RETURNING MATERIALS: MSU Place in book drop to mum“, remove this checkout from “ your record. FINES win . be charged if boofi is $13. returned after the date ‘2; y fr; 3stamped beIow. t‘ 5&3 u juggg: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF AN ELEMENTARY MOTOR PERFORMANCE TEST FOR STUDENTS CLASSIFIED AS NON-HANDICAPPED. LEARNING DISABLED OR EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED 8v Bernard Vincent HoIIand A DISSERTATION Submitted to HichIgan State UniversIty In partIaI fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Health, Counseling and Human Performance 1986 COpyrIght BERNARD V. HOLLAND 1986 ii ABSTRACT DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF AN ELEMENTARY MOTOR PERFORMANCE TEST FOR STUDENTS CLASSIFIED AS NON-HANDICAPPED. LEARNING DISABLED OR EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED 8v Bernard Vincent Holland Public Law 910-1102 mandates that all children who are handicapped receive appropriate physical education services. Despite this requirement many children who are handicapped are either unserved or underserved in physical education. A factor that contributes to this situation is the lack of assessment tools available to assess the physical education. and In particular the fundamental motor skill, instructional needs of elementary-aged children who are handicapped. The purposes of this study were to: 1. Develop a valid and reliable criterion-referenced test of fundamental motor skills. 2. Develop standardized test adninistration procedures. 3. Examine relationships of motor performance relating to age, gender and handicap. A. Establish performance expectations for elementary-aged children. Elementary-aged students classified as non-handicapped, learning disabled or educable mentally impaired were the students for whom the test was developed and to whom the test was adninistered. The criterion-referenced test was comprised of seven fundamental motor skills that were identified as essential for all students to master. Six content area experts were utilized to Bernard Vincent Holland demonstrate the content validity of this test. The construct validity was demonstrated by examining the performance of 52A elementary-aged students who were non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired relative to predicted patterns of performance for age. gender and handicapping classification. The test-retest and inter-rater reliabilities met acceptable standards of reliability. Test administration procedures based on the guidelines of PL 9A-Ih2 were developed and used in this study. The student performance data were used to evaluate three research hypotheses. These hypotheses were: the performance of the students would improve with age; the males would perform better than the females: and the students classified as non- handicapped would be superior in performance to the students classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. The results from this study were consistent with these hypotheses. To my mother and father Teresa and William Holland. across the miles. thank you. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank a few of the individuals who made significant contributions to this study. To Dr. Sam Reuschlein. major advisor, a special thank you for the minutes that led into hours and for his professional support and guidance. To Dr. Luke Kelly for the major role he played in my professional development. for his expertise and for his continued involvement from afar. To Dr. Vern Seefeldt for his invaluable insight. support and example. To Dr. Gail Dummer and Dr. Steve Raudenbush for their thought provoking comments and professional advisement. To all the students who were tested and to their teachers and administrators for their involvement in this study. To Fred Heldmeyer. Lisa Morris. Jim Parker and Chris Horland for their assistance in testing the students. 1v I31 Cri TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES x LIST OF APPENDICES xii CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM i Need for the Study A Purpose of the Study 6 Research Hypotheses 6 Research Plan 3 Limitations 11 Assumptions Ii Significance of the Study 12 CHAPTER II: RELATED LITERATURE 15 Role and Function of Assessment in Physical Education Within PL 9A-IA2 I9 Criterion Referenced Assessment Procedures and Principles 23 — Validity 23 - Reliability 26 - Item Selection 28 - Test Administration 30 - Current Status of Criterion-Referenced Assessment Instruments 31 — Sunmary 3A An Instrument for Assessing Fundamental Motor Skills 3A - Essential Motor Skills 35 - Age Level: Rationale L1 — Motor Development: Student Performance Expectations A2 Student Population A8 — Individuals who are Non-Handicapped 53 - Individuals who are Learning Disabled 57 — Individuals who are Educable Mentally Impaired 6A - Summary 69 CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODS 71 Research Plan 72 Criterion Referenced Test Development 73 - Item Selection and Development 73 CHAPTER III (cont'd) Validity Reliability Summary Criterion-Referenced Test Administration : Standardizing the testing environment : Standardizing the test directions 3 Training the test administrators Student Sample Data Collection Data Analysis Limitations and Assumptions CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST DEVELOPMENT Item Selection and Development Validity : Content Validity : Construct Validity Reliability Criterion-Referenced Test Administration : Standardizing the testing environment : Standardizing the test directions a Training the test adninistrators - Summary CHAPTER V: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION STUDENT FUNDAMENTAL MOTOR SKILL PERFORMANCE Analysis of the Student Performance Data - Run - Vertical Jump - Overhand Throw - Catch - Ball Bounce - Kick - Two—Hand Sidearm Strike — Summary Mastery Motor Performance Levels of Students Classified as Non-Handicapped. Learning Disabled or Educable Mentally Impaired - Non-Handicapped - Learning Disabled - Educable Mentally Impaired - Summary Component Mastery Levels - Run - Vertical Jump vi PAGE 76 9O 91 92 92 93 103 109 112 116 120 121 123 121. 137 139 11.3 1A3 11.1. 11.1. 11.5 1A7 1&8 168 15k 156 158 159 161 163 165 168 179 181 183 18A 185 185 185 CHAPTER V (cont'd) PAGE - Overhand Throw 187 — Catch 188 - Ball Bounce 189 - Kick 190 - Two—Hand Sidearm Strike 191 - Summary 192 Summary 193 CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19A Conclusions 197 Recommendations ' 201 Appendix A: Michigan Special EducatIon Defini- tion of Handicaps 205 Appendix B: Format Used for Expert Rating of Skill Standards, 208 Appendix C: Elementary Fundamental Motor Skills Test 216 Section I 1 Test Administration Guidelines 217 Section 2 3 Motor Performance Skill Test Items and Score Sheets 232 Section 3 1 Interpretation of Student Performance 263 Appendix 0: School Procedures 255 Appendix E? Confidentiality 257 Appendix F: Introduction to Assessment Project 258 Appendix G: Consent Form 261 Appendix H: Human Subjects Approval 262 BIBLIOGRAPHY 272 vii Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table A: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 1A: Table 15: LIST OF TABLES Projected Research Sample Actual Research Sample Student Population for Each School District Student Descriptive Data: Special Education Importance of Skills in Learning More Complex Skills. Games. and Activities Content Validity Level II: Number of Expert Raters Identifying the Appropriate Motor Domain for Each Skill Inter-Rater Agreement Reliability Coefficients Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients Summary of Motor Performance for Students Classified as Non-Handicapped. Learning Disabled or Educable Mentally Impaired in the Range Six to Nine Years of Age Linear Effects of Age on Motor Performance for Students Classified as Non-Handicapped, Learning Disabled or Educable Mentally Impaired in the Range Six to Nine Years of Age Run: Means and Standard Deviations Comparison of the Performance of Students Classified as Non-Handicapped. Learning Disabled or Educable Mentally Impaired on Fundamental Motor Skills Vertical Jump: Means and Standard Deviations Overhand Throw: Means and Standard Deviations Catch: Means and Standard Deviations viii PAGE 10A 105 110 111 125 128 1A1 1A2 1A9 150 152 153 155 157 160 TABLES (cont'd) Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 16: 17: 18: 19: 20: 21: 22: 23: 2A: 25: 26: 27: 28: Ball Bounce: Means and Standard Deviations Kick: Means and Standard Deviations Two—Hand Sidearm Strike: Means and Standard Deviations Percent of Non-Handicapped Students at Mastery for Each Skill Percent of Learning Disabled Students at Mastery for Each Skill Percent of Educable Mentally Impaired Students at Mastery for Each Skill Run: Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component Vertical Jump: Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component Overhand Throw: Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component Catch: Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component Ball Bounce: Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component Kick: Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component Two-Hand Sidearm Strike: Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component ix PAGE 162 16A 166 169 170 171 172 173 171. 175 176 177 178 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 1: 2: 3: A: S: 6: 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 10: 11: 12: 13: 1A: 15: l6: 17: 18: 19: Factors identified in different studies LIST OF FIGURES as components of motor ability Fundamental motor skill selection Comparison of motor skill performance of male and female children Motor skill comparison of learning disabled and non—handic Motor skill comparison of educable mentally impaired and non-handicapped children Fundamental motor skill selection checklist Fundamental motor skill selection checklist apped children :Overhand throw Fundamental motor skill components: Overhand throw Content validi ty form I Content validity form II Content validity form lIl: Rating scale Factor compone Fundamental motor skill selection checklist Skills meeting criteria for inclusion on the fundamental motor skill instrument Components of Components of Components of Components of Components of nts the run the vertical jump the overhand throw the catch the ball bounce PAGE 37 39 AS 58 66 75 77 78 82 83 85 89 I22 126 130 131 132 133 13A FIGURES (cont'd) Figure 20: Components of the kick Figure 21: Components of the two—hand sidearm strike Figure 22: Construct validity supported by signifi- cant differences in performance by age. gender. disability xi PAGE 135 136 138 Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix c: Appendix 0: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Appendix H: LIST OF APPENDICES Michigan Special Education Defini- tion of Handicaps Format Used for Expert Rating of Skill Standards Elementary Fundamental Motor Skills Test Section 1 : Test Administration 9 Guidelines Section 2 : Motor Performance Skill Test Items and Score Sheets Section 3 : Interpretation of Student Performance School Procedures Confidentiality Introduction to Assessment Project Consent Form Human Subjects Approval xii PAGE 205 208 216 217 232 2A3 255 257 258 261 262 CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM Public Law 9A-1A2 requires that each student identified as handicapped under the guidelines of PL 9A-1A2 receives a free, appropriate education specifically designed to meet his/her unique needs. The student's current level of educational performance and specific educational needs must be documented on the Individualized Education Program (IEP). The IEP. a written statement of the educational services to be provided, is required to be developed for each student identified as handicapped under PL 9A-1A2. PL 9A-1A2 also mandates that. where apprOpriate, specially designed physical education services must be included on the IEP (Federal Register A2. August 23, 1977). Assessment data are collected under PL 9A—1A2 for a number of reasons. One reason is to determine the instructional needs of each student so that specific goals and learning objectives can be established (Bailey 8 Harbin, 1980: Fait s Dunn, 198A: Klesius, 1981: McLoughlin 8 Lewis. 1981: Seaman C DePauw, I982: Vessel 5 Kelly, 1985). Many mildly handicapped students. in particular students classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired, are placed in regular physical education classes (Kalakian 8 Eichstaedt. 1982: Sherrill. 1981). It is important that the instructional needs of these students be determined and addressed. At present, however. evidence suggests the physical education needs of many children who are handicapped are not being adequately met because they are not receiving appropriate assessment and subsequent instruction in physical education (Broadhead 5 Church. 1983: McClenaghan. 1981: Sherrill, 1980: Stein, 1978). Norm-referenced and criterion-referenced assessment instruments are two categories of assessment tools frequently used to collect data on students (Bailey 8 Harbin, 1980: Fait 8 Dmn. 198A: Stein. 1977). Some norm-referenced tests provide information that can be used in planning an instructional program for a student. In general. however, it is the results from criterion-referenced tests that are usually related directly to the content of the instructional program and used to determine a student's performance relative to clearly defined instructional objectives (Carver, 197A: Duffy 8 Fedner, 1978: Glaser. 1963: Popham. 1976. 1978a). To comply with the definition of physical education in PL 9A- IAZ. assessment instruments. including those that can provide information related to the instructional needs of a student, should be available in the areas of fundamental motor skills, fitness. and leisure sports and activities. A review of assessment instruments used in physical education (AAPHERD. 1976: Arnheim 8 Sinclair, 1979: Bruininks, 1978: Cratty. 1969: Dunn et al. 1980: Loovis 5 Ersing. 1975: Ulrich. 1985: Vessel. 1979) reveals that they do not adequately address the fundamental motor skill instructional needs of handicapped and non-handicapped students. Furthermore. these Instruments do not always address the non-discriminatory evaluation procedures required by PL 9A-1A2 (Bailey 8 Harbin. 1980: Ballard 8 Zettel. 1977). The importance of assessing and teaching fundamental motor skills is based on evidence which suggests that in the hierarchy of motor skill development. mature performance in fundamental motor skills is a prerequisite to the learning of more complex motor skills. games. and activities (Gallahue. 1982: Vickstrom. 1983). These authors report that emphasis should be placed on the qualitative aspects of fundamental motor skills before it is placed on quantitatitve development of these skills. Instruments used to assess the fundamental motor skill instructional needs of students should reflect this hierarchy of skill development. Since most students require instruction in order to develop a mature level of performance (Espenschade 8 Eckert. 1980: Gallahue. 1982: Seefeldt. 1975: Singer. 1980). it is important that results from assessment can be used in planning instruction. Research pertaining to the development of physical and motor skills of individuals who are learning disabled (Broadhead. 1972: Freider et a1. 1980: Gorman. 1983: Haubenstricker. 1982: Rimmer 8 Rosentswieg. 1982) or individuals who are educable mentally impaired (Dobbins 8 Rarick. 1975: Francis 6 Rarick. 1959: Howe. 19591 Londeree 8 Johnson. 197A: Rarick. Hiddop 8 Broadhead. 1970: Sengstock. 1966: Turnquist 8 Marzolf. 195A) suggests that the performance of these students is below that of students who are non-handicapped. Because many of these students are placed in regular physical education classes (Kalakian 8 Eichstaedt. 1982: Sherrili. 1981). it is particularly important that assessment Instruments provide information that can be used to determine If the instructional needs of these students can be met in these classes. This study was conducted to develop a criterion-referenced test of fundamental motor skills appropriate for use with students classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. Following the development of this Instrument student performance data were collected. These data were used to examine relationships of performance between students classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. Need For The Study The Individualized Education Program (IEP) procedures included In PL 9A-1A2 require that all students who are handicapped be assessed prior to receiving instruction (Federal Register A2. August 23. 1977). Physical education is delineated by PL 911—1112 as an area of the school curriculum in which all children who are handicapped must receive apprOpriate instruction (Stein. 1978). To provide appropriate instruction the students must be assessed prior to receiving instruction in physical education (Vessel 8 Kelly. 1986). The areas in which children who are handicapped should be assessed are specified by the definition of physical education in PL 9A-1A2. This definition identifbes fundamental motor skills and patterns as one part of physical education (Federal Register A2. August 23. 1977L Public Law 9A-1A2 requires that a variety of assessment techniques be used to determine a student's current level of educational performance (Bailey 8 Harbin. 1980). Criterion- referenced assessment instruments are identified as one method that should be used to collect student performance data. particularly those data which are used to make decisions about instruction (Carver. 197A: Glaser. 1963: Popham. 1976. 1978). There is currently a lack of validated Instruments that are based on the fundamental motor skill instructional needs of students. and that can be reliably administered to students who are non- handicapped or handicapped. There are minimal data available on the qualitative fundamental motor skill performance of students classified as learning disabled or educable mentally Impaired. Much of the data: available for these papulations have been collected by measuring 'the quantitative fundamental motor skill performance of these students. or by using tasks that are unrelated to instruction. Because qualitative aspects of fundamental motor skill performance should be emphasized before the quantitative aspects of performance (Gallahue. 1982: Vickstrom.1983). it is important that the qualitative performance of students classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired be evaluated. These data can be used to determine the instructional needs of these students. The data also can be compared with the performance of students who are non-handicapped and provide information concerning the appropriateness of mainstreaming students who are learning disabled or educable mentally impaired into regular physical education classes. Purpose of the Study The purposes of this study were: 1. 2. To develop a criterion-referenced test of fundamental motor skills that Is valid and reliable for elementary- aged students classified as learning disabled. educable mentally impaired or non-handicapped. To develop staidardized administration procedures that are apprOpriate for use with elementary-aged students classified as learning disabled. educable mentally impaired or non-handicapped. To examine similarities and differences in motor performance by age. gender and handicap for elementary- aged students classified as non-handicapped, learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. To establish performance expectations for elementary-aged boys and girls classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally inpaired. Research Hypotheses Five research hypotheses. stated below'. were tested in this study. involved The first two hypotheses pertained to measurement issues in the development of the assessment instrument. Measurement theory related to the development of criterion- referenced instruments is relatively well established. What constitutes acceptable levels of validity and reliability has not been clearly defined in quantitative terms for criterion— referenced instruments. Individuals who use the test developed in this study will have to evaluate the measurement data provided and determine if the test is acceptable for their purpose. The last three hypotheses. based upon research in motor development and physical education. examine relationships of student performance. 1. The criterion-referenced assessment test iuill meet acceptable levels of validity and reliability. 2. Test standardization and administration procedures will be demonstrated as appropriate for use with elementary- aged students who are non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. 3. Student performance on the fundamental motor skills will Improve with age for the students who are non- handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. A. Male students who are non—handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired will perform at a level superior to their same age female peers on the fundamental motor skills tested. 5. The students who are non-handicapped will demonstrate superior performance on the fundamental motor skills when compared with the performance of the students who are learning disabled. or with the performance of the students who are educable mentally impaired. Research Plan Development of a criterion-referenced test of fundamental motor skills required the application of criterion-referenced measurement theory and other related measurement principles. Following the test development student performance data were collected using the assessment instrument to explore relationships of performance among students classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled. or educable mentally impaired. Based upon review of the literature. a series of sequential steps were completed in the development of a criterion-referenced test of fundamental motor skills: 1. Potential test items were selected and deveIOped following a thorough analysis of similar tests and materials reported in the literature. The validity of test items was examined through content validity and construct validity. The reliability of test items was examined through tester agreement ratings and test-retest procedures for the three populations assessed. Procedures for training test administrators to a required level of competency were developed. All of the test administrators employed in this study had to meet high assessment competency levels (90% accuracy) before they were permitted to collect any data for this study. 5. Criterion-referenced test administration procedures were developed including: a. Standardizing the testing environment b. Standardizing the test directions. The five steps listed here are outlined in detail in Chapter 111. Where applicable. the results of the process inherent in these steps are reported in Chapter IV. 1‘ Data on student performance were collected on a sample of 52A elementary-aged students from 13 school districts in southern Michigan in an attempt to test the five research hypotheses. Three independent variables. namely age. gender and hmdicapping condition (non-handicapped. .learning disabled. or educable mentally impaired) were used to separate the students into groups and levels for the purpose of testing the hypotheses. Each student was tested once on each of the seven fundamental motor skills (run. vertical jump. overhand throw. catch. ball bounce. kick. two—hand sidearm strike) that formed the criterion- referenced assessment instrument. The performance scores on the fundamental motor skills were identified as the dependent variables.J The student sample was not randomly selected. However. the 13 school districts that participated in the study represented a wide range of urban and rural school systems of various sizes. Each student was required to have a signed consent form on file prior to the assessment. The boys and girls were placed in one 10 of the groups based upon: 1. Chronological age at the time of assessment. 2. Classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired in accordance with the Michigan Special Education eligibility requirementsc or classified as non- handicapped with no known physical. sensory. cognitive. social. or emotional handicap(sL Prior to the collection of any data. all test administrators were trained to acceptable levels of competency in observing each of the seven fundamental motor skill items. Testing procedures. developed specifically for the groups being assessed. were implemented by each test administrator with each student assessed. ~The data were collected within one of two time periods. April 15. 1985 to May 31. 1985 or September 3. 1985 to December 5. 1985. Each student was assessed during the regular school day in the normal school environment. The assessment was completed In one testing period. except when factors such as fatigue or inappropriate behavior interfered with the assessment. In these instances the assessment was terminated and a second assessment session was scheduled in order to complete the testing. The data analysis involved three steps that used a combination of descriptive and parametric statistics. Information outlining student characteristics such as age. gender. handicapping condition. size of school district. and the racial origin of the sample was collected. This information provides an understanding of the sample and enables the results of the study 11 to be generalized to other similar groups with greater confidence than if these data were not available. The next step involved the use of regression statistical procedures. These procedures were used to test the three hypotheses pertaining to predicting performance relationships involving age. gender and handicapping condition within and between the three groups measured. Finally. the student performance data were reported in tabular form. These tables outline the percent of students from each age level. gender. and group who mastered the mature level of each skill. and the percent that mastered each component of the mature level of each skill. Limitations The most significant limitations within which this study was conducted included: 1. Limited funds were available to cover the investigator's travel expenses. Consequently the sample was drawn from school districts within a 75 mile radius of East Lansing. MI. 2. Parental permission was required before any student could participate in the study. 3. District involvement on a voluntary basis. combined with factors 1 and 2 above. prevented the random selection of the student sample. Assumptions Assumptions made with respect to the limitations of this study included: 12 1. That the participating districts were representative of districts throughout Michigan. 2. That the requirement of parental permission for each student did not systematically preclude from the study students who may have had different characteristics than those students who were assessed. 3. That districts participating in the study interpreted the Michigan Special Education rules governing the classification of students who are educable mentally impaired or learning disabled in a similar manner. Descriptive data were collected. as reported in Chapter III. that describe the student papulation assessed and that allow readers to make judgments concerning the validity of the limitations and assumptions. Significance of the Study The significance of this study is twofold. The development of a valid and reliable criterion-referenced assessment instrument for assessing the fundamental motor skills of students identified as learning disabled. educable mentally impaired or non- handicapped directly addresses the need for such instruments. This instrument allows the educator to assess the qualitative fundamental motor skill development of children who are handicapped or non-handicapped. The accompanying administrative guidelines take into consideration the learning and behavioral characteristics of children that may adversely affect a student's performance. The test administration procedures and guidelines 13 were developed so that the educator responsible for conducting the assessment could do so with competence in an unbiased manner. The second significant aspect of this study is the focus on measurement of the qualitative fundamental motor skill performance of students classified as learning disabled. educable mentally impaired or non-handicapped. Previous research studies have focused primarily upon the qualitative fundamental motor skill development of children who are non-handicapped. or the quantitative motor skill development of children who are handicapped or non-handicapped. Many of the skills investigated in these studies. and. the manner in which the results have been reported. have little relevance to the instructional needs of students who are handicapped. This study investigated the qualitative aspects of the fundamental motor skill development of students who are non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. The tables developed as a result of this study provide an. initial data base about the mastery level of individuals who are learning disabled or educable mentally inpaired on the components of the mature level of the essential fundamental motor skills. The results provide much needed information pertaining to the relationship of age. gender. and handicap to the development of fundamental motor skills. The information generated will assist educators in making decisions concerning the physical education placement and instruction of students who are learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. Finally. the results from this study raise questions concerning 14 the direction of future research examining the development of fundamental motor skills in handicapped children. CHAPTER Ii RELATED LITERATURE To demonstrate the importance and appropriateness of the development of a criterion-referenced test of fundamental motor skills. it was necessary to examine and report literature from a number of areas. The four key areas of this review of literature are: 1. The role and function of assessmemt in physical education within PL 9A-1A2. .2. Criterion-referenced assessment procedures and principles. 3. DeveIOpment of an instrument for assessing fundamental motor skills.' A. Characteristics of the populations to be assessed. Prior to examining literature in the four areas indicated above. the reader should understand four definitions from PL 9A- 1A2 and excerpts from the rules and regulations contained in the August 23. 1977. Federal Register. These rules and regulations are the implementation guidelines for PL 9A-1A2. The terms. Special Education. Physical Education. Individualized Education Program (IEP) and Preplacement Evaluation are presented because of the relevance that each one has to the current study. Special education is defined under PL 9A-1A2 as. "specially designed instruction. at no cost to parents or guardians. to meet 15 16 the unique needs of a handicapped child. including classroom instruction. instruction in physical education. home instruction and instruction in hospitals and institutions” (Federal Register A2. August 23. 1977. A2A80). The importance of this definition to the present study is clear. In meeting the unique needs of children who are handicapped. physical education is clearly delineated as one area of the curriculum In which all children classified as handicapped must receive instruction. Because PL 9A-1A2 requires that children be assessed prior to being placed in any special education program. it is necessary that assessment tools be available for the purpose of determining the physical education needs of children who are handicapped. The second definition presented is physical education. As defined by PL 9A-1 A2: (i) The term means the development of: (a) Physical and motor fitness: (b) Fundamental motor skills and patterns: and (c) Skills in aquatics. dance. and individual and group games and sports (including intramural and lifetime sports). (ii) The term includes special physical education. adapted physical education. movement education. and motor development (Federal Register A2. August 23. 1977: A2A7A-98). Some educators have identified areas (i) (a). (b). and (c) of the preceding definition as the areas of physical education in 17 which children who are handicapped should be assessed and evaluated (Klesius. 1981). Depending on the results obtained. the assessment can lead to the development of goals and objectives in areas which are. in the school setting. unique to physical education (Stein. 1978: Wessel 8 Kelly. 1985). In order to conduct a comprehensive assessment of a student. it is apparent that assessment instruments should be available which. singularly or combined. assess each of the areas defined as being a part of physical education. The IEP is a document on which a student's educational needs. including physical education. are outlined (Broadhead 5 Church. 1983: Stein. 1978). Each student's IEP must include the following information: (a) A statement of the child's present level of educational performance: (b) A statement of annual goals. including short-term instructional objectives: (c) A statement of the specific special education and related services to be provided to the child. and the extent to which the child will be able to participate in regular educational programs: (d) The projected dates for initiation of services and the anticipated duration of the services: and (e) Appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining. on at least an annual basis whether the short term instructional objectives are 18 being achieved. (Federal Register A2. August 23. 1977. A2A91). To have all of the information required for the IEP available. it Is necessary to assess the physical education skills of each student. It could be demonstrated that parts (a). (b). (c). and (e) of the IEP are either directly or indirectly related to the process of assessment. This relationship further supports the need for apprOpriate assessment instruments in physical education. Even in the situations where the student does not require adapted physical education. thereby eliminating the need to address parts (b). (d). and (e) of the IEP. there is still the need to report the student's current level of educational performance. This report would provide results of assessment which stated that the performance of the student in physical education was such that the student did not require any specially designed instruction in physical education. Preplacement evaluation is defined in Section 121a.531 of the Federal Register. This section states that: "Before any action Is taken with respect to the initial placement of a handicapped child in a special education program. a full and individual evaluation of the child's educational needs must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of 121a.532" (Federal Register. August 23. 1977. A2A996). Section 121a.532 describes the evaluation procedures of PL 9A-1A2. Despite the requirements of preplacement evaluation. many IEP's either do not address physical education (Stein. 1978). or the motor skills assessment takes place after 19 the handicapped student is piaCed in a special education program (Broadhead 6 Church. 1983: Sherrili. 1980). Because physical education is specifically highlighted as an area of the curriculum in which the handicapped child must receive appropriate instruction. this practice would appear to be out of compliance with PL 9A-1A2. Regardless of the actual need for adapted physical education. the requirements of PL 9A-1A2 mandate that assessment of each student's physical education skills be a part of the full and individual evaluation. The four definitions presented clearly outline that the assessment of each student's level of performance in physical education is required by law. Specifically. the definition of physical education presented includes fundamental motor skills as one component of physical education. It is necessary. therefore. that instruments be available which can assess the fundamental motor skill performance of the student who is handicapped. Role and Function of Assessment in Physical Education. Within PL 9A—1A2 Educators must be aware of the role and function of assessment if they are to correctly use and interpret the results of assessment. The discussion in this section of the review of literature has been presented within the framework of PL 9A-lA2 because this study involves the development of an assessment instrument intended for use with children who are handicapped. Assessment is conducted under PL 9A-1A2 to obtain information that can be used to make a variety of educational 20 decisions. The results from student assessment are used to make. among others. the following decisions: 1. To determine a student's eligibility for receiving special education services. 2. To diagnose specific strengths and weaknesses as they relate to a student's educational needs. 3. To develop individual education programs in which goals ‘and objectives are specified. A. To measure changes in a student's performance as a result of instruction. 5. To determine if any further testing and instruction is required (Bailey 8 Harbin. 1980: Davis. 198A: Klesius. 1981: McClenaghan. 1981: McLoughlin B Lewis. 1981: Safrit. 1981: Seaman 8 Depauw. 1982: Stein. 1977: Wessel and Kelly. 1986). There are two points that should be clarified by an evaluator each time an assessment is conducted. The evaluator must) understand the purpose for which the evaluation is being conducted (Safrit. 1981: Stein. 1977) . and must select an assessment Instrument that is appropriate for the defined purpose (Davis. 198A: Donlon. 1975: Glaser. 1963: Klesius. 1981: Safrit. 1981: Stein. 1977). Additionally. the evaluator should realize it is unlikely that any one instrument can provide all of the Information needed to make a decision about placement or programming (Davis. 198A: Fait 8 Dunn. 198A). Regardless of the purpose for which an assessment is 21 conducted there are procedures mandated by PL 9A-1A2 which should be followed when the evaluation involves a student who is handicapped or suspected of being handicapped. These procedures were outlined in a policy statement . Policy Regarding Nondiscriminatory Evaluation (Council for Exceptional Children. 1977». This policy is very similar in both wording and intent to Section 121a.532 of the rules and regulations developed to implement PL 9A-1A2 (Federal Register. August 23. 1977). Section 1213.532 outlines the evaluation procedures that must be followed each time a student is assessed. This section states that: State and local educational agencies shall ensure. at a minimum. that: (a) Tests and other evaluation materials: (1) Are provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication. unless it is clearly not feasible to do so: (2) Have been validated for the specific purpose for which they are used: and (3) Are administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producer. (b) Tests and other evaluation materials include those tailored to assess specific areas of educational need. and not merely those which are designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient. (c) Tests are selected and administered so as best to ensure that when a test is administered to a child with impaired 22 sensory. manual. or speaking skills. the test results accurately reflect the child's aptitude or achievement level or whatever other factors the test purports to measure. rather than reflecting the child's impaired sensory. manual. or speaking skills (except where those skills are the factors which the test purports to measure). (d) No single procedure is used as the sole criterion for determining an appropriate educational program for a child: (e) The evaluation is made by a multidisciplinary team or group of persons. including at least one teacher or other specialist with knowledge in the area of suspected disability: and (f) The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability. including where appropriate. health. vision. hearing. social and emotional status. general intelligence. academic performance. commmicative status. and motor abilities. (Federal Register. August 23. 1977. A2A96-A2A97). There are several points that can be drawn from these requirements. Tests must be able to accurately assess a student's specific areas of educational need. No single assessment procedure should be used in determining a student's individual needs. Also. as stated in part (f). the motor abilities of a student should be assessed when deficits In this 313 $11.: 555! a 43?. 23 area are suspected. One implication of these evaluation procedures is that each individual responsible for assessing a student should have a full understanding of the types of assessment instruments available. Criterion-Referenced Assessment Procedures and Principles The purpose of this section is to focus on the development of a criterion-referenced assessment instrument. Particular attention has been devoted to validity. reliability. item selection. and test administration as each pertains to the criterion-referenced situation. Comments will be made. where appropriate. that relate specifically to the physical-motor domain. These comments have been drawn from research literature that pertain to this tapic in both motor development and measurement. Validity By definition. criterion-referenced tests measure the performance of a student against either a clearly defined mastery level that all students must attain. or against a criterion level which has been set on a specific task for an individual student (Cox 5 Graham. 1966: Donlon. I975: Duffy 8 Fedner. I978: Glaser. I963: Hambleton 8 Novick. 1973: Popham 8 Husek. I969: Safrit. I977). Criterion-referenced tests are based on principles of specificity in skill development. and on the need for the student to attain a certain level of proficiency in a skill before they can proceed to a higher level of development on that skill (Donlon. I975: Duffy 8 Fedner. I978: Stein. 1977: Vogel. 1977). 24 Because of these principles and the concept that criterion— referenced instruments are used in education to measure a student's level of mastery on instructionaliy related objectives. content validity is accepted as the most appropriate procedure for documenting the validity of a criterion-referenced instrument (Donlon. I975: Hambleton 8 Novick. i973: Hofmeister. I975: Mosher G Schutz. 1981: Popham. l978a: Safrit. i977: Vogel. 1977). Content validity is defined by these and other authors as the degree to which a test measures an intended content area (Baumgartner 8 Jackson. 1975: Gay. I976: Safrit. 1977). There are some general guidelines to which one should adhere when utilizing content validity as an approach to demonstrating the validity of a criterion—referenced test. The specific educational objectives to be evaluated should be determined prior to instruction (Bailey 8 Harbin. I980: Duffy 8 Fedner. 1978: McLoughlin 8 Lewis. 1981: Vogel. I977). The importance of the skills included (M: a criterion-referenced instrument should be documented with empirical evidence (Cox 8 Graham. 1966: Popham. l978b). and the objectives measured should be reflective of the overall content of the curriculum (Duffy 8 Fedner. 1978: McLaughlin G Lewis. 1981). While test ordering need not necessarily be treated as absolute. the objectives on a criterion- referenced instrument should be sequentially arranged in the perceived order of difficulty within a specific skill or objective area (Cox 5 Graham. 1966). Finally. each item or objective on the instrument should be stated such that it clearly defines the 25 limits of the behaviors being measured (Popham. l978b). Current literature in motor development suggests that motor skills should be treated as specific entities. rather than as general abilities and traits (Gallahue. I982: Seefeldt. Reuschlein B Vogel. 1972. Wickstrom. I983). For example. instead of stating that a student has good hand-eye coordination. it would be more appropriate to specify the skills in which the student demonstrates a proficient level of performance. However. since there are potentially an unlimited number of specific motor skills. depending on the definition of motor skill employed. it is necessary to document the relative importance of each skill included on a criterion-referenced instrument (Cox 5 Graham. 1966: Papham. l978a). If motor skills are as specific as the literature suggests (Gallahue. 1982: Seefeldt et al. 1972: Wickstrom. 1983). this could in effect make each objective (skill) separate from. and largely independent of. other objectives (skills) on an- instrument. In this situation the items included on a test which measure a variety of different skills could be considered as separate tests (Popham 8 Husek. 1969). This concept has important implications for test validation and usage. If each item on a test were a separate. independent skill. it would require that each item be documented as valid. This documentation would allow for the test to be administered as a complete test or for each item to be given separately on different occasions without the validity of every other item being affected. For example. all the items on a 26 criterion-referenced test of motor skills could be administered when the purpose was to collect information pertaining to making a decision about the class in which to place a student. If used as a part of the instructional process. each test item could be administered as a valid measure of a particular skill during the teaching of a physical education program. Reliability Criterion-referenced tests are not constructed to maximize variability In student performance (Hambleton 8 Novick. 1973). It has been stated that the variance should be small If instruction on the behavior has been effective~(Hambleton 8 Novick. 1973). Because many of the classical reliability procedures are dependent on variability In student performance. these reliability measures are not necessarily apprOpriate for use with criterion-referenced measures (Hambleton 5 Novick. i973: Popham 5 Husek. 1969L Measures such as the inter-rater reliability. inter-testing session reliability. and student-performance reliability (Mosher 8 Schutz. 