s
2:!
1.2.»:

 

 

\«J

c5\
13;:
as» c
'I-J it
Q6
.Kp
t?)
{a

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

PERCEIVED PHYSICAL AND ACTUAL MOTOR
COMPETENCE IN KOREAN CHILDREN WITH MILD MENTAL
RETARDATION: RELATIONSHIP TO AGE, GENDER,

AND PARENTAL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

presented by

Ji-Tae Kim

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph 0 D 0 degree in Kines iOlogy

 

 

W

ﬁ\/ xMajor professor

$3429 a;

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuepGS—sz

 

PERCEIVED PHYSICAL AND ACTUAL MOTOR COMPETENCE
IN KOREAN CHILDREN WITH MILD MENTAL RETARDATION:
RELATIONSHIP To AGE, GENDER, AND PARENTAL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
By

Ji-Tae Kim

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Kinesiology

2003

ABSTRACT
PERCEIVED PHYSICAL AND ACTUAL MOTOR COMPETENCE
IN KOREAN CHILDREN WITH MILD MENTAL RETARDATION:
RELATIONSHIP TO AGE, GENDER, AND PARENTAL PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
By

J i-Tae Kim

The purposes of this study were to investigate the relationship of perceived
physical competence and actual motor competence relative to age, gender, and parental
physical activity in children with mild mental retardation (MMR). The participants
consisted of 112 children ﬁom 8 to 11 years of age with MMR who attend special
schools for students with MR in Korea, and their parents. The Test of Gross Motor
Development, Second Edition (TGMD-Z; Ulrich, 2000) and the Pictorial Scale for
Perceived Physical Competence for Children with Mental Retardation (PSPPCCMR;
Ulrich & Collier, 1990) were the instruments used to assess the perceived physical
competence and actual motor competence of participant children. The Godin Leisure-
Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ; Godin & Shephard, 1985) was used to assess
leisure time physical activity of participant parents. The statistical tests (Pearson
product-moment correlation, MANOVA, t-test, and AN OVA) were performed at the .05
alpha level. The results of this study indicated that the relationship between perceived
physical competence and actual motor competence in children with MMR was
statistically signiﬁcant. There were signiﬁcant effects of gender and parental physical
activity on perceived physical competence and actual motor competence, but there were
not effects of age and interaction of gender, age, and parental physical activity. This

study suggests that applying Harter’s theory (1978) to children with MMR results in

similar ﬁndings with regard to the relationship between perceived and actual physical
competence and parental inﬂuence on perceived physical competence. From this study,
the data regarding perceived physical competence and actual motor competence of
children with MMR have implications for adapted physical educators or special
education teachers to develop a more effective physical education program or curriculum

for instruction in basic motor skills.

Cepyright by
JI-TAE KIM
2003

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, long-Hun Kim and Jung-Ia Park, and
my wife, Ji-Won Chang, for all of their support.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the following individuals who have
made so profound an impact on my life and contrlbuted so generously to the completion
of this manuscript.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Crystal Branta, for all the
encouragement and insight she offered throughout my doctoral program. I am also
indebted to the support and advice of the members of my committee, Dr. Gail Dummer,
Dr. Martha Ewing, and Dr. Eugene Pernell, Jr.

To classroom teachers, administrators, students, and parents from ﬁve Special
schools, I would like to thank you for your willingness to participate in this study.
Especially, I will never forget all the classroom teachers’ assistance in data collection.

To my fellow graduate students, Kyung-Suk Min, Dae-Sun Ko, and Ho-Sang
Chong, I would like to thank you for helping with the data collection and statistical
analysis. I would also like to thank my friend, Mr. David Krise, who edited my imperfect
English. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to my ﬁiend’s wife, Mrs.
So-Young Jung, for making the pictorial version of the questionnaire.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents who have supported and believed in me
throughout my educational pursuit. I would also like to thank my wife for always

encouraging me to follow my dreams.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

133g:
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................ x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................ xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1
Problem ....................................................................... 2
Overview of the Problem ............................................. 2
Signiﬁcance of Problem ............................................. 3
Statement of Problem ...................................................... 7
Need for the Study .......................................................... 7
Hypotheses ................................................................... 10
Relationship between Perceived and Actual Competence ....... 10
Age and Gender .......................................................... 10
Parental Physical Activity ............................................... 11
Research Questions .......................................................... 1 1
Limitations .................................................................... 12
Assumptions .................................................................. 13
Deﬁnition of Terms .......................................................... 13
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................... 16
The Importance of Fundamental Motor Skills
for Elementary Aged Children .............................................. 16
Competence Motivation Theory ........................................... 19
The Relationship between Perceived and Actual Competence
in Physical Domain ........................................................... 24
Relationship between the Two Variable
in Individuals with Mental Retardation ............................. 27
Characteristics of Mental Retardation on Perceived Competence
and Actual Competence ..................................................... 30
Perceived Competence and Mental Retardation. .................. 31
Actual competence and Mental Retardation ........................ 35
Factors Inﬂuencing Perceived Competence and Actual Competence... 38
Age ........................................................................ 39
Inﬂuence of age on perceived competence ...................... 39
Inﬂuence of age on actual competence ........................... 42
Gender ................................................................... 43
Inﬂuence of gender on perceived competence .................. 43
Inﬂuence of gender on actual competence .................... 45

vii

Page

Role of Parents .......................................................... 47
Inﬂuence of parents on perceived competence ................. 47
Inﬂuence of parents on actual competence ..................... 50

Summary ........................................................................ 51
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................... 52
Participants .................................................................... 52

Sample of Children with MMR ...................................... 52

Sample of Parents ...................................................... 55

Informed Consent ..................................................... 55

Instrumentation ............................................................... 56

Perceived Physical Competence ....................................... 56

Actual Motor Competence ............................................ 59

Demographic Questionnaire .......................................... 60

Parental Physical Activity ............................................. 61

Data Collection Procedures ................................................ 62

Measures for Participant Children .................................... 62

Measures for Participant Parents .................................... 65

Data Analyses ................................................................. 69
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ..................................................... 73
Overall Descriptive Statistics ............................................... 73
Inferential Statistics ........................................................... 76

