A redesigned tool for measuring how confident teachers feel about supporting autistic students in mainstream classrooms has shown strong reliability and validity, according to new research from Australia. The study, involving more than 800 teachers across South Australia, tested a revised version of an existing scale that had been updated to use more positive, strengths-based language around autism. The findings have implications for how schools and teacher training programmes assess and develop inclusive teaching practice. The findings were published in The Australian Educational Researcher.
The original instrument, known as the Autism Self-Efficacy Scale for Teachers (ASSET), was developed in the US and contained 30 items. Researchers working with the University of Adelaide, the University of South Australia, Flinders University, and Tabor College modified the scale to reflect current understanding of autism as a neurological difference rather than a deficit. The revised version contains 22 items and was co-developed with input from Autism CRC, the Positive Partnerships programme, and South Australia’s Office for Autism, all of which work collaboratively with autistic people.
The language changes were substantial. References to problematic or disruptive behaviour were replaced with more contemporary framing, and statements implying that autistic students must learn to conform to neurotypical norms were removed. Autistic collaborators advised the research team that some of the original wording carried unhelpful assumptions, and the final version aims to reflect the kind of inclusive thinking that schools in Australia are increasingly expected to demonstrate.
The study surveyed 652 pre-service teachers and 161 in-service secondary teachers, all based in South Australia. Statistical analysis confirmed that the revised scale demonstrated strong internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.98, indicating that its items reliably measure the same underlying construct. Factor analysis found that all 22 items loaded onto a single dominant factor, accounting for more than 66% of the total variance, which supports the scale’s coherence as a measure of teacher self-efficacy for autism inclusion.
The research team used confirmatory factor analysis to assess whether the scale performed consistently across both teacher groups. While the factor structure held up well in each group separately, full scalar invariance was not achieved when the two groups were compared directly. This means that, although both groups understood the scale in broadly the same way, some items were interpreted slightly differently depending on whether a teacher was still training or already in the classroom. The authors suggest that differences in experience, professional identity, and classroom context likely account for this variation.
Despite the partial invariance finding, the researchers argue the scale remains a valuable tool for teacher education providers and school leaders. It can be used to benchmark pre-service teachers’ readiness to support autistic students, track changes in confidence over the course of a training programme, and identify areas where targeted professional learning may be needed. Because the tool uses neurodiversity-affirming language, it also models the kind of inclusive thinking that can contribute to broader cultural change within schools.
Australia’s National Autism Strategy and state-level policies in South Australia have both emphasised the importance of equipping teachers with the knowledge and skills to support autistic learners. This study provides an evidence-based instrument to support that goal, and the authors call for further testing of the revised scale across different cohorts and contexts.