1981). as they are determined with norm-referenced tests. cannot be interpreted in the same manner with criterion-referenced instruments. POpham and Husek (1969) argued that while high reliability coefficients on these measures strengthen the reliability of a test. low coefficients do not indicate that the test is not reliable. Difficulty in determining reliabilities on criterion measures has resulted in the reliability of such Instruments seldom being estimated (Safrit. I977). Safrit suggested that an appropriate procedure to use is to document the 13:5 ‘1 ii 33? 191 Pa: 3111 '3'. 27 consistency with which individuals are assigned to mastery categories on two different occasions (1977). Use of this method could be interpreted as an application of test-retest reliability procedures. Pertaining to the reliability of instruments that use observation as means of measuring student performance. Godbout and Schutz (1983) applied generalizability theory to the determination of reliability coefficients. The computational analysis involves various analysis of variance formulas. The fixed. random. between. and within group factors are determined by the components to which the generalizations are being made. Reliability coefficients which these authors addressed were the degree of observer agreement. the stability of the tester's ratings across a number of trials. and the stability of the subject's performance across a number of trials. The observer agreement(inter-rater) generalizability coefficient is determined to enable the observer ratings to be generalizable across all testers. Determination of this coefficient enables the researcher to determine if there would have been any differences in the subject's performance ratings if different observers had rated the subject on the same trials. An inter-trial (test-retest) coefficient is calculated to establish the degree to which the score of a subject can be generalized to other trials or other sets of trials. Different ‘factors are established as the fixed factor (observer or trial) in the analysis depending on whether the observer or the trials is the factor to which the generalization is being made. The third 28 coefficient involves determining the generalizability of a subject's score. This coefficient reflects the degree of generalization that can be given to the subject's scores across different observers and trials. Based on the literature pertaining to the reliability of a criterion-referenced instrument. it Is apparent that the most apprOpriate procedure for determining the reliability of this type of instrument has not been formalized. ‘Traditional procedures for computing the Inter-rater reliability and the test-retest reliability coefficients have been used. Other individuals have applied generalizability theory to the determination of reliability coefficients. MSelection The selection of items to be included on a criterion- referenced test. particularly a test which has as its aim the ability to test motor skills which are prerequisite to later skill development. is an important aspect of test development. It is difficult to determine where factors such as test validity and reliability can be clearly separated from item selection. Although treated separately. they do form an integral part of test item selection. Important considerations and questions which need to be addressed during the item selection process are presented below. Criterion-referenced test items should: 1) Represent a valid sample of important behaviors (Thomas 8 Thomas. 198A» 2) Be meaningful and content specific (Duffy 5 Fedner. 3) A) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 1o) 11) 29 1978: Glaser. 1963). and reflect the behaviors or skills on which the student is. or will be. receiving instruction (McLaughlin 5 Lewis. 1981: Thomas 8 Thomas. 1981). Be an accurate reflection of the criterion behavior that the student Is expected to perform (Popham 5 Husek. 1969). Be arranged sequentially so that mastery at one level indicates readiness for the following level (Cox 8 Graham. i966). Identify the relevant skills and the level of mastery needed for success (Popham. l978a: Vogel. 1977). Represent behaviors which. once tested. are reasonably teachable (Rosner. 1975). Be constructed to leave no ambiguity in terms of behaviors. conditions. or performance levels needed for mastery (McLaughlin 5 Lewis. 1981: Popham. l978a). Positively and negatively discriminate between high and low scorers on those items where mastery is not attained by individual students (Papham 8 Husek. 1969). Be appropriate for the student's age and gender (Seaman 8 DePauw. 1982). Be constructed so as to measure fairly the criterion behavior (Bailey 8 Harbin. I980). Represent skills which are agreed upon as important by diverse groups within the school system (Bailey 8 Harbin. '30 I980). 1’53; Administration Considerable attention must be given to test administration when the results are used to make important decisions about the classification. program placement or instructional needs of a student. Poor test administration could affect the behavior of a student to such a degree that the student performs above or below the level of performance which the student normally would demonstrate. 'Consequently. a student could be placed in an inappropriate setting or be expected to perform at a level that is not commensurate with the true ability level of that student. Concerns pertaining to the test administration that need to be addressed in designing a motor test include the following: 1) The student must be sufficiently familiar with the tasks so that lack of familiarity does not affect performance (Safrit. I981: Seaman 8 DePauw. 1982L 2) The student must understand the task directionS‘ (McLoughlin 8 Lewis. 1981). 3) The test administrator must be aware of. and adjust to. problems of student attention. motivation and fatigue (Seaman 8 DePauw. 1982: Thomas 5 Thomas. 198A). A) Students must understand the concept of doing their best (Safrit. 1981: Seaman 8 DePauw. 1982). 5) Test conditions must be specified prior to test administration and must be followed during test administration (Godbout 8 Schutz. I983). 31 6) All necessary facilities. equipment. and materials must be available to the test administrator (Thomas 8 Thomas. 1981:). 7) Appropriate clothing and footwear should be worn by the student being tested (Safrit. 1981» As indicated above. failure to address these concerns may result in Inaccurate assessment of student performance. The degree of discrepancy between the actual level of performance of a student and the results of the assessment could lead to serious ramifications concerning the educational services provided to the student. and the expectations placed on the student. Current Status 2£_Criterion-Referenced Assessment Instruments The development of a criterion-referenced assessment instrument designed to measure essential fundamental motor skills is necessary only if instruments currently used to evaluate a student's level of fundamental motor skill development are inadequate. Three instruments or curriculum materials that have been used as criterion-referenced test items were reviewed to ascertain the degree to which they meet the measurement criteria discussed in the preceding section. The purpose of the review was to identify some of the major concerns with the use of these instruments. The strengths of each of the instruments (materials) reviewed were recognized. However. by determining the Inadequacies of these instruments (materials) it allows the evaluator to be aware of the limitations surrounding these instruments when they are used. The materials reviewed were the I 32 CAN Physical Education Program (Wessel. 1979). the Test of Gross Motor Development (Ulrich. 1985). and The Ohio State University Scale of Intra-Gross Motor Assessment (Loovis. 1975). The I CAN Physical Education Program (Wessel. 1979). a program comprised of a teaching model and instructional materials. was initially developed to be used with children who are handicapped. The performance objectives within the instructional materials are reported as being criterion-referenced measures that can be used to assess the placement and instructional needs of a student (Wessel. 1979). The I CAN Implementation Guide (Wessel. 1979) does not report the validity of the materials. neither does it report the reliability of the performance objectives for any of the handicapping classifications for whom the materials were designed. The Implementation Guide outlines a series of five steps to be followed when assessing a student (Wessel. 1979). These steps. however. do not address all of the the test administration procedures mandated by PL 9A—1A2 (Federal Register. August 23. 1977. A2A96-A2A97). and reported by Godbout and Schutz (1983). McLaughlin and Lewis (1981). Safrit (I981). Seaman and DePauw (1982). and Thomas and Thomas (198AL The test of Gross Motor Development (Ulrich. 1985). is designed to measure fundamental gross motor locomotion and object control skills that are "frequently taught to children in preschool and early elementary grades (ages 3-10 years) including special education" (Ulrich. 1985. p.2). The General Guidelines for Test Administration (p.5) could be expanded by providing 1e; '13:! 50cc: and t I” 981 wear 33 information about what to do when a student demonstrates learning or behavioral problems during assessment. The Standard Procedures (p.5) require that a demonstration and verbal request be given. and that one additional demonstration be given when the student still does not appear to understand the task. It is important that demonstrations of the skill being tested are provided to the student. However. the evaluator is not told what to do if the student still does not understand the task after the additional demonstration. Also. some components that have been identified in the literature as essential components for that skill were not defined properly. For example. in the vertical jump the degree of leg flexion in the preparatory movement was not specified. Another skill where the essential skill components appeared to be incomplete was the kick. The placement of the non-kicking foot and the part of the foot that contacts the ball were not included. In particular. the part of the foot which contacts the ball would appear to be of prime importance. The Ohio State University Scale of Intra Gross Motor Assessment (Loovis. 1975) was designed to assess the efficiency and maturity of children. preschool through 1A years of age. in performing 11 selected gross motor skills (Werder 5 Kalakian. 1985). Reliability coefficients were not provided. and the validity was reported only as face validity with the literature. 1A5 with the test of Gross Motor Development (Ulrich. 1985). some of the items appeared to have essential components of the skill missing. For example. the highest level of the catch did not 3A require that the arms extend prior to contact with the ball. that the ball be caught in the hands only. or that the arms absorb the force of the ball. The jumping item did not require my bending of the legs prior to takeoff. did not require leg extension at takeoff. and did not require that the force of the jump be absorbed on landing. The kicking item did not specify the foot placement of the non-kicking foot or the part of the foot that must contact the ball. All of the components mentioned that are missing from the catch. jump and kick items on the SIGMA are commonly referred to in the literature as essential components of these three skills. Samar! This section has discussed some of the concerns about validity. reliability. item selection. and test administration that should be addressed when deve10ping and using criterion- referenced assessment instruments. The next section of this chapter relates the application of the procedures and principles discussed In this section to the development of a test of fundamental motor skills. This test is intended for use as a criterion-referenced test. As such. the standards upon which it should be evaluated are those pertaining to criterion-referenced assessment. and not those which apply to norm-referenced instruments. An Instrument for Assessing Fundamental Motor Skills The selection of items for a criterion-referenced instrument designed to assess fundamental motor skills is a critical step. 35 The theory and rationale for criterion-referenced instruments implies that skills on which children are assessed should be meaningful (Glaser. 1963). be content specific (Duffy 8 Fedner. 1978: Mann. 1971). and focus on a limited number of significant behaviors (Papham. l978a). The following three questions that pertain directly to the development of a criterion-referenced test of fundamental motor skills are discussed in this section of the literature review. 1. What are the most essential fundamental motor skills on which a child should be assessed? 2. At what age should children be assessed on their fundamental motor skills? 3. What expectations about the performance of a student can be predicted from the research literature on motor development? Essential Motorj§kills In the final analysis there always will be some degree of subjectivity involved in the identification of the most essential fundamental motor skills. The degree of subjectivity can be minimized by adhering to the following criteria: 1. The skills reflect motor development theory which recognizes the specificity of skill development (Gallahue. 1982: Seefeldt. 1982: Seefeldt et a1. 1972: Singer. 1980: Wellman. 1937: Wickstrom. 1983). 2. The skills must be consistent with the criterion- referenced approach of meaningful. content-specific. 36 significant behaviors (Duffy 5 Fedner. 1978: Glaser. 1963: Mann. 1971: Popham. 1978a). 3. The skills represent activities that can be derived from the definition of physical education in PL 9A—1A2. This third criterion was included because the instrument developed in this study was Intended for use with children who are handicapped. Fundamental motor skills and patterns were included as a part of the physical education definition in PL 9A-1A2. Therefore. a test of fundamental motor skills should meet this third criterion. Prior to focusing on the first two criteria. it is relevant to discuss background information pertaining to general factors and components of motor ability. Such information can provide further justification for the criterion-referenced approach to assessment rather than only assessing general factors or levels of motor ability. Figure 1 reports a number of studies that have attempted to identify and define the structure. factors. or components of motor ability. Although the number of different factors actually identified in these studies could be reduced by looking at the definitions used by the various authors. an immediate problem becomes apparent. It is extremely difficult to define exactly what is meant by terms such as body agility (Cumbee. 195A: Cumbee. Meyer 8 Peterson. 1957). body balance (Carpenter. I9A3: Cumbee et al.. 1957: Dobbins 8 Rarick. 1975: Liemohn s Knapczyk. l97A: Peterson. Reuschlein s Seefeldt. 197A: Whitener a. James. 1973). and gross-motor coordination (Dobbins 8 37 .uouomm m we voawaucovu uoc 1 xcmHm .uouomm m we ougauucovH a x .huaafinm Houoa mo mucococaou mo mofioaum uamquMHo cH oowwwucovfi muouomm .H ouawflm finesse «gene a decades: a x x x x 333 unduuuom a x x n u 1 x x .cauueunaox .conuouom x x Aneoav uuucoACQU . anahoz a firm x u x x x x finesse susunu a massage x x x x x x x x .axa_e Januaeca a ceased; x x x x x Afinm_v coauuuum a noun: .uunuau u x x x x x x K 33: ooolau 1: v 0 d A 9 9 J V I? I» .69 .. .r .2. a m r... a. mum... av: 41.... 6% are... 4 o o J a .% M. .0 4 .W .:.4 nun. Jed baa . o 4.w hm d o Lw .. .a .4 u MW.w no.9 J S u U o J P a 0 AW .4 p D 3 w i. u w a a . 0 ha I 0 m1 . n. % u rkudund mono: m0 muchuoo Houoa huamuo>acs oumum cmwfinofiz Baum xuos movoaocH .~ .umaaxuoso coauuoaom Haaxm uouox Hmucuamooom .N unawwm w x x x x x x w x . Acme—c A. as AstoseuaaN e x x x x x x x x x Am~a_c success N x x x x x x x x Anna—v aOuumeMS zwuuonoo couumusvu x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ~ Aaoamsea squeegee xvaum ucuaaoagua x x x x x x x x x _ pogo: am: . Aomoac Leanna a cannon x x x u x u x x x y x x x x x x oaqz\ueo= .aonacu O: N x x x x x x x x x x x x x a~ma_c a Home flake" Candace a o a» x x x x x x a x x x x x x x x x v m an e < f... w .e .o a: we... ".4...” n. .6 a. u a mu .... u. up... as cums n...» «m. on. .w a... n. a. a. a 8.8335: am. a me .4 mac V I m. I .% m... u x. a m“ .umw m. m. u M, a P r. u... p r 35m .u .. o P J a 4 ~ I Gunman: Ads—m 40 The skills included in Figure 2 meet the first criteria of being specific skills. These skills are also taught as essential content in many elementary physical education programs. Therefore. it could be argued that they meet the second criteria established by Duffy 5 Fedner (1978). Glaser (1963). Mann (1971). and Popham (1978) of being meaningful. content specific. and representative of significant behaviors. A variety of formats were used by the authors to present the skills that are listed in Figure 2. Researchers in the Michigan State University Motor Development Study presented the skills as having a series of sequential stages (Haubenstricker. Henn 5 Seefeldt. 1975: Seefeldt. 1976a. 1976b: Seefeldt 8 Haubenstricker. 197A. 1975). Each skill was broken down into either three. four. or five stages. Gallahue (1982) presented the skills as having an initial. elementary. and mature stage. The skills in the I CAN curriculum were broken down into three. four. or five sequential skill levels (Wessel. 1979. 1980). Irrespective of the format -used to present the' essential components of each skill. commonalities existed in terms of the actual observable behaviors identified. Consistency in identifying the skill components is important to criterion-referenced testing. One purpose of such testing is to assess a skill before and after instruction. Consistency in what are considered the essential elements of a skill increases the probability that the most important components of the skill are being tested and taught In the physical education program. For example. each of the sources identified the step in Al opposition as an essential component of the overhand throw. The teacher. knowing this. would assess each student to determine if this component had been developed. When the step in opposition was correctly demonstrated by the student. the teacher would record this and proceed to another component of the overhand throw or select another skill for assessment. However. when this part of the skill was not observed. the teacher would immediately know that this is one component of the overhand throw that required further instruction. Age Level: Ratjonale .The age level at which individual children demonstrate mature patterns of fundamental motor skills such as running. skipping. throwing. and catching varies with the skill and the individual child (Branta. Haubenstricker 8 Seefeldt. 198A: Gallahue. 1982: Haubenstricker 8 Seefeldt. l97A: Rarick. 1973a: Seefeldt. 1975: Ulrich. 1985: Wickstrom. 1983). (Reports in the literature suggest however. that most children who are non-handicapped should be mechanically efficient and coordinated in the fundamental motor skills by the time they are 5 to 6 years old (Gallahue. 1982: Seefeldt. Haubenstricker s Reuschlein. 197AL This coincides approximately with the age of school children at kindergarten or first grade. In the ideal setting. some form of screening or assessment instrument should be used at an early age with all children to determine if they are developing at a normal rate. Children observed as having problems. or potential problems. should be AZ provided with remedial assistmce at the earliest possible age. However. with the exception of those children who attend preschool. many children are not in a situation to be observed until they enter kindergarten. Therefore. it has been suggested that testing begin at the kindergarten level (Kendrick 8 Hanten. 1980). the age level at which children should be demonstrating mature. or nearly mature. fundamental motor skills. There is a sound rationale for this position. The preschool and early elementary years are the best time for children to learn and refine their motor skills (Branta. et 31 198A: Espenschade 8 Eckert. 1980). Fewer competing activities allow the child more time to concentrate on developing their motor skills. Also. the early detection of motor problems and the start of intervention programs can eliminate or hold to a minimum many physical and related emotional problems (Arnheim 5 Sinclair. 1979: Hardin 8 Garcia. 1982: Haubenstricker 8 Seefeldt. l97A: Johnson 8 Rubinson. 1983: Seefeldt. 1975: Seefeldt. et a1. 197A: Smoll. 197A). Motor Development: Student Performance_§xpectations Knowledge of the motor development theory as it pertains to the acquisition of fundamental motor skills will assist the educator in understaiding and interpreting the performance of a student. Comparing the results from an assessment instrument with the results of previous research enables the researcher to determine the accuracy of a test designed to measure student Performance on these skills. Four basic motor development principles that have direct application to fundamental skill 43 development are discussed to facilitate an understmding of what results could be expected prior to administering an instrument. The principles relate to the specificity of skill deveIOpment. skill improvements with age. gender differences. and variability of performance. Motor tests which claim to measure general levels of motor performance or levels of motor educabil ity are often based on the rationale that the individual has a general motor ability. Goodenough and Smart (1935) hypothesized the existence of a general motor ability factor. The theory about general motor ability Implies that an individual who is proficient in one area of motor activity will be proficient in other areas of motor activity. In recent years the concept of a general ability has been replaced by the concept that the development of motor skills is highly specific. Current literature suggests that the motor ability of an individual is comprised of many specific abilities. A high level of motor performance in one fundamental motor skill does not mean the individual will demonstrate similarly high levels of motor performance in other fundamental motor skills (Davis. 198A: Gallahue. 1982. Seefeldt. Reuschlein s Vogel. 1972. Singer. 1980: Wickstrom. 1983). This concept of skill SPecificity is a guiding principle for test development in the Present study. If the concept of a general motor ability were valid. there would be no need to test the individual across a wide range of skills. It would suffice to measure a few skills and generalize the performance of a student on these skills to other AA areas of skill development. A number of studies have examined the question of skill development with age. Govatos (1959) tested both boys and girls in the age range from six to eleven years on a variety of fundamental motor skills. Results from this study demonstrated that on skills such as jump and reach. standing broad jump. 25 yard dash. soccer kick. overhand and underhand throw. the mean motor performance of the children tested improved with age. Except in the area of flexibility. Branta. et a1. (198A) reported similar results. Other research conducted on a wide range of fundamental motor skills supports the principle that fundamental motor skill performance generally improves with age across the early and later childhood years (Espenschade 8 Eckert. 1980: Kane 8 Meredith. 1952: Sells. 1951). Research has reported the existence of gender differences in the motor performance of children and youth. Figure 3 summarizes a number of studies that have reported the motor performance of male and female elementary-aged children. These studies reported results based on the quantitative and not the qualitative motor performance of children. The paucity of research available on the qualitative motor performance of children led to this situation. The assumption is being made that the principles discussed in this section that are based on the quantitative motor performance of children would. in general. also apply to the qualitative aspects of motor development. All of the differences are not statistically significant. However. the general trend fomd in the IAS muaum a“ emeafloae you Heaxm a enmem moamaom mo Ho>mu cw oocmapomuom a N co>uomno moucouommac oz u m mUHma MO HO>NH G“ QUGQEHOWHQQ U a .couoawno onaom can name no oocmahowuon Hauxm nouoa mo comaumaaoo .m ousmam Aena_e assuaaa .A~wm~v xUflumz .ANAaev absence: a can: .Amnmdv naum>oo .Aomm~c uuoxuu a ovmeumcuamm xxu\a Aanm_v xuaanm a «eunuch .mxm\a Aenmuv voucvmoun a gone“: .xuauwm .euuvfiacu. penancw cuppa \: ..A~km_c anoeamoun M .Aonm—v awuuzumsum uv~0uuum .ucdwx . “sumac ueaoaoum a wuxuwuumconoez .mucnun akmuh 44H!“ dOHO—a avaum\uozua< A6 studies reported was a difference in performance in favor of males. An important point to realize is that the differences in performance between males and females tend to increase with age. For example. Espenschade and Eckert (1980) found that with the skill of throwing. boys were superior to girls at all ages. and that the differences increased with age. Similarly. with the skill of catching. boys were found to be more adept than girls. particularly after the age of four years (Seefeldt. 1972). Branta et a1 (198A) report that for most fundamental motor skills there is a gender difference in favor of boys. and that these differences become more pronounced after the age of seven years. Three of the studies included In Figure 3 involved children who were handicapped. Broadhead (1972) reported on the skill performance of children who were brain-injured. The performance of males was superior on three of the seven skills measured: there were no differences on three skills: and the results were inconsistent on one skill measured. Rarick. Widdop. and Broadhead (1970) analyzed the performance of children classified as educable mentally impaired. Results favored the males on six of the seven skills measured. with no difference being reported on the other skill. An earlier study involving children who were educable mentally impaired. reported differences in favor of males on all eight skills studied (Francis 5 Rarick. 1959L. Based on these studies. tentative conclusions could be reached that the gender differences in performance of children who are brain-injured or educable mentally impaired are similar to those of children who L_______, A7 are non-handicapped. The final principle to be discussed pertains to variability of student performance. Variability in performance can be addressed from two perspectives. inter- and intra-individual variability. The sequence of fundamental motor skill development is largely invariant for all individuals (Gallahue. 1982: Haubenstricker 8 Seefeldt. 197A: Rarick. 1973a. 1981: Seefeldt. 1975. 1982: Wickstrom. 1983). However. the rate of skill acquisition between individuals can be quite different due to a number of physical. hereditary and environmental factors (Gallahue. 1982. Rarick. 1981: Seefeldt. 1975.1982: Wickstrom. 1983). Intra-individual. or within-individual. variability in performance Is a factor that should decrease-with age. A more skillful and consistent level of performance should result In a reduction in the amount of variation in performance being demonstrated by an individual (Eckert. 197A: Espenschade 8 Eckert. 1980: Thomas.198A). Rarick (1973b) discussed the variability in performance among subjects classified as educable mentally impaired. He associated the wide variability in performance with learning experiences and opportunities afforded the student. The length of a study and the saphistication of measunement procedures and data analysis will influence the ability of a researcher to evaluate student variability in performance. It is. nevertheless. an important principle for consideration when evaluating students within and across age levels. A8 Student Population An educator conducting an assessment may want to use the results of the evaluation to determine a child's performance level in comparison to his/her peers. Comparisons usually are made with children of the same age and gender to determine if the child is developing at a normal rate. or at a rate slower or faster than normal. Traditionally. data have been collected on students who were non-handicapped and then all students. both non-handicapped aid handicapped. were compared to standards established from the data. These comparisons were appropriate for making decisions about the classification and placement of children who were handicapped. Information on students who were non—handicapped is of limited value to the educator interested in comparing a handicapped student with other students of the same classification and level of handicap. Such a comparison requires information that indicates at what age children of each handicap master the fundamental motor skills under observation. While there will be variability in the performance of students who are handicapped (Dobbins 5 Rarick. 1977). the availability of such information will enable the educator to ascertain if the student is developing normally when compared to others with more similar characteristics. Comparisons generally will show that the motor performance of individuals classified as learning disabled (Broadhead. 1972: Bruininks 8 Bruininks. 1977: Freides et al. 1980: Gorman. 1983: Johnson 5 Rubinson. 1983: Rimmer 8 A9 Rosentswieg. 1982) and of individuals classified as educable mentally impaired (Dobbins 8 Rarick. 1977: Francis 8 Rarick. 1959: Howe. 1959: Londeree 8 Johnson. 197A: Rarick. Widdop s Broadhead. 1970: Sengstock. I966: Turnquist 8 Marzolf. 195A). is below that of individuals who are non-handicapped. Information that permits comparisons between students who are learning disabled or educable mentally impaired with other students who are learning disabled or educable mentally impaired may provide a more informative and realistic picture about the motor skill development of these populations. In addition to this phIIOSOphical rationale for collecting data on children classified as handicapped. there are other reasons to collect motor performance data on the handicapped. One of the most widely referenced research studies on individuals labeled as educable mentally impaired was the study conducted by Francis and Rarick (1959). This study and others completed prior to PL 9A-1A2 form the basis of much of our knowledge about the motor characteristics and the motor performance of the educable mentally impaired. There are a number of problems with this situation. PL 9A-1A2 has had such a profound impact on the education of individuals who are handicapped that data collected Prior to PL 9A-1A2 may no longer be as applicable now as when they were collected. For example. in the study conducted by Francis and Rarick (1959). the I.Q. of the subjects classified as educable mentally impaired was between 50 to 90. Students classified as educable mentally impaired under PL 9A-IA2 have an I.Q. between 50 50-75. Because of this difference in defining the population. it could be argued that the level of motor performance of the subjects in the Francis and Rarick (1959) study would be. on the average. higher than the average level of motor performance of a similar group of subjects who had been classified as educable mentally impaired under PL 9A-IA2. Many of the studies conducted prior to. and after. the enactment of PL 9A-IA2 that involved individuals who were handicapped in the areas of motor development and physical education have focused on a limited number of behaviors. and primariry measured only the quantitative aspects of performance. This leaves the educator with a paucity of information about the qualitative aspect of the motor performance of children labeled as handicapped. If. as the limited research suggests (Dobbins 5 Rarick. 1975: nyer 5 Carlson. 1972: Seefeldt. 1982). students who are handicapped learn fundamental motor skills in the same sequence as students who are non-handicapped. then there is a need. to collect data to determine the qualitative performance levels of male and female students classified as handicapped. This statement Is supported by the literature that reports the importance of children first mastering the qualitative aspects of motor skills beforehomno mucouowwwe oz u m vmfinmmfin magnumog mo uo>mw ca moccauowuom u N cucumUficccmicoz mo uo>mm ca oucmauomuum n H .coueawsu ooammowvcmsicoc cam vuanmmav wcwcumua mo comaummaoo Hafixm nauoz . Q QH—awfih coneunsu a conczcw excuegaun o mxcucusun An~a_v caucunocn an no nouauum moaanueuwuz c Cassia nummumm< Juana uuuaom\.—czu:< 59 students who were non-handicapped. Only one of the studies (Broadhead. 1972) compared the performance of the students who are learning disabled or non-handicapped on skills that could be classified as fundamental motor skills. This comparismw was on the quantitative and not the qualitative aspects of performance. Given this method for measuring performance. it is important to note the results from these earlier studies. 0f the 33 different skill comparisons reported in the six studies. 30 of the comparisons were In favor of the individuals who were non— handicapped. two indicated no difference in performance. and one comparison was reported in favor of the Individuals who were learning disabled. The results clearly suggest a difference in motor performance in favor of the individuals who were non- handicapped. The motor performance of individuals with problems of motor coordination has been reported as being more variable than that of individuals who have not exhibited problems of motor coordination. A study reported by Haubenstricker (1981) found that on seven of the eight subtests of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency. the exception being the strength subtest. the variability of children with motor coordination problems was greater than that of the motorically normal children tested. Because the performance of children who are learning disabled is below that of children who are non-handicapped. as was the performance of children with coordination problems in Haubenstricker's study. it could be hypothesized that the 6O variability in performance of the children who are learning disabled also would be greater than that of the children who are non-handicapped. Further support for this statement can be drawn from Broadhead's (1972) study which found that subjects with minimal brain injury (normal I.Q.) demonstrated greater variation in performance than subjects who were educable mentally impaired or non-handicapped. "Minimally brain Injured" is a term often used synonymously with learning disabilities. General motor problems of individuals who were learning disabled have been summarized by Ayres (1965). Haubenstricker (1982). and Haubenstricker and Seefeldt (197A). The various backgrounds of these researchers have resulted in the identified problems being reported in quite different terminology. The difference in terminology requires that the characteristics reported be listed separately. Ayres (1965) reported the following five syndromes as characteristic of perceptual—motor dysfunction: 1. Developmental apraxia (distinguished by deficits in motor planning). tactile perception and finger identification: 2. Tactile. kinesthetic and visual perceptual dysfunction in form and position in space: 3. Tactile defensiveness (demonstrated by hyperactive— distractible behavior). faulty tactile perception and defensive responses to tactile stimuli: A. Deficit of intergration of the two sides of the body (identified by difficulty in right-left discrimination). 61 avoidance in crossing the midline and incoordinate bilateral hand movement: 5. Deficit of visual figure-ground discrimination. The children with motor dysfunction measured In this study were not classified as learning disabled. All members of the motor dysfunction group had a suspected perceptual dysfunction and were selected from regular and special schools and medical centers. The estimated mean intelligence quotient of the dysfunction group was 96.97 (Ayres. 1965). These students were probably a subset of the students who are presently labeled as learning disabled. The problems or motor characteristics identified by Haubenstricker (1982) and Haubenstricker and Seefeldt (l97A) were: (1) Greater trial to trial Inconsistency. (2) Perseveration when performing motor skills. (3) Mirroring. suggestive of problems with directionality. (A) Asymetry. difficulty with bilateral movements. (5) Loss of dynamic balance. (6) Falling after performance to terminate the skill. (7) Extraneous motions which interfere with the activity. (8) Inability to maintain a rhythm. (9) Inability to control the use of force. (10) Inappropriate motor planning. These results may not be generalizable to all students classified as learning disabled. ‘They do. however. provide information about general motor problems that have been observed among learning disabled Individuals. 62 Even with the different terminology used. there is some commonality in the characteristics identified. Both lists of dysfunctions include motor planning. directionality. and bilateral movements as characteristic motor problems. With more complete definitions of the terms used by each source other common characteristics also may have been identified. Interpretation of the characteristic motor problems of children classified as learning disabled is important. Even though Haubenstricker (1982) and Haubenstricker and Seefeldt (197A) listed ten problems. this does not imply that all of these problems will be present in each individual who is learning disabled. Both the number of problems identified and the severity of the problems will vary with the individual. Some students who are learning disabled will exhibit no motor dysfunction problems. while other students may exhibit all of the problems listed above. Irrespective of the presence or absence of these problems. the general motor development principles discussed earlier in relation to children who are non-handicapped still can be applied to children who are learning disabled (Haubenstricker 5 Seefeldt. 197A: Seefeldt. 1982). There are numerous learning characteristics that have been associated with children who are learning disabled. Similar to the motor characteristics discussed earl ier. the presence and Intensity of the characteristics will vary with the individual. The problems listed were identified from the following sources: Bryan (197A). Clemmens and Glaser (1967). Cruickshank (1977). Faas (1976). 63 Hallahan and Cruickshank (1973). Haring (1976). Keogh and Donlon (197A). McCarthy and McCarthy (1969). Sherrill (1981). and Stevens (1976). (1) (2) (3) (A) (5) (6) (7) Hyperkinesia - the student has a chemical imbalance which causes hyperactivity. The student generally grows out of the condition by adolescence. but Its presence adversely affects the student's behavior and results in lost learning time. Short attention span - the student's ability to attend to and remain on task is effected. For example. the student may stop attending before the assessor has completed directions for a task. Distractability - the student has difficulty ignoring irrelevant stimuli which effects the ability to focus on the set task. Perseveration - the student has problems shifting attention from one task to a new task. Dissociation - the student sees things in parts and not as a complete task. Receptive Language - the student has problems with comprehending and remembering auditory and visual instructions. Expressive Language - the student has difficulty with verbal. written. and motoric expression. In a testing situation it is important for the individual conducting the assessment to be aware of the existence of these or 6A other problems that could interfere with a student's performance. If any problem is severe enough to interfere with a student's performance. the level of interference must be noted. Attempts then should be made to work around a student's problems by adapting the testing environment and/or the test administration. There are some social-emotional problems which can effect a student's motivation and willingness to try new tasks. A student who has difficulty in the motor area sometimes can fall into what is referred to as a "failure cycle" (Gould. 198A: Smoll. 197A: Wessel 8 Kelly. 1986). A student in this cycle has expectations of failure whenever a new task is attempted. When the student does fall it simply serves to reinforce the student's negative self—percept Ions. This and other problems may lead to lowered motivation. avoidance behavior. and anti-social or delinquent behavior being demonstrated by the student classified as learning disabled (Smoll. 197A). As with learning problems. the evaluator must be cognizant of the possibility of any of these problems affecting the student's performance during assessment. Individuals who or: Educable Mentally Impaired The Michigan Special Education Rules (Michigan State Board of Education. August 12. I983) specify the criteria that must be met for a student to be classified as Educable Mentally Impaired (see Appendix A) and to be eligible to receive appropriate special education services in Michigan. Mental impairment is the handicapping classification that has been most frequently researched in the motor domain. Individuals who are educable 65 mentally impaired have been the focus of many of these studies. One of the first major studies on the motor performance of individuals who were educable mentally impaired was the study by Francis and Rarick (1959). This study. considered by many as a classic. is still widely referenced in current textbooks on Adapted Physical Education. Results from this study included: (1) Individuals classified as educable mentally impaired performed 2 to A years below normal levels on tasks of motor proficiency and fitness. (2) The differences between the individuals classified as educable mentally impaired and the individuals classified as non-handicapped increased with age. (3) Throwing was the one event in which the performance of boys classified as educable mentally impaired was superior to the girls in the non-handicapped group. (A) Individuals classified as educable mentally impaired progressed through the same developmental trends as children who were non-handicapped. but at a slower rate. Seven studies. including the one by Francis and Rarick (1959). comparing the motor performance of children who were educable mentally Impaired or non-handicapped have been summafilzed on Figure 5. Comparisons of thirty-seven skill performances were made across the seven studies reported. All 37 comparisons showed individuals who were non—handicapped to be at a higher level of motor performance than that of individuals who were classified as educable mentally impaired. Although some individuals who are 66 meson a“ coeomoca uo: Hawxm u xcmam vo>uomno uocoquMHe oz u m emuwmmaH aaamucoz mammoocm mo uo>mwAsnwucmapowuom a N eoaomuwoccmicoc mo uo>mu cw oucmauomuom a A .cmupHfino ummcooaoccnicoc new wouamcaa haamuaua oaomooeo mo comaumaaoo HHwa Houoz .m ouowfim uouuu — _ u u — a — 300: x can . xano_c — a a sauce: a wuucouu . .sna_c — a _ «downer a quavcuak Aqea.c u u u ‘ conceow a convene; . xekmuc sue... a "cannon Aoka_. enact-oc- _ a u a a u a a move“: .xu«ues . _ . _ u a _ _ . . a .0“... .so: _ 1L 0 a: 4 s 0. x .l r v. s. can» o.mv . . he 0... .1 x 7 A. II :0. II J .h: a J J U 51‘ .o O 0.0 III... m. use... .3... a v mow. o...“ .o.... n. x... a...) a... unseen... “no: new; .1... a... .3» nun. A... 2;... 332.2... ». .h.w 8.0 o. .w h. a w. p n nu :. w m. 2. . m.%. m.o 0.4 m: 3W 0“? n... new a o 03% . o 0 em a .n M. t r m. o k .n Lw a .. J a J a J .J 9% Lw J .l 2 d ' . D. .I I 9.. I: x. 0 D II . h J ' I U a .% u .w.m d nunuuund Adana 67 educable mentally impaired may demonstrate levels of performance that approach or exceed normal limits. the performance of individuals who are educable mentally impaired. in general. is below that of persons who are non-handicapped. The availability of research on individuals who are educable mentally impaired allows for the discussion of the motor development principles outlined earlier in this review. The research. based on quantitative measures of performance. shows that both boys and girhs who are non-handicapped performed at a higher level than that of their same age peers who are educable mentally impaired (Francis 8 Rarick. 1959: Howe. 1959). It appears however. that the difference in performance is greater between males who are non-handicapped or educable mentally impaired than it is between females who are non-handicapped or educable mentally impaired. Greater practice opportunities for the males who are non-handicapped was suggested as a possible explanation for these findings. Another finding In the literature was that boys classified as educable mentally impaired performed at a level SUperior to that of girls classified as educable mentally impaired (Francis 8 Rarick. 1959: Rarick. WNddop 8 Broadhead. 1970). Persons classified as educable mentally impaired progress through the same developmental trends as persons who are non-handicapped (Bruininks. 197A: Dobbins 8 Rarick. 1975: Francis 8 Rarick. 1959). The rate of development of individuals labeled as educable mentally impaired has been reported. however. as being generally slower than that of Individuals who are non-handicapped. 