Hypothesis 1 ............................................................. 77

Hypothesis 2 .............................................................. 78

Hypothesis 3 ............................................................. 78

Hypothesis 4 ............................................................. 81

Hypothesis 5 ............................................................. 82

Hypothesis 6 ............................................................ 83

Hypothesis 7 ............................................................ 84

Hypothesis 8 ............................................................. 86

Hypothesis 9 ............................................................. 87

Research Question 1 ................................................... 88

Research Question 2 ................................................... 91

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ................................................ 96
Relationship between Perceived Physical Competence and
Actual Motor Competence ................................................... 96
Inﬂuences of Age and Gender ................................................ 100
Inﬂuences of Parental Physical Activity ...................................... 106

viii

Page

Inﬂuences of the Interaction of Age, Gender, and

Parental Physical Activity ...................................................... 109
CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......... 111
Summary of Findings ....................................................... 1 14
Implications for Education ................................................... 115
Recommendations for Further Research ................................... 117
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Human Subjects Approval Letter ......................................... 121
APPENDIX B
Informed Consent Forms .................................................. 123
APPENDIX C
Pictorial Scales for Asian Boys and Girls .............................. 132
APPENDIX D
TGMD-2 Score Sheets ................................................... 153
APPENDIX E
Parental Questionnaire .................................................... 159
REFERENCES .............................................................................. 163

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1 Number of Participants by Age and Gender ............................... 53
2 Frequency, Percent, and Cumulative Percent for

the Parental Leisure Activity Scores ........................................ 67
3 Data Analyses .................................................................. 7O
4 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores on the Items

of the PSPPCCMR for Participant Children .............................. 74
5 Means and Standard Deviations of Raw, Percentile, and Standard

Scores on Two Subtests and Those of GMDQ Scores .................. 75
6 Summary of the Support of the Evidence for Each Hypothesis and

Research Question ............................................................ 76
7 Correlation Matrix of the PSPPCCMR, Locomotor, Object-Control

and GMDQ ................................................................... 77
8 Follow-Up Univariate Analyses of Gender, Age, and Gender by Age

Interactions on Measures of Perceived Physical Competence and

Actual Motor Competence .................................................... 80
9 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores on the Dependent Variable

Measures by Gender ......................................................... 81
10 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores on the Dependent Variable

Measured by Age ............................................................. 83
10 llMean and Standard Deviation Scores of Perceived Physical

Competence and Actual Motor Competence Measures by

the Interaction of Gender and Age ......................................... 85
12 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores on the Dependent Variable

Measures by Parental Physical Activity Level .......................... 88

13 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of the PSPPCCMR by the
Interaction of Gender, Age, and Parental Physical Activity Level. .. 89

14

15

16

Three-Way Analysis of Variance with Gender, Age, and
Parents’ Level as Independent Variables on Measures
of Perceived Physical Competence ......................................... 90

Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Actual Motor
Competence Measures by Interaction of Gender, Age,
and Parental Physical Activity Level ....................................... 92

Three-Way Analysis of Variance with Gender, Age, and

Parents’ Level as Independent Variables on Measures
of Actual Motor Competence ................................................ 94

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Harter’s Model of Competence Motivation ................................ 20
An Example Item from the Pictorial Scale of Perceived
Physical Competence Taken ﬁ'om the Female Plates ..................... 58

Mean Values of Object-Control Test for Gender-by-Age Comparison. 86

xii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The development of fundamental motor skills (FMS) is an integral component of

physical activity programs for children in elementary school. Because children need the
opportunity to encounter and learn many physical skills, the types and range of skills
presented in physical education should be varied (Pangrazi, 1998). Unfortunately,
growing evidence indicates that many elementary aged children do not experience
appropriate movement opportunities necessary for the development of basic motor skills,
because of limited facilities, limited time, and incorrect assumptions of some teachers
that children already have acquired these skills (Buschner, 1994; Walkley, Holland,
Treloar, & Probyn-Smith, 1993). This deﬁcit is likely to have a damaging effect upon
later development and participation. Fowler (1981) explained the beneﬁts ﬁ'om learning
FMS, and emphasized a need for children in elementary school to continue work on the
FMS. Through the acquisition of FMS, all children, regardless of the presence or lack
of disability, constantly increase their physical and cognitive potential for learning more
advanced skills for sports and various physical activities (Eichstaedt & Lavay, 1992;
Ignico, 1994; Seefeldt & Haubenstricker, 1982). In addition, learning FMS helps
children develop a stronger self-concept as well as various social skills (Gallahue, 1989;
Williams, 1983). Therefore, research regarding perceived and actual competence in
relation to the FMS would provide useful information in a physical education setting of
elementary aged children with disabilities in order to improve program planning and

performance objectives.

Bro—b12111
Overview of th_e Problem

Children with mental retardation (MR) generally demonstrate delays in the
motor/physical and learning/cognitive areas, although not all children with MR display
the same characteristics. Research reveals that the levels of motor and physical
performance of children with MR tend to be signiﬁcantly lower than those of children
without disabilities. Children with mild mental retardation (MMR) lag on the average
from one to four years behind their peers without disabilities in motor development
(Bouffard, 1990; DiRocco, Clark, & Phillips, 1987; Rarick, 1973). Much of the
research being conducted in the ﬁeld of MR deals with weaknesses in learning processes,
such as attention, memory, retention, or generalization. Because of their limited
cognitive ability, children with MR learn more slowly and inefﬁciently than those
without disabilities (Gearheart, Weishahn, & Gearheart, 1996; Hoover & Horgan, 1990;
Nugent & Mosley, 1987).

The delays in the physical/motor and learning/cognitive areas may inﬂuence how
children with MR form judgments about their competence in a speciﬁc domain, such as
academic or physical activity. For example, deﬁcits in motor/physical performance and
weaknesses in learning processes may cause children with MR to refrain ﬁ'om
participation in a physical activity due to lack of success and feelings of failure.
Decreases in participation may cause them to fall behind in their skills, thereby
continuing the failure cycle. Therefore, it is plausible that studies regarding perceptions

of competence in individuals with MR are needed, because the study of construct of

perceived competence in individuals with MR has not resulted in similar applications as
in children without disabilities (Kozub & Porretta, 1999; Ulrich & Collier, 1990).
Signiﬁcance of Problem

Based on Harter’s developmental model of competence motivation (1978, 1982),
perceptions of competence and actual competence are basic variables contributing to
development of achievement motivation. As perceived competence refers to judgments
of individuals about their ability in a Speciﬁc area such as academic or physical activity
(Weiss, 2000), perceived competence in each domain becomes the important mediating
factor in determining whether a person continues to participate in speciﬁc activities
within that domain. Weiss and Ebbeck (1996) provided evidence that youth who report
stronger beliefs about their physical competence are more likely to enjoy activity and
sustain interest in continuing involvement than youth who report lower levels of physical
competence. Whereas actual competence is a precursor to perceived competence, it also
affects levels of motivation. Harter (1978) stated that if individuals are not aware of
actual physical competence, they may overestimate or underestimate their abilities.

