Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teachers’ attitude toward inclusive physical education and factors that influence it

An investigation conducted using structural equation modeling techniques

Einstellung von Lehrkräften zum inklusiven Sportunterricht und beeinflussende Faktoren

Eine Untersuchung unter Einsatz von strukturmodellierenden Verfahren

  • Hauptbeitrag
  • Published:
German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The attitude of teachers is considered important for successful inclusive physical education (PE); however, no reliable instrument has been developed to assess German PE teachers’ subject-specific attitude toward inclusive PE or to determine factors that influence it. In this paper, we reanalyze data gathered from a survey of 900 PE teachers in North Rhine–Westphalia and Hesse, Germany to assess the teachers’ subject-specific attitude toward inclusive PE and identify institution- and person-related factors that may have influenced it. We measure the factorial and convergent validity of the scale used in that survey to assess PE teachers’ attitude by conducting structural equation modelling, and we take into account the complex interdependence of institution- and person-related factors. Results indicate that both factorial and convergent validity of the scale were good. While amount of work experience, teaching conditions for (inclusive) PE, and private experience with people with disabilities had a significant influence on the PE teachers’ attitude toward inclusive PE, (inclusion-related) collaboration among PE teachers and occupational stress did not.

Zusammenfassung

Die Einstellung von Sportlehrkräften zu inklusivem Sportunterricht gilt als wichtige Einflussgröße für das Gelingen inklusiven Sportunterrichts. Trotzdem liegt zurzeit kein hinreichend validiertes deutschsprachiges Testinstrument vor, um diese fachspezifische Einstellung oder beeinflussende Faktoren zu erfassen. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wurden Daten aus einer schriftlichen Befragung von 900 Sportlehrkräften in Nordrhein-Westfalen und Hessen reanalysiert, um die zur Erfassung der fachspezifischen Einstellung verwendete Skala zu validieren. Nachfolgend wurde diese Skala genutzt, um institutionsbezogene sowie personale Einflussfaktoren zu analysieren. Hierzu wurden die faktorielle und konvergente Validität der Skala geprüft und Strukturgleichungsmodelle berechnet, um die Zusammenhänge der Einflussfaktoren zu berücksichtigen. In den Ergebnissen zeigten sich eine gute konvergente und faktorielle Validität der verwendeten Skala zur Erfassung der Einstellung von Sportlehrkräften zu inklusivem Sportunterricht. Ebenso zeigte sich, dass das Dienstalter der Sportlehrkräfte, die Rahmenbedingungen des (inklusiven) Sportunterrichts und privater Kontakt zu Menschen mit Behinderung einen signifikanten Einfluss auf die Einstellung der Lehrkräfte zu inklusivem Sportunterricht haben. Die (inklusionsbezogene) Kooperation innerhalb der Sportfachschaft und das Belastungserleben der Lehrkräfte haben hingegen keinen Einfluss.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Despite lack of consensus among professionals in Germany regarding the terms integration and inclusion (e.g., Prengel, 2015; Vislie, 2003), we use the terms inclusive education and inclusive PE in this paper to refer to learners with special educational needs who are taught at regular schools and not at separate schools for special education (Lindmeier & Lütje-Klose, 2015).

  2. Physical Educators’ Attitude Toward Teaching Individuals with Disabilities.

  3. Teachers’ Beliefs and Intentions toward Teaching Students with Disabilities.

  4. Attitude Toward Teaching Individuals with Physical Disabilities in Physical Education.

  5. Physical Educators’ Attitude Toward Teaching the Handicapped.

  6. Pre-service PE Teachers’ Attitude Toward Inclusive PE.

  7. German abbreviation for “Einstellung zu Inklusion/Integration” (attitude toward inclusion).

  8. The amount of work experience strongly correlates with the teachers’ age (rs = 0.91; p < 0.001).

  9. “The PE teachers at our school have a common vision of good (inclusive) PE.”, “We regularly exchange information on opportunities and problems of (inclusive) PE.”, “Most of the PE teachers at our school are open to new forms of teaching (the idea of inclusive PE).”, “I know the instructional program of my colleagues for (inclusive) PE.” and “New PE teachers are trained adequately (for inclusive PE) at our school.”

  10. “PE is a subject of great importance at our school.”, “Our school is well equipped with educational material for PE.”, “Our school has good spatial conditions for PE (e.g., size and accessibility of the halls).”

  11. “If necessary, pedagogical assistants are present in inclusive PE.”, “Our school is equipped with specific materials for inclusive PE.”, “The sports facilities of our school are barrier-free.”

