Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 114 items for :

  • Physical Education and Coaching x
  • Athletic Training, Therapy, and Rehabilitation x
Clear All
Restricted access

Joonkoo Yun and Dale A. Ulrich

The purposes of this tutorial are threefold: (a) to clarify the meaning of measurement validity, (b) to provide appropriate validation procedures for use by researchers in adapted physical activity, and (c) to raise the awareness of the limitations of the traditional views on measurement validity. Several validation procedures are described with specific examples from adapted physical activity research based on traditional approaches of providing validity evidence. Conceptual and empirical limitations of the traditional validity framework are discussed. We recommend that several categories of validity evidence should be reported in research studies. We encourage practicing the unified concept of measurement validity (Messick, 1993, 1995) in adapted physical activity research and practice.

Restricted access

Justin A. Haegele, Ali S. Brian and Donna Wolf

Our purpose in this study was to document the criterion validity of the Fitbit Zip for measuring steps taken by youth with visual impairments (VI). A secondary purpose was to determine whether walking pace, mounting position, or relative position to the user’s mobility device impacted the criterion validity of the device. Fourteen adolescent-aged individuals (M age = 15.4; 13 male and 1 female) with VI participated in this study. Participants wore four Fitbit Zips at different mounting positions and completed two, 2-min walking trials while the lead investigator hand tallied steps. Measurement validity was analyzed using absolute percent error (APE), intraclass correlation coefficients estimated level of conformity, and paired samples t tests and Cohen’s d effect sizes assessed APE relative to mounting positions. Results supported the use of the Fitbit Zip during regular-paced walking; however, caution must be used during activities exceeding regular walking speeds, as devices consistently underestimated steps.

Restricted access

Katherine J. Riggen, Dale A. Ulrich and John C. Ozmun

The reliability and concurrent validity of the Test of Motor Impairment-Henderson Revision was evaluated employing a sample of preschoolers. Absolute reliability of the final test score was established by calculating the standard error of measurement (SEM). An SEM of .86 was obtained. The consistency of decisions related to motor impairment or nonimpairment was estimated by calculating the proportion of agreement index across two testing occasions and Kappa. A 90% agreement was obtained with Kappa equal to .71. Concurrent validity using the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-Short Form as the criterion resulted in an 88% agreement between the two tests.

Restricted access

Swee Kheng Tan, Helen E. Parker and Dawne Larkin

We investigated the concurrent validity and discrimination accuracy of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-Short Form (BOTMP-SF) and the McCarron Assessment of Neuromuscular Development (MAND) for identifying children with and without motor impairment (MI). From a total of 69 Australian children aged from 5 to 11 years, 26 children were classified with MI according to three criteria, including the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (MABC), and were age- and gender-matched with 26 non-MI controls. Performance rankings for the MI/non-MI children on BOTMP-SF and MAND tests were highly correlated (rs = .86); however, only 35% of MI cases were classified alike and 71% of cases were agreed on, overall. Comparing each test with MABC, discrimination statistics revealed MAND was the more accurate discriminator of MI, with higher sensitivity and negative predictive values than the BOTMP-SF. The MAND is a more valid test for the identification of MI in Australian children.

Restricted access

Joanna E. Gelinas and Greg Reid

The purpose was to determine whether traditional learn-to-swim progressions, leading to a 10-m front and 10-m back swim, were developmentally valid for children with physical disabilities. Forty children (22 boys, 18 girls) ages 5 to 12 years participated. They were classified according to disability type, functional sport classification, mode of ambulation, and flotation device use. Developmental validity was assessed by testing the children on rhythmic breathing, front float, front glide, front swim, back float, back glide, and back swim. Each skill was deemed successful if the child accomplished all performance criteria of that skill. Atypical progression was evident if a child performed a skill without the ability to perform skills previously listed in that progression. Atypical progression occurred in 32 (80%) children in the front skills and 22 (55%) in the back skills, which indicates that the traditional learn-to-swim progressions for both the 10-m front swim and the 10-m back swim were not developmentally valid for most children with physical disabilities in the conducted research.