Recently, much research dealing with the relationship between perceived and
actual competence in the donnin of physical activity or sport has been undertaken for
individuals without disabilities (Goodway & Rudisill, 1997; F eltz & Brown; 1984;
Harter, 1982; Rudisill, Mahar, & Meaney, 1993; Ulrich, 1987), and the results of the
research supported Harter’s theoretical view of the positive relationship between
perceived competence and actual competence. However, there has been little research
pertaining to the relationship between perceived and actual competence in individuals

with MMR, and the research failed to generalize the theoretical relationship between

these two variables (Shapiro & Dummer, 1998; Yun & Ulrich, 1997). More
speciﬁcally, Yun and Ulrich ( l 997) demonstrated that the theoretical relationship
between these two variables in 7- to 12-year-old children with MMR is not well
established. They concluded that the rationales for the lack of a signiﬁcant relationship
between these two variables might be related to the insufﬁcient cognitive ﬁmctioning for
making self-evaluations. However, the study of Shapiro and Dummer (1998) provided
moderate support for the theoretical positive relationship between perceived and actual
basketball competence for adolescent males with MMR.

Previous studies reported that age and gender of children (including those with
MR) have both been found to relate to perceived and actual competences in sport or
physical activity. Generally, perceived competence and actual competence seem to
change with increasing age. Horn and Weiss (1991) found that older children (10- to
l3-year-olds) had signiﬁcantly more accuracy in their perceived physical competence
than younger (7- to 8-year-olds). Rudisill, Mahar, and Meaney (1993) found that among
9-, 10-, and 11-year-old children, older children demonstrated higher levels of actual
motor competence than younger children. Similar results concerning age differences on
perceived and actual competence have been found in the study of Yun and Ulrich (1997)
involving children with MMR. Evidence is accumulating that there are gender
differences in self-perceptions of competence in the domain of physical activity or sport
(Jolly, 1997; Rudisill, Mahar, & Meaney, 1993; Ulrich, 1987), although some studies
involving children without disabilities reported no gender differences on perceived
competence in the physical domains (Goodway & Rudisill, 1997; Horn & Hasbrook,

1986). Past studies found that males Show higher perceived physical competence (Feltz

& Brown; 1984; Jolly, 1997; Rudisill, Mahar, & Meaney, 1993; Ulrich, 1987) and actual
motor skill competence (Rudisill, Mahar, & Meaney, 1993; Ulrich, 1987; Yun & Ulrich,
1997) than females.

In addition to individual difference factors (e.g., age and gender), researchers are
interested in focusing on a wide range of sources of information (e.g., signiﬁcant others,
mastery success, etc.) available in physical activity or sport that children could use to
judge their performance and their competence (Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989; Weiss, 2000;
Weiss, Ebbeck, & Horn, 1997). There are studies which have emphasized the role of
signiﬁcant others (such as parents, peers, coaches, and teachers) as a critical source of
information during the childhood and adolescent years. Harter’s competence motivation
model (1978, 1981) assigned a central role to signiﬁcant others as inﬂuences on self-
perceptions of competence. Especially, during the childhood years, parents appear to be
the chief individuals in academic, physical, and social domains for judging ability and
making decisions about future participatory behaviors (Brustad, 1992; Weiss, Ebbeck, &
Horn, 1997).

Several studies have emphasized that parental expectations, beliefs, and behaviors
play a crucial role in the nature and extent of their children’s physical activities or sport
opportunities (Brustad, 1993; Kim, 1995; Lewko & Greendorfer, 1988), and parental
patterns toward exercise or physical activity is one of the major inﬂuences on health-
related behavior patterns that are formed in their children (Chang, 1993; Freedson &
Evenson, 1991). However, despite the role of socializing agents assumed by parents in
shaping children’s developing perspectives on sport/physical activity and self, there

curremly exists only limited research focusing on the relevance of parental socialization

inﬂuences on the understanding of children’s psychological processes (e.g., children’s
self-perceptions and achievement orientation) (Brustad, 1992). No research addressing
this issue in regard to children with MR has been found.

In this study, although a large amount of the variability (e. g., involvement, type,
frequency, and duration of parental physical activity) can be explained by parental
socialization, the investigator looks at the leisure time physical activity of parents as a
source of information to judge children’s exposure to activity and, therefore, parental
competence in activity. A few recently designed questionnaires which deal with levels
of physical activity, include the frequency, duration, and intensity of both leisure and
occupational activities; however, since in the majority of industrialized countries the
levels of employment-related physical activity has continued to decline, it is ﬁ'equently
assumed that an assessment of leisure oriented physical activity is the most accurate
measure of physical activity in a population (Kriska & Caspersen, 1997).

In summary, to date, there is little research regarding how perceived physical
competence and actual motor competence are related in children with MMR, and whether
perceived physical competence and actual motor competence change in terms of age and
gender of children with MR and their parents’ physical activity. In addition, as the
participants of most studies dealing with self-concept or self-perception are
predominantly Aﬁ'ican or Caucasian American, there is limited study of other race
populations. This study, therefore, proposes to examine the relationship between
perceived physical competence and actual motor competence in Korean children with

MMR, and to research perceived physical competence and actual motor competence by

age, gender, and parental physical activity using Korean participants so as to expand the
ﬁeld of research into Asian race populations.
Statement of Problem

The purposes of this study are to examine (a) the relationship between perceived
physical competence and actual motor competence in Korean children with NﬂVIR; (b) the
inﬂuences of age and gender on perceived physical competence and actual motor
competence in Korean children with MMR; (c) the differences in perceived physical
competence and actual motor competence between Korean children with MMR whose
parents have high physical activity and those whose parents have low physical activity;
and (d) the inﬂuence of the interaction of age, gender, and parental physical activity on
perceived physical competence and actual motor competence in Korean children with
MMR

Need for Lira Study

This study is unique in that it is a study of children with MR, and a study relying
exclusively on a Korean population. As mentioned above, most of the reported studies
regarding the relationship between perceived competence and actual competence have
been completed with children without disabilities, and there is a lack of evidence to
generalize Harter’s theory of competence motivation to children with disabilities,
especially MR, in the physical domain. Therefore, studying children with MR could be
beneﬁcial for researchers who are interested in expanding the generalizability of Harter’s
theoretical view of the relationship between perceived competence and actual

competence.

