Docstoc

Physically Educated _ Physically Active

Document Sample
Physically Educated _ Physically Active Powered By Docstoc
					    Project PE-PAYS:
  Physically Educated &
  Physically Active Youth
 1) Physical Education Predisposition Scale
                  (PEPS)
2) The Physical Education and School Sport
      Environment Inventory (PESSEI)

               Toni Hilland
      T.A.Hilland@2007.ljmu.ac.uk
              0151 2315493
                    Project PE-PAYS
Aspects of secondary school physical education and
school sport (PESS) that have the strongest influence on
developing physically educated and physically active
young people

Multi-method     approach involving PE teachers and pupils

Identification
             of factors that positively influence the
development of the „PE product‟

Development   of a practise model, that may inform future
pedagogical interventions and continued professional
development.
  1)  Physical Education
     Predisposition Scale:
Preliminary Development &
         Application.
                              PEPS

   Physical activity and health

   Physical activity guidelines and recommendations (60
    minutes MVPA every day)

   Lack of physical activity and sedentary lifestyles

   Youth physical activity promotion; School Physical
    Education

   Correlates of youth PA.
   Welk‟s (1999) Youth Physical Activity Promotion Model
    (YPAPM)
   YPAPM in PE

  Predisposing factors;
Am I Able? (perceived competence & self-efficacy)
Is it Worth it? (enjoyment & attitudes)

   Gender differences (Carroll & Loumidis, 2001; Cardon et
    al., 2005; Chung & Phillips, 2002; Stelzer et al., 2004;
    Trost et al., 1997)

   Age differences (Butcher & Hall, 1983; Portman, 1995;
    Subramaniam & Silverman, 2007)

   AIMS;
        1) Develop and psychometrically test PEPS
        2) Explore age and gender differences in PE Worth
                         and Ability.
                         Method
PARTICIPANTS & SETTINGS

   400 year 8 and 9 students (aged 12-14 years)
   4 state schools in NW of England

INSTRUMENT-PEPS

   4 domains of Predisposing factors in relation to PE
   Item identification
 22 item questionnaire
 5-point Likert scale
 Example items;
The things I learn in PE are useful to me
I think I am pretty good at PE.
PROCEDURES

 Written and verbal information
 PEPS administered before PE class
 Envelopes to ensure confidentiality and to reduce social
  desirable responses

DATA ANALYSIS

   Responses checked and collated
   STUDY AIM 1 – Principal components analysis
   STUDY AIM 2 – 2X2 ANOVA.
                          Results
STUDY AIM 1
 Response rate = 78.75% but on 80 of the questionnaires
  the students‟ gender was not indicated
 Suitability of the data for factor analysis
 5 items eliminated
 PCA of the 17 remaining items
 2 components (Eigenvalues exceeding 1)
 Direct oblimin rotation revealed 2 factor structure;


            Factor 1 – PERCEIVED PE WORTH
            Factor 2 – PERCEIVED PE ABILITY

   Final solution an 11 item PEPS
   Acceptable level of internal consistency (PE Worth: α =
    .91; PE Ability: α = .89).
STUDY AIM 2
                    n            PE Worth          PE Ability
    Gender group
       Boys        105           3.99 (.75)        3.98 (.86)
       Girls       130           3.48 (.95)        3.67 (.73)
     Year group
         8         123           3.89 (.88)        3.99 (.78)
         9         112           3.50 (.89)        3.62 (.79)

   Boys reported significantly higher values on both aspects
    of the PEPS (PE Worth, F(1, 231) = 17.9, p =.000: PE
    Ability, F(1, 231) = 5.8, p = .02)
   Year 8 students scored significantly higher than Year 9
    counterparts on PE Worth (F(1, 231) = 8.2, p = .005) and
    PE Ability (F(1, 231) = 12.3, p = .001)
   There were no significant interactions between gender
    and age.
                         Discussion
   Factorial validity and internal consistency reliabilities of
    the PEPS

   Age and gender differences concurs with past research
    in the area

   Explanations for age and gender differences

   Implications and conclusions

   PEPS as a short and simple tool for school based
    research.
2) The Physical Education
    and School Sport
 Environment Inventory:
 Preliminary Validation &
        Reliability
                            PESSEI
   Environmental correlates as “enabling” factors (Welk, 1999)


The  physical environment of the school as influential for
physical activity (PE, extra-curricular & recess)


Previous   measurement of school environment


AIMS:
To develop a valid and reliable measure of the school physical
environment (PESSEI).
                       Method
PARTICIPANTS
 8 Secondary Schools in Northern England


INSTRUMENT - PESSEI
 Previous measures were studied to inform the
   development of the PESSEI (Cradock et al., 2007; Fein
   et al., 2005; Sallis et al., 2001)
 4 Sections:
1) Demographic and context-specific data
2) Indoor, outdoor and off-site spaces
3) Permanent physical resources and PE budget
4) PE and School Sport time
PROCEDURES
 Initial piloting with a group of experts – content related
  validity
 One named PE teacher per school received instructions,
  the PESSEI and an aerial photograph of their school‟s
  site obtained from Google™ Earth Pro (GEP).
PROCEDURES (CONT.)
 Spatial area was calculated using GEP polygons
 Next stage involved visiting the schools to objectively
  observe and record details of PE and School Sport
  spaces and facilities – criterion validity
 At the same time the teachers were given a second
  PESSEI to complete and return – test-retest reliability

DATA ANALYSIS
 PESSEI data was collated
 Criterion validity analyzed using paired t-tests and
  Pearson correlation coefficients
 Test-retest reliability was assessed by paired t-tests and
  intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
                                    Results
PESSEI Validity
                                                              Paired t-test   Pearson correlation

                              Mean difference between              p            r             p
                          teacher & researcher observations

No. indoor spaces                       0.13                      .35          .94          .001

No. outdoor spaces                      0.25                      .17          .80          .017

Total no. spaces                        0.13                      .35          .97          .0001

Indoor area (m2)                        29.8                      .48          .96          .0001

No. permanent resources                 1.3                       .21          .99          .0001



   Paired t-tests revealed no significant differences in
    teacher reported and researcher observed variables
    Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from
     r = .80 through .97 indicating strong agreement.
                                                                  Paired      Intraclass
                                                                  t-test     correlation
PESSEI RELIABILITY

                                        Mean difference between     p      ICC             p
                                          teacher responses

No. on role                                       0.0              1.0     1.0             --

FSM (%)                                          0.01              .35     1.0        .0001

Indoor spaces                                    0.13              .35     .97        .0001

Outdoor spaces                                   0.13              .35     .93        .0001

Total spaces                                      0.0              1.0     .95        .0001

Indoor area (m2)                                 35.6              .49     .96        .0001

No. permanent resources                          0.75              .58     .99        .0001

Budget (£)                                      12.50              .35     1.0        .0001

Lower secondary weekly time • student             1.3              .35     .98        .0001
  (min)

Upper secondary weekly time • student             4.3              .36     .96         .001
  (min)

 Lower secondary weekly time (min)               57.3              .07     .99        .0001

 Upper secondary weekly time (min)              122.9              .15     .94         .002
PESSEI RELIABILITY (cont.)
 No significant differences were observed between each
  pair of variables
 ICCs supported the paired t-tests by revealing very high
  levels of agreement between measurement occasions
  (ICC = .93 through 1.0)


                       Discussion
   Criterion validity was established
   Fourteen day test-retest illustrated responses were very
    stable
   Preliminary evidence suggests the PESSEI possess high
    levels of criterion validity and test-retest reliability
   Intended application of the PESSEI.

				
DOCUMENT INFO