Restricted access

Farid Bardid, Floris Huyben, Frederik J.A. Deconinck, Kristine De Martelaer, Jan Seghers and Matthieu Lenoir

The aim of this study was to investigate the convergent and divergent validity between the Body Coordination Test for Children (KTK) and the Motor Proficiency Test for 4- to 6-Year-Old Children (MOT 4-6). A total of 638 children (5–6 yr old) took part in the study. The results showed a moderately positive association between the total scores of both tests (rs = .63). Moreover, the KTK total score correlated more highly with the MOT 4-6 gross motor score than with the MOT 4-6 fine motor score (rs = .62 vs. .32). Levels of agreement were moderate when identifying children with moderate or severe motor problems and low at best when detecting children with higher motor-competence levels. This study provides evidence of convergent and divergent validity between the KTK and MOT 4-6. However, given the moderate to low levels of agreement, either measurement may lead to possible categorization errors. Therefore, it is recommended that children’s motor competence not be judged based on the result of a single test.

Restricted access

Patricia E. Longmuir and Roy J. Shephard

The Arm CAFT is a simple submaximal arm ergometer test for subjects with mobility disabilities, designed to match the Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test (CAFT) in both administration and interpretation. It is here evaluated relative to direct arm ergometer measurements of peak oxygen intake in 41 men and women with mobility disabilities, aged 20-60, who were attending an “integrated” sports facility. Peak oxygen intake was predicted using the original CAFT equation, but the oxygen cost of arm ergometer test stages was substituted and predictions were scaled downward by 70/100 to allow for the lower peak aerobic power of the upper limbs. In 16 subjects who maintained cranking cadence, predictions were reliable over 1 week, with a small increase of score at the second test. Although the Arm CAFT protocol is reliable and free of bias, it has only a limited validity, and only a minority of the stronger individuals with mobility disabilities can sustain the required cranking rhythm.

Restricted access

Hilde Van Waelvelde, Wim Peersman, Mattieu Lenoir and Bouwien C.M. Smits Engelsman

The aim of this study was to investigate the convergent validity of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (M-ABC) and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales – 2 (PDMS-2). Thirty-one 4- and 5-year-old children (mean age 4 years 11 months, SD 6 months), all recruited from a clinical setting, took part in the study. Children were tested on the M-ABC and the PDMS-2 in a counterbalanced order on the same occasion. The results showed that the total scores on the two tests correlated well (rs = .76). However, when the ability of the two tests to identify children with difficulties was examined, agreement between them was low (K = .29), with the PDMS-2 being less sensitive to mild motor impairment in this population. Taken together, these findings suggest that clinicians need to be aware that, although measuring a similar construct, these tests are not interchangeable.

Restricted access

Richard A. Washburn and Anne G. Copay

We assessed the validity of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. (CSA) accelerometer as a measure of energy expenditure during wheelchair pushing. Participants completed three timed pushes over an indoor course at three different speeds while wearing a CSA accelerometer on both wrists. Pushing speeds were assigned in a random order and separated by a 5–10 min rest. Heart rate and energy expenditure were measured using an Aerosport TEEM 100. Results indicated pushing speed, heart rate, and oxygen consumption increased significantly over the three conditions (p < .01). Significant associations (p < .01) were noted between CSA readings from both wrists and energy expenditure over the three pushing speeds (left wrist, r = .66, right wrist r = .52). These results suggest that the CSA accelerometer worn at the wrist may provide a useful measure of physical activity in persons who use wheelchairs as their primary mode of locomotion.

Restricted access

Christina Evaggelinou, Nikolaos Tsigilis and Areti Papa

This study was designed to examine the underlying structure of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) in Ulrich (1985). The TGMD was administered to 644 children who were randomly divided into two groups (calibration group and validation group). The calibration group (n = 324) included 150 boys and 174 girls, and the validation group included 160 boys and 160 girls, ranging from 3 to 10 years. A two-factor model was postulated and supported. According to the model, seven variables measuring children’s ability for moving into space loaded on one factor (locomotor skills), while five variables measuring children’s ability for controlling objects loaded on the other factor (object control skills). In addition, the proposed model was found to be invariant across the two groups. Good cross-generalizability of the TGMD appears to support its validity. Physical educators working with young children may use it with confidence when assessing and planning physical education programs involving locomotor and object control skills.