International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

Knowledge and perceived social norm predict

parents’ attitudes towards inclusive education

Ming Lui, Kuen-Fung Sin, Lan Yang, Chris Forlin & Fuk-Chuen Ho

To cite this article: Ming Lui, Kuen-Fung Sin, Lan Yang, Chris Forlin & Fuk-Chuen
Ho (2015) Knowledge and perceived social norm predict parents’ attitudes towards
inclusive education, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19:10, 1052-1067, DOI:
10.1080/13603116.2015.1037866

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1037866

Published online: 24 Apr 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1066

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2015
Vol. 19, No. 10, 1052–1067, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1037866

Knowledge and perceived social norm predict parents’ attitudes

towards inclusive education
∗
Ming Luia , Kuen-Fung Sinb,c, Lan Yangc,d, Chris Forline and Fuk-Chuen Hob
a
Department of Education Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong; bDepartment
of Special Education & Counselling, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong;
c
Centre for Special Educational Needs & Inclusive Education, The Hong Kong Institute of
Education, Hong Kong; dDepartment of Curriculum & Instruction, The Hong Kong Institute
of Education, Hong Kong; eEducation Consultant
(Received 7 July 2014; accepted 29 March 2015)

Parents are key stakeholders in education and their support is pivotal to policy
implementation. Through a large-scale survey, the present study investigated the
validity of a structural model describing the relationship between attitude,
knowledge, and perceived social norm among parents of children with special
needs. Results revealed that knowledge and perceived social norm were powerful
predictors of parents’ attitudes towards inclusion and the two predictors were
intercorrelated. Exploratory analyses on the effect of demographic variables on
parents’ attitudes demonstrated that male parents exhibited more positive
attitudes towards inclusion than female parents; and parents of children at a
higher grade level indicated less positive attitudes. Cultural issues of parents’
concerns about inclusive practice are discussed.
Keywords: inclusive education; special educational needs; parents; attitudes;
knowledge; perceived social norm

One fundamental principle of inclusive education, as defined in the Salamanca State-

ment in the World Conference on Special Needs Education in 1994, is that ‘all children
should learn together, wherever possible, regardless of any difficulties and differences
they may have’ (UNESCO 1994, 11, para. 7). Inclusive education is premised on the
fact that students with special educational needs (SEN) should have the right to
receive similar education as students without SEN and that they should be able to
study in ordinary classrooms. (The term ‘ordinary school’ is used in the present
paper as this is the official term used in Hong Kong to refer to regular or mainstream
schools.) The development of inclusive education has, therefore, become one of the
most important education reforms globally (Forlin, Sin, and Maclean 2013).
The advocacy of inclusive education in Hong Kong originated from the White Paper
on Rehabilitation in 1977 (Hong Kong Government 1977). This led to the Department of
Education in Hong Kong undertaking a pilot project of what was then termed integrated
education in primary schools. Integrated education was adopted as the educational policy
as the Education Department emphasised the goal of helping students to fit into the

∗
Corresponding author. Email: m-lui@alumni.northwestern.edu

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1053

ordinary school setting, while no major restructuring of curriculum content or mode of

instruction was initiated (Wong 2002). In 2003, the government introduced a funding
plan to grant subsidies to ordinary schools according to the number of students with
SEN included and the severity of their disabilities. The number of students with SEN
in integrated settings has grown rapidly in the recent decade. In a territory-wide survey
conducted in 2010 in Hong Kong, 83% of the participating schools were including stu-
dents with different kinds of sensory, physical, and cognitive impairments, who were
learning together with students without disability in the same classroom (Sin et al. 2012).
While the government has actively advocated integrated education in recent years,
the current policy supports a dual education system which offers the options of segre-
gated and non-segregated educational settings to students with SEN. Education in Hong
Kong emphasises the respect of parents’ choices and involvement. In line with the prac-
tices in the USA and other countries, parents’ attitude towards inclusive education,
thus, becomes a very critical element in the successful implementation of inclusive edu-
cation in Hong Kong.
The factors that lead some parents to embrace inclusive practice and others to
strongly reject the idea are critical when education reforms require parental support
to succeed (Palmer et al. 2001). Parents of children with SEN are usually the ones
who decide whether their child studies in an ordinary school or a special school (Engel-
brecht et al. 2005; Sin 2010). More importantly, the successful implementation of
inclusive education requires the involvement of parents (Gasteiger-Klicpera et al.
2013; Palmer et al. 2001). It is evident that parents possess unique knowledge about
their child’s abilities and needs, which could facilitate school staff and professionals
to deliver education and support in a more effective way (Green et al. 2007).

Parental role
As parents play such an important role in the successful implementation of inclusive
education, it is important to study parents’ attitudes and the variables related to these
so that appropriate interventions and measures can be carried out to promote positive
attitudes towards inclusion. In the present study, we examined two important con-
structs, perceived social norm and knowledge, which are generally regarded as antece-
dents of attitude formation in the area of social psychology (e.g. Park 2000; Petty 1997).
Perceived social norm, also known as subjective norm in the Theory of Reasoned
Behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein 1972), was considered a function of normative beliefs
about the social expectations of significant others (e.g. family members and close
friends) and people’s motivation to comply with the social pressure from their significant
others to behave in a certain way (Park 2000). The relationship between perceived social
norm and attitudes has long fascinated social psychologists. Research has shown that
people generally experience a sense of discrepancy or dissonance when they find that
their attitudes differ from the social norm (Prentice and Miller 1993). There are
several strategies to reduce this discrepancy, including changing their own attitudes to
be more assimilated to the perceived social norm. In the literature on inclusive education,
studies on teachers’ attitude using the framework of the Theory of Planned Behaviour
have shown that both attitude and perceived social norm (which is also known as sub-
jective norm) are predictive of behavioural intention of including students with disabil-
ities in ordinary schools (e.g. MacFarlane and Woolfson 2013; Yan and Sin 2014). The
specific relationship between perceived social norm and attitude towards inclusion
among parents, however, has not yet been studied in a Chinese cultural setting.
1054 M. Lui et al.

