure’s internal consistency and so theywere retained based on conceptual grounds.

4.5. Construct validity

Construct validity was examined by correlating the new instru-

InclusiveClassroo m

Profile.18

.78

.65

.73

.64

.76

.65

.20

.67

Space & Materials

Peer Int era ctions

Freepl ay

Member ship

Social Intera ction

Commun ication

Group A ctivities

Tra nsitions

Mod el Fi tχ²= 35 .16 4df= 35p=.46 0CMIN/df = 1.00 5RMSEA= .010NNFI = . 998CFI= .99 8

Fig. 1. Confirmatory factor analysis for the ICP (10 items).

esearch Quarterly 27 (2012) 478– 488 485

tssfirsw

mssrroiGiwIsasaoaoPst

bisISsstarcefcoTftwswcda“i

5

bccr

Table 5Mean ECERS-R, ECERS-E and CIS scores (N = 45 classrooms) and correlations withthe Inclusive Classroom Profile.

Measures M SD Correlationswith ICP

ECERS-R (total composite) 4.23 0.66 0.62*

ECERS-R Subscale (Space & furnishings) 4.39 0.76 0.55*

ECERS-R Subscale (Language & reasoning) 3.82 0.80 0.53*

ECERS-R Subscale (Activities) 3.58 0.79 0.38*

ECERS-R Subscale (Interaction) 4.96 0.98 0.51*

ECERS-R Subscale (Program structure) 5.00 0.89 0.49*

ECERS-E Diversity subscale – Item 1(Planning for individual needs)

2.28 1.27 0.48*

ECERS-E Diversity subscale – Item 2(Gender equality)

1.82 0.93 0.04

ECERS-E Diversity subscale – Item 3 (Raceequality)

2.51 0.96 0.08

*

E.P. Soukakou / Early Childhood R

he total composite score of ECERS-R (total average of five sub-cales), as well as with each of the five subscales of the ECERS-Reparately. In addition, the ICP was correlated with two subscalesrom the CIS. Although all four subscales from the CIS were admin-stered in the 45 classrooms, statistical analysis on its subscalesevealed low internal consistency scores for two of the four sub-cales, and therefore, these were not used to compute correlationsith the ICP.

Similarly, in this sample, the Diversity subscale from the ECERS-Eeasure showed low internal consistency. In this case, a deci-

ion was made to correlate each of the 3 items of that subscaleeparately with the ICP. The decision to retain this subscale for cor-elation analysis with the ICP was made on the basis of (a) publishedesearch support for the subscale’s predictive validity against childutcomes (Sylva et al., 2006) and (b) the importance of correlat-ng the ICP with the constructs assessed by the Diversity subscale.iven that this subscale includes three items, one of which specif-

cally assesses practices for meeting children’s individual needs, itas considered important to explore the correlation between the

CP and this item. The three items assessed by the ECERS-E Diver-ity Subscale are “Planning for individual needs,” “Gender equality,”nd “Race equality.” A hypothesis was that the ICP would be moretrongly correlated with the “Planning for individual needs” item,s it is conceptually “closer” to the constructs assessed by the ICP aspposed to the other two items (gender and race equality) whichre not measured by the ICP at all. Correlations between subscalesr items that were normally distributed were performed using theearson r correlation coefficient, while correlations that involvedubscales that were not normally distributed were computed usinghe Spearman’s rho coefficient (Robson, 2002).

Correlation analysis showed a moderately high correlationetween the ICP and the ECERS-R total score (r = .625, p < .001),

ndicating that the two measures are not measuring identical con-tructs. A similar pattern of correlations was found between theCP and individual subscales from the ECERS-R, such as with thepace and furnishings, Interaction, Language-Reasoning, and Programtructure. A weaker correlation was found with the Activities sub-cale from the ECERS-R. This association is not surprising givenhat this subscale assesses provisions for activity materials, suchs provision for sand and water in a program, number of art mate-ials and portion of the day materials are accessible. Results fromorrelations with the ECERS-E Diversity subscale, showed a mod-rately high correlation between the ICP and the item “Planningor individual needs” (rho = .486, p < .01), while significantly weakerorrelation coefficients were found among the ICP and the twother items of the Diversity subscale (gender and race equality).his pattern of correlations was expected given that “Planningor individual needs” assesses evidence for differentiating instruc-ional supports to meet individual needs, similar to ICP constructs,hereas the other two items involve concepts that are not mea-

ured in the ICP. Finally, moderately high correlations were foundith subscales from the CIS. Table 5 summarizes the results of the

orrelation analyses. Such patterns might provide some initial evi-ence of convergent and divergent validity of the new measure,s the ICP correlated higher with measures that were conceptuallycloser” to its content, while it was more weakly correlated withtems that were conceptually “distant” to the ICP constructs.

