Search Results

This study was designed to investigate the reliability of classification decisions in the fundamental motor skill domain using the Objectives-Based Motor Skill Assessment Instrument. Nonhandicapped (n = 80) and mentally retarded (n = 40) students in the age range of 3 through 10 were assessed on two separate days. Two likely domain mastery criterion levels were used (85 and 70% of the total test score). The proportion of agreement (P) and Kappa (K) were the reliability indices employed. The reliability estimates for the nonhandicapped group were P = .89 and K = .78 using the 85% mastery criterion and P = .92 and K = .84 for the 70% criterion. The reliability estimates obtained for the mentally retarded group using an 85% criterion were P = .87 and K = .62 and for the 70% criterion P = .93 and K = .83. Based on these results the criterion-referenced test appears to consistently classify students on two occasions as masters or non-masters of fundamental motor skills using either cut-off score.

With recent revisions, the evaluation of the reliability and validity of the Test of Gross Motor Development—3rd edition (TGMD-3) is necessary. The TGMD-3 was administered to 807 children (M age = 6.33 ± 2.09 years; 52.5% male). Reliability assessments found that correlations with age were moderate to large; ball skills had a higher correlation (r = .47) compared with locomotor skills (r = .39). Internal consistency was very high in each age group and remained excellent for all racial/ethnic groups and both sexes. Test-retest reliability had high ICC agreements for the locomotor (ICC = 0.97), ball skills (ICC = 0.95), and total TGMD-3 (ICC = 0.97). For validity measures, the TGMD-3 had above acceptable item difficulty (range = 0.43–0.91) and item discrimination values (range = 0.34–0.67). EFA supported a one-factor structure of gross motor skill competence for the TGMD-3 with 73.82% variance explained. CFA supported the one-factor model (χ²(65) = 327.61, p < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .10), showing acceptable construct validity for the TGMD-3. Preliminary results show the TGMD-3 exhibits high levels of validity and reliability, providing confidence for the usage and collection of new norms.

The purpose of this paper was to examine the relationship between perceived and actual physical competence in children with mild mental retardation (MMR). Participants were 54 males and 55 females, M age = 9.47. Pearson correlation indicated no significant relationship between perceived and actual physical competence in children with MMR. When the age factor was partialed out, the resulting partial correlations revealed a significant moderate relationship between the two variables for older children with MMR. A 6 × 2 (Age × Gender) MANOVA revealed a significant interaction between age and gender on perceived physical competence. No gender difference was found in younger children, whereas in older children, males had significantly higher perceived competence than females. A possible explanation for the nonsignificant correlation between perceived and actual physical competence in younger children may be insufficient cognitive functioning for making self-evaluations.

The unqualified use of statistical significance tests for interpreting the results of empirical research has been called into question by researchers in a number of behavioral disciplines. This paper reviews what statistical significance tells us and what it does not, with particular attention paid to criticisms of using the results of these tests as the sole basis for evaluating the overall significance of research findings. In addition, implications for adapted physical activity research are discussed. Based on the recent literature of other disciplines, several recommendations for evaluating and reporting research findings are made. They include calculating and reporting effect sizes, selecting an alpha level larger than the conventional .05 level, placing greater emphasis on replication of results, evaluating results in a sample size context, and employing simple research designs. Adapted physical activity researchers are encouraged to use specific modifiers when describing findings as significant.

The impact factor is a measure of the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period (Journal Citation Reports; http://jcr.isihost.com). Specifically, it is the ratio of the number of articles from the journal cited over a given time period to the number of articles published by that journal during the same period. It is an objective measure of the journal’s importance, especially when compared to others in the same field. The purpose of the present study was to compare the impact factor of APAQ to 11 other journals in sport science, special education, and rehabilitation. The impact factor of APAQ compares quite favorably to most other journals in sport science, special education, and rehabilitation. However, it is strikingly different in 1998 and 1999, and therefore scholars should monitor it closely in the next few years while remembering it is only one estimate of journal prestige.