A major purpose of this study was to describe the publications, mostly research, published in Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly (APAQ) over its fourth decade (2014–2023) and compare it to previous documentary analyses of the first 3 decades (Haegele et al., 2015; Porretta & Sherrill, 2005; Reid & Broadhead, 1995). Key and new trends in research were also identified. APAQ is considered the leading journal for kinesiology researchers working in the area of adapted physical activity (PA) and is also widely recognized among rehabilitation researchers housed in departments such as physical therapy. APAQ is a multidisciplinary journal publishing work ranging from sport psychology and physical education (PE) to motor control and exercise physiology.
APAQ has been a critical publication outlet contributing to the expansion of the discipline of adapted physical activity (APA) and sport in North America. APAQ is also the official journal of the International Federation of Adapted Physical Activity (IFAPA) which has contributed to the international growth of APA (Porretta & Sherrill, 2005). Research builds a knowledge base that can inform practice. Hence, it is critical to the development of an academic discipline (Henry, 1964; Solmon, 2021). Given there have been analyses of the prior 3 decades, all highly cited, the current publication continues this trend by analyzing the fourth decade. Like the prior 10-year documentary analyses, the current publication is a type of historical document. Hence, its value is consistent with the arguments for understanding history in general (Tosh, 2019), but applied to APAQ. As a result, the current publication will inform researchers not only of the research conducted but what research topics have been underresearched. Readers new to APAQ can use the current document to better understand what APAQ has published in the past, in case they would like to publish in APAQ in the future.
Similar to what Porretta and Sherrill (2005) observed from Decades 1 to 2, new content areas emerged in the fourth decade requiring additional categories to reflect new trends. For example, in the last 10 years, the sheer amount of research in particular areas became a catalyst and justification for more review papers and meta-analyses. Additionally, particular topics gained more research prominence, such as ableism, dignity, classification, and coaching. Unlike the previous two documentaries, I also provide information on how APAQ’s impact factor (IF) has trended since 1998, to indicate its increasing prominence based on citations, and to link it back to Porretta and Sherrill’s (2005) commentary on IF.
Finally, I provide a cursory examination of the journals that APAQ authors cite in their references and, conversely, in which journals APAQ publications are cited. Information on the IF and on citations is provided to present readers a full picture of how APAQ is situated in the broader scientific community. Should a documentary analysis be done for the fifth decade, this study provides a baseline for future authors. Additionally, I indicate how APAQ research reflects larger trends or changes in kinesiology and other scientific disciplines such as psychology. I do this to provide valuable information to an APA audience that has only been minimally addressed in prior APAQ publications.
In summary, the major purpose of this paper was to describe APAQ’s publications from the fourth decade (2014–2023) and compare them with previous decades. Similar to the three prior decade focused publications, I also responded to new research trends by adding new research categories.
Methods
The major analysis of the current paper was on the full-length research articles or empirical research, reported under the label of original research in APAQ. Empirical research is either qualitative or quantitative research with original or replicated data (Thomas et al., 2022) or secondary analyses where, for example, a subset of data from a larger previously published paper are presented. The total number of publications in the fourth decade across all categories (i.e., original research, editorials, reviews, meta-analyses, viewpoints, and applications) was also determined. Digest and books and media reviews sections of APAQ are not reported in the current paper. Additionally, it should be noted that the APAQ Editorial Board decided to discontinue the digest section of APAQ in 2022.
I followed the procedures discussed by Haegele et al. (2015) which in turn were based on work by Duncan (1989) and others (e.g., Johnson & Kittleson, 2000; Zhang et al., 2006). I established similar coding schemes and procedures as Haegele et al. (2015) to develop six categories: region and country (e.g., South America and Brazil), theory, intervention, method (e.g., qualitative vs. quantitative), research participant type (e.g., amputee), and topic (e.g., sport psychology).
Most of the decade comparisons are with the most recent paper on the third decade (2004–2013). In general, I followed the precedent established by the previous three documentary analyses of each of the three 10-year decades of APAQ. The rationale behind these decisions was to allow for comparisons across decades. However, new information was included to represent contemporary trends. For instance, although Haegele et al. (2015) eliminated review and viewpoint sections, descriptive data on them are provided because increased publications of these types of papers may reflect significant changes from previous decades. Viewpoint papers were documented because they are valuable in alerting an APAQ audience to important philosophical, practical, and research issues that impact the discipline and practice (e.g., Peers, 2018). Hard copies of all papers were printed out and filed according to year and issue for ease of analysis. Analyses were done over a 2-month period with each paper being coded four times across the six categories by the author. Over the course of the four coding episodes, intrarater reliability progressed from 90% to 100%.
After training, two undergraduate research assistants reviewed 25% of the papers for six categories (three each) to determine whether their coding matched that of the author. Both students were part of the author’s research team and had prior training in research methods as a function of winning undergraduate research awards to support their work. Differences were discussed, similar to the process used by qualitative researchers, by all three coders to eventually reach 100% for interrater reliability. For country of the first author, original research papers and all other nonoriginal research (n = 289) categories (i.e., editorials, traditional reviews, meta-analyses, viewpoints, and applications) were used.
All of the above papers have authors allowing for coding by country. However, the nature of most viewpoints, editorials, meta-analyses, and reviews makes assigning one research method, whether a study was an intervention or not, the participant disability (or lack of), or topic to these papers impossible and meaningless. Therefore, for the other five categories, only original research was examined (n = 242). Subcategories within categories were also established such as the country within the region of the world for the first author, as explained next. Finally, I revisit and present data on APAQ’s IF that were discussed in the second decade paper by Porretta & Sherrill (2005) who concluded that “Because of the impact factor’s importance, it will be continued to be monitored” (p. 131). In the current paper, I seek to honor that sentiment with a report and discussion of APAQ’s IF.
Country
For all papers, the first author’s country affiliation was used. Six subcategories (i.e., North America, Europe, Asia, Australia/Oceania, South America, and Africa) were determined, and within each subcategory, individual countries were identified and grouped (see Table 1). For instance, the United States and Canada were grouped under North America, and Ireland and Sweden were placed in Europe.
Frequency and Percentage of First-Author Country Affiliation
| n (%) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Country of affiliation | 2004–2013 | 2014–2023 |
| North American countries | 122 (67%) | 177 (61%) |
| The United States | 79 (44%) | 115 (40%) |
| Canada | 43 (24%) | 62 (21%) |
| European countries | 38 (21%) | 55 (19%) |
| The United Kingdom | 6 (3%) | 9 (3%) |
| Belgium | 6 (3%) | 3 (1%) |
| Poland | 5 (3%) | 1 (1%) |
| Spain | 5 (3%) | 10 (3%) |
| The Netherlands | 3 (2%) | 4 (1%) |
| Norway | 3 (2%) | 7 (2%) |
| Finland | 2 (1%) | 3 (1%) |
| France | 2 (1%) | 1 (<1%) |
| Portugal | 2 (1%) | 2 (<1%) |
| Greece | 1 (<1%) | 1 (<1%) |
| Latvia | 1 (<1%) | 0 (0%) |
| Sweden | 1 (<1%) | 4 (1%) |
| Ireland | 1 (<1%) | 3 (1%) |
| Denmark | 1 (<1%) | |
| Czech Republic | 1 (<1%) | |
| Italy | 2 (<1%) | |
| Lithuania | 1 (<1%) | |
| Turkey | 1 (<1%) | |
| Tunisia | 1 (<1%) | |
| Asian countries | 10 (6%) | 36 (12%) |
| Hong Kong | 4 (2%) | 6 (2%) |
| Taiwan | 3 (2%) | 2 (<1%) |
| Israel | 2 (1%) | 7 (2%) |
| Malaysia | 1 (<1%) | 1 (<1%) |
| China | 3 (1%) | |
| Korea | 2 (<1%) | |
| Iran | 1 (<1%) | |
| Japan | 1 (<1%) | |
| India | 2 (<1%) | |
| Philippines | 1 (<1%) | |
| Australia/Oceania | 7 (4%) | 6 (2%) |
| Australia | 5 (3%) | 5 (2%) |
| New Zealand | 2 (1%) | 1 (<1%) |
| South American countries | 3 (2%) | 15 (5%) |
| Brazil | 3 (2%) | 13 (4%) |
| Chile | 1 (<1%) | |
| West Indies | 1 (<1%) | |
| African countries | 1 (<1%) | 0 (0%) |
| Botswana | 1 (<1%) | 0 (0%) |
| Total number of papers | 181 | 289 |
Theory
Research papers (n = 242) were scored dichotomously as using or not using a theory. In most cases, authors publishing in disciplines other than psychology (e.g., exercise physiology) did not use theory. Most theory-based research examined psychological theories (e.g., theory of planned behavior) with specific constructs (e.g., attitude) being assessed but meta-theory-based papers (e.g., Dewey’s educational theory) were also considered theory. Grounded theory is a method used to develop theory. However, if researchers only used it as a method and generated no theory or theory-linked results that paper was not counted as theory. However, if a team of researchers used it as a method, and also developed, or contributed to theory, it was counted as theory. Both instances occurred once each.
Intervention
Similar to theory, the intervention category was scored dichotomously as a research study that was intervention based or not intervention based. A study was coded as an intervention study when researchers were interested in whether manipulating an independent variable resulted in a change in a dependent variable. An example of such a study would be a PA intervention (independent variable) designed to develop children’s fundamental motor skills (dependent variable: Ketcheson et al., 2021). Nonintervention research was often correlational or qualitative in nature.
Research Methods
Similar to Haegele et al. (2015), six categories were used for the research method: quantitative (referred to as group design by Haegele et al., 2015), qualitative, mixed method, single subject, case study, and other. The group design label was changed to quantitative because it is more inclusive of the research in this area that includes both group design work and nongroup work (e.g., multiple regression). First, a quantitative design was typically a large sample (e.g., N = 100–200) correlational study examining relationships between and among variables using correlations, multiple regression, path analysis, or structural equation modeling. Another quantitative design was an intervention study where the authors were interested in examining differences from pre to post for an intervention and control group, on various outcomes of interest such as PA, and typically used t tests or analysis of variance techniques. The second category was qualitative research and a typical study involved limited participants (e.g., N = 10) who were interviewed. The results and data were represented by participants quotes often used to illustrate a particular theme that the researchers found among most participants. Unlike some qualitative research (Martin, 2022a), APAQ qualitative work was readable and avoided inaccessible jargon and indecipherable prose. Third, a single-subject design involved a participant acting as his or her control. Fourth, a mixed-method research study was the use of both quantitative and qualitative research. Fifth, case studies involved just a few participants with the researchers collected voluminous data. Sixth, other was used when a study could not be characterized by one of the first five categories described above.
Research Participants
In the first 3 decades, this category was labeled disability but the coding reflected who the research participants were in each study; therefore, it has been relabeled as “Research Participants.” I used 21 categories in total, 17 were the same as the previous decade categories, but four not needed (see Table 2). Categories were the same as the previous documentary analyses as follows: physical disabilities, visual impairment, intellectual disabilities (ID), autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy (CP), developmental coordination disorder, hearing impairment, motor skill delay, developmental delay, medical conditions (e.g., multiple sclerosis), learning disabilities, multiple disabilities, and emotional/behavioral (e.g., ADHD [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]). Down syndrome and dyslexia were also coded separately as subcategories of ID. The nonspecified, gerontology, at-risk infants/toddlers and multiple samples were not needed.
Frequency and Percentages of Research Participants Categories Across Decades
| Type of disability | First decade (1984–1993) | Second decade (1994–2003) | Third decade (2004–2013) | Fourth decade (2014–2023) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical disabilities | 37 (13%) | 39 (14%) | 46 (25%) | 74 (31%) |
| Able-bodieda | 46 (19%) | |||
| Visual impairment | 12 (4%) | 3 (1%) | 8 (4%) | 21 (9%) |
| ASD | 7 (2%) | 1 (<1%) | 10 (6%) | 17 (7%) |
| Medical conditions | 10 (3%) | 4 (1%) | 7 (4%) | 16 (7%) |
| IDb | 50 (17%) | 41 (15%) | 36 (20%) | 18 (7%) |
| DS | 11 (4%) | 15 (6%) | —a | 6 (2%) |
| Dyslexia | 1 (<1%) | |||
| Multiple disabilities | 6 (2%) | 1 (<1%) | 1 (<1%) | 16 (7%) |
| Cerebral palsy | 13 (4%) | 4 (1%) | 4 (2%) | 9 (4%) |
| Able-bodied/disableda | 7 (3%) | |||
| Motor-skill delay | — | — | 2 (1%) | 4 (2%) |
| Developmental coordination disorder | 6 (2%) | 25 (9%) | 15 (8%) | 3 (1%) |
| Emotional/behavioral | 10 (3%) | 2 (1%) | 5 (3%) | 1 (<1%) |
| Learning disabilities | 8 (3%) | 9 (3%) | 2 (1%) | 1 (<1%) |
| Hearing impairment | 13(4%) | 2 (1%) | 1 (<1%) | 1 (<1%) |
| Developmental delay | — | 5(2%) | 1 (<1%) | 1 (<1%) |
| Gerontology | 2 (1%) | 2 (1%) | — | — |
| At-risk infants/toddlers | — | 5 (2%) | — | — |
| Multiple sample | 11(4%) | 32 (12%) | 10 (6%) | — |
| Nonspecified | 94 (32%) | 81 (31%) | 33 (18%) | — |
| Total number of papers | 242 |
Note. ASD = autism spectrum disorder; ID = intellectual disability; DS = Down syndrome.
aNew category. bThe total number of papers in the subcategories for DS and dyslexia, under ID, are distinct from the total ID papers.
Additionally, I added two new categories: able-bodied/disabled and able-bodied (e.g., general PE teachers without disabilities). New to this analysis, compared to the previous three, was the addition of an able-bodied category that reflected research about disability topics, but involving abled-bodied individuals. For example, research where the authors interviewed abled-bodied individuals such as general PE teachers on their thoughts on inclusion or coaches in Paralympic sport and their views on the challenges of coaching Parasport. The very large number (n = 46) of these types of publications is a significant research area and hence is important to acknowledge. Studies were categorized based on the author’s descriptions of who the participants were found in the participant section of the methods. For most categories, the coding was self-evident. For instance, if the authors indicated that the participants had autism spectrum disorder, they were coded as such. The same logic was used for visual impairment (also included blind), ID, dyslexia, CP, Down syndrome, learning disabilities, motor skill delay, hearing impairment, and developmental coordination disorder. Other categories were less self-evident and defined next. Similar to Haegele et al. (2015), the physical disabilities category included participants who had amputations, spinal cord injuries, or any disability (not noted elsewhere such as CP) that resulted in movement difficulties. Emotional and behavioral disorders included participants who were diagnosed as depressed, conduct disorder, obsessive–compulsive disorder, and so on. Developmental delay typically reflected research with very young children (e.g., preschool) who were behind normative markers for development. Medical conditions reflected a host of participants who had heart disease, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, Parkinson’s, and so on. Multiple disabilities simply reflected research where the participants had more than one disability such as, for example, both hearing and visual impairments. If participants did not have a disability (e.g., general PE teachers), they were categorized as able-bodied (previous documentaries appeared to label these participants as nonspecified or generic). Finally, if the research participants involved both able-bodied and disabled individuals, it was considered able-bodied/disabled. An example of this type of study is where researchers interviewed able-bodied parents and their disabled child.
Topic
The major topic areas were initially based on the 17 categories developed in the first decade paper (see Table 3). But, similar to Decades 2 and 3, only the 12 used by Haegele et al. (2015) were needed to facilitate comparisons. Six subcategories were developed that fell under three older larger categories of two subcategories each, as described next. Papers were designated as pedagogy if they examined teachers. A new subcategory was developed, under pedagogy, to distinguish between research on teachers in general PE versus adapted PE classes.
Frequency and Percentage of Topic Categories Across Decades
| Topic | First decade (1984–1993) | Second decade (1994–2003) | Third decade (2004–2013) | Fourth decade (2014–2023) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Psychosocial | — | 64 (24%) | 57 (31%) | 75 (31%) |
| Exercise science/PA | — | 43 (16%) | 24 (13%) | 47 (19%) |
| PA | 31 (13%) | |||
| Exercise physiology | 16 (7%) | |||
| Pedagogy | 43 (15%) | 7 (3%) | 6 (3%) | 24 (9%) |
| General physical education | 11 (5%) | |||
| Adapted physical education | 13 (5%) | |||
| Measurement/assessment/classification | 39 (13%) | 26 (10%) | 27 (15%) | 22 (10%) |
| Measurement | 13 (5%) | |||
| Classification | 9 (4%) | |||
| Motor behavior | — | 48 (18%) | 40 (22%) | 20 (8%) |
| Biomechanics | 21 (7%) | 8 (3%) | 10 (6%) | 11 (5%) |
| Sport psychology | 31 (11%) | — | — | 10 (4%) |
| Inclusion/programming | 24 (8%) | 36 (13%) | 5 (3%) | 10 (4%) |
| Mixeda | 9 (4%) | |||
| Body fat/BMIa | 5 (2%) | |||
| Coachinga | 4 (2%) | |||
| Ableisma | 3 (1%) | |||
| Neuroscience/cognitiona | 2 (1%) | |||
| Medicine/rehabilitation | 10 (3%) | — | — | |
| Motor learning/control | 25 (9%) | — | — | |
| Motor development | 13 (4%) | — | — | |
| Legislation/professional organizations | 10 (3%) | — | — | |
| Total number of papers | 242 |
Note. PA = physical activity; BMI = body mass index.
aNew category.
Measurement/assessment/classification involved research investigating the psychometrics of instruments, such as surveys or classification issues in disability sport. Two new separate subcategories of measurement and classification were created so readers would know the precise numbers in these two areas. Exercise science/PA was used for research examining exercise science topics (e.g., exercise physiology) exercise or PA. Two new subcategories were created for papers devoted solely to understanding PA levels versus those seeking to understand exercise physiology mechanisms.
Inclusion/programing involved research conducted in settings where, for example, both able and disabled individuals participated in PE. Papers were labeled as biomechanics if they focused on the structure or motion of the mechanics of human function in movement activities. Papers were designated motor behavior when focused on the learning and control of PA or sport movement. The psychosocial category was reserved for papers focused on the psychology or sociology of sport or PA. However, papers that were solely on the psychology of sport were categorized separately, similar to the first decade. Professional/preparation issues referred to papers on legislation or certification. Papers with a historical focus were labeled history. Research issue papers were on topics, such as philosophy of science, or research methods, or statistical issues.
“Other” was designated for papers that did not fit in any of the categories previously described. There were also some five new additional categories. Mixed research involved papers that examined two topics simultaneously, such as exercise physiology and psychology. Papers with a purpose of assessing body fat percentage or body mass index were categorized into the new body fat/body mass index label. Papers focused on the coaches of disability sport were labeled coaching. If researchers were specifically interested in ableism, those papers were labeled as such. Finally, research on the PA and cognition was coded as neuroscience/cognition. In summary, all old categories were retained for previous decade comparisons and subcategories were created for three of them to provide more precise data in these areas. Finally, five new research categories, representative of developments in the last 10 years, were created for reader edification.
Results and Discussion
The major purpose of this study was to document the publications found in APAQ over the fourth decade. I also sought to describe how publications in the most recent 10-year period have changed relative to prior decades. Finally, I sought to contextualize changes within the broader field of Kinesiology and other disciplines (e.g., psychology) based on my observations of APAQ trends. For example, the small number of publications testing theory is similar to the broader field of psychology. A recent review of papers examined in Psychological Science showed that only 15% of them specifically focused on testing theory-based predications (McPhetres et al., 2021).