Impact of culture
According to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory (Hofstede 2001), human character-
istics can be described by the dimensions of individualism and collectivism. Culture
which prioritises individual ambition and self over the social institution or group is
regarded as high in individualism. On the contrary, culture which emphasises obli-
gations to the social groups is regarded as high in collectivism. Hong Kong Chinese
is one of the cultural groups that are high in collectivism (Oyserman and Lee 2008).
We, therefore, hypothesised that perceived social norm would significantly impact
parents’ attitude towards inclusion in the Chinese cultural setting in Hong Kong.

Knowledge as a predictor of supportive inclusive attitudes

Knowledge is another variable that serves an important role in attitude formation
(Albarracin, Johnson, and Zanna 2005; Forlin, Loreman, and Sharma 2014; Forlin
and Sin 2010). Individuals seek knowledge to give meaning to a particular issue.
The knowledge of and attitudes towards inclusion have been examined in various
studies with target participants of principals (Kuyini and Desai 2007) and teachers
(De Boer, Pijl, and Minnart 2011; Forlin et al. 2009; Sharma et al. 2006). Findings gen-
erally reflected a lack of knowledge among principals and teachers about inclusive edu-
cation (Barned, Knapp, and Neuharth-Pritchett 2011). Variables such as training in
inclusive education (Chong, Forlin, and Au 2007; Sharma, Forlin, and Loreman
2008) and prior experience of having children with disabilities in one’s classroom
also predict teachers’ knowledge of and attitude towards inclusive education (Kuyini
and Desai 2007). Teachers who receive training with an emphasis on understanding
the nature and needs of children with disabilities (Sharma, Forlin, and Loreman
2008) and those who have interaction with children with disabilities develop more posi-
tive attitudes towards inclusion (Kuyini and Desai 2007).
Studies have, moreover, found that pre-service teachers who have more knowledge
about legislation for people with disabilities have less concerns and are more positive
about inclusion (Forlin and Chambers 2011; Sharma et al. 2006), which gives evidence
on the significant relationship between knowledge of and attitude towards inclusion. A
thorough literature search of the studies in the present decade (2004–2014), however,
revealed no study that examined specifically the relationship between knowledge of
policy and support services and attitudes towards inclusive education among parents
of students with SEN.

Objectives of the current study

The current study, thus, aimed at filling this gap of knowledge by examining a pro-
posed structural model with three important constructs: perceived social norm, knowl-
edge of inclusive education, and parents’ attitudes towards inclusion. We
hypothesised that perceived social norm and knowledge would be significant predic-
tors of attitude towards inclusion and that these two predictors would be intercorre-
lated. Specifically, the proposed relationship between perceived social norm and
attitude was based on the assumption that the more parents believed other stake-
holders supported inclusion, the more positive attitude they would have towards
inclusion. Second, we hypothesised that knowledge of policy and support services
would also predict attitudes towards inclusion. This was based on the assumption
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1055

that better knowledge about the policies and support services would reduce concerns
about the difficulties children with SEN may encounter in ordinary classrooms, which
could lead to a more positive attitude towards inclusion. Finally, the present study
hypothesised that knowledge was correlated with perceived social norm among
parents. That is, parents who were knowledgeable about inclusive education would
have a higher tendency to believe that supporting inclusive education was the
social norm; parents who believed that inclusive education was the social norm
were more likely to actively seek knowledge about policy and support services.
The hypothesised structural model of the relationships between the constructs of
knowledge, perceived social norm, and attitude is presented in Figure 1.
In addition to the structural model predicting parents’ attitude towards inclusion, we
also explored the effects of several demographic variables. These were parents’ gender
(male, female), and age (20 –29; 30–39; 40–49; .50), and child’s grade level (P1 –
P6), which served as secondary findings in the present study. Findings of past
studies investigating the effects of demographic variables on parents’ attitudes
towards inclusion were generally inconsistent (see De Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2010
for a review). For example, Balboni and Pedrabissi (2000) found that Italian mothers
had more positive attitude than Italian fathers, while Kalyva, Georgiadi, and Tsakiris
(2007) found that Greek parents held an opposite pattern. The present study aimed
to contribute to the existing literature by revealing the patterns of demographic
effects on parents’ attitudes in a Chinese cultural setting.

Figure 1. Structural and measurement model of parents’ attitude, knowledge, and perceived
social norm related to inclusive education.
Note: A1 – A4, S1 –S5, and K1 – K9 represent items which measure attitude, perceived social
norm, and knowledge, respectively.
1056 M. Lui et al.

Method
Participants
Invitation letters were sent to 600 ordinary primary schools in Hong Kong to inform the
principals about the purpose and the significance of our study and to invite their assistance
in distributing the questionnaires to parents of students with SEN. Positive replies from
139 (23%) schools were received. A total of 586 parents (486 females and 100 males)
completed and returned the questionnaires together with the informed consent. Most
were aged between 30 and 39 years (38.1%) or 40 and 49 years (52.4%). They all had
a child studying in a primary school (equivalent to grades 1–6), who was diagnosed as
having at least one of the disabilities listed in Table 1. The majority of these children
(79.4%) received education in an ordinary classroom while the rest (14.2%) received
all or part of their education in a segregated resource classroom in an ordinary school.

Instrument
The Parents’ Attitudes Towards Inclusive Education (PATIE) survey was developed
specifically for the purpose of this study. All questionnaire items were written in
Chinese. The items were developed based on the guidelines in DeVellis (2011) by four
researchers and lecturers in inclusive education and assessment methods at a university

Table 1. Participants’ background information.