68 Based on these reports. it could be concluded. with caution. that the principles of motor development discussed in relation to individuals who were non-handicapped also can be applied to individuals labeled as educable mentally impaired. The cognitive capacities of the child who is educable mentally impaired must be considered during any evaluation. By definition. these students have limitations in the cognitive domain. Among others. Dobbins. Garron and Rarick (1981): Fait and Dunn (198A): Haring (1976): Rarick (1981): Robinson and Robinson (1976): Sherrill (1981): and Stein (1965) have discussed the following cognitive problems often associated with students labeled as educable mentally impaired: (1) Slower overall learning rate. (2) Shorter attention span. (3) More frequently and easily distracted. (A) Greater difficulty understanding concepts. (5) Poorer skills in generalizing from one setting to another. (6) Lower levels of receptive and expressive language. (7) Greater deficits in short term memory. (8) Greater difficulty following directions. The presence of any or all of these problems could Interfere with the performance of a student during assessment if the evaluator is not aware of. or fails to make adjustments to facilitate. any cognitive deficits that are present. Among potential social problems that could influence the 69 motor performance of a child are those discussed by Cato (1978) and Harter (1977). Cato stated that the possession of motor skills is important to the self-confidence and the degree of peer acceptance of individuals who are educable mentally impaired. Rejection and overprotection are among the reasons given for individuals who are educable mentally impaired having a low level of self-confidence. Results from Harter's (1977) study could have implications for the testing situation. This study evaluated and compared how subjects of the same mental age who were educable mentally impaired or normal viewed their own competency on a series of tasks. Results included: (1) Subjects who were educable mentally impaired had more doubts about and less confidence in their ability. (2) Subjects who were educable mentally impaired were more reliant on feedback. directions. and praise. (3) When given the choice. subjects who were educable mentally impaired chose to perform easier tasks. (A) Avoiding failure was more important to subjects who were educable mentally impaired than was trying a new activity. One implication of this study for testing is that regardless of performance. subjects who are educable mentally impaired need to be praised and given a sense of accomplishment (avoiding failure) during the testing situation. Sumnary This review of literature on individuals who are non- 70 handicapped. learning disabled and educable mentally impaired provides important information that can be used for comparative purposes when the results of the present study are available. The motor development principles of age improvement. performance expectations and gender differences can be used to determine the validity of the results from the present study. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS This study was completed by first developing a standardized criterion-referenced assessment instrument designed to measure the qualitative fundamental motor skill performancerof elementary-aged children classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled. or educable mentally impaired. The instrument then was used to establish performance expectations. and to examine similarities and differences in fundamental motor skill performance by age. gender and handicap of elementary-aged children classified as non- handicapped. learning disabled. or educable mentally impaired. The first two purposes of the study required that a number of measurement issues be addressed. These issues involved the application of criterion—referenced test theory to the development of a fundamental motor skills assessment instrument. To ensure that the instrument would be appropriate for use with the three populations identified. characteristics of these populations that could influence the test environment were considered as the standardization and test administration issues were resolved. The student performance data collected in conjunction with the third and fourth purposes of the study were used to evaluate three research hypotheses. These research hypotheses involved expectations that the students' scores would improve with age. 71 72 that males would perform at a level SUperior to females. and that individuals who were non—handicapped would demonstrate a higher level of performance than either the individuals who were learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. Independent variables on which student groupings and comparisons were made Included the student's age. gender. and handicapping condition. The dependent variables were the seven fundamental motor skills on which all students were assessed. The major research method involved the collection of cross-sectional. observational data on elementary-aged students as they performed a series of fundamental motor skills in a controlled. standardized testing environment. Research Plan The purposes of this study required a research plan that entailed a number of steps. These steps enabled the researcher to address the measurement issues involved in this study and facilitated the collection of student data for the purpose of exploring the research hypotheses. The specific components addressed in this study included: 1. Criterion-Referenced Test Development - Item Selection and Development - Validity — Reliability 2. Criterion-Referenced Test Administration - Standardizing the Testing Environment — Standardizing the Test Directions - Training the Test Administrators 73 3. Student Sampling A. Student Data Collection 5. Student Data Analysis 6. Limitations and Assumptions Criterion-Referenced Test Development The documentation of a criterion-referenced test of fundamental motor skills that was based largely on a combination and refinement of previously developed materials required that a number of key measurement issues be addressed. Critical issues addressed in this section include item selection and development. validity. reliability. standardization. and administration procedures. Item‘Selection and Development 'n: meet the stated purposes of this study. the selection of appropriate test items was crucial. The item selection and development process entailed three sequential steps. First. those items considered as essential fundamental motor skills were selected from the literature on physical education and motor development. Next. specific components of the mature level of each fundamental motor skill were identified from the literature. Finally. the specific skills and skill components were stated in the form of observable motor behaviors. The selection of motor skill items or objectives was based on the following criteria: 1. Documented in the literature on motor development aid physical education as a fundamental motor skill that 7A normally should be mastered before. or during. the early elementary grades (grades 1-3). 2. Identified as an Essential Performance Objective for Physical Education at the grade 1-3 level by the Michigan Department of Education. 3. Included as a performance objective in the nationally validated I CAN achievement based instructional system. Figure 6 illustrates the format used to determine which skills met the three criteria stated and thereby are considered. by these sources. as essential skills. Other skills were included in some of the sources reviewed. For example. the I CAN materials included 29 pre-primary and 72 primary level objectives. However. many of the skills in the I CAN materials. most notably the health/fitness and aquatics skills. were not included in the other sources reviewed. These skills were not included as essential fundamental motor skills because while they met the third criteria. they did not necessarily meet the first two criteria listed. Following the identification of the essential skills. the next step involved identifying the specific components of each skill. A number of the sources in Figure 6 divided the skills into components that could be used to observe an individual for the purpose of determining the degree to which the skill had been developed. Each source in Figure 6 was reviewed to determine the components of the skill that were identified as the critical components. For example. which of the sources identified the step 75 .cOfiumoooo anaemmna pom mo>fiuoonno ouccBMOMuon Hmaucommm .uoxoauumconommv zooum ucuaaoao>oo hauoz muamuo>acs oumum cmwwcoaz canufia xuo3 moooaocH u a "cowumuaom mo oumom oumum :cwfinofiz u N .Auoamwoom w .mmmm .cHoHnomoum .cco: .umaaxuono cowuooaom Hauxm uouoa anacoamocom .0 ”Hawfim .onm~. ”a a. Axusoxsuuan Ammo—V sauceaa Anna—v aouunquz zauuofioo couunuaom Hauumxzm cmuwsuax N xvaum acoaaoao>oo d nouox amt “omo_v unsung a gunman oanmxu~oz .adscuu Anomuv unnaaano “use—v uwuaucum a awuecu< .t aV hwmw v.»- e ). Mu m1.l meW ma." M.mu hm mm M. nu “no". We.” a.” NW. NW .0. "mm b WW "My “Mum.” h... a... mu. 4... .% mt 03.62353 2...“..mmaau memwnmm . . a! l I U U D J O o e D. r. w u» a p n O J . s a K AAwa of la: '11: d 1‘3.‘ 116 ' 1 ' s 76 in Opposition as a critical part of the overhand throw? This process was applied to each skill. Components consistently identified by the sources (7 out of 9) were selected as the critical skill components. Even though the semantics used to describe the components differed among the sources. it was possible to identify the components stated by the various information sources. Figure 7 provides an example of the components identified for the overhand throw. Essential components identified in the second step then were stated in observable. behavioral terms. Each skill was limited to four essential components. This number allowed for the reduction of each skill into clearly defined behaviors. while keeping the number at a practical level for visual assessment. Less than this number could have resulted in key elements being omitted or poorly defined. while a greater number could result in the test losing its practical utility for the classroom teacher. Figure 8 provides an example of the four components identified and defined for the overhand throw. These components were defined based on the information included in Figure 7. Validity An assessment instrument must be documented as being valid for its stated purpose. Unless an instrument is demonstrated as valid. the results are of questionable value. The validity of this test was demonstrated through two methods: namely. content validity and construct validity. The content validity was demonstrated prior to the test being used. while the demonstration 77 .3ouna ccmnuu>o ”umfiaxoono cofiuooaom Hawxm Houoa Houcoamocom .k acumen ucmso>os wcwaoam umdumqlunul cue: mafia ca can mmmoamu Hams ocoxmo HHmB smoouzuiaoaaom . cowuoe wcaaopzc mcwusv cofiumuou mcwam ocm aws.ooxumz Eum mcwaounu use ouwmoaoo uoom Ou ummmcmuu unwwo3 '1 once mumauaca cu Bum wcwaounu mo cowmcouxu oumamaoo umoz sonny oumwuacfi Ou on ummu co uzwfioa .cOHumucowuo uvwm mhzmzomzou mumaom\mozhz< 78 Skill: Overhand Throw The student will throw a 2-3 inch ball A out of 5 times towards the target as follows: Standards Rating Comments I. A preparatory movement - side orientation with weight on the rear leg to initiate throw. _‘ 2. Near complete extension of the throwing arm behind body to initiate the throw 3. Weight transfer to the foot opposite the throwing arm with marked hip and Spine rotation during the throwing‘motion. _A . A follow-through well be- yondgthe ball release. Figure 8. Fundamental motor skill components: Overhand Throw. 79 of construct validity was reflected in the second research hypothesis. The constructs tested were that the scores of the individuals tested would improve with age. that there would be a gender difference in favor of males. and that the individuals who were non-handicapped would. as a group. demonstrate a higher level of performance than the individuals who were learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. The selection of these constructs for testing was based on research reported in the literature. Prior to any data collection. the researcher was aware that if the data were not consistent with previous research. it would necessitate a thorough inspection of the instrument and the data that were collected. Either the test or selected items on the test would have. to be revised or deleted. or the inconsistent results would have to be explained relative to prior research. Content validity. also referred to in the literature as face or logical validity. is recognized as the most appropriate procedure for documenting the validity of a criterion-referenced- instrument (Donlon. 1975: Hambleton 8 Novick. 19738 Hofmeister. 1975: Martuza. 1977: Mosher 5 Schutz. 1981: Popham. 1978: Safrit. I977: Vogel. 1975). Content validity procedures were used in this study to demonstrate the validity of the fundamental motor skills selected and the validity of the component parts of the skills identified. The literature review process described previously could be considered as one form. or level. of content validity. However. the possibility of researcher bias in interpreting the literature necessitated the application of a more stringent 80 content validity process. Each of the skill components of each item on the instrument. although worded differently in the various sources examined. was identified from the literature by the primary researcher. To remove the possibility of researcher bias in the interpretation of the different sources. content area experts rated the content validity of the instrument. Six experts in motor deveIOpment. adapted physical education or elementary physical education were selected for the purpose of establishing the content validity of each item on the assessment instrument. Two of the experts are currently employed at Michigan State University. with the other experts employed at four separate universities across the country. Each of the experts who rated the content validity of this instrument had considerable training. experience. and research publications in the area of motor development. adapted physical education. and/or elementary physical education. Each holds an earned Doctorate and is currently employed in a university physical education department. Based cu: their training. experience. and current responsibilities. each expert was eminently qualified to evaluate the content validity of a test of fundamental motor skills. Based on methods outlined in the literature (Hambleton 8 Novick. 1973: Hambleton. Swaninathan. Algina 8 Coulson. 1978: Martuza. 1977: Papham 5 Husek. 1969). the expert raters evaluated the content validity of this instrument at three levels: Level I: Each rater was requested to independently 81 complete the form titled. "Content Validity Fornll" (See Figure 9). The results of this rating were used to provide a justification. in addition to support found in the literature on physical education and motor development. for the inclusion of each of the motor skill items. The criterion established for inclusion of a skill in the test was an average rating of four or higher. on a scale of one to five. Since a rating of four was matched with the phrase. "Above Average Importance". the researcher considered an average of four as an indication from the content experts that each skill receiving this rating was essential to learning complex skills. games and activities. Level 11: Each rater was requested to independently complete the form titled. "Content Validity Form IP'(See Figure 10). This level of content validity serves as a measure to ensure that each skill is representative of a specific motor domain (Martuza. 1977: Popham. 1978a: Popham 8 Husek. 1969L. An agreement of 100 percent was required for a skill to be considered as representative of a specific motor domain. Because some skills. for example the horizontal jump. have been used to test both the motor development and fitness development of an individual. it was important that. given the purpose of the instrument developed. there be no confusion concerning the domain being assessed. The physical fitness domain was included to serve as a check of the primary researcher's ability to identify domain areas. None 82 Skill Ratin Skill Ratingmfi Run Overhand Throw Hop Catch Leap Ball Bounce Gallop Kick Skip Overhand Strike Slide Two-Hand Sidearm Strike Horizontal Jump Body Actions Vertical Jump Body_Planes Underhand Roll Directions in Space Directions: This rating must be completed independently. Read the criteria and rate the importance of each of the skills for elementary aged children (6-9 years old). 5 - Essential: .1:- I Above Average Importance: 3 - Average Importance: N I Bel ow Aver age Importance: _o I ANon Essential: Signature of Rater: This skill is very important to the learning of more complex skills. games. and activities. This skill is of above average importance to the learning of more complex skills. games. and activities. This skill is of average importance to the learning of more complex skills. games. and activities. This skill is of below average In importance to the learning of more complex skills. games. and activities. This skill is not important to the learning of more complex skills. games. and activities. Date: Figure 2. Content validity form 1 83 Motor Domain Locomotor Object Physical Body Control Fitness Awareness SKILL Run Hop Leap Gallop Skip Slide Horizontal Jump Vertical Jump Underhand Roll Overhand Throw Catch Ball Bounce Kick Overhand Strike Two-Hand Sidearm Strike Body Actions Body Planes irections in Space Directions: This rating must be completed independently. Place an "X" in the box if that objective is representative of that specific domain. Place an "O" in the box if that objective is not representative of that specific domain. Signature of Rater: Date: Figure l9‘ Content validity form 11 8A of the skills that the researcher had included on the instrument were considered. by the researcher. to be physical fitness skills. It was therefore expected that none of the skills listed would be classified by the expert raters as physical fitness skills. Both the Level I and Level II forms were sent to the experts at the same time with the Level III forms in a sealed enveIOpe within the package of materials. Directions included with the materials instructed the experts to complete Level I and II forms before opening the envelope that held the Level 111 forms. It was left to the professional integrity of the experts to follow these directions. ‘The Level III forms included those skills identified by the researcher. through a review of the motor development and physical education literature. as the most essential skills for Inclusion in the assessment instrument. If the raters had viewed the Level III forms prior to completing the ratings on the Level I and 11 forms. it could have resulted in the rater being biased for or against the skills on the Level 111 forms. Depending on the results of the ratings on Level I and 11 forms. the researcher was aware of the possibility that changes may have to occur at Level III. Level 111: Each rater was requested to Independently complete the form titled. "Content Validity Form 111". (See Figure 11). The purpose of this step. also referred to as descriptive validity (Martuza. 1977: Popham. 1978). was to 85 SKILL RATING COMMENTS Run Hop Gallop Skip Horizontal Jump Vertical Jump Overhand Throw Catch Ball Bounceg‘ Kick Two-Hand Sidearm Strike Body Actions Body Planes Directions in Space Directions: This rating must be completed independently. Read the level I standards and rate the degree to which the standards define each skill. +1 Standards are a measure of the skill. O Unsure. -1 Standards are not a measure of the skill. Signature of Rater: Date: Figure ll. Content validity form 111: Rating scale 86 determine the degree of congruence between the skill standards identified and the skill that the standards were intended to measure. For example. were the components identified for the run actually measuring the mature level of the run? The rating scale suggested by Martuza (1977) and Popham (1978a) was employed. This scale is as follows: +1 Standards are a measure of the skill. O Unsure. -1 Standards are not a measure of the skill. Each skill was organized in a mannner identical to the example provided in Figure 8 (see Appendix B for a complete set of Level 111 forms). The raters were required to independently rate the standards identified as the observable parts of the mature level of performance. following the directions and rating scale outlined on Figure 11. As outlined in the directions provided to each rater. the researcher requested that written comments be made where appropriate. The researcher anticipated that these comments would be used to provide a rationale for any changes that would have to be made in the standards. The minimum requirement for any skill standard to remain unchanged was set at a composite rating of +5. To attain this rating a staidard would have to be rated either +1 by all six raters. or +1 by five raters and a 0 by the sixth rater. Any skill standard not meeting this criterion was modified. based on the raters' comments. until the criterion was reached. It should be noted however that even if a standard 87 achieved a rating of +6 indicating that the standard was a measure of the skill. some modifications still could be made in the actual wording of the staidard. Any modifications would be made based upon the written comments provided by the expert raters. Modifications of the original standards had to be approved by the researcher's advisory committee. This committee contained one expert in motor development and three other individuals with a strong background in motor development. Wherever the changes were considered significant. the six expert raters were contacted again and requested to rate the modified standards. Construct validity was the second method of validity employed in this study. Construct validity has been defined as. "the degree to which a test measures an intended hypothetical construct." (Gay. 1976. p.89). Constructs cannot be observed. but can be used to explain factors such as the behavior of an individual.) For example. the measured level of intelligence for an individual could be used to explain that individual's school performance. In the present study. previous research in motor development and physical education was used to eXplain the motor performance of well defined groups. Reference to Figures 3. A. and 5 in Chapter 11. provides a summary of research In motor development and physical education that could be used to explain performance of students in this study. Stated more precisely as research hypotheses in Chapter I. trends in performance that could be expected in the results included: I. The performance level of the students should increase 88 with age. 2. Males should generally perform at a level superior to females. 3. Students who were non-handicapped generally should perform at a level superior to students who were learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. For the instrument used in the present study to be considered valid and to be measuring the constructs of age improvement. gender differences. and differences between individuals classified as non-handicapped or handicapped. it would be expected that the results of this study be consistent with previous research involving these constructs. The research on which the hypotheses were based was conducted with subjects who were non-handicapped. It is therefore Importa'lt that data collected in this study on the non—handicapped subjects' be consistent with the research hypotheses. A number of reasons could explain the performance of individuals who were learning disabled or educable mentally impaired being inconsistent with the three constructs measured. However. if the results obtained on the subjects who were non- handicapped were inconsistent with the literature. then the validity of that item would have to be examined. An additional form (See Figure 12). requiring the raters to identify the factor components of each of the skills included on the assessment instrument. was completed by the raters. Although this instrument was based largely on the concept of skill specificity. it was recognized that evidence in the literature riiiI-lliilllilill.ri.¥.IF- kniihhnitw-nitiliirkn ICU-:IDPMFIPHL- L..- fpjlh ltnL-Itvsni LIL. 89 Factor Leg Upper Gross- Flexi- Limb-eye Strength Body motor Balance bility Coord. -Power Strength Coord. SKILL Run _ Hop allop Skip Horizontal Jump Nerticaigdump bverhamdgThrow Catch pail Bounce Lick hwo—Hand Sidearm Strike LodyJActions Lody Planes Lirections in Space [Hrections: Rate each of the skills independently. Based on the rating scale classify the relative Importance of each of the factors on each skill. h) u: c- I I I d I 0 Figure 13. Factor components Major influence on performance of the skill. Strong influence on performance of the skill. Average Influence on performance of the skill. Minimal influence on performance of the skill. No influence on performance of the skill. 90 suggests there are a number of motor factors common to different motor skills. Numerous research studies (see Figure 1 in Chapter 11). including those by Carpenter (19A3). Cumbee (195A). Cumbee. Meyer and Peterson (1957). Dobbins and Rarick (1975M. and Peterson. Reuschlein and Seefeldt (197A). have consistently identified similar factors as components of motor skills. These factors have been listed on Figure 12. The experts rated each skill for the relative influence of each factor on the performance of the skill. These results. while in part hypothetical. could allow fer trends in performance to be interpreted. For example. if the results from this study indicated that the learning disabled had the greatest difficulty with the catch. ball bounce. and the sidearm strike. and if these skills were rated as the three having the highest limb-eye coordination component. it could suggest that learning disabled students have general limb-eye coordination problems. Any statements made about student performance data using the data collected through this step must be interpreted with great caution. The statements would at best be postulations about performance that could provide questions or avenues for future research. Further analyses of these data would have to be conducted before more definitive statements could be made. Reliability Two reliability coefficients were calculated to determine the reliability of the criterion-referenced instrument when it is administered to subjects who are non-handicapped. learning 91 disabled. or educable mentally impaired. The reliability coefficients were calculated using procedures developed for norm- referenced instruments. When these procedures have been applied to a criterion-referenced test it has been reported that high coefficients strengthen the reliability of a test. but low coefficients do not necessarily indicate that a criterion- referenced test is unreliable (Popham 5 Husek. 1969). An inter-rater agreement reliability coefficient was obtained for each of the seven fundamental motor skills on which data were collected. This was completed by having the testers simultaneously. but independently. observe and score the performance of subjects classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled. or educable mentally impaired. The test-retest reliability coefficients were obtained by testing then retesting. after a period of two weeks. a group of subjects comprised of individuals classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled. or educable mentally impaired. Each subject was tested on all seven fundamental motor skills. Sumnary This section outlined the measurement issues that required attention in the development of a criterion-referenced test of fundamental motor skills. The individual test items were selected and developed based on a review of the literature In physical education and motor development. Steps to demonstrate the validity of this instrument were specified. These steps were consistent with those reported in the literature on criterion- 92 referenced instruments. Finally. the procedures used to demonstrate the reliability of the data collection. and of the test instrument were discussed. The results of each of these measurement issues are reported in Chapter IV. Criterion-Referenced 13s; Administration The collection of accurate. reliable performance data was considered as critical to the value of the outcomes and recommendations which result from this study. Key areas addressed prior to any data collection were: 1. Standardizing the Testing Environment. 2. Standardizing the Test Directions. 3. Training the Test Administrators. Information included within this section should be considered whenever this test. or individual items from this test. are used. Unless individuals are trained. or train themselves. to appropriate levels of competency and implement the recommended test protocol procedures. data that are collected could be lacking in accuracy. Standardizing 5113 testing environment The potential Influence of the testing environment on student performance was recognized. thereby resulting in steps being taken to minimize environmental effects. Within the limitations of the study. potential influences. both physical and non-physical. were addressed. Because the testers were guests in the school environment. it must be understood that the testing environment was not always under the complete control of the testers. 93 However. the following steps were taken to standardize the testing environment : l. The testing room was organized to minimize the effects of auditory and visual distraction. Where possible a quiet room that would be free from disruption was used. All unnecessary equipmment was either removed from the room or placed to one side of the room. Identical equipment was used for all of the testing. Steps were taken to make the student feel comfortable and relaxed with the tester before assessment activities were started. As explained in the test administration procedures. the tester. when necessary. conversed. played introductory games. and generally relaxed the student before starting the assessing activity (see the section of Appendix C. titled "Conducting the Assessment Activity"). The students were observed to ensure that they were wearing comfortable and appropriate clothing and footwear. Teachers were asked to notify parents of assessment days so that the students could be dressed appropriately for the activities. Standardizing the test directions The directions used to administer this test were developed within the guidelines specified by PL 9A-1A2 and the Council for Exceptional Children statement. Policx R_e_gardilr_ig Nondiscriminatory Evaluation (1977). Consideration also was given to the learning and behavioral 9A characteristics commonly observed in the learning disabled and educable mentally impaired populations. The test directions were standardized in the form of procedures to be followed each time the student was requested to perform a skill. They were not standardized to the degree of preparing the exact script for each of the items. The use of an exact script. regardless of how well it was prepared. could have resulted in instructions and/or directions being given that were not clearly understood by all the students being tested. By standardizing the procedures. yet not requiring specific language. the trained test administrators were able to adjust the directions given to match the conceptual abilities of each student. Procedural steps (see Appendix C for greater detail) that were followed in the administration of each test item included: 1. Preparation of each student for assessment. Factors such as student apprehension. dress. time of the day. day of the week. and introductory activities were addressed to ensure that each student was suitably prepared for the assessment. 2. Each student was physically prompted and/or verbally cued to attend to the tester. 3. Two demonstrations of the mature fundamental motor skill were given. A. The student was verbally requested to perform the skill. 5. Two practice trials were allowed to ensure that the student understood the skill. 8. 95 Additional demonstrations. verbal requests. and practice trials were provided. as needed. until the student understood the task requirements. The additional explanations were stopped in situations where the tester considered that the student was not able to comprehend the task and that continuing the explanation would only serve to confuse the student. In this situation the tester proceeded to the next item. returning to the item causing confusion later in the testing session. Therefore. the number of trials and the possibility of learning were not directly controlled. The possiblity of controlling the number of trials was considered. However. this may have resulted in some students being tested on a task they did not understand because they were not given enough practice trials. Such a situation could have resulted in the item being a test of the student's cognitive ability. and not a test of his/her motor ability. The student was verbally requested to perform and repeat the skill until the tester had observed and recorded the student's performance. In situations where fatigue. frustration. or other behaviors were interfering with performance. the tester proceeded to the next item and completed assessment on the unfinished item later in the testing session. Instructions were provided using language which the 96 student could understand. 9. The student was observed for signs of fatigue. non- attending behavior and other behaviors that could interfere with performance. 10. Depending on any fatigue or interfering behaviors observed. appropriate steps were taken by the test administrator to adjust to the situation. For example. if the student appeared to be getting frustrated. the teacher could play a game with the student. allow the student to get a drink of water, or sit down and talk to the student. 11. Specific safety precautions were taken depending on the skill on which the student was being tested. During the test administration the testers were allowed to encourage and socially praise the students for appropriate behavior and for effort demonstrated on the different tasks. The testers were not allowed to provide information feedback that could indicate satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance. and therefore influence future trials. The evaluators also. did not provide instructional cues or prompts that would have assisted the' student as he/she attempted the task. During the training sessions each skill was discussed in the context of what would be social praise versus what would be information feedback. The rationale was to keep the students motivated and interested in activities. but not to provide specific information that could affect performance. 97 Training 222.5535 administrators Prior to the collection of any student performance data. testers were identified and trained to competency In the assessment of the qualitative aspects of the fundamental motor skills included on this instrument. Each of the four testers who collected the student performance data met the following standards prior to the training: 1. Completed an undergraduate teacher education program with a major in physical education. 2. Completed coursework that had emphasized the qualitative aspects of fundamental motor skills. 3. Possessed experience In assessing and teaching fundamental motor skills to elementary-aged children who were non-handicapped or handicapped. The Investigator. who was responsible for conducting the training of the test administrators. had extensive training and experience in the assessment of childrenp both non-handicapped and handicapped. He had trained approximately 150 teachers and undergraduate students in criterion-referenced assessment procedures and had prepared two criterion-referenced training manuals for the I CAN physical education project. The Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP) training films (Michigan Department of Education. 1982) were used to train the testers to competency. The MEAP films. prepared by content experts. were structured so that they can be used for both instructional and evaluative purposes. Each skill has a number of clips (approximately 20) that highlight the essential components 98 of the skill. The last three or four clips of each skill demonstrate correct or incorrect performance. and are designed to be used to test the observer's level of assessment accuracy. Since these clips had been rated previously by the developers of the film. this procedure was an objective measure of assessment competency. To calculate the percent accuracy of the testers when they were being trained. the tester's ratings were compared to the expert's ratings. A 90 percent level of agreement was established as a minimal standard of competency. This is 10 percent higher than the 80 percent minimal standards set by the developers of the film. Use of these films enabled the testers to be trained to a level where they could accurately and reliably identify each of the components of the mature level of motor performance. This competence did not. however. guarantee accurate and reliable identification of the components in the live testing situation. Consequently. inter-rater reliability procedures were used in the live situation to ensure that the data collected with the children were acurate and reliable. A number of steps were followed during the training of the testers. Two weeks prior to the first training session. each tester was provided' with a set of written materials that he/she was required to study before the first training session. Included in these materials were the following: 1. School Procedures: This document outlined procedures to be followed at the school testing sites (see Appendix D). 2. Confidentiality: This document stressed the importance The 99 of maintaining student confidentiality on all information obtained (see Appendix E). Introduction to the Assessment Project: This document provided each tester with an overview of the project so that. if questioned. he/she could explain the basic rationale for. and purpose of. the project. Information about the research hypotheses being addressed in this project was not included as a precaution against bias in the testers (see Appendix F). Test Administration Guidelines and Motor Performance Skill Test Items: This document outlined. in detail, the guidelines for administering the assessment instrument and provided a description of each skill on the instrument. The information In this document was used extensively in the training sessions (see Appendix C). following format then was used at the training sessions: The purpose of the study was introduced at the first training session. This step was included so that each tester understood the purpose of the study and could. if questioned. provide interested persons with information about the study. To prevent tester bias the research hypotheses were not discussed at this or any other training session. The criterion-referenced assessment steps outlined in the administration procedures were discussed (see Appendix C for greater detail). Particular attention was paid to 100 the following steps: - Define Ambiguous Terms: Ambiguous terms (for example. near complete extension of the throwing armmu) were defined operationally so that each tester identified any such terms in the same manner. - Select the Assessment Activity: The assessment activities were discussed to ensure that each tester understood the structure. format. equipment needed. and most appropriate position for observation in each activity. - Organize the Room and Equipment: Methods to organize efficiently the testing environment were discussed. - Determine the Components to be Observed On Each Trial: For purposes of maximizing consistency between testers. those skills which were difficult to observe in their entirety in one trial were discussed so that the components were observed in the same order by each tester. - Conduct the Assessment Activity: This step was discussed in detail so that each tester fully understood the importance of the manner in which the activity was conducted relative to obtaining accurate and reliable performance data. 3. The MEAP films were observed and the components of each skill were identified. A. 101 Using the films clips designated for evaluative purposes. each tester observed the clip five times and rated the performance demonstrated on the clip. Five trials were considered an adequate number to allow each tester to observe each component of the skill. This number should have been sufficient for each tester to assess each of the components of each skill. The MEAP materials did not state a specific number of observation trials. These ratings were compared to the ratings given by the MEAP experts. Where a 90 percent agreement was not attained. steps three and four were repeated until the criterion level was reached. The 90 percent agreement level was mandated for each skill. separately. There were several sets of evaluative clips available to determine the competency of the testers. This avoided the situation of the testers who did not meet the 90 percent competency level on the first attempt being tested on the same film clips on which they were first tested. Because of the importance of the assessment activities. the test administration procedures were discussed in detail (see sections of Appendix C titled: "Conducting the Assessment Activity". "Specific Testing Strategies". and "Other General Testing Factors"). Arrangements were made at two of the testing sites to assess students who were non-handicapped. learning disabled. or educable mentally impaired. The data from 102 these assessments were used to calculate the reliability coefficientsc These data were not used in the main part of the study. During the data collection phase of the study. two of the testers assessed the performance of the same children for purposes of monitoring assessment competency levels. On these'occaslons. the first of which occurred no later than one week after the data collection started. the testers Independently rated the performance of a group of students. Agreement levels of 90 percent had to be demonstrated. If this agreement level was not maintained. it necessitated the retraining of the tester and the exclusion of previously collected student performance data from the final analysis. Based on the previous experience of the investigator. problems in maintaining required agreement levels were most likely to occur during the first week of testing. If the agreement level was present at this time. then It probably would be present throughout the testing period. However. to remain objective. further agreement ratings were completed. One of the agreement sessions also was held during the first testing session following the summer vacation to ensure that the tester's assessment skills were still at the required level of competency. If satisfactory (902) levels of agreement were not demonstrated at this session. refresher training was held 103 prior to my further testing. Student Sanple Three fixed factors were used to distinguish the different groups into which the students were placed. These factors also were used as the independent variables during the data analysis. The factors were: 1. Age - students were placed in an age group based on whole years (for example 6-6 years 0 months - 6 years. 11 months. 9-9 years 0 months - 9 years 11 months). 2. Gender 3. Population Group - students were classified as non-handi- capped. learning disabled. or educable mentally impaired on the basis of Michigan Special Education eligibility requirements (see Appendix A for Michigan Special Education definitions of handicaps). Table 1 represents the sample that was projected for this study. Table 2 represents the actual sample that was tested. The difference between the projected and actual sample. was due to an insufficient number of handicapped students in the districts utilized in the study and the inability of the researcher to work in districts where greater number of students may have been obtained. This inability was due primarily to the expense of travel. However. the discrepancy between the projected and actual sample does not significantly interfere with the research hypotheses that were addressed. Because a ceiling effect in performance was not present in the fundamental motor skills for Table l Prolected Research SamEle 10A Group Classification Non- Learning Educable Handicapped Disabled Mentallz Imgaired Age Male Female Male Female Male Female Total 6 3O 3O 3O 30 3O 30 180 7 3O 30 3O 3O 3O 30 180 8 30 30 30 3o 30 30 180 Total 90 9O 9O 9O 9O 90 5A0 105 Table 2 Actual Research Sample Group Classification —A A A ~ * Non- Learning Educable Handicapped Disabled Mentallz Impaired Age Male Female Male Female Male Female Total 6 25 36 2 2 21 9 95 7 33 17 12 3 28 16 109 8 22 2A 37 12 23 17 135 9 9 A 33 10 15 9 80 10 25 . 