Total publications in the fourth decade across all categories (i.e., original research, editorials, reviews, meta-analyses, viewpoints, and applications) were 289 papers. Original research (n = 242) was the major, but not only, focus of this paper. Editorials (n = 11), traditional reviews (n = 22), meta-analyses (n = 4), viewpoints (n = 8), and applications (n = 1) were documented. A significant and major change in the fourth decade was the increased number of research papers published. In the third decade, 181 research papers were published; whereas in the most recent decade, a total of 242 research papers were published, an increase of 61 papers. This increase is encouraging news since APAQ work is so important to building the APA discipline base. Such a large increase can likely be attributed to three factors.
First, the APAQ editorial team intentionally decided to increase the number of papers published (Martin, 2017). This decision was made in tandem with Human Kinetics agreeing to increase the number of pages devoted to each APAQ issue. Second, the number of Associate Editors and Editorial Board members was increased. Third, the ad hoc reviewer base was increased and internationalized. These steps were all taken to reduce reviewer burden, shorten review time, and increase efficiency. It was hoped that these changes would provide APAQ greater exposure, and enhance APAQ’s reputation in the APA research community, and lead to increased submissions of quality research (Martin, 2017). Informal communications with the APAQ editorial team suggested that an increase in the quantity of publications would not come at the sacrifice of quality (APAQ editorial board members, January—June 2017). Information on the IF confirms, as a proxy for quality, that the quality did not go down and appears to have increased in the last decade, as discussed next.
IF and Citations
As readers can see, there is a general upward trend in APAQ’s IF, with the biggest bump around 2018–2020 (see Figure 1). As the following IF averages for the last 3 decades shows (Decade 1: IF did not exist for APAQ); Decade 2: 1.03; Decade 3: 1.03; Decade 4: 1.78), the trend seems to be largely a function of the last decade. Although the IF has some criticisms (e.g., using it to judge individuals), it is a widely used metric to judge a journal (Pudovkin, 2018). Typically journals with high IFs are viewed more favorably than journals with low IFs. In addition to the IF, readers may also be curious of citation patterns. Given a citation analysis was not a major focus of the current paper, I provide a moment in time snapshot from 2022. APAQ authors tend to cite prior APAQ publications more than any other journal.
—JIF for Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. JIF = journal impact factor.
Citation: Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 41, 4; 10.1123/apaq.2024-0023
Other journals that are frequently cited by APAQ authors and their IFs are as follows: Research in Developmental Disabilities (2.9), Disability and Health Journal (4.5), Journal of Physical Activity and Health (3.1), and Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities (3.9). Authors of papers in other journals that frequently cite APAQ authors include Palestra (na), International Journal of Developmental Disabilities (2.1), and Frontiers in Psychology (3.8). It would appear that APAQ, in general, has a slightly lower IF relative to the above snapshot of journals. However, APAQ compares favorably to other kinesiology journals published by Human Kinetics: Journal of Aging and Physical Activity (1.5), Journal of Teaching and Physical Education (2.8), Journal of Sport Rehabilitation (1.7), and Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology (1.9). Over 20 years ago, Reid and Ulrich (2001) concluded that APAQ’s IF compared favorably to journals in special education, sport science, and rehabilitation. The current data suggest a similar conclusion is warranted.
Country
The percentage increase across the six larger geographical regions (e.g., North America) was relatively the same from the third to the fourth decade with two exceptions (see Table 1). Publications from Asian countries doubled from 6% to 12% and from South America there was a dramatic increase from 2% to 5%, largely due to 13 publications from Brazil. Brazilian authors only had three publications in the third decade. Another salient change was the number of first author countries affiliations. Six countries from Europe and six countries from Asia were represented in the fourth decade that were not represented in the third decade. There were also two new countries from South America. Hence, a total of 14 new countries were represented and only one country was represented in the third decade that was not represented in the fourth decade. These results appear to support ongoing APAQ editorial goals of seeking increased submissions and subsequent publications from international authors (Martin, 2017). These findings are encouraging as it suggests international interest in APA and a growth in understanding the dynamics of APA and sport with non-North American individuals with disabilities. The increase in international representation was likely driven, in part, by a special issue of 12 papers that all reported on the PA levels in various countries: the Global Matrix of Para Report Cards on Physical Activity of Children and Adolescents with Disabilities.
Theory
During the third decade, 68 of 181 research papers (38%) were based on theory. In contrast, during the most recent decade, 41 of 242 were based on theory (17%). The decrease in the percentage of papers based on theory and the reduced total number is difficult to explain. However, increased research submissions in areas such as PA, classification, exercise physiology, and motor behavior generally do not lend themselves to research questions based on theory. The numbers of papers published, based on a plethora of theories, are as follows from highest to lowest: social cognitive theory (SCT; n = 6), self-efficacy theory (n = 5), attitude theory (n = 4), occupational socialization theory (n = 3), mixed (i.e., two theories; n = 3), self-determination theory (n = 3), basic emotion theory (n = 2), social ecological theory (n = 2), and the theory of planned behavior (n = 2). The following theories were all represented by one study: Dewey educational theory, transtheoretical model, grounded theory, andragogy, PERMA (positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, achievement), expectancy value theory, stereotype content, diffusion of innovation, role socialization, contact theory, and ecology of human performance.
Similar to the third decade, much of the theory-based research published in the last 10 years is based on the dominant meta-theory of the last 50 years: SCT or theories that are grounded in SCT, such as self-efficacy theory and theory of planned behavior. A meta-theory reflects a common worldview (i.e., philosophy) or the epistemology behind the theory (Bates, 2005). SCT is strongly grounded in the view that humans use cognition, rationality, goal setting, and thought processes to engage in motivated behavior. Readers should be aware that this epistemology and heavy reliance on various SCTs (e.g., self-efficacy theory) have come under intense criticism in the last 5 years because SCT’s minimization to complete neglect of the role of affect in human behavior and in particular PA behavior (Ekkekakis, 2023).
In a recent chapter on APA research, Martin and Guerrero (2020) detailed criticisms of SCT and how researchers could use the affective reflective theory (Brand & Ekkekakis, 2018) to address SCT weaknesses and conduct research in APA. Affective reflective theory highlights the role of affect in PA and in particular negative affect. The affective reflective theory may be particularly relevant for PA research among individuals with disabilities compared to able-bodied individuals. For disabled individuals, negative PA related affect may be prominent as a result of chronic pain, frustration with inaccessible fitness facilities, and negative social appraisal from able-bodied individuals (e.g., inspiration porn: Martin, 2022b) to mention just a few sources of PA linked negative affect. PA-related negative affect is frequently a function of negative affect laden memories of PA in PE (Ladwig et al., 2018). Various researchers have documented negative feelings toward PE among individuals with disabilities (e.g., Haegele et al., 2021). Moving beyond SCT to investigate PA behavior in individuals with disabilities is clearly a future research need.
Intervention
During the third decade, 13% of the research papers were based on an intervention study. In the most recent decade, 33 of 242 papers were intervention studies (14%). Given the similarities in the percentages, it appears intervention work, despite being a strong research design (especially if groups are randomized and blinded), has not increased in the last 10 years. There are likely a number of plausible reasons for this. First, intervention research is arguably more time-consuming and costly compared with the typical qualitative (e.g., one shot 60-min interviews of 10 people) or quantitative correlational study (e.g., obtaining online survey data of a 100 Parasport athletes). Participant burden, for instance, is higher if participants need to come to an adapted fundamental motor skill development workout multiple times over a 10-week or 6-month-long program (e.g., Ketcheson et al., 2021). The attendant drop out by some participants, and missing data from others without 100% attendance, also presents challenges to researchers.
Implementing the intervention may require a team of researchers, such as graduate students, making the researcher burden higher. Intervention research is far more likely to require external funding to support it (e.g., exercise equipment and facilities to house an exercise program), further increasing the time and energy a researcher might need to devote to a study. Obtaining external funding is also quite competitive, and most proposals, even if excellent, do not get funded (Martin, 2020). The above reasons mean that many researchers are likely to turn to nonintervention projects.
Second, an academic culture that prizes quantity of publications over quality also results in pressure to conduct studies that can be quickly conducted and written up and submitted for publication. Third, most published research does not support the null hypothesis (i.e., no significant differences) and supports hypotheses of significant differences among groups or significant relationships among variables (Martin et al., 2019). Researchers who find support for the null hypotheses (i.e., no significant differences) typically do not get their papers published, frequently known as the file drawer problem (Rosenthal, 1979). Researchers have many choices to make (e.g., how many analyses to conduct) while conducting research, also known as researcher’s degrees of freedom, many of which are questionable and in some cases unethical (Martin et al., 2019; Tiller & Ekkekakis, 2023). The above scenario means that researchers often engage in dubious practices such as p-hacking (Wicherts et al., 2016) to obtain significant results in order to get published.
Such questionable practices ultimately contribute to results that do not replicate, leading to the current replication crisis. However, the value of and the assumptions undergirding replication are rarely articulated or criticized and research-based nuances that might lead to a legitimate failure to replicate are rarely discussed. The replication crisis is focused exclusively on quantitative work and is predicated on the principle of universality (Martin, 2022a). The anti-universality philosophy of science (e.g., multiple realities) that typically undergirds qualitative research appears to make it immune from being criticized if two similar studies provide two vastly different results. When quantitative studies fail to replicate, the attendant criticism rarely seems to acknowledge local contextual influences (e.g., different sports) to larger ones (e.g., different cultural views of disability) that might vary from study to study resulting in differing but not unexpected results (Webster, 2009).
Replication is relevant for APA work because both Bouffard (1993) and Reid (2000) and others have suggested that there are large inter- and intraindividual differences among individuals with disabilities, suggesting APA publications may frequently not replicate, even with large samples. Even if an APA study did not replicate, that does not invalidate the findings from a particular study for applied work with study participants or for generating future hypotheses. The goal of the above replication commentary is designed to place the current documentary analysis within a larger scientific culture and older classic APA writings (e.g., Bouffard, 1993), that many younger APA readers may be unaware of.
Methods
Similar to the third decade, most of the research in the fourth decade was quantitative (n = 140; 57.5%), followed by a qualitative research design (n = 96; 39.5%). A quantitative example is a meta-analysis. Because of the proliferation of journals and research, meta-analyses are often viewed as time-efficient mechanisms for understanding large bodies of knowledge (Borenstein et al., 2009). Meta-analyses were likely not needed, and they were in their infancy during the first 2 decades of APAQ. Also, user-friendly software makes conducting a meta-analysis much easier than in previous time periods. However, like all statistical techniques, they can be misused (Hill, 2023) and used when ill-advised (Ioannidis, 2016). Just because a meta-analysis can be done, does not mean it should be done.
The difference among quantitative and qualitative research was substantially different compared with the third decade where far less qualitative work was reported (n = 34). The increase in qualitative work may reflect a delayed trend predicted by Bouffard (1993) that did not show up in the third decade. Qualitative research may be particularly well suited to APAQ research because such research typically does not require large sample sizes that might be difficult to obtain (Martin & Martin, 2021). There are also (but not always) significant philosophies of science differences undergirding quantitative versus qualitative research. Additionally, such research is about people. In contrast, a typical psychological theory-based quantitative study is about psychological constructs across people and results about a group of people do not always apply to individuals (Bouffard, 1993; Reid, 2000). Readers interested in the relative strengths and weaknesses of the idiographic and nomothetic approach in APA research are encouraged to read the debate between former APAQ Editor Marcel Bouffard (1993, 1997, 2001) and Shephard (1999, 2001). Other research methods included mixed methods (n = 4; 2%), case studies (n = 1; 0.5%), single-subject studies (n = 1; 0.5,%) and other (n = 0; 0%).
Research Participants
In the first 3 decades, the current category was coded based on the nature of the disability of the participants (e.g., visual impairment). However, when participants did not have a disability, they appeared to be coded as nonspecified (Haegele et al., 2015) or as generic in the first two decade papers. Because this category is focused on who the participants in the research were, a new category of able-bodied participants was created. In the current decade (see Table 2), there were 46 papers or 19% of the research. It appears that similar research from the third decade was also classified as nonspecified and included 33 papers that seemed to involve able-bodied individuals (e.g., parents and peers). If this assumption is accurate, the additional increase in papers involving able-bodied individuals as participants may have come from more work on coaching and research involving both adapted and general PE teachers. Other areas of research that have increased numbers of publications include autism, medical conditions, CP, ID, and multiple disabilities. Autism diagnoses, for instance, have increased dramatically suggesting interest, funding, and research opportunities may have followed that increase (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016).
Topic
Similar to previous comparisons, there were similarities between decades in the topic area (see Table 3). For instance, research on psychosocial topics (n = 75) remained similar (31%) as well as biomechanics and inclusion. Sport psychology could only be compared with the first decade and showed reduced interest. There were lots of studies on PA (n = 30) partly as a function of the special issue mentioned previously. Research in PE was also popular with teachers and children in both general PE and adapted PE settings. Finally, new areas emerged with three to four studies in each (e.g., coaching, ableism, and body fat/body mass index). Researchers appear responsive to research reflecting applied needs (e.g., coaching effectiveness) and athlete needs (e.g., classification).
Conclusions
To summarize and conclude, in the past decade, the number of APAQ publications increased substantially compared with all three prior decades. At the same time, using the impact factor as an imperfect measure of quality, APAQ quality also increased. More and more papers are being published by non–North American authors addressing a serious dearth of knowledge production about international participants. The increase in APAQ publications appears to be mostly in nontheory or -intervention studies, as both categories remained stable or decreased. Researchers’ methods are clearly either qualitative or quantitative, and the call for more mixed-method research of over 20 years ago by Reid (2000) appears to have gone unheeded. Finally, disability categories and research topics have both grown as more and more researchers from other fields of inquiry (e.g., coaching) and impairment expertise (e.g., multiple sclerosis) are viewing APAQ as an attractive scientific outlet.
References
Bates, M.J. (2005). An introduction to theories, metatheories and models. In K.E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & E.F. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior (p. 124). Information Today.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T., & Rothstein, H.R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley and Sons.
Bouffard, M. (1993). The perils of averaging data in adapted physical activity research. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 10(4), 371–391.
Bouffard, M. (1997). Using old research ideas to study contemporary problems in adapted physical activity. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 1(1), 71–87.
Bouffard, M. (2001). The scientific method, modernism, and postmodernism revisited: A reaction to Shephard (1999). Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18(3), 221–234.
Brand, R., & Ekkekakis, P. (2018). Affective–reflective theory of physical inactivity and exercise. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 48(1), 48–58.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Prevalence and characteristics of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years—Autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2012. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 65(3), 1–23.
Duncan, D.F. (1989). Content analysis in health education research: An introduction to purposes and methods. Health Education, 20(7), 27–31.
Ekkekakis, P. (2023). Pleasure from the exercising body: Two centuries of changing outlooks in psychological thought. In P. Ekkekakis, D.B. Cook, L.L. Craft, S. Nicole Culos-Reed, J.L. Etnier, M. Hamer, K.A. Martin Ginis, J. Reed, J.A.J. Smits, & M. Ussher (Eds.), Routledge handbook of physical activity and mental health (pp. 35–56). Routledge.
Haegele, J.A., Kirk, T.N., Holland, S.K., & Zhu, X. (2021). ‘The rest of the time I would just stand there and look stupid’: Access in integrated physical education among adults with visual impairments. Sport, Education and Society, 26(8), 862–874.
Haegele, J.A., Lee, J., & Porretta, D.L. (2015). Research trends in adapted physical activity quarterly from 2004 to 2013. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 32(3), 187–2016.
Henry, F.M. (1964). Physical education: An academic discipline. Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 35 (7), 32–69.
Hill, A.P. (2023). Comparisons and conversions: A methodological note and caution for meta-analysis in sport and exercise psychology. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 45(5), 293–296.
Ioannidis, J.P. (2016). The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(3), 485–514.
Johnson, P.H., & Kittleson, M.J. (2000). A content analysis of health education teaching strategy/idea articles: 1970–1998. Journal of Health Education, 31(5), 292–298.
Ketcheson, L.R., Centeio, E.E., Snapp, E.E., McKown, H.B., & Martin, J.J. (2021). Physical activity and motor skill outcomes of a 10-week intervention for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities ages 4–13: A pilot study. Disability and Health Journal, 14(1), 100952–100952.
Ladwig, M.A., Vazou, S., & Ekkekakis, P. (2018). “My best memory is when I was done with it”: PE memories are associated with adult sedentary behavior. Translational Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, 3(16), 119–129.
Martin, J.J. (2017). Your new editor. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 34(2), 97–103.
Martin, J.J. (2020). Grants: The good, the bad, the ugly, and the puzzling. Kinesiology Review, 10(1), 18–28.
Martin, J. (2022a). Self, reality, knowledge and theory: Is social constructionism antithetical to sport and exercise psychology research? Psychology, 13(09), 1353–1390.
Martin, J.J. (2022b). Inspiration porn and disability sport. In D. Goodwin & M. Connolly (Eds.), Reflexivity and change in adaptive physical activity: Overcoming hubris (pp. 213–226). Routledge.
Martin, J.J., Beasley, V.L., & Guerrero, M.D. (2019). Sport psychology research: Proper standards and limitations. In M.H. Anshel, T.A. Petrie, & J.A. Steinfeldt (Eds.), APA handbook of sport and exercise psychology: Sport psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 17–40). American Psychological Association.
Martin, J.J., & Guerrero, M.D. (2020). Social cognitive theory. In J.J. Martin & M.D. Guerrero (Eds.), Routledge handbook of adapted physical education (pp. 280–295). Routledge.
Martin, J., & Martin, D. (2021). The N-Pact factor, replication, power, and quantitative research in Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. Kinesiology Review, 10(3), 363–368
McPhetres, J., Albayrak-Aydemir, N., Mendes, A.B., Chow, E.C., Gonzalez-Marquez, P., Loukras, E., & Volodko, K. (2021). A decade of theory as reflected in Psychological Science (2009–2019). PLoS One, 16(3), e0247986.
Peers, D. (2018). Engaging axiology: Enabling meaningful transdisciplinary collaboration in adapted physical activity. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 35(3), 267–284.
Porretta, D.L., & Sherrill, C. (2005). APAQ at twenty: A documentary analysis. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 22(2), 119–135.
Pudovkin, A.I. (2018). Comments on the use of the journal impact factor for assessing the research contributions of individual authors. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3, 2–5
Reid, G. (2000). Future directions of inquiry in adapted physical activity. Quest, 52(4), 369–381.
Reid, G., & Broadhead, G.D. (1995). APAQ at ten: A documentary analysis. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12(2), 103–112.
Reid, G., & Ulrich, D.A. (2001). The impact factor and APAQ. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18(2), 119–126.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.
Shephard, R.J. (1999). Postmodernism and adapted physical activity: A new gnostic heresy? Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 16(4), 331–343.
Shephard, R.J. (2001). The scientific method, modernism, and postmodernism revisited: A response to Bouffard (2001). Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18(3), 235–239.
Solmon, M.A. (2021). Physical education and sport pedagogy: The application of the academic discipline of kinesiology. Kinesiology Review, 10(3), 331–338.
Thomas, J.R., Martin, P., Etnier, J.L., & Silverman, S.J. (2022). Research methods in physical activity. Human Kinetics.
Tiller, N.B., & Ekkekakis, P. (2023). Overcoming the “ostrich effect”: A narrative review on the incentives and consequences of questionable research practices in kinesiology. Kinesiology Review, 12(3), 201–216.
Tosh, J. (2019). Why history matters. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Webster, G.D. (2009). The person-situation interaction is increasingly outpacing the person-situation debate in the scientific literature: A 30-year analysis of publication trends, 1978–2007. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(2), 278–279.
Wicherts, J.M., Veldkamp, C.L., Augusteijn, H.E., Bakker, M., Van Aert, R., & Van Assen, M.A. (2016). Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1832.
Zhang, J., deLisle, L., & Chen, S. (2006). Analysis of AAHPERD research abstracts published under special populations from 1968 to 2004. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 23(2), 203–217.