. Discussion

The development of the Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP) was

ased on a growing concern among the research community thaturrent measures that have traditionally assessed quality in earlyhildhood programs, while valid and useful for measuring class-oom practice, might not adequately assess those aspects of quality

CIS Subscale (Positive relationships) 2.77 0.72 0.49CIS Subscale (Detachment) 1.44 0.76 −0.33*

* p < 0.05 level (2-tailed).

that pertain to the specific supports needed for meeting the variousneeds of children with disabilities included in the classroom.

In the ICP, quality indicators are operationalized in ways that canbe applied to a group of children with disabilities while enablingreliable assessment of practices that can be differentially imple-mented to meet children’s individual needs. This is done by statingthe practice to be assessed (e.g., “adults monitor children’s use ofmaterials and provide the necessary scaffolding for children whohave difficulty using materials purposefully”), clarifying importantterms and criteria for scoring (e.g., clarifying for raters the differ-ence between “accessing” and “using” materials; specifying whatobservers need to see in order to give credit for “adult monitoring”),and providing examples of the various ways in which adults mightimplement a practice with children presenting diverse strengthsand needs (e.g., adult helps a child with fine motor difficulty useadaptive scissors to cut on paper; adult helps a child with impul-sive behavior difficulties use glue on paper and art materials; adultoffers hand-over-hand assistance to a child doing a puzzle).

The validation study on the ICP investigated the measure’spsychometric properties and assessed inter-rater agreement, inter-nal consistency, factor structure, and construct validity. Resultsshowed a normally distributed composite score for the 45 class-rooms. The scale’s items were found to be internally consistentand results showed a good factor structure, with one factor solu-tion showing good values for model fit. Results also showed goodinter-rater agreement based on the training provided. One itempresented a weighted kappa score (.45) falling in the 0.40–0.60“fair” range (Robson, 2002). This item, “Adaptations of group activi-ties”, assesses the ways in which adults adapt daily group activities(e.g., story time, circle time) to accommodate individual needs.Inconsistencies in scoring this item were related to a few indicatorswithin that item, suggesting that further clarification of the scoringcriteria for those indicators might significantly enhance inter-rateragreement. Future training procedures might include highlightingthe key operational definitions of behaviors included in this itemand incorporating video demonstration of various group activitiesto facilitate reliable scoring. Nevertheless, the researchers of thisstudy reached an overall high level of inter-rater agreement thatwas based on a relatively short training. This is an important find-ing given that the ICP was designed as an easy-to-use measure, thatcan be administered by users with a wide range of expertise in edu-cating children with disabilities, including researchers, teachers,program administrators, and early childhood practitioners.

The pattern of moderately high correlations with measures suchas the ECERS-R composite score and individual subscales, and theweaker correlations with subscales measuring quality dimensionsthat are either not measured by the ICP (e.g., curricular provision,

4 esear

gtpocfauqaco

tVtwtemttiaeArmCm

ocwefciacb

tbcodfSschyePtii

idtprma

86 E.P. Soukakou / Early Childhood R

ender equality) or measured through qualitatively different prac-ices (e.g., scaffolding strategies to support engagement in play),rovide initial support for construct validity. In this study, fivef the seven subscales from the ECERS-R were administered andorrelated with the ICP. Two subscales, one measuring provisionsor hygiene and safety, and one measuring provisions for familiesnd staff were not administered in this study. However, reflectionpon the study’s design suggested that, administration and conse-uently computation of correlations between these two subscalesnd the ICP could have contributed to the assessment of the ICP’sonvergent/divergent validity as part of the broader examinationf construct validity.