1A 1A A 57 11 12 5 A 2 23 12 1A 3 5 3 25 Total 89 81 135 A9 110 60 52A 106 any of the groups. it was still appropriate to test for age improvements. gender differences and differences between the groups across the entire sample on which data were collected. The final student sample was generated from thirteen school districts within a: approximate 75 mile radius of East Lansing. Two other districts were contacted. but decided not to participate in the study. Both of these districts were actively involved in other research studies and did not consider it appropriate to involve their students and staff in another reSearch study. The procedures followed to obtain the student sample varied slightly from district to district. The general format that was followed is outlined below. The first step Involved contacting the special education director of each district by letter and telephone to determine if there was an interest in participating in the study. Special education directors expressing an interest were then visited for the purpose of meeting with selected administrators to discuss the study. The administrators usually Involved a combination of the physical education director. curriculum and evaluation personnel. and building principals. After this meeting. for those districts that agreed to participate. one of three methods was followed in contacting individual teachers. One method of contact involved the special education director outlining the project to the special education staff. The second method involved the researcher going to each school in the district. where students appropriate for the study were placed. and explaining the study to 107 the building principal and special education teacher(s). Finally. mini-workshops were held where the study was explained in detail to the building principals and special education teachers in attendance. Following these contacts. teachers who wished to be involved in the study were identified. Two important points should be noted at this stage. All school and teacher participation was voluntary. Also. the researcher contacted every teacher agreeing to participate either directly. or by telephone. This was done primarily to serve as a check that the purpose of the study and teacher commitments had been correctly explained in those situations where the study was presented to the teachers by the special education director. Following the identification of specific classrooms. consent forms were sent home to the parents of those students who met the requirements for participating in the study (See Appendix G for a sample consent form). The consent form and procedures were approved by the Michigan State University (MSU) Human Subjects Committee as required by MSU regulations for studies involving human subjects (See Appendix H for Human Subjects Approval Form). Parents were given approximately two weeks to return the consent form. A second consent form was sent home to those from whom a signed consent form had not been returned within the required time. If a parent did not respond to the second form. it was assumed that the parent did not want his/her child to participate in the study and no further contact was made. All students for whom consent forms were returned were placed in a group according 108 to the three criteria of age. gender. and population group described earlier. Because of the importance of placing each student into the correct population group the criteria for the papulation classification Is clarified further: - Non-Handicapped students received 100 percent of their public school education in a regular classroom setting (including regular physical education). These students had no known physical. sensory. cognitive. social. or emotional handicaps. - The Learning Disabled and Educable Mentally Impaired students were classified as handicapped in accordance with the Michigan Special Education eligibility requirements (see Appendix A). Note should be made that the researcher requested each teacher to send the consent form home to all of the students classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired who were in his/her class and who met the requirements of the sample to be selected. This prevented teachers from not sending the consent form to parents of students who might be difficult to assess. If that situation had arisen. it could have resulted in the systematic exclusion of students with similar characteristics. Non-handicapped students were selected from some of the schools where handicapped children also were identified. Limitations of time and cost prevented the researcher from selecting a matching sample of non-handicapped students from the schools where the handicapped students were Identified. 109 The final sample was generated from 13 school districts in Southern Michigan that ranged in size of student papulation from 791 to 31.3A1 students. Districts from which the sample was drawn represented both urban and rural cities and towns. The districts also represented university. industrial. and farming communities. The sizes of the districts are presented in Table 3. Table A presents a breakdown of the racial origin of the children classified as handicapped in the districts sampled. The total district figures. along with the racial breakdown of the children classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired in the districts sampled. were compared to figures available from the Michigan Department of Education. A comparison of the figures of the research sample with the figures from the Michigan Department of Education revealed that there was a slight over—representation of black students in the sample and a slight under-representation of white students. This pattern was consistent across the three groups. Data Collection All student performance data were collected between April 15. 1985 and May 31. 1985 or between September 3. 1985 and December 5. 1985. The reason for the break in the assessment activities was that the students were not in school during the summer vacation. Assessment activities were conducted by a trained test administrator at the school normally attended by the student. Each student was tested on one occasion (3-6 trials) on each of the seven criterion-referenced fundamental motor skills. The 110 Table 3 Student Population for Each School District . Number of District Students A 1A.056 B 8.958 C 5.635 D 3.AOA E 5.739 F 2.783 G 31.3A1 H 5.577 I ' A.6OA J 1.788 K 23.262 L 3.2A2 M 791 111 .anue mos mamamm can mumsa Bouw muowuumwo ecu a“ occamowocm: mm omwuammmHo mucmeoum peas cmwwnoflz ca oomamowocon mm omfimammmau mucoooum one oumaaoo mouowam omens .ouoz o.me m.~ n.06 N.H m. meaamm . omuamaaH haamucox mHnmuovm fi.oo w.~ o.nm a. u. mumum voufimaaH maamucmz uHomuoom o.ee m.m . ~.mN a. A. .Haaam omaommaa woficumou . . . . oumum N.~m ~.~ m m~ N m ooaommaa woacuooq ~.oo n.~ ~.m~ n. m. uemamm m.mk 5.3 . a.k~ n. k. . mumum . cowocH . cues: uwcmomum xomam emam< confiums< . . . ucoouom mueuooum uo cuwauo Hmaomm coaumuoom Hmaowmm “mama 0>Humfiuomun ucmeum e wanna 112 Intention was to complete each student's testing on a single occasion. However. it was anticipated that factors such as fatigue and attention span could result in some students being tested over two occasions. Anecdotal records were kept for all students who needed a second testing session (these data are described in Chapter IV). These records contained Information such as the reason for stopping the testing. number of items com- pleted. degree of success in completing the items and the length of the testing session. If any patterns of behavior emerged from these records. it could influence factors such as test administration procedures or ordering of items in future testing projects. When a second testing session was required to complete the assessment. the session was scheduled as soon as possible after the first testing day. The test items were randomly sequenced to minimize the interference of test ordering. Scores for each student were recorded immediately following the trials for each skill. Data Analysis A combination of descriptive and parametric statisticSIwere employed to report the student performance scores. Prior to discussing the data analysis in detail one Important point must be clarified. The student performance data collected in this study were ordinal. To allow these data to be analyzed using parametric techniques. numbers were assigned to the different scores possible. The assignment of numbers to ordinal data is a method discussed by Hays (1981) and Glass and Stanley (1970). One 113 number indicates that a person has more or less of something than a person with another number. In the current study a student was assigned a score of "2" for each component of a skill that he/she demonstrated to the criterion and a "l" for each component that did not meet the criterion. Both Hays (1981) and Glass and Stanley (1970) indicated that the numbers used to represent the ordinal measurements can be manipulated using parametric techniques. It is necessary to remember however. in such manipulation. that the difference between numbers are not necessarily of the same magnitude In terms of "the amount of something". Also. the use of parametric methods must be "appropriate and meaningful within the experimenter's problem"(Hays. 1981. p.6A). It is generally recognised in the area of motor development that a student who demonstrated two parts of a fundamental motor skill would be considered superior in performance to a student who demonstrated only one component of the same skill. Therefore. in this study it was considered appropriate to analyze the ordinal data using parametric methods of analysis. Regression analysis statistical procedures were used to address the questions put forward In hypotheses 3.A and 5. This study did not involve any treatment or program being implemented in conjunction with the data collection: therefore. theoretically. no pure dependent variables existed. For the purpose of the analyses. the test items were classified as the dependent variables. The independent variables selected for data analysis 11A were age. gender. and handicapping condition. The specific comparisons conducted are listed below. Each hypothesis statement is listed. with the comparisons to test the hypothesis Identified directly below it. Hypothesis‘l: Comparisons: Hypothesis A : Comparisons: Student performance on the fundamental motor skills tested will improve with age for the students who are. non-handicapped. learning disabled. or educable mentally impaired. 1. Linear effect of age for all students. 2. Linear effect of age for students who are non- handicapped. 3. Linear effect of age for students who are learning disabled. A. Linear effect of age for students who are educable mentally impaired. Male students who are non-handicapped. learning disabled. or educable mentally impaired will' perform at a level superior to their same age female peers on the fundamental motor skills tested. 1. Main effect of gender for all students. 2. Main effect of gender for students who are non- handicapped. 3. Main effect of gender for students who are learning disabled. A. Main effect of gender for students who are 115 educable mentally impaired. Hypothesis 2.’ The students who are non-handicapped will demonstrate superior performance (M: the fundamental motor skills tested when compared with the performance of the students who are learning disabled. or with the performance of the students who are educable mentally impaired. Comparisons: 1. Determine whether significant differences exist between the students who are non- handicapped or learning disabled. 2. Determine whether significant differences exist between students who are non-handicapped or educable mentally impaired. 3. Determine whether significant differences exist between students who are educable mentally impaired or learning disabled. Although Comparison 3 in Hypothesis 5 was not directly related to one of the hypotheses statements. this comparison was considered to be of sufficient importance to justify its inclusion In the data analysis. The previously described comparisons were tested separately with each of the fundamental motor skills. All of the statements were tested at a significance level of .05. The student performance data collected in this study were reported In tabular form. The data from these tables should be regarded as tentative. Future research. on the same motor skills. with larger numbers of similarly classified students could result 116 in the development of normative tables for the populations and skills researched in this study. Future research with students who are learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. is needed to determine ages at which these students typically master various components of the fundamental motor skills. Within the limitations surrounding this sample. the data presented In these tables may still be useful to physical education teachers. Two sets of tables were developed. each of which summarize student performance In a different manner. A The tables outline: 1) The percentage of students. by population group. age level and gender. who had mastered each of the fundamental motor skills. 2) The percentage of students. by population group. age level and gender. who had mastered each of the components of each fundamental motor skill. The information included in these tables can be used to sequence the teaching of the fundamental motor skills tested. to explain expectations in student performance. and to identify the components of each skill with which the students tend to have greater or lesser difficulty. Limitations and Assumt ions The majority of studies. particularly those involving public schools. have various limitations and assumptions. Depending on the type and number of limitations and assumptions. results obtained from the study can be interpreted with varying degrees of 117 confidence. The limitations and assumptions surrounding this study are presented so that the reader ca: ascertain the validity with which the results can be interpreted. Although the limitations and assumptions could not be avoided. steps were taken and data were collected that help explain the Impact that the limitations and assumptions had on the results of this study. Limitations within which this study had to be conducted were: 1. Limited monies were available to cover travel costs involved in assessing the students who were handicapped. Funds were not available to cover other expenses associated with travel. Consequently. districts sampled were restricted to those within approximately 75 miles of Michigan State University. Funds were not available to cover travel expenses involved in assessing the non-handicapped students. Consequently. only those districts in close proximity of Michigan State University (approximately 25 mile radius) were used to obtain this group. School district Involvement was voluntary. thereby further restricting the sample from being randomly selected. The ability to obtain a random sample was also influenced by Limitations 1. 2. and A. Parental permission was required prior to any student being assessed. It was anticipated that consent form return rates would make it impossible to generate a sample large enough from which to randomly select 118 students. Funding and time factors combined to limit the size of the student sample. This study. as a part of the researcher's doctoral dissertation. was planned to be conducted within an eighteen month time period. Funds obtained to support the study were available for this time period only. All student assessment had to be completed by December 5. 1985. Assumptions made with respect to the limitations of this study and the manner in which they were addressed included: 1. The school districts and schools were representative of districts throughout Michigan. Although school participa- tion was on a volmtary basis. it was assumed that the nature of the study did not bias school involvement. The two districts that chose not to participate were located In close proximity to a major university and gave ongoing district-wide research as the reason for non- participation. Within the 13 districts involved. only two of the schools that were contacted chose not to participate. lnformat ion daout each school district has been provided so that teachers can ascertain the degree of similarity between the student sample tested aid the students they teach. The need for parent's signatures did not systematically preclude students with similar characteristics. Because 119 the parents of children who are handicapped are required to sign forms for a number of school activities it is unlikely that a consent form would alarm them. Many parents are interested to find out as much as possible about their handicapped child and usually agree to participate in school approved activities that may provide additional information. The student population was assumed to be representative of students of a similar age and ability level throughout Michigan. Information collected on the students tested allowed for the comparison of the student sample with district. state and national data. Each of the districts interpreted the Michigan Special Education rules governing the classification of Learning Disabled and Educable Mentally Impaired students in a similar manner. Data collected. such as the percent of students identified in each district as learning disabled' or educable mentally impaired provides Important information doout the classification procedures used by a district. For example. if a district had a higher than average percentage of students who were learning disabled. that district may be misclassifying. as learning disabled. students who otherwise would qualify as educable mentally impaired an emotionally impaired. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST DEVELOPMENT The purpose of this chapter is to address the two purposes of this study that are related to the measurement issues involved in the development of a criterion-referenced test instrument for measuring fundamental motor skills: I. To develop a criterion-referenced test of fundamental motor skills that Is valid and reliable for students classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. 2. To develop standardized administration procedures that are appropriate for use with students classified as non- handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. Two hypotheses were evaluated to determine if the two purposes were accomplished: I. The criterion-referenced test will meet acceptable levels of validity and reliability. 2. Test standardization and administration procedures will be demonstrated as appropriate for use with elementary- aged students classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. The nature of the measurement issues addressed in the two 120 121 hypotheses prevented the use of standards that were completely objeCtive in nature. The literature pertaining to the development of criterion-referenced tests did not specify quantitative values that should be met. Recommended procedures were outlined in the literature for the researcher to interpret and apply to his/her specific situation. The measurement issues are divided into four areas: I. Item Selection and Development 2. Validity 3. Reliability A. Criterion-Referenced Test Administration LEE! Selection £12 Develqament The essential fundamental motor skills commonly taught in elementary school physical education programs that should be mastered during the early school years were identified from the literature in physical education and motor development. Figure 13 presents a summary of the essential fundamental motor skills that were commonly referenced in the literature. Some of the sources. for example Wessel (1979. 1980). listed skills in addition to those included in Figure 13. However. it was considered extraneous to the purposes of this study to list all of the skills identified by all of the sources. This judgement was made on the basis of the criteria established for a skill to be included on the instrument. These criteria are outlined in the section of this chapter that reports the validity of this instrument. The next step in the development of the criterion—referenced 122 .N "cowumooom mo eumom mumum cmwwsowz .Auaeouumm a .aaam .eaueaumamm .H .cOAumusoo Hedgehog you mo>fiuomnoo oocmauomuoc Hmaucommm .ccom .uoxofiuumcooommv zeoum ucoaaoao>on nouoz huamuo>fic= mumum cmwwsofiz aoum xuoa moooaocH .umfiaxoono cowuooaom Hafixm nouoz Hmucoamocom .mu ouswam u u x u x x. x . u x , .oao_c - uo s..sosgua- x x x x x x u . x x Ankaac success x x x x x u x x x 2.2.: «.6333: you N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Swo— .a~oC «ammo: 353:3 333:3 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N dough...— .3923: 33m ucvaaouozn N N N N N N N N N _ use: an: xooo_v tux... . cosmos N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N euflmxuuoz .Inznuu u x x x x x x x x x x u x A~ao_c «sausanu u x u .u x x u x x u u x x x u u “aka—c cauaueam . aaoaac< a: o o o 1% m re s w 7 0 0 O 9 O I 4 I O ” ll .w... .1... 1.... u 1...... 1 H. .c. 1...... m 1... .... 1. 1111...... a. . a ma m n a .m «m m m a m 1 1 he he 3 .Pa 8 U P I. h. u. om. u. p r .338 ‘0 J O Beams. .35... 123 test involved the Identification and definition of the qualitative components of the mature level of performance of each motor skill included in Figure 13. The qualitative components (standards) were defined as the parts of each skill that could be used to determine if a student was or was not demonstrating a mature level of fundamental motor skill performanCe. Based on a review of the sources listed in Figure 13. the essential components of each skill were identified and defined in behavioral terms. With the exception of three skills. all of the skills in Figure 13 were organized into four components. These three skills. body actions, body planes and directions in space, were organized into five components. The components identified for each skill are presented in Appendix 8. "Format Used For Expert Rating Of Skill Standards." The skills and skill components in Appendix B were redefined as needed, based on ratings and comments of content area experts who rated the components of each skill (see the section on Validity for a detailed discussion of this process). Validity Two aspects of validity were examined in this study, namely, content validity and construct validity. Six content area experts were utilized to demonstrate the content validity of the criterion-referenced test instrument developed in this study. Additionally. assessment data were collected on a sample of elementary aged students who were either non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. The results from the assessment data were used to examine motor development constructs 124 and principles that had been identified from the literature in motor development and physical education. Content validity. The first level of content validity required each of the six content area experts to rate the skills listed in Figure 13. The experts were instructed to rate each skill with respect to how important it was for a child to master the skill for future use in learning more complex skills. games and activities (see Figure 9 in Chapterlll for tha detailed instructions provided for the experts). Table 5 provides a summary of the results obtained from the experts' ratings of the importance of each skill. Two criteria were established for a skill to be included on the criterion-referenced test of fundamental motor skills. The skill had to be identified as an essential fundamental motor skill by seven of the nine sources listed in Figure 13. The skill also had to receive. from the content area experts. an average rating of four or higher. Figure ll. summarizes each skill relative to the two criteria. Six of the eighteen skills met the criteria to be included on the assessment instrument. These skills were the run. vertical jump. overhand throw. catch. kick and two-hand sidearm strike. One additional skill. the ball bounce. was added to the instrument. The ball bounce was identified as an essential skill by six of the nine sources and received an average rating of four by the content area raters. The closeness to meeting both criteria in conjunction with the importance of the ball bounce to the game of basketball led to the inclusion of this skill in the 125 Table-5 Importance of Skills in Learning More Complex Skills, Games and Activities Ratings Skill Range Average Minimum Maximum - Rating Run 5 S i 5 Hop 2 5 . 3.5 Leap 1 5 . 3.5 Gallop 2 5 3.17 Skip 2 4 2.83 Slide 3 5 4.17 Horizontal Jump 2 5 3.17 Vertical Jump 4 - 5 4.33 Underhand Roll '2 4 3.17 Overhand Throw 5 5 5 Catch 5 5 5 Ball Bounce ‘ . 2 5 4 Kick 4 5 4.83 Overhand Strike ‘ 3 5 I 4.17 Two-Hand Sidearm Strike 3 . '5 4.5 Body Actions 3 5 4.4 Body Planes 3 t 5 4-4 Directions in Space 3 5 4.33 Note: The importance of each skill was rated on a scale of 1 to S. .Ufiwafihumfifl “505mm0mmm Hawxm wouoa Hmucmamoasu «so CH scamsaoca you mwuoufiuo msu wcauoma mHwam .¢H muawwm 02 02 OZ ”0% 02 60> {mwy m0» m0? oufla @HHOUHHU .auouwu uuoaxo an no» way mm» mm» may no» may no» no» uuuuoa uo e «o mcaumu omnuo>o am ou>uuuuz 02 oz 02 mm» oz no» oz we» may muuusoa ouaunuuuwd . a we a .3 Bus. 126 oxfluum oumam cu mommam couuo< Sundown mxwuom JUflz ouczon noumo sauna acoauuuuwa zoom zoom ucwznoaa vamnum>o damn vcmnuo>o oz no» oz oz oz oz oz oz «or .uoa cuuuuwuo .muuumu uuonxu an oz no» oz now oz oz oz oz our wouuon uo e no wnwuou ownuo>q do vo>gouuz .uouuaoo unauuuuuqa 02 no» no» oz our our oz . may mu» m no u an zoom: 11 1| :3. as... 9.2. unmanavca. Hauwuuob «mucouwuom ovwam nuxm madame good now cam nauuuwuo HHfixm 127 instrument. The ball bounce was the only other skill that came close to meeting the criteria for selection on the instrument. The final instrument was therefore composed of seven fundamental motor skills. The second level of content validity required the six expert raters to indicate the motor domain that primarily represented each skill . The results of these ratings are summarized in Table 6. Each value represents the number of content raters who considered a skill to be representative of a specific motor domain. For example. all six content raters considered the run to be a locomotor skill. These results clearly demonstrate that the run and vertical jump were considered to be locomotor skills. Similarly. the five other skills were classified as object control skills. One of the experts also rated the run. depending on the nature of the assessment activity. as a skill that could be used as a test of physical fitness. Another expert also rated the vertical jump as a skill that could be used to measure physical fitness. These decisions could have been made because the raters were unaware that the qualitative. and not the quantitative. aspects of the skills were being measured. The third level of content validity required the content experts to rate the four components of each skill. This step determined the degree of congruence between the definition of each component (standard) and the actual movement the component was intended to measure. The rating scale outlined by Martuza (1977) and Papham (1978) was used to rate each component. This scale 128 .ouou mo ouooo m Hoavo oxawan HH< .ouoz uxfiuum ahoooum vcmzloaa 30am cocoon Hamm noumo Bonny oamnuo>o mash Hmofiuuo> cam uuoom mmocoum3< mmocuum Houucoo seam Hmuamsam bounce nouoaoooq Hawxm Gflflaoa H090: Haaxm some new cameos nouoz oumaummumm¢ «no mcfiwuwucuoH .muoumz uummxm wo monasz .HH Ho>oaunmwaafifia> unoucoo m dance 129 was: +1 Standards are a measure of the skill O Unsure -1 Standards are not a measure of the skill A total rating by the six content experts of +5 was established as the level that had to be met before a component (standard) was accepted as a valid measure of one part of the mature level of a skill. When a standard did not meet this criteria. it was modified until the minimum score of +5 was attained. Figures 15 through 21 report the ratings for each skill. When reviewing these figures it is important to consider the following comments. The wording of some components that received an initial rating of +5 or +6 were modified slightly based on written comments received from the content experts. Because these modifications were only syntactical in nature. and did not change the meaning of the component being described, these components were not rerated. Components not meeting the minimum criteria also were modified based on the feedback received from the content raters and then were rerated by the content experts. in some instances it was necessary only to contact the rater who had given the component a -1 rating. For example. one rater gave standard 4 of both the overhand throw and the two-hand sidearm strike a score of -1. Following a discussion with this individual about the role of the follow through in a skill. she changed her score for both of these components to +1. Similarly. when it was explained to the raters that it was recognized that all mature 130 .muoumu uuoaxu scum oo>fiooou mucoaaoo so comma vofimwooa noon on: zosu umuwm moumvcmum USu mo mwawumu .muuoaxm .m .woumocmum Hmauwcfi on» no mwcuumu .muuonxm .< .cam ago no mucocogaoo .mH muswfim .ucoa ozonao hoop 9 ago no mafiauaa mmouo no: ow ..ucmn maooao mwma co 0 mumwuz .mwoa ou coauwmomno coaufimoqao ca cofiuom au< .q cw .ucup maonao .cofiuom au< .o .omuaoo can no camcoa unu .omusoo ozu no camcoa acaccsu mafia cogs :N n mo ago unaccau mafia «pas :N n moan uuzuam co :N cfinuw3 o m wo ovwm nonuam no :A casuaa Acouoom umam uocv ucmEoomaa Aoouoow umaw uoav ucoaooman mace oou uo\ocm oeuiammm .m zHco moo uo\oco woulaomz .m .uuoaasmlcoc .uuozasm mo mooauoo ucoumamcou .N m .o Icoc no moowuoa ucmumwmcou .N .oom gamma on o» mucus a .oom unmoa ac ou mocon on uuoaaamacoc mo coax .H 0 mod uuoanamicoc mo coax .H m < A onu mo monocoaaoo .cz anomam .mucmamp cunwou ou cofiuooufiv zcm cw noun A cmnu whoa o: moxmu n m ucovsum a unavama voocmamm .q . .oocmamn cwmwou ou coauuouao mom cw noun A song once on magma ucmoSum I wcfiocma voocmHmm .e um mwoa mo cowmcouxo Hana no“: vaumcwvuooo .unwfion fi novasosm ammoa um comma o a 3onHo umnu on mean soon «0 umaunu vum3a: Hammouow < .N .ouuom nuownm ou weavcma co .ouu0u phonon ou waaocma oowxoau coax mam xcaua .m m n so cowxodw coax can xaaua .m .to 9.3 . .3... 1%.... an mwoa mo coamcmuxo Hana no“: wouncfivuooo .unmaan novaoono ummua um numou msonao umnu ow mahm noon mo umounu dynamo Houmuuou < .N .zvon ocfinmn coamcmuxo Hana you: souou mayo mu moocx soon wo o o couxoam Aoozwv com mooaao 1:“ ucuam>oa zuoumumnoum .~ . .zvon vcfizmn coamcouxo Hana Home gummy menu no mood: soon «0 cowxoam Aoo~flv oom movoao Isa uaoau>oa zuoumummmum .~ m d mwcwumm A mas“ Haws uawnaum ass mZDH A «HHflxm 132 .n~ ouawwm omm~ .3ouzh vcmnuo>o ago no monoconaoo .mg unawfim Noon on» mmouou vac caov no nowumu onu no“: mafia ca vac ammoauu Hams msu vcozoa .ommoaou Hana mnu ocozop Hao3.zwsounuiaoaaou < .q o « Haoz swaounuusoaaow < .c .cowuoe mafiaouzu .coauoa mcu moansv coaumuou wcaaouzu osu wcausv coaumuou ocaam can can omxuma no“: . mafiam can a“: omxuca no“: she mafiaousu osu ouamonno o c Sun wowsounu onu ouamozao noon as» ou noumcmuu unmaoz .m . uoom «no Ou ummmcmuu uzmwms .m .zvon vcanon sun mca3ousu on» no .3ouzu on» uumfiuacw ou zoos cowuoouav vumacaoo a ca 0 c vcanon afim mafiaounu ago cowmcouxo ouoaaaou umoz .N mo cowmcouxm ouoaaaoo unoz .N .m: vow: unu wcausv mod . .3ouzu oumauwcw anon ou uwwnm usage: ou on noon ago no usage: nous coaumucwuuo moan o o no“: coaumuaoauo moan i ucoao>oa zuoucumaoua < .z I ucaau>oa zuououmnouz < .~ z < Ao nuddwxm 133 .mH madman momfl .nuumu may mo monocoqaoo .m~ unawwm .Hama ago no «doom 0 .Hamn ago no ouuom 1:. swamp. cu asap muonam .a a and anomnm cu anon muonflm .1 .zaco mesa; suds Hana uomucou .m a a .saco mucus no“: Hana guano .m .uUMucoo .uomucoo Hana you cofiumumamun n m damn you cowumumaouu cw mayo mo coamcouxm .N c« mayo «0 cowmcmuxm .N .mmowm .moowm on» Home can cmxmaw maopao can and: can taxman msonao .zuon mo ucouw cw moons ago 0 N .zoon mo ucoum cw moan: any so“: couuamoa zuouwumqoum .z Sofia coauamoa zHOumumqoum .H m < um um can qauaoomcou ma Hams ozu cocoon Haw: unavaum one mozbom 444m "Haaxm .md unawam mumd .onM osu mo mucucomaou .ON uumwwm 135 .uumuaou .uuuuQau u" _ _ _ _ o>opm van vaoamn Ham: «0 unwon «nu u>onm van defiuumom a cu amaounu vcomon Haw: :owuamoa a cu ‘ maoaaom uoom mm me nwsounu maoaaom uoow mm o o mawxuax «nu muumoaao mma mafixUfix «nu unamoaao . . Bum mo waasm vumauom .c sum mo wcazm vumauom v .uoow mnu mo mvfimqw no .uoow mnu «0 ovamaa ya on no . nmumca nuw3 Hams nonucoo .m m n mwumcw saga Hana u u o n .me w w «Magnum. . g moo “wwwxuomx ”an.“ cm" 0 c on” mafiuav AOONH ummafl umv a a O a . gamma umv cowmcouxm aw: .N cowxmau can :owmcmuxm a: N .HHmn . can no canvas onu vawzmn Hams onuavMauwp haunwaam van cu uxmc haunwfiHm vcm Ou uxm v H o o m cm uoo ma UHxIGOG mnu uoom wcaxUfixlaoa mzu om v H u wumawxhuoumumamu . mmum numouaam huoumumnmum .~ on n a m H m < Aonm an: Bawav umn «cannauu van: acmcaaov Luau nonuquU mucus zuom .~ .cowuoa wcaxwuum cu uoaua uuvaaosm ucmcfiaov vcasun van a: vac: umn van .Acnov nanny vans ucn Icaeovcoc o>ona an: aaaqv nan mcuqaauw vcmz ucmcfiaov nag: uuguwmou mvcm: zuom .~ a uoauumcoo .NN enough nHzmv vanamQEH >Hnmucuz manmusvm coca uuuuun haucmofiwuawam Amzv vumamowvcmnlcoz Anny vuanmmun wcwcumug cmnu uuuuun haucmoawficmam Amzv voaamoaocmnicoz moamaum mo uo>mm ca moocuuommwv “macaw acmuwMficwam cuuvdfino novao mo uo>mw :« moucuuommwv own ucmuwmacwam II ¢ I on I N I v-O mucocaum mo comaumnaoo a m N fl mxwuum ahmuuwm vcmmloas e m N H onM a m N fl mocaom Hamm a m N M noumo a m N H spunk vcmnum>o c m @836 Houauuo> a cam Hzm m> :2 mg m> mz nounao mw< HHme uusuumcou 139 The performance of elementary-aged students generally increases with age (Branta et al. 1981:: Govatos. 19598 Seils. 1959). Gender differences in performances have generally been found to be in favor of the male students (Branta et al. l98h: Espenschade 8 Eckert, 1980; Govatos, 1959). Students who were non-handicapped were superior in their performance to students classifed as learning disabled (Broadhead, 1972; Bruininks 8 Bruininks, 1977). and superior to students classified as educable mentally impaired (Francis 5 Rarick. 1959; Rarick. Widdop 5 Broadhead. 1970; Dobbins 8 Rarick. 1977). Based on these data the patterns of performance present in this study largely support the constructs upon which this criterion-referenced assessment instrument was based. Because these results are presented and discussed in detail in Chapter IV they are not expanded upon in this section. Reliability Two reliability coefficients were calculated prior to the collection of the student performance data. An inter-rater agreement reliability coefficient was obtained for each of the seven fundamental motor skills on which data were collected. A test-retest reliability coefficient was obtained for each of the three groups (non—handicapped, learning disabled. educable mentally impaired) for each fundamental motor skill. The inter-rater reliability coefficients were attained by the four testers independently observing the performance of seventeen subjects classified as either non-handicapped. learning disabled 140 or educable mentally impaired. Prior to the collection of these data each tester had attained a competency level of 90 percent agreement with assessment training films developed by the Michigan Department of Education. Because each skill represented a different motor behavior. it was considered necessary to report the inter-rater agreements separately for each skill. The reliability coefficients reported in Table 7 range from a low of .89 for the vertical jump to a high of .97 for the run. These coefficients were accepted as objective evidence that the motor skills included in this instrument could be observed reliably. The coefficients meet the standards (.80) for acceptable reliability reported in the literature (Gay, 1976: Popham. 1978; Herder 8 Kalakian. 1985). The test-retest reliability coefficients were obtained by testing and then retesting. two weeks later. 29 subjects. Twelve of the subjects were classified as non-handicapped, nine of the subjects were classified as learning disabled. and eight of the subjects were classified as educable mentally impaired. The test- retest reliability coefficients obtained for all 29 subjects combined and for each group separately are reported in Table 8. The test-retest coefficients for the subjects classified as non- handicapped ranged from .80 on the vertical jump to .911 on the two-hand sidearm strike. The coefficients for the subjects classified as learning disabled ranged from .810 on the kick to .91 on the ball bounce. The coefficients are not reported for either of these groups on the run because of a lack of variance in the 141 Table 7 Inter-Rater Agreement Reliability Coefficients Skill Reliability Run .97 Vertical Jump .89 Overhand Throw .91 Catch .96 Ball Bounce .90 Kick .91 Two—Hand Sidearm Strike .92 Table 8 142 Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients Group Non— Learning Educable Skill All Students Handicapped Disabled Mentally Impaired n-29 n-12 n=9 n=8 Run .87 * * .90 Vertical Jump .89 .80 .85 .87 Overhand Throw .91 .93 .89 .91 Catch .90 .85 .89 .92 Ball Bounce .92 .82 .91 .94 Kick .87 .86 .84 .94 Two-Hand Sidearm Strike .90 .94 .90 .94 * Limited variance on these skills resulted in coefficients that lacked meaning 143 test scores. ‘The reliability coefficient lacks meaning when it is reported based on scores that have either little or no variance. The coefficients for the subjects classified as educable mentally impaired ranged from .87 on the vertical jump to .94 on the ball bounce. kick, and the two-hand sidearm strike. These test-retest coefficients met standards of acceptable test-retest reliability (.80) coefficients reported in the literature (Gay. 1976: Popham, 1978; Herder 8 Kalakian, 1985L Criterion-Referenced 1323 Administration Procedures and guidelines pertaining to test administration and training of the testers were devel0ped to ensure that the test was administered in a standardized manner. The procedures and guidelines employed are presented in detail in a section of Chapter III. "Criterion-Referenced Test Administration". and in Appendix C. section 1. "Test Administration Guidelines)‘ The discussion on test administration is divided into three areas: 1. Standardizing the testing environment. 2. Standardizing the test directions. 3. Training the test administrators. Standardizing the testing environment. The testing environments utilized in the different schools did not appear to interfere with the performance of the students tested. In the majority of situations it was possible to secure the use of a gymnasium or room of similar size. for example. the lunchroom. in which to conduct the assessments. These rooms were used solely for the purpose of testing without interference from others. All 144 unnecessary equipment was either removed from the room or placed in a position where it did not interfere with the movements of the individual being tested. Because of the size of the testing room it was necessary. in a few schools. to conduct a part of the testing on the playground. in these situations the items tested on the playground were the run, kick and the two-hand sidearm strike. Students were not tested outside in adverse weather conditions. Standardizing the £52£_directions. The test directions were standardized based on the conceptual. attending. and experiential abilities of the individuals tested. it was anticipated that some of the children. particularly the young educable mentally impaired children, could have difficulty understanding the requirements of some tasks. Because of this the test directions combined the use of basic verbal instructions and visual demonstrations. The test directions and procedures appeared to be appropriate for the students tested in this study. Each student was tested alone or with one other student. This minimized distractions and provided students who could have been apprehensive about the testing with greater security. If it appeared as though the children were modeling each other they were separated. Prior to the testing the student's teacher was asked if there was any information the tester needed to know about the student. This questioning provided useful information pertaining to the pairing of students. conceptual abilities. shyness, and behavior problems. l:312122.£22,££3£ administrators. The training required of 145 the test administrators was both appropriate and necessary in this study. Two aspects of the training will be discussed. Each tester was trained to a level of competency that enabled him/her to identify. on film. the components of each skill with 90 percent accuracy. After this level of competency was attained the raters observed and scored students performing each skill. the results of this testing are reported as inter-rater reliability coefficients in an earlier section of this chapter. These coefficients support the contention that the testers were competent at observing the components of each skill on the test. The second aspect of the training involved the test administration. The testers were provided with a capy of the test that outlined how each item should be organized (equipment, distances. positioning of the student and tester). Specific procedures on conducting each item were discussed and practiced. Factors such as getting the students attention. demonstrating the skill. giving verbal directions. and the type of feedback provided were also discussed and practiced. The training required of each tester resulted in minimal difficulties during test administration. Smarz The information reported in this Chapter demonstrates that the criterion-referenced test of fundamental motor skills developed in this study met acceptable levels of validity and reliability and that the student performance data were collected following standardized and consistent testing directions. The 146 measurement procedures utilized to collect and analyze the validity and reliability data were appropriate for use with a criterion-referenced test. CHAPTER V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION STUDENT FUNDAMENTAL MOTOR SKILL PERFORMANCE This chapter addresses the purposes of the study related to the performance of the students who were tested on the criterion- referenced fundamental motor skill instrument developed as a part of this study: 1. To examine similaritiesl and differences in Ihotor performance by age. gender and handicap for students classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled. or educable mentally impaired. To establish performance expectations for elementary-aged boys and girls classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled. or educable mentally impaired. Three hypotheses were examined: 1. 3. Student performance on the fundamental motor skills will improve with age for the students who are non- handicapped. learning disabled. or educable mentally impaired. Male students who are non—handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired will perform at a level superior to their same age female peers on the fundamental motor skills tested. The students who are non-handicapped will demonstrate 147 148 superior performance on the fundamental motor skills when compared with the performance of the students who are learning disabled. or with the performance of the students who are educable mentally impaired. The performances of 524 students were analyzed using regression analysis procedures (SPSS V9.0). These analyses are reported in the first part of this chapter. Data pertaining to the percent of students by age. gender and handicapping classification who demonstrated a mastery level of performance for each skill and for each of the four components into which each skill was organized are presented in the second section of this chapter. Analysis of the Student Performance Data This section is organized so that the students' performances are presented in a skill-by—skill manner. The results of the statistical analyses for each skill are reported and discussed in reference to the three hypotheses. When determining the significance or non-significance of specific comparisons the .05 level of significance was used. 322 Table 9 summarizes the run performance of the students in the age range of 6 to 9 years. The results indicate there was not a significant improvement in performance with age when the scores of all three groups of students were combined. Further analyses (see Table 10) show that for the non-handicapped and learning disabled students neither the linear nor non-linear effects of age were significant. There was however. a significant linear effect of 149 Table 9 Summary of Motor Performance for Students Classified as Non-Handicapped, Learning Disabled, or Educable Mentally Impaired in the Range Six to Nine Years of Age Variable Age Gender Handicap Skill F1,432 R F2,431 R F3,430 R Run .61 .04 .23 .01 11.93c .13 Vertical Jump 2.19 .07 .80 .01 16.60c .13 Overhand Throw 15.808 .19 65.57b .22 30.30c .06 Catch A 21.673 .22 4.44b .02 62.54c .13 Ball Bounce 32.828 .27 12.24b .04 51.26c .13 Kick 11.74a .16 13.59b .07 40.73c .13 b Two-Hand Sidearm 13.088 .17 40.53 .17 57.22c .13 Strike Note. Significance set at .05. aSignificant improvement with age. bSignificant differences in favor of males. cSignificant differences in favor of nothandicapp d students. Table 10 150 Linear Effects of Agg on Mbtor Performance for Students Classified as NonrHandicapped, Learnipg Disabled. or Educable Mentally Impaired Classification Non-Handicapped Learning Disabled Educable Mentally Impaired Skill Linear Noaninear Linear Non-Linear Linear NoneLinear F1,166 F2,166 F1.177 F5,177 F1,165 F5.165 Run 1.46 1.51 .31 .36 2.078 1.48 Vertical a a Jump 6.62 1.19 4.29 .71 1.01 .57 ggfizgfnd 5.56a .93 4.16a 1.13 3.50a 2.07b’c Catch 10.17a .27 10.608 .98 10.128 3.09b'c Ball 17.428 3.77b’c 11.553 1.49 8.848 1.64 Bounce . Kick 5.04a 1.54 3.173 .42 3.358 1.42 Two- Hand. a b,c a a Sidearm 4.74 3.15 4.17 .70 4.92 1.86 Strike Note. Significance level set at .05. aLinear affect of age significant. bNon-linear effect of age significant. cQuadratic effect of age significant. 151 age for the subjects classified as educable mentally impaired. The non-linear effect was not significant. A review of Table 11 shows the average scores on the run for the subjects classified as non-handicapped or learning disabled were. at age six. already close to the maximum score (8.0). Consequently there was little room for the scores to improve across the age levels. The lower initial performance of the educable mentally impaired subjects and the subsequent change in performance resulted in a significant linear effect. The gender differences in performance for the run were not significant for subjects in the age range six to nine years. Table 11 indicates little difference in the average scores of the boys and girls for the run. It should also be noted (see R—Value. Table 9) that gender has little predictive value for the run. The effect of handicap was significant for the rm when the performance of the students classified as non-handicapped was compared with the combined performance of the students classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired (see Table 9). Further analyses (see Table 12) revealed that when the performance of the non-handicapped subjects was compared with the learning disabled subjects the difference was not significant. The difference in performance between the non-handicapped and educable mentally impaired individuals was significant In favor of the non- handicapped subjects. A comparison of the subjects classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired resulted in a significant difference in favor of the learning disabled subjects. Table 11 Run: 152 Means and Standard Deviations Classification NonrHandicapped Learning Disabled Educable Mentally Impaired Age M F M F M F 6 M ‘7.80 7.75 8.00 7.50 6.67 7.44 SD .41 .50 0.00 .71 .91 1.01 n 25 36 2 2 21 9 7 M 7.88 7.88 7.83 8.00 7.07 7.19 SD .33 .33 .39 .00 1.18 .83 n 33 17 12 3 28 16 8 M 7.91 7.91 7.92 7.91 7.61 7.12 SD .29 .28 .36 .29 .58 1.22 n 22 24 37 12 23 17 9 M 7.89 7.50 7.82 8.00 7.13 7.33 SD .33 1.00 .47 .00 .92 1.00 n 9 4 33 10 15 9 10 M 7.92 7.71 7.71 7.25 SD .28 .61 .61 .96 n 25 14 14 4 11 M 7.91 7.80 8.00 6.50 SD .29 .45 .00 .71 n 12 5 4 2 12 M 7.93 8.00 7.40 8.00 SD .27 .00 .89 .00 n 14 3 5 3 Note. Range of scores possible; minimum - 4. maximum.