Page 167 - Vseživljenjsko učenje kot temelj trajnostne družbe

Ableism and Mindset of Future Educators

4.3 male (N = 10) and 0.8 not specifying (N = 2). Participants were 20.6
years old on average (SD =1.7).

Instruments
Adapted Symbolic Ableism Scale (A-SAS)
The A-SAS (Drljić & Lebeničnik, 2025) was used to measure symbolic ableism.
It encompasses 15 items, subdivided into the following four subscales: (a)
Personal Responsibility, (b) Inspirational Portrayal of Disability, (c) Discrimi-
nation, and (d) Low Empathy for Disabled People. Total score represents the
general assessment of symbolic ableism. Respondents were invited to rate
their level of agreement or disagreement with the statements presented to
them using a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 indicated ‘strongly disagree’ and 7
indicated ‘strongly agree.’ The A-SAS demonstrated adequate reliability (α =
0.72–0.84 across four subscales). The detailed psychometric analysis of A-SAS
conducted on our sample can be seen in Drljić and Lebeničnik (2025).

Implicit Theories of Intelligence (Self-Theory) Scale
Constructed by De Castella and Byrne (2015), the Implicit Theories of Intelli-
gencescalewasdevelopedto measuremindset about intelligenceasaunidi-
mensional construct. Individuals scoring higher see their own intelligence as
being a malleable characteristic (having more growth mindset about intelli-
gence). Lower scores indicate a view of one’s intellectual abilities as less mal-
leable (fixed mindset). We used the Slovenian translation of the scale (Polh
Budja & Košir, 2019). The scale consists of 8 items with a 6-point assessment
scale. The reliability of the 8-item scale in our sample is adequate (α =0.83).
Even though initially conceptualized as a unidimensional construct by
Dweck (2006), recent research trends suggest that fixed and growth mind-
set may be correlated, but in fact be representing two distinct continuums,
since scores on growth mindset and fixed mindset scales often predict dif-
ferent outcomes (Boncquet et al., 2023). Because of this, we conducted an
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the instrument on our sample. The data
was appropriate for conducting EFA. Principal axis factoring revealed that a
two-factor structure of the instrument is more valid for our data, explaining
46.8 of variance. A solution, using Varimax rotation, provided two inter-
pretable factors. Four items, describing growth mindset loaded on one fac-
tor (α = 0.82) and four items, describing fixed mindset, loaded on the other
factor (α =0.67).
Self-assessment of knowledge was measured with three items. These items
reflected the self-assessment of knowledge in three domains: (a) the inclu-

167