This study has several limitations that are suggestive of addi-ional work to further assess the measure’s reliability and validity.alidation of the ICP would benefit from replication in other con-

exts and with larger samples. In this research, the sample sizeas selected with an aim to have a sample big enough to allow

he necessary formal statistical testing, and yet small enough tonable the research team to visit each setting twice in order to useultiple measures. Future use of this scale in a larger sample of set-

ings, presenting with different characteristics to those studied inhis research, can enhance the external validity of the current find-ngs. The establishment of a measure’s construct validity reflectsn ongoing, long-term process that requires the accumulation ofvidence from many different studies (Bailey & Nabors, 1996).dditional examination of the ICP’s construct validity through cor-elations with other measures that focus on inclusive practicesight further enhance the measure’s validity. The SpeciaLink Early

hildhood Inclusion Quality Scale (Irwin, 2005) might be a usefuleasure for this purpose.Results from assessing the ICP’s structural validity revealed a

ne-factor structure with two items presenting lower structuraloefficients. Given the one factor model fit indices, these two itemsere retained in the measure, based on conceptual grounds. How-

ver, additional study of the factor structure of the ICP is needed tourther examine the contribution of these two items, as well as theontribution of the “Conflict resolution” item which was observedn few settings. The structural validity of the ICP can be furtherssessed in larger samples that will allow factor analysis at the indi-ator level to provide additional information on the relationshipetween the constructs included in the ICP items.

This research did not attempt to assess the predictive validity ofhe new measure. Future research should examine the relationshipetween quality of inclusion -as measured by the ICP- and out-omes for children and their families that expand beyond the kindf outcomes traditionally assessed on standardized measures. Chil-ren with disabilities present with common but also distinct needsrom their typically developing peers (Carpenter, 2005; Carta,chwartz, & McConnell, 1991; Cook, Klein, & Tessier, 2004). Goalsuch as the development of friendships, self-confidence, functionalommunication skills, and generalization of skills across contexts,ave been considered integral to the developmental progress ofoung children with disabilities, but have not been adequatelyxplored in relation to classroom quality (Odom, 2000; Rafferty,iscitelli, & Boettcher, 2003). Given that the ICP focuses on prac-ices that promote such goals, assessing the extent to which thesemportant outcomes can be predicted by the ICP items might be anmportant next step in validating this measure.

The availability of the ICP has important implications fornternational research, policy development, and professionalevelopment and practice. As a research tool, it may be usedo assess the quality of inclusive practices in early childhood

rograms, compare quality across programs, and investigate theelationship between aspects of quality and children’s develop-ental progress. Additionally, the ICP could be as part of local

nd state accountability systems, such as Quality Rating and

ch Quarterly 27 (2012) 478– 488

Improvement Systems (QRIS) to evaluate inclusive classroom prac-tice and to provide supports to programs for improving quality. Inthe field of practice, the ICP might be used as a self-assessmenttool to assist teachers, program administrators, and early child-hood practitioners to reflect on their own practice so they can adaptclassrooms to better accommodate children’s needs.

Furthermore, the ICP might be used in the future to inform pro-fessional development frameworks to support those involved inmeeting the individualized needs of children with disabilities ininclusive settings. Recent progress towards establishing a sharedrecognition of what constitutes high-quality inclusion, such as thedefinition created jointly by DEC and NAEYC (2009), and currentefforts to reach a shared definition of professional development,such as the conceptual framework proposed by the National Pro-fessional Development Center of Inclusion (NPDCI), are importantsteps towards the development of a common vision for directingcross-sector professional development efforts to improve inclusiveclassroom practice (Buysse & Hollingsworth, 2009; Buysse, Winton,& Rous, 2009). The alignment of the ICP’s conceptualization withthe recent joint DEC/NAEYC definition of high-quality inclusion, interms of access, participation, and supports, might be an importantplatform for investigating the usefulness of the ICP as a professionaldevelopment tool.

While originally devised in the UK, the ICP was designed to beapplied in other countries. Item generation was largely informedby international research and professional recommended practices(DfES, 2001; Sandall et al., 2005). Expert reviewers who informedits development had previous research and teaching experiencein both UK and US inclusive settings. Therefore, this measuremight potentially be applied in different contexts and allow futureresearch to explore issues related to inclusion across cultures. How-ever, further study in needed to assess the acceptability and validityof the ICP in other cultures before cross-cultural implementation.

6. Conclusion

To summarize, a set of quality indicators of classroom practiceshas been informed by a meticulous integration of the literaturewithin the fields of early childhood and early childhood specialeducation, generated through empirical research, and has beenvalidated against the judgments of experts in the field and usingformal statistical procedures. This study might be extended toaddress the far more complex question about inclusion that manyresearchers currently investigate; that is, “What ecological featurespromote the successful inclusion of young children with disabili-ties in inclusive preschool programs?”(Odom & Bailey, 2001; Spikeret al., 2011). Such question requires examination of additional com-ponents of inclusive programs that extend beyond the classroomlevel. This study focused on the quality of inclusive classroompractices, addressing a need for greater “specialization” of mea-surement approaches to classroom quality, through the generationof measures that are “sensitive” enough to capture the experiencesof the diverse learners included in early childhood classrooms. Theneed for such tools and the implications for research, policy, andpractice have been stressed by many in the field of early childhoodinclusion (Buysse & Hollingsworth, 2009; Guralnick, 2001; Odom &Bailey, 2001). It is hoped that the development of this measurementtool contributed to this effort.

