Parallel Session Proceedings »
3.1.9 The Assessment of Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Twice-Exceptionality: Development and Validation
In 2006 the National Education Association (NEA) reported that there were approximately 360,000 students in America’s schools who were both gifted and had a disability. These students are known as twice-exceptional, or 2E, and are often unidentified. A student who is dyslexic, for example, may be able to mask her reading struggles because she is a gifted learner. Teachers may consider her an average student; not recognizing that she was managing her challenge on her own but was not fulfilling her potential. Teachers’ understanding of twice-exceptionality is key to ensuring that these students receive the services they need to succeed. The Assessment of Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Twice-Exceptionality (ATATE) was designed to help researchers understand how teachers think about this population. Is twice-exceptionality possible? Do 2e kids need gifted services and/or special education services? Are teachers more likely to identify twice-exceptionality in students with certain types of disabilities or challenges than those with other types?
The development and validation of the ATATE included four phases. The initial phase involved literature review, item development, and content validation. The authors used content validation responses from researchers and professionals who were experienced with twice-exceptionality to finalize the first version of the ATATE. This version was then used in the second phase of development: exploratory factor analysis. Data were collected using snowball sampling via social media. Exploratory factor analysis of this sample showed a two-factor structure to the instrument, with one strong subscale (possibility) and a second (priority) that needed further development.
The authors redeveloped the priority subscale into a set of student descriptions that asked teachers to state what type(s) of referrals might be necessary for each and collected additional data, again using snowball sampling via social media. In addition, participants were asked to provide content validation information related to these descriptions after completing that section of the instrument. Analysis of these data led to further changes for the third version of the instrument. This phase also included confirmatory factor analysis on the possibility subscale. There was very little variation in responses, so the authors made some changes to the items aimed at differentiating between teachers’ responses to the types of challenges or disabilities 2e students might have. The final data will be collected during the spring of 2019. Results from the analysis of these data and the final version of the instrument will be shared with participants.