= 8 M - average score. SD = standard deviation. n = students in cell. 153 Table 12 Comparison of the Performance of Students Classified as Non- Handicapped. Learning DisabledLgor Educable Mentally_1mpaired on Fundamental Motor Skills Comparison 'NH vs LD NH vs EMI LD vs EMI df - 1.279 df - 1.307 df = 1,354 Skill F-Value Run .03 68.158 51.03b Vertical Jump 14.96a 36.26a 11.48b Overhand Throw 13.67a 52.21a 19.19b Catch 31.998 125.908 25.97b Ball Bounce 27.568 82.598 18.43b Kick 17.628 58.658 15.94b T"°'Ha“d 15.153 111.953 41.92b Sidearm Strike Note. NH - Non-Handicapped, LD - Learning Disabled. EMI - Educable Mentally Impaired. aSignificance in favor of Non-Handicapped. bSignificance in favor of Learning Disabled Significance level - .05. 154 The change in the R—Value (see Table 9) shows that among the three variables included in the regression analysis. handicap was the best predictor of performance. Vertical 9.99.2 The data in Table 9 shows that there was not a significant effect of age when the scores of subjects from all three groups were included in the analysis. When the groups were analyzed separately there was a significant linear effect of age for the non—handicapped and for the learning disabled subjects. There was not a significant linear effect of age for the subjects classified as educable mentally impaired. The average scores for the vertical jump (see Table 13) show that even though there were significant linear changes for the subjects classified as non- handicapped or learning disabled. the average scores of subjects in these groups. at age 9 and 12 respectively. were still well below the maximum score possible. The difference in performance for the male and female. subjects in the three groups was not significant (see Table 9). A review of the average scores for all three groups (see Table 13) supports this finding. The low R—Value for the effect of gender (see Table 9) suggests that. in the age range tested. a knowledge of the subjects gender is of little value when predicting a subject's performance on the vertical jump. The affect of handicap was significant for the vertical jump when the performance of the non-handicapped subjects was compared with the combined performance of the students from the other two Table 13 Vertical Jugp: 155 Means and Standard Deviations Classification Non-Handicapped Learning Disabled Educable Mentally Impaired Age M F M F M F 6 M 5.96 6.13 6.50 6.00 5.59 6.11 SD .54 .59 .71 0.00 .93 .33 n 25 36 2 2 21 9 7 M 6.39 6.18 5.67 6.00 5.86 5.88 SD .66 1.07 .65 .00 .85 .72 n 33 17 12 3 28 16 8 M 6.96 6.50 6.30 6.00 5.91 5.79 SD .84 .93 .88 .74 .67 .77 n 22 24 37 12 23 17 9 M 6.56 6.75 6.33 6.00 5.93 6.00 SD 1.01 .96 1.05 .82 1.44 1.00 n 9 4 33 10 15 9 10 M 6.48 6.71 6.36 5.50 SD 1.01 .91 .93 .58 n 25 14 14 4 11 M 6.75 6.60 6.25 5.50 SD .87 .89 .50 .71 n 12 5 4 2 12 M 7.14 7.00 6.40 6.67 SD .86 1.00 .55 1.53 n 14 3 5 3 Note. Range of scores possible; minimum - 4. maximum - 8. M - average score. SD - standard deviation, n - students in cell. 156 groups (see Table 9). Separate comparisons (see Table 12) show that the non-handicapped subjects were superior in performance to the learning disabled subjects and to the educable mentally impaired subjects. Both of these comparisons were significant. The performance of the learning disabled subjects was significantly better than that of the educable mentally impaired subjects. A review of the R-Values on Table 9 shows that for the vertical jump handicap was a stronger predictor of performance than either age or gender. Overhand m A significant improvement across age was observed when the scores from all three groups were combined (see Table 9). A significant linear effect of age was present for all three groups (see Table 10). A significant non-linear effect was present in the performance of the subjects classified as educable mentally impaired. Further analysis revealed the non-linear affect was quadratic (see Table 10). The inconsistency In the average scores on the overhand throw for the subjects classified as educable mentally impaired supports the presence of a non-linear pattern of development (see Table 14). The data show a significant gender difference in performance. The performance of the male subjects was superior to that of the female subjects. The average scores for the overhand throw (see Table 14) show that the scores of the male subjects in all three groups were consistently higher than those of their female peers. The performance of the 8 and 9 year old non-handicapped subjects 157 Table 14 Overhand Throw: Means and Standard Deviations Classification Non-Handicapped Learning Disabled Educable Mentally Impaired Age M F M F M F 6 M 6.48 5.50 8.00 4.50 5.52 5.00 SD 1.05 1.11 0.00 .71 1.25 .50 n 25 36 2 2 21 9 7 M 7.06 5.47 6.33 4.67 5.86 4.44 SD 1.03 1.46 1.30 .58 1.30 .81 n 33 17 12 3 28 16 8 M 7.50 5.75 6.62 5.17 6.52 5.18 SD .80 1.23 1.11 1.27 1.38 1.07 n 22 24 37 12 23 17 9 M 7.78 6.25 7.27 6.00 6.33 5.89 SD .44 1.71 .84 1.05 1.23 1.36 n 9 4 33 10 15 9 10 M 7.28 6.29 7.00 6.00 SD .89 1.14 1.18 1.16 n 25 14 14 4 11 M 7.08 6.40 7.50 4.50 SD 1.00 .89 .58 .71 n 12 5 4 2 12 M 7.71 6.33 5.40 6.00 SD .47 1.16 1.52 1.00 n 14 3 5 3 Note. Range of scores possible; minimum - 4. maximum - 8. M = average score. SD - standard deviation, n - students in cell 158 is less variable than that of the other male and female subjects (see Table 14). This observation supports the principle that there tends to be less variation among more highly skilled performers. The R-Value (see Table 9) associated with the overhand throw indicates that gender is a reflatively good predictor of performance for this skill. A significant effect of handicap was found when the performance of the non-handicapped subjects was compared with the combined performance of the learning disabled and educable mentally impaired subjects (see Table 9). Separate analyses showed that the non-handicapped subjects were superior to the learning disabled subjects and the educable mentally impaired subjects (see Table 12). The learning disabled subjects were superior to the educable mentally Impaired subjects (see Table 12). All of the differences were significant. as: A significant effect of age was present when the combined performances of students In all three groups were analyzed (see Table 9). A significant linear effect of age was present for each group on the catch (see Table 10). A significant non-linear effect. which further analysis showed to be a quadratic effect. was observed in the performance of the subjects classified as educable mentally impaired (see Table 10). The R-Value (see Table 9) suggests a relatively strong association of age with performance on the catch. There was a significant effect of gender when the performance 159 of the male subjects in all three groups was compared with the performance of the female subjects in the three groups. Although statistical significance was present. the relatively low R—Value associated with gender (see Table 9) suggests that a knowledge of gender does not provide much assistance in predicting the performance of elementary-aged children on the catch. The decreasing variation in performance as the scores of the male students classified as non-handicapped or learning disabled improved with age supports the principle that as performance improves. the variability In performance decreases (see Table 15). The subjects classified as non-handicapped performed significantly better than the combined performance of the subjects classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired (see Table 9). Further analyses showed that the non-handicapped subjects were superior to the learning disabled subjects and the educable mentally impaired subjects. and that the learning disabled subjects were superior to the educable mentally impaired subjects. All of the differences were significant (see Table 12). The R-Value (see Table 9) suggests that for elementary-aged children handicap is a relatively good predictor of performance on the catch. A significant effect of age was present for the ball bounce when the combined performance of subjects from all three groups were analyzed (see Table 9). The data in Table 10 show a significant linear improvement with age for each group. There was 160 Table 15 Catch: Means and Standard Deviations Classification Non-Handicapped Learning Disabled Educable Mentally Impaired Age M F M F M F 6 M 6.48 6.08 5.50 5.00 4.86 4.78 SD .82 1.34 .71 1.41 .73 .67 n 25 36 2 2 21 9 7 M 6.91 6.65 6.00 6.00 5.50 4.94 SD 1.01 1.06 1.54 .00 1.07 1.18 n 33 17 12 3 28 16 8 M 7.64 6.83 6.65 5.58, 6.21 5.77 SD , .66 1.09 1.16 1.17 1.04 1.30 n 22 24 37 12 23 17 9 M 7.78 7.00 7.00 6.80 5.93 7.00 SD .44 1.16 1.15 1.32 1.28 1.32 n 9 4 33 10 15 9 10 M 7.64 7.21 6.93 6.75 SD .76 1.05 1.49 1.89 n 25 14 14 4 11 M 7.67 8.00 7.50 6.50 SD .49 .00 1.00 .71 n 12 5 4 2 12 M 7.93 6.67 7.20 8.00 SD .27 1.53 .84 .00 n 14 3 5 3 Note. Range of scores possible; minimum - 4. maximum - 8 M - average score, SD a standard deviation. n - students in cell. 161 also a significant non-linear (quadratic) effect of age for the subjects classified as non—handicapped. A drOp in the average performance of the 9 year old non-handicapped subjects could account for the quadratic effect (see Table 16). Age appears to be a relatively good predictor of performance on the ball bounce (see Table 9). There was a significant effect of gender present for the ball bounce (see Table 9). The difference in performance was in favor of the male subjects. A knowledge of gender however. appears to be of minimal value when predicting the performance of elementary- aged subjects on the ball bounce (see R—Value. Table 9). The effect of handicap was significant when the performance of the non-handicapped subjects was compared with the combined performance of the learning disabled and educable mentally impaired subjects (see Table 9). Further analyses showed that the non-handicapped subjects were superior to the learning disabled subjects and the educable mentally impaired subjects. and that the learning disabled subjects were superior to the educable mentally impaired subjects. All of the differences were significant. m The change in performance with age on the kick was significant when the scores of the subjects from all three groups were combined (see Table 9). Separate analyses demonstrated a significant effect of age for each of the three groups (see Table 10). The relatively low average scores and high variability in 162 Table 16 Ball Bounce: Means and Standard Deviations Classification Non-Handicapped Learning Disabled Educable Mentally Impaired Age M F M F M F 6 M 5.24 5.06 5.50 4.50 4.52 4.56 SD 1.09 1.24 2.12 .71 .75 .88 n 25 36 2 2 21 9 7 M 6.61 5.88 4.83 4 67 5.07 4.50 SD 1.17 1.17 1.34 1 16 1.25 .97 n 33 17 12 3 28 16 8 M 7.31 6.13 6.03 5.00 5.35 4.65 SD 1.29 1.33 1.61 1.13 1.34 1.00 n 22 24 37 12 23 17 9 M 7.00 6.50 6.97 5.90 5.60 5.89 SD 1 41 1.00 1.40 1.29 1.68 1 36 n 9 4 33 10 15 9 10 M 7.16 6.86 6.79 6.00 SD 1.28 1.35 1.48 1.63 n 25 14 14 4 11 M 7.67 7.00 6.50 5.50 SD .89 1.41 1.92 .71 n 12 5 4 2 12 M 7.64 7.00 7.00 8.00 SD .63 1.00 1.73 0.00 n 14 3 5 3 Note. Range of scores possible; minimum - 4. maximum - 8 M - average scores. SD - standard deviation. n - students in cell. 163 the scores suggest that the kick was a difficult skill for subjects in all three groups (see Table 17). Age appears to have moderately good predictive value for the kick (see Table 9). There was a significant effect of gender when the scores from all three groups of subjects were combined (see Table 9%. The significance was in favor of the male subjects. Similar to most of the other skills on which data were collected. a knowledge of a subject's gender is of relatively little value when predicting a subject's performance (see Table 9). A significant effect of handicap was present when the scores of the subjects classified as non-handicapped were compared with the combined scores of the subjects classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired (see Table 9). The significance was in favor of the non-handicapped. The data on Table 12 shows that the performance of the non-handicapped subjects was superior to the performance of the learning disabled subjects and superior to that of the educable mentally impaired subjects. There was also a significant difference between the learning disabled subjects and the educable mentally impaired subjects in favor of the learning disabled subjects. Two—Hand Sidearm 355.135.. A significant improvement with age was present on the two hand sidearm strike when the scores of the subjects from all three groups were combined (see Table 9). Table 10 shows that a significant linear effect of age existed for each group of subjects. A significant quadratic effect was present on this 164 Table 17 Kick: Means and Standard Deviations Classification Non-Handicapped Learning Disabled Educable Mentally Impaired Age M F M F M F 6 M 4.88 5.25 4.50 4.00 4.24 4.22 SD 1.27 1.16 .71 .00 .63 .67 n 25 36 2 2 21 9 7 M 5.76 5.71 5.17 4.33 4.82 4.25 SD 1.03 1.36 1.19 .58 1.19 .58 n 33 17 12 3 28 16 8 M 7.09 5.04 5.60 4.33 5.30 4.65 SD 1.11 1.16 1.32 .78 1.26 .93 n 22 24 37 12 23 17 9 M 6.11 5.25 6.06 4.80 4.87 5.22 SD 1.36 1.26 1.37 .79 1.13 1.09 n 9 4 33 10 15 9 10 M 6.32 5.43 5.71 5.00 SD 1.07 1.28 1.14 1.41 n 25 14 14 4 11 M 6.25 6.00 6.25 4.50 SD 1.42 1.58 .50 .71 n 12 5 4 2 12 M 6.50 5.00 4.80 6.00 SD 1.02 1.00 1.79 1.00 n 14 3 5 3 Note. Range of scores possible; minimum.= 4, maximum - 8 M - average score. SD - standard deviation. n - students in cell. 165 skill for the subjects classified as non—handicapped. The drOp in the average performance of the nine year old male and eight year old female subjects classified as non-handicapped could account for the quadratic effect (see Table 18). The R-value associated with age indiCates that age has moderate predictive value for the two hand sidearm strike. The effect of gender was significant for the two hand sidearm strike. The gender difference was in favor of the male subjects (see Table 9). A review of Table 18 illustrates that the average score of the male subjects was generally higher than that of the female subjects. The R-Value on Table 9 shows gender to have moderate value in predicting performance for the two hand sidearm strike. A significant effect of handicap was present when the scores of the non-handicapped were compared with the combined scores of the subjects who were learning disabled or educable mentally impaired (see Table 9). Separate analyses showed that the non- handicapped subjects were superior to the learning disabled subjects and to the educable mentally impaired subjects. The learning disabled subjects were superior to the educable mentally impaired subjects. All differences were significant (see Table 12). Summary Based on the data reported in this section of Chapter V. the performances of the students tested were consistent with the research hypotheses. There was a significant improvement with age Table 18 .Inozfland Sidearm Strike: 166 Means and.Standard Deviations Classification Non-Handicapped Learning Disabled Educable Mentally Impaired Age M F M F M F 6 M 6.32 5.67 6.50 4.50 4.88 4.44 SD 1.15 1.17 .71 .71 1.11 .73 n 25 36 2 2 21 9 7 M 7.06 6.12 5.67 5.00 5.14 4.25 SD 1.17 1.27 1.56 1.73 1.46 .58 n 33 17 12 3 28 16 8 M 7.46 5.50 6.81 4.75 5.83 4.71 SD .74 1.14 1.18 1.14 1.47 .99 n 22 24 37 12 23 17 9 M 7.22 6.50 7.18 5.50 5.73 5.89 SD 1.30 1.92 1.21 .97 1.16 1.45 n 9 4 33 10 15 9 10 M 7.40 6.14 6.79 5.75 SD .96 1.46 1.58 .96 n 25 14 14 4 11 M 7.58 6.20 6.75 4.00 SD .52 1.48 .50 .00 n 12 5 4 2 12 M 7.21 7.33 6.20 6.33 SD .98 1.16 .84 1.53 n 14 3 5 3 Note. Range of scores possible; minimum - 4. maximum - 8 M - average scores. SD - standard deviation. n - students in cell. 167 on five of the seven skills when the scores of all students in the age range of six to nine years were combined. The run and the vertical jump were the two skills in which a signifiCant age effect was not present. A significant linear effect was present on six of the seven skills for the non-handiCapped subjects (the run being the exCeption): on six of the seven skills for the learning disabled subjects (the run was the exception): and on six of the seven skills for the educable mentally impaired subjects (the vertical jump being the exception). Age was a moderate to good predictor of performance for the overhand throw. catch. ball bounce. kick and the two hand sidearm strike. Significant gender differences in favor of the male students were observed on five of the seven skills. The run and the vertical jump were the two skills where significant gender differences were not present. Based on the R-Values the overhand throw and the two hand sidearm strike were the only skills where gender could be of use in predicting an individual's score. A significant effect of handiCap was present on all seven skills when the scores of the non-handicapped subjects were compared with the combined scores of the subjects classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. Further analyses showed the non-handicapped subjects to be significantly better than the learning disabled subjects on six of the seven skills (the run being the exception). and significantly better than the educable mentally impaired on all seven skills. The learning disabled subjects scored significantly higher than the educable 168 mentally impaired subjects on all seven skills. The R—Values suggest that a knowledge of handicap was of moderate value in predicting performance on six of the seven skills. Knowledge of handicap was of little value for the overhand throw. Mastery Levels of Motor Performance for Students Classified as Non—Handicapped. Learning Disabled or Educable Mentally impaired Data pertaining to the mastery levels of performance demonstrated by the students who were assessed are summarized in this section. The percentage of students by age. gender and handicapping classification who mastered each of the seven fundamental motor skills are reported in the first set of tables (Tables 19. 20 and 21). The percentage of students. by age. gender and handicapping classification who mastered each of the components of the seven fundamental motor skills are reported in the second set of tables (Tables 22-28L Meaningful interpretation of the data reported in this section requires the reader to remain cognizant of the fact that several cells contain only a small number of subjects. Extreme scores inflate or deflate the values in cells with a small number of subjects to a greater extent than in cells with a large number of subjectsm For example. 100 percent of the six year old male students classified as learning disabled demonstrated mastery of the overhand throw. However. only 17 percent of the seven year old and 22 percent of the eight year old male students classified as learning disabled demonstrated mastery of this skill. The 169 m0 unmoumm wmcfinaoo u o .Hm>mH ammumma um mmamamm mo ucmuumm u m .Hm>mH huoumma um mmHmauw new means .HmaoH mumumms um means no unmoumm n z Hm>mH mwm some up mmamamw can moans mo nausea: Hmnvmca "muoz mMHmam zma an on on mm 0 mm on NH ma mg m o~ ImaHm 924ml“ w 0 AH mm o on w N~ o m m a MUHM HUZDom mm c on «a am we w~ o «N n o a AAo mzan mw mm NN cm Am mm m mg o N m o AdoHHmm> mm mm mm Hm No ~m mm mm am mm mm ow ..z:m ma a m we «N Nu om 5H mm me mm mm n a m z m u m z u m z u m z u m 2 AAme ma Hm OH m m m m anzmu\mu< Hfiwxm comm mom Hm>mA mumummz mm mucmnnum ummmmofivcmmlcoz mo unmuumm an manta 170 we unmuumm nmcwnaoo u o .Hm>mH humumma um mmHmsmm mo unmouom n m .Hm>mH humumma um memamw mam mmHma .Hm>wH zuwumme um mmHma mo unmoumm n z Hm>MH own some um mmHmamw can mmHms mo amass: Hmnvmc: "muoz mmeam zm< mm 50 on he om mm we «H ac he c He RN 0 mm mH o NH 0 o o imaHm nzo mznh He mm me am om mm mm mu ON NH o nH NH w «H o o o o o o AdoHHmm> cm ooH mm mm ow mm «we mm mm mm ooH am am mm mm mm ooH mm mm on ooH 23m 5H m «H NH m NH mm «H nu ma oH mm ma NH mm mH m. NH e N N u a u m z u u z u m z u m z u m z u u z u m z WWHHHMm NH HH 0H m m m m xmnzmu\mo¢ HHme comm How Hm>mH mumummz um wunmvaum vapmmHn wcwcummH mo unmuumm om.mHan 171 m0 unwound nmcfinaoo u o .Hm>mH %umumma um mmHmamw mo ucmuumm u m .Hm>mH humumma um mmHmamw can mmHma .Hm>mH humumme um mmHma mo unmuumm u z Hm>mH mmm some um mmHmEmw mam mmHma mo mumnasc Hmscmnb "muoz mxamam sac nu mm o o o as c an NH NN Ma mi 0 NN a o mm o o o -maHm ozamum ma o ON 0 o c o a o o o o o o N o e o o o auax muzaom ma can oc mm on an mm me “a an om m o a N o e o o o seam me ooa oa. on ma cm on an mm on oN «a Na Ms A c a o o o muao axon mm mm o o o a“ o am An aa cu m o a n a e o o o nauaamm> as con oc he can an on ma as cm 06 cc mm we as an on mm kc ma zsm a m m c N a mm a ea SN a ma oe AH mm as ea mm on a SN 1 c u u z u z u m z u m z u m z u m z u m z HHHMm N H H H H: m w m o .mmnzmu\mo< HHme comm you Hm>mH mwmummz um mucmmaum vmuwmmaH mHHmucmz mHnmonvm mo ucuuumm HN manmh Table 22 Run: 172 Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component NON-iMNDI CAPPED ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 M r M r M F M r COHPONENT l 88 92 97 100 91 100 100 75 COMPONENT 2 100 100 97 100 100 100 100 100 COHPONENT 3 100 97 100 100 100 100 100 100 COMPONENT 4 92 86 94 88 100 92 89 75 TOTAL 80 78 94 88 91 92 89 75 LEARNING DISABLED ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 —_—1 M r M r M r M r M r M r M r COHPONENT l 100 100 92 100 97 100 91 100 92 93 92 100 93 100 COMPONENT 2 100 100 100 100 97 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 COMPONENT 3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Inn 100 100 100 COMPONENT 4 100 50 92 100 97 92 91 100 100 79 100 80 100 100 TOTAL 100 50 83 100 95 91 85 100 92 79 92 80 93 100 EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED ACE/GENDER 7 8 9 1O 11 12 M r M F M F M r M F M F M P COMPONENT 1 33 89 64 81 78 71 47 78 '86 75 100 o 60 100 COMPONENT 2 100 100 96 100 100 94 100 89 100 100 100 100 100 100 COMFONENT 3 71 89 79 94 91 88 93 89 100 75 100 100 100 100 . °°“P°"E“T ‘ 62 67 68 44 91 59 73 78 86 75 100 50 80 100 IOTAL 19 67 50 38 65 53 40 56 79 50 100 0 60 100 Table 23 Vertical Jump: 173 NON-HANDICAPPED Percent of Students at‘MasterLLevel'by Component ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 M P M P M F M F CONP°"ENT 1 8 19 18 24 50 29 56 25 COMPONENT 2 8 14 24 29 50 29 33 SO CONPONENT 3 84 89 100 77 100 92 78 100 °°“P°NENT 4 96 92 97 88 96 100 89 100 7°1‘L 0 3 6 12 32 21 22 25 LEARNING DISABLED ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 M P M P M F M F M F M P M F C°HPONENT 1 50 0 0 0 30 8 36 10 40 50 42 4o 50 67 COMPONENT 2 0 0 8 o 24 8 33 20 32 29 33 40 71 33 coMpouaur 3 100 100 58 100 87 83 76 7o 80 100 100 80 93 67 icoMrongur 4 100 100 100 100 89 100 88 100 96 93 100 100 100 100 1011; 0 o 0 o 14 8 15 o 20 29 25 20 43 33 EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 M P M F M F M P M F H F H F COMPONENT 1 0 o 11 6 4 o 33 11 29 25 o o 20 33 °°”P°"E"T 2 14 11 14 6 9 18 27 22 21 1,0 25 o 20 67 COMPONENT 3 57 100 .79 75 78 65 60 67 86 50 100 50 100 67 9°“PONENT “ 86 100 82 100 100 88 73 100 100 75 100 100 100 100 TOTAL 0 0 4 6 4 0 20 11 21 o 0 0 0 33 174 Table 24 Overhand Throw: Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component NON-HANDICAPPED ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 M F M F M F M F COMPONENT 1 84 39 94 47 91 50 100 50 COMPONENT 2 12 6 49 12 64 O 78 25 COMPONENT 3 64 28 82 ’35 100 50 100 75 -COMPONENT 4 88 78 82 53 96 75 100 75 IOIAL 12 6 39 12 64 o 78 25 LEARNING DISABLED ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 1o 11 12 1‘ M F M F M F r M P M P M F °°HPONENT ' 100 o 83 0 87 42 97 40 96 79 100 80 100 100 COMPONENI 2 100 o 17 0 27 o 49 10 56 14 50 0 79 o COMPONENT 3 100 0 58 o 65 25 85 so 80 51 75 60 93 67 bCOMPONENT 4 100 50 75 67 84 50 97 80 96 79 81 100 100 67 TOTAL 100 0 17 o 22 o 49 o 52 14 42 o 71 o EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 M P M P M F M F M F M F M F COH?°"3"T 1 48 56 64 6 78 29 87 44 93 75 100 0 4o 33 COMPONENT 2 0 0 11 0 22 6 20 11 36 0 50 o 20 o coupougur 3 43 o 39 6 74 18 53 44 86 75 100 o 20 67 COMPONENT ‘ 62 44 71 31 78 65 73 89 86 50 100 50 an Inn IOCAL o o 11 o 22 6 20 11 36 o 50 o 0 o 175 Table 25 Catch: Percent of Students at Mastery_Level by Component NON-NANDICAPPED ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 M P M F M P M F COMPONENT 1 88 75 88 94 82 88 100 75 COMPONENT 2 96 78 94 82 100 83 100 100 LCOMPONENT 3 24 28 58 53 91 58 89 75 COMPONENI 4 40 28 52 35 91 54 89 50 TOTAL 12 22 39 29 73 42 78 50 LEARNING DISA8LED AGE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 M P M P M P M P P M P M P coMPONENr 1 100 50 75 100 87 75 91 8o 96 93 92 100 93 100 C°“P°“E"T 2 0 50 58 100 81 58 85 90 96 86 100 100 100 67 COMPONENT 3 50 0 42 O 54 17 70 70 92 86 IOU 100 I00 07 bCOMPONENT 4 0 o 25 0 43 8 55 40 80 57 75 100 100 33 10111 o 0 17 0 27 8 49 4o 76 57 67 100 93 33 EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED ACE/GENDER 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 M F M F M F M P M F M F M P COMPONENT l 62 33 64 50 83 71 87 88 79 75 100 100 100 100 COMPONENT 2 19 22 57 13 78 53 4O 78 71 75 75 50 100 100 COMPONENT 3 5 11 14 13 35 35 40 67 71 75 100 50 80 100 COMPONENT 4 0 11 14 19 26 18 27 67 71 50 75 50 40 100 TOTAL 0 o 7 6 13 12 20 56 57 50 75 0 40 100 176 Table 26 Ball Bounce: Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component NON-HANDICAPPED ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 M F M P M P M P COMPONENT 1 12 14 33 6 73 29 78 25 coMPONENT 2 40 33 85 71 86 67 67 100 coMPONENT 3 48 36 67 59 82 63 89 75 TCOMPONENT 4 24 22 76 53 91 54 67 50 TOTAL 4 6 24 6 68 21 56 0 I LEARNING DISABLED ACE/CENDER 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 M T M P M P M F M P M P M P coMPoNtNr 1 50 o 8 o 51 8 7o 40 64 64 83 80 86 33 COMPONENT 2 50 50 33 33 57 42 82 60 88 79 100 60 93 100 COMPONENT 3 50 o 25 33 51 25 76 70 92 71 92 60 100 100 -COMPONENT 4 0 o 17 0 43 25 70 20 72 71 92 100 86 67 TOTAL 0 0 8 0 32 o 58 10 64 43 83 6o 71 33 EDDCA8LE MENTALLY IMPAIRED ACE/CENDER 6 8 9 1o 11 12 M F M F M P M P M P M P M F 9°"P°“5“T ' 5 o 21 o 17 0 33 22 50 25 50 0 80 100 CON?°NENT 2 33 23 25 25 39 24 53 67 79 75 75 50 80 100 CQHPONENT 3 10 33 46 19 52 29 4O 78 79 50 50 50 80' 100 COMPONENT “ 5 o 14 6 26 12 33 22 71 50 75 50 60 100 TOTAL 0 o 4 0 9 o 20 11 43 25 50 o 60 100 Table 27 17 7 Kick: Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component NON-HANDICAPPED ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 M P M P M F M P COMPONENT 1 28 47 58 59 91 29 67 75 COMPONENT 2 16 25 49 29 82 29 67 25 COMPONENT 3 12 17 18 24 50 8 11 100 COMPONENT 4 32 36 52 59 86 38 67 25 TOTAL 4 3 6 12 46 0 11 o LEARNING DISABLED AGE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 1O 11 12 M P M F M F M F M F M P M F COMPONENT 1 0 0 42 0 41 8 39 20 48 36 50 80 57 33 COMPONENT 2 0 o 17 33 46 8 64 20 72 29 67 20 79 33 COMPONENT 3 o 0 17 0 14 0 36 o 28 21 33 40 29 0 bCOMPONENT 4 so 0 42 o 60 17 67 4O 84 57 75 60 86 33 TOTAL 0 0 0 o 5 0 24 o 20 0 25 20 21 o EDUCA8LE MENTALLY IMPAIRED ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 1O 11 12 M F M F M F M F M F M F M F COMPONENT 1 s 11 18 6 35 18 27 45 43 25 50 50 20 67 COMPONENT 2 5 0 21 6 30 0 20 22 50 0 7S 0 20 0 coupons“: 3 0 0 14 0 9 12 7 33 14 25 50 0 20 33 COH?°NENT 4 14 11 29 13 57 35 33 22 64 50 50 o 20 100 IOTAL 0 o 4 o 0 0 0 0 7 0 o 0 20 o 1178 Table 28 Two—Hand Sidearm Strike: Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component ‘ NON-HANDICAPPEN ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 M F M P M P M E COMPONENT 1 BI. 67 82 82 91 63 89 75 COMPONENT 2 68 44 82 53 96 46 89 50 COMPONENT 3 24 14 52 18 73 8 56 50 bCOMPONENT 4 56 42 91 59 86 33 89 75 TOTAL 16 8 49 12 59 o 56 50 LEARNING DISA8LED AGE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 1O 11 12 M F M P M E M F M F M E M P COMPONENT 1 100 50 50 33 87 42 88 80 92 64 92 80 79 100 COMPONENT 2 100 0 50 33 76 17 85 30 92 64 100 60 100 67 COMPONENT 3 0 O 17 o 49 o 61 1o 68 29 75 20 64 67 -COMP0NENT 4 50 0 50 33 70 17 85 30 88 57 92 60 79 100 TOTAL 0 o 17 o 35 o 61 o 64 14 58 20 50 67 EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED ACE/CENDER 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 M P M P M P M P M P M M F 4°"PONENT 4 38 22 29 6 57 29 67 56 71 75 100 80 67 conpougu'r 2 29 11 36 6 52 12 40 33 79 SO 75 100 67 COMPONENT 3 0 0 18 6 26 6 12 44 57 25 25 o 33 COMPONENT 4 19 11 32 6 48 24 53 56 71 25 75 4o 67 TOTAL 0 o 11 o 22 0 13 22 57 0 o 0 o 33 179 small number of six year old male learning disabled students (n-2) probably accounted for this marked inconsistency in performance between the age levels. A student was determined to be at a mastery level of performance for a skill if he/she demonstrated all four components of the mature skill pattern. The percent of students at mastery in each cell was calculated by dividing the number of students who demonstrated a mastery level of performance by the total number of students in the cell. The percentage of students classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired who had mastered the seven fundamental motor skills are reported in Tables 19. 20 and 21. The data on these tables are reported at each age level for the males. the females. and the genders combined. Because there were minimal data reported in the literature with which to compare these data. figures of 50 and 75 percent levels of mastery were used to organize and report the data in Tables 19. 20 and 21. The 50 percent level of mastery was interpreted as a low level of performance while the 75 percent level of mastery was interpreted as a high level of performance. However. the figures of 50 and 75 percent should not be Interpreted as expected levels of achievement for children of a particular age and handicapping classification. but rather as figures that were used to organize and report the data. Non-Mandicappgd Data for the students classified as non-handicapped are reported in Table 19. The run was the only fundamental motor 180 skill on which both male and female subjects scored at or above the 75 percent level of mastery at all age levels. By nine years of age. male subjects also were above the 75 percent level of mastery for the overhand throw and the catch. Female subjects at all age levels performed at or below a 50 percent level of mastery on all skills except for the run and the catch. Male subjects generally demonstrated their largest gains in performance in the range of six to eight years of age. Except for the overhand throw and the catch from eight to nine years of age. there appeared to be a leveling off or a slight decrease in the percentage of male students at a mastery level of performance. Performance patterns for the female subjects were less predictable than those for the male subjects. The vertical jump and the catch were the only skills in which consistent gains in the percentage of female students at a mastery level of performance were observed across the range of six to nine years of age. Relatively large increases in the percentage of female subjects at a mastery level of performance were observed on the overhand throw and the two-hand sidearm strike from eight to nine years of age. Conversely. a drop in performance from eight to nine years of age was observed for female subjects on the run. ball bounce. and kick. The kick appeared to be the most difficult skill for both the male and female subjects to master. Apart from the eight year old male subjects. the percent of non-handicapped students who mastered this skill was extremly low. Previous research in motor development indicates that 181 children who are non-handicapped are mechanically efficient and coordinated in fundamental motor skills. in particular the run. overhand throw and catch by the time they are five to six years old (Gallahue. 1982: Seefeldt. Haubenstricker and Reuschlein, 1974). If the term mechanically efficient and coordinated represents a level of performanCe similar to the mature level of performance evaluated in the present study. then the results from this study are inconsistent with this previously reported research. As suggested. the inconsistency in results could be due to different definitions of the skills and skill components on which the subjects were measured. The differences also could have been due to different methods of sample selection or to the fundamental motor skill needs of the students tested in this study having not been adequately addressed. The students may not have received the necessary instruction and the appropriate practice opportunities needed to develop a mastery level of performance on the fundamental motor skills tested. The decline. after age eight. in the percentage of students attaining a mastery level of performance on a number of skills could suggest that it is necessary for these subjects to receive specific skill—related instruction and practice to maintain and to improve their levels of fundamental motor skill performance. Learning Disabled Data for the students classified as learning disabled are reported on Table 20. Except for the six year old females (n=2). the run was the only fundamental motor skill on which both male 182 and female subjects scored at or above a 75 percent level of mastery at all age levels. The only other instances where a 75 percent. or higher. mastery level of performance was demonstrated were: the catch at 12 years of age and the ball bounce at 11 years of age for the male students. and the catch at 11 years of age for the female students. By 12 years of age the male subjects classified as learning disabled had achieved a 50 percent mastery level of performance on five of the seven fundamental motor skills. At the same age level the female subjects had attained this level of mastery on only two of the seven skills. Sample size may have affected the level of mastery for the female subjects on the catch. At age 10 (n-4) 57 percent of the female sample had mastered the catch. while at age 11 (n-5) 100 percent of the female subjects demonstrated mastery of the catch. However. at age 12 (n-3) only 33 percent of the female subjects demonstrated mastery of the catch. If a larger sample of female subjects classified as learning disabled had been available at age 12 it may have resulted in a higher level of mastery being demonstrated. The two skills on which male students classified as learning disabled performed lowest were the vertical jump and the kick. The female subjects also demonstrated a low level of performance on the vertical jump and an extremely low level of performance on both the overhand throw and the kick. Only two of the 49 female subjects demonstrated mastery on the overhand throw (age 10). and only one out of 49 female subjects demonstrated mastery on the kick (age 11). The greatest gains in the 183 percentage of male subjects classified as learning disabled who demonstrated a mastery level of performance occurred from seven to nine years of age. Except for the overhand throw and the kick. in which improvement in the mastery level of performance was minimal. the greatest increase for the female subjects was from nine to ten years of age. Educable Mentally Impaired Data for the students classified as educable mentally impaired are reported on Table 21. There were no skills on which male or female students classified as educable mentally impaired consistently attained a 75 percent mastery level of performance in the six to twelve year age range. At 10 years of age the run and the catch were the only skills in which 50 percent or more of both the male and female subjects demonstrated a mastery level of performance. More than 50 percent of the ten year old male subjects also had mastered the two-hand sidearm strike. The male students classified as educable mentally impaired appeared to have their greatest gains in performance from nine to ten years of age. 'The exception to this was the kick where. across the sample. only three of 110 male students (age 7. 10 and 12) classified as educable mentally impaired demonstrated a mastery level of performance: The male subjects also demonstrated an extremely low level of performance on the vertical jump. Sixty female subjects classified as educable mentally impaired were tested in the six to twelve year age range. The number of females who demonstrated mastery of the five skills. other than the run and the catch. was 184 extremely low. Only three female subjects (age 7. 9 and 12) mastered the vertical jump. two subjects (age 8 and 9) mastered the overhand throw. five subjects (age 9. 10 and 12) mastered the ball bounce. not one subject mastered the kick. and two subjects (age 9 and 12) mastered the two-hand sidearm strike. These figures indicate that the female students classified as educable mentally impaired had major problems in the development of selected fundamental motor skills. Summary Conclusions that can be drawn from reporting the data in terms of percent mastery of a skill are the same as those reached in an earlier section of this chapter: 1. There was generally an improvement in performance as the subjects got older. 2. The performance of the male subjects was generally superior to the female subjects. 3. The performance of the subjects classified as non- handlcapped was generally superior to the subjects classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. One other conclusion that can be reached by evaluating the percent of students at a mastery level of performance is that a high level of motor performance in one skill by an individual does not mean that the same individual will demonstrate similarly high levels of motor performance in other skill areas. This conclusion is consistent with results from previous research (Davis. 1984: 185 Gallahue. 1982: Seefeldt et al, 1972: Singer. 1980: Vickstrom. 1983). Component Mastery Levels The percentages of students who demonstrated mastery of the components of the seven fundamental motor skills are reported in Tables 22 to 28. A student was determined to have mastered a component of a skill if he/she demonstrated the component when tested. The percent of students who mastered each component was calculated by dividing the number of students in a cell who demonstrated the skill by the total number of students in the cell. m Data for the run are reported in Table 22. The run was the skill with which all three groups had the fewest problems. The two components that presented the greatest difficulty for each group were Component One. "knee of non-support leg bends to at least 90 degrees." and Component Four. "arm action in opposition to legs. elbows bent." The problems were more pronounced for students classified as educable mentally impaired than for the students classified as non-handicapped or learning disabled. There did not appear to be any components where there were major differences in performance between the male and female students. Vertical 3.422 Data for the vertical jump are reported in Table 23. The first two components of the vertical jump clearly presented the greatest problems for each group. Component One Involved knee 186 flexion and arm extension behind the body during the preparatory phase of the vertical jump. Component Two required leg extension and arm thrust during the take-off phase of this skill. By age nine. only 33 percent of the male subjects and 50 percent of the female subjects classified as non—handicapped had mastered Component Two of the skill; only 33 percent of the male subjects and 20 percent of the female subjects classified as learning disabled had mastered Component Two of the skill; and only 27 percent of the male subjects and 22 percent of the female subjects classified as educable mentally impaired had mastered this component of the vertical jump. Following the initial skill demonstration. many students displayed noticeably more arm action during their first few trials of the vertical jump. This could have been due to the students modeling the tester. The students were not reinforced for any arm action, resulting in these students reverting to the arm action they normally used. This inconsistency in performance suggests that with instruction and feedback many students who did not demonstrate mastery of Component Two of the vertical jump might be able to master this conponent. Components Three and Four of the vertical jump appeared to present fewer problems for the students. Component Three required trunk and knee flexion on landing. while Component Four required a balanced landing. The high percent of mastery for these two components may be slightly misleading. Because many students were unable to generate much thrust at take-off it resulted in these 187 students only jumping a few inches off the ground. Consequently. they did not have to absorb. or control much force on landing. Had these students been required to jump down from a box as a test of Components Three and Four of the vertical jump. it could have resulted in an even higher percent of students demonstrating mastery of Component Three because they would have been forced to absorb the force generated from the jump. Also. these students may have demonstrated a lower percent mastery of Component Four because the greater amount of force generated would have been more difficult to control. Overhand M Data for the overhand throw are reported in Table 24. Component Two. "near complete extensison in a downward direction of the throwing arm behind the body". was the most difficult component for all three groups to master. At age nine. 78 percent of the male subjects and only 25 percent of the female subjects classified as non-handicapped had mastered Component Two of the overhand throw: only 49 percent of the male subjects and 10 percent of the female subjects classified as learning disabled had mastered this component: and only 20 percent of the male subjects and 11 percent of the female subjects classified as educable mentally impaired had mastered Component Two of the overhand throw. Component One of the overhand throw required a preparatory movement into a side-oriented position and Component Three involved weight transfer to the foot opposite the throwing arm 188 with hip and spine rotation during the throwing motion. Difficulties with these two components were more pronounced for the female students in each group. Lack of mastery of Component One (side orientation position) by many female subjects probably contributed to poor mastery of Component Two. It is mechanically very difficult for an individual to extend the throwing arm behind the body to initiate the throw (Component Two) unless he/she first moves into a side position. 