Background variable Type N
Gender Male 100
Female 486
Age range 20– 29 8
30– 39 223
40– 49 307
.50 39
Child’s grade level 1 15
2 64
3 93
4 152
5 131
6 131
Child’s disability type Hearing impairment 40
Visual impairment 15
Physical disability 16
Intellectual disability 15
Emotional and behavioural disorder 105
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder 222
Autism spectrum disorder 97
Communication disorder 80
Specific learning disability 277
Child’s educational Segregated resource classroom 6
setting Regular classroom (according to age) 244
Regular classroom (according to ability) 128
Regular classroom (according to SEN type) 17
Core subjects in the segregated resource classroom; other 77
subjects in the regular classroom
Other kinds of setting 17
Do not know 57
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1057

in Hong Kong. The instrument construction commenced by building a construct map of

traits and identifying the relationships among them. A pool of potential items was deter-
mined based on the literature review, available instruments, and consultative focus group
discussions. Revisions of items were made to remove ambiguities in wordings, anomalies,
and biases. The preliminary version of the survey was trialled among 85 parents of stu-
dents without SEN and 13 parents of students with SEN. Face and content validity of
the measures were evaluated and revisions were made based on the pilot findings.
The resulting PATIE questionnaire used in the present study contained a demographic
section and three subscales. The demographic section consisted of items to assess parents’
characteristics, such as gender, age, their child’s grade level, and their child’s type of SEN.
The three subscales were (1) the attitudes towards inclusion (ATTI), (2) The knowledge of
inclusive education (KNOW), and (3) The perceived social norm (NORM). Parents’
responses were captured by a 4-point Likert scale with the following options: (1) strongly
disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree.
The ATTI scale contained five items to assess parents’ attitudes towards the core
values of inclusive education. A sample item of ATTI was ‘I believe that, in Hong
Kong, students with special educational needs have the human right to learn in ordinary
classrooms.’
The KNOW scale consisted of nine items to measure parents’ understanding and
knowledge about the inclusive education policies and support services in Hong
Kong. A sample item was ‘I am familiar with the main contents of the Code of Practice
on Education under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance.’
The NORM scale consisted of five items to measure parents’ beliefs about major
stakeholders’ attitudes towards inclusive education. A sample item was ‘As I know, tea-
chers believe that inclusive education should be implemented in schools.’

Analyses
To test the hypotheses that (1) knowledge and perceived social norm significantly pre-
dicted parents’ attitudes towards inclusive education and (2) knowledge and perceived
social norm are correlated, a structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis was per-
formed using Amos 21.0.
The percentages of missing data in this survey are low (ranging from 1.5% to 8.5%;
with an average of 3.8%). We used the technique of expectation maximisation (EM)
algorithm (Dempster, Laird, and Rubin 1977; Roth 1994) to impute the missing
values in this study. The missing value analysis module in IBM SPSS version 21
was used to perform the EM algorithm.
To evaluate model fits in our SEM analyses, we took reference to these widely
adopted and well-documented fit indexes including comparative fit index (CFI),
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and
standardised root-mean-square residual (SRMR), in addition to chi-square statistic.
We used the following threshold values to evaluate adequacy of model fits: CFI
≥.90, TLI ≥.90, RMSEA ≤.08, and SRMR ,.08 (Hu and Bentler 1999).

Results
Descriptive statistics
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the ATTI, the KNOW, and the NORM scales were
.80, .93, .81, respectively. All internal consistency estimates were high and sufficient
1058 M. Lui et al.

for research purposes. Table 2 presents individual items, mean ratings, and standard
deviations of parents’ responses. Table 3 lists the mean ratings given by parents with
different demographic backgrounds. Parents generally had higher than midpoint
ratings (2.5 in a 4-point Likert scale) in their attitudes towards inclusion (M = 2.99;
SD = .42), knowledge (M = 2.74; SD = .52) and perceived social norm (M = 2.99;
SD = .42) (Table 3).

Table 2. Items, means, and standard deviations.

No. Item Mean SD
Attitudes towards inclusion (ATTI)
A1 I believe that, in Hong Kong, inclusive education provides equal learning 2.99 0.52
opportunities to students with SEN.
A2 I believe that, in Hong Kong, students with SEN have the human right to 3.01 0.49
learn in a mainstream class.
A3 I believe that, in Hong Kong, inclusive education is an embodiment of 2.96 0.54
social justice.
A4 I believe that, in Hong Kong, inclusive education is a symbol of 3.01 0.56
civilization.
Knowledge of policy and support services (KNOW)
K1 I am familiar with the main points of Code of Practice on Education under 2.62 0.61
the DDO in Hong Kong
K2 I am familiar with the main points of the Indicators for Inclusion 2008: A 2.65 0.62
Tool for School Self-evaluation and School Development in Hong Kong
K3 I am familiar with the ‘Whole-school approach’ for inclusive education in 2.78 0.56
Hong Kong
K4 I am familiar with the history of inclusive education in Hong Kong 2.64 0.61
K5 I am familiar with the support provided by Resource Schools for the Whole 2.77 0.60
School Approach (RSWSA)
K6 I am familiar with the extra funding to support students with SEN provided 2.93 0.70
by the Education Bureau in Hong Kong
K7 I am familiar with the support provided by Special School Resource 2.76 0.70
Centres (SSRC)
K8 I am familiar with the referral services for students with SEN provided by 2.78 0.70
the Education Bureau in Hong Kong
K9 I am familiar with the support for students with SEN provided by the Hong 2.74 0.73
Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority
Perceived social norm (NORM)
S1 As I know, the government believes that inclusive education should be 3.17 0.55
implemented in schools.
S2 As I know, parents of students with SEN believe that inclusive education 3.08 0.53
should be implemented in schools.
S3 As I know, parents of students without SEN believe that inclusive 2.78 0.59
education should be implemented in schools.
S4 As I know, teachers believe that inclusive education should be 2.99 0.57
implemented in schools.
S5 As I know, the public believes that inclusive education should be 2.93 0.54
implemented in schools.
Note: Parents rated on a 4-point Likert scale with the following options: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree,
(3) agree, and (4) strongly agree.
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1059

Results of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs)

The attitudes towards inclusion scale (ATTI). Results from a confirmatory factor analysis
showed that the item, ‘I believe that it is a discriminatory practice to exclude students with
special educational needs from ordinary classrooms in Hong Kong,’ had a relatively low
factor loading (b = .35) and was, therefore, removed. The final ATTI consisted of 4 items
with factor loadings ranging from .55 to .87 (ps , .001). Overall, results of confirmatory
factor analysis provided evidence to support internal construct validity of the ATTI scale
(SRMR = .026, CFI = .98, TLI = .94, x2(24) = 16.4). It is noted that although the chi-
square test is statistically significant, other widely adopted indices of model fit (Hu and
Bentler 1999) support good internal construct validity of this scale.
The knowledge of inclusive education scale (KNOW). Factor loadings for this scale
were statistically significant (ranging from .66 to .86, ps , .001). Indices of model fit
(SRMR, CFI, and TLI) showed good internal construct validity of the KNOW scale
(SRMR = .046, CFI = .95, TLI = .92, x2(24) = 213.6).
The perceived social norm scale (NORM). Factor loadings for the NORM scale
were statistically significant (ranging from .49 to .86; ps , .001). The CFA results
also supported the good internal construct validity of the NORM scale (SRMR =
.013, CFI = 1.00, TLI = .95, x2(1) = 5.52).

Results of SEM
Figure 1 presents the correlations and the standardised regression weights in the model.
The chi-square was significant (x2(116) = 387.02, p , .001). However, since our
sample size is fairly large (N = 586) and the chi-square goodness-of-fit test has an

Table 3. Comparisons of mean ratings given by parents with different demographic

characteristics.
Sample size Attitude Knowledge Subjective norm
Gender Male 100 3.06 2.89 2.99
Female 486 2.98 2.71 2.99
t 3.45# 9.69∗∗ 0.01
Age range 20– 29 8 2.96 2.93 2.91
30– 39 223 2.99 2.77 2.98
40– 49 307 2.99 2.69 2.99
.50 39 2.99 2.89 3.01
F 0.017 2.88∗ 0.15
Child’s grade level 1 15 3.34 2.75 3.25
2 64 3.03 2.70 3.00
3 93 3.05 2.78 3.02
4 152 2.99 2.78 2.95
5 131 2.96 2.75 2.99
6 131 2.93 2.67 2.97
F 3.36∗∗ a 0.77 1.59
Overall 2.99 2.74 2.99
a
The Welch statistic was reported instead of conventional F-value due to violation of homogeneity of
variances.
∗
p , .05.
∗∗
p , .01.
#
p = .064.
1060 M. Lui et al.

inflated chance of Type I error when the sample size is large (Hooper, Coughlan, and
Mullen 2008), we also took consideration of other fit statistics suggested by Hu and
Bentler (1999). The SRMR (.05), RMSEA (.06), CFI (.95), and TLI (.94) suggested
a good fit between the hypothesised model and the data. The results of standardised
regression weights showed that perceived social norm significantly predicted attitude
(b = .34, p , .001). The standardised regression weight implies that for every one stan-
dard deviation increase in attitude, perceived social norm increased by .34 standard
deviations. Knowledge also significantly and positively predicted parents’ attitudes
towards inclusion (b = .34, p , .001). Furthermore, we found a significant positive
correlation between perceived social norm and knowledge (r = .27, p , .001).

Secondary findings on the effect of demographic variables

Gender effects. Our results showed that there was a statistically significant effect of
gender on parents’ attitudes and knowledge (t(584) = 9.69; p , .01; Cohen’s d =
.34). Compared to female parents, male parents reported that they have better knowl-
edge of inclusive education (Table 3). There was a trend that male parents reported
more positive attitude towards inclusion (t(1584) = 3.45; p = .064; Cohen’s d = .22)
than female parents.
Grade level effects. There was a significant linear trend with parents of children at a
higher grade level having less positive attitudes towards the values of inclusion than
parents of children at lower grades (F(5, 580) = 3.41; p , .01; partial h2 = .029)
(Table 3).
Parents’ age. Although there was a significant main effect of age on knowledge
(F(3573) = 2.88, p , .05, partial h2 = .015), no linear trend was observed (Table 3).

Discussion
The results of SEM analysis support our hypotheses that perceived social norms and
knowledge are two significant predictors of attitudes towards the core values of
inclusion among parents of children with SEN, and that perceived social norms and
knowledge are intercorrelated.

Perceived social norm

Our finding suggests that when parents perceive that other stakeholders are supportive
towards the policy of inclusion they are more likely to agree with the core values related
to inclusive education. Hong Kong has a cultural context high in collectivism according
to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory (Hofstede 2001). As individuals in a culture
which emphasises obligations to the social groups, parents’ value judgement on
issues related to inclusion are highly influenced by their perception of other stake-
holders’ orientations. The findings imply that in order to motivate parents of children
with SEN to support the policy of inclusive education, extra efforts may need to be
given to gain the support of all significant stakeholders, including the parents of stu-
dents without SEN, the teachers, principals, and the community. A past study has
shown that parents of students without SEN in Hong Kong have relatively low accep-
tance levels towards students with disabilities (Sin et al. 2012). In a culture that heavily
emphasises academic achievement (Poon-McBrayer and McBrayer 2014), parents of
students without SEN worry that their child’s learning progress would be affected if
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1061

extra resources and effort are allocated to support students with SEN (Sin et al. 2012).
Studies have also shown that parents of students without SEN are concerned that stu-
dents with SEN would take up more attention from teachers (Dyson et al. 2004), and
that consequently the general academic requirement and standard of education would
be lowered (Huber, Rosenfeld, and Fiorello 2001). Nevertheless, it is evidenced that
given sufficient support and resources, students without SEN could achieve better aca-
demically in inclusive than in non-inclusive classroom settings (Cole, Waldron, and
Majd 2004; Demeris, Childs, and Jordan 2007; Rouse and Florian 2006). Provided
that learning materials and curriculum are adapted to meet diverse learning abilities
(Dyson et al. 2004) and extra supportive teaching resources are available inside class-
rooms (e.g. Peck et al. 2004) inclusive education should also be beneficial to the learn-
ing of students without disabilities. In addition to academic advantages, students
without SEN who are exposed to the social experience of diversity in inclusive settings
are less prejudiced, and have more acceptance, tolerance, and understanding towards
individual differences (see Ruijs and Peetsma 2009 for a review). In Hong Kong it
would seem that greater efforts should be paid to educate parents of students without
SEN about the potential academic and social benefits of inclusion education.
Teachers are among the stakeholders who could possibly influence parents’ atti-
tudes towards inclusion through perceived social norm. Teachers, however, have
been shown to be the least supportive towards inclusion compared to principals,
parents, and the government in a previous Hong Kong study (Sin et al. 2012). A
recent study (Yan and Sin 2014) also revealed that teachers in Hong Kong were particu-
larly hesitant to include students with a moderate or severe level of disabilities. Their
negative attitudes were attributed to low confidence in teaching, inadequate resources,
and previous failure experiences (Forlin 2010; Yan and Sin 2014). Policy-makers
should take into consideration the professional teacher training and the resources pro-
vided to improve teachers’ skills and confidence, as well as their attitudes towards the
practice of inclusion (Forlin and Sin 2010; Sin and Law 2012; Sin et al. 2010).

Knowledge of policy and support services

Another important finding is that knowledge about policy and support services related
to inclusive education significantly predicted parents’ attitudes towards inclusion.
Parents who have better knowledge about policy and support services had more posi-
tive attitudes towards inclusive education. A number of studies have shown a signifi-
cant relationship between knowledge of and attitudes towards inclusive education
among teachers (e.g. Avramidis and Kalyva 2007; Batsiou et al. 2008; Sin et al.
2012; Yan and Sin 2014). For example, a past study conducted in Ghana shows that
principals’ and teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education were predicted by
their knowledge about the policy guidelines on inclusive education, characteristics of
students with different disability types, and teaching strategies. A recent study con-
ducted on pre-service teachers in Hong Kong, nevertheless, found that increasing
knowledge about policy related to inclusive education did not improve pre-service tea-
chers’ attitudes towards having students with disabilities in their classes (Forlin and
Chambers 2011). Instead, the knowledge increased their concerns of the inadequacy
of skills and strategies to support students with disability in inclusive settings. In the
current study, the knowledge component we measured included both knowledge
about the policy and knowledge about support services for students with SEN in
Hong Kong. Our finding implies that in order to improve parents’ attitudes towards
1062 M. Lui et al.

inclusive education, we should enhance not only their knowledge of the current inclus-
ive policy guidelines given by the Education Bureau, but also their awareness of the
support services that cater to the needs of students with SEN to ease their concerns
and worries about the feasibility of implementation.

Attitudes towards inclusion

The present results reveal that parents had fairly positive attitudes towards inclusion.
This finding is quite consistent with past studies conducted in western societies. For
example, Leyser and Kirk (2004) also found that parents of children with disability
had a high tendency to agree with the core perspectives of inclusion from both legal
and philosophical standpoints. In the Confucian philosophical beliefs, minorities in
the society, which include people with disability, should be supported and treated
with acceptance and tolerance (Pang and Richey 2006; Piao 1992). This advocacy
has been widely taught in Chinese societies for at least 1000 years before the human
rights movement was initiated in the West (Piao 1992). It is, therefore, not surprising
that Hong Kong parents tend to agree with the core values of inclusive education.
The current study also found an effect of gender and child’s grade level on parents’ atti-
tude. This finding suggests that male parents hold more positive attitudes towards the
values of inclusion than female parents. Male parents also reported having better
knowledge about the policy and support services related to inclusive education in
Hong Kong. The same pattern of gender difference was also found in a previous
study conducted in Greece (Kalyva, Georgiadi, and Tsakiris 2007). In the Greece
study fathers held a more positive attitude than mothers on core perspectives related
to inclusion, such as the position that children with SEN were entitled to study with
typically developing children in ordinary classrooms. Kalyva, Georgiadi, and Tsakiris
(2007), nonetheless, found that while fathers were theoretically more optimistic about
inclusion than mothers, they were less willing to participate actively when dealing with
practical issues of their child’s learning. Like many other societies in the world, mothers
in Hong Kong are the major caregivers of children, particularly for children with dis-
abilities (Holroyd 2003). Being in a culture that emphasises academic achievement
and competitiveness (Ho and Hau 2008), students with SEN who are studying in
Hong Kong ordinary schools often experience a lot of struggles and burden from the
academic requirements (Forlin, Sin, and Maclean 2013; Leung 2013; Wong 2002).
Since mothers are usually the ones who deal with the practical issues of school assign-
ments and exams (Tam and Chan 2009), they may develop less positive attitudes
towards inclusive practice because of the daily difficulties they encountered for their
child.
The present study found that parents of children at a higher grade level are less sup-
portive of inclusion than parents of children at lower grades. The pattern is similar to
some past studies which showed that parents of older children had less positive attitudes
towards inclusion (e.g. Kasari et al. 1999; Leyser and Kirk 2004). Past studies suggest
that parents of children with SEN supported inclusive education mainly because of the
benefits of socialisation with peers without SEN (De Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2010;
Koster et al. 2009). Parents, however, found that their children’s social gap compared
to students without SEN widened as the child aged (Leyser and Kirk 2004) and that
parents become less positive towards inclusion as their child gets older. Other
studies found that the support services in ordinary education settings were less adequate
or appropriate for older children with SEN (Brodin and Lindstrand 2007; Prezant and
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1063

Marshak 2006). A recent survey in Hong Kong (Sin et al. 2012) revealed that 61% of
principals and 43% of teachers who participated considered that their schools did not
receive enough government funding and resources to ensure appropriate teacher train-
ing, manpower allocation, and professional services to support students with SEN. It is
also likely that children at higher grades encounter more difficulties as the stress from
academic requirements escalate, which could affect parents’ attitude towards inclusion
(Leyser and Kirk 2004).

Limitations
The results of the present study should be interpreted with caution because of several
limitations. First of all, questionnaires were collected mainly through inclusive
schools and it could be the case that our participants were from a group of motivated
parents who had higher concerns about issues related to inclusive education. Therefore,
our participants may have more positive attitudes towards inclusion, better knowledge,
and more positive perceived social norm than the general population. Future studies
could consider other channels of data collection so that the samples would be more
representative. A second limitation is that our samples were all from Hong Kong and
there are possible cultural issues in mediating the relationships between the constructs
being studied and thus these findings may be unique to this region and not transferable.
Future studies could be conducted among parents from different cultural groups.

Conclusion
The present study aimed to examine the predictive power of perceived social norm and
knowledge on parents’ attitudes towards inclusion, and the relationship between the
two predictors. While there were studies focusing on investigating parents’ attitudes
towards inclusion (see De Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2010 for a review), the present
study is the first to extend previous research to examining the structural relations of
parents’ attitudes, perceived social norm, and knowledge in a Chinese cultural setting.
Our investigations of the relationships between the variables that are highly influ-
ential in successful implementation of inclusive education contribute more useful infor-
mation for productive educational practice and policy-making than isolated
examinations of these variables. The findings of our study would be of practical
value and could help policy-makers develop a better understanding of the factors influ-
encing parents’ attitudes towards inclusion, thus providing insights into the develop-
ment of parent education programmes to cultivate positive attitudes among parents.
The ultimate goal should be to facilitate an active collaboration among parents and
other stakeholders so that students with and without SEN will finally both benefit
from the inclusive learning environment.

Acknowledgement
No financial interest or benefit is expected to arise from the direct applications of this research.

Funding
This research was supported by the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR under
Grant [project no. 18404614, 843612 and 844313].
1064 M. Lui et al.

Notes on contributors
Dr Ming Lui is an Assistant Professor working in the Department of Education Studies, Hong
Kong Baptist University. She is experienced in interacting with parents of children with special
needs via parents’ alliances, associations, and schools. With substantial research experience in
social sciences, she played a significant role in different research projects on inclusive education,
such as the ‘Study on Equal Learning Opportunities for Students with Disabilities under the Inte-
grated Education System’ commissioned by the Equal Opportunity Commission in Hong Kong.
Prof. Kuen-Fung Sin is the Director of the Centre for Special Educational Needs and Inclusive
Education and a Professor in the Department of Special Education and Counselling at the Hong
Kong Institute of Education. He has extensive consultancy experience in research projects in the
area of inclusive education in Asian contexts, as well as training teachers of children with dis-
abilities in China.
Dr Lan Yang is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, the
Hong Kong Institute of Education. Her research interests include self-concept, student motiv-
ation, achievement emotions, and positive youth development. She was one of the three recipi-
ents of the Highly Commended Dissertation Award from the Global Self-concept Enhancement
and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Research Network, 2013.
Prof. Chris Forlin is Professor of Special and Inclusive Education holding an adjunct appoint-
ment at the Hong Kong Institute of Teacher Education. Her work involves teacher education
for inclusion, education reform, policy, and curriculum change, particularly in the Asia and
Pacific regions.
Dr Fuk-Chuen Ho is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education and Coun-
selling at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. He has extensive experiences in the manage-
ment of teacher education programmes. He is now the programme coordinator of the Basic,
Advanced and/or Thematic Courses for Teacher Professional Development on Catering for Stu-
dents with Special Educational Needs (BAT).

ORCID
Ming Lui http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7996-0386

References
Albarracin, D., B. Johnson, and M. P. Zanna. 2005. The Handbook of Attitudes. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1972. “Attitudes and Normative Beliefs as Factors Influencing
Behavioral Intentions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21: 1– 19.
Avramidis, E., and E. Kalyva. 2007. “The Influence of Teaching Experience and Professional
Development on Greek Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion.” European Journal of
Special Needs Education 22: 367 –389.
Balboni, G., and L. Pedrabissi. 2000. “Attitudes of Italian Teachers and Parents toward School
Inclusion of Students with Mental Retardation: The Role of Experience.” Education and
Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 35 (2): 148 – 159.
Barned, N. E., N. F. Knapp, and S. Neuharth-Pritchett. 2011. “Knowledge and Attitudes of Early
Childhood Preservice Teachers Toward the Inclusion of Children with Autism Spectrum
Disorder.” Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 32: 302 – 321.
Batsiou, S., E. Bebetsos, P. Panteli, and P. Antoniou. 2008. “Attitudes and Intention of Greek
and Cypriot Primary Education Teachers Towards Teaching Pupils with Special
Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools.” International Journal of Inclusive Education
12: 201 –219.
Brodin, J., and P. Lindstrand. 2007. “Perspectives of a School for All.” International Journal of
Inclusive Education 11: 133– 145.
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1065

Chong, S. C. S., C. Forlin, and M. L. Au. 2007. “The Influence of an Inclusive Education Course
on Attitude Change of Pre-service Secondary Teachers in Hong Kong.” Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education 35(2): 161– 179. doi:10.1080/13598660701268585.
Cole, C. M., N. Waldron, and M. Majd. 2004. “Academic Progress of Students Across Inclusive
and Traditional Settings.” Mental Retardation 42: 136– 144.
De Boer, A., S. J. Pijl, and A. Minnaert. 2010. “Attitudes of Parents Towards Inclusive
Education: A Review of the Literature.” European Journal of Special Needs Education
25: 165 –181.
De Boer, A., S. J. Pijl, and A. Minnaert. 2011. “Regular Primary School Teachers’ Attitudes
Towards Inclusive Education: A Review of the Literature.” International Journal of
Inclusive Education 15: 331– 353.
Demeris, H., R. A. Childs, and A. Jordan. 2007. “The Influence of Students with Special Needs
Included in Grade-3 Classrooms on the Large-Scale Achievement Scores of Students
without Special Needs.” Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation
30 (3): 609– 627.
Dempster, A. P., N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin. 1977. “Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete
Data via the EM Algorithm.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 39 (1): 1 –38.
DeVellis, R. F. 2011. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Dyson, A., P. Farrell, F. Polat, G. Hutcheson, and F. Gallannaugh. 2004. Inclusion and Pupil
Achievement. London: DfES.
Engelbrecht, P., M. Oswald, E. Swart, and A. Kitching. 2005. “Parents’ Experiences of Their
Rights in the Implementation of Inclusive Education in South Africa.” School Psychology
International 26: 459 –477.
Forlin, C. 2010. “Developing and Implementing Quality Inclusive Education in Hong Kong:
Implications for Teacher Education.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs
10: 177 –184.
Forlin, C., and D. Chambers. 2011. “Teacher Preparation for Inclusive Education: Increasing
Knowledge but Raising Concerns.” Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 39: 17 –32.
Forlin, C., T. Loreman, and U. Sharma. 2014. “A System-Wide Professional Learning Approach
about Inclusion for Teachers in Hong Kong.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 42
(3): 247– 260.
Forlin, C., T. Loreman, U. Sharma, and C. Earle. 2009. “Demographic Differences in Changing
Pre-service Teachers’ Attitudes, Sentiments and Concerns about Inclusive Education.”
International Journal of Inclusive Education 13(2): 195 –209.
Forlin, C., and K. F. Sin. 2010. “Developing Support for Inclusion: A Professional Learning
Approach for Teachers in Hong Kong.” International Journal of Whole Schooling 6 (1):
7– 26.
Forlin, C., K. F. Sin, and R. Maclean. 2013. “Transition for a Student with Special Educational
Needs from Primary to Secondary School in Hong Kong.” Australasian Journal of Special
Education 37: 49– 63. doi:10.1017/jse.2013.8.
Gasteiger-Klicpera, B., C. Klicpera, M. Gebhardt, and S. Schwab. 2013. “Attitudes and
Experiences of Parents Regarding Inclusive and Special School Education for Children
with Learning and Intellectual Disabilities.” International Journal of Inclusive Education
17: 663 –681.
Green, C. L., J. M. T. Walker, K. V. Hoover-Dempsey, and H. Sandler. 2007. “Parents’
Motivations for Involvement in Children’s Education: An Empirical Test of a
Theoretical Model of Parental Involvement.” Journal of Educational Psychology 99:
532– 544.
Ho, I. T., and K. T. Hau. 2008. “Academic Achievement in the Chinese Context: The Role of
Goals, Strategies, and Effort.” International Journal of Psychology 43: 892 –897. doi:10.
1080/00207590701836323.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holroyd, E. E. 2003. “Chinese Cultural Influences on Parental Caregiving Obligations Toward
Children with Disabilities.” Qualitative Health Research 13 (1): 4 –19.
Hong Kong Government. 1977. White Paper on Rehabilitation. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
Government.
1066 M. Lui et al.

