education

sciences
Article
Inclusive Leadership of School Management from the View of
Families: Construction and Validation of LEI-Q
María del Carmen López-López , María José León Guerrero and Emilio Crisol-Moya *

Department of Didactics and School Organization, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain;
[email protected] (M.d.C.L.-L.); [email protected] (M.J.L.G.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-958-242-779

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to validate a questionnaire aimed at assessing, from the point
of view of families, the degree to which school administrations foster inclusion in compulsory educa-
tion. In order to determine the psychometric properties of the “Cuestionario liderando la educación
inclusiva en centros de educación obligatoria-Familias” [Leading inclusive education in compulsory-
education schools Questionnaire] (LEI-Q-Families), we carried out descriptive, exploratory, and
confirmatory factor analysis. For the sample used in this study, 150 families participated. The
results confirmed that it is a valid and reliable scale with a two-factor structure. One of these factors
included the initiatives carried out by the school management teams to enhance the openness of
each school to the community and the surrounding area. The second factor encompassed actions
aimed at promoting participation in the school and turning it into an inclusive space. LEI-Q-Families
proved to be an instrument of great theoretical and practical worth that has made it possible to




expand our currently slender knowledge on the perceptions families have of the work done by school

 managers to encourage inclusion in their institutions. It facilitates family participation in processes
Citation: López-López, M.d.C.; León of improvement and provides a useful self-assessment tool for school administrations that wish to
Guerrero, M.J.; Crisol-Moya, E. improve their schools and turn them into inclusive environments.
Inclusive Leadership of School
Management from the View of Keywords: school leaders; inclusion; families; leadership evaluation; school improvement
Families: Construction and Validation
of LEI-Q. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci11090511 1. Introduction
Traditionally, the family–school relationship has not only been limited but has also
Academic Editor: John De Nobile
been marked by disagreement and mutual lack of trust. The pejorative assessments that
are given of each other frequently reflect stereotypical views that hinder understanding
Received: 21 July 2021
Accepted: 1 September 2021
and collaboration between the two parties. This tendency has led teachers and school
Published: 6 September 2021
managers to denounce the lack of interest and commitment of families in the education of
their children, while it causes families to disesteem the educational work of schools and
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
to not consider their own participation in the pedagogic activities promoted by teachers
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
as important [1,2]. This discord affects the development and performance of students,
published maps and institutional affil- limits the possibilities of family participation in the school, and deteriorates the social
iations. image of the school, above all when it concerns families that are vulnerable, immigrants,
or that do not fit the norm and who do not feel valued or represented in the educational
institution [2–5].
Currently, diversity, social inequality, the growing complexity of contexts, and their
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
transfer to educational processes all mean that it is essential to revert this situation of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
discord if we wish to guarantee inclusive and quality education for all [6,7]. Many studies
This article is an open access article
have shown the positive effect of the involvement of students’ families on their academic
distributed under the terms and success and socio-emotional development [8–10]: “more and better ties between school
conditions of the Creative Commons and families, particularly those that are less familiar with school culture, make it possible to
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// improve academic results” [8] (p. 40). Other studies underline the contribution of families
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and their community to the improvement of education, schools themselves, and, more
4.0/). specifically, of inclusivity programmes [1,5,11,12].

Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090511 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 2 of 17

In order to progress toward inclusive, fair, and equitable education, we need to open
schools up to family diversity and their environments, facilitating mutual exchange, active
participation, a feeling of belonging, and the exercise of co-responsibility in children’s
education [2,13,14]. According to Liang and Cohrssen [4], it is not merely a question of
enabling occasional participation linked to extracurricular activities, but of fostering a
truly participatory culture based on mutual trust that strengthens the involvement of all
families and their active participation in the decision making that affects student education,
life in the school, its administration, and its institutional culture. To meet this challenge
requires implementing new forms of running and leading schools, as shown by Okoko [5],
Ryan [15], Wang [16], and Valdés [17].
Harris et al., [18], Grant and Ray [19], Liang and Cohrssen [4], and Shields [20] have
emphasized the strategic role that school management plays in the development of more
participatory school cultures when they practise distributed, democratic, transformative,
and inclusive leadership. Exercising inclusive leadership means strengthening the ties
between families and schools through a positive view of diversity; fostering the feeling of
belonging through relationships based on mutual trust, collaboration, and joint responsibil-
ity; facilitating participation in decision making; urging teachers to reflect critically on their
practice and to be actively involved in educational projects aimed at meeting the needs of
all students and their families; and establishing shared commitments based on values of
fairness, equality, and social justice [13,15,16].
This commitment to inclusion should involve contemplation of the policies and
privileged practices adopted by schools that restrict family participation and that often
perpetuate the ideologies that, in a particular way, discriminate against families that are
diverse or do not fit the norm and make them invisible [2]. Failing this, we run the risk of
concealing the stigmatization that certain types of families suffer, most noticeably LGBTIQ
families, as Liang and Cohrssen [4] argue. This will lead to the continuation of the dominant
and exclusive cultural models that deny and limit the participation and representation
of other types in schools. In terms of the practices that schools adopt, Boscardin and
Shepherd [21] invite school managers to critically reflect upon assessment approaches and
how these impact students with disabilities or with little cultural representation.
Unfortunately, the study carried out by Okoko [5] on the experiences of school man-
agers with immigrant students and their families in Saskatchewan (Canada) has revealed
two important issues. First, school leaders lack awareness about the connections between
good management of family diversity and students’ academic performance. Second, they
have insufficient training for managing in an inclusive way the growing cultural diversity
of immigrant students and their families. In Okoko’s opinion, school leaders need to be
more reflective and self-aware, to embrace cognitive dissonance as learning opportuni-
ties, and “to have knowledge, skills and dispositions for acknowledging and responding
appropriately to difference and the associated stereotypes, cultural diversity with its in-
finite variations, relations between dominant and minority cultures, the role of parents,
communities and inter-organizational partnerships” [5] (p. 195).
However, Celoria [22], León and López [23], and Liang and Cohrssen [4] have also
shown the lack of training of school managers to be an obstacle to creating inclusive envi-
ronments, and many authors have argued for the greater involvement of these professionals
in these processes [15,24,25]. According to Liang and Cohrssen [4], what is needed is critical
thinking on diversity, along with a transformation of practices and recognizing that the
visibility of all families and their right to participation is a question of inclusion and social
justice. Yet despite the relevance given to school leaders, very few studies have shown
an interest in discovering the practices established by school managements to facilitate
inclusion, deal with diversity, promote the participation of all families [26], open up more
to the community, and improve its development [1].
Up until now, the few existing studies that analyse the work of school leaders in
inclusion processes have done so from the perspective of the teachers or the school staff
themselves [24,25,27,28], but those that have done so from the families’ perspective are
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 3 of 17

