1 / 19

Toni Hilland T.A.Hilland@2007.ljmu.ac.uk 0151 2315493

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.

derick
Download Presentation

Toni Hilland T.A.Hilland@2007.ljmu.ac.uk 0151 2315493

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. Physical Education Predisposition Scale: Preliminary Development & Application.

  4. 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.

  5. Welk’s (1999) Youth Physical Activity Promotion Model (YPAPM)

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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).

  10. STUDY AIM 2 • 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 2) The Physical Education and School Sport Environment Inventory: Preliminary Validation & Reliability

  13. 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).

  14. 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

  15. 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).

  16. 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).

  17. Results PESSEI Validity • 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.

  18. Table 4 PESSEI RELIABILITY Test-retest Differences and Correlations between Teacher Responses

  19. 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.

More Related