  12. Little’s MCAR Test: χ2 test = 1714.42; df = 1742; p = 0.677.

  13. In Mplus, each EFA solution is computed as an exploratory structural equation model. Consequently, it is possible to evaluate and compare the solutions additionally via fit indices (Muthén & Muthén, 2017; Marsh, Morin, Parker, & Kaur, 2014).

  14. Performing a CFA and EFA in the same sample is not a sufficient (cross-)validation but necessary for the investigation of the factorial and convergent validity as well as for the fit of the measurement model. With a view to further investigations we are in agreement with van Prooijen & van der Kloot (2001), who say: “to judge the (lack of) fit of CFA on new data, it would be useful to know more about the (lack of) fit of CFA on the same data from which the factor model was derived” (p. 780).

  15. Teaching conditions for (inclusive) PE and teacher collaboration.

  16. However, the disadvantage of this approach is that the influence of experience teaching inclusive PE cannot be taken into account in the models. Experience teaching inclusive PE was measured by a censored ordinal item and therefore could be used as a categorical independent variable in the model only. Because all participants with experience teaching PE also taught at schools with inclusive PE, we decided not to include this variable.

  17. The full information maximum likelihood algorithm is a common estimator for missing values which provides very good parameters and standard errors (Graham, 2012).

  18. Formation of three groups of 6‑point scales. The independent variables affected were (inclusion-related) collaboration and teaching conditions.

  19. Intraclass correlation coefficient.

  20. We also tested a bi-factor model, but it had a weak theoretical basis and also indicated poor model fit.

  21. To facilitate interpretation, we highlighted the regression paths, we indicated the factor correlation paths with broken lines, and we reduced the paths with small, negligible coefficients (<3, based on common valuations for bivariate correlations; Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 2003).

  22. These results can be interpreted within the context of inclusive school (sport) culture but are not discussed further here because they fall beyond the scope of this paper. They will be analyzed more in depth and presented in a future paper.

  23. Although attitudes are considered difficult to change (Reusser & Pauli, 2014), Friedrich et al. (2017) found a positive change in attitude toward inclusive PE in a small sample of preservice PE teachers after attending a one-semester university seminar with inclusive-education-related content.