Despite the legal mandate of the past decade for including children with
disabilities in public school physical education in both America and Korea, Korean
special education services for children with MR are still mainly provided in the special
schools in full-time, self-contained special classes (Hong, 1996). Children with MR in
Korea often participate in a physical education program on a limited basis, because of
lack of facilities or lack of scheduling priority. Further, many teachers in most special
schools have only received general training for special education or have received special
training for adapted physical education in short-tenn courses (Hong, 1996), and teach the
physical education classes without adapted physical educators. Therefore, these
limitations may negatively affect perceived and actual physical competence of children
with MR. In addition, the Korean people’s low perception of children with MR,
including stigmatization and superstition, can lead to lower expectations of children with
MR, and, in turn, low perceptions of competence for the children.

To date, no studies have investigated the perceived physical competence of
Korean children (i.e., Asian population) with NR. Thus, this study proposes to
investigate a population (young children with MMR) in Korea that is largely ignored in
much of that educational system. If a theory (e.g., competence motivation theory
dealing with perceived physical competence) does not generalize to certain subsamples of
the general population, it will have less explanatory power (Agnew & Pyke, 1994).
Therefore, the application of Korean children with MR in this study could also provide
additional incentives for researchers to recognize the physical self-perceptions of these

populations.

Researchers and educators should understand the processes by which children
with MR evaluate their abilities, because perceived competence powerfully inﬂuences
emotion and subsequent behavior for sustaining involvement in physical activity (Weiss
& Ebbeck, 1996). For example, if children with MMR perceive themselves to be highly
competent at an activity (e.g., the ﬁindamental motor skill of throwing), the children may
be more likely to continue mastering the throwing skill or participating in a sport (e.g.,
baseball) which uses that skill. Therefore, higher levels of perceived competence may
be expected to contribute to increased motivation in that children who are conﬁdent will
choose to be more active, display greater effort, and most likely persist in sport and
physical activities. On the other hand, if children with MMR perceive themselves as
incompetent in an activity or sport, children may be expected to experience anxiety in
mastery situations, and may be more likely to withdraw or drop out of participating in
sport and physical activities (Rudisill, Mahar, & Meaney, 1993; Weiss, 1993).

In elementary physical education settings, classroom teachers or physical
educators need to understand perceived competence and motor competence in relation to
the area of FMS. The development of FMS not only is an integral part of children’s
lives, but Korean elementary schools, including special schools, have also included the
development of FMS in a teaching curriculum for physical education classes.

Therefore, this study may have some implications for appropriate guidelines for
instruction in basic motor skills for children with MMR

For children with MR who live at home and attend a special school rather than a
residential schooL parents would potentially play a very signiﬁcant positive or negative

role in the children’s sport or physical activity involvement. If there are potential

psychological and developmental beneﬁts of physical activity for children with MR, then
it seems important to examine the relevance of parental inﬂuence (particularly parental
physical activity) on children’s physical perceptions and behaviors. Thus, this study can
potentially enable researchers and practitioners to understand the inﬂuence of parents’
physical activity on perceived physical competence and actual motor competence, and
then eventually provide the basis upon which instructional pro grams/curricula and further
research can be developed.
Hyp_otheses

The general hypotheses of this study are framed according to the purposes of the
study. Speciﬁc research hypotheses in each general area are described below:
Reliioaship between Perceived a_n_d_Actual Comtenae

Hypothesis #1 addresses the relationship between perceived physical competence
and actual motor competence in children with MMR.

1. There would be a positive relationship between perceived physical
competence and actual motor competence in children with MR.
Age and Gender

Hypotheses #2 through #7 address potential age and gender differences in
perceived physical competence and actual motor competence.

2. Boys with mild mental retardation would score higher than girls with MR
on perceived physical competence.

3. Boys with mild mental retardation would score higher than girls with MR

on actual motor competence.

10

4. Younger children (8-9 years old) with MR would score higher than older
children (10-11 years old) with MMR on perceived physical competence.

5. Older children (10-11 years old) with MR would score higher than younger
children (8-9 years old) with MR on actual motor competence.

6. There would not be a signiﬁcant interaction effect of age and gender in
children with MMR on perceived physical competence.

7. There would not be a signiﬁcant interaction effect of age and gender in
children with MMR on actual motor competence.

Mata] Physical Activity

Hypotheses #8 and #9 address differences between a high parental activity group
and a low parental activity group in perceived physical competence and actual motor
competence.

8. Children with MMR whose parents have high total leisure activity scores (at
or above 67“1 percentile for total participants) would score higher on perceived physical
competence than children with MR whose parents have low total leisure activity scores
(at or below the 33rd percentile for total participants).

9. Children with MR whose parents have high total leisure activity scores (at
or above 67th percentile for total participants) would score higher on actual motor
competence than children with MR whose parents have low total leisure activity scores
(at or below the 33rd percentile for total participants).

Research 0mm
Because the following research questions about the interaction effects (using

parents’ leisure time behavior) have never been examined, there was not enough evidence

11

available to make any predictions in the form of a hypothesis. However, the following
research questions about the interaction effects were examined when the data were
analyzed. The research questions of this study were based on the last purpose of this
study.

1. Is there a signiﬁcant interaction effect of gender, age, and parental physical
activity level on physical perceived competence?

2. Is there a signiﬁcant interaction effect of gender, age, and parental physical
activity level on actual motor competence?

Limitations

1. The sample selected for this study was not a random sample. Subjects came
from ﬁve special schools for students with MR in Korea. Subject selection was limited
to primary school children with MMR, ranging in age ﬁom 8 to 11 years old.

2. Including the teacher in the testing may have served to provide an element of
familiarity to the student. This factor of familiarity may have inﬂuenced individual
performance and perceived competence. However, it was not always possible to
consistently include the teachers in the testing, due to scheduling conﬂicts or limited
availability. Therefore, to control for this factor, the investigator observed physical
activity classes of each participant the preceding one or two weeks before the test
administration, so that the participants were familiar with the investigator.

3. Due to the schedule limitations of each school, both the perceived physical
competence and actual motor competence tests were administered in the gymnasium or

empty classrooms of each participating school, according to the school’s schedule.

12

Conditions such as time of day and testing conditions varied depending on the school’s
schedule.

4. Not all participant children were involved to the same extent in learning FMS
in the program. Although all programs for elementary schools included development of
F MS as one of the objectives for physical education, the time required for learning varied
from school to school.

5. Because of time limitations and students’ absences, several separate testing
sessions for each school were conducted.

6. The testing portion of this study was conﬁned to the duration of the spring
term in the school calendar.

Assumptions

It is assumed that:

1. The responses of participant children with MMR reﬂected their true
perceptions of physical competence as honestly and correctly as possible.

2. The performances of participant children with MMR reﬂected their true
motor skill competence as honestly and correctly as possible.

3. Participant parents ﬁlled out the survey as honestly and accurately as
possible.

Deﬁnition of Terms

1. Perceived competence — individuals’ judgments about their ability in a
particular area such as school, peer relationships, or physical performance (Weiss, 2000).
Perceived competence is also based on individuals’ desire to produce an effect on the

environment. This study was interested in perceived physical competence that focused

l3

on how children with MMR evaluate how adequate they are in physical performance
(fundamental motor skills) as measured by the Pictorial Scale for Perceived Physical
Competence for Children with Mental Retardation (PSPPCCMR; Ulrich & Collier,
1990).

2. Actual competence - individuals’ ability or capability in a particular area
such as Sports or physical performance. The interest of this study was in actual motor
competence, which focuses on the ability of children’s fundamental motor skills as
measured by the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD; Ulrich, 2000).

3. Mental retardation (MR) — MR refers to substantial limitations in present
functioning. An individual to be diagnosed as having MR must meet three criteria as
follows: a) signiﬁcantly subaverage intellectual functioning; b) concurrent deﬁcits or
impairments in present adaptive abilities; c) onset before 18 years of age (Krebs, 2000).

4. Mild mental retardation (MMR) — Based on degree of severity reﬂecting level
of intellectual impairment in the Korean educational system, MMR refers to individuals
with IQ ranges from 50 to 70. It is related to limitations in two or more of the following
applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills,
community use, self-direction, health and safety, ﬁInctional academics, leisure, and work.
Individuals with MMR can learn academic skills up to the equivalent of sixth grade and
often achieve social and vocational skills equivalent to the average adult in society (Choi,
Park, & Kim, 2001).

5. Fundamental motor skills (FMS) - skills such as running, jumping, throwing,
striking, or kicking that involve two or more bodily segments and result in the transfer or

reception of the body or some external object. FMS also refer to basic movement skills

l4

that form the foundation for more advanced, speciﬁc movements used in individual and
team sports and activities.

6. Signiﬁcant others — adults or peers responsible for maintaining the students’
rights and acting in their best interests in order to help students who have difﬁculty with

making decisions and expressing themselves, such as those with mental retardation.

15

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The literature reviewed in this chapter is divided into ﬁve major sections. First,
the importance of fundamental motor skills for elementary aged children is reviewed.
The second section deals with competence motivation theory that provides a grounded
model for researching the relationship of perceived physical competence and actual
motor competence relative to age, gender, and parental physical activity. The third
section contains the information regarding the relationship between perceived
competence and actual competence in individuals with and without mental retardation.
The fourth section is reviewed with regard to the characteristics of mental retardation on
perceived competence and actual competence. The ﬁnal section deals with the factors
affecting the perceived competence and actual competence.

The Imrtgnce of Fundamental Motor Skjls
for Elementgy Aged Children

Children’s motor patterns greatly expand during childhood. During this time
children are actively involved in exploring and experimenting with the movement
capabilities of their bodies. Children thus begin to develop and use basic movement
skills generally called fundamental motor skills (FMS), which are classiﬁed into two
categories: (a) locomotor skills, such as walking, running, jumping, hopping, sliding,
leaping, and skipping, and (b) object control skills including catching, throwing, striking,
kicking, and bouncing (Gallahue, 1989). Therefore, there should be considerable
support for the inclusion of FMS instruction in physical education programs for

elementary aged children.

l6

Researchers have stated several reasons why the development of FMS is an
inteng part of children’s lives. First of all, the development of FMS may contribute to
the primary school child’s ability to interact with the environment. Riggs (1980)
indicated that children spend many hours actively exploring and examining both their
bodies and the physical environment that surrounds them. Such activities necessarily
involve and rely on the use of FMS. Therefore, he advocated that FMS are necessary for
children to ﬁmction effectively in the environment. Also, Wickstrom (1983) proposed
that the development of FMS is an underlying factor critical to the success of more
complex movement. Development of these skills provides added insight into other body
actions and is the foundation to successful performance of more complex movements.

Similarly, Haubenstricker and Seefeldt (1986) referred to FMS as the “building
blocks” for transitional motor skills, which in turn should lead to advanced skills such as
sports, games, and other leisure activities to be developed in later childhood. It can be
assumed that if children with MR are to experience success in sports, such as a basketball
game, they need to acquire some proﬁciency in FMS such as running, jumping, throwing,
and dribbling. However, if children have not acquired any proﬁciency in these FMS,
their games could very easily turn into failures that lead to a ﬁ'ustrated state of mind and a
reluctance to continue participating. Therefore, acquiring these fundamental motor
skills can increase a child’s potential for learning more advanced sports and lifetime
physical activity skills, and can lead to an improvement in the ability to interact with
others through games and sports in a socially acceptable manner (Lavay, 1985; Rimmer

& Kelly, 1989). Olrich (2002) reported that to help ensure that children learn to

17

appreciate and enjoy a lifetime of movement, they must have assistance in mastering
FMS in their early years.

Regardless of the presence or lack of disability, the development of FMS should
be an integral part of all children’s lives. The learning of FMS in children with MR also
can have the powerful effect of positively inﬂuencing physical, social and cognitive
domains. Although it is true that FMS are speciﬁc in nature and uniquely different from
the skills used in physical ﬁtness activities, the two often directly affect one another.

That is, children with MR seem to be able to improve signiﬁcantly in movement
components such as strength, coordination, speed, agility, balance, and endurance due to
a correlated improvement in FMS performance (Connolly & Michael, 1986). In
addition, once children with MR learn FMS, they are more involved in various games and
sports either as a participant or as a spectator. Through games and sports, they can
develop many social skills such as leadership skills, independence, and conﬁdence, and
they are prepared to learn the rules and strategies involved in various games and sports
(Eichstaedt & Lavay, 1992). In other words, participation in sports and games requiring
FMS ability may contribute to social and cognitive development.

For these reasons American governmental guidelines established FMS
development as a major component of physical activity programs for children in special
education (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1997; Gallahue, 2000).

Likewise, Korean elementary schools, including special schools, have included the
development of FMS in a teaching curriculum for physical education class. Therefore,
research regarding perceived and actual competence in relation to the FMS would

provide useful information in a physical education setting of elementary aged children

18

with disabilities to improve program and performance objectives, and would be adequate
to carefully investigate the purposes of this study.
Competeace Motivation Theog

The concept of competence as a psychological construct mediating intrinsically
motivated behavior was ﬁrst introduced by White (1959). Harter (1978, 1981, 1982,
1990) expanded White’s effectance motivation theory, proposing a motivational
ﬁamework which reﬁned the central mediators of competence motivation. In Harter’s
(1978) competence motivation model, competence motivation is a multidimensional
construct that is inﬂuenced by the development of characteristic achievement belmviors
such as perceived competence, perceived control, motivational orientation, and affective
outcome. Ulrich and Collier (1990) stated that perceived competence is viewed as self-
evaluations of domain-speciﬁc skills. Perceived control is explained as an
understanding of the elements responsible for competence dormin success or failure.
Motivational orientation is characterized by either an intrinsic or extrinsic position.
Affective outcomes are represented by a continuum from enjoyment to anxiety.
Although perceived competence took a central role in Harter’s model, the importance of
perceived competence within the motivational process is not unique. Other motivational
theorists have supported this idea (Bandura, 1977, 1989; Nicholls, 1984).

The diagram in Figure 1 illustrates Harter’s (1978) competence motivation model
which consists of several components to interact to maintain, increase, or decrease
competence motivation. There are two primary aspects to this diagram. One aspect of
the model states that children with high competence motivation would perceive

themselves as having high competence and control of outcomes, positively inﬂuenced by

19

Signiﬁcant others, intrinsically motivated, and optimally challenged; this aspect would

result in intrinsically motivated children who use internal criteria to evaluate success

resulting in more mastery attempts. On the other hand, the other aspect of the model

states tlmt children with low competence motivation would perceive themselves to

possess low competence and an external perception of control of outcome, negatively

inﬂuenced by signiﬁcant others, and extrinsically motivated; all of which would result in

their anxiety and lead to failure.

 

Competence Motivation

 

Increase

 

 

Intrinsic Pleasure

 

 

/

 

High Perceived
Competence &

 

of Control

 

 

 

Internal Perception L— Optimal Challenge
&

 

 

 

Intrinsic
Motivational
Orientation

 

Fail

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\

 

 

Positive Social Inﬂuence
from Signiﬁcant others

 

 

Figu_r§ 1. Harter’s Model of Competence Motivation

20

 

{Anxiety

 

 

 

 

Low Perceived
Competence &
External Perception
of Control

 

 

 

 

Extnns' ic ~
Motivatio
Orientation

Negative Social Inﬂuence
ﬁom Signiﬁcant Others

 

 

 

 

 

 

Harter’s original model (1978) of competence motivation for children ages 8 to 11
years was viewed as identifying the speciﬁc domains (e.g., cognitive, physical, and
social) in which competence may be measured. Harter (1978) found that children could
differentiate between these domains by about 8 years of age. In 1981, Harter also
identiﬁed three competence domains and a general area termed self-worth. She
explained that each domain must be assessed independently rather than all domains
assessed at once with a total score of self-worth. She suggested that general self-
concept (i.e., self-worth) may or may not be related to any of the speciﬁc domains. For
example, although children can have a positive feeling of self-worth in a speciﬁc area,
they may feel positive about the physical and social domains but not the cognitive
domain. McAuley and Gill (1983) suggested narrow measurement to general areas of
behavior is a more viable proposition than a measure of general self-perception.

Although Harter’s competence motivation theory was constructed for use in the
academic domain, Weiss and Chaumeton (1992) pointed out that there has been a marked
increase of empirical testing of Harter’s competence motivation theory in physical and
sport domain. 'In particular, as perceived competence has taken a central role in Harter’s
model of competence motivation, much research has explored the hypothesized
relationships among several of the components of the model, such as relationships of
perceived competence to participant motives, achievement-related characteristics, and
motivational orientations (Klint & Weiss, 1987; Weiss, Ebbeck, & Horn, 1997; Weiss &
Horn, 1990; Wong & Bridges, 1995). Thus, whereas this study focused on the

relationship between perceived physical competence and actual motor competence, to

21

 

better understand Harter’s theory, the investigator reviewed some studies dealing with
such relationships.

Intrinsically motivated children will strive to demonstrate ability in the speciﬁc
achievement areas in which they feel most competent (Weiss & Chaumeton, 1992).
Klint and Weiss (1987) examined the relationship between perceptions of competence
and particular motives for participation by using 27 boys and 40 girls, ages 8 to 16, in a
non-school gymnastics program in the Paciﬁc Northwest. All participants completed
the physical, social, and cognitive subscales of Harter’s (1982) Perceived Competence
Scale and the motives for gymnastic participation questionnaires. The results indicated
that children high in perceived physical competence rated skill development (e.g., learn
new skills, improve skills, and compete at higher levels) as a more important reason for
participating, while those high in perceived social competence indicated that the motives
for afﬁliation aspects of sport were most salient. Therefore, the ﬁndings of this study
demonstrate support for competence motivation theory which can explain the relationship
between participant motives and self-perceptions of competence.

According to Harter’s model of competence motivation, intimate relationships
should exist among some or all of the constructs such as actual success/ failure, perception
of competence, control, affect, and motivation orientation. Roberts, Kleiber, and Duda
(1981) and Weiss and Horn (1990) found that regarding the relationship between the
accuracy of children’s perceived competence and their achievement-related
characteristics, children with high perceived physical competence had higher perceptions
of perceived control, intrinsic motivation, and levels of participation, while children with

low perceived physical competence had a less adaptive pattern of motivation response.

22

Wong and Bridges (1995) examined 108 youth soccer players and their coaches to
measure the relationships among perceived competence, perceived control, trait anxiety,
and motivation, as well as various coaching behaviors. They found that trait anxiety and
coaching behaviors predicted perceived competence and control, which in turn were
related to the players’ motivation level. More recently, Weiss, Ebbeck, and Horn (1997)
examined the relationship between children’s perceived physical competence,
competitive trait anxiety, general self-esteem, and the sources of information children use
to judge their physical competency. Using a cluster analysis technique, the authors
found that the children showed four distinct proﬁles. The results indicated that 45% of
the children were represented by the third cluster which perhaps reﬂected the most
adaptive proﬁle, in that the children in the third cluster had higher scores on physical
competence and self-esteem, had moderate scores on competitive trait anxiety, and a
preference for self-referenced and parental evaluation criteria. Reviewing the other
three clusters, children reported lower physical competence and less-desirable
characteristics such as high competitive trait anxiety, low self-esteem, and a preference
for social comparison/evaluation criteria in judging their competence.

Further, in order to examine motivation for youth sport involvement in the
People’s Republic of China, Wang and Wiese (1995) adapted Harter’s competence
motivation theory as the framework. The purpose of the study was to investigate the
relationship between perceived competence and school type. The participants consisted
of 465 Chinese youths aged 7 to 17 years ﬁom two types of schools (sports schools and
normal schools). The results revealed that participants in sport school had higher levels

of perceived physical competence tlmn normal school students, while normal school

23

students were signiﬁcantly higher in perceived competence in the cognitive domain.
Therefore, this study supported Harter’s model in that contextual factors (e.g., sport type
and structure) are intimately tied to this developmental process.
The Relaiionship between Perceived and Actual Competence
in Physical Dom
According to Harter’s model of competence motivation, although actual
competence has a less direct inﬂuence on competence motivation than perceived
competence, actual competence also affects the level of motivation by inﬂuencing one’s
perceptions (Harter, 1978; 1981). Actual competence has been viewed as an indirect
mediator of motivated behavior because of its effect on self-perceptions of ability
(Harter, 1981; Ulrich & Collier, 1990). Harter (1978) suggested that as actual
competence is a precursor to perceived competence, understanding the relationship
between actual and perceived competence is critical ﬁom a theoretical view. If a child
inaccurately perceives the child’s skills in the physical domain, the abilities of physical
skills (i.e., the actual competence of the child) may be overestimated or underestimated.
Overestimation might lead to unsuccessful outcomes because of unrealistic expectations.
Low perceived competence may be the result of failure quaeTienced in a task that was not
perceived as difﬁcult. In the same way, the underestimation of actual competence may
result in a child having low expectations for ﬁrture competence, which may have a
negative inﬂuence on persistence motivation and performance outcomes (Goodway &
Rudisill, 1997).
As actual competence and perceived competence interact to inﬂuence individuals’

motivation to participate in physical activity or sport, in physical domains there have

24

been several studies investigating the relationship between perceived and actual
competence, and the accuracy with which individuals judge their abilities (Feltz &
Brown, 1984; Goodway & Rudisill, 1997; Harter, 1982; Rudisill, Mahar, & Meaney,
1993; Ulrich, 1987). These studies usually dealt with the preschool- to elementary-aged
children without disabilities, and have found low to moderate correlations between
perceived physical competence and actual physical competence. The studies also
suggested tlmt, with an increase of age, children’s perceptions remain relatively constant
or decrease while their actual competence improves, resulting in more accurate
perception.

When examining the relationship between perceived competence and actual
competence, the methods for assessing actual competence, such as teacher rating and
direct assessment, should be an issue for establishing the theoretical relationship between
these two variables. Harter (1982) examined the relationship between perceived
competence in physical ability (i.e., perceived physical competence) and ratings of the
motor ability (i.e., actual motor competence) of elementary aged children. For assessing
perceived competence and actual competence, she used the Perceived Competence Scale
and teachers’ perceptions of children’s competence. Correlations between perceived
and actual physical competence were moderate (.62) for the third through sixth grade
children, suggesting that these children were moderately accurate in judging their own
motor ability. Ulrich (1987) examined the interrelationship among perceived physical
competence, motor competence, and participation in organized sport in 250 children ﬁom
kindergarten to fourth grade. The results of this study revealed that perceived physical

competence for the children is not signiﬁcantly related to their participation in organized

25

sport, but is related to their actual motor competence. Ulrich’s results supported the
study of Harter (1982) reporting a moderate correlation between perceived competence
and actual competence. Unlike Harter’s measure of actual performance which was not
directly performed and was substituted by teacher ratings, the study of Ulrich (1987)
measured direct assessment of actual performance (i.e., motor skills) so that it seems to
provide a more empirical database in order to demonstrate the theoretical relationship
between these two variables.

The older children’s perceptions would be more congruent with their actual
physical competence, so that the older children become increasingly better able to make
realistic judgments about their competence. Feltz and Brown (1984) assessed perceived
competence of young soccer players, age 8 to 13, using the physical subscale ﬁ'om
Harter’s (1982) Perceived Competence Scale and a sport-speciﬁc modiﬁed version. The
children’s actual competence was measured by practical soccer skill tasks. Statistical
analysis of the relationship between actual and perceived competence revealed that
accuracy with which these children rated their soccer competence increased linearly from
ages 9 to 13. This study thus supported the suggestion of Roberts (1984) which
indicated tlmt the correlation of children’s perceived physical competence and their actual
motor competence increases positively as children get older.

Individual variables such as age, gender, and cognitive-developmental levels are
related to evaluating perceived and actual competence accurately (Goodway & Rudisill,
1997; Rudisill, Mahar, & Meaney, 1993; Shapiro & Dummer, 1998; Yun & Ulrich,
1997). Rudisill, Mahar, and Meaney (1993) studied the relationship between perceived

and actual motor competence of typically developing 9 to 11 year old children.