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to Professor K. Sylva, Drs. M. Evangelou, S.

Recchia, and R. Clifford, for their feedback throughout this study, aswell as Drs. Odom, Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Sideris, Buysse, andBenshoff for their most insightful comments on the preparation ofthis manuscript.

esearch Quarterly 27 (2012) 478– 488 487

A

4 5

Good

6 7

Excellent

5.1 Most classroom areas can be independently accessed by children(e.g., children move around most areas independently; classroom areas are well defined; activity centers are labeled with pictures, words or signs depending on children’s individualneeds). NA Per mitted

5.2 Adults monitor how children use materials/equipment and provide the necessary scaffolding for children who have difficulty using materials purposefully (e.g., adult helps child use scissors to cut on paper; adult offers hand-over -hand assistance to child doing a puzzle; adult models for child how to hold pencil; adult guides child how to use glue for an art project).

5.3 In most classroom areas, there aremany materials/equipment that children can use independently. NA Permitted

7.1 Adults intentional ly organize the physical space and materialsthroughout the day to accommodate individual needs and to encourage peer interaction(e.g., adult repositions child on wheelchair so that she can face her peers; adult moves art materials placed on activity table closer to child to promote independent work; adult clears floor space from too many toys to support easy access for a particular child).

7.2 Children have access to a variety of toys, materials and equipment carefully selected to accommodate individual needs and to promote independent use. Throughout the day, adults encourage children to use many different materials in purposeful and creative ways.

R

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

E.P. Soukakou / Early Childhood R

ppendix A.

1. Adaptations of space and materials/equipment 1

Inadequate

2 3

Minimal

1.1 Most cla ssroom areas are n otaccessible (e.g., stairs, vario us ground levels, toys covering large floor space preclude access ) and children are not helped to access classroom’s area s.

1.2 Most materials/equipment are not accessible by children(e.g., most materials placed in areas that children cannot reach; equipment/materials not adapted to enable access) and children are not helped to access t hem.

3.1 Some cla ssroom areas are accessible by children and, w hen needed, adults usually help childre n access the classroom space (e.g., a ramp is available fo r child with physical disability; walker provided etc.).

3.2 Some materials/equipment are accessible by children and, when needed, adults usually help children access the ma terials they need to use (e.g., adult helps child reach a toy from shelf; adult places adaptive scissors on table clo se to where child is working).

3.3 The re are at least a few materials/equipment that children can use independe ntly.NA Permitted

eferences

rnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day care centers: Does training matter? Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 10, 541–552.

ailey, D. B., & Nabors, L. A. (1996). Tests and test development. In M. McLean, D. B.Bailey, & M. Wolery (Eds.), Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs(2nd ed., pp. 23–45). New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

redekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice inearly childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Educa-tion of Young Children.

ricker, D. (1995). The challenge of inclusion. Journal of Early Intervention, 19(3),179–194.

ritish Educational Research Association. (2000). Ethical guidelines. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bera.ac.uk/guidelines.html

ritish Psychological Society. (2004). Code of conduct, ethical principles and guide-lines. Retrieved from http://www.bps.org.uk/document-download-area/document-download$.cfm?file uuid=6D0645CC-7E96-C67F-D75E2648E5580115&ext=pdf

ronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by natureand design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

ronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectiveson human development. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

urchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Riggins, R., Zeisel, S. A., Neebe, E., & Bryant, D. (2000).Relating quality of center-based child care to early cognitive and language devel-opment longitudinally. Child Development, 71(2), 339–357.

uysse, V. Access, participation, and supports: A framework for improving inclusiveearly education opportunities for children with disabilities. In R. Pianta, L. Justice,S. Barnett, & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of early Childhood education. New York,NY: Guilford, 2012, in press.

uysse, V., & Bailey, D. B. (1993). Behavioral and developmental outcomesin young children with disabilities in integrated and segregated settings:A review of comparative studies. The Journal of Special Education, 26(4),434–461.

uysse, V., & Hollingsworth, H. L. (2009). Program quality and early childhood inclu-sion. Recommendations for professional development. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education, 29(2), 119–128.

uysse, V., Wesley, P. W., Bryant, D., & Gardner, D. (1999). Quality of early childhood

programs in inclusive and noninclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 65(3),301–314.

uysse, V., Winton, P. J., & Rous, B. (2009). Reaching consensus on a definition ofprofessional development for the early childhood field. Topics in Early ChildhoodSpecial Education, 28(4), 235–243.