practically non-existent [4]. This is just another example of the secondary role that families
have received in the policies and practices of schools and of the scant interest shown until
now by researchers in including their points of view and making their participation in the
improvement of schools possible [14,26]. There is, therefore, a lack of empirical studies and
evaluation instruments that collect the opinions of families on the actions undertaken by
school administrations to encourage the inclusion of all students and to contribute to the
development of more inclusive institutional cultures that are open to family diversity and
to the community [16,17,24]. If we wish to advance toward a truly inclusive education in
which families feel represented, valued, and welcome, we need studies that are themselves
inclusive and that involve the participation of families in the analysis of the reality in
education and the processes of improvement.
In this paper, we present an instrument aimed at assessing, from the perspective
of the families, the degree to which actions undertaken by school managers to promote
inclusion are implemented in compulsory education schools (students from the ages of 6 to
16). Although the instrument was constructed and validated in Spain, its application to
other contexts is perfectly viable if, as Hambleton and Zenisky [29] state, it is duly adapted
culturally, linguistically, idiomatically, and contextually. The initiative forms part of an
investigation funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Junta
of Andalusia in Spain (Ref: B-SEJ-057-UGR18). This is an inclusive study that opens the
doors to the participation of all families, giving them visibility and protagonism, helping
them to feel appreciated, recognized, and valued. The study gathers their contributions
and facilitates their participation in the improvement of inclusive school leadership, a
key factor in the creation of schools of quality for everyone. Lastly, our study provides
a useful self-assessment tool for school managers who wish to turn their schools into
inclusive environments and helps to increase the limited knowledge we currently have on
the perceptions the families hold about the work undertaken by school administrations to
promote inclusion in their institutions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study is to design and validate the questionnaire, “Liderando la
educación inclusiva en centros de educación obligatoria” [“Leading inclusive education
in compulsory-education schools”] (LEI-Q) for families. Its specific aims are: (a) to study
the content validity using a panel of experts; (b) to assess the stability of the questionnaire
through Kendall’s tau-b (τb) correlation coefficient; (c) to corroborate the validity of the
comprehension of the instrument through applying it to a pilot sample; (d) to determine
the multidimensionality of the construct using exploratory factor analysis; (e) to confirm
that multidimensionality of the construct using confirmatory factor analysis; (f) to analyse
the reliability of the questionnaire; and (g) to show evidence of validity describing the
opinions of the families and analysing the differences with respect to the variables studied.

2.2. Instrument
The literature review carried out by the research team showed the absence of specific
instruments on inclusive leadership, which is why it was decided to create the LEI-Q
questionnaire. For this purpose, on the one hand, the literature on inclusive leadership
was analysed, and more specifically, the tasks/functions that the management team should
carry out to promote inclusive policies, culture, and practices in their school. On the
other hand, those items that were seen as suitable for measuring inclusive leadership were
selected from questionnaires on inclusion or leadership in general. The research team,
after analysing all this information, proceeded to determine the dimensions and items.
The LEI-Q-Familia instrument uses a Likert scale with four responses. A Likert scale was
chosen for the following reasons: it is an easy method to construct; it is quick and easy for
the user to answer; it can be used in any format; it allows quality and easily quantifiable
measures to be extracted; and it can be quickly compared with previous surveys to check
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 4 of 17

the evolution of responses [30]. As can be seen in Appendix A, the responses are made
according to the following scale:
1. Not yet implemented: there is no or very little evidence that the statement is correct
in practice.
2. Partly implemented: there is some evidence that the statement is true in the school,
but a series of practices need to improve.
3. Substantially implemented: there is good evidence that the statement is true in the
school, but they are still actions that could improve it.
4. Fully implemented: there is good evidence that the statement is true in the school,
and, therefore, it would be difficult to find ways to improve it.
It comprises 37 items distributed in two dimensions: “Openness to the community”
(items 1–15, Dimension I), which analyses the initiatives of the management team to open
the school up more to the community and the neighbourhood, and those initiatives that
are aimed at overcoming situations that hinder the success of everyone and equality of
opportunity; and “The school as an inclusive space” (items 16–37, Dimension II), which
evaluates the actions undertaken by the management team to promote participation, deal
with diversity, and prevent and manage conflicts in the school.

2.3. Participants
We opted for stratified random sampling. To calculate the sample size, we took
into account an expected proportion of 66% (based on the data from the earlier pilot
sample) and a precision of 5% [30]. The sample needed for significance was established at
101 schools. These schools were in the city of Granada (Spain), 64 of them state schools
and 37 charter schools (with public and private funding). Although all the schools were
invited to participate, in the end 13 schools—8 state and 5 charter—responded, thus giving
rise to a sampling that was purposive in nature. We adopted the following criteria: type
of school (state, charter) and type of education (primary, secondary, and primary and
secondary combined).
The number of families who completed the questionnaire was 150, of whom 66.7%
(N = 100) are women and 33.3% (N = 50) men. Out of all the participants, 107 (74 women
and 33 men) belonged to state schools, and 43 (26 women and 17 men) to charter schools.
Fathers made up 32.7% (N = 49), mothers 66% (N = 99), while 1.3% (N = 2) were legal
guardians. The descriptive data about the participant families and the centres to which
they belong can be seen in Table 1.

2.4. Procedure
Our access to the families was undertaken with the prior authorization of the school
administrations, which acted as intermediaries. The participants were informed of the pur-
pose of the study, and confidentiality, anonymity, and data privacy were guaranteed [31].
The study duly received the proper authorization from the Ethics Committee of the Uni-
versity of Granada (n◦ 952/CEIH/2019). The information was gathered in person via
questionnaires on paper.

2.5. Data Analysis

The validation of the content was carried out using a panel of experts [31]. In order
to analyse the metric properties of each item, the basic descriptive coefficients were used
(mean, dispersion, kurtosis, and skewness). The validation of the construct was performed
by means of exploratory factor analysis (EFA)—factor analysis version 10.10.01 [32]—
in order to determine the goodness of fit and the validity of the scale [33], while the
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)—M-PLUS—established the validity and reliability
of the fit of the model [34]. The instrument’s internal consistency was calculated using
Cronbach’s alpha and the split-half method. In order to determine whether the instrument
provided valid information in accordance with its purpose, we carried out the Mann–
Whitney U test (for the variables of gender, age, and type of school) and the Kruskal–Wallis
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 5 of 17

test (for the variables of type of family connection, educational levels taught by the school,
and socioeconomic level of the school’s district). The aim was to define the groups between
which significant differences were observed according to the variables studied. The results
indicated that non-parametric statistics should be used, as the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test
yielded results of less than 0.05. All analysis was done using SPSS 26.0.

Table 1. Sociodemographic and relational data of the participants.

Variables N = 150
Under 30 years old 2 (1.3%)
From 30 to 39 years 40 (26.7%)
Age From 40 to 49 years 93 (62%)
From 50 to 59 years 15 (10%)
Over 60 years 0 (0%)
Female 100 (66.7%)
Gender Male 50 (33.3%)
Other 0 (0%)
Father 49 (32.7%)
Type of family connection
Mother 99 (66%)
Guardian 2 (1.3%)
State 103 (68.6%)
Type of school
Charter 47 (314%)
Primary Education 103 (68.6%)
Educational levels taught in
Secondary Education 15 (10%)
the school
Primary and Secondary Education 32 (21.4%)
High 1 (0.6%)
Socioeconomic level in the Middle 103 (69.5%)
school’s district Middle-Low 36 (23.4%)
Low 10 (6.5%)

3. Results
3.1. Content Validation
A panel of experts was used to validate the content. This validation method is
useful for verifying the validity of a survey [35]. In the content validation process of the
questionnaire, 7 experts participated, with between 10 and 45 years of experience. Four of
them are university professors, three are from the University of Granada, and one is from
the University of Jaen. All are specialists in inclusive leadership, instrument assessment,
and psychometry. The other three experts are state-school teachers in the city of Granada
(one in primary education, two in secondary education). The experts validated the items
according to the following criteria: clarity, degree of coherence with the dimension, and
relevance regarding the subject of study, on a scale of 1 to 4.
The degree of agreement between the experts was verified using the percentage
of agreement, evaluated through the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Kendall’s
coefficient, and Cronbach’s alpha. The results obtained using the ICC were highly valid,
with values of 0.957. In the case of Kendall’s coefficient, the values were significant, albeit
low—0.203 (Dimension I) and 0.169 (Dimension II)—while for Cronbach’s alpha, the results
were 0.942 (Dimension I) and 0.962 (Dimension II), and thus excellent.

3.2. Construct Validity

Before undertaking the EFA, the descriptive values of the study were calculated
(Table 2), following the steps recommended by Schmider [36], and, given that the dispersion
tests (skewness and kurtosis) produced values outside of the −1.5 and +1.5 range [37], in
some items, we therefore removed items 18, 23, 24, 27, 29, and 37. The items had mean
values between 3.43 (V24) and 2.36 (V06). The SDs were close to 1, indicating a greater
variability of participant opinion.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 6 of 17

Table 2. Description of the items of the Inclusive Leadership in Schools questionnaire (LEI-Q-Family).

Variables Mean Standard Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

V01 3.08 0.867 −0.822 0.462
V02 2.99 0.886 −0.661 0.083
V03 2.06 1.046 0.147 −0.667
V04 2.49 1.116 −0.355 −0.729
V05 3.03 1.116 −0.999 0.558
V06 2.36 1.096 −0.009 −0.917
V07 2.79 0.956 −0.375 −0.576
V08 3.12 0.935 −0.867 0.092
V09 2.93 1.073 −0.724 −0.226
V10 2.79 0.977 −0.239 −0.821
V11 3.10 0.864 −0.572 -0.580
V12 2.62 1.023 −0.636 0.189
V13 3.11 0.882 −0.739 0.059
V14 2.81 1.046 −0.655 −0.045
V15 2.72 1.006 −0.272 −0.842
V16 2.49 1.127 −0.494 −0.393
V17 3.30 0.801 −1.057 0.703
V18 3.15 0.846 −1.143 1.775
V19 3.06 0.865 −0.543 −0.521
V20 3.25 0.813 −1.015 1.030
V21 2.84 1.051 −1.073 1.022
V22 3.03 0.932 −0.900 0.750
V23 3.43 0.774 −1.427 2.260
V24 3.21 1.141 −1.646 1.958
V25 2.73 1.294 −0.959 −0.111
V26 2.84 1.109 −0.764 −0.230
V27 3.11 1.070 −1.391 1.619
V28 2.81 1.042 −0.865 0.645
V29 3.06 1.095 −1463 1.781
V30 2.85 1.021 −0.814 0.336
V31 2.62 1.161 −0.681 −0.232
V32 2.99 1.060 −1.107 0.779
V33 2.66 1.127 −0.661 −0.165
V34 2.75 1.169 −0.761 −0.222
V35 2.88 1.072 −0.989 0.548
V36 3.10 0.948 −0.849 0.219
V37 3.35 0.837 −1.621 3.182
Note: N = 150.

For the EFA, we used the parallel analysis (PA) method with prominent rotation to
maximize the simplicity of the factors, determining two factors, as is recommended for
PA [38]. Bartlett’s test statistic [1632.9 (df = 465; p = 0.000010)] and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
test (KMO) [=0.905] were used to check whether the sample came from populations with
the same variance and whether it had an adequate fit. It showed a good fit with the data to
be subjected to factor analysis. The two obtained factors explained 47% of the total variance.
The goodness of fit index (GFI) was 0.983, the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) gave a
value of 0.980, the comparative fit index (CFI) was 1.00, and the root mean square residuals
(RMSR) obtained a value of 0.0236, with the expected mean value of RMSR being an
acceptable 0.0585, as per Kelly [39]. The reliability of Factor 1 was 0.934 and Factor 2 0.949.
All these data indicate an excellent fit of these items and an acceptable model.
As can be seen in the rotated factor matrix (Table 3), all the items (V05, V07, V12,
V22, and V30) with weights with an absolute value lower than 0.40 were eliminated [40].
Thus, having analysed and evaluated the weight of each variable according to the factor,
the questionnaire was finalized as follows: Factor 1: “The school as an inclusive space”
with 12 items (V3, V4, V6, V16, V25, V26, V28, V31, V32, V33, V34, and V35), and Factor 2:
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 7 of 17

“Openness to the community” with 14 items (V1, V2, V8, V9, V10, V11, V13, V14, V15, V17,
V19, V20, V21, and V36).

Table 3. Rotated factor matrix LEI-Q (families).

Variables F1 F2
V01 0.958
V02 1.005
V03 0.960
V04 0.500
V05 0.166 0.265
V06 0.617
V07 0.231 0.348
V08 0.737
V09 0.647
V10 0.585
V11 0.924
V12 0.328 0.212
V13 0.744
V14 0.595
V15 0.584
V16 0.637
V17 0.724
V18
V19 0.677
V20 0.949
V21 0.403
V22 0.335 0.279
V23
V24
V25 0.778
V26 0.444
V27
V28 0.417
V29
V30 0.315 0.356
V31 0.681
V32 0.579
V33 1.120
V34 0.769
V35 0.535
V36 0.635
V37
Note: N = 150.

Authors such as Carretero-Dios and Pérez [41] and Clark and Watson [42] recommend
conducting a correlational study to ensure the homogeneity of each dimension. The
correlational analysis of the final version of the scale produced significant results at the
0.01 levels (two-tailed). The correlation between the score of each item and the total score in
each component shows a positive correlation with the corresponding theoretical dimension
and with the total score of the other dimension. The values obtained for each item of
Factor 1 varied between r = 0.808 p < 0.000 and r = 0.645, p < 0.000, and, for Factor 2,
between r = 0.284 p < 0.000 and r = 0.852 p < 0.000. The two factors show a very good
relationship (r = 0.847 p < 0.000).

3.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

With the aim of testing the model by means of EFA for the families, we carried out a
confirmatory analysis through M-PLUS, with the structure we constructed being as follows
(Figure 1):
 Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 8 of 17

Figure 1. Model theories. Note: F1, Openness to the community; F2, The school as inclusive space.
N=
Figure 1. Model 150.
theories. Note: F1, Openness to the community; F2, The school as inclusive space. N = 150.

The final structural model we obtained confirmed the existence of two factors: F1,
The final structural model we obtained confirmed the existence of two factors: F1,
consisting of 12 items (v3, v4, v6, v16, v25, v26, v28, v31, v32, v33, v34, v35), and F2,
consisting of 12 items (v3, v4, v6, v16, v25, v26, v28, v31, v32, v33, v34, v35), and F2, com-
comprising 14 items (v1, v2, v8, v9, v10, v11, v13, v14, v15, v17, v19, v20, v21, v36). The
prising 14 items (v1, v2, v8, v9, v10, v11, v13, v14, v15, v17, v19, v20, v21, v36). The results
results obtained via M-PLUS indicate a good model fit [43], with the values attained being
obtained via M-PLUS indicate a good model fit [43], with the values attained being fa-
favourable and acceptable for the RMSEA (0.058), CFI (Comparative Fit Index was 0.903,
vourable and acceptable for the RMSEA (0.058), CFI (Comparative Fit Index was 0.903, for
for the SRMR, (0.061)), and the TLI (Tucker–Lewis Index) at 0.895. Furthermore, for these
theofSRMR,
indices fit, it is(0.061)), andfor
important thethe
TLICFA
(Tucker–Lewis Index) at 0.895.
to provide composite Furthermore,
reliability for[42]
(CR) data these in-
dices of fit, it is important for the CFA to provide composite reliability (CR)
for each critical dimension. This makes it possible to analyse the relations between the data [42] for
responses to the items and the latent variable measure [44], as well as the average variable
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 9 of 17

extracted (AVE) [45] in order to study the validity of the scale. The CR value should be
higher than 0.70 and the AVE should be above 0.50 [43]. The CR for Factor 1 was 0.89 and
the AVE 0.53, while for Factor 2 the CR attained the value of 0.91 and the AVE 0.40.

3.4. Reliability Calculation

The methods for calculating reliability that we chose are Cronbach’s alpha and the split-
half method, which are highly used in social research [46,47]. The reliability coefficient
of the whole of the questionnaire was 0.944, obtained with a confidence level of 95%
(p < 0.05), while Factor 1 obtained 0.897 (with 12 elements) and Factor 2 (with 14 elements)
attained 0.920.
For the Spearman Brown coefficient, the result obtained was 0.861. The first split-half,
comprising 13 items, attained a value of 0.912, and the second split-half, with the other
13 items, was 0.905.

3.5. Description of the Dimensions: “Openness to the Community” and “The School as
Inclusive Space”
The results derived from the descriptive analysis and the differential analysis were
done by dimensions (the mean of the set of items that comprises each dimension). The
responses given by the families of the participating schools regarding the actions carried
out by the school management teams (Table 4) indicate that these teams have substan-
tially implemented (M = 3.01) the actions aimed at improving the school’s openness to
the community and the neighbourhood, at the same time as establishing measures for
solving the situations that hinder the success of everyone and equality of opportunity
(sports activities, talks against racism, etc.). More specifically, the families highlight the
most implemented actions as those aimed at: counteracting the negative influence that a
family’s situation might have on student success; providing material and human resources
(specific professionals); undertaking activities of interest to the community alongside other
institutions/organizations; promoting the communication and participation of all families
in the activities undertaken inside and outside the school; making families aware of the im-
portance and benefits of inclusion; and fostering a shared vision and common educational
project among the teachers and education community.

Table 4. Description of the dimensions: “Openness to the community” and “The school as inclu-
sive space”.

Dimension
M SD
Openness to the community 3.01 0.653
The school as inclusive space 2.64 0.767
Note: M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation.

However, within this first dimension, the families consider that the management
teams have been less committed in promoting the mutual understanding, exchanges, and
coming together between the families and the other members of the schools. They have
also been remiss at informing the families, through different communication channels, of
the curriculum that guides the educational work of a school, and they fail to listen and take
into consideration the demands and needs of all families.
In terms of the actions adopted to make schools an inclusive space, the families believe
that those actions that the management carries out to encourage participation, deal with
diversity, and prevent and manage conflicts in the school are only partly implemented
(M = 2.64) in their schools, and hence demand greater action. Among the most imple-
mented, they mention the following: guaranteeing equality of opportunities by mobilizing
resources (material and human); enabling the students to freely express their opinion and
needs to promote actions for the care of all students; facilitating the participation of the
students in the governing bodies of the school; and developing measures to prevent and
avoid truancy.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 10 of 17

The actions of this dimension that are least implemented are the following: to establish
disciplinary measures against the use of symbols and actions that encourage exclusion;
to share authority and responsibility with teachers; and to create opportunities so that all
members of the education community participate in decision making.

