From neuromyths to neuroscience literacy: a cross-domain study of brain misconceptions among educators in Chilean special schools.

Introduction: Neuromyths remain widespread among educators, but their distribution may vary across domains and educational contexts. This study investigated brain-related misconceptions among educators working in Chilean special schools, focusing on three complementary domains: general brain knowledge, neurodevelopmental neuromyths, and educational neuromyths. Methods: We used a quantitative, cross-sectional survey design and collected data from 142 educators through three questionnaires assessing general brain knowledge and misconceptions related to neurodevelopment and education. We first examined prevalence patterns across domains descriptively and then fitted item-level mixed-effects logistic regression models to test whether general brain knowledge, interest in educational neuroscience, and self-perceived neuroscience knowledge were associated with accuracy in identifying misconceptions. Results: We found a clear cross-domain gradient: educational neuromyths yielded the highest proportion of incorrect responses, neurodevelopmental neuromyths occupied an intermediate position, and general brain knowledge showed the lowest proportion of incorrect responses. At the broad domain level, we found no significant associations between accuracy and general brain knowledge, interest in educational neuroscience, or self-perceived neuroscience knowledge in either neurodevelopmental or educational neuromyths. At the subgroup level, however, we found a more selective pattern: higher general brain knowledge was associated with lower odds of a correct response in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder items and with greater odds of a correct response in learning styles items, whereas no significant effects emerged for the remaining subgroups. Discussion: Neuroscience literacy does not operate as a single, domain-general protective factor against neuromyth endorsement. Instead, its relationship with accuracy appears to depend on the specific type of claim being evaluated. These findings provide updated evidence from Chile and highlight the importance of examining neuromyths in special education settings, where brain- and development-related beliefs may directly shape pedagogical expectations and instructional decisions.