References

  • Boban, I., & Hinz, A. (Eds.). (2003). Index für Inklusion. Lernen und Teilhabe in der Schule der Vielfalt entwickeln. Halle an der Saale: Martin-Luther-Universität.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braksiek, M., Gröben, B., Heim, C., & Rischke, A. (2018). Die fachspezifische Einstellung von Sportlehrkräften zum gemeinsamen Sportunterricht. In E. Balz & D. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Sportwissenschaft in pädagogischem Interesse (pp. 101–103). Hamburg: Czwalina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloerkes, G. (2007). Soziologie der Behinderten. Eine Einführung. Heidelberg: Winter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical assessment, research & evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doll-Tepper, G., Schmidt-Gotz, E., Lienert, C., Döen, U., & Hecker, R. (1994). Einstellungen von Sportlehrkräften zur Integration von Menschen mit Behinderungen in Schule und Verein. Köln: Strauß.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders, C. K. (2001). A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(1), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0801_7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enzmann, D., & Kleiber, D. (1989). Helfer-Leiden: Stress und Burnout in psychosozialen Berufen. Heidelberg: Asanger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folsom-Meek, S. L., & Rizzo, T. L. (2002). Validating the physical educators’ attitude toward teaching individuals with disabilities III (PEATID III) survey for future professionals. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19(2), 141–154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forlin, C. (2010). Re-framing teacher education for inclusion. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative approaches (pp. 3–10). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2011). The Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) Scale for Measuring Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions about Inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 21(3), 50–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedrich, G., Gräfe, S., Pögl, B., & Scheid, V. (2017). Lehrerbildung für einen inklusiven Sportunterricht – Konzeptentwicklung unter Berücksichtigung empirischer Befunde. Zeitschrift für Sportpädagogische Forschung, 5(2), 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiser, C. (2012). Data analysis with Mplus. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giese, M., & Weigelt, L. (2017). Die Bedeutung der Förderschwerpunkte im inklusiven Unterricht. In M. Giese & L. Weigelt (Eds.), Inklusiver Sport- und Bewegungsunterricht. Theorie und Praxis aus Sicht der Förderschwerpunkte (pp. 12–30). Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. W. (2012). Missing Data. Analysis and Design. New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, R., & Klimek, G. (1999). Arbeitsbelastungen im Sportlehrerberuf – Entwicklung eines Instruments zur Erfassung fachunterrichtlicher Stressoren. Psychologie und Sport, 6(2), 35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyl, V., & Seifried, S. (2014). “Inklusion? Da ist ja sowieso jeder dafür!?” Einstellungsforschung zu Inklusion (EFI). In S. Trumpa, S. Seifried, E. Franz & T. Klauß (Eds.), In-klusive Bildung. Erkenntnisse und Konzepte aus Fachdidaktik und Sonderpädagogik (pp. 47–60). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin College Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, S. R., & Jansma, P. (2000). Physical education majors’ attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23(3), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hutzler, Y., Meier, S., & Reuker, S. (2017). Einstellung von Sportlehrkräften zu inklusivem Sportunterricht – mögliche Bezugspunkte (inter-)nationaler Forschung. Sonderpädagogische Förderung heute, 62(3), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.3262/SZ1703244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, M., & Block, M. E. (2011). Physical education teachers’ beliefs and intentions toward teaching students with disabilities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(2), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599751.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenbach, D., & Schnell, I. (2012). Strukturelle Voraussetzungen inklusiver Bildung. Die inklusive Schule. Standards der Umsetzung. In V. Moser (Ed.), Die inklusive Schule. Standards für die Umsetzung (pp. 23–41). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • König, S. (2004). Belastungen für Lehrkräfte im Sportunterricht. Ein Beitrag zur empirisch analytischen Sportunterrichtsforschung. Sportwissenschaft, 34(2), 152–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kudláèek, M., Valkova, H., Sherrill, C., Myers, B., & French, R. (2002). An inclusion instrument based on planned behavior theory for prospective physical educators. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19(3), 280–299. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.19.3.280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunz, A., Luder, R., & Moretti, M. (2010). Die Messung der Einstellung zu Integration (EZI). Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 2(3), 83–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauth, M., & Lauth, G. (2017). Das Provokative Essay: Wo bleibt die Lehrergesundheit? Psychische Belastungen im Lehrerberuf als Thema für den Inklusionsdiskurs. Vierteljahresschrift für Heilpädagogik und ihre. Nachbargebiete, 86(4), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.2378/vhn2017.art33d.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindmeier, C., & Lütje-Klose, B. (2015). Inklusion als Querschnittsaufgabe in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Erziehungswissenschaft, 26(2), 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manly, B. F., & Alberto, J. A. N. (2016). Multivariate statistical methods: a primer. Boca Raton, FL: Florida CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2017). Maximum likelihood estimation of structural equation models for continuous data: Standard errors and goodness of fit. Structural Equation Modeling, 24(3), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1269606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, S., Ruin, S., & Leineweber, H. (2017). HainSL. Ein Instrument zur Erfassung von Haltungen zu inklusivem Sportunterricht bei (angehenden) Lehrkräften. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 47(2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-016-0429-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miethling, W.-D., & Brand, R. (2004). Stressoren im Sportunterricht und psychische Widerstandsressourcen bei Sportlehrerinnen und Sportlehrern in der ersten Berufsphase. Spectrum der Sportwissenschaften, 16(1), 48–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulaik, S. A., & Millsap, R. E. (2000). Doing the four-step right. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(1), 36–73. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0701_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus: statistical analysis with latent variables: user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oesterreich, C. (2015). Gesunde Lehrkräfte – guter Unterricht? Ausprägung und unterrichtliche Relevanz des beruflichen Beanspruchungserlebens von Sportlehrkräften. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oesterreich, C., & Heim, R. (2006). Der Sportunterricht in der Wahrnehmung der Lehrer. In W. D. Brettschneider, R. Prohl, C. Bruer, V. Rittner, R. Heim, W. Schmidt & H. H. Altenberger (Eds.), Die SPRINT Studie: Eine Untersuchung zur Situation des Schulsports in Deutschland (pp. 153–180). Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özer, D., Nalbant, S., Aglamıș, E., Baran, F., Samut, P. K., Aktop, A., & Hutzler, Y. (2013). Physical education teachers’ attitudes towards children with intellectual disability: the impact of time in service, gender, and previous acquaintance. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57, 1001–1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01596.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prengel, A. (2015). Inklusive Bildung: Grundlagen, Praxis, offene Fragen. In T. Häcker & M. Walm (Eds.), Inklusion als Entwicklung. Konsequenzen für Schule und Lehrerbildung (pp. 27–47). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuker, S., Rischke, A., Kämpfe, A., Schmitz, B., Teubert, H., & Thissen, A. (2016). Inklusion im Sportunterricht – Ein Überblick über internationale Forschungsergebnisse aus den Jahren 2005 bis 2014. Sportwissenschaft, 46(2), 88–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reusser, K., & Pauli, C. (2014). Berufsbezogene Überzeugungen von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz & M. Rothland (Eds.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (pp. 642–661). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rischke, A., & Braksiek, M. (2019). Zur Kontextabhängigkeit von behinderungsbezogenen Kategorien im Sportunterricht aus der Sicht von Lehrkräften – theoretische und empirische Anhaltspunkte einer fachbezogenen Diskussion um die Dekategorisierung inklusiver Bildung. In M. Hartmann, R. Laging & C. Scheinert (Eds.), Professionalisierung in der Sportlehrerbildung – Konzepte und Forschung im Rahmen der Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung. Hohengehren: Schneider. (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rischke, A., Heim, C., & Gröben, B. (2017). Nur eine Frage der Haltung? German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 47(2), 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo, T. L. (1993). Physical educators’ attitude toward teaching individuals with disabilities-III. Unpublished manuscript available from author: Department of Kinesiology. California: State University, San Bernardino, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scalas, L. F., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. (2013). Latent-variable approaches to the Jamesian model of importance-weighted averages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(1), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212465321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schaarschmidt, U. (2005). Halbtagsjobber? Psychische Gesundheit im Lehrerberuf – Analyse eines veränderungsbedürftigen Zustandes (2nd edn.). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheid, V., & Friedrich, G. (2015). Ansätze zur inklusiven Unterrichtsentwicklung. In S. Meier & S. Ruin (Eds.), Inklusion als Herausforderung, Aufgabe und Chance für den Schulsport (pp. 35–52). Berlin: Logos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schierz, M., & Miethling, W. D. (2017). Sportlehrerprofessionalität: Ende einer Misere oder Misere ohne Ende? German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 47(1), 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2017). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, S., & Feyerer, E. (2016). Editorial. Schwerpunktthema: Einstellungsforschung zum inklusiven Unterricht. Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 8(1), 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifried, S., & Heyl, V. (2015). Inklusion beginnt... wo eigentlich? Einflussgrößen auf die Einstellungen von Lehrkräften und Eltern zu Inklusion. In I. Schnell (Ed.), Herausforderung Inklusion. Theoriebildung und Praxis (pp. 204–211). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T., & McMillan, B. (2001). A primer of model fit indices in structural equation modeling. New Orleans, LA: South Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, S., & Achterberg, G. (2006). Inventar zur Beurteilung von Unterricht an Schulen (IBUS). Lehrerbefragung zur Bestandsaufnahem von Unterrichtsentwicklung. http://www.ewi-psy.fu-berlin.de/einrichtungen/arbeitsbereiche/schulentwicklungsforschung/downloads/IBUS_LehrerFb_Grafstatversion_formatiert.pdf?1286351745.. Accessed Oct 7, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiele, J., & Schierz, M. (2014). Schulsportforschung als Schul-Fach-Kulturforschung – Ein Vorschlag zur theoretischen Fundierung qualitativer Mehrebenenanalyse im Schulsport. Zeitschrift für Sportpädagogische Forschung, 2(2), 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiemann, H. (2016). Konzepte, Modelle und Strategien für den inklusiven Sportunterricht – internationale und nationale Entwicklungen und Zusammenhänge. Zeitschrift für Inklusion, (3). https://www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion-online/article/view/382/303.