3.6. Differences According to the Study’s Identifying Variables

From the Mann–Whitney U test and the Kruskal–Wallis test, we obtained statistically
significant differences only in the following variables: type of school (state or charter) and the
educational levels it teaches (primary education, secondary education, or both combined).

3.6.1. Differences According to School Type

This variable shows statistically significant differences in the two dimensions. The
charter schools have higher scores than the state schools in both dimensions. In this
regard, the families of the charter schools perceive that the management teams have
achieved greater implementation of initiatives aimed at making the school more open to
the community and neighbourhood, overcoming situations that impede the success of
everyone and equality of opportunity, promoting participation, dealing with diversity, and
preventing and managing conflicts in the school (Table 5).

Table 5. Mann–Whitney U test according to school type.

State (n = 103 ) Charter (n = 47)

U Z p
M SD M SD
Openness to the community 2.93 0.587 3.26 0.646 1642.000 −3.426 0.001 *
The school as inclusive space 2.66 0.787 3.18 0.777 1481.000 −4.060 0.000 *
Note: M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; * = significant at 0.05.

3.6.2. Differences According to the Educational Levels Taught at the School

There are statistically significant differences with regard to the educational levels
taught by the school: the management teams of the schools that teach both primary and
secondary education are those that, according to the families, have better implemented
the initiatives that make the school more open to the community and neighbourhood,
increase participation, and manage diversity and prevent and handle conflicts in the school
(Table 6).

Table 6. Kruskal–Wallis test according to educational levels taught.

Primary Secondary Primary and Secondary

χ2 df p
M SD M SD M SD
Openness to the community 2.95 0.632 2.88 0.567 3.40 0.478 14.748 2 0.001
The school as inclusive space 2.67 0.828 2.86 0.676 3.28 0.670 16.241 2 0.000
Note: M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The main aim of the study was to design and validate the instrument, “Leading
inclusive education in compulsory-education schools” (LEI-Q-families). The instrument
was constructed to determine the perception of families regarding the degree to which the
school leadership promotes the inclusion and learning of all students.
Having analysed the validity of the content, of the construct (EFA and CFA), and of
the reliability of the questionnaire, we can affirm that the questionnaire aimed at families is
valid and reliable for measuring the inclusive leadership of the teams that run schools of
compulsory education in Spain from the perspective of families [35,48,49].
The result of the statistical analysis of the items and of the EFA shows the existence of
two factors that indicated an excellent fit of these items and an acceptable model.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 11 of 17

In order to test the factorial structure of the questionnaire, made up of 2 factors and
26 items, we carried out a CFA using M-PLUS, obtaining favourable values. These indicate
a good model fit [43].
The results obtained were satisfactory with regard to the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients,
both for the questionnaire as a whole and for its two factors. The internal consistency of
the extracted factors can be considered highly reliable [37,46,50].
Although Cronbach’s alpha is the most used reliability coefficient in social sciences [45],
some authors [51,52] state that it is a biased statistic. We have therefore calculated the
composite reliability, thus confirming the reliability and capacity of the instrument to
measure inclusive leadership. Following the validation process, LEI-Q-Families consists
of Dimension I (according to CFA Factor II), Openness to the community (V01, V02, V08,
V09, V10, V11, V13, V14, V15, V17, V19, V20, V21, and V36), and Dimension II (according
to CFA Factor I), The school as inclusive space (V03, V04, V06, V16, V25, V26, V28, V31,
V32, V33, V34, V35). After a review of the organisation of the items obtained based on
the CFA, taking into account the objective of the study and the literature reviewed, the
final version is shown in Appendix B. The descriptive analysis shows that the families
believe that the actions that form part of the dimension of openness to the community are
substantially implemented, while those that concern the dimension of the school as an
inclusive space are only partly so. The families have a positive view, however, regarding
the actions undertaken by school management with regard to the openness of the school
to the community. These actions are concerned with the need to counteract the negative
influence a family’s situation might have on student success, improving their participation
in activities inside and outside the school, and contributing to increasing awareness on
the importance and benefits of inclusion [53]. However, there is still much work to be
done, as the results show that not all actions are implemented by the management team.
Greater commitment is needed, therefore, from the management teams in order to achieve
inclusion [18,19,53]. School managers should take on the extra contribution that comes
from the integration of families and other agents from the neighbourhood to improve
education, inclusion, and the school itself [1,11,15,26].
Regarding the opinion of the families on the actions most implemented by the manage-
ment team to foster an inclusive school, the study shows that there are none with respect to
the families and/or the educational community in general. This absence reflects the scant
presence of families and the lack of attention afforded them and the education community
by the school managers in the processes aimed at turning schools into inclusive spaces.
This fact, undoubtedly paradoxical given that it concerns the effort to promote inclusion,
should be the cause for reflection by school managers, since all families have a right to
participate actively in the decision making that affects schools and impacts the education
of their children [4,5].
Lastly, the study has revealed that there are significant differences in the families as a
function of the educational level taught by the schools, and the type of school. The families
of the schools that teach both primary and secondary education and are charter schools
are those who most highly rate the actions undertaken by the management teams to open
up more to the community (Dimension I) and to turn the schools into inclusive spaces
(Dimension II). The fact that it is the families from charter schools (funded publicly and
privately) who most highly rate the inclusive actions undertaken by school management
may be connected to the need this type of school has to maintain its status quo, offering a
differentiated education that guarantees high levels of enrolment. This pragmatic outlook,
closely linked to the concern to keep up the social image of the school, is an issue that
affects the decisions taken by school leaders and the actions they undertake to promote
inclusion, as Poon-McBrayer [24] and Szeto and Cheng [25] have recognized.
This type of study is particularly relevant in that it focuses its attention on a key factor
for improving inclusion in schools: the practices implemented by school management.
Furthermore, it provides a valid and reliable instrument that makes the participation
of families possible in the creation of inclusive schools and helps to increase the limited
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 12 of 17

