In this article, I explore the concept of axiology in the context of adapted physical activity research and analyze its connection to the more commonly discussed paradigmatic assumptions of epistemology and ontology. Following methodological scholars, I argue for an acknowledgment of the pivotal role that axiology already plays in adapted physical activity research and for the potential interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary opportunities that could be enabled by engaging with axiology in more explicit ways. I discuss a number of potential axiological gaps between the field of adapted physical activity and disability communities, arguing that such differences may undermine attempts at doing meaningful transdisciplinary research with such communities. I offer strategies for bridging these axiological gaps, encouraging us to work together in axiologically reflexive ways in order to increase meaningful opportunities for more people with disabilities to be engaged in the movement-based activities and communities of their choice.
In the article Stanish, H., Curtin, C., Must, A., Phillips, S., Maslin, M., and Bandini, L. (2015). Enjoyment, barriers, and beliefs about physical activity in adolescents with and without autism spectrum disorder. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 32(4), 302-317. doi:10.1123/APAQ.2015-0038, the authors omitted acknowledgment that the study was an extension of a larger (parent) study that compared physical activity levels and correlates among adolescents with intellectual disabilities (ID) and typically developing (TD) adolescents. Some of the methods for the study published in this journal are identical to those in the parent study, and the same comparison group of TD adolescents was used for both disability groups (ID and autism spectrum disorder). The online version of the article has been corrected.
The parent study was published as Stanish, H.I., Curtin, C., Must, A., Phillips, S., Maslin, M., & Bandini, L. (2016). Physical activity enjoyment, perceived barriers, and beliefs among adolescents with and without intellectual disabilities. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 13(1), 102–110. doi:10.1123/jpah.2014-0548.
Kelly P. Arbour-Nicitopoulos, Celina Shirazipour, and Krystn Orr
Donna L. Goodwin and Janice Causgrove Dunn
What do disability labels give us and what do they steal from us? How possible is it to live our lives without categories when life is necessarily categorical? In this brief provocation, I want to explore the disability labels through recourse to three perspectives that have much to say about categorization, disability, and the human condition: the biopsychological, the biopolitical, and, what I term, an in-between-all politics. It is my view that disability categories intervene in the world in some complex and often contradictory ways. One way of living with contradictions is to work across disciplinary boundaries, thus situating ourselves across divides and embracing uncertainty and contradiction to enhance all our lives. I will conclude with some interdisciplinary thoughts for the field of adapted physical activity.
Ken Pitetti, Ruth Ann Miller, and E. Michael Loovis
Male youth (8–18 years) with intellectual disability (ID) demonstrate motor proficiency below age-related competence capacities for typically developing youth. Whether below-criteria motor proficiency also exists for females with ID is not known. The purpose of this study was to determine if sex-specific differences exist in motor proficiency for youth with ID. The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency was used to measure motor proficiency: six items for upper limb coordination, seven items for balance, and six items for bilateral coordination. One hundred and seventy-two (172) males and 85 females with ID but without Down syndrome were divided into five age groups for comparative purposes: 8–10, 11–12, 13–14, 15–16, and 17–21 years. Males scored sufficiently higher than females to suggest that sex data should not be combined to established Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency standards for upper limb coordination, balance, and bilateral coordination subtests.
Jill Pawlowski, E. Andrew Pitchford, Daniel W. Tindall, and Seo Hee Lee
Edited by ZáNean McClain
Justin A. Haegele and T. Nicole Kirk
The purpose of this study was to adopt an explicitly intersectional approach to examine the embodied perspectives of males with visual impairments about physical education. An interpretative phenomenological analysis research approach was used, and six adults (18–33 years) who identified as males with visual impairments acted as participants. The primary sources of data were semistructured, audiotaped, telephone interviews and reflective field notes. Thematic development utilized a four-step interpretative phenomenological analysis-guided analytical process. Based on the data analysis, the following three interrelated themes emerged: (a) “I didn’t feel very integrated”: Noninclusionary experiences based on blindness; (b) “Oh great, where’s my cane now?”: Bullying, blindness, and maleness; and (c) “Okay, just do what you can”: Competitive culture glass ceiling. The themes highlight several issues that have been faced by males with visual impairments, which should be considered by physical education and adapted physical education personnel to enhance the quality of education for this population.
Cathy McKay, Jung Yeon Park, and Martin Block
The purpose of this study was to address contact theory as the theoretical basis of the Paralympic School Day (PSD) disability awareness program using a newly created fidelity of implementation instrument (fidelity criteria) to measure a single construct (contact theory), seeking to control and explain the manner in which PSD satisfied the four components of contact theory. Participants were 145 sixth-grade students who took part in PSD. Results determined that the PSD intervention supported the four theoretical components of contact theory, with statistically significant differences in student responses across all four indicators (p < .001). In addition, results determined that the fidelity criteria had strong test–retest reliability with internal consistency that was strong across time points (r = .829; p < .001). Results also determined that the four indicators of the instrument measured a single construct (one indicator significant at the p ≤ .01 level and three indicators significant at the p ≤ .001 level), thus, determining strong construct validity.