22521. Data for the catch are reported in Table 25. Components One and Two appeared to be the least difficult components of the catch for the students to master. This is not surprising since Component One. preparatory movement of the hands and elbows. and Component Two. extension of the arms in preparation for ball contact. are performed prior to the ball reaching the student. If the student knows the direction from which the ball is being thrown. he/she could demonstrate these two components of the throw' without catching the ball. The ball may. for example. simply bounce off hands that are placed in the expected flight path of the ball. Components Three and Four of the catch were more difficult for the students to master. Component Three required the subjects to catch the ball with their hands only. while Component Four involved bending the elbows to absorb the force of the ball. By age nine most of the male subjects classified as non-handicapped had mastered Component Three (89%) and Component Four (892) of 189 the catch. By age nine. 75 percent of the female subjects classified as non-handicapped had mastered Component Three and 50 percent had mastered Component Four of the catch. By age nine 70 percent of both the fiemale and male subjects classifed as learning disabled had mastered Component Three of the catch. while 55 percent of the male subjects and 40 percent of the female subjects had mastered Component Four. Among the subjects classified as educable mentally impaired 40 percent of the male subjects and 67 percent of the female subjects had mastered Component Three by age nine. while 27 percent of the male subjects and 67 percent of the female subjects had mastered Component Four of the catch. Data for the ball bounce are reported in Table 26. All four components of the ball bounce presented difficulties for many students in each group. This is reflected in the relatively low level of mastery of this skill at each age level for the three groups (see Table 26. row labeled Total). Specific components presenting greater or lesser problems for the students were not as noticeable as with other skills such as the vertical jump and the catch where one or two specific components were clearly more difficult for the students to master. However. Component One. "contact with ball is made with the fingers and heel of the hand". and Component Four. "ball contacts floor In front of or slightly outside of the foot on the side of the bouncing arm". presented slightTy more problems for the students tested. Difficulties in mastering all four components were generally more pronounced for 190 students classified as educable mentally impaired than for subjects in either of the two other groups. Eng: Data for the kick are reported in Table 27. Similar to the ball bounce. an evaluation of Table 27 suggests that all four components of the kick contributed to the relatively low level of mastery demonstrated by each group on this skill. Except for the nine year old female subjects classified as non-handicapped (n-4). Component Three of the kick. "contact ball with instep or inside of the foot". presented the greatest problems. Only 11 percent of the nine year old male subjects classified as non-handicapped demonstrated mastery of this component: only 36 percent of the male subjects and none of the female subjects classified as learning disabled mastered this component: and only 7 percent of the male subjects and 33 percent of the female subjects classified as educable mentally impaired demonstrated mastery of this component of the kick. ‘To contact the ball with the instep or inside of the foot and to kick the ball with power usually requires both instruction and the opportunity to practice the kick. The distance the ball travels is usually of importance to the young student. To kick the ball a long distance the less skilled student generally strikes the ball with the toe rather than with the instep or inside of the foot. The remaining three components (preparatory approach step and placement of the non- kicking foot: hip extension and knee flexion during the backswing of the kicking leg: and the follow through). each posed problems 191 for many of the subjects who were tested. Of all the components of the kick. Component Four. "the follow through". generally presented the fewest problems for the students who were tested. Two-Hand Sidearm Strike Data for the the two-hand sidearm strike are presented in Table 28. Component Three. "transfer of weight and trunk rotation". presented the greatest problems for the students who were tested. By nine years of age only 56 percent of the male subjects and 50 percent of the female subjects classsified as non- handicapped had mastered this component: 61 percent of the male subjects and 10 percent of the female subjects classified as learning disabled had mastered this component: and only 12 percent of the male subjects and 44 percent of the female subjects classified as educable mentally Impaired had mastered Component Three of this skill. This component places the greatest coordination demands on the performer. Component Four. "full arm swing and follow through". also caused problems for many of the students. Problems with this component were often associated with a poor initial batting stance and were more evident among the subjects classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. Components One and Two generally presented the fewest problems for all three groups. Component One involved the hand grip and the initial position of the bat. Component Two involved the side orientation of the body and the position of the feet. Both of these components placed minimal demands on the individual. It is difficult. however. for an individual to correctly 192 demonstrate components Three and Four of this skill unless a correct batting stance is first assumed. Sunnary Based on the data presented. it is clear that the subjects had greater difficulty in mastering some of the components of the seven skills than they did in demonstrating mastery of other components. The components that posed problems tended to be the same ones for all three comparison groups. However. some components were more difficult to master for the female subjects than for the male subjects. That each group had problems with the same component. but not necessarily to the same degree at different age levels. is consistent with the literature in motor development which reports that individuals develop motor skills through the same sequence. but not always at the same rate (Gallahue. 1982: Haubenstricker C Seefeldt. 1974: Rarick. 1973. 1981: Seefeldt. 1975. I982: Wickstrom. 1983). The identification of components that presented greater or lesser problems allows the teacher to isolate components of each skill that his/her students are more likely to have difficulty mastering. This knowledge then would enable the teacher to sequence instruction on a skill in the anticipated order of component difficulty. and to allocate time for instruction relative to the expected degree of difficulty for the component. Although the sequence of mastering the components of the skill may vary with the individual. a general knowledge of where problems are most likely to be encountered can only assist the teacher in 193 his/her preparation for instruction. An extremely low level of mastery could indicate that a subject. or group of subjects. were either not maturationally ready to learn the components of a skill. or had received little previous instruction or opportunity to practice a skill. Smmnmy Based on the data reported in this section of Chapter V. a number of conclusions can be reached. As evidenced by the percentage of students. at a mastery level of performance for the different skills. it is apparent that some skills present greater problems than other skills. Although the students who were non- handicapped generally demonstrated a higher level of mastery than students classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. this pattern of different levels of mastery for different skills was consistent for the three groups. The percentage of male students at a mastery level of performance also was generally higher than that of the female students. This pattern also was consistent across the three groups. Idithin each skill it was possible to identify components of the skill that presented greater problems for the three groups. There also were some components that were more difficult for the female students to master. The pattern of performance associated with component difficulty was similar for all three comparison groups. These patterns would be helpful for the teacher to understand in order to prepare for instruction on these motor skills. CHAPTER Vi CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The objectives of this study were to: i. 4. To develop a criterion-referenced test of fundamental motor skills that is valid and reliable for students classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. To develop standardized administration procedures that are appropriate for use with students classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled. or educable mentally impaired. To examine similarities and differences in motor performance by age. gender and handicap for students classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. To establish performance expectations for elementary-aged boys and girls classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. Public Law 94-142 requires that all students who are identified as handicapped be assessed prior to receiving instruction (Federal Register 42. August 23. 1977). Physical education is delineated as one area of the curriculum in which all students who are handicapped must receive appropriate instruction 194 195 (Federal Register 42. August 23. 1977). To adequately address the instructional needs of children classified as handicapped. it is necessary for students to be assessed prior to receiving instruction on the skills that will be included in their instructional program (Vessel 8 Kelly. 1986). At present. many children who are handicapped are not being assessed prior to being plaCed in a physical education program (Broadhead 8 Church. 1983: Sherrill. 1980). Consequently. the physical eduCation needs of these children are not being addressed properly. The areas in which students should be assessed in physical education are delimited by the definition of physical education Included in PL 94-142. Fundamental motor skills and patterns are identified as one aspect of physical education (Federal Register 42. August 23. 1977). A review of current instruments suggested that there is a paucity of instruments that address the fundamental motor skill instructional needs of children who are handicapped. The criterion-referenced instrument developed in this study was designed to assess this aspect of the physical education domain. The essential fundamental motor skills included in this instrument were identified from the literature in physical education and motor development and by having six content area experts rate the importance of those skills. The skills included in the instrument are among the skills commonly taught in elementary school physical education programs. The components of the mature level of the essential fundamental motor skill-s in this 196 instrument were behaviorally defined as observable skills. The six expert raters rated the components as a measure of the behavior they were intended to depict. The components were modified as needed. and rerated. until each component met an established criteria as being a valid measure of the performance they were intended to measure. The test—retest reliability of each skill on the instrument was established at acceptable levels for each of the three groups for whom data were collected. Acceptable rater-agreement reliability was demonstrated for each skill included in the criterion-referenced assessment instrument. Standardized test administration procedures that met the requirements of the evaluation procedures outlined in PL 94-142 were developed and were utilized each time the test was administered. The instrument was administered to 524 students identified as non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally Impaired. The individuals who were non-handicapped were between six and nine years of age. Students in the other two groups were between six and twelve years old. The student performance data were analyzed to examine relationships in performance pertaining to age. gender. handicapping classification. Further data analyses identified the percentage of children by age. gender and handicapping classification who had mastered the mature level of each of the seven fundamental motor skills. Also. the components of each fundamental motor skill that presented the greatest difficulty for students to master were identified by age. gender and handicapping 197 classification. Conclusions Based on the results obtained from this study. the following conclusions were drawn: 1. 30 The criterion-referenced test of fundamental motor skills (run. vertical jump. overhand throw. catch. ball bounce. kick. two-hand sidearm strike) developed in this study was demonstrated to be valid for the purpose for which it was designed. The instrument met acceptable test-retest and inter- rater reliability standards for the three classifications of students on whom data were collected. The instrument was administered in a standardized and consistent fashion to all students who were evaluated. The administration procedures were consistent with the guidelines outlined in PL 94-142. When all students in the age range of six to nine years were included In the data analyses the following results were obtained: a. Improvement with age was significant on five of the seven skills. Significant improvement was not observed on the run and the vertical jump. b. Significant gender differences in favor of males were present on five of the seven skills. Significant differences were not observed on the run and vertical jump. 198 c. The students classified as non-handicapped were significantly better the Individuals classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired on six of the seven skills. The run was the only skill where a significant difference was not observed. When the performances of students In the age range of six to nine years who were classified as non-handicapped or learning disabled were compared. the individuals who were non—handicapped demonstrated superior performance on six of the seven skills. The run was the only skill where a significant difference was not observed. When the performances of students In the age range of six to nine years classified as non-handicapped or educable mentally impaired were compared. the individuals who were non-handicapped were superior on all seven skills. When the performances of students in the age range of six to twelve years classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired were analyzed. the following results were obtained: a. There was a significant age improvement on all seven skills evaluated. b. There was a significant gender difference in favor of the males on five of the seven skills (overhand throw. ball bounce. kick. two-hand C. 199 sidearm strike and catch). There were no significant gender differences on the run and the vertical jump. There was a significant difference on all seven skills in favor of the individuals classified as learning disabled. Based on statements four through seven the results of the qualitative performances of the students assessed are largely consistent with the results of previous research that measured the quantitative motor performance of students classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. When the performances of each group were analyzed separately to determine if there was a linear effect of age the following results were obtained: at There was a significant linear effect of age for the students classified as non—handicapped (six through nine years of age) for six of the seven skills. The run was the only skill where a significant linear effect was not observed. There were significant quadratic effects for the ball bounce and the two-hand sidearm strike. There was a significant linear effect of age for the students classified as learning disabled (six through twelve years of age) for 10. ii. 200 six of the seven skills. The run was the only skill where a significant effect was not observed. There were no significant non-linear effects. c. There was a significant linear effect of age for the students classified as educable mentally impaired (six through twelve years of age) for six of the seven skills. The vertical jump was the only skill where a significant effect was not observed. There were significant quadratic effects for the overhand throw and the catch. Based on the percentage of students who demonstrated a mature level of performance on the seven skills (by age. gender and handicap). some skills appeared to be more difficult for the students to master than were other skills. Relative to the performance of each group. the same skills generally presented similar degrees of difficulty across the seven skills on which data were collected. For example. the kick was one skill that all three groups had difficulty mastering. Based on the percent of students who demonstrated mastery of the components of each skill (by age. gender and handicap). it was possible to identify some components that were more difficult than others for the students to master. Specific components generally 201 presented greater problems for all three groups. For example. components one and two of the vertical jump presented the most problems for all three groups. Where a gender difference was observed. this difference also was consistent across all three groups of students. The performances of the students evaluated in this study were largely consistent with patterns of performance identified in previous research. Of particular importance to the physical education needs of children classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired were the findings that significant differences in performance existed between these students and the students who were non-handicapped. The results from this study suggest that the practices of either not addressing the physical education needs of children identified as handicapped (Stein. 1978). or assessing the motor skills of such children after they have been placed in a special education program (Broadhead 8 Church. 1983: Sherrill. 1980) is inappropriate. The results from this study support the contention that children identified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired should be assessed in the area of physical education. Recommendations The following recommendations are suggested for future research concerned with the development. refinement and use of this criterion—referenced assessment instrument: 1. That the fundamental motor skills of a student referred for assessment to determine if he/she will be classified 202 as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired be assessed. 2. That the fundamental motor skills of students classified as learning disabled or educable mentally Impaired be assessed 3. When the instrument is administered. include an additional level of instruction that provides feedback to students close to mastering a specific component(s) of a skill and evaluate the effects of this feedback on performance. 4. Establish the reliability of this instrument using generalizability procedures and compare the efficiency and appropriateness of this approach with the procedures utilized in this study. 5. Compare student performance in a one-on-one testing situation with student performance in a group testing setting to determine: a. The effects. if any. of each setting on the motor performance of the students. b. If there are any components that are more critical for a student to master prior to using a skill in a functional activity (game) setting. 6. Collect additional data to: a. Make comparisons with the results generated from this study. 203 b.) Develop norms by age. gender and handicapping classification that are based on a larger and more representative sample. Evaluate the same students using the criterion-referenced instrument developed in this study and a norm-referenced test. for example. the Bruininks - Oseretsky. and compare the results to determine if both instruments identify the same children as high/low performers. Such information could be used to make a more efficient assessment process whereby only one instrument could provide the information needed to make classification. placement and Instructional decisions. Collect data on students with other handicapping conditions and evaluate the performance of these students with respect to: a. The motor principles (constructs) that were evaluated in this study. b. The other groups on whom data were collected. Collect data on students classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired on a longitudinal basis. Analyses of these data would allow the educator to: 3. Understand the growth patterns of these groups of students. b. Predict. with greater efficiency and accuracy. the expected growth rates of each group of 204 children. 10. Evaluate the sensitivity of this criterion-referenced instrument to the effects of instruction. 11. Relate the skills on this criterion-referenced assessment instrument to Instructional materials commonly available in physical education. APPENDICES Appendix A Michigan SpeCiai EdUCation Definition of Handicaps 205 Learning_9isabled The Michigan Special Education Rules classify Children as learning disabled based on the following definition: R 340.1713 "Specific learning disability“ defined: deter- mination. Rule 13. (1) ”Specific learning disability" means a disorder in l or more of the basic psychological processes involved in under- standing or in using language. spoken or written. which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen. think. speak. read. write. spell. or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps. brain injury. minimal brain dysfunction. dyslexia. and developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning problems which are primarily the result of visual. hearing. or motor handicaps. of mental retardation. of emotional disturbance. of autism. or Of environmental, Cultural. or economic disadvantage. (2) The individualized educational planning committee may Cetermine that a child has a specific learning disability if the child does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels in 1 or more of the areas listed in this subrule. when provided with learning experiences apprOpriate for the child‘s age and ability levels. and if the multidisciplinary evaluation team finds that a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in l or more of the following areas: 206 (a) Oral expression. (b) Listening comprehension. (c) Written expression. (d) Basic reading skill. (e) Reading comprehension. (f) Mathematics calculation. (9) Mathematics reasoning. (3) The individualized educational planning committee shall not identify a child as having a specific learning disability if the severe discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily the result of any of the the following: (a) A visual. hearing. or motor handicap. (b) Mental retardation. (C) Emotional disturbance. (d) Autism. (e) Environmental. cultural. or economic disadvantage. (4) A determination of impairment shall be based upon a comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team. which shall include at least both of the following: (a) The child's regular teacher or. if the child does not have a regular teacher. a regular classroom teacher qualified to ‘each a child of his or her age or. for a child of less than school age. an individual qualified by the state educational agency to teach a child of his or her age. (b) At least 1 person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations of children. such as a school psycholo- gist. a teacher of speech and language impaired.cu'a teacher consultant. 207 Educable Mentally Impaired The Michigan Special Education Rules classify children as Educable Mentally Impaired based on the following definition: R 340.l705 Determination of educable mentally impaired. Rule 5. (l) The educable mentally impaired shall be determined through the manifestation of all of the following behavioral characteristics: (a) DeveIOpment at a rate approximately 2 to 3 standard deviations below the mean as determined thrOugh intellec- tual assessment. (b) Scores approximately within the lowest 6 percen- tiles on a standardized test in reading and arithmetic. (c) Lack of development primarily in the cognitive domain. (d) Impairment of adaptive behavior. (2) A determination of impairment shall be based upon a comprehensive evaluation by a nudtidiscipiinary evaluation team which shall include a psychologist. (3) A determination of impairment shall not be based solely on behaviors relating to environmental. cultural. or economic differences. (Michigan State Board of Education. effective August 12. 1983. p. 5). Appendix B Format Used For Expert Rating Of Skill Standards 208 Content validity form III: Rating scale The form. "Content Validity Form III". has been designed to measure the CongruenCy of the standards (components) of each skill with the mature level of performance. Read carefully the following four points and the rating scale listed below before rating any of the skills. These four points and the rating scale apply to each of the skills. 1. If you rate a standard a "1". but consider that the wording could be improved. include this information in the comment column. 2. If you rate a standard a "0". state your reason(s) for this rating and include suggested changes in the comments column. 3. If you rate a standard a "-1". state your reason(s) for this rating and include suggested changes in the comments column. 4. If there are any standards that you consider asiessential to the identification of a mature performer that have been omitted from the skill. add the component to the rating scale and provide a justification in the comments column for the importance of the component. Rating Scale Directions: This rating must be completed independently. Read the level I standards and rate the degree to which the standards define each skill. +1 Standard is a part of the mature level of the skill. 0 Unsure. -1 Standard is not a part of the mature level of the skill. 209 Skill: Run The student will run a distance of 25 yards as follows: A ._u _ .¥ A ..¥ ¥A Standards _Rating Comments 1. Knee of non-support leg Abendshtqgatgleastgggfi. AH._* “*‘_ A“ A , A ._ 2. Consistent periods of non- SUPportgi L _l_ 3. Heel-toe and/or toe only placement (not flat footed) within 1" on either side of a 2" wide line running the ‘ length_ofgthe4course. _ _L._L *_ __ _ I4. Arm action. elbows bent. in opposition to legs. wrists do not cross midline of the _body elbows bent. Skill: Hop The student will hop a distance of 10 yards on preferred foot and then 10 yards on the other foot as follows: h*_._ _ A A .k A; A A Ag.‘ k AAA _ “i_____ b _ ._‘__ Standards Rating Comments ‘L Arms flexed and used “primarilygfocgbalance. 2. Body upright. slight for- ward lean.¢g 3. On each hop the knee of non-support leg passes support leg during forward movement and is then thrust to thegrear.gg ._ A A .__4_.‘ ._._ A 4. Slight lift of both arms in front of the body coordi- nated with the push-off _phasegof‘the‘hqp. _._._u: _ .e w;_._ .e 210 Skill: Gallop The student will gallop a distanCe of 25 yards with one foot leading then 25 yards with the other foot leading as follows: ._._ A A ._ __._... _ Standards Rating Comments ILAPushgoff with_rear leg:_ 2. Lead leg lifted and flexed. thrust forward to support 1 weight. _. _ _ _gg _ 3. Period of non-support as slightly flexed rear leg is brought forward to a posi- tion slightly behind oggbesidegheelgof_ieadgfoot. . Arm action in opposition to la s.gelbowsgbent. _l .1 51:111. Skip The student will skip with a continuous rhythm 25 yards as follows: Standards Rating? _g Comments 1. Step forward on 1 foot. with a hop forward on the same foot as soon as the foot contacts the floor followinggthegstep. 2. A period of non-support Awithgeachgstep/hop. 3. Repeat the step/hop using alternate feet as lead _Afoot._g AA A ___._..¥ __ *_ A. *A A .2 A w LAM AM . Arms move in opposition to legs. at approximately _ *gwaistgievel. L“ A ._ 2+; u— 211 Skill: Horizontal Jump The student will jump horizontally 4 out of 5 times as follows: Standards Rating Comments 1. Preparatory movement in- cludes 90° (t10°) flexion of both knees as arms reach near full extension behind body. 2. A forceful forward upward thrust of both arms with elbows in front of trunk. and full extension of legs (180”) at take off (angle of 553.353). _ 1 3. Simultaneous foot contact at landing. ahead of the body'sgcenteggof mass. . Thighs near parallel to floor as feet make contact and arms extend forward durin thgglanding. Skill: Vertical Jump The student will jump vertically 4 out of 5 times as follows: Standards Rating Comments 1. Preparatory movement in- cludes 900 (£10?) flexion of both knees as arms reach near full extension behind _*body. 2. A forceful upward thrust of both arms to at least shoulder height coordinated with full extension of legs atgtake offgg A LA _ _ LL.- 3. Trunk and knee flexion on u A ‘A AA .h.‘ ‘- *_landigg:to absorbgforcegg . Balanced landing '— student takes no more than 1 step in any direction to regain balance. 212 Skill: Overhand Throw The student will throw a 2—3 inch ball 4 out of 5 times towards the target as follows: Standards Rating _l. Comments I. A preparatory movement - side orientation with weight on the rear leg to initiategthrow. _ __. *- A 2. Near complete extension of the throwing arm behind bodygto initiate the throwg_ 3. Weight transfer to the foot opposite the throwing arm with marked hip and spine rotation during the throwing‘motion. 2 _ _ 4. A follow-through well be- yondgthe_ballgrelease. Skill: Catch The student will catch a 6 inch playground ball tossed gently to the student between waist and shoulder height from a distance of 15 feet. 4 out of 5 times as follows: Standards Rating Comments _ 1* Preparatory position with the hands in front of body. elbows flexed and near the sidesg__ ._‘_._.‘._‘ i... 2. Extension of arms in prepa- ration foggball_contact. _‘ _ 3. Catch ball with hands only. 4. Elbows bend to absorb the forcegof_£he ball. * This component may not be observed in some mature catchers. .. 213 Skill: Ball Bounce The student will bounce the ball 15 consecutive times with the dominant hand. while standing within a three foot square marked on the floor. as follows: A .¥ _ ~— ._ _ -_ -. Standards A; Rating 1. Contact with ball is made withgthegfinggrs*. 2.Contact the ball at gapproximatelyghip height. 3. Wrist flexed and elbow ex- tended to impart force to the ball in a downward motion.g . Ball contacts floor in front of or slightly out- side of the foot on the sideAofgghegbouncigggarm. AA A—‘A—‘h‘ A f * Small children may incidentally contact ball with the heel of the hand. Contact should not be a slap. Skill: Kick The student will kick an 8-10 inch stationary ball towards a target 4 out of 5 times as follows: Standards Rating Comments 1. Preparatory approach so the non-kicking foot lands next to and slightly behind the middle of the _ballLA 2. Hip extension and flexion (at least 1209) during the backswing of the kicking ”Lime—e e» __ _ —_—— he 3. Contact ball with instep or “insidegofgthegfoot. . Forward swing of arm oppo— site the kicking leg as foot follows through to a position well beyond and above thegpoint ofgcontact.gg 214 Skill: Two Hand Sidearm Strike The student will strike a light weight six inch ball tossed gently between shoulder and waist height from a distance of 10 feet with a bat (apprOpriate size and weight for student) h out of 5 times as follows: A g; M MA * L‘A.___A —_ Standards_A Rating “Comments#» 1. Both hands together with dominant hand gripping bat (palm up) above nondominant hand (palm down). and bat held up and behind dominant shoulder prior to striking nngotionLA_*L 2. Side orientation with non- dominant side toward target. feet shoulder dis- tance apart. toes pointing forward, and knees slightly bent. 3. Hip and spine rotation. weight transfer from the back to the front foot with a small step of front foot towards target during the w- w “a... - “w- ___ _ _ - i. A full swing of the arms (180°) with a follow- through well beyond point of_contact. .kh.‘ A _ A AM k .._ Skill: Body Action The student will demonstrate correctly the five specific body actions listed below 3 consecutive times when given in a randomized order: Standards#gi A, Rating Comments _ 1. Bend 2. Straighten A A 1‘Shake _L. if. Turn litg§tretch 215 Skill: Body Planes The student will correctly identify the body planes listed below on self by touching or pointing 3 consecutive times in a randomized order. H k A... A Standards Rating Comments 1.4front 2. Back [*Side A. Top [5. Bottom T Skill: Directions in Space The student will correctly move in the five sets of directions given 3 consecutive times in a randomized order: +h Standards Rating Comments g l. Forward/backward Z. Up/down 3.*Left*sideways/rightésideways h. waard/awayéfrom L_Qve[/under Appendix C Elementary Fundamental Motor Skills Test SeCtion 1: Test Administration Guidelines Section 2: Motor Performance Skill Test Items and Student Information and Score Sheets Section 3: Interpretation of Student Performance 216 introduction The purpose of this assessment instrument is to measure the qualitative performance of students on seven fundamental motor skills that have been identified as essential for all children to master. it is important that students first master the qualitative (process) aspects of fundamental motor skills before emphasis is placed on the quantitative (product) aspects of these skills. Most students require instruction on the specific components of a skill before they are able to master a skill. The use of this instrument will enable the teacher to identify the specific components of the fundamental motor skills that his/her students have/have not mastered. The results of the assessment become the focus of instruction. The Elementany Fundamental £222; Skills 1525 has been validated for. and demonstrated as being reliable with, students who are non- handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. Any individual who uses this instrument should first familiarize themselves with the test administration procedures and the components of the skills included on the instrument. These procedures and the test items can be found in the following sections of this document. Failure to follow the recommended guidelines and procedures may result in the instrument being administered in an unreliable and inappropriate manner. 217 Section 1;_Test Administration Guidelines The contents of this section contain the information needed to administer the motor skill assessment instrument being used in this study. The following information is included and explained in detail: Criterion-Referenced Assessment Procedures Conducting the Assessment Activity Specific Testing Strategies Other General Testing Factors Criterion-Referenced Assessment Procedures: Application of criterion-referenced assessment procedures in the assessment of fundamental movement skills is a difficult process. This process requires observation of the qualitative aspects of movement and an immediate evaluation of whether or not the observed movement meets the requirements of the mature level of skill performance. Accurate assessment can be enhanced by practicing one's observation skills prior to beginning formal assessment and by following a series of systematic steps each time that criterion- referenced assessment procedures are applied. These steps are (outlined in the order in which they should be implemented: 1. Determine the Performance Objective (Skill) to be assessed The instrument being used for this project specifies the skills to be assessed. For the purpose of this project. a random order for assessing the skills will be selected. 2. Examine the Performance Objectives Components Each of the skills has been task analyzed into a number of observable components. These components are the qualitative aspects 218 of the skill that will be observed for their presence or absence when each student demonstrates the skill. These are also the components that will be demonstrated to the student by the tester when the skill is explained. it is essential that the tester know the exact wording and criterion of each component for all of the skills prior to any formal student assessment. 3. Define Ambiguous Terms Regardless of how specifically each of the components is stated. there may be a degree of ambiguity when specific terms are interpreted by different people. One way to avoid ambiguity in terms such as. "near complete extension" (Standard 2. Overhand Throw). would be to specify extension in degrees. record the performance on films. and examine the film to determine if the condition was met. This method obviously would 'cause the test to lose its practical utility for the physical education teacher. To minimize ambiguity between the testers in this project. all potentially ambiguous terms have been operationally defined to enable them to be consistently and reliably interpreted by each tester. 4. Examine the Score Sheet The tester should know the format and outline of the score sheet so that the results can be quickly and accurately recorded. All of the necessary information (dates. names. etc.) should be recorded prior to assessing the student. The score sheets for the instrument used in this project have the component parts of the mature skill listed on the score sheet. Results must be recorded in the correct column. 219 5. Select the Assessment Activity Theassessment activity must require the student to demonstrate the skill being assessed. in this project the activity has been specified for each skill to maintain consistency between the different testers. For example. the distance the student has to stand from the thrower and the manner in which the bail must be thrown are specified for the catching skill. Although the activity has been specified. it is necessary to be aware of environmental conditions which may inhibit student performance. For example. having students face a strong light source may affect their striking and catching skills. Having too short a distance between the finish line and a wall may restrict a student's all out performance in the test of running ability. 6. gsganize the Room and Equipment All equipment needed for the assessment should be organized so that a minimum amount of time is lost during the testing session. Equipment not being used for a specific skill should be arranged so that it is easily accessible but does not distract the student. Tape inarkings (distances. targets) should be made prior to the assessment. ‘Hhere possible. remove all unnecessary equipment and materials from the testing room. 7. Determine the Components to be Observed Each Trial The nature of some skills makes it extremently difficult to observe all the components in one trial. Therefore. it is necessary to determine. prior to each trial. which components will be observed during that trial. With some skills. different components are either easier or harder to observe at the same time. lrrespectiwe of any combination of components. the only required stipulation is that each 220 component be observed the required number of times as specified in the objective. 8. Determine the Distance and Angles from which to Observe the Skill Recommended distances and angles from which to observe each skill component are included for each skill. and are printed on the administration and scoring guide sheet for each skill. It is important that these recommendations be followed wherever possible so that each component is correctly observed. In situations where the tester is by him/herself. this may be difficult. For example. it will be impossible for the tester to observe components from a side position in the catching skill if they are also responsible for throwing the ball for the student to catch. 9. Conducting_the Assessment Activity This step in the assessment process is of such importance that it has been addressed in a separate section. Please read the following section titled Conducting the Assessment Activity. to become familiar with this information. 10. Record the Results After the tester is satisfied that he/she has observed the student's true level of performance. he/she should record the results. Record a "l" in the columns under those components that the student did not demonstrate correctly. 3 "2" in the columns under those components that the student demonstrated inconsistently. and a "3" in the columns under those components that the student demonstrated correctly. 221 :onductinggthe Assessment Activity The assessment activity. broadly defined. begins when the tester first meets the student and concludes when the student is returned to the classroom. During the assessment activity the behavior of the tester. particularly when he/she first meets the student. can have a significant effect on the performance of the student. The tester should be aware of how his/her behavior. factors related to being tested. and the testing environment all can effect the student. Factors that need to be considered Include: l. 553;: The students' teacher should have prepared them for the assessment. However. some students still may be apprehensive about being tested. or about being tested by a stranger. 2. 2552:: Although requests have been made for students to be dressed appropriately. some students still may not have the correct attire. However. if in the tester's judgement the dress of a student is significantly interfering with a student's performance. then the tester should stop and reschedule the assessment. 3. Time of Day AngDay of the Week: Despite these being factors over which the tester has minimal control. it is still important to be aware of the potential significance of these variables. Students may be less attentive on Monday mornings and Friday afternoons. and could become fatigued more easily in the late afternoon. The testing should not be a threatening experience for the student. To reduce this possibility' and to facilitate the collection of more accurate data. the tester can do a number of things to relax and prepare each student prior to the testing situation. The tester should: 222 l. Stag Conversation: While walking with the student to the testing room. the tester could ask the student short. simple questions about a variety of topics. For example. brothers and sisters. pets. favorite television shows. favorite school activities. and best friends. or similar tapics about which answers are readily available to the student. Start any conversation with questions that require only a "Yes" or "No“ response. Depending on the type and level of response from the student. adjust the type of questions asked. 2. Explain Activities: Even if the teacher has prepared all of the students for the assessment activity. it will reduce the anxiety level of those students that are anxious if some of the activities are explained. As you approach the testing area tell the student about the activities. For example. "Today we are going to run. jump. hop. and play with the ball" is an apprOpriate way to introduce the testing session. 3. Testing Room and Equipment: In the situation where the testing is being conducted in a room with which the student is not familiar. allow the student a few minutes to explore the roonn Do not however. allow the student to climb all over cupboards. desks and other equipment that may be in the room. A. introductory Game: If necessary to further relax the student. start the activities with a simple game such as "Simon Says" or "Red Light/Green Light". The intent of the game should be to get the student to relax. create a positive. non-threatening atmosphere. and to have the student attend to and follow the tester's directions. Sufficient emphasis must be given to the need. on the part of the tester. to create a relaxed testing environment. Such conditions will result in student performance that is a more accurate reflection of 223 their true ability and will provide the student with an enjoyable experience. Specific Testing Strategies: The following points are provided as item administration guide- lines that should be followed as closely as possible during the formal testing of each skill. Implementation of the guidelines will result in the use of consistent assessment techniques and strategies by each tester. The guidelines are: l. Physically pnompt and/or verbally cue the student to attend. Unless the student is attending to the directions given by the tester. it will be difficult to ascertain if incorrect performance is due to a lack of motor skill. or to an inability to understand the task requirements. Simple techniques to get the student to attend include a tap on the shoulder. turning the head. or statements such as. "Look at meJH "Look at my fingerdu (hold a finger up In front of you). "What color is the bean bag?" (hold a bean bag up in one hand). Verbally reinforce the student for attending. Given the nature of the student population being assessed. there is a strong possibility that attention signals will need to be given throughout the testing period. 2. Provide the student with two demonstrations of the mature fundamental motor skill. The skill must be demonstrated exactly as the components are written. Lengthy directions are not necessary. and may serve only as a distraction for the student. Simply state. "Watch me run". "Watch me jump". and then demonstrate the skill. Position the student so that he/she can see all of the components as the components are demonstrated. Avoid having the student standing too close so that he/she is unable to observe the entire movement. The 224 recommended positions for observation that are included for the tester on each of the objectives should be used as a guide to position the student to watch the demonstration. 3. Verbally request the student to perform the skill. Make the verbal request as short and direct as possible. Also. establish signals (Go. Start. Stop). that specify when the student is to start and stop a skill. For example. "Stand here. when i say Go. you jump . . Ready . . GO.". or "Get ready. . . catch". (and throw the ball for the student to catch). Although it is not necessary to use identical wording with each student. it is important to be consistent in the type of wording. to avoid unnecessary verbalizing. and to use language that the student comprehends. Avoid providing verbal directions that provide hints for the student performing the skill. Such directions could result in a performance level that is not representative of the typical performance of an individual student. The directions may cause the student to demonstrate the component correctly. but when the directions are not given the student may not be able to demonstrate the component. For example. it is acceptable to say. "Throw the ball as hard as you canJu cu'"Jump as high as you caan but it is not acceptable to say. "Get your hands ready .. . catchJu cu'"Bend your knees .. . jumpdh Such comments are not acceptable because they are part of the standards for the catch and vertical jump. respectively. If these or similar comments were made and the student demonstrated the standards. it would be impossible to discern if the student was simply following directions or had actually mastered those parts of the skill. Similarly, after the student performs the skill. it is permissible to use social praise and reinforcement for effort. but the tester should avoid using feedback 225 that provides information to the student about the quality of the performance. For example. it is acceptable to say. "Well done. nice throw." but it is not acceptable to say. "Nice throw. but next time step forward on your left foot when you throw the ballJ' 1:. Allow the student two practice trials to ensure that the task is fully understood before the assessment trials are given. The exception to this is the run where a correct demonstration on the first trial is a satisfactory indicator of task mderstanding. The physical organization of this task. where the student has to cover a specified distance. allows for the observation of skill repetitions within one trial. Also. the possibility of fatigue. which could adversely affect performance. is highest in the running skill. 5. If needed. repeat steps 2. 3. and lo (demonstrations. verbal requests. practice trials) until the student demonstrates that the task requirements are fully underStood. In situations where the student shows no indication of comprehending a skill. proceed to the next task and return to the task that the student had difficulty understanding later in the testing session. If the student still has difficulty with the skill. indicate this on the score sheet. 