  • Tripp, A., & Rizzo, T. L. (2006). Disability labels affect physical educators. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 23(3), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.23.3.310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullman, J. B. (2007). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (pp. 676–780). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (UN) (2006). United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/convtexte.htm. Accessed Oct 7, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Prooijen, J. W., & Van Der Kloot, W. A. (2001). Confirmatory analysis of exploratively obtained factor structures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(5), 777–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vislie, L. (2003). From integration to inclusion: focusing global trends and changes in the western European societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/0885625082000042294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walgenbach, K. (2014). Heterogenität – Intersektionalität – Diversity in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Stuttgart: UTB.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Fabienne Ennigkeit (Frankfurt University) for comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung Sportwissenschaft, Fakultät für Psychologie und Sportwissenschaft, Universität Bielefeld, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany

    Michael Braksiek & Bernd Gröben

  2. Faculty of Science, Department of Exercise and Health, Working Group “Sports Pedagogy”, Paderborn University, Paderborn, Germany

    Anne Rischke

  3. Institute of Sport Science, Faculty of Psychology and Sports Science, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

    Christopher Heim

Authors
  1. Michael Braksiek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernd Gröben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne Rischke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher Heim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Braksiek.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

M. Braksiek, B. Gröben, A. Rischke and C. Heim declare that they have no competing interests.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Braksiek, M., Gröben, B., Rischke, A. et al. Teachers’ attitude toward inclusive physical education and factors that influence it. Ger J Exerc Sport Res 49, 27–36 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-018-0546-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-018-0546-8

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation