Documentation of the Questionnaire Scales - Hand in Hand
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Evaluation of the HAND in HAND Programme
Documentation of the
Questionnaire Scales
Nina Roczen*, Mojca Rožman*, Svenja Vieluf*, Julia Lalla,
Helene Dahlström, Birgitte Lund Nielsen, Ana Kozina, Fabian
Müller, Saša Puzić, 2020
*These authors contributed equally to this work.Content
1 Student Questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Self-Awareness .............................................................................................................. 5
1.1.1 Student’s Self-Awareness ............................................................................................. 5
1.1.2 Mindfulness (Subscale: Describe) ................................................................................ 6
1.1.3 Mindfulness (Subscale: Accept without Judgment) ..................................................... 7
1.1.4 Mindfulness (Subscale: Act with awareness) ............................................................... 8
1.1.5 Mindfulness (Subscale: Observe) ............................................................................... 10
1.2 Self-Managment .......................................................................................................... 11
1.2.1 Strengths and Difficulties (Subscale: Emotional Problems) ....................................... 11
1.3 Social-Awareness......................................................................................................... 12
1.3.1 Empathy (Subscale: Empathic concern) ..................................................................... 12
1.3.2 Empathy (Subscale: Perspective taking) .................................................................... 13
1.4 Relationship skills ........................................................................................................ 14
1.4.1 Caring ......................................................................................................................... 14
1.4.2 Aggression .................................................................................................................. 15
1.5 Classroom climate ....................................................................................................... 17
1.5.1 Orderliness of the Classroom ..................................................................................... 17
1.5.2 Perceived quality of student-teacher relations (Positively worded)......................... 18
1.5.3 Perceived quality of student-teacher relations (Negatively worded) ....................... 19
1.5.4 Inclusive Classroom Climate ....................................................................................... 20
1.5.5 Bullying ....................................................................................................................... 21
1.5.6 Teacher’s Relational Competence.............................................................................. 22
1.6 Intercultural competence............................................................................................ 24
1.6.1 Attitudes Towards Immigrants ................................................................................... 24
1.6.2 Perceived Inequality & Egalitarianism........................................................................ 25
2 School Staff Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 26
2.1 Self-Awareness ............................................................................................................ 26
2.1.1 Mindfulness (Subscale: Describe) .............................................................................. 26
2.1.2 Mindfulness (Subscale: Accept without Judgment) ................................................... 27
2.1.3 Mindfulness (Subscale: Act with awareness) ............................................................. 28
2.1.4 Mindfulness (Subscale: Observe) ............................................................................... 302.1.5 Classroom Diversity .................................................................................................... 31 2.2 Self-Management ........................................................................................................ 33 2.2.1 (Subscale: Emotional Problems) ................................................................................. 33 2.3 Social-Awareness......................................................................................................... 34 2.3.1 Empathy (Subscale: Empathic concern) ..................................................................... 34 2.3.2 Empathy (Subscale: Perspective taking) .................................................................... 35 2.4 Relationship skills ........................................................................................................ 36 2.4.1 Teachers’ Relational Competence.............................................................................. 36 2.5 Classroom climate ....................................................................................................... 38 2.5.1 Teacher Evaluation of a Positive Climate in the Classroom ....................................... 38 2.5.2 Unproductive Student Behaviors: Orderliness of the classroom ............................... 39 2.5.3 Unproductive Student Behaviors: Verbal and physical violence among students .... 41 2.5.4 Culturally Inclusive Teaching Strategies ..................................................................... 43 2.6 Intercultural competence............................................................................................ 44 2.6.1 Critical Consciousness Scale: Critical Reflection......................................................... 44 2.6.2 Adaptability/ Flexibility .............................................................................................. 45 2.7 Other Measures........................................................................................................... 46 2.7.1 Job Satisfaction........................................................................................................... 46
This overview documents the self-reported questionnaire scales used in the
evaluation of the EU Erasmus+ project HAND in HAND. In addition to the
questionnaire scales documented in the following, many other instruments
such as other-reports, interviews, sociometric measures and vignettes were
used for the evaluation of the project. General information on the HAND in
HAND project, the complete questionnaires including the above mentioned
measures and the evaluation report in which all measures and the respective
results are described can be found on the HAND in HAND project page
(http://handinhand.si/).1 Student Questionnaire
1.1 Self-Awareness
1.1.1 Student’s Self-Awareness
Description of the scale Measuring students’ self-awareness
Original questionnaire Positive Youth Development Questionnaire (PYDQ); subscale positive identity from confidence scale
Geldhof, G. J., Bowers, E. P., Boyd, M. J., Mueller, M. K., Napolitano, C. M., Schmid, K. L., & Lerner, R. M.
(2014). The creation and validation of short and very short measures of PYD. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 24(1), 163-176.
Reference Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., ... & Smith, L. M. (2005).
Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community
contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth
development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71.
Question stem Thinking about yourself: to what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Number of items 6
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
Answer format 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree
Reversed items ST17aQ02, ST17aQ04, ST17aQ05
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question No
Remarks Originally nine items and a 5-point Likert scale
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
ST17aQ01 On the whole, I like myself. 3.05 .75 .70 3.04 .69 .51 2.84 .80 .63
ST17aQ02 At times, I think that I am no good at all. 2.61 .98 .70 2.54 .82 .51 2.37 .83 .51
ST17a Q03 All in all, I am glad I am me. 3.14 .78 .67 3.54 .62 .55 3.36 .74 .56
ST17a Q04 I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 3.01 .84 .71 3.14 .82 .50 2.88 .83 .56
ST17a Q05 Sometimes, I feel like my life has no purpose. 2.77 .98 .68 3.16 .94 .60 2.91 .98 .59
ST17a Q06 When I am an adult, I’m sure I will have a good life. 3.17 .67 .57 3.31 .66 .50 3.23 .69 .49
Scale ST17a
SWE M = 2.96 SD = .65 N = 242
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .87
HRV M = 3.12 SD = .53 N = 249
Min = 1.17 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .78
SVN M =2.93 SD = .58 N = 266
Min =1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .80
51.1.2 Mindfulness (Subscale: Describe)
The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS) is a multidimensional self-report inventory that assesses
four mindfulness skills: observing, describing, acting with awareness and accepting without judgement. The
Description of the scale
subscale assesses the ability to communicate aforementioned experiences (e.g. “I’m good at finding the words to
describe my feelings.”).
Original questionnaire Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills
Baer, R. A., Smith G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky
Reference
Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11, 191-206.
Question stem Thinkig about yourself: How often are the following statements true for you?
Number of items 7
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
1 = Never or rarely ever true 2 = Rarely true 3 = Sometimes true
Answer format
4 = Often true 5 = Very often or always true
Reversed items ST37bQ04, ST37bQ05, ST37bQ06
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question Parallel question in the school staff questionnaires
Remarks Originally eight items
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
ST37bQ01 I’m good at finding the words to describe my feelings. 2.71 .95 .44 3.09 1.08 .63 3.08 .99 .43
I can easily put my beliefs, opinions, and expectations
ST37bQ02 2.91 .95 .55 3.36 1.09 .61 3.03 1.01 .56
into words.
I’m good at thinking of words to express my
ST37bQ03 3.10 .98 .49 3.53 1.05 .49 3.22 1.01 .43
perceptions, such as how things taste, smell, or sound.
It’s hard for me to find the words to describe what I’m
ST37bQ04 3.26 .97 .32 3.42 1.05 .33 3.29 .98 .42
thinking.
I have trouble thinking of the right words to express
ST37bQ05 3.28 .97 .39 3.74 1.07 .45 3.33 1.05 .52
how I feel about things.
When I have a sensation in my body, it’s difficult for
ST37bQ06 3.23 1.01 .44 3.45 1.02 .36 3.14 1.06 .43
me to describe it because I can’t find the right words.
My natural tendency is to put my experiences into
ST37bQ07 3.09 1.06 .28 2.77 1.11 .42 2.61 1.02 .23
words.
Scale ST37b
SWE M = 3.09 SD = .61 N = 221
Min = 1.00 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .70
HRV M = 3.34 SD = .67 N = 246
Min = 1.43 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .75
SVN M = 3.10 SD = .63 N = 263
Min = 1.57 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .72
61.1.3 Mindfulness (Subscale: Accept without Judgment)
The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS) is a multidimensional self-report inventory that assesses
four mindfulness skills: observing, describing, acting with awareness and accepting without judgement. Accepting
Description of the scale
without judgement assesses the ability to perceive things without further analysis or judgement (e.g. “I criticize
myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions.”).
Original questionnaire Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills
Baer, R. A., Smith G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky
Reference
Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11, 191-206.
Question stem Thinking about yourself: How often are the following statements true for you?
Number of items 9
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
1 = Never or rarely ever true 2 = Rarely true 3 = Sometimes true
Answer format
4 = Often true 5 = Very often or always true
Reversed items All items
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question Parallel question in the school staff questionnaires
Remarks -
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate
ST37cQ01 3.69 1.07 .64 3.80 1.06 .37 3.70 1.08 .50
emotions.
I tend to evaluate whether my perceptions are right or
ST37cQ02 3.10 0.95 .52 2.94 1.04 .42 3.13 1.02 .45
wrong.
I tell myself that I shouldn’t be feeling the way I’m
ST37cQ03 3.45 1.06 .68 3.34 1.20 .58 3.55 1.15 .61
feeling.
I believe some of my thoughts are abnormal or bad and
ST37cQ04 3.51 1.13 .68 3.44 1.19 .63 3.32 1.15 .66
I shouldn’t think that way.
I make judgments about whether my thoughts are good
ST37cQ05 3.35 0.98 .56 3.01 1.11 .51 3.20 1.08 .57
or bad.
I tend to make judgments about how worthwhile or
ST37cQ06 3.20 1.13 .63 3.38 1.19 .58 3.61 1.05 .59
worthless my experiences are.
I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking the way I’m
ST37cQ07 3.67 1.00 .68 3.61 1.07 .65 3.52 1.16 .65
thinking.
I think some of my emotions are bad or inappropriate
ST37cQ08 3.76 1.03 .69 3.79 1.08 .62 3.55 1.12 .66
and I shouldn’t feel them.
ST37cQ09 I disapprove of myself when I have irrational ideas. 3.74 1.04 .62 3.57 1.15 .41 3.78 0.96 .44
Scale ST37c
SWE M = 3.50 SD = .74 N = 217
Min = 1.00 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .88
HRV M = 3.44 SD = .72 N = 235
Min = 1.56 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .83
SVN M = 3.47 SD = .74 N = 258
Min = 1.00 Max = 5 .00 Cronbach’s α = .85
71.1.4 Mindfulness (Subscale: Act with awareness)
The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS) is a multidimensional self-report inventory that assesses
four mindfulness skills: observing, describing, acting with awareness and accepting without judgement. Acting
Description of the scale
with awareness includes the ability to be fully present in the moment and engage in activities (e.g. “When I’m
doing something, I’m only focused on what I’m doing, nothing else.”)
Original questionnaire Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills
Baer, R. A., Smith G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky
Reference
Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11, 191-206.
Question stem Thinking about yourself: How often are the following statements true for you?
Number of items 10
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
1 = Never or rarely ever true 2 = Rarely true 3 = Sometimes true
Answer format
4 = Often true 5 = Very often or always true
Reversed items ST37dQ01, ST37dQ03, ST37dQ06, ST37dQ07, ST37dQ08, ST37dQ09
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question Parallel question in the school staff questionnaires
Remarks -
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
When I do things, my mind wanders off and I’m easily
ST37dQ01 2.97 1.12 .61 3.09 1.12 .58 2.89 1.09 .55
distracted.
When I’m doing something, I’m only focused on what
ST37dQ02 2.77 .93 .44 3.30 1.10 .53 3.13 1.05 .53
I’m doing, nothing else.
I drive on “automatic pilot” without paying attention to
ST37dQ03 3.31 1.00 .20 3.71 .99 .39 3.65 .96 .27
what I’m doing.
When I’m reading, I focus all my attention on what I’m
ST37dQ04 3.01 1.10 .35 3.46 1.11 .43 3.38 1.17 .35
reading.
When I do things, I get totally wrapped up in them and
ST37dQ05 2.69 .92 .20 3.27 1.05 .52 3.03 .99 .38
don’t think about anything else.
I don’t pay attention to what I’m doing because I’m
ST37dQ06 3.26 1.09 .53 3.60 1.08 .52 3.35 1.04 .53
daydreaming, worrying, or otherwise distracted.
When I’m doing chores, such as cleaning or laundry, I
ST37dQ07 3.05 1.13 .31 2.99 1.36 .27 2.81 1.25 .40
tend to daydream or think of other things.
I tend to do several things at once rather than focusing
ST37dQ08 2.93 1.01 .56 3.03 1.21 .37 3.00 1.08 .44
on one thing at a time.
When I’m working on something, part of my mind is
ST37dQ09 occupied with other topics, such as what I’ll be doing 2.84 .90 .53 2.91 1.10 .61 2.88 1.05 .52
later, or things I’d rather be doing.
I get completely absorbed in what I’m doing, so that all
ST37dQ10 2.64 .95 .01 3.12 1.05 .59 2.84 1.00 .53
my attention is focused on it.
8Scale ST37d
SWE M = 2.94 SD = .54 N = 213
Min = 1.20 Max = 4.40 Cronbach’s α = .71
HRV M = 3.26 SD = .66 N = 241
Min = 1.50 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .80
SVN M = 3.09 SD = .62 N = 263
Min = 1.50 Max = 4.90 Cronbach’s α = .78
91.1.5 Mindfulness (Subscale: Observe)
The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS) is a multidimensional self-report inventory that assesses
four mindfulness skills: observing, describing, acting with awareness and accepting without judgement. This
Description of the scale
domain measures the inclination to vigilant towards internal and external sensations (e.g. “I notice changes in my
body, such as whether my breathing slows down or speeds up.”).
Original questionnaire Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills
Baer, R. A., Smith G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky
Reference
Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11, 191-206.
Question stem Thinking about yourself: How often are the following statements true for you?
Number of items 7
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
1 = Never or rarely ever true 2 = Rarely true 3 = Sometimes true
Answer format
4 = Often true 5 = Very often or always true
Reversed items None
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question Parallel question in the school staff questionnaires
Remarks Originally 12 items
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
I notice changes in my body, such as whether my
ST37aQ01 2.77 1.15 .53 2.59 1.13 .26 2.76 1.11 .49
breathing slows down or speeds up.
I pay attention to whether my muscles are tense or
ST37aQ02 2.64 1.14 .55 2.43 1.13 .17 2.35 1.12 .48
relaxed.
I pay attention to sensations, such as the wind in my
ST37aQ03 3.10 1.19 .65 2.77 1.24 .57 3.16 1.17 .60
hair or sun on my face.
I pay attention to sounds, such as clocks ticking, birds
ST37aQ04 3.35 1.16 .61 3.02 1.29 .50 3.30 1.21 .55
chirping, or cars passing.
ST37aQ05 I notice the smells and aromas of things. 3.40 1.04 .56 4.02 1.00 .35 3.41 1.07 .50
I pay attention to how my emotions affect my thoughts
ST37aQ06 3.17 1.16 .61 3.33 1.23 .66 3.24 1.16 .50
and behaviour.
ST37aQ07 I notice when my moods begin to change. 3.48 1.06 .54 3.63 1.20 .50 3.41 1.11 .53
Scale ST37a
SWE M = 3.11 SD = .79 N = 230
Min = 1.00 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .83
HRV M = 3.12 SD = .73 N = 251
Min = 1.00 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .72
SVN M = 3.09 SD = .76 N = 267
Min = 1.14 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .79
101.2 Self-Managment
1.2.1 Strengths and Difficulties (Subscale: Emotional Problems)
The scale measures adolescents’ of 11 years and above self-reported problems with conduct, emotions, peer
relations, prosocial behaviours and hyperactivity. Of the questionnaires 25 attributes, 10 are classified as strengths,
Description of the scale 14 as difficulties and one statement is deemed neutral. One of the overall five subscales were chosen to assess
participants’ level of self-management: emotional problems scale (e.g. “I am often unhappy, depressed or
tearful.”).
Original questionnaire Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. Journal of child psychology
and psychiatry, 38(5), 581-586.
Reference
Goodman, R., Meltzer, H., & Bailey, V. (1998). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A pilot study on the
validity of the self-report version. European child & adolescent psychiatry, 7(3), 125-130.
Question stem Thinking about yourself: to what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Number of items 7
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
Answer format 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree
Reversed items None
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question Parallel question in the teacher and other school staff questionnaires
Remarks The original response scale ranged from 0 (not true) to 2 (certainly true).
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
ST20Q01 I get a lot of headaches, stomach-aches or sickness. 2.16 .87 .46 2.00 .83 .44 2.21 .81 .39
ST20Q02 I worry a lot. 2.44 .91 .71 2.39 .85 .58 2.84 .80 .60
ST20Q03 I am often unhappy, depressed or tearful. 2.06 .85 .60 1.94 .82 .63 2.10 .75 .56
ST20Q04 I am nervous in new situations. 2.65 .84 .60 2.63 .87 .56 2.71 .80 .44
ST20Q05 I easily lose confidence. 2.52 .86 .73 2.22 .94 .64 2.13 .85 .56
ST20Q06 I have many fears. 2.03 .85 .71 2.08 .92 .59 2.25 .84 .42
ST20Q07 I am easily scared. 2.12 .88 .67 2.03 .90 .39 2.04 .83 .50
Scale ST20
SWE M = 2.28 SD = .64 N = 239
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .87
HRV M = 2.18 SD = .59 N = 249
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .81
SVN M = 2.36 SD = .54 N = 220
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .77
111.3 Social-Awareness
1.3.1 Empathy (Subscale: Empathic concern)
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index with its four subscales fantasy (e.g. “After seeing a play or movie, I have felt
as though I were one of the characters.”), perspective taking (e.g. “I believe that there are two sides to every
question and try to look at them both.”), empathic concern (e.g. “I am often quite touched by things that I see
Description of the scale
happen.”) and personal distress (e.g. “In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease.”), assesses
different aspects of the global concept “empathy”. Each subscale consists of 7 items. In order to assess level of
social awareness of participants, two subscales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) were selected.
Original questionnaire Interpersonal Reactivity Index - Multidimensional assessment of Empathy
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalogue of
Reference
Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, p. 85.
Question stem Please also indicate how well the following items describe you.
Number of items 7
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
1 = Not at all like me 2 = Not much like me 3 = Somewhat like me
Answer format
4 = Mostly like me 5 = Very much like me
Reversed items ST21b1Q02, ST21b1Q04, ST21b1Q05
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question No
Remarks -
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less
ST21b1Q01 3.19 1.16 .36 3.61 1.13 .44 3.06 1.03 .40
fortunate than me.
Sometimes I don't feel sorry for other people when they
ST21b1Q02 3.47 1.20 .25 3.38 1.41 .04 3.89 1.09 .10
are having problems.
When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel
ST21b1Q03 3.83 .98 .48 3.50 1.09 .29 3.68 .96 .39
kind of protective toward them.
Other people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a
ST21b1Q04 3.83 1.04 .43 3.77 1.06 .36 3.96 .85 .38
great deal.
When I see someone being treated unfairly, I
ST21b1Q05 3.45 1.27 .11 4.00 1.12 .29 4.08 .79 .26
sometimes don't feel very much pity for them.
ST21b1Q06 I am often quite touched by things that I see happen. 2.98 1.07 .42 3.28 1.17 .45 3.14 1.02 .47
ST21b1Q07 I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person. 3.70 .99 .46 3.35 1.23 .48 3.26 1.08 .37
Scale ST21b1
SWE M = 3.49 SD = .61 N = 237
Min = 1.43 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .63
HRV M = 3.55 SD = .64 N = 242
Min = 1.43 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .61
SVN M = 3.57 SD = .54 N = 261
Min = 2.29 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .62
121.3.2 Empathy (Subscale: Perspective taking)
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index with its four subscales fantasy (e.g. “After seeing a play or movie, I have felt
as though I were one of the characters.”), perspective taking (e.g. “I believe that there are two sides to every
question and try to look at them both.”), empathic concern (e.g. “I am often quite touched by things that I see
Description of the scale
happen.”) and personal distress (e.g. “In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease.”), assesses
different aspects of the global concept “empathy”. Each subscale consists of 7 items. In order to assess level of
social awareness of participants, two subscales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) were selected.
Original questionnaire Interpersonal Reactivity Index - Multidimensional assessment of Empathy
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalogue of
Reference
Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, p. 85.
Question stem And the following items? How well do they describe you?
Number of items 7
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
1 = Not at all like me 2 = Not much like me 3 = Somewhat like me
Answer format
4 = Mostly like me 5 = Very much like me
Reversed items ST21c1Q01, ST21c1Q04
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question No
Remarks -
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the
ST21c1Q01 3.31 .98 .25 3.47 .98 .16 3.36 .84 .27
"other guy's" point of view.
I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement
ST21c1Q02 3.08 .99 .59 3.47 1.09 .49 3.05 .86 .51
before I make a decision.
I sometimes try to understand my friends better by
ST21c1Q03 3.35 1.00 .57 3.72 1.06 .45 3.27 1.00 .53
imagining how things look from their perspective.
If I'm sure I'm right about something, I don't waste
ST21c1Q04 3.17 1.15 .22 2.92 1.20 -.05 3.27 1.01 .22
much time listening to other people's arguments.
I believe that there are two sides to every question and
ST21c1Q05 2.97 .98 .48 3.39 1.05 .53 3.36 .93 .53
try to look at them both.
When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to "put myself
ST21c1Q06 2.50 1.00 .57 2.55 1.20 .42 2.34 .93 .44
in his shoes" for a while.
Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I
ST21c1Q07 2.92 1.04 .55 3.12 1.22 .47 2.94 .97 .56
would feel if I were in their place.
Scale ST21c1
SWE M = 3.03 SD = .63 N = 236
Min = 1.29 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .74
HRV M = 3.23 SD = .62 N = 249
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.86 Cronbach’s α = .63
SVN M = 3.09 SD = .57 N = 267
Min = 1.14 Max = 4.57 Cronbach’s α = .72
131.4 Relationship skills
1.4.1 Caring
The subscale caring, comprised of nine items (e.g. “When I see someone being picked on, I feel sorry for them.”),
Description of the scale was chosen from the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development (Geldhof et al., 2014) to measure students’
relationship skills.
Original questionnaire Positive Youth Development Questionnaire
Geldhof, G. J., Bowers, E. P., Boyd, M. J., Mueller, M. K., Napolitano, C. M., Schmid, K. L., & Lerner, R. M.
Reference (2014). The creation and validation of short and very short measures of PYD. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 24(1), 163-176.
Question stem To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Number of items 9
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
Answer format 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree
Reversed items None
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question No
The original response format ranged from 1 (not well) to 5 (very well). The scale has shown good internal consistency
Remarks
(α = .80 - .88) across grades 5 through 12.
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
I feel sorry for other people when they are having
ST22Q01 3.04 .58 .69 3.30 .58 .74 3.05 .63 .60
problems.
When I see someone being taken advantage of, I want
ST22Q02 3.10 .59 .76 3.28 .55 .67 3.14 .57 .61
to help them.
ST22Q03 It bothers me when bad things happen to good people. 3.19 .69 .63 3.47 .61 .62 3.18 .66 .51
ST22Q04 It bothers me when bad things happen to any person. 3.00 .63 .63 2.89 .81 .55 2.77 .73 .54
When I see someone being treated unfairly, I feel sorry
ST22Q05 3.12 .64 .73 3.31 .63 .69 3.03 .65 .64
for them.
I feel sorry for other people who don’t have what I
ST22Q06 2.57 .75 .53 3.06 .80 .51 2.66 .83 .54
have.
When I see someone being picked on, I feel sorry for
ST22Q07 3.08 .67 .70 3.15 .67 .68 3.05 .62 .65
them.
It makes me sad to see a person who doesn’t have
ST22Q08 2.85 .78 .67 3.27 .76 .59 3.21 .73 .58
friends.
When I see another person who is hurt or upset, I feel
ST22Q09 2.92 .75 .62 3.26 .65 .65 2.83 .70 .64
sorry for them.
Scale ST22
SWE M = 2.98 SD = .49 N = 232
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .89
HRV M = 3.20 SD = .49 N = 242
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .88
SVN M = 2.99 SD = .47 N = 265
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .86
141.4.2 Aggression
The LA aggression scale measures self-reported aggressive behavior of students. It is comprised of four subscales:
internal, physical, verbal aggression and aggression towards authority. The subscales internal (e.g. “A lot of people
Description of the scale annoy me.”), verbal aggression (e.g. “If someone offends me, I offend him right back.”) and aggression towards
authority (e.g. “I like to provoke my parents a lot.”) are each comprised of four items, while the subscale physical
aggression consists of six items (e.g. “I fight a lot when I’m in school.”).
Original questionnaire LA aggression Scale
Kozina, A. (2013). The LA aggression scale for elementary school and upper secondary school students:
Reference examination of psychometric properties of a new multidimensional measure of self-reported aggression.
Psihologija, 46(3), 245-259.
Question stem Now thinking about yourself: to what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Number of items 18
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
Answer format 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree
Reversed items None
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question No
The original scale was scored on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and
Remarks have shown adequate internal consistency (α = .70 - .83; Kozina, 2013). Please note that the item text below is
truncated as the instrument is not publicly available.
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
ST25aQ01 A lot of people ….. 2.64 .87 .51 2.62 .86 .46 2.31 .76 .54
ST25aQ02 My classmates…… 2.42 .66 .29 2.19 .79 .31 2.35 .78 .46
ST25aQ03 Sometimes my parents…. 2.45 .90 .39 2.41 .93 .45 2.36 .93 .43
ST25aQ04 I fight a lot…. 1.41 .61 .39 1.61 .74 .57 1.35 .56 .45
ST25aQ05 If someone screams…. 2.46 .85 .53 2.64 .88 .52 2.41 .88 .56
ST25aQ06 I’m often …. 2.06 .80 .53 1.99 .86 .53 2.16 .82 .47
ST25aQ07 If someone offends me….. 2.46 .82 .51 2.56 .90 .55 2.45 .89 .57
ST25aQ08 I like fighting….. 1.55 .77 .55 1.82 .78 .48 1.43 .67 .48
ST25aQ09 If I don’t agree…. 1.79 .71 .55 1.64 .74 .56 1.55 .65 .62
ST25aQ10 When I argue with…. 2.28 .83 .53 2.07 .87 .62 2.23 .82 .54
ST25aQ11 I often think that…. 2.29 .89 .46 2.25 .94 .39 2.35 .90 .52
ST25aQ12 If I notice …. 2.35 .82 .31 2.27 .88 .40 2.18 .86 .45
ST25aQ13 If nobody sees me…. 1.39 .61 .29 1.38 .63 .52 1.60 .68 .52
ST25aQ14 I like to provoke… 1.53 .66 .44 1.38 .65 .43 1.44 .58 .49
ST25aQ15 If someone makes…... 2.07 .83 .53 2.38 .96 .39 2.23 .86 .47
ST25aQ16 Sometimes I get so angry …. 1.75 .79 .59 1.81 1.01 .60 1.78 .88 .49
ST25aQ17 I often hit…. 1.37 .54 .51 1.41 .62 .56 1.57 .72 .57
ST25aQ18 If I don’t agree ….. 1.74 .73 .48 1.64 .78 .52 1.71 .73 .57
15Scale ST25a
SWE M = 2.02 SD = .43 N = 227
Min = 1.00 Max = 3.28 Cronbach’s α = .86
HRV M = 2.00 SD = .46 N = 239
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .87
SVN M = 1.97 SD = .45 N = 261
Min = 1.00 Max = 3.44 Cronbach’s α = .88
161.5 Classroom climate
1.5.1 Orderliness of the Classroom
The scale Orderliness of the Classroom was derived from the 2003 PISA survey (OECD, 2005). Originally used to
Description of the scale assess students’ perception of the disciplinary climate in their mathematics lesson, it was adapted to apply to the
general classroom climate.
Original questionnaire Orderliness of the classroom
Reference OECD (2005). PISA 2003 Technical Report. Paris, France: OECD.
Thinking about your experiences in your classroom during the past 4 months: How often did the following things
Question stem
happen?
Number of items 5
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
1 = Never or almost never 2 = Once a month 3 = Once a week
Answer format
4 = Every day or almost every day
Reversed items None
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question No
Remarks The original behavioural frequency scale ranged from 1 (every lesson) to 4 (never or hardly ever).
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
ST27Q01 Students don’t listen to what the teacher says. 3.13 .93 .69 3.40 .83 .49 3.33 .84 .59
ST27Q02 There is noise and disorder. 3.28 .90 .68 3.08 .99 .76 3.35 .86 .67
The teacher has to wait a long time for students to quiet
ST27Q03 3.08 .99 .62 2.93 1.10 .78 3.17 .99 .71
down.
ST27Q04 Students cannot work well. 2.70 1.02 .67 2.55 1.16 .73 2.67 1.04 .67
Students don’t start working for a long time after the
ST27Q05 2.68 1.09 .63 2.49 1.12 .70 2.71 1.08 .66
lesson begins.
Scale ST27
SWE M = 2.97 SD = .77 N = 218
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .85
HRV M = 2.88 SD = .84 N = 249
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .87
SVN M = 3.05 SD = .76 N = 267
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .85
171.5.2 Perceived quality of student-teacher relations (Positively worded)
Overarching theme: School/classroom climate, Construct: The perceived quality of student-teacher relations.
Description of the scale
ONLY POSITIVELY WORDED ITEMS.
Original questionnaire Inclusive Classroom Climate
Fischer, Natalie / Decristan, Jasmin / Theis, Désirée / Sauerwein, Markus / Wolgast, Anett: Skalendokumentation
Reference (online): Studie zur Entwicklung von Ganztagsschulen - Teilstudie StEG-S , In: Datenbank zur Qualität von
Schule (DaQS), Frankfurt am Main
Thinking about your experiences in your classroom during the past 4 months: To how many teachers teaching you
Question stem
do the following statements apply?
Number of items 8
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
1 = To none or almost none of them 2 = To some of them
Answer format
3 = To most of them 4 = To all or almost all of them
Reversed items None
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question No
It is also possible to calculate two subscales: “Recognition: Emotional Support” (ST28a2Q01, ST28a2Q02,
Remarks
ST28a2Q03, ST28a2Q04, ST28a2Q05) and “Recognition: Social Esteem (ST28a2Q06, ST28a2Q07, ST28a2Q08)”
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
ST28a2Q01 My teachers take me serious. 3.17 .85 .72 2.74 .89 .52 2.85 .91 .52
ST28a2Q02 My teachers accept me the way I am. 3.46 .81 .74 3.12 .97 .58 3.31 .83 .56
ST28a2Q03 I can trust my teachers 2.91 1.02 .74 2.76 .98 .68 2.83 1.00 .63
ST28a2Q04 I get along well with my teachers. 3.11 .88 .82 3.03 .84 .68 2.96 .86 .68
ST28a2Q05 My teachers care about me. 3.00 .97 .80 2.71 .95 .75 2.95 .87 .62
ST28a2Q06 My teachers know my strengths. 2.79 .91 .74 2.53 .96 .59 2.83 .89 .62
ST28a2Q07 My teachers appreciate my competences. 2.99 .88 .84 2.75 .90 .74 2.89 .89 .75
My teachers give me the opportunity to demonstrate
ST28a2Q08 2.99 .93 .75 2.90 .91 .71 2.95 .88 .70
my abilities.
Scale ST28a2
SWE M = 3.05 SD = .74 N = 218
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .93
HRV M = 2.81 SD = .69 N = 245
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .89
SVN M = 2.94 SD = .65 N = 260
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .87
181.5.3 Perceived quality of student-teacher relations (Negatively worded)
Overarching theme: Classroom climate, Construct: The perceived quality of student-teacher relations. ONLY
Description of the scale NEGATIVELY WORDED ITEMS. This question is adopted from PISA 2015 (but 1 item was added from other
scales).
Original questionnaire Inclusive Classroom Climate
Reference OECD (2018). PISA 2015 Technical Report. Paris: OECD
Thinking about your experiences in your classroom during the past 4 months: How often did the following things
Question stem
happen?
Number of items 7
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
1 = Never or almost never 2 = Once a month
Answer format
3 = Once a week 4 = Every day or almost every day
Reversed items None
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question No
It is also possible to calculate two subscales: “Misrecognition: Emotional Support” (ST29a2Q05, ST29a2Q06,
Remarks
ST29a2Q07) and “Misrecognition: Cognitive Respect (ST29a2Q01, ST29a2Q02, ST29a2Q04)”
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
A teacher called on me less often than he*she called on
ST29a2Q01 1.85 1.02 .48 2.06 .98 .22 2.09 .99 .20
other students.
A teacher graded me harder than he*she graded other
ST29a2Q02 1.54 .87 .74 1.61 .76 .60 1.61 .79 .54
students.
A teacher gave me the impression that he*she thinks I
ST29a2Q03 1.49 .81 .68 1.82 .95 .53 1.55 .85 .58
am less smart than I really am.
A teacher disciplined me more harshly than other
ST29a2Q04 1.37 .79 .80 1.44 .80 .64 1.38 .78 .58
students.
ST29a2Q05 A teacher ridiculed me in front of others. 1.35 .74 .80 1.28 .63 .62 1.35 .69 .55
A teacher said something insulting to me in front of
ST29a2Q06 1.25 .65 .84 1.26 .60 .59 1.24 .61 .62
others.
ST29a2Q07 A teacher yelled at me. 1.37 .79 .72 1.65 .86 .48 1.53 .81 .51
Scale ST29a2
SWE M = 1.45 SD = .64 N = 220
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .90
HRV M = 1.59 SD = .53 N = 251
Min = 1.00 Max = 3.86 Cronbach’s α = .78
SVN M = 1.55 SD = .52 N = 264
Min = 1.00 Max = 3.29 Cronbach’s α = .77
191.5.4 Inclusive Classroom Climate
The scale is an adapted version of a measure described by Vieluf (2015) derived from the 2018 PISA student
survey (OECD, 2018) and measures student’s perceived quality of student-teacher relations with focus on teacher’s
Description of the scale sensitivity towards cultural and ethnic groups. The questionnaire is comprised of ten items that are formulated as
statements (e.g. “They talk in a respectful way about people from all .”) and students are
asked to rate to how many of their teachers the statements apply.
Original questionnaire Inclusive Classroom Climate
OECD (2018). PISA 2018 Global Competence Questionnaire. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-
Reference
2018-Global-Competence-Questionnaire.pdf
Thinking about your experiences in your classroom during the past 4 months: To how many teachers teaching you
Question stem
do the following statements apply?
Number of items 4
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
1 = To none or almost none of them 2 = To some of them
Answer format
3 = To most of them 4 = To all or almost all of them
Reversed items All
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question No
Remarks -
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
They have misconceptions about the history of some
ST30Q01 3.74 .53 .66 3.61 .64 .68 3.42 .66 .65
.
They say negative things about people of some
ST30Q02 3.78 .50 .77 3.64 .62 .73 3.52 .64 .68
.
They blame people of some
ST30Q03 3.77 .49 .79 3.61 .63 .69 3.55 .61 .65
for problems faced by .
They have lower academic expectations for students of
ST30Q04 3.68 .58 .65 3.61 .69 .62 3.36 .71 .53
some than for others.
Scale ST30
SWE M = 3.74 SD = .44 N = 214
Min = 2.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .86
HRV M = 3.62 SD = .53 N = 249
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .84
SVN M = 3.46 SD = .52 N = 267
Min = 1.75 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .81
201.5.5 Bullying
The Adolescent Discrimination Distress Index (ADDI, Sangalang, Chen, Kulis & Yabiku, 2015) is a scale
developed to assess the prevalence of discrimination based on ethnicity as reported by Cambodian Americans. It is
comprised of items that describe discriminatory situations and actions that students might encounter. The ADDI
Description of the scale
measures discrimination from three sources: peer (5 items, e.g. “Teasing”), school (7 items, e.g. “People assumed
your English was poor”) and police (6 items, e.g. “Stopped”). In order to assess students perceived quality of
student-student relations, only the subscale peer and an additional of two self-developed items were chosen.
Original questionnaire Adolescent Discrimination Distress Index
Sangalang, C. C., Chen, A. C., Kulis, S. S., & Yabiku, S. T. (2015). Development and validation of a racial
Reference discrimination measure for Cambodian American adolescents. Asian American Journal of Psychology,
6(1), 56-65.
Question stem During the past 4 months, how often did you experience the following from your classmates?
Number of items 7
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
1 = Never or almost never 2 = Once a month
Answer format
3 = Once a week 4 = Every day or almost every day
Reversed items None
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question No
The three subscales as well as the total scale have shown good internal consistency (α = .87 - .94, Sangalang et al.,
Remarks
2015).
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
ST32a2Q01 Rejection 1.53 .93 .65 1.54 .76 .65 1.64 .77 .60
ST32a2Q02 Unfair treatment 1.41 .76 .65 1.64 .79 .64 1.71 .80 .62
ST32a2Q03 Teasing 1.51 .85 .69 1.73 .91 .62 1.76 .96 .69
ST32a2Q04 Isolation/exclusion 1.40 .84 .73 1.45 .79 .62 1.61 .92 .74
ST32a2Q05 Name calling/insults 1.43 .84 .72 1.63 .89 .61 1.60 .90 .73
ST32a2Q06 Threats 1.17 .52 .54 1.22 .57 .54 1.21 .57 .52
ST32a2Q07 Physical abuse/ violence 1.17 .53 .50 1.14 .48 .33 1.15 .48 .45
Scale ST32a2
SWE M = 1.39 SD = .58 N = 206
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .86
HRV M = 1.49 SD = .54 N = 244
Min = 1.00 Max = 3.43 Cronbach’s α = .83
SVN M = 1.53 SD = .57 N = 264
Min = 1.00 Max = 3.71 Cronbach’s α = .85
211.5.6 Teacher’s Relational Competence
The Teacher’s Relational Competence Scale (TRCS, Vidmar & Kerman, 2016) is newly developed questionnaire
that assesses teachers’ ability to perceive each student as a unique being and adjust their own behavior accordingly
as well as taking responsibility for teacher-student relationships. It is comprised of 11 items that measure teachers’
Description of the scale relational competence on two dimensions: respect for individuality (4 items, e.g. “I take into consideration that
each student’s thoughts, feelings and understanding of a given situation may differ from mine.”) and responsibility
for student-teacher relationships (7 items, e.g. “When a student behaves or expresses in an inappropriate or
unsuitable way, I try to understand what lies under his/her behaviour or words.”).
Original questionnaire Teachers’ Relational Competence Scale
Vidmar, M. & Kerman, K. (2016). The Development of Teacher's Relational Competence Scale: Structural
Reference
Validity and Reliability. Solsko Polje, 27(1/2), 41-62.
Question stem And how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your ?
Number of items 8
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
Answer format 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree
Reversed items None
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question Parallel question in the teacher questionnaire
An initial study has reported satisfying internal consistency for both scales (Individuality: α = .70 and Responsibility:
α = .76; Vidmar & Kerman, 2016). The original response scale ranging from 1 (very rarely) to 5 (always or very
Remarks
often) was adapted to a behavioural frequency scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (most of the time or always). After
the pilot study, the items were shortened to eight from initial ten.
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
He*she is open to student ideas and suggestions and
ST36Q01 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.42 .72 .72 3.06 .68 .64
considers them when teaching.
When a student behaves or expresses in an
inappropriate or unsuitable way, he*she tries to
ST36Q02 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.12 .80 .66 2.76 .72 .57
understand what lies under the students’ behaviour or
words.
When he*she can’t build a good relationship with a
ST36Q03 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.04 .85 .65 2.82 .68 .62
student, he*she asks the student for help.
He*she seems to take into consideration that each
ST36Q04 student experiences a given situation from a different n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.16 .79 .74 2.95 .65 .69
perspective.
He*she takes into consideration that each student’s
ST36Q05 thoughts, feelings and understanding of a given n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.24 .81 .74 2.98 .69 .73
situation may differ from mine.
He*she has repeated conflicts with a certain student or
ST36Q06 n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.42 .97 -.06 2.92 .70 .63
a group of students.
He*she adjusts his*her behaviour to the needs of
ST36Q07 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.19 .71 .64 3.06 .67 .72
students.
He*she takes responsibility for the quality of the
ST36Q08 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.19 .74 .68 2.85 .74 .59
student-teacher relationships.
22Scale ST36
SWE M = n.a. SD = n.a. N = n.a.
Min = n.a. Max = n.a. Cronbach’s α = n.a.
HRV M = 3.09 SD = .54 N = 243
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .84
SVN M = 2.93 SD = .51 N = 262
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .88
231.6 Intercultural competence
1.6.1 Attitudes Towards Immigrants
The Attitudes Towards Immigrants (ATI) scale is obtained from the 2018 PISA student survey (Schleicher &
Ramos, 2016) that will assess global competence in students for the first time. The measure is developed to
Description of the scale evaluate student’s attitudes towards people from different cultural backgrounds. The scale is comprised of the four
original items (e.g. “Immigrant children should have the same opportunities for education that other children in the
country have.”) as well as an additional two self-developed items that are constructed as statements.
Original questionnaire Attitudes Towards Immigrants
Schleicher, A., & Ramos, G. (2016). Global competency for an inclusive world. Organization for Economic Co-
Reference operation and Development (OECD). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/education/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf.
People are increasingly moving from one country to another. How much do you agree with the following
Question stem statements about immigrants (here defined as people who have left the country they were born in to live in
)?
Number of items 6
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
Answer format 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree
Reversed items ST33Q06
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question No
Remarks -
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
Immigrants should be encouraged to continue speaking
ST33Q01 2.64 .85 .59 2.82 .76 .48 2.58 .81 .45
their own language.
Immigrant children should have the same opportunities
ST33Q02 3.50 .75 .69 3.47 .66 .63 3.35 .64 .52
for education that other children in the country have.
Immigrants who live in a country for several years
ST33Q03 3.11 .81 .74 3.01 .83 .60 2.94 .72 .56
should have the opportunity to vote in elections.
Immigrants should have the opportunity to continue
ST33Q04 3.10 .81 .77 3.16 .74 .70 2.93 .77 .63
their own customs and lifestyle.
Immigrants should have all the same rights that
ST33Q05 3.37 .75 .77 3.32 .73 .69 3.18 .73 .56
everyone else in the country has.
When there are not many jobs available, immigration
ST33Q06 2.49 .89 .09 2.22 .81 .09 2.39 .83 .05
should be restricted.
Scale ST33
SWE M = 3.03 SD = .59 N = 206
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .82
HRV M = 2.99 SD = .52 N = 246
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .77
SVN M = 2.90 SD = .48 N = 264
Min = 1.33 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .71
241.6.2 Perceived Inequality & Egalitarianism
The Critical Consciousness Scale (CCS, Diemer, Rapa, Park & Perry, 2017) measures peoples’ critical analysis of
social conditions of marginalized members of society, endorsement of equal societal conditions and actions
undertaken in order to change perceived inequities. The questionnaire is comprised of three subscales: critical
reflection (perceived inequality) (8 items, e.g. “Certain racial or ethnic groups have fewer chances to get a good
Description of the scale high school education.”), critical action (socio-political participation) (9 items, e.g. “Participated in a civil rights
group or organization”) and critical reflection (egalitarianism) (5 items, e.g. “It is a good thing that certain groups
are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.”). For the Hand-in-Hand intervention, all items of the first scale
as well as two items from the third scale were chosen to assess students’ and teachers’ attitude towards people
from marginalized groups.
Original questionnaire Critical Consciousness Scale
Diemer, M. A., Rapa, L. J., Park, C. J., & Perry, J. C. (2017). Development and validation of the Critical
Reference
Consciousness Scale. Youth & Society, 49(4), 461-483.
Question stem To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Number of items 4
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
Answer format 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly agree
Reversed items None
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group Students
Parallel question Parallel question in the school staff questionnaires
Initial findings have indicated good internal consistencies for all three subscales (α = .76 - .89; Diemer et al.,
Remarks 2017). The original response scale consisted of a 6-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6
(strongly agree). After the pilot study, the items were shortened from ten to four items.
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
have fewer chances to get 2.22 .83 .60 2.15 .86 .41 2.37 .75 .47
a good high school education.
Children from poor homes have fewer chances to get a
ST34Q02 2.25 .79 .69 2.03 .90 .66 2.52 .77 .59
good high school education.
ST34Q03 Women have fewer chances to get good jobs. 2.30 .75 .76 1.68 .81 .54 1.91 .77 .49
ST34Q04 Poor people have fewer chances to get good jobs. 2.24 .80 .70 1.97 .90 .65 2.42 .79 .72
Scale ST34
SWE M = 2.25 SD = .65 N = 209
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .85
HRV M = 1.96 SD = .66 N = 250
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .76
SVN M = 2.30 SD = .59 N = 265
Min = 1.00 Max = 4.00 Cronbach’s α = .77
252 School Staff Questionnaire
2.1 Self-Awareness
2.1.1 Mindfulness (Subscale: Describe)
The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS) is a multidimensional self-report inventory that assesses
four mindfulness skills: observing, describing, acting with awareness and accepting without judgement (Baer,
Description of the scale
Smith & Allen, 2004). The subscale describe assesses the ability to communicate aforementioned experiences (e.g.
“I’m good at finding the words to describe my feelings.”).
Original questionnaire Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills
Baer, R. A., Smith G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky
Reference
Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11, 191-206.
Question stem Thinking about yourself: How often are the following statements true for you?
Number of items 7
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
1 = Never or rarely ever true 2 = Rarely true 3 = Sometimes true
Answer format
4 = Often true 5 = Very often or always true
Reversed items TC09bQ04 TC09bQ05 TC09bQ06
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group All School Staff
Parallel question Yes
Internal consistency of the four scales has been reported as good with Cronbach’s’ alpha ranging between .83 and
Remarks
.91 (Baer et al., 2004). After the pilot study, the items were shortened from original eight to seven.
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
TC09bQ01 I’m good at finding the words to describe my feelings. 3.92 .87 .72 3.87 .84 .67 3.91 .74 .65
I can easily put my beliefs, opinions, and expectations
TC09bQ02 3.84 .92 .76 4.01 .87 .72 3.80 .83 .74
into words.
I’m good at thinking of words to express my
TC09bQ03 3.98 .84 .68 3.73 .86 .73 3.89 .82 .71
perceptions, such as how things taste, smell, or sound.
It’s hard for me to find the words to describe what I’m
TC09bQ04 3.82 1.04 .69 3.71 .89 .71 3.68 .82 .72
thinking.
I have trouble thinking of the right words to express
TC09bQ05 3.89 .97 .67 3.77 .81 .70 3.70 .83 .72
how I feel about things.
When I have a sensation in my body, it’s difficult for
TC09bQ06 3.90 .93 .64 3.70 .84 .55 3.68 .82 .69
me to describe it because I can’t find the right words.
My natural tendency is to put my experiences into
TC09bQ07 3.71 1.04 .40 3.61 .93 .56 3.39 .88 .56
words.
Scale TC09b
SWE M = 3.87 SD = .71 N = 92
Min = 2.29 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .87
HRV M = 3.77 SD = .65 N = 90
Min = 2.00 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .88
SVN M = 3.72 SD = .64 N = 145
Min = 2.00 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .89
262.1.2 Mindfulness (Subscale: Accept without Judgment)
The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS) is a multidimensional self-report inventory that assesses
four mindfulness skills: observing, describing, acting with awareness and accepting without judgement (Baer,
Description of the scale
Smith & Allen, 2004). The subscale accepting without judgement assesses the ability to perceive things without
further analysis or judgement (e.g. “I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions.”).
Original questionnaire Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills
Baer, R. A., Smith G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky
Reference
Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11, 191-206.
Question stem Thinking about yourself: How often are the following statements true for you?
Number of items 9
Scaling Mean (no scale value provided if more than half of the items have not been answered)
1 = Never or rarely ever true 2 = Rarely true 3 = Sometimes true
Answer format
4 = Often true 5 = Very often or always true
Reversed items All
Date of data collection T1/T2/T3
Target group All School Staff
Parallel question Yes
Internal consistency of the four scales has been reported as good with Cronbach’s’ alpha ranging between .83 and
Remarks
.91 (Baer et al., 2004).
SWE HRV SVN
Variable No. Label M SD rit M SD rit M SD rit
I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate
TC09cQ01 3.73 .95 .69 3.67 .93 .65 3.39 .94 .65
emotions.
I tend to evaluate whether my perceptions are right or
TC09cQ02 2.94 1.10 .55 2.56 .83 .57 2.45 .82 .40
wrong.
I tell myself that I shouldn’t be feeling the way I’m
TC09cQ03 3.66 .98 .78 3.28 .82 .65 3.43 .93 .73
feeling.
I believe some of my thoughts are abnormal or bad and
TC09cQ04 4.36 .78 .58 3.92 .94 .73 3.98 .98 .71
I shouldn’t think that way.
I make judgments about whether my thoughts are good
TC09cQ05 3.39 1.09 .66 2.90 .87 .51 3.09 1.02 .61
or bad.
I tend to make judgments about how worthwhile or
TC09cQ06 3.28 1.11 .53 3.38 1.05 .55 3.28 1.11 .68
worthless my experiences are.
I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking the way I’m
TC09cQ07 3.96 .97 .66 3.68 .89 .72 3.74 1.02 .80
thinking.
I think some of my emotions are bad or inappropriate
TC09cQ08 4.38 .83 .60 4.00 .83 .77 3.98 .95 .79
and I shouldn’t feel them.
TC09cQ09 I disapprove of myself when I have irrational ideas. 3.97 1.00 .51 3.89 .86 .53 4.22 .95 .71
Scale TC09c
SWE M = 3.72 SD = .70 N = 90
Min = 2.00 Max = 5.00 Cronbach’s α = .87
HRV M = 3.47 SD = .63 N = 88
Min = 1.89 Max = 4.89 Cronbach’s α = .88
SVN M = 3.51 SD = .73 N = 145
Min = 1.22 Max = 4.89 Cronbach’s α = .90
27You can also read