6. Following the practice trials. verbally request the student to repeat the skill. then observe and record the student's performance. Have the student repeat the skill until he/she meets the requirements specified in the objective. or until you are satisfied that he/she does not have the skill component(s). The number of skill repetitions will vary. depending on the particular skill. For example. with the rm it may be possible to adequately observe all the components of the skill in only one or two trials. With a skill such 226 as the catch. it may be necessary to have eight or nine trials to satisfactorily observe all of the skill components. Other General Testin Factors: 1. Language £51313 While conversing with the student on the way from the classroom to the testing environment. the tester should pay particular attention to each student's receptive and expressive language level. The receptive language level will vary with each student. The tester must therefore adjust his/her language level so that the student can understand the test directions. Directions that are not understood will only serve to confuse and frustrate the student. It is also important to consider each student's expressive language level. One student may be highly verbal. while another may not be at all responsive in verbal expression. If a student is overly verbal. it may be necessary to establish some rules so that the verbalization does not interfere with the testing. For example. "after we have completed three skills (run. catch. jump) we will talk for a short time)‘ However. do not threaten the student for excessive talking as this could effect the performance level. Conversely. if the student does not verbalize at all. encourage. but do not force them to respond verbally. If they feel forced to respond. this also may affect their performance level. In summary. although there are no set rules pertaining to language levels. it is critical that the tester be sensitive to. and aware of. potential factors in this area which could affect the student's performance level. 2. On-Task Time: In order to complete all of the tasks within a time span of approximately twenty-five minutes per student.it is necessary to remain on-task. Obvious factors such as organization of task order. equipment. and materials will reduce the time required to 227 complete the assessment. Other factors also can reduce the time required: a. ‘Without hurrying the student. move quickly from skill skill. b. Avoid lengthy. unrelated conversations with each child between each skill. (L Do not allow the student to distract you from the purpose of the assessment. d. After you have assessed the student. avoid showing the the recorded score or telling him/her if the performance was appropriate or incorrect. 3. Fatigue: Student fatigue could be either physical or mental. It is necessary for the tester to observe the student for signs of fatigue. If. in the tester's opinion. the student's performance is being adversely effected by fatigue. either take a break from. or discontinue. the testing. Indications of fatigue include: a. Lethargic movements (it will be necessary to compare initial with later performance since some students may be lethargic from the outsetL Breathlessness. Falling down more frequently. Continually asking to take a rest. to have a drink. or to go to the restroom (these also may be avoidance behaviorsL Lowered interest in performing the task. Greater difficulty in getting the student to attend and stay on—task. 228 Physical fatigue is more likely to occur in tasks such as the run and the vertical jump. Mental fatigue may become more apparent as the testing session progresses or in tasks where the student has to demonstrate a large number of trials. Depending on the severity of the fatigue. either take a short break and then continue testing. or return the student to the classroom and complete the testing later in the day. or on a different day. If any students have not completed the testing when you return them to the classroom. explain to the teacher the reasons for interrupting the session and then reschedule a time when you can finish the testing. A. Failure: If a student has extreme difficulty with the tasks and is being adversely affected by an inability to perform the tasks. insert some activities which the student is able to complete success- fully. This will aid in keeping the student interested and avoid the situation where the student stops trying. thus lowering the performance below normal. 5. Student Behavior: The importance of maintaining control over the student is essential to the collection of accurate results and to the smooth administration of all the activities. inappropriate behavior can be minimized by keeping the student involved in an activity and by regaining the student's attention as soon as it is lost. Long delays and breaks between activities will provide the student with Opportunities to misbehave. The tester must recognise the difference however. between student learning problems and genuine behavior problems. Learning problems such as difficulty in attending. a short attention span. and problems with understanding directions will be demonstrated by many of the children. These should not be misconstrued as behavior problems. Behavior such as refusing to do 229 any activity. running away from the tester. spitting. and mis-treating equipment are the types of actions that could be classified as behavior problems. If any of these or other behaviors are so severe that the tester is unable to control a student and is unable to elicit maximum performance from the student. then the student should be returned to the classroom. Discuss the behavior with the teacher and reschedule another time to complete the testing. 6. Specific item Precautions: Although it is impossible to forsee and therefore plan for all potential happenings. there are some factors related to specific skills which need to be addressed. Taking these factors into account will facilitate the collection of accurate data in a safe. controlled testing environment. Each skill will be considered for possible interfering factors. Factors to be considered with the various skills include: a. Run Fatigue: many repetitions may cause fatigue. Falling: wearing socks on a slippery floor may increase the possibility of injury. - Shoes and Boots: boots and shoes that poorly fit the student or that are large (snow boots) may adversely affect performance. - Size of area: a restricted area may slow the movements down for fear of running into a wall. If the area is. for example. only 25 yards long. have the student run only 20 yards when testing level I components and find a different area to test level II components. 230 b. Vertical £222 - Falling: the student may slip upon landing if proper footwear is not worn and the surface is slippery. - Floor Surface: choose an area that is flat and unobstructed so that the student does not twist an ankle upon landing. c. Overhand m - Ball size: select a ball apprOpriate for the size of the child's hand. - Distance from target (Level I): if the student is too close to the target. he/she may throw with less power and therefore not demostrate the mature overhand throw. d. £35.39. E9. Two-hand 233m Strike — Fear: if the student is fearful of the ball let them feel the ball to help alleviate this fear. — Light Source: the student should not face a strong. direct light source (reflection of the sun) when they catch or strike the ball. - Illumination: the room should be adequately lit for all activities. but particularly for the ball skills. e. 2.3.1.]. Bounce - Ball Size: select a ball appropriate for the student's size. - Ball Inflation: check that the ball is inflated to the correct pressure. — Floor Surface: the floor should be hard and flat. 231 f. 5155 - Ball Inflation: check that the ball is inflated to the correct pressure. - Shoes: the student should wear gym shoes or light shoes for the kicking. Do not permit the student to wear large boots or kick with bare feet. 9. 9211 Actions. .8391 Planes 32-! Directions - The student must not be able to watch anyone else perform these skills. 232 Section 2: Motor Performance Skill Test Items and Student Information and Score Sheets The contents of this section are Equipment needed for test administration. Motor performance skill Items. Student Information and score sheet. Eguiggent Measuring tape. Marking tape. A traffic cones. 6 tennis balls (2-3 inch). 3 playground balls (6 inch). 3 playground balls (8—10 inch). 3 light weight balls (6 inch). Plastic. aluminum and/or wood baseball bats. Motor Performance Skill Items The information in each column on the Administration and Scoring Guide sheet developed for each skill has been provided to assist the tester when he/she assesses a student: Equipment/Materials: This is a list of recommended materials and the physical organization for the skill. Directions: This is a summary of the most important directions for each skill. Standards: These are the components of the skill on which the student is assessed. Position: These are the recommended positions in which the tester should stand when observing specific components of a 233 skill. Distance: These are the recommended distances that the tester should stand from the student when observing specific components of a skill. Comments: These are general comments to assist the tester as he/she assesses a student. Student Information 229. m M Completing the information on the student information sheet may assist in planning a student's physical education program. This information should be completed by the regular education. special education or physical education teacher. The score sheet provided allows the tester to evaluate a student on two occasions. The date should be recorded in the appropriate column and row. The scores a student attains should then be recorded in the appropriate column and row for each skill and skill component assessed. A "l" is placed next to components that are not achieved. while a "2" is placed next to components that the student demonstrates correctly. 234 Student Information Sheet Student's Name: _7 Birthdate: Gender:‘_M__F Schooi:__ _ _‘ Age: years months Grade: Handicapping Classification: Date: _ Number of years student has been in special education: Class Placement: time in regular education: (min. per day) special education: Physical Education Placement: regular: _“ minutes: I days/wk: special: minutes: [ days/wk: Physical Education taught by: Physical Education teacher: (check primary one) Regular Education teacher: Special Education teacher:¢¢ Other: Student Rating* low high I. Student's interest in Physical Education. I 2 3 h 5 2. Student's performance in Physical Education.l 2 3 h 5 3. Ability to follow directions in physical education. 1 2 3 A 5 h. Participation level in physical education activities. 1 2 3 h 5 5. General gross—motor skill level. I 2 3 h 5 * Students should be rated in comparison to same age non-handicapped students. 2355 both knees. arcs Consistent non- -toe.toe heel within on 2” of 198 OPPOSLFiPP- Balanced landing (1 step) Level II “"1 n g Average of 3 Jumps for 25 yard k turn course - unp at least above a turn t th- Skill: OVERHAND EEGK Date Skill Components 532:: Level I Siie orientation, .e‘;:: - . frcnt. lb:w rear Le: Ar: extension icwnreri «etc as: extensi- ‘1132221‘1 E‘“"“‘ “A. “t t x l- 'afiis a . . .0.. ac - ‘3-..“ ." atep in oppcsztzon. ., A 29455’ transfer .” Elbows benc to absorb " V 1‘ Level II ‘ a of catches H . H out a? 10 catches approx. hip st . e ext Ball contacts floor on Level II course yard turn course - turn t Skil- THO HAND SIDEARM STEIKE gate Sk111_§qmgcnents :c:'e Leve‘ I Correct grzp bet pcs:t:en Side criertetion, pcsiti: ‘1‘ "an: Ectaticn an: .e1:1t transfer — so - - n! 10' hits intc Fair 0 ...“a-' -.‘: ‘s‘ Tn face). A ' v t of IO t'iais of 50’ : into fzzr terrxtorv Skill Level I step. non- on. flex or inside foot P V Level target hits out of 8 out of 10 hits 237 old» oousou easy use. one; an o3» so osuu ooosou usage-no econ nu ogu oboe-so 13o aooosoo ogu oluh .n soacau on oocou oauuouu : o aeovsuo oousoo can uuouo scum nan-anon a< «.4; oo es» oousou cash use. once. 13o unaaooao coo» an on» no. vovuooou o» uoosoou «oauos o ooau see oean oeo.uousu osau oea oosua tn case use: on coauuoao oeu uo aeoosuo oeu coauooa .o .oo»~.; :uoo one: soon one: uuus oousou case use. «ouuu oouauoua o acoosuo oeo osau .n uuoao ouch mm oeu «on osuu otueoosuo och Iwhl oousau cash was. oz» \ nluauququ- uo oouuouuoeasoo o uooosuo oeu osao .o .ooua oo uoou oooooo o no eueou no as» on aoouoos o3» on uooosao oeu osah .n aeoosuo sound. on uuouo sou. nan—anon tau oases. u< hues oo can an uoos'ou «oauoa so«:«. .8: to... 2:. 3.. 2.33 2.33.. a. 2.: T83... soaeuu .vocuu ocuuuouo osu no ueovsuo ocu oeuuuoos .u souoa oousou ens» csou sous .- dosed . oeau ea goo. cuonu ovqnmu usuoo ouuaa aoaoau on uuoao scan on ooouosa ooau oouoocouo u «oboe on. sea osoao oo ooasoo ue-«ouam n osol one . suouuoc a nose; o usacuouc«ol . «no oosouguo “sovsuo oga uu .uouuu sous oluu seal on : euuos noun .o eeaauooa ooosoo case how» ououwmmmMIllml oouoocouo u doooa as ueovsuo oz» uooh .~ oeusu oeu ue uuouo . « ooo ciao; onus) nausea on auouo song an «oosu seal on : ooeou uuuuoua asou .n coo sou suouuoc u nose; o neueuoucaol oaou oeuxuo: .u no ocean uoou Quinn oouan ovuou an uo oucououv «euuouuo < .a a n . acne uuua aco'aao 01h : u— uosea o o» causooot « H a S «:3 . 4: .2: .w: .05 d N menu Owing ufldeH acoA ones—o soucuu w\ “uuouo .o-ow on soduuoaseo ea oouuoo Iu< .o , . ovao» a~ Tundd - oeau oousou .v . usoosuo owoOo one onuooao .o goucuu nu ova) an ozu no ovuo nosuao oouaoo uguuouuo osu can ooasou - a o a one. soon Onanu alouHMH :u casual ouavouoou nouu one. on noosrou aoauumuacwcw aaooemuaoru .n no oaeuuauuhuovuuo-e«“Muuun wcoun use-soon. ooaooou no see oouuaooz . _ no noun. ouuuuou o ueo no ogu osuu .n cos on i oaou ocuuuo: .u limduqlmwmwdl aflfldnfi u sauces mo ovouuo accuouoeou .m , avuoveouo a .o. uooou oeu «go oeuaouoeaooeu es. ouoaos » ..... a-.. so .. .. ..... ........-..... .. .. :. a sun.” “quasar...” .. osoooao .oso-aou oo ooaou an o. ooeoaouo so soaaoaaoeasoo o aeoosao oea osao .« o es. dues aeoosao och : u «osoa .~ nosed : u «oooa aeoalou oueououo enauqooc oowoocoua oeouuuouuo odouuouot\ueosaascu 3...: 8.5.83 8:5 2.5 at 5:55:21 eon .o>«uuonno 238 .vosuaOuc ouoao o3. cu .uoou one. no Ie—Juouov swoon mmwnmoao pousowsuo osu econo- o H .A‘ooa oeoao vovcouxo osuo sue; use uo—u uoou sue; a.) sea nosao-ou uoou sous cousooosa sooou scaveouo Isluxol o.usovsuo osu osoao oozusa o— nooou so soon .suoou counsel on usuuos anon ouoasou .s .assn onouooo cacao. oeo ouaooos .o .eusa «\u aooaoos ocu o» oousoool oassn osuusuoocou n osog so» «due: uooaou .n .ooeoan aeaaog .5. ace: . .couxogu oo ecu: oo essn oa uoosco» uoauoo o soeu opan veo uoao «no oaou ogu no aeovsao oeu eouaaooa .n .uguuo: neuscouo o.aeovsuo ousoooz .u .- nosoa ea voououa coca .uouuu oououeouo u aoooa .oassa no uenuog nuns dooou ouo on so; noun; ou : poison guess he uuosu < .n .uaos so one-«o: usual!“ duos on : ocou usuauox .n .assn uo .e-uon osa in: . no: ooos «ans anon ououoso o.ueoosuo och .n on» duo oosoasuo aeovsao o5. mu .uouau use auooa nouoeouo Issue-l o.uaoosao «unaqluul.i ovuo‘eouo a nosou co usoosuo oeu soon .u ogu ousooos ou : oaou oe«uaooo: .u. as...“ guwn .saoaaua .._ ..:.u .a. ass-u .uqo: “wow.“ so» a «oooa o usuauoueuos odds) coed u.. . so oaoa no use ones on «xu uooaoos osa on vousooos ugsuon ouo.a uuos- oooo— ”nos. no. oassn osuuouooeoo a co ooouoso oak .. so.) acnaoz.ouuuuu ncumlaq o no uaogu aha—so te.assn an ocu no oououao o so Hmoan ouuuos ease ad‘s «sovsuo osb .uu «oso; i .oueoaon cue—on hon. hue unefi on souuuouao moo au souo _ coca ones .oouaflnaa ova es ooaou usooaao : acute-a sausage. .o Iii ilaili. in .uouou ammumulll. . lluwoo- 8:3 o3 3 gave: so sou-o: soc: oco 1.3.; uh .aaqlmmum. ..¢:aq sass“ sooaa: so ouou no codesouxo nus. sous sou «engages a so acovsuo ououo ice onto-a0 .o .oa osuu oosuouoou aeuaoe noeusoso uoooa no a. .aoao uuo one. o goo. c~on_ as. osuo goon .o goo-ea ouosas usuouaou s .u oaou oea so». sou hos. oo ecu: oo soon :3: .3: ii .-.-i-l.ili..|.. Ii.l|i-l..l...l|d§ill a. noose: :32. o ueoosao o5 250 .n .3 ossouo .0. sea os soaueoauo qua. coo: eueoa osao .—o«.. ooauooaa o aeosauo oaa osuo .u ouoaao souosoao seen u oeu oso u.eo oo oo oooea zoos no eoauo—e goon“. .ooaoosoao on. aoao ago oaoa auoa oa : oaou usunoox .u e. .eoos. coo ooosuusa aeosooas abououeoous .~ -o eeuaouoaCousu assq «aqua-o: o-suos .o—ucuu sous-oat aoeaaos. boo. caun. ooaHMH coso__o. oo cos.» n no use a u— o .9 so_asu.ososoo o aeooeao oeu oouu .~ aoo. u o ousooos o. : oaou usucsooox .- inou—aaoa alamib_ua uso‘aao o:. u_ nosed .~ «oaoa .u «osou wucoaiou oucououo c0~u«o0&—, ovusvcoum occuuoouao oacuuouet\uc0lausvu mad—8a COFDZOOOJ w==m_mz_zaum.yx‘,q=_¢z.m_z=L,\ al... 73:; a oauuooaoo 239 ueeueu ecu an: “ego oasesu oeosuove no assess e;» no assoc soon see oasesu veeguoso oouusuoosou an so usoosuo osooeoo .a uouueu es» cue see oeeeuose “no: ecu sense on uoosvou “once: o oeu. use once caduceuo ecu ue aeoosuo es» eouuqoos .c I «one» oeuuueua e acovsuo ecu oauo .n non-ea oz. onus see ooueeeouo o:» «no acuueaoauousu aoueu seaguooo ensues e no soauocuoeosoo o aeovsuo oz» esuu .« an no>oa o» voououa see» you“. ovuoosouo a nose; eo aeovsao ecu aooh .~ - wosoal osousu sees-ooo ooqusooosoo n so aeoosuo oaooo oso oouooao .o sou-ea osu oueaou ososuoso nae; osu song» on noosvou ~onuo> o usoosuo oz» osuo .n dean» ouauoeua e usovsuo o5» oouu .u ovaeosouo osu duo .suaeuoauoueu noose» oea oouesou seas» seesaooe ensues o .e eouaoauoeosoo o aeoosuo es» osao .— . 7:... coca. cue goo. u on ousoco nouueh — - c _ a... . ooooaou . . «we. a — __ .3 8.. :3 _ _ aw..." uouuouJ . noun-eon .2... . - . . oeue non-ea ‘eo .oeau ooeoaou .uoao usuuuouo .ooseuouv noon 0. Joel on i one» «gnaw-x .o nonueu see oouseue: use» a ‘se uoou co ousoeol ea : one» osuusoeox .n no sous» oseeuooe sue on : venues ones'o see. c .n oos oe- uoeou onuea 0‘ one: .‘oos on so“- o-«oa onesoa : o-uoa sosa non .a z «2.3 s.- . 1.6.. vo>eueuo no“: no. “once“ 00' On—I can ue.. aooeo~in_ ooaHmH .ooeua so» no use aeuuo aeeaou owneduc oz» a“: osee ~_.a aeovauo osw .u .o uoao voououou leuoa usage-co ecu: no ceases ecu gags acovsuo one no neon. ca uoou co oesou. ego eou so» uuo goo. a voyeuoq ao-oou oaosvo on 2.3m you. :72 03E ace. 0 o no ooeuu oouuaueoeou co... .u “cacao-a ~ nose; e neuos «do: see“ niu o song» and: usovaao och : a. dose; . ..ooa o3» oeo . ego and: osan on see oooee—ou «do; a... 2-2 3% a... 3:3 :2. 6:85-828 4 .. .iIIIIIIIIequduuIIunquuwmqlumuluaduaflllll. eouuouou osuao wee nus vogue- suus sue nuances» oau oauooaao oeuu noouoaonu ovunmw coca o:» e» eon-cone venue: .n oeeoao. :93 goo. 3:! o3 a .82.» o5 33:5 3 use; 3.23 lo 3 ac: .53an on» he com-coal oEasoo neon . ueoosuo .36-cu oueuuueu on ea Susan-e. uoouo«:a_ ovaflHH noon on» so undue: suds eouuoucouuo oouo : aeoeosos uneaouoaoua e .— aosouue. oo uouuoa ecu ovuesoa oeeq. sad. so use aeou anon coca nun o sous. nuns usoesao och : u nosed 10605°U GUCCUCdO .‘HCEUU. e333..— I60auUCHdO oueuueuex\ucelcqavu 40-kxou roan-O 8:5 2:3.» 32 5:55.522 :86. 3.2.26 .ozuoonao 240 .ouoeuuoo ensues osoo an votooao on 92. use ueoeoalou oufi. o .3 no use oeee oosuueu no eons-l no assou soon nee ooauueo osuusuooeou 3 so usoosuo osuooac .n sec» on :3 so» :3 on» auuoo ea uoos'ou non-o» e 25- oeo sou so... uoo. co asoosuo o5 eouuaoeu .e hove-nous?! asses: goo. 0. 2.9.8 .ooe: sea «a use as: :3 «on: 3309—. o usevsuo on» :3 .n noon : l l l on» 2.9.3 one: 3..) ueoosuo och .« so» 3 :3 o :3 Ice! . asoosuo e5 cease: a: oouo‘aouo u do»: L M on”: o2” 2.» o5 :- 9.39.9335 auaoo ensues o u w .33 . as w so: o3 eo sou: ousu «toe no souueuuosoloo o ueovsuo o5 2.3 .u s. aoou o. aeoag o3...— eou go «so ooguueo .e no! .u 3 «one.— \. ”sheave.— — dose.— a\ 3 voououe son» now: ooaooeoao u uosoa : l Ill o .3... sogauooe “33....“ Passes: on» So ooooueue use—3: o...» 3 Joe: of no uoou 3 :23: as“ e on uoou ,evuoveeuo a nose.— so gases: on» uooh .u .3: use. 3 use: no no oueeuous e lo: and: 3 nose.— on nooseueu‘ noon 3 no use see uoou on nooou no sags» :3 sued nnu : us . o :33 :1. ueovsuo 2F : S nosed essence; Joel 3 oaou «sue: a i oooeoaoao see. 3 oeo use. co oesoeos ea : oaou use-zoo: .«. ..: eos 3o; 23 he. hoe: oz: 3 one: .13.. on no: 8:: o! .o 3.3- o... aaooae 3 soon 2.3: .c 0 see o3} ease: : o3} sued non .u 3 dose; a... 8:3 sag See oosee a»? Zea 33:8 .n 33:. 13...: 03:3 :3 a a . ea ooooeu o3: uo oesoooo oouasoooseo uoou 8:3 ooufl ooze-econ. so osue .o soqosouou .« n so asses: ouoeo ese osuooao .c 3333. use. an no ‘o ‘ee _ see» on oooa sou ceaseuooa goes on : oaou oceans. .n :3 on» :33 ea noose: goo-es o 25. . Cid. 0‘} U. ““0”. “ "‘JH‘ o 3. g“ I". H... “d “:3“. .°d“d... on .8.“.“ noon 2:: o3 2.» e3: souuueo you: a no...“ “of: ounce-e e u813uo oz» 250 .u noon 3 ouaoeoe on : eeeu asaaaeeox .« 3.823 oo eon: :3 «on oouoeeouo 2.» 3o canoe-sauces. unwounuuom“ “Manueuuuwuou “nuns“... ”up. 333 ensues o ououaosoaoo on :33 on sea on ueeeo o3} . : em . on 3.5. see-3 Zea osseuuno—a so... sea 3 :3 o :3 usoosuo on» ooox .— n 2.1 ozea else.- e—a so: a a o o :33 :1. 231.: 2:. i u «26... a nose.— : _ dose.— ueoesou oueouoqo con «35— ova-ocean occuuoouuo eueauouex\ucolousvu 89:8 523. 8:6 2.5.5 at 5:35:55 :81... . oaauuonno 241 .olau oousou easy use. one» an es» en oeaa oousoo as-uouuo econ uo-poou homage 8:5 95.5w 2 525.2521 nu ecu ouoaeoo oce usoesuo ecu oeah .o .gouequ ea . uuouo sou. “gen o5» usuoeson onus: nan—anon as hues oo ouosoou ooae ou uooacou uoauos o opa- oee osuu oeuuuoao os. no ueoosuo ecu coded-o. .- .~o«uu ouuuooua o aeoosao oaa ooao .n .oousoo ease use. ecu no souaoauosasoo e aeoosuo ecu ooao .o .osouoo o no ease» . uoouoos es. en aeoosuo ecu osuh .n eoeeu uuuueuu s o ouaaoooa .1oasu. a» uuouo sou. eousoo soak use- : a... 3 =1 2.. 9:821 :2: 3:32 usuussoo .oooaoe neuussol me when oe soothe. ones on eoeu .o'un.* onucs «do. ueuueuuo ouoa an on. no. anon oeo ooasoo anode-go one no osuu uuWuo ‘~.:.~ ‘U3.~ 'd“ .‘U .I‘U ’N :‘U .Ui .‘dUBCU. 2“ U. U..‘,U. £0 CoflUNU8 o‘ oaos as soon one: u—«a oousou ens. use. .ueaua oouaueaa e usoosuo oeu osao .n mm .oouw. . a o» usovsao sues nu ecu no. oeua o.ueoosuo och .n .eousoo ag-«ouuo one» o . .98. 3 2.. a: 323.3. N .23.. a... :- . . .oe: .eoeuu =qu on}: oases. e neuoool 23:333.: evesoa 3o; ensues e .ovsn Q zoos: noon n73 o3 . no seuueuueealoe o uaoosuo oauoouo .u TIL _ gags oean “nu usoeuws ooesoo ousu aso- one» an e a .- dosed ea vooooua aedeau . ..Taoo-n4\. , ea osol HHH o .s-UNHWwwsuumwm eon» .uouuu ovoo‘seao ~ nosed o3» . . . soc» use uoo— «nod oou onuas ouesoa o oooouaoe use go o a .u.» . eoauuooa a oooeu an no oueououo aged-cue e .u oouuoaouo a nose; "H acousuunoAa you“ .a .ouru oouseo unoaeuau “15 a usuuueae cascade. oo ouosuou usuoae nu nosed neusuu u m uueuo coo sea son onus: enouuoa u nosed o neuos ago. ooueu an 8 ester 1. 3:21 :3 2.8.... on» - 2 2.6.. .43: I: 3: 8 .3... .3. .n .oeusa noes euuooeoo ouuuoua use. .c .. .oeesu suns oooseo oneeaooo duel on .eoueuu ea uueuo I .oeaou nu sues on : oaou neuaoe: .n .flifloloflufll A .oowaou ouoeooao uoou auuou ooannu o3» so use. on» us oououso suns-«ao oooeeoe a» .zooeau on uoeuo ooeeu be e uses a use o oeue o . : . u u a «a «go. o .ooueoaa “no. oouusuooooo nu omsueos on oeuuuu ”nunsouox .M oouuouu . nu; «ma om owuom acumen on so asovsao ecu enouo oeo osuooao .o a on -:o o in no: noon adieu ooumnu on eoosouwo saeuo oeo oowonu noun: .n .oeoe an uooea .ufiflfll oeo anus 3o; ecu oossoa ou aogvou U... “Alon .‘da hfl.u:du.b... U. dd: 20 00.“.8 o“ H.‘h.’ . 0":0. .‘U C’d. ". .b.3'. _ ego oeaoeu usoosuo oea conga-ea .n n x n odes .wuuuuduIIIH. . . . o s o o o gods nooaeou . no: aoou anion ooannu an :a« col «announce oo suoeoaaouo .«eaua ouuuuoua o woo-sue on» osao .n mousse-o o—ass use: aeoeaeoo as. .oouooeeao oeu «do asaaoaoaaoosa .oaoh usaaeex a £3) Joe: one so venue. onesro noo- .‘ce£ 23 £3) eucaoa :eo ensues .ooeu .sf-soeo: N eons“ e case‘s ooluu eauuouoesou an «no: e uo so¢ueuuosolos e usoosuo ecu osuo .u .uuea tench-sous good can. .« os- ooaaoa qua: asoosao och : u dove; u dose; a nose; aeoleou ouceuouo ecuuuoOc ooueceeuu oeoauuonuc oaoauouet\ucoie«svu cocoon :en .o>«000nno 241 .ooluu no» no use unnuo cocoon .uo-uou o3» nag uogu one“; no boa-:3 oz» .9 assoc goo: vco onuux oouuaooocoo cu co acovauo o>uooao .a .uouuou o3» on «no: oz» soda 18. s: can on uooavoo uoouo’ o o»«u 13o ocud noon on oz» so neovauo osu scuuuoou .o .ocua duo: ou 0000000 ~o>o~ 1::0un uo oa vuaoso coupon uoou o~-n_ ova Hun“ 0:» “a: ooo: and: acouauo osh .u .uouou oouuuous o ucovauo oz» oouo .n .1233!— 53 out. of on: ’3 .ovoovcouo “an“ H ocua goo. o~-n_ ova no non-ac o5» sud: couuuooo duo; no nouuoh 3:. .3 E 2.2. 5 :8 3 7,: 158. .o o .oouu.“Huuuflunouuunuwauuouguuuwfl . . a. oa—on o>o= cognac“ uoouou £¢ug won. a an ov«a . o’ oooo s u . ooqa .L .uouuo. ooo noou an o uo ooluu o>uuaooocoo :oh .u c on u" a o; o» a u . noun . ....: u .. uno~ goo. a. oo enouuoa u noooa o cad-a udoa oouoocouo u ~o>oa so ucov3uo on“ goo“ .u Mu . » ooo con 30; soon auo. o so“; vco aoao uoou cu o .4 u .quo . . \Mmflléu oo acoum no». can uuua «covaun.b£k o a» «wamfi. an a tie . ocua ” noou con _ p. o. p . u... o>oao veo vacuo; ado: oouuuoos o o» mood o~0n~ ovumuu snacks» o30uuou uoou oo non onuauua ogu ouuoosso loo .0 ooaao vuo3~o~ .o .uoou osu um . , . .oo. an»: 238 3:5 .3 soul: :3: 3o; uooueou . .30: 25.9333 n .0 .3: you»: 13o Island-.oo noooauo ooouo voo ovoooao .o .oouu soo~ an .oocouous noo- .uoo~ou on» ovuoaou «do. 00 noon 0. o ooou nous-ox .o uoou anon. oodhnu so nusu ”uh-ascu.mwuo“uunw “u" .n o:. sou; on nooaooo uoaoo: o oou- oco .oooo oonoou oco oocooouv a 3 .— o o5.— oB. Q o5 so uoovauo 2.. 3332-; .n :8 3 .oocooo: :0- oo . ocu u , .uouuu ououoooo o noosauo o3» oouo .N ooaoool o» o ooou nod-aooox .n o. co noon 8:...- oEE 8 :2. o3;— uoou 2.30:9.“ .23-33: 2: Jo 10: 3o 3 u non-o» scouo on» oo oouo gooouooo suououooooo 4 .u .uuo uofluouosuooou uo-oou o3» oouoao. and: «o.» o a; ovfia noon on ..~ acovsuo “oao~_ou oo ool¢a o>uu .0 .50 c uuoa unoccuuouo o ‘0 dun: ouauol .ooa no» u'ooo ouuoa n .ooo: ‘ ozu ooo: uonoou o oouoao. «no; son-ouuouo good o no oo«uouuo¢oloo o acosauo ox» ooqo .u o “no; quaOo-uouo good can. ..~ can. o Joan and: “covauo o3» n u noooa u uo’oa nu «oooa ‘co u «otoa 3:25.30 oocouoan :onqoos oouoocouu occuuoouqa odouoo03§uciaavn Jouhzou hush-O 3.3 .228 2 6:55:59 do: . o>quoonao 242 u»o»«»»o» uuo» o» no acuhzou houfino 8:6 228m 2 SEES—55¢ .0600 Q 0 M .oolu» so» «a »ao »z-»o u»o»»»»o» 4.x»o»»»»o» »»ou o»c« »oo~ an »ooo« »o . ouo» o»:» »oo» an »ooo~ »o »»z o» «uoz oz» ool»» no uozoac oz» I |.u ooon »oo» n~ ow» Hmu ~«oz oz» »»z o» oz»»»o ouoov»o vcoz no »¢:oo cooz vco oz»»»o Iooovuo veoz nu! I l.o .. . ooo: 0:» oz» soon oooz »»») »cov:»o ozh .~ o)» o>»»:uoocou o» :o »cova»o ooooozo .n . . .Iwmwmmuuldu»oz a»»o»»»o» »»o» .Ioz» o» ooo» no» uuoz oz» » ooo. A? . . a 3:» »»z »ozl:c oz» 5») 53:»: o3»: o» »oo:vo» don»: o o3. vco Gauze»: / . . .»»oz oz» zu»»a »»o» o»¢» »oo» ca »ooo_ »o zuoz oooz otoz oz» »o »¢ov:»o oz» co»»»ooo .v I _ . zeo»oa »oz»o:o oz» a¢»»»»z ool»» o>»»:uooz0u con .4 .uouou ou»»uo»s o »cov:»o oz» o>»u .n _ . o>oz .ovco» "o)o»—ou oo c»o»»oa a ~o>oz o .x»o»»»»o» uuo» _ azoz oz» o»oza ow» HMU acuo: ocoo oz»»»o »ol»oc oz» 0» vooao o»:» .On »ooo» »o ooo- uco ov»ovzo»o . ” uc»zo»o: ao»»o »oo» an o»o»ovoo »o voooo» «noz»»oo co»»o»:ooo ~ qo>oa oz» »»o n:»»o»o¢»ooz« I. . L 0» veo»m o ozuouo an»: »cov:»o ozh o .— ~o>oz oz»»»o Iooosuo vcoz o)» o»:»ol I..r.l nnv . . o no co»»o»»o¢oooo o »cooa»o oz» o>»u .u . . .»oo»cou .0 .u» »o>o» o» voooo»o o» ooooz v»»z» . »¢»oa vacuoz «no: zaoo»z»caa o o . aoz» »o»»» ov»ovco»o » »ooo» oz» o » »mouuoo o» o oocoozm n »oo» cann— ov» HMH »«) A an». oo»o oz» «a oc»>o «Maw < .o duo ooao»zuo »cov:»o oz» .» .»oo»u z oIoz zoo! a . zwzo oz» “wuav »o .o» ov»ou¢o»o u noooa so »:ov:»o oz» »ooh .a oouco»o»o »oo» an vco »oo» . »oo» so». .0 »o »»olo z»» »oou o as zoo. o» n oao» ucuz»ox .o »oo»o~-n» ovummuaco»u oz» 0» zooz oz» no». uouocoo» a» — ooa .uoo»»o»o» »zu«mw .co»»o»oo ocugo vco a»: .n ouou 16o oouao»ou‘ .»coz ooou an vco »oo» an »»»za»uo ooocz woo .voozo »zn»oo»o ooaoool o» a ogo» ucuoaooo: .n nau»a»oa ooo» .»»oao ouco»o»v »¢ova»o no. »z¢»oa vco »oo»oaan» ov» ooouaozo »oou .»onoo» voowo» ovuo . oo»o o»o»»go»ogo I »oz < .n »:o:»louco: z»»a :o»»o»co»»o ovum .Nx‘ .oo: oo» swoon o» oooz .zo»pa| uz»z»»»o o» »o»»; uov»=ozo I oo»o ecuuouaoo» o u»oz»uoa .a 23.3.. 2.23 3:. 9. 3:. .3 . 2 =3.— 1co .Azaov anon» ocoz »zo:»Iov:o¢ .. .ozuo»o Iuoovuo vcoz ca» oo»»auooooo o»»o »oz ooozo «a: I—on» »oz u:»as»»n vcoz n no »:ov:»o oz» ououo veo ooooozo .o .oucououv »oou zuozu »oo»o~aa. on» mM_ »coc»Iov z»»a »oz»ouo» ovcoz z»oa .« .Ioz» o» ooo» :0» «.oz oz» a» zoo. o» u ooo» u:»z»ox .o oz»»»o o» »oo:oo» »oz»oo o oo»: oco .ooco»o»o »oo- o» no:o»»o» oo oona» n .o »ao q .»¢or:»o :0» lo». »oo_ o» »co‘:»o oz» co»»uoos .n ooaoool o» o oooh o:»»aoooz .n no» »zo»o: oeo oo»o o»o_»ao»ano» »oz o .»o»o» oo»»oo»o o »cov:»o oz» o>»o .~ .»¢oo:»o on. »zu»oa z»»a »oo~ a» .0 ooco»o»s o no». »z¢»oz .ouuovco»o oz» ~»o us»»o»oa»ooc» 16o oouo o»ouoso»aso a ooz < .n »o»oa vco nos—aozo coo:»oz u»»zos oz»»»o I»oov»o acoz o3» o»:»ol .ooo on» usoo» n oooz u »»oz voooo» »»oz zuc» n»o »z-»oaa»zu»» o .o zo»»o»»ocooos o »:ov:»o oz» o>»o .» zuc» u»o »zu»oau»z.»» .~ o oz»»»o an») »¢ov:»o ozh - _ .oaoa ~ «ooQ» .~ »o:o» geoséou 3:330 c333,. ovuovcoum 2.03033 odouuouo...\»coeaaauu . 3:3» Boo!» 3.3. 2:. 3.5»uonzo 243 Section 3: Interpretation of Student Performance The primary purpose of a criterion-referenced instrument is to identify the instuctional needs of a student. The Elementary Fundamental m Skills 1'5}; assists in the identification of the fundamental motor skill instructional needs of a student. The following guidelines should be followed when interpreting a student's results: 1. If a student received a'H" for each component of level 1 anddid not appear close to mastering any of the components. it is recommended that the student be assessed on a lower level of the skill. For example. the student could be assessed on the I CAN preprimary materials. 2. If a student received a combination of "1's" and "2's" for the components of level 1. the components on which the student received a "1" should become the focus of instruction. 3. If a student received a score of "2“ for each component of level 1 then evaluation and instruction should focus on level 2 of the skill. Sufficient data on which to make placement and planning decisions are not presently available for the skills on this instrument. The tables on the following pages are based on a sample of 52k students classified as non-handicapped. learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. Because of the size of the sample and in particular the small n in some of the cells. the data on the tables should be used for comparative purposes only. These data should not be used as the sole basis for any placemant or planning decisions. 244 The first three tables outline by age. gender and group the percent of children who demonstrated mastery of each of the fundamental motor skills. Comparing the performance of other students who are tested with these figures may provide some general information regarding the performance levels of these students. The last seven tables outline by age. gender and group the percent of children who demonstrated mastery of each component of the fundamental motor skills. These tables highlight specific components that the students had greater or lesser difficulty in mastering. Comparing the performance of other students who are tested may provide information indicating whether or not the students experienced problems similar to those of the students on which the tables were based. A review of these tables prior to evaluation and/or instruction may also provide information about specific components with which students are more/less likely to have difficulty mastering. .Hm>oa mumumma um muamamu pom moans mo unmoumm wmcfizaou n u .Hm>ma mumumma um mmamamm mo unmoumm u m .Ho>mH muuumma um moans mo ucmouom u z Hm>ma own zoom No wmamamm com mmama mo mumzaoc Hmovmc: »o»oz 245 §»N..Hm 2:5» NN NN NN NN N on NN N» NN N» N N» -NN»N 924m-N N N »» NN N NN N N» N N N N NNHN NszoN NN N NN NN »N NN N» N «N N N N NNNN . NN on NN NN NN NN NN NN NN N» NN N» NNNNN :95». NN NN NN NN N NN NN N» NN N N N» . NNNNNN>N szn NN NN NN NN »N NN N N» N N N o NNN»NNN> . NN NN NN »N NN »N NN NN NN NN NN NN ..z:N N» N N NN NN NN on N» NN »N NN wm. . a N z N N z N N z N N z N N z N N z N N z NNHNN N» . »» N» N N N N NNNNNN\NNN Haaxm zoom new Hm>mq mumummz wm mucmvoum vmmmuoavcmmicoz «o acouuom a» manna 246 mo Nomouma umcwzsou u o .Hm>mH mumumma um mmHmEmu mo ucmuumm u m .Ho>mH zumumma um mmamawm vow moans .Hw>mH aumumme um moans mo Nomuumm n z Hm>ma mwm comm um mmamaww pom mmams «0 “open: Hoodoo: »muoz NNHNNN ZNN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN N» NN NN N »N NN N NN N» N N» N N N -NNNN NsziN N» N »N NN NN NN N» N NN N» N NN N N N N N N N N N NNHN NN NN »N NN NN NN NN NN NN NN N» NN NN N NN N N N N N N Nommmm NN NN NN NN NN» NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN N NN N» N N» N N N NNNNN NNNNN NN N »N NN‘ N NN NN N» NN NN N NN N» N NN N» N N» NN N NN» . NzNNNNNN »N NN NN N N» » N N» N N N N N N .22. NN NN NN NN NN NN N» N NNNHNNNN NN NN» NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN» NN NN NN NN NN NN» NN NN NN NN» ZNN N» N N» N» N N» NN N» NN NN N» NN NN N» NN N» N. N» N N N u a u N z u u z u m z u m z u N z u m z u m z N.AQHMm N» »» N» N N N N NNNZNNNNNN »»»»N NNNN NON »N>N» Numummz NN NNNNNNNN NN»NNN»N NNNNNNNN No Ncuuuum o~.oazoa 247 «o Ncwupmo vmcwzaou u o .Ho>mH humumma um moamamw mo ucmuumm u m .Hm>mH zumumma um mmHmBow pom moans .Hm>mH mumumme um mmama mo ucouumm u z Hm>mH mwm zoom um mmHmEmw pom mwama mo mumzaac Hmovmca »muoz NNNNNN zNN N» NN N N N NN N NN N» NN N» N» N NN N N »» N N N -NNHN nzN stn N» NN N N N N» N »N N» »» NN N N N N N N N N N » NN NN» NN NN NN» NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN N» zNN N N N N N N. N» N N» NN N N» NN N» NN NN N» NN NN N »N . u a N N z N z N N z N N z N N z N N z N N z »»»NN - NH o» m m m o .mmnzwo\mu< Haaxm zoom you Hm>ma muoummz um mucmvoum vouammaH mHHmucmz manmuovm mo ucouuum “N manna Table 22 Run: 2413 NON-lMNDICAPPED Percent of Students at Mastety Level by Component ACE/GENDER 6 7 s 9 u r n r u r u r COHPONEHT l as 92 97 100 91 IOU 100 75 COMPONEHT 2 100 100 97 100 100 100 100 100 LCOMPONENT 3 100 97 100 100 100 100 100 100 COMPONENT 9 92 as 96 as 100 92 89 75 TOTAL so 78 94 as 91 92 89 75 LEARNING DISABLED ACE/GENDER 6 7 s 9 1O 11 12 ——— u r a r u 1r u r n r H r n r COHPONENT l 100 100 92 100 97 100 91 100 -92- 91 92 IUO 91 100 COMPONENT 2 100 100 100 100 97 100 100 100 100 Inn Ion 100 100 100 COHPONENT 3 100 100 100 100 100 Inn 100 Inn Inn Inn Inn Inn 100 Inn »COHPONENT 4 100 so 92 100 97 92 91 100 100 79 100 so 100 130 TOTAL 100 so s: 100 95 91 85 100 92 79 92 so 93 Inn soucssta MENTALLY IMPAIRED nos/canoes 7 a 9 1o 11 12 u r n r u r H r u r u r H r courouzur 1 33 89 64 81 7s 71 47 7s -ss 75 100 o 60 100 COMPONENT 2 100 100 96 100 100 9a 100 mu 1oo Inn Inn 10o 100 ion COMPONENT 3 71 89 79 94 91 as 93 89 100 75 I00 100 100 100 . C°“’°"‘"T ‘ 62 67 68 44 91 59 73 7s 86 75 100 so no 100 70:5; 19 67 so 38 65 53 ’ no 56 79 so IUO 0 so [00 Table 23 Vertical Jump: 249 NON-IMNDICAPPED Percent of Students at Masterl Level'by Component ACE/GENDER 6 7 s 9 H r H r H r H r 9°“'°"5"T ‘ s 19 1s 24 5O 29 56 25 coupougm- 2 8 M 24 29 50 29 33 SO 0°“’°"E"T 3 s4 89 100 77 100 92 78 100 _fg“’°"5“7 ‘ 96 92 97 as 96 100 89 100 7°7*‘ o 3 6 12 32 21 22 25 tranuxuc DISABLED ACE/GENDER 6 7 s ‘ 9 10 11 12 H r H r H r H r H r H r H r c°"’°"5"7 ‘ so 0 o 0 3o 6 36 1o 4o 50 42 40 so 67 c°"’°"5"7 2 o O s o 24 s 33 20 32 29 33 4o 71 33 canyons": 3 100 100 5a 100 s7 s3 76 70 so 100 100 so 93 67 boogpougur 4 100 100 100 100 89 100 as 100 96 93 100 100 100 100 10:5; 0 O o O 14 s 15 o 20 29 25 20 43 33 soucastr MENTALLY INPAIRED ace/canoes 6 7 s 9 1O 11 12 H r H r H r H r H F H F H F conroutur 1 O o 11 6 4 O 33 11 29 25 O O 20 33 °°"’°”‘"T 2 14 11 14 6 9 1s 27 22 21 ‘ o 25 o 20 67 OOHrOHtHr 3 57 100 .79 75 7s 65 6O 67 86 50 100 50 100 67 °°"’°“‘"7 ‘ 86 100 82 100 100 as 73 100 100 75 100 100 100 100 romAL O O 4 6 4 O 20 11 21 O O O O 33 250 Table 24 Overhand Throw: Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component NON-HANDICAPPED ACE/GENDER 6 7 s 9 H r H r H P H P COMPONENT 1 s4 39 94 47 91 so 100 so COMPONENT 2 12 6 49 12 64 0 7s 25 COMPONENT 3 64 zs sz '35 100 so 109 75 ’COHPONENT 4 ss 76 sz 53 96 75 100 75 TOTAL 12 6 39 12 64 0 7s 25 LEARNING DISABLED AGE/GENDER 6 7 s 9 1O 11 12 .2 H P H P H P H P P H P H P c°"'°"5"7 ‘ 100 0 s3 0 s7 42 97 4o 96 79 166 so Inn 100 COMPONENT 2 100 . O 17 O 27 o 49 1o 56 14 5o 0 79 O coupouaur 3 100 O 58 O 65 25 as so so 51 75 6o 93 67 ’COHPONENT 4 100 so 75 67 64 so 97 so 96 79 H3 100 1oo 67 1071; 100 O 17 O 22 O 49 o 52 14 42 o 71 o EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED ACE/GENDER 6 7 a 9 1O 11 12 H P H P H P H P H P H P H P c°"’°"5"7 ‘ 4s 56 64 6 7s 29 87 44 93 75 100 0 4o 33 COMMENT 1 o O 11 O 22 6 20 11 36 n so 0 20 0 coupon“: 3 ’43 0 39 6 7’4 18 53 Mo 86 75 IOO 0 20 b7 COMPONfiflT ‘ 62 44 71 31 7s 65 73 H9 N6 56 Inn so 66 166 TOTAL 0 O 11 O 22 6 20 11 36 0 so 0 o o 251. Table 25 Catch: Percent of Students at Masternyevel by Component NON-HANDICAPPED ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 H P H P H P H P COMPONENT 1 ss 75 as 94 32 88 100 75 COMPONENT 2 96 7s 94 32 100 83 100 100 COMPONENT 3 24 28 58 53 91 58 89 75 COMPONENT 4 4o 28 52 35 91 54 89 so TOTAL 12 22 39 29 73 42 7s 50 LEARNING DISABLED ACE/GENDER 6 7 s 9 1O 11 12 H P H P H P H P H P H P H P coupons“: 1 100 so 75 100 87 75 91 so 96 93 92 106 93 160 c°"’°"‘"7 2 0 50 $8 100 s1 58 85 9o 96 86 100 IOO 100 67 COHPONENT 3 50 0 42 O 54 17 70 70 92 86 ID“ 100 100 07 bCOHPONENT 6 o 0 25 O 43 8 55 40 so 57 75 100 [00 33 rarAL O O 17 O 27 s 49 4O 76 57 67 100 93 33 EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIsED ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 1o 11 12 H P H P H P H P H P H P H P COMPONENT l 62 33 64 5O 83 71 87 as 79 75 Inn 100 100 100 COMPONENT 2 19 22 57 13 78 53 4o 78 71 75 75 50 100 IOO COMPONENT 3 5 11 14 13 35 35 4o 67 71 75 106 so so IOO COMPONENT 4 O 11 14 19 26 18 27 67 71 50 75 50 40 100 TOTAL 0 O 7 6 13 12 20 56 57 so 75 o 40 100 Table 26 E311 Bounce: 252 Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component NON-RAND I CAPPED ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 H P H P H P H P COMPONENT 1 12 14 33 6 73 29 7s 25 COMPONENT 2 40 33 85 71 86 67 67 100 COMPONENT 3 4s 36 67 59 32 63 89 7) bCOHPONENT 4 24 22 76 53 91 54 67 so TOTAL 4 6 24 6 68 21 56 O I LEANNINC DISABLED ACE/GENDER 6 7 s 9 1o 11 12 H P M P H P H P H P H P H P COHPONNNT 1 so O 8 O 51 8 7O 40 64 64 N3 N0 86 33 COMPONENT 2 so so 33 33 57 42 92 60 88 79 100 60 93 100 COHPONENT 3 so 0 25 33 51 25 76 7o 92 71 92 6o 1oo 1oo LCOHPONENT 4 O o 17 o 43 25 7o 20 72 71 92 100 86 67 TOTAL 0 O 8 O 32 o 58 1o 64 43 63 6o 71 33 EDUCADLE MENTALLY IHPAINED ACE/CCNDEN 6 8 9 1o 11 12 H P H P H P H P H P H P M P C°HP°"5"T ‘ 5 O 21 O 17 o 33 22 so 25 so 6 so 100 COMMENT? 33 23 25 25 39 24 5'1 67 79 75 75 so so 1110 coupougur 3 1O 33 46 19 52 29 4o 78 79 so so so NO' 100 COHPONENT ‘ 5 O 14 6 26 12 33 22 71 so 75 so 60 100 TOTAL 0 O 4 O 9 O 20 11 43 25 so 0 60 160 Table 27 Kick: 1253 NON-D‘ANDICAPPED Percent of Students at Masteterevel by Component ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 H P M P M P H P COMPONENT 1 28 47 58 59 91 29 67 7s COMPONENT 2 16 25 49 29 82 29 67 25 COMPONENT 3 12 17 1s 24 so 8 11 100 COMPONENT 4 32 36 52 59 86 38 67 25 TOTAL 4 3 6 12 46 O 11 o LEARNING DISABLED ACE/GENDER 6 7 s 9 1O 11 12 H P H P H P H P H P H P H P COMPONENT 1 O o 42 o 41 8 39 2o 48 36 so so 57 33 COMPONENT 2 O O 17 33 46 8 64 20 72 29 67 20 79 33 COMPONENT 3 o o 17 o 14 O 36 o 28 21 33 4o 29 O pCOHPONENT 4 so 0 42 O 60 17 67 4o 84 57 75 60 86 33 TOTAL 0 O O o s o 24 o 20 O 25 20 21 O EDUCABLE MENTALLY IHPAIRED AGE/GENDER 6 7 8 1O 11 12 H P H P H P H P H P H P H P COMPONENT 1 5 11 18 6 3s 18 27 4s 43 25 50 so 20 67 CONPONENTZ 5 0 2| 6 30 O 20 22 50 0 7S 0 20 0 couraugur 3 O o 14 o 9 12 7 33 14 25 so o 20 33 COHPONENT ‘ 14 11 29 13 57 35 33 22 64 so so 0 20 1oo for“. 0 0 l1 0 0 0 0 O 7 0 0 0 20 0 2511 Table 28 Two-Hand Sidearm Strike: Percent of Students at Mastery Level by Component " NON-HANDICAPPEI) ACE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 H P H P H P H P COHPONENT 1 84 67 82 82 91 63 89 75 COMPONENT 2 6s 44 82 53 96 46 89 so COMPONENT 3 24 14 52 18 73 8 56 so bCOHPONENT 4 56 42 91 59 86 33 89 75 TOTAL 16 s 49 12 59 o 56 so LEARNING DISABLED AGE/GENDER 6 7 8 9 1O 11 12 H P H P H P H P H P H P H P COMPONENT 1 1oo so so 33 87 42 88 so 92 64 92 so 79 100 COMPONENT 2 100 0 so 33 76 17 85 3o 92 64 100 60 100 67 COHPONENT 3 O O 17 o 49 O 61 1o 68 29 75 20 64 67 .COHPONENT 4 so 0 so 33 7O 17 85 3o 88 57 92 6o 79 100 TOTAL 0 o 17 O 35 O 61 o 64 14 58 20 so 67 EDUCAsLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED AGE/GENDER 7 9 1o 11 12 H P H P H P H P H P H H P c°“P°"‘"7 ‘ 38 22 29 6 57 29 67 56 71 75 100 80 67 coupouguf 2 29 11 36 6 52 12 4o 33 79 so 75 100 67 COH’ONENT 3 o O 18 6 26 6 12 44 57 25 25 O o 33 COMPONENT 9 19 11 32 6 48 24 53 56 71 25 75 0 4o 67 TOTAL 0 o 11 O 22 O 13 22 57 O O O O 33 Appendix D SChool Proéedures 255 The school procedures outlined below were included to ensure that each tester conducted him/herself in a professional manner at each school where assessment activities were conducted. These procedures reflect standards that needed to be maintained for the data to be collected with a minimum of confusion and inconvenience to the general school routine into which each tester intruded. Except where procedural adjustments were made to reflect the environment of a specific school. these procedures were followed as closely as possible. School Procedures 1. Obtain a list of students to be assessed prior to going to the school. This list should contain each student's name. age and school. Where possible. the name of the student's teacher also will be included. 2. Arrive at the school at least 30 minutes prior to starting the assessment. 3. Upon your arrival. check in at the school office. The school will be expecting you. but always check in at the office as a matter of courtesy and safety. If possible. introduce yourself to the principal and the school secretary. Also. when needed. it may be possible to obtain student birthdates and grade levels from the secretary. 4. Determine the location of the testing area and the classrooms from which students will be removed for assessment. 5. 10. ll. 256 Determine the recess and lunch times for the school. Both the student being assessed and the student's teacher may become annoyed if you continue testing through these scheduled breaks. In schools where the testing area is also used as the lunch room area. it will be necessary to have your equipment out of the way in time for the lunch room to be set up. In this situation. determine the times during which the room will not be available. Time permitting. quickly introduce yourself to the teachers of the children to be assessed. Meet the teacher from whose room children will be assessed first. then meet the other teachers as time permits. This procedure will prevent any misunderstandings and problems between you and the teacher when you arrive to pick up a student for assessment. At times such as recess. lunch. and after school. make yourself available to the teachers for the purpose of explaining their students' performances on the test. 00 not force yourself on the teacher. however. as some teachers regard these times as their breaks and may not want to meet with you. Others will be interested to learn how the students in their classes performed. Always leave the testing room exactly as it was found. Before leaving the school. thank the teacher(s). principal. and office staff for the assistance they have provided. Before leaving. always notify the office personnel. If you will be returning to the school for further testing. remind the appropriate people of the date(s) and time(s) when you will be returning. Appendix E Confidentiality 257 Confidentiality Each school district has been guaranteed that all results obtained in this assessment project are strictly confidential. The only peOple with whom any of the testers should share the information are the student's parents. the special education teacher. the physical education teacher. the school principal. and the special education director. If any other person should inquire about a student's performance. refer them to one of the above sources. With such inquires. only answer questions pertaining to the general nature of the project. Do not provide the results obtained from an individual student. To obtain student information such as age. handicapping condi- tion. and years in special education. the tester may be given access to the students file. All information contained in these files is strictly confidential. Obtain only that information which is needed for this assessment project and do not read any other reports or materials which may be included in the file. Do not discuss any of this information with other peOple. Appendix F Introduction to Assessment ProjeCt 258 Introduction to the Assessment Project The purpose of this section is to introduce the tester to the rationale for why the project is being conducted. An understanding of the information included in this section will enable the tester to answer questions about the project should the need arise. Public Law 94-142 (PL 9h-192). the Education For All Handicapped Children Act. specifies physical education as a curriculum area in which all students who are handicapped must receive appropriate instruction. Depending on each student's specific skill level. the environment in which this instruction is provided will varyu For some students special physical education in a seperate setting is approp- riate. whereas for other students placement in a regular physical education class is the most appropriate setting. Regardless of where the student is placed. it is essential that such placement is based on assessment results that have been collected in compliance with the assessment procedures outlined in PL 9h-1h2. A concern of many physical educators is that a large percentage of students with mild handicaps are being placed in the regular physical education class without first being assessed to determine whether or not this placement is apprOpriate. It is important that all students are assessed so that incorrect decisions that could have negative affects on the students development are not made. A variety of assessment instruments in physical education provide information which pertains to the child's classification. placement and instructional needs. The instruments currently used often provide 259 information on a limited number of skills, many of which are not related to skills commonly taught in physical education programs. The information on these tests. often referred to as norm-referenced tests. is generally reported as a quantifiable score such as time. distance. accuracy or points. Although the results from such instru- ments can be appropriate for making classification decisions. it is not as useable when making class placement and instructional decisions. ‘These placement and instructional decisions should be made based on the student's performance on those skills which are taught in the physical education curriculum. The two major purposes of this project are to develop and validate an assessment instrument which can be used in making decisions about a student's class placement and instructional needs. and to collect information about the motor performance of students classified as handicapped or non-handicapped. Items included on this instrument are those fundamental motor skills that have been identified as prerequisite to the learning of more complex motor skills and activities. Each item is set up to enable the students' results to be reported in the form of the qualitative aspects of motor performance. Each skill has been task analyzed into components which represent the essential qualitative parts of a skill. The student must master these components prior to receiving instruction on higher levels of the skill. The results obtained from this assessment can be directly interpreted in terms of those aspects of the skill that the student has mastered and those parts the student still needs to learn. Having this information provides the teacher with an awareness of the instructional needs of each student. This method of assessment is defined as criterion-referenced assessment. 