knowledge that currently exists on the real contribution of school managers to the processes
of inclusion from perspectives other than those of teachers and the school managers
themselves. However, this research has some limitations related to the sample size and its
representativeness (non-probability and limited to a specific context at a specific moment
in time). It would be worthwhile to broaden the research with other experimental studies
using probability sampling or longitudinal studies that would make it possible to analyse
the evolution experienced in the perceptions of families on the inclusive leadership carried
out by school management. Not having the opinion of families in the design and validation
of the questionnaire items can be seen as another limitation.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, all authors; Methodology, all authors; Validation, E.C.M.;
Formal Analysis, E.C.M.; Investigation, all authors; Data Curation, E.C.M.; Writing—original draft
preparation, all authors; Writing—Review and Editing, all authors; Visualization, all authors. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the
Junta of Andalusia in Spain (Ref: B-SEJ-057-UGR18).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
Corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Version presented to participants: LEI-Q “leading inclusive education in compulsory education
schools”—families.

The questionnaire “INCLUSIVE LEADERSHIP IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS” is a tool that enables the
evaluation of the degree to which the leadership of school management teams favours the inclusion and learning of all
students. The instrument is structured around TWO dimensions:
DIMENSION 1: Openness to the Community. The management team carries out initiatives that increase the school’s
openness to the community and neighbourhood, at the same time as establishing measures aimed at overcoming
situations that hinder the success of all students and equality of opportunity.
DIMENSION 2: The school as inclusive space. The management team undertakes actions to promote participation,
manage diversity and prevent and handle conflict in the institution.
The responses should be made according to the following scale:
Not yet implemented: there is no or very little evidence that the statement is correct in practice.
Partly implemented: there is some evidence that the statement is true in the school, but a series of practices need
to improve.
Substantially implemented: there is good evidence that the statement is true in the school, but they are still actions that
could improve it.
Fully implemented: there is good evidence that the statement is true in the school, and, therefore, it would be difficult to
find ways to improve it.
Variable Items
Advances initiatives that favour the participation of community members in the education process and in the life of
V01
the school
Establishes an action plan drawn up in collaboration with other members of the community to foster relationships
V02
between the school and community and to manage student diversity
Offers transparent information regarding the admission process and enrolment to guarantee that it reaches all interested
V03
parties equally
V04 Takes measures to prevent and avoid truancy
V05 Proposes educational activities outside the school
V06 Shares authority and responsibility with teachers
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 13 of 17

Table A1. Cont.

V07 Promotes activities that promote mutual understanding among the school’s students
Makes the school’s facilities and resources available for activities (cultural, educational, etc.) that are of interest to
V08
the community
Informs the family, through different channels of communication, of the curriculum that guides the school’s
V09
educational activities
V10 Promotes actions to increase family awareness of the importance and benefits of inclusion
Promotes actions that enable the communication and participation of all families in the educational activities
V11
undertaken inside and outside the school
Establishes actions that promote the real representation of the diversity of existing families in the school’s
V12
governing bodies
V13 Listen to and take into account the needs and demands of all families
Promote activities that enhance the mutual knowledge, exchange, and coming together of both the families and the
V14
members of the school
Sets up measures to counteract the negative influence that a family situation might have on student success (support
V15
campaigns, learning assistance, school for parents, etc.)
V16 Ensures that equal opportunities are guaranteed, mobilizing resources (material and human) in order to foster inclusion
Ensures that the services offered by the school respect the different needs of the students (religious sensitivities, food
V17
intolerances, health problems, etc.)
V18 It has a procedure for collecting information on the needs of teachers, students and other school staff
V19 Ensures that the school has material and human (specific professionals) resources to promote improvement processes
V20 Works to obtain a school climate in which all students are recognized, cared for, and valued
Fosters a shared outlook between teachers and educational community on the organization, goals, and activities in
V21
order to make them participants in a common educational project
It establishes protocols for dealing with conflicts through dialogue, mediation, and negotiation between the
V22
parties involved
It promotes collaboration with the business world on an ongoing basis to strengthen the school–work
V23
environment relationship
V24 Promotes actions to collaborate with other educational centres to know and share experiences
V25 Establishes disciplinary measures against the use of symbols and actions that encourage exclusion
V26 Develops educational programmes to prevent discriminatory attitude among students
V27 Organises debates open to the community on situations of exclusion (racism, xenophobia, sexism, etc.)
V28 Creates opportunities for all members of the education community to participate effectively in decisions
V29 It establishes procedures in order to promote the improvement of the centre
V30 It has mechanisms in place to document changes and improvements undertaken
Makes it possible for the different members of the education community to participate in the evaluation of the
V31
management’s work
V32 Promotes actions to care for all students
V33 Encourages the participation of students in the school’s governing bodies
V34 Establishes mechanisms to promote student participation in the control of conflicts that arise in the school environment
Enable students to express their opinions and needs freely (with regard to the education process, rules, and the running
V35
of the school, etc.)
Participates in the actions undertaken by other institutions/organizations of the community that are educational in
V36
nature (sports activities, events against racism, etc.)
V37 It is concerned with guaranteeing access to the school’s facilities and services for all students
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 14 of 17

Appendix B

Table A2. Final version LEI-Q “leading inclusive education in compulsory education schools”—families.

DIMENSION 1: Openness to the Community. The management team carries out initiatives that increase the school’s openness
to the community and neighbourhood, at the same time as establishing measures aimed at overcoming situations that hinder the
success of all students and equality of opportunity.
DIMENSION 2: The school as inclusive space. The management team undertakes actions to promote participation, manage
diversity and prevent and handle conflict in the institution.
The responses should be made according to the following scale:
1. Not yet implemented: there is no or very little evidence that the statement is correct in practice.
2. Partly implemented: there is some evidence that the statement is true in the school, but a series of practices need to improve.
3. Substantially implemented: there is good evidence that the statement is true in the school, but they are still actions that could
improve it.
Fully implemented: there is good evidence that the statement is true in the school, and, therefore, it would be difficult to find ways
to improve it.
List to According DIMENSION 1: OPENNESS TO THE COMMUNITY
1 2 3 4
CFA THE MANAGEMENT TEAM . . .