Hooper, D., J. Coughlan, and M. R. Mullen. 2008. “Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines
for Determining Model Fit.” The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6(1):
53– 60.
Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indices in Covariance Structure
Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling
6: 1 – 55.
Huber, K. D., J. G. Rosenfeld, and C. A. Fiorello. 2001. “The Differential Impact of Inclusion
and Inclusive Practices on High, Average, and Low Achieving General Education
Students.” Psychology in the Schools 38: 497 –504. doi:10.1002/pits.1038.
Kalyva, E., M. Georgiadi, and V. Tsakiris. 2007. “Attitudes of Greek Parents of Primary School
Children Without Special Educational Needs to Inclusion.” European Journal of Special
Needs Education 22: 295 – 305.
Kasari, C., S. F. N. Freeman, N. Bauminger, and M. C. Alkin. 1999. “Parental Perspectives on
Inclusion: Effects of Autism and Down Syndrome.” Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders 29 (4): 297 –305.
Koster, M., H. Nakken, S. J. Pijl, and E. van Houten. 2009. “Being Part of the Peer Group: A
Literature Study Focusing on the Social Dimension of Inclusion in Education.”
International Journal of Inclusive Education 13 (2): 117– 140.
Kuyini, A. B., and I. Desai. 2007. “Principals’ and Teachers’ Attitudes and Knowledge of
Inclusive Education as Predictive of Effective Teaching Practices in Ghana.” Journal of
Research in Special Educational Needs 7: 104 – 113.
Leung, W. 2013. “An Investigation into the Performance of Students with Special Education
Needs (SEN) and Teachers’ Inclusive Practices in Mainstream Schools.” B.Ed. diss.,
University of Hong Kong.
Leyser, Y., and R. Kirk. 2004. “Evaluating Inclusion: An Examination of Parent Views and
Factors Influencing Their Perspectives.” International Journal of Disability,
Development, and Education 51: 271– 285.
MacFarlane, K., and L. M. Woolfson. 2013. “Teacher Attitudes and Behavior Toward the
Inclusion of Children with Social, Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties in Mainstream
Schools: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior.” Teaching and Teacher
Education 29: 46– 52.
Oyserman, D., and S. W. Lee. 2008. “Priming ‘Culture’: Culture as Situated Cognition.” In
Handbook of Cultural Psychology, edited by S. Kitayama and D. Cohen, 255 –276.
New York: Guilford Press.
Palmer, D. S., K. Fuller, T. Arora, and M. Nelson. 2001. “Taking Sides: Parent Views on
Inclusion for Their Children with Severe Disabilities.” Exceptional Children 67: 467 –484.
Pang, Y., and D. Richey. 2006. “The Development of Special Education in China.”
International Journal of Special Education 21: 77– 86.
Park, H. S. 2000. “Relationships among Attitudes and Subjective Norms: Testing the Theory of
Reasoned Action Across Cultures.” Communication Studies 51: 162 –175.
Peck, A. C., D. Staub, C. Gallucci, and I. Schwartz. 2004. “Parent Perception of the Impacts of
Inclusion on Their Non-disabled Child.” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities 29: 135 – 143.
Petty, R. E. 1997. “Attitudes and Attitude Change.” Annual Review of Psychology 48: 609 –647.
Piao, Y. 1992. Teshu jiaoyu gailun [Introduction to Special Education]. Beijing: Huaxia.
Poon-McBrayer, K. F., and P. A. McBrayer. 2014. “Plotting Confucianism and Disability Rights
Paradigms on the Advocacy-Activism Continuum: Experiences of Chinese Parents of
Children with Dyslexia in Hong Kong.” Cambridge Journal of Education 44(1): 95 –113.
doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.860084.
Prentice, D. A., and D. T. Miller. 1993. “Pluralistic Ignorance and Alcohol Use on Campus:
Some Consequences of Misperceiving the Social Norm.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 64: 243 – 256. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243.
Prezant, F., and L. Marshak. 2006. “Helpful Actions Seen Through the Eyes of Parents of
Children with Disabilities.” Disability and Society 21: 31 –45.
Roth, P. L. 1994. “Missing Data: A Conceptual Review for Applied Psychologists.” Personnel
Psychology 47 (3): 537– 560.
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1067

Rouse, M., and L. Florian. 2006. “Inclusion and Achievement: Student Achievement in
Secondary Schools with Higher and Lower Proportions of Pupils Designated as Having
Special Educational Needs.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 10: 481– 493.
Ruijs, N. M., and T. T. D. Peetsma. 2009. “Effects of Inclusion on Students With and Without
Special Educational Needs Reviewed.” Educational Research Review 4 (2): 67 – 49.
Sharma, U., C. Forlin, and T. Loreman. 2008. “Impact of Training on Pre-Service Teachers’
Attitudes and Concerns about Inclusive Education and Sentiments about Persons with
Disabilities.” Disability & Society 23 (7): 773– 785.
Sharma, U., C. Forlin, T. Loreman, and C. Earle. 2006. “Impact of Training on Pre-service
Teachers’ Attitudes about Inclusive Education, Concerns about Inclusive Education, and
Sentiments about Persons with Disabilities.” International Journal of Special Education
21 (2): 80– 93.
Sin, K. F. 2010. “The Practice of Inclusive Education in an Asian City: Hong Kong SAR.” In A
Long Walk to School: Global Perspectives on Inclusive Education, edited by V. Timmons
and P. N. Walsh, 63 –82. The Netherlands: Sense.
Sin, K. F., C. Forlin, M. L. Au, F. C. Ho, M. Lui, and Z. Yan. 2012. Study on Equal Learning
Opportunities for Students with Disabilities under the Integrated Education System. Hong
Kong: Equal Opportunities Commission and Centre for Special Educational Needs and
Inclusive Education, HKIEd.
Sin, K. F., and S. Y. Law. 2012. “The Construction of an Institute-School-Community
Partnership of Teacher Education for Inclusion.” In Future Directions for Inclusive
Teacher Education: An International Perspective, edited by C. Forlin, 203– 211.
New York: Routledge.
Sin, K. F., K. W. Tsang, C. Y. Poon, and C. L. Lai. 2010. “Upskilling All Mainstream Teachers.
What Is Viable?” In Teacher Education for Inclusion, Changing Paradigms and Innovative
Approaches, edited by Chris Forlin, 236 –245. London: Routledge.
Tam, V. C., and R. M. Chan. 2009. “Parental Involvement in Primary Children’s Homework in
Hong Kong.” School Community Journal 19: 81– 100.
UNESCO. 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs
Education. Paris: UNESCO.
Wong, D. K. P. 2002. “Struggling in the Mainstream: The Case of Hong Kong.” International
Journal of Disability, Development, and Education 49: 79– 94.
Yan, Z., and K. F. Sin. 2014. “Inclusive Education: Teachers’ Intentions and Behaviour
Analyzed from the Viewpoint of the Theory of Planned Behaviour.” International
Journal of Inclusive Education 18: 72 –85. doi:10.1080/13603116.2012.757811.