Carpenter, B. (2005). Early childhood intervention: Possibilities and prospects forprofessionals, family and children. British Educational Research Journal, 32(4),176–183.

Carta, J. J. (1995). Developmentally appropriate practice: A critical analysis as appliedto young children with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27(8), 1–16.

Carta, J. J., Schwartz, I. S., & McConnell, S. R. (1991). Developmentally appropriatepractice: Appraising its usefulness for young children with disabilities. Topics inEarly Childhood Special Education, 11(1), 1–20.

Cook, R. E., Klein, M. D., & Tessier, A. (2004). Adapting early childhood curricula forchildren in inclusive settings (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

DEC/NAEYC. (2009). Early childhood inclusion: A joint position statement of the Divi-sion for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education ofYoung Children (NAEYC). Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, FPGChild Development Institute. Retrieved from http://community.fpg.unc.edu/resources/articles/files/EarlyChildhoodInclusion-04-2009.pdf

DfEE. (2000). Curriculum guidance for the foundation stage. London, United Kingdom:QCA.

DfES. (2001). Special educational needs: Code of practice. London, United Kingdom:Author.

Dockrell, J. E., & Lindsay, G. (2008). Inclusion versus specialist provision: Ideologyversus evidence based practice for children with language and communicationdifficulties. In C. Norbury, B. Tomblin, & D. V. M. Bishop (Eds.), Understand-ing developmental language disorders in children: From theory to practice (pp.131–147). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Florian, L. (2005). ‘Inclusion’, ‘special needs’ and the search for new understandings.Support for Learning, 20(2), 96–98.

Frankel, E. B., Gold, S., & Ajodhia-Andrews, A. (2010). International preschool inclu-sion: Bridging the gap between vision and practices. Young Exceptional Children,13(5), 2–16.

Friedman, S. L., & Amadeo, J. (1999). The child-care environment: Conceptualiza-tions, assessments and issues. In S. L. Friedman, & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Measuringenvironment across the lifespan: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 127–165).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gallagher, P. A., & Lambert, R. G. (2006). Classroom quality, concentration of childrenwith special needs and child outcomes in Head Start. Exceptional Children, 73(1),31–53.

Greenspan, S. (2003). Child care research: A clinical perspective. Child Development,

74(4), 1064–1068.

Guralnick, M. J. (Ed.). (2001). Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change. Baltimore,MD: Brookes.

Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998/2005). Early Childhood Environment RatingScale-Revised Edition. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

4 esear

H

H

I

K

L

L

M

M

M

N

O

O

O

O

P

P

P

P

low-income children with disabilities: Access, quality, and parental satisfaction.

88 E.P. Soukakou / Early Childhood R

emmeter, M. L., Joseph, G., Smith, B. J., & Sandall, S. (2001). DEC recommendedpractices program assessment: Improving practices for young children with specialneeds and their families. Missoula, MT: Division for Early Childhood.

yson, M. C., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Rescorla, L. (1990). The classroom practicesinventory: An observation instrument based on NAEYC’s guidelines for devel-opmentally appropriate practices for 4-and 5-year-old children. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 5, 475–494.

rwin, S. H. (2005). SpeciaLink child care inclusion practices profile and principles scale.Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: SpeciaLink. The National Centre for Child CareInclusion.

ontos, S., & Wilcox-Herzog, A. (1997). Influences on children’s competence in earlychildhood classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 247–262.

a Paro, K., Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The Classroom Assessment ScoringSystem. The Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 409–426.

a Paro, K., Sexton, D., & Snyder, P. (1998). Program quality characteristics in segre-gated and inclusive early childhood settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,13(1), 151–167.

athers, S., & Sylva, K. (2007). National evaluation of the neighbourhood nurseriesinitiative: The relationship between quality and children’s behavioural development.London, United Kingdom: DfES.

axwell, K. L., McWilliam, R. A., Hemmeter, M. L., Ault, M. J., & Schuster, J. W. (2001).Predictors of developmentally appropriate classroom practices in kindergartenthrough third grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 431–452.