1. please change the table into a figure or box Advances initiatives that favour the
V01 participation of community members in the education process and in the life of
the school

2. please change the table into a figure or boxEstablishes an action plan drawn up in
V02 collaboration with other members of the community to foster relationships between the
school and community and to manage student diversity

3. Participates in the actions undertaken by other institutions/organizations of the

V36
community that are educational in nature (sports activities, events against racism, . . . )

4. Makes the school’s facilities and resources available for activities (cultural, educational,
V08
etc.) that are of interest to the community

5. Informs the family, through different channels of communication, of the curriculum

V09
that guides the school’s educational activities

6. Promotes actions to increase family awareness of the importance and benefits

V10
of inclusion

7. Promotes actions that enable the communication and participation of all families in the
V11
educational activities undertaken inside and outside the school

V13 8. Listen to and take into account the needs and demands of all families

9. Promote activities that enhance the mutual knowledge, exchange, and coming together
V14
of both the families and the members of the school

10. Sets up measures to counteract the negative influence that a family situation might have
V15
on student success (support campaigns, learning assistance, school for parents, etc.)

11. Ensures that the services offered by the school respect the different needs of the
V17
students (religious sensitivities, food intolerances, health problems, etc.)

12. Ensures that the school has material and human (specific professionals) resources to
V19
promote improvement processes
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 15 of 17

Table A2. Cont.

13. Works to obtain a school climate in which all students are recognized, cared for
V20
and valued

14. Fosters a shared outlook between teachers and educational community on the
V21 organization, goals, and activities, in order to make them participants in a common
educational project

DIMENSION 2: THE SCHOOL AS INCLUSIVE SPACE.

1 2 3 4
THE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT . . .

15. Establishes disciplinary measures against the use of symbols and actions that
V25
encourage exclusion

V26 16. Develops educational programmes to prevent discriminatory attitude among students

V6 17. Shares authority and responsibility with teachers

18. Creates opportunities for all members of the education community to participate
V28
effectively in decisions

19. Makes it possible for the different members of the education community to participate
V31
in the evaluation of the management’s work

V32 20. Promotes actions to care for all students

V33 21. Encourages the participation of students in the school’s governing bodies

22. Establishes mechanisms to promote student participation in the control of conflicts that
V34
arise in the school environment

23. Ensures that equal opportunities are guaranteed, mobilizing resources (material and
V16
human) in order to foster inclusion

24. Offers transparent information regarding the admission process and enrolment to
V03
guarantee that it reaches all interested parties equally

V4 25. Takes measures to prevent and avoid truancy

26. Enable students to express their opinions and needs freely (with regard to the education
V35
process, rules, and the running of the school, etc.)

References
1. Barrientos, C.; Silva, P.; Antúnez, S. El papel directivo y la promoción de la participación de las families y la comunidad en las
escuelas básica. El caso de la Comuna de Panguipulli-Chile. Efic. Y Cambio En Educ. 2016, 14, 145–165. [CrossRef]
2. Kiyama, J.M.; Harper, C.E. First-generation students and their families: Institutional responsibility during college access and
transition. In Clearing the Path: Qualitative Studies of the Experience of First-Generation College Students; Lexington Press: Boston,
MA, USA, 2018; pp. 1–5.
3. Liang, X.M.; Cohrssen, C. Towards creating inclusive environments for LGBTIQ-parented families in early childhood education
and care settings: A review of the literature. Aust. J. Early Child. 2020, 45, 43–55. [CrossRef]
4. Okoko, J.M. Towards school leadership development: The essence of working with culturally and linguistically diverse newcomer
families in Saskatchewan. Res. Educ. Adm. Leadersh. 2019, 4, 195–229. [CrossRef]
5. PNUD. Transformar Nuestro Mundo: La Agenda 2030 Para el Desarrollo Sostenible; PNUD: New York, NY, USA, 2015. Available
online: http://unctad.org/meetings/es/SessionalDocuments/ares70d1_es.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2021).
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 16 of 17