260 Student populations being assessed in this project are individuals classified as learning disabled. educable mentally impaired. or non-handicapped. The two groups of students who are handicapped have been selected because they are most often mainstreamed in physical education with students who are non- handicapped. Collection of assessment scores on these students will enable two critical questions to be addressed. First. what levels of performance can be expected from each of these groups on the skills assessed? Are there any differences between individuals who are handicapped and non-handicapped which would justify a need for a variety of physical education classroom placement options to be made available? Students from the early elementary grades are being assessed in this study. This level was selected because the skills being assessed are skills which should be mastered by normally deveIOping children during the early elementary grades. If any of the students. individually or as a group. have not mastered the skills. then the extent of the under-development can be measured. where the early identification of problems leads to placement in remedial or modified instructional programs. it may result in more effective remediation attempts. This statement is based on the principle that the earlier a remediation program is started. the greater are the benefits that will be attained. Appendix G Consent Form 261 Elementary Motor Performance Test Consent Form 1 __havehad explained. and understand. the purpose and nature of the Project Elementary Motor Performance Test being conducted through Mich gan State University. I am aware that the activities involved are similar in nature to physical education and free play activities. However. I understand that in the unlikely event of injury resulting from research procedures. Michigan State University. its agents. and employees will assume that responsibility as required by law. Emergency medical treatment for injuries or illnesses is available where the injury or illness is incurred in the course of an experiment. I have been advised that I should look towards my own health insurance for payment of said medical expenses. The results obtained from my child's participation in the study will remain anonymous in all reports. The only exception will be the reporting of the results to myself and to my child's teacher. I understand that I am free to withdraw my child and their assessment results from the study at any time without recrimination. I hereby consent to my child being assessed for the Prolect Elementary Motor Performance Test within the time period September 1. 1985 to December 15. 1935. I also confirm my child's assent to participate in this project. Child's Name: ___ ___ Age: Parent Signature: Date: Address: (street) Icity) iState) izip) Telephone: __ Iarea code) Appendix H Human Subjects Approval 262 MIC HIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY unnmxurvcouunwuumuupuueuuunxvmc uuwununxc-Hmnxau-anu HuuAusuauthnxxqu nsApuuunmuTxnnuHumNC 17171 399-218: November 6. l98'1 Mr. Bernard Holland Health and Physical Education l3“ IM Sports-Circle Dear Mr. Holland: Subject: Proposal Entitled. "Elementary Motor Performance Test for Learning Disabled and Educable Mentally Retarded Students" UCRIHS review of the above referenced project has now been completed. I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and the Committee. therefore. approved this project at its meeting on November 5. l98h. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year. please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to November 5. l985. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. if we can be-of any future help. please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely. C—«L Henry E. Bredeck Chairman. UCRIHS HEB/jms cc: Dr. Philip Reuschlein MSU it an Allin-naiv- Amos/Equal Omen-«y hum-ub- 263 Abstract Project Title Elementary Hbtor Performance Test Assessment of learning disabled (LD) and educabbe mentally retarded (EMR) students on the essential physical education skills which have been identified as prerequisite to the learning of more complex motor skills is a necessity. Presently many LD and EMR students receive inadequate instruction in physical education despite Public Law 94-142 specifying physical education as the only curriculum area in which all handicapped children must receive appropriately designed instruction. The three major Objectives of this project are to: ' (l) Validate~ and standardize a criterion referenced assessment test of basic motor abilities for LD and EMR students. (2) Develop normative performance standards for when grades 1-3 (6 to 9 years of age) LD and EMR students master the components of mature fundamental motor and fitness skills. (3) Refine procedures used to train teachers to an effective level of competency in the assessment of the LD and EMR students motor skills. ' The results of this project will include: (1) A revised training manual documenting the validation, standardi- zation, reliability and administrative procedures for a criterion referenced assessment test of basic motor abilities. (2) Normative standards documenting when LD and EMR students master the components of mature fundamental skills. (3) A written explanation of how results from this assessment tool can be interpreted and implemented to enable accurate place- ment and instructional decisions to be made for handicapped children. (4) Procedures and activities that will enable the teacher to train themselves to an established level of assessment competency in fundamental motor skills. Approximately five hundred and forty grade l-3 (6 to 9 years of age) male and female LD and EMR students will be assessed on the twenty fundamental skills of the Elementary Motor Performance Test (EMPT). School districts throughout Mid-Michigan have demonstrated a strong interest (written and verbal commitment) for involvement in this’ project to improve the quality of physical education instruction for L0 and EMR students. The assessment results will be analyzed by age, sex, and handicapping condition to establish performance standards for the LD and EMR pOpulations. Application of these results to the placement and instruction of LD and EMR students will be made by demonstrating the relationship of the EMPT results to the physical education needs of the LD and EMR. 264 2. Subjects £2 23 included are: a. Students identified as Learning Disabled or Educable Mentally Retarded under Public Law 94-142 eligibility requirements, Education - for all Handicapped Children Act. Rationale for using this population is to determine the specific levels of motor (physical) performance of these groups of children compared to normal children. These specific handicapping conditions have been selected because they comprise the largest percentage of handicapped children attending public schools. They are also the handicapped children most frequently placed in regular physical education without first being assessed to determine if the regular physical education class is the most appropriate placement for the individual child. Age range of the subjects is six to nine years of age. This age range has been selected because it is the range during, and by which, the skills to be assessed would normally be mastered by the develOping child. b. Students not identified as handicapped who attend public schools in the age range six to nine years of age. Inclusion of these stu— dents will allow for the comparison of motor performance between the different groups involved. Recruitment 2E Subjects: School districts will be contacted and the study discussed with the appropriate administrators and teachers. Working with the districts and schools, the childrens' parents will be contacted by letter/phone and provided with an explanation of the study. Parents will sign a consent form permitting their child(ren) to be included in the study. 3. Risk/Benefit Ratio: a. The subjects will be assessed on a variety of motor tasks (catch, run, hop, jump) that are normally included in the physical education class or would be used in play situations by the subjects at recess, before or after school. Since the activities are normally performed by the children on a regular basis, this study poses no risk for the subject above that which normally would be present. Because the child will be performing the skill under supervision in a more protective environment, there is even less chance of injury as a result of the activity. txl. Protection of the subjects against injury is maximized by using only competent. trained assessment personnel. All of the testing personnel will be qualified physical education teachers trained in the administration of the test. 2. All assessment results will.be interpreted and reported to the district so that they may be used by the teachers in planning instruction. Results summarized in the final report will be in a format that will prevent the identification of any individual subjects, or the school districts from which the subjects were drawn. 265 c.l. Benefits to the subjects will be improved physical education instruction based on the teachers having available more accurate assessment results of current student performance. 2. General benefits will be the develOpment Of an assessment device that physical education and special education teachers will be able to use to more accurately determine the current level of student performance. Greater accuracy in the assessment of student perfor- mance will result in more appropriate instruction for students. The end result will be a higher level of student learning. 4. Consent Procedures Working with each district either the project director or school district personnel will contact by letter or phone each subjects parents and obtain written consent permitting the involvement of their child(ren) in the study. 5. See Consent Form Attached 6. The assessment instrument will be administered during the normal school day in the child's natural school environment. The test administration will occur in the gymnasium, multi-purpose room or a room of a similar nature. The instrument will be individually administered by a qualified, trained test adminstrator. To ensure valid results each child will receive necessary instructions and demonstrations on each item until they fully understand what is required of them. Should the child appear anxious or nervous the adminstrator will interact with the child until the child is comfortable with the testing situation and therefore able to perform at an Optimum level. If the child remains in a nervous state the assessment will be stopped. Assessment under such conditions would be unfair to the child and result in performance levels that may not reflect the childs' true skill level. Each assessment will take approximately forty-five minutes to complete. Due to the nature of the activity, the attention, concentration span and the fitness level of each child, it may be necessary to complete the assessment over two occasions to enable an accurate and valid assessment of the childs' true level of performance. 7. Advisor Statement l have reviewed the prOposed project, Elementary Motor Performance Test, and approve that Bernard Holland conduct the research project. 231i; KOKWMCQ to ~93 7‘ r. Phiqu Reuschlein Date 2(36 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WUMMOWAMUMW WWW!" WWW September 30. I985 Dr. Henry E. Bredeck University Committee on Research involving Human Subjects 238 Administration Building Michigan State University East Lansing. MI 48824 Dear Dr. Credeck: ”WOWOWIM The purpose of this letter is to request an extension for the UCRIHS approval of the proposal entitled. "Elementary Motor Performance Test for Learning Disabled and Educable Mentally Retarded Students". The current approval is valid until November 5. 1985. in requesting the extension it should be noted that: i. The testing protocol to be used during the extension period is identical to the one that is currently being used. 2. There have been no complaints from the subjects that have been tested or from their representatives (parents. teachers. principals). 3. There have been no adverse effects on the subjects that have been tested. The request for the extension is through December 31. 1985. Thank you for your time on this matter. Sincerely. Bernard Holland Student Investigator l3} iM Sports Circle 355-“ 7’90 Dr. Phillip Reuschlein Major Advisor 40 In Sports Circle 353-5222 MSU at .- IV/m-uu'w Anna/Equal Opponent, loam-mo- 2657 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY uwnmmnvczunannaowImmum31annxnuc our UUIIEM-IIIIHUIOCIIHDK meAusummnsnxaaai uaAaHannmAnowluaoaH: 1:171 m-um Oct6ber 8. 1985 Mr. Bernard Holland Health 8 Physical Education 133 IM Sports Circle Dear Mr. Holland: Subject: Proposal Entitled. ”Elementary Motor Performance Test for Learning Disabled and Educable Mentally Retarded Studggts" UCRIHS review of the above referenced project has now been completed. I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subject appears to be adequately protected and the Committee. therefore. approved this project at its meeting on October 7. 1985. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year. please make provisions for Obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to October 7. 1986. Any Changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any future help. please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely. Henry E. Bredeck Chairman . UCRIIIS HEB/jms cc: Dr. Phillip Reuschlein MS U 1: am Al/OMIIIW Anson/Eyed Memory Institution 2685 Elementary Iotor Performance Test Consent Perm l have had explained. and under- stand. the purpose and nature of the Project Blenentary Motor Performance Test being conducted through Michigan State University. I am aware that the activities involved are similar in nature to physical education and free play activities. However. I understand that in the unlikely event of injury resulting from research procedures. Hichigan State University. its agents. and employees will assume that responsibility as required by law. Energency medical treatment for injuries or illness is available where the injury or illness is incurred in the course of an experiment. I have been advised that I should look toward my own health insurance for payment of said medical expenses. The results obtained from my child's participation in the study will remain anonymous in all reports. The only exception will be the reporting of such results to myself and to my child's teacher. I understand that I am free to withdrew my child and their assessment results from the study at any time without recrimination. I hereby consent to my child being assessed for the Project Elementary Rotor Performance Test within the time period January 1. 1985 to Hay'Jl. 1985. I also confirm my childs' assent to participate in this project. Childs Name: - Age: Parents' Signature: Date: Address: (Street) (City) (State) *(iip) Telephone: (Area Code) 2659 SCIMRINGIIUEFERIBIJE KEY’ Skill h. locomotor Arse Level i Standards the student will run a distance at 23 yards as tsiisws: l. been of son-support by bends to at least ’0' 1. consistent periods at sen-support 1. heel-toe ssdlor toe-heel place-ant (not flat footed) within l' ts either side at tho 1" “4th 0‘ 13 1‘. course line i. an action in opposition to legs. elbows beat 3. soooth integration of the above standards . J. slight (lesion at the rear foot during eon-support The student will hop a distance of 23 yards on one foot and them 2.3 yards on the other test as follows: l. arse flexed and used ptinarily (or balance 2. son-support and carried near sidllse ). sen-support leg thrust to tear on each hep with thigh passing the support leg b. slight lift at both acne in front of the body coordinating with the suoh-ott phase at the hep Pldltloo side front side side Distance lSOlO foot u-zs feet . sssoth lacs ration of the above standards the student will gallop a distance at ll yards with one load feet then 25 yards with the other foot loading as follows: i. a step fora-rd with the load test followed by a step with the rear foot to a position slightly behind or beside the heel of the lead foot 1. a period at sen-support as the rear foot approaches the load foot during which tine the weight is shifted free lead to trail foot phone so that the foot leaves the g 6. both arms are flexed and lift slightly in coordination with the shift of uelnht S. snooth lnte ration of the shows standards lS-IO feet b. SKIP 3. ”RM“. the student will ship can consecutive cycles with 13 yards as follows: . l. eyes forwnrd and body in an upright position 1. .repeat the stsplhsp on alternate feet 3. and move in opposition to legs at above waist level b. a period of son-oupport with each at S. smooth lmte ration of the above front side aids aids side lO-lS feet student will jug horisomtally b out of S tines as follows: l. preparatory sews-snt includes 90‘ (O l0) flexion of both hsoes with arse reaching near ell ascension behld body as house reach seal-am extension 1. a forceful toward upward thrust of both arne and full extension of legs at take stt (andgs of 38‘) l. sisulcanoows foot contact at landing ahead of the body's center of uses d. thighs near parallel to floor as test sets contact and one earned tensord during the landing S ssooth iota ration at the shows standards side lS-lo feet b . VII?!“ a “ In. student will jeep vertically l- out at ‘3 tines as to llowos l. s preparatory meant-aria roach near full ascension behind body so the hoses tooth meninun (lesion ’0? (o lo) it. a—torcetul upward thrust of both arne ts at least shoulder height coordinated with full ascension of legs at tahs off 1. crush sad hoes fission on lending to absorb torts k. hslsntod landing-both (at land «a stay within a to. foot circle drawn around the take of! spot on lending lO-lS feet S. smooth lnce ration of the above standards VV‘ I. Object Control l. UNOCIIANO IOLL The student will roll a 1-1 inch ball underhand at so (not three consecutive til-es towards the target as (allows: l. a prepsratsr covenant-eyes facing the direction of the roll and shoulders perpendicular to the direction of the roll 2. full pendulun srn swing pivoting directly under shoulders consosed of bath swing; (or-word swing; 5 C... s . '0' ....... front side lO-lS feet 270 scoamstremm Skill g\\ g! 3 level i Standards 3. pain of the rolling hand tseisg the direction of the roll with ball release close to the floor so that hell does not bounce e. stride towed with the foot opposite the rolling sen during the forward series or are “n bottles aide side H Distance Lie—“Lintogratinn of the shows standards The student will throw s l-) inch hall a distance of II feat three consecutive tins towards the tsrgnt u follows: l. a preparatory sevens-eyes facing the direction of the throw and should perpendicular to the direction of the throw 1. full pesdulwn arm swing pivoting directly under shoulder conposed a bath swing: forward swing; release and follow throught J. stride (award with the foot oppooit the throwing arn during the forward notion of the aro b. followshrough well beyond ball release and in line with target 3. snoorh integration of the shows standards side osids side l0.“ 'fsot the student will throw a 8-1 inch ball a distance of U ‘0 three «neocutiwo tine towsrda the target as follows: i. a preparatory sow-ont-oide orientation with weight on the rear leg to initiate throw 2. near conpleto «tension of the throwing arm to initiate the throw 3. weight trssster to the foot opposite the throwing arn with marked hip and spine rotation during the throwing .tion it. a follow through well beyond the hell release and in line with the target 3. g...“ integration of the shows «1% side lO-lS foot IOUNCE The student will catch a 6 inch playground ball tossed gently to the student between waist and shoulder height (too a distance of is fast as follows: i. preparatory position with the hands in front at body. elbows flensd and near the sides 2. ascension of arena in prepsration for ball contest 3. contact ball with hands‘ only 6. elbows bond to absorb the force of the bell (hoods retract at least 6 inches) front front front side S. snooth integration of the above standards “The student wlill bounce the ball is contoontiwo tines 'within a two feet square nsrhsd on the floor. with the ‘dsninsnt hand while standing stationary as follows: i. contact with the ball is node with the fingers 2. contact with ball at hip height 3. wrist flnsnd and elbow ascended to inpott d. ball “acts floor in front of or slight the foot on the side of the bouncing one 5. snooth integration of the above standards force to ball ly outside of side lO-ll f not 7. THO-HAND 510: Al” STllht student will hich s t‘olo‘ stationery bail towards a target 3 consecutive close as follows: i. a preparatory approach step on the oon-hickisg foot that lands neat to and slightly behind the ball 2. hip ascension and hose fission during the backswing of the kicking leg 3. contact ball with teen or instep 1.. forward swing of an opposite the hitting leg as foot follows through to a position well beyond and shows the point of contact 5. snooth intc ration of the shows standards side lO-ll feet he student will strike the light weight plastic b inch boll tossed gently between should and wnist heighg (p.- s distance' of i0' with a bat J consecutive tines as follows: i. both hands together with doninsnt hand ifipping bat above non-donlnant hand and bat hold I! lfld behind doninant shoulder prior to strihing notion 2. side orientation with non-dooinont side toward target 227'1 SCUNHIHS REfiJIdK]: Kt! shill hovel x Sfigndng'ds Position bistants ff _ I. m 1. hip and spins rotation and weight transfer iron the 339‘ I.“ both to front foot during the swing $T'l“ b. full swing of the arms with a follow through well CONTINUED beyond point of contact 1. sasoch integration of the above standards Co I“! The student will denonacrsts correctly the five specific nIOCOIOOI body actions listed below three consecutive tines when given rsorgsnisad order as follows: i. I00! i. bond ). twist 3. spin front S-lO font ACTTOIS 2. straighten b. collapse The student will correctly identify the body planes listed below on self by touching or painting three consecutive time when given in s raorganlssd order as follows: 2. INT l. front i. top front 340 feat M6 2. back 3. button Jo .“. The student will correctly sown in the five sets of directions given three consecutive tins when given is a reorganissd order as follows: ). bisection: l. forwardlbachwsrd i. canard/away from front Solo feet ll tract 1. upldovn S. over/under ). left sidewazsiright sideways 0. Physical The student will complete a 600 yard run/walh as fast as fitness possible as follows: i. runlwoih continuously until too yard distance is along iO-l! feet l. Chlblo- completed (no stopping) side of nurtures! 1. sins recorded is nlnutes and seconds ““0“ met: The student will maintain the crush and hip flaned uposition for 3 seconds as follows: :. sir/reuse l. legs straight. bneoo maintain contact with floor [:Jide l-s foot TLZXIIILTTT 1. heads aligned evenly. one on top of the other with and ascended forward toward the wall The student will lie on floor in supine position with holding hoses beat at spptunioetsly ’0' angle: feet together student's at and flat on floor: arms crossed on chest. and perform tsp of student's S sit-ups as follows: feet or feet 3. AIDOHTIAL . initiates curl-up by tucking chin and lifting trunh. anhlss STICNCTI and cospictes curl-up by touching elbows to beans 1. lowers the upper body in a controlled nevenent with shoulder blades tou his the floor student will perform a straight-arm hang for at least seconds as follows: i. ShOUiDtI 1. hands grasp the bar with an overhand grasp (pains STIihCTh facing away free body) AND (NOUIANCT . student supports body weight with arms straight and bodv stationary B IBL IOGRAPHY 272 BIBLIOGRAPHY ‘-\Amerlcan Alliance for Health. Physical Educatlon. Recreation and Dance (1976). 525cm Fltness Test Manual 59; Mildly Mentally Retarded Persons. eston. V . Arnheim. 0.0. 8 Sinclair. \vl.A. (1979). The Clumsy Chlld (2nd ed.). St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Company. Ayres. A.J. (1965). Patterns of Perceptual - Motor Dysfunction In Children: A Factor Analytic Study. Perceptual and Motor Skills3 29‘s 335-3680 Balley. 0.8. 5 Harbin. C.L. (1980). Nondiscrlmlnatory Evaluatlon. Exceptlonal Children. fig. 590-596. Ballard. J. 8 Zettel. J. (1977). Public - Law 9h-1ll2 and Sectlon 501:. What They Say About Rights and Protections. Exceptional Children. 5.1.9 177-181l. Baumgartner. T.A. 5 Jackson. A.S. (1975). Measurement For Evaluatlon 12 Physical Education. Boston: Houghton MIfFlIn Company. Branta. C.. Haubenstricker. J. 8 Seefeldt. V. (1981:). Age Changes In Motor Skills Durlng Chlldhood and Adolescence. Exerclse g Spgrt Sclences Reviews. 13. #67-520. Toronto: The Collamore Press. Broadhead. 6.0. (1972). Gross Motor Performance In Mlnlmally Brain Injured Children. Journal 2: Motor Behavior. 3(2). 103-111. Broadhead. 6.0. 8 Church. G.E. (1983). Use of SOMPA Physical Dexterity Data to Determine Physlcal Education of Mentally Retarded Children. Education 222 Tralnlng 2: £25 Mentally Retarded. _l_8_(3)o 215-220. Bruininks. R.H. (197A). Physical and Motor Devlopment of Retarded Persons. In Ellls. N. (Ed) lnternatlonal Review 21; Research Ll; Mental Retardatlon. Vol. VII New York: Academic Press. Brulnlnks. R.H. (1978). Brunlnlnks :Oseretsk Test of Motor Proflclency I. Examiners Manual. Circle Pines. MT'n'nesota: Amerlcan Guidance ServTce. Bruininks. V.L. 8 Bruininks. R.H. (1977). Motor Proflclency of Learning Disabled and Nondlsabled Students. Perceptual and Motor Skllls. it}: 1131—1137. 273 Bryan. T.S. (1971:). An Observational Analysis of Classroom Behaviors of Children with Learning Disabilities. Journal 2: Learning Disabilities. 1. 26-3ll. Campbell. D.T. 6 Stanley. J.C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton M l n Company. Carpenter. A. (191l3). Factors in Motor Educability. Research Quarterly. 111(k). 366-371- Carver. R.P. (197k). Two Dimensions of Tests: Psychometric 8 Edumetric. American Psychologist. _2_2. 512-518. Cato. N. (1978). Physical Fitness Programs for MR Children: An Imperative. Review 2_f_ Research for Practitioners and Parents. 1. 1.3-520 Clemmens. R.L. s Glaser. K. (1967). Specific Learning Disabilities : Medical Aspects. Clinical Pediatrics. 6. ll8l-‘l91. Council for Exceptional Children (1977. March). Policy Regarding Non- discriminatory Evaluation. Exceptlonyal Children. fl.(6).ll03-ll0h. CLD Research Committee (1981l). Minimum Standards for the Description of Subjects in Learning Disabilities Research Reports. Learning Disabllty Quarterly. 1(3). 221-225. Cox. R.C. 8 Graham. G.T. (1966). The Development of a Sequentially Scaled Achievement Test. Journal 91 Educational Measurement. _3_. Cratty. Bfih (1969). Perceptual-Motor Behavior and Educational Processes. Springfield. Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Cruickshank. R.H. (1977). Myths and Realities in Learning Disabilities. Journal 9; Learning Disabilities. 12(1). 57-6ll. Cumbee. F.Z. (195k). A Factorial Analysis of Motor Coordination. Research Quarterly. 32. lllZ-llZO. Cumbee. F.Z.. Meyer. M. 5 Peterson. G. (1957). Factorial Analysis of Motor Coordination Variables for Third and Fourth Grade Girls. Research Quarterly. _2_§_. 100-108. Davis. V.E. (1981:). Motor Ability Assessment of Populations with Handicapping Conditions: Challenging Basic Assumptions. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. 1. 125-lilo. 274 Dobbins. D.A.. Garron. R. & Rarick. G.L. (1981). The Motor Performance of EMR and lntellectually Normal Boys After Covariate Control for Differences in Body Size. Research Quarterly for Exercise §_ Sart. L(1).11-8. Dobbins. D.A. 5 Rarick. G.L. (1975). Structural Similarity of the Motor Domain of Normal and Educable Retarded Boys. Research Quarterly. 1L6: llll7--‘IS6. Dobbins. 0.A. 8 Rarick. G.L. (1977). The Performance of lntellectually Normal and Educable Mentally Retarded Boys on Tests of Throwing Accuracy. Journal 91 Motor Behavior. 2(1). 23- 28. Donlon. T.F. (1975). Referencinig Test Scores:: Introductory Concepts. In Hively. U. S Reynolds. M.C. (Eds.). Domain Referenced Testin in S ecial Education. Reston. VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. 29-h1. Duffy. J.B. 5 Fedner. M.L. (1978). Educational Diagnosis with Instructional Use. Exceptional Children. 31;. 21:6-251. Dunn. J. M. et. al. (1980). _A_ Data Based Gymnasium. Monmouth. Oregon: Instructional Development Corporation. Eckert. H. (1971:). Variability in Skill Acquisition. Child Develmt. 1:2. ll87-ll89. Espenschade. A.S. (1960). Motor Development. In Johnson. R.J. (Ed.) Science 8 Medicine o__f_ Exercise 8 Sports. New York: Harper 8 Brothers ”Publishers. Espenschade. A.S. 8 Eckert. H.M. (1980). Motor Development. (2nd ed.). Sydney: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. Fait. H.F. 8 Dunn. J.M. (198k). S ecial Ph sical Educatign: Adapted Individualized. Develgpmenta . 5th ed.). New York: Saunders College Pubiishl'ng. Faas. L.A. (1976) Learnln Disabilities _:_ A Compptency Based Approach Boston: Houghton M ffiin Co. Federal Register. (Tuesday. August 23. 1977). Volume AZ No.163 Francis. R.J. 5 Rarick. G.L. (1959). Motor Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded. American Journal 2: Mental Deficiency. _6_3. 792-811. . Freides et. a1. (1980). Blind Evaluation of Body Reflexes and Motor Skills in Learning Disability. Journal 2:. Autism 222 Developmen- Lal Disorders. _l_(_)_(2). 159-171. 275 French. R.H. 8 Jansma. P. (1982). S ecial Physical flucation. Colunbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. Gallahue. 0.L. (1982). Understanding Motor Development in Children. Brisbane: John Riley 8 Sons. Gay. L.R. (1976). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill PublishThg Company. Glaser. R. (1963). Instructional Technology and the Measurement of Learning Outcomes. American Psychologist. _1_8_. 519-521. Glass. G.V. 8 Stanley. J.C. (1970). Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice - Hal . Inc. Godbout. P. 5 Schutz. R.H. (1983). Generalizability of Ratings of Motor Performance with References to Various Observational Designs. Research Quarterly for Exercise §_rl_c_I_ Spprt. 21(1). 20-27. Goodenough. F.L. 5 Smart. R.C. (1935). Inter-Relationships of Motor Abilities in Young Children. Child Development. 6. Mil-153. Gorman. D.R. (1983). Balance Ability and Reflex Maturation Among Normal. Learning Disabled and Emotionally Handicapped Populations. American Cprrective Therapy Journal. 31(1). 18-22. Gould. D. (1981:). Psychosocial Development and Childrens' Sport. In Thomas. J.R. (Ed.). Motor Development During Childhood and Adolescence. Minneapolis: Burgess Pub ishlng Co. Govatos. L. (1959). Relationships and Age Differences in Growth Measures and Motor Skill. Child Development. 22. 333-3h0. Graham. 6.. Holt/Hale. S.A.. McEwen. T. 5 Parker. M. (1980) Children Movin : _A_ Reflective A roach 52 Teaching Physical Education. Paio Alto: May eld Publishing Co. Hallahan. 0.P. 8 Cruickshank. H.M. (1973). P5 choeducational Foundations 91 Learning Disabilities. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall. Inc. Hambleton. R.K. 8 Novick. M.R. (1973). Toward an Integration of Theory and Method for Criterion-Referenced Tests. Journal pi Educational Measurement. 12(3). 159—170. Hardin. D.H. 5 Garcia. M.J. (1982). Diagnostic Performance Tests for Elementary Children (Grades 1-ll). JOPERD. 23. ll8-ll9. Haring. N.G.. (1976). Behavior pl Exceptional Children.Sydney: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. 276 Harter. S. (1977). The Effects of Social Reinforcement and Task Difficulty Level on the Pleasure Derived by Normal and Retarded Children From Cognitive Challenge and Mastery. Journal p_f_ Experimental Child Psychology. 33. ll76ll96. Haubenstricker. J.L. (1981). The Efficiency 9_f_ the Bruininks ; Oseretsk Test at Motor Pr'oflciency £2 Discrimat n Between Normal ahildren 922 Those with Gross Motor Dysfunction. Paper presentea at the AAPHERD Pre-Convention Symposium of Motor Development Academy. Boston. MA. Haubenstricker. J.L. (1982). Motor Development in Children with Learning Disabilities. JOPERD. 23(5). lllll3. Haubenstricker. J.. Henn. J. S Seefeldt. V. (1975). Developmental Stages 2: Hopping. Unpublished Manuscript. Michigan State Un versity. East Lansing. Haubenstricker. J.L. 5 Seefeldt. V. (1971: . March). Sequential Pro ression in Fundamental Motor Skills of Children with Learnln Disabilities?- Paper presented at the Infirnational Conference oi the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities. Houston. TX. Hays. V.L.I (1981). Statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. Hofmeister. A. (1975). Integrating CriterionReferenced Testing and Instruction in Hively. ll. S Reynolds. M. (Eds.) Domain Referenced Testin in Special Education. University of Minnesota. Minneapolis? Leadership Training Institute/Special Education. Howe. C.E. (1959). A Comparison of Skills of Mentally Retarded and Normal Children. Exceptional Children. 32. 3523511. Johnson. R. 8 Rubinson. R. (1983). Physical Functioning Levels of Learning Disabled and Normal Children. American Corrective Therapy Journal. 31. 5659. Kalakian. L.H. G Eichstaedt. C.B. (1982). Developmental/Adapted Physical Education. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co. Kane. R.J. 8 Meredith. H.V. (1952). Ability in the Standing Broad Jump of Elementary School Children 7. 9 and 11 Years of Age. Research Quarterly. 32' 198208. Kendrick. K.A. 8 Hanten. R.P. (198D). Differentiation of Learning Disabled Children from Normal Children Using Four Coordination Tasks. Physical Therapy Journal. 6. 784788. 277 Keogh. B.K. 8 Donlon. G.M. (1971:). Field Dependence. Impulsivity and Learning Disabilities. Journal 2: Learning Disabilities. 2. 331- 336. Keogh. B.K. S MacMillan. 0.L. (1983). The Logic of Sample Selection: Who Represents What? Exceptional Education Quarterly. _ll_(3). 81:- 96- Klesius. S.E. (March. 1981). Measurement and Evaluation: The Neglected Element in Physical Education for the Handicapped. The Physical Educator. 15-19. Liemohn. W.P. 8 Knapczyk. D.R. (1971:). Factor Analysis of Gross and Fine Motor Ability in Developmentally Disabled Children. Research Quarterly. 35. Mil-1:32. Londeree. 8.12. 8 Johnson. L.E. (1971:). Motor Fitness of TMR vs EMR and Normal Children. Medicine 222 Science _i_r_l_ Sports. 6“). 21:7- 252. Loovis. E.M. 5 Ersing. W.F. (1975). Assessin and Prpgramming Gross Motor Development for Children. Co umm: The Oh 0 State University. McCarthy. J.J. 8 McCarthy. J.F. (1969). Learning Disabilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Inc. McClenaghan. B.A. (1981). Normalization in Physical Education: A Reflective Review. The Physical Educator. 3-7. McLoughIin. J.A. 8 Lewis R.B. (1981). Assessin Special Students. Sydney: Charles E. Merrill Publishing ompany. Malina. R.H. (1981). Growth. Maturation 5 Human Performance. in Brooks. G.A. (Ed). Perspectives 92 the Academic Discipline 9; Physical Education. Champafin: Human Kinetics PublTshers. Malina. R.H. 8 Rarick. G.L. (1973). Growth. Physique and Motor Performance. In Rarick. G.L. (ed.) Physical Activity: Human Growth and ngelopment. New York: Academ c Press. Mann. L. (1971). Psychometric Phrenology 5 the New Faculty Psychology: The Case Against Ability Assessment and Training. Journal 9: Special Education. 5. 311:. Martuza. V.R. (1977). A l in Norm Referenced and Criterion Referenced Measurement Ln Education. Boston: Allyn 8 Bacon. Meyer. E.L. 5 Moran. M.R. (1979). A Perspective on the Unserved Mildly Handicapped. Exceptional Children. 35. 526-530. 278 Michigan Department of Education (1982). Michigan Educational Assessment Program. Lansing. Michigan. Michigan State Board of Education (1981). Essential Performance Objectives for Physical Education. Lansing. Michigan. Michigan State Board of Education (August 12. 1983). Michigan Special Education Rules. Lansing. Michigan. Michigan Department of Education (May 5. 1983). Memorandum : Incidence Figures _y Funding Category and b_y_____ ISD. Lansing. Michigan. Michigan Department of Education (March. 1985). Michigan Educational Assessment Pro ram: Physical Education Interpretive Report. Lansing. Michigan Milne. C.. Seefeldt. V. 8 Reuschlein. P. (1976). Relationship Between Grade. Sex. Race and Motor Performance in Young Children. Research Quarterly. ill. 726-730. Mosher. R.E. 5 Schutz. R.W. (1981). The Development of a Test of Overarm Throwing: An Application of Generalizability Theory. Canadian Journal 2:. Applied Sports Sciences. 18. Peterson. K.L.. Reuschlein. P. 5 Seefeldt. V. (197A). Factor Anal ses o__f_ Motor Performance for Kinder arten. First and Second Grade Children: A. Tentative Solutlon. Paper presented at the AAPHER Convention. Anaheim. CA. Popham. W.J. 8 Husek. T.R. (1969). Implications of Criterion- Referenced Measurement. Journal 2: Educgtiopal Measurement4 _6_. 1-9. Popham. W.J. (1976). Normative Data For Criterion-Referenced Tests. 1111 Delta Kappan. 51. 593-59ll. Popham. W.J. (1978a). Criterion-Referenced Measuryement. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall. Inc. Popham. W.J. (l978b). Well Crafted Criterion-Referenced Tests. Educa- tional Leadership. 16. 91-95. nyer. J.L. 5 Carlson. D.R. (1972). Characteristic Motor Development of Children with Learning Disabilities. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 3.5. 291-296. Rarick. G. (1973a). Stability and Change in Motor Abilities. in Rarick. G. (Ed). Physical Activity: Human £21511 and Development. New York: Academic Press. 201- 22‘0- 279 Rarick. G. (1973b). Stability and Change in Motor Abilities. in Rarick. G. (ED). Ph sical Activity: Human Growth 9113 Qevelopment. New York: Academic Press. 225-256. Rarick. G.L. (1981). The Emergence of the Study of Human Motor Development. in Brooks. G.A. (Ed.) Perspectives pp the Academic Discipline 21; Physical Education. Champaign: Hum Kinetics Pub 5 ers. Rarick. G.L.. Widdop. J.H. 8 Broadhead. 6.0. (1970). The Physical Fitness and Motor Performance of Educable Mentally Retarded Children. Exceptional Children. 18' 509-519. Rimmer. J.H. 8 Rosentswieg. J. (1982). The Physical Working Capacity of Learning Disabled Children. American Corrective Therapy Journal. 3(5). 133-131:. Robinson. N.M. 5 Robinson. H.B. (1976). The Mentall Retarded Child: A Psycholgical Approach 2nd Edition. New YorlZ: McGraw Hill Book Co. Rosner. J. (1975). Testing for Teaching in an Adaptive Educational Environment.ln Hively. W. 8 Reynolds. M.C. (Eds.) Domain Referenced Testin in Special Education. Reston: The Council for Exceptional Children. Safrit. M.J. (1977). Criterion - Referenced Measurement: Applications in Physical Education. Motor Skills: Theory into Practice. _2_(1). 21-35. Safrit. M.J. (1981). Evaluation 12 Physical Education (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice—Hall. Inc. Sapp. M.M. (1980). Developmental Secplences pi Galloping .3. Preliminar Stages. Unpublished Manuscript. Michigan State University. East Lans ng. Seaman. J.A. 8 DePauw. K.P. (1982). The New Adapted Ph sical Educa— tion: A Depvelopmental Approach. Palo Alto: Mayfleld Publishing Company. Seefeldt. V. (1972. March). Developmental Sequenpce pi Catchin Skill. Paper presented at the American Association of HPER - National Convention. Houston. TX. Seefeldt. V.(1975. March). Critical Learning Periods and Programs of Early Intervention. Paper presented at the AAHPER Convention. Atlantic City. NJ. Seefeldt. V. (19763). Develo ental Se uence pl Runnin Unpublished Manuscript. Michigan State Un vers ty. ast Lansing. 280 Seefeldt. V. (1976b). Qevelopmental Seguence of _t_h_5 Standing Long Jump Unpublished Manuscript. Michigan State Uil-iversity. East Lansing. Seefeldt. V. (1982). The Concept of Readiness Applied to Motor Skill Acquisition in Magill. R.A. Ash. M.J.. Smoll. F.L. (Eds.). Children in Sert. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publishers Inc. Seefeldt. V. 8 Haubenstricker. J. (1971:). Developmental Se uence 9.1; Skipping. Unpublished Manuscript. Michigan State Un vers ty. East Lansing. Seefeldt. V. 8 Haubenstricker. J. (1975). ppvelopnpeptal Seguence of Kicking. Unpublished Manuscript. Michigan State Unlvers ty. Ea's'? Lans ng. Seefeldt. V. 8 Haubenstricker. J. (1976a). ngeIOpmental Se uence of Strikin . Unpublished Manuscript. Michigan State Univers ty. East Lansing. Seefeldt. V. 8 Haubenstricker. J. (1976b). Developmental Se uence of Throwing. Unpublished Manuscript. Michigan State Univers ty. Ea's'? Lans ng. Seefeldt. V.. Haubenstricker. J.. Reuschlein. S. (March. 1971:). Why Physical Education in the Elementary School Curriculum. Journal 21 Michigan Association 91 HPER Seefeldt. V.. Reuschlein. S. 8 Vogel. P. (1972. March). Se uencin Motor Skills Within the Ph sical Education Curriculum. Paper present at the AAHPER Nat onal Convention. Houston. fi. Sells. L.G. (1951). The Relationship Between Measures of Physical Growth and Gross Motor Performance of Primary Grade School Children. Research Quarterly. _2_2. Zilll-260. Sengstock. W.L. (1966). Physical Fitness of Mentally Retarded Boys. Research Quarterlyp 31. 113-120. Sherrill. C. (1980). Physical Education for Learning Disabled Students in the Public Schools. American Council Learning Disabilities Newsbriefs. no. 130.6. Sherrill. C. (1981). Ada ted Physical Education 322 Recreation (2nd Ed.). Dubuque: William C. Brown Company Publishers. Singer. R.N. (1980). Motor Learnin and Human Performance : _a_p Application to Motor Skills and Movement Ehaviorshra Ed.). New York: MacMiTlan Publishing Co. Smoll. F.L. (1971:). Motor Impairment and Social Development. American Corrective Therapy Journals _2_§(1). ll--7. 281 Stein. J.U. (1965). Physical Fitness of Mentally Retarded Boys Relative to National Age Norms. Rehabilitation Literature. '26.. Stein. J.U. (1977). Norm and Criterion Referenced Tests - A Pragmatic Approach. American Corrective Therapy Journal. 11(5). Hill—11:7. Stein. J.U. (1978). Physical Education and Sports as Required by P.L. 9h-1h2 and Section 50h. American Corrective Therapy Journal. 13(5). ills-151. """"'""""‘ Stephens. T.M. (1976). Teaching Skills 2 Children with Learnin and Behpvior Qisorders. Sydney: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. Thomas. J.R. 8 Thomas. K.T. (1981:). Kids and Numbers: Assessing Children's Motor Development in J.R. Thomas (Ed.) Motor Develo ment Durin Childhood and Adolescence. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co. Thomas. J.R. (1981:). Planning "Kiddie" Research: Little "Kids" but Big Problems in J.R. Thomas (Ed.) Motor vaelopment Durln Childhood and Adolescence. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co. Turnquist. D.A. 8 Marzolf. 5.5. (1951:). Motor Abilities of Mentally Retarded Youth. JOPER. 12(3). ll3-lill. Ulrich. D.A. (1985). Test 21 Gross Motor Development. Austin: PROED. INC. Vogel. P.G. (1977. March). Dia no’stic _-_ Prescriptive Teaching: A Comparison pl Norm and Criterion Referenced Approaches. Paper presented at the AAHPER. National Convention.Seattle. WA. Wellman. B.L. (1937). Motor Performance of Preschool Children. Child Education. 13. 311-316. Werder. J.K. 8 Kalakian. L.H. (1985). Assessment 12 Adapted Physical Education. Minneapolis. Burgess Publishing Company. Wessel. J.A. (1979). I CAN Ph sical Education Curriculum. Northbrook. IL: Hubbard Publ'ls'nTng'Tz'o.""' Wessel. J.A. (1980). I CAN Breprimary Motor and Play Skills Pr ram. East Lansing. MI: Marketing Division. Instructional Media Center. Michigan State University. Wessel. J.A. 8 Kelly. L. (1986). Achievement Based Curriculum Development _i_l_l_ Physical Education. Philadelphia: Lea 8 Feblger. Whitener. S.E. 8 James. K.W. (1973). The Relationship Among Motor Tasks for Preschool Children. Journal p: Motor Behavior. 50:). 231-239. 282 Wickstrom. R.L. (1983)Eundamental notor flatterns (2nd Ed.). Philadelphia: Lea 8 Feblger. Winnick. J.P. (1979). Early Movement Experiences and Development. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co. Zaichkowsky. L.D.. Zaichkowsky. L.B. 8 Martinek. T.J. (1980). Growth 8 Dgyelopment: The Child and Physical Activity. St. Louis: The 60V. HOSbY CO. iii/iii“ Iii iiii’i iii 8405999 ”ii