ittler, P. (2000). Working towards inclusive education: Social contexts. London,United Kingdom: David Fulton.

ational Professional Development Center on Inclusion. (2009). Research syn-thesis points on early childhood inclusion. Chapel Hill, NC: The University ofNorth Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute, Author. Retrieved fromhttp://community.fpg.unc.edu/resources/articles/NDPCI-ResearchSynthesis-9-2007.pdf/view

dom, S. L. (2000). Preschool inclusion: What we know and where we go from here.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(1), 20–27.

dom, S. L., & Bailey, D. B. (2001). Inclusive preschool programs: Classroom ecol-ogy and child outcomes. In M. Guralnick (Ed.), Focus on change (pp. 253–276).Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

dom, S. L., Vitztum, J., Wolery, R., Lieber, J., Sandall, S., Hanson, M. J., et al. (2004).Preschool inclusion in the United States: A review of research from an ecologicalsystems perspective. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 4(1), 17–49.

dom, S. L., & Wolery, M. (2003). A unified theory of practice in early interven-tion/early childhood special education: Evidence-based practices. The Journal ofSpecial Education, 37(3), 164–173.

eisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Burchinal, M. R. (1997). Relations between preschool chil-dren’s child-care experiences and concurrent development: The cost, quality,and outcomes study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 451–477.

eisner-Feinberg, Burchinal, E. S., Clifford, M. R., Culkin, R. M., Howes, M. L., Kagan, C.,et al. (2001). The relation of preschool child care quality to children’s cognitiveand social developmental trajectories through second grade. Child Development,72(5), 1534–1553.

eisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Yazejian, N. (2010). Research on program quality: The evi-

dence base. In P. W. Wesley, & V. Buysse (Eds.), The quest for quality: Promisinginnovations for early childhood programs (pp. 21–45). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

erlman, M., Zellman, G. L., & Vi-Nhuan, L. (2004). Examining the psychometricproperties of the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R). EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 19, 398–412.

ch Quarterly 27 (2012) 478– 488

Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System.Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Rafferty, Y., Piscitelli, V., & Boettcher, C. (2003). The impact of inclusion on languagedevelopment and social competence among preschoolers with disabilities.Exceptional Children, 69, 467–479.

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Sakai, L. M., Whitebook, M., Wishard, A., & Howes, C. (2003). Evaluating theEarly Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS): Assessing differencesbetween the first and revised edition. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18,427–445.

Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M. L., Smith, B. J., & McLean, M. E. (Eds.). (2005). DEC rec-ommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application in earlyintervention/early childhood special education. Missoula, MT: Division for EarlyChildhood.

Smith, M. W., & Dickinson, D. K. (2002). Early Language and Literacy Classroom Obser-vation (ELLCO) Toolkit, Research Edition. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Soucacou, E. P., & Sylva, K. (2010). Developing observation instruments and arrivingat inter-rater reliability for a range of contexts and raters: The early childhoodenvironment rating scales. In G. Walford, E. Tucker, & M. Viswanathan (Eds.),The sage handbook of measurement (pp. 61–85). London, United Kingdom: SagePublications.

Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction. An introduction. NewburyPark, CA: Sage Publications.

Spiker, D., Hebbeler, K. M., & Barton, L. R. (2011). Measuring quality of ECE programsfor children with disabilities. In M. Zaslow, I. Martinez-Beck, K. Tout, & T. Halle(Eds.), Quality measurement in early childhood settings (pp. 229–256). Baltimore,MD: Brookes.

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). TheEffective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) project. Technical paper 12. Thefinal report: Effective pre-school education. London, United Kingdom: Institute ofEducation, University of London.

Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (1999). TheEffective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) project. Technical paper 1. Anintroduction of EPPE. London, United Kingdom: DfEE/Institute of Education, Uni-versity of London.

Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2003). Assessing quality in the early years:Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale: Extension (ECERS-E). Four curricularsubscales. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham.

Sylva, K., Sirah-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., Elliot, K., et al.(2006). Capturing quality in early childhood through environmental ratingscales. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 76–92.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Annual report to congress on the Individu-als with Disabilities Education Act part D. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/index.html

Viswanathan, M. (2005). Measurement error and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Wall, S., Kisker, E. E., Peterson, C. A., Carta, J. J., & Hyun-Joo, J. (2006). Child care for

Journal of Early Intervention, 28(4), 283–298.Wolery, M., Pauca, T., Brashers, M. S., & Grant, S. (2000). Quality of inclusive experi-

ences measure. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center,University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.