6. UNESCO Educación 2030. Declaración de Incheon y Marco de Acción Para la Realización del Objetivo de Desarrollo Sostenible 4.
Garantizar una Educación Inclusiva y Equitativa de Calidad y Promover Oportunidades de Aprendizaje Permanente Para Todos. 2016.
Available online: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245656s.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2021).
7. Collet, J.; Tort, A. Escuela, Families y Comunidad; Octaedro: Barcelona, Spain, 2017.
8. Guiffrida, D.A.; Kiyama, J.M.; Waterman, S.J.; Museus, S.D. Moving from cultures of individualism to cultures of collectivism
to serve college students of color. In Creating Campus Cultures That Foster Success among Racially Diverse Student Populations;
Museus, S.D., Jayakumar, U.M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 68–87.
9. Hehir, T.; Grindal, T.; Freeman, B.; Lamoreau, R.; Borquaye, Y.; Burke, S. A Summary of the Evidence on Inclusive Education; Alana
ABT: São Paulo, Brazil, 2016.
10. Mara, D.; Mara, E.L.; Andrei, O.; Danciu, E.L. The Role of School-Family Partnership in the Implementation of Inclusive Education
in Romania. New Educ. Rev. 2011, 26, 228–237.
11. Stivers, J.; Latonya, F.; Straus, M. Educating families about inclusive education—A month-by-month guide for teachers of
inclusive classes. Interv. Sch. Clin. 2008, 44, 10–17. [CrossRef]
12. Ainscow, M.; Dyson, A.; Hopwood, L.; Thomson, S. Primary Schools Responding to Diversity: Barriers and Possibilities; Cambridge
Primary Review Trust: York, UK, 2016.
13. Simón, C.; Barrios, A. Las families en el corazón de la educación inclusiva. Aula Abierta 2019, 48, 51–58. [CrossRef]
14. Ryan, J. Struggling for Inclusion: Educational Leadership in a Neo-Liberal World; Issues in the Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice of
Urban Education; Information Age Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
15. Wang, F. Social Justice Leadership-Theory and Practice: A Case of Ontario. Educ. Adm. Q. 2018, 54, 470–498. [CrossRef]
16. Valdés, R.A. Liderazgo inclusivo: La importancia de los equipos directivos en el desarrollo de una cultura de la inclusión. Rev.
Investig. Educat. Rediech. 2018, 9, 51–65.
17. Harris, J.; Carrington, S.; Ainscow, M. Promoting Equity in Schools: Collaboration, Inquiry and Ethical Leadership; Routledge:
Abingdon, UK, 2017.
18. Grant, K.B.; Ray, J.A. Home, School and Community Collaboration: Culturally Responsive Family Engagement; Sage Publications
Thousand: Oaks, CA, USA, 2019.
19. Shields, C.M. Transformative Leadership in Education: Equitable Change in an Uncertain and Complex World; Routledge: New York, NY,
USA, 2013.
20. Boscardin, M.L.; Shepherd, K.G. Leadership for evaluations responsive to disability and culture. J. Educ. Adm. 2020, 58, 555–570.
[CrossRef]
21. Celoria, D. The preparation of inclusive social justice education leaders. Educ. Leadersh. Adm. Teach. Program Dev. 2016, 27,
199–219.
22. León, M.J.; López, M.C. La Formación del Líder Inclusivo. In Perspectivas Psicológicas y Educativas de las Necesidades Educativas
Especiales; Nuñez, J.C., Ed.; Scinfoper: Granada, Spain, 2017; pp. 215–223.
23. Poon-McBrayer, K.F. School leaders’ dilemmas and measures to instigate changes for inclusive education in Hong Kong. J. Educ.
Chang. 2017, 18, 295–309. [CrossRef]
24. Szeto, E.; Cheng, A.Y.N. How do principals practice leadership for social justice in diverse school settings? A Hong Kong case
study. J. Educ. Adm. 2018, 56, 50–68. [CrossRef]
25. Kiyama, J.M.; Harper, C.E. Beyond Hovering: A Conceptual Argument for an Inclusive Model of Family Engagement in Higher
Education. Rev. High. Educ. 2018, 41, 365–385. [CrossRef]
26. Cardno, C.; Handjani, M.; Howse, J. Leadership Practices and Challenges in Managing Diversity to Achieve Ethnic Inclusion in
Two New Zealand Secondary Schools. N. Z. J. Educ. Stud. 2018, 53, 101–117. [CrossRef]
27. Woodcock, S.; Woolfon, L. Are leaders leading the way with inclusion? Teachers’ perceptions of systemic support and barriers
towards inclusion. Inter. J. Educ. Res. 2019, 93, 232–242. [CrossRef]
28. Hambleton, R.K.; Zenisky, A.L. Translating and adapting tests for cross-cultural assessments. In Cross-Cultural Research Methods
in Psychology; Matsumoto, D., Vijver, F.J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 46–74. [CrossRef]
29. Hernández, R.; Fernández, C.; Baptista, P. Metodología de la Investigación, 5th ed.; McGraw Hill: Mexico City, Mexico, 2010.
30. Osterlind, S.J. Constructing Test Items; Kluwer Academic: London, UK, 1989.
31. Lorenzo-Seva, U.; Ferrando, P.J. Factor: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behav. Res. Meth. Instr.
Comp. 2006, 38, 88–91. [CrossRef]
32. Bentler, P.M.; Yuan, K.H. Structural Equation Modeling with Small Samples: Test Statistics. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1999, 34, 181–197.
[CrossRef]
33. Blunch, N.J. Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling Using IBM SPSS Statistics and Amos, 2nd ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA, 2013.
34. Escobar-Pérez, J.; Cuervo-Martínez, A. Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: Una aproximación a su utilización. Adv. Med.
2008, 6, 27–36.
35. Schmider, E.; Ziegler, M.; Danay, E.; Beyer, L.; Bühner, M. Is it really robust? Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against
violations of the normal distribution assumption. Methodology 2010, 6, 147–215. [CrossRef]
36. George, D.; Mallery, P. SPSS for Windows Step-by-Step: A Simple Guide and Reference (14.0 Update), 7th ed.; Allyn & Bacon: Boston,
MA, USA, 2006.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 511 17 of 17

37. Timmerman, M.E.; Lorenzo-Seva, U. Dimensionality Assessment of Ordered Polytomous Items with Parallel Analysis. Métodos
Psicológicos 2011, 16, 209–220. [CrossRef]
38. Kelley, T.L. Essential Traits of Mental Life, Harvard Studies in Education; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1935.
39. Lloret-Segura, S.; Ferreres-Traver, A.; Hérnandez-Baeza, A.; Tomás-Marco, I. El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: Una
guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Anal. Psichol. 2014, 30, 1151–1169. [CrossRef]
40. Carretero-Dios, H.; Pérez, C. Standards for the development and the review of instrumental studies: Considerations about test
selection in psychological research. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2007, 7, 863–882.
41. Clark, L.A.; Watson, D. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. In Methodological Issues & Strategies in
Clinical Research, 3rd ed.; Kazdin, A.E., Ed.; APA: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 207–231.
42. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA, 2018.
43. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark.
Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
44. Elosua, P.; Zumbo, B.D. Coeficientes de fiabilidad para escalas de respuesta categórica ordenada. Psicothema 2008, 20, 896–901.
45. Cea, D.; Ancona, M.A. Metodología Cuantitativa: Estrategias y Técnicas de Investigación Social; Síntesis: Madrid, Spain, 2001.
46. Ledesma, R. AlphaCI: Un programa de cálculo de intervalos de confianza para el coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Psico-USF 2004, 9,
31–37. [CrossRef]
47. Frías-Navarro, D. Apuntes de Consistencia Interna de las Puntuaciones de un Instrumento de Medida; Universidad de Valencia: Valencia,
Spain, 2019. Available online: https://www.uv.es/friasnav/AlfaCronbach.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2021).
48. Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Inter. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53–55. [CrossRef]
49. Fox, D.J. El Proceso de Investigación en Educación; Eunsa: Pamplona, Spain, 1987.
50. Dunn, T.J.; Baguley, T.; Brunsden, V. From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency
estimation. Br. J. Psychol. 2014, 105, 399–412. [CrossRef]
51. Netemeyer, R.G.; Bearden, W.O.; Sharma, S. Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications; SAGE: Newcastle, UK, 2003.
52. Valdés Morales, R.; Gómez-Hurtado, I. Competencias y prácticas de liderazgo escolar para la inclusión y la justicia social. Perspect.
Educ. 2019, 58, 47–68. [CrossRef]
53. Gómez-Hurtado, I. El Equipo directivo como promotor de buenas prácticas para la justicia social: Hacia un liderazgo inclusivo.
Rev. Int. Educ. Just. Soc. 2014, 3, 141–159.