Deficit Thinking Scale for Teachers: A Validity and Reliability Study in Turkish Context
Saved in:
| Title: | Deficit Thinking Scale for Teachers: A Validity and Reliability Study in Turkish Context |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Abide Ocak (ORCID |
| Source: | International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education. 2025 12(4):1128-1147. |
| Availability: | International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education. Pamukkale University, Faculty of Education, Kinikli Campus, Denizli 20070, Turkey. e-mail: ijate.editor@gmail.com; Web site: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijate |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 20 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research Tests/Questionnaires |
| Descriptors: | Foreign Countries, Test Validity, Test Reliability, Attitude Measures, Teacher Attitudes, Cognitive Structures, Academic Failure, Public School Teachers |
| Geographic Terms: | Turkey |
| ISSN: | 2148-7456 |
| Abstract: | Deficit thinking is one of the theories developed to explain achievement gaps among different student groups. It attributes academic failure to perceived deficiencies within students, disregarding the role of structural inequalities in education. This study aims to develop a valid and reliable scale to measure Turkish teachers' attitudes toward deficit thinking, which has not previously been operationalized in Türkiye. Based on a rigorous scale development process, including literature review, expert consultation, pilot testing, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, the final version of the scale consists of 22 items and five dimensions. Exploratory factor analysis (n = 323; KMO = 0.87; Bartlett's X[superscript 2] = 4983.99, p < 0.001) revealed a five-factor structure (Blaming the Environment, Educability, Oppression, Blaming the Victim, and Pseudoscience) that explained 66.13% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (n = 569) supported this structure with good model fit (X[superscript 2]/df = 2.58, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.053, SRMR = 0.043). The scale demonstrated strong reliability (Cronbach's [alpha] = 0.86 overall; 0.93, 0.93, 0.88, 0.87, 0.91 for subscales). Item 20 is reverse-scored; total scores range from 22 to 110, with higher scores indicating stronger deficit-oriented attitudes. This context-specific scale offers a robust tool for investigating deficitoriented beliefs in educational settings and provides a foundation for further research, teacher training, and policy development. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1491380 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Deficit thinking is one of the theories developed to explain achievement gaps among different student groups. It attributes academic failure to perceived deficiencies within students, disregarding the role of structural inequalities in education. This study aims to develop a valid and reliable scale to measure Turkish teachers' attitudes toward deficit thinking, which has not previously been operationalized in Türkiye. Based on a rigorous scale development process, including literature review, expert consultation, pilot testing, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, the final version of the scale consists of 22 items and five dimensions. Exploratory factor analysis (n = 323; KMO = 0.87; Bartlett's X[superscript 2] = 4983.99, p < 0.001) revealed a five-factor structure (Blaming the Environment, Educability, Oppression, Blaming the Victim, and Pseudoscience) that explained 66.13% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (n = 569) supported this structure with good model fit (X[superscript 2]/df = 2.58, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.053, SRMR = 0.043). The scale demonstrated strong reliability (Cronbach's [alpha] = 0.86 overall; 0.93, 0.93, 0.88, 0.87, 0.91 for subscales). Item 20 is reverse-scored; total scores range from 22 to 110, with higher scores indicating stronger deficit-oriented attitudes. This context-specific scale offers a robust tool for investigating deficitoriented beliefs in educational settings and provides a foundation for further research, teacher training, and policy development. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2148-7456 |