26

 

Regression analysis reveled that the relationship between actual and perceived motor
competence was moderately correlated. Adding age to the multiple regression models
signiﬁcantly increased the multiple correlations, whereas adding gender to the model did
not increase the correlation. Results ﬁ'om the multiple regression indicated that with an
increase in age of children, actual motor competence increases, and perceived
competence remains the same or decreases. They also concluded that both boys and
girls tended to overestimate their motor competence. Similarly, Goodway and Rudisill
(1997) found that there were correlations between perceived physical competence and
actual competence scores in preschool children, although it is low, and found that adding
gender to the regression model was not signiﬁcantly predictive of perceived physical
competence. In other words, one sex did not over- or underestimate their actual motor
skill competence more than another. These ﬁndings also suggested that it would not be
possible to predict perceptions of the physical competence of these age groups, because,
according to Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory, the preschool children would not
be able to synthesize and evaluate information until the stage of concrete operations, and
they were in the preoperational stage of cognitive development.
Relationship between the Two Variables in Individuals with Mental Retardation

Studies regarding the relationship between perceived competence and actual
competence in individuals with MR have not resulted in similar applications as in
individuals without disabilities, and the theoretical relationship between these two
variables in individuals with MR is not well established (Ulrich & Collier, 1990; Yun &
Ulrich, 1997). Yun and Ulrich (1997) tested the generalization of Harter’s theory of

competence motivation to children with MMR in the physical domain. One purpose of

27

their study was to investigate the relationship between perceived and actual physical
competence in children with MR Participants consisted of 109 children with MMR
(54 boys and 55 girls), aged 7 to 12 years. Pearson correlation coefﬁcients indicated
that there was no signiﬁcant relationship between perceived and actual physical
competence in children with MR (r = .00, p > .05). However, when controlling for
the effects of age (i.e., using partial correlation by controlling for the effects of age), the
result showed a signiﬁcant but low relationship between perceived and actual motor
competence (r = .25, p < .05).

As another purpose, to determine whether speciﬁc ages of participant children
inﬂuenced the relationship between perceived and actual competence, age subtests were
deleted sequentially when calculating the partial correlation between the two variables.
The results revealed that the substantial correlations between perceived competence and
actual competence were signiﬁcant for 95 children of 8 to 12 years (r = .27, p < .01), for
74 children of9 to 12 years (; = .33, p < .01), for 52 children of 10 to 12 years (r = .33, p
< .05), and for 32 children of 11 to 12 years (r = .55, p < .01). The authors concluded
that the cognitive functioning needed to make self-evaluations may be related to the lack
of a signiﬁcant relationship between perceived and actual competence. It may be that
the level of cognitive functioning necessary to make such assessments is not present in
these children, ages 7 to 12, with MMR.

Unlike the study of Yun and Ulrich (1998), Shapiro and Dummer (1997) showed
an agreement with the adaptation of individuals with MMR to the theoretical view of the
relationship between perceived competence and actual competence. They examined the

relationship between perceived and actual basketball competence for 12- to 15-year-old

28

adolescent males with MMR. The Pictorial Scale of Perceived Basketball Competence
and the modiﬁed version of the AAHPER Basketball Skill Test for Boys, which consisted
of four basketball skills (i.e., the push pass for accuracy, jump and reach, speed dribble,
and free-throw shooting), were used to assess the perceived and actual competence. The
results of the Pearson correlation indicated that a statistically signiﬁcant relationship was
found between perceived and actual basketball competence on the push pass for accuracy
(r = .38, p < .05), jump and reach (I = .42, p < .05), free-throw shooting (r = .37, p < .05),
and the combined battery of four skills (r = .46, p < .05). These ﬁndings supported the
theoretical relationship between actual and perceived competence in adolescents with
MMR, in the age range of 12 to 15 years. However, the relationship between perceived
and actual competence on the speed dribble (r = .21, 2 >05) was not statistically
signiﬁcant. This may be explained by the disagreement between the pictorial scale for
measuring perceived dribbling competence and the task for measuring actual dribbling
ability. The authors, thus, suggested that for future study researchers will continue to be
challenged by the need to design a reliable and valid perceived competence scale for
individuals with MR.

In order to get a more precise measurement of the relationship between perceived
competence and actual competence, Yun and Ulrich (1997) and Shapiro and Dummer
(1998) attempted to pair the motor competence and perceived competence items. Yun
and Uhich (1997) especially adapted the approach of Ulrich (1987) who noted the motor
activities in which the sample participants were commonly involved, and chose the motor
items related to those activities. This investigator, then, adapted this approach of Ulrich

(1987) for the purpose of this study.

29

Chgacteristics of Ment_al Retardation
on Perceived Competm and Actual Competence

Mental retardation (MR) is a varied group of disorders with multiple causations,
and is characterized by functional and cognitive limitations (Krebs, 2000). In recent
years the deﬁnition of MR and criteria used to classify individuals as mentally retarded
has changed. In 1992, the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR)
changed its classiﬁcation ﬁom four levels (i.e., mild, moderate, severe, and profound)
based on IQ scores to two levels (i.e., mild and severe) based on the intensity of supports
needed in adaptive skills and levels of functioning. The focus of this study is on MR,
with an emphasis on MMR. Therefore, the review of literature includes studies
involving children with MR, recognizing that the results are generalized to the included
individuals with MMR. Reference to these studies will be in terms of MR. When
studies are reviewed that refer speciﬁcally to individuals with MMR, the designation
MMR will be used to indicate the speciﬁcity of the study.

Children with MR generally demonstrate delays in motor/physical and
learning/cognitive areas, although not all children with MR display the same
characteristics. Research reveals that the levels of motor and physical performance of
children with MR tend to be signiﬁcantly lower than those of children without
disabilities. Children with MMR lag on the average from one to four years behind their
peers without disabilities in motor development (Bouffard, 1990; DiRocco, Clark, &
Phillips, 1987; Rarick, Dobbins, & Broadhead, 1976). Much of research being
conducted today in the ﬁeld of MR deals with weaknesses in cognitive processes (e.g.,

attention, memory, retention, and generalization) due to limited cognitive ability, and

30

concluded that children with MR learn tasks or skills more slowly and inefﬁciently than
those without disabilities (Gearheart, Weishahn, & Gearheart, 1996; Hoover & Horgan,
1990; Nugent & Mosley, 1987). Hickson, Blackman, and Reis (1995) stated that
although individuals with MR usually follow the same cognitive developmental
sequences as children without disabilities, individuals with MR acquire skills at a slower
rate, and may not reach all levels of development. Thus, individuals with MR may
typically experience more failure than those without disabilities, and consequently they
meet new situations with a low expectation of success. This in turn may predict that in
children with cognitive deﬁcits (including MR), there would likely be a different level of
self-perception and motivation for future participation.

The delays in physical/motor and learning/cognitive areas may inﬂuence how
children with MR form judgments about their competence in a speciﬁc domain, such as
academic or physical activity. For example, deﬁcits in motor/physical performance and
weaknesses in learning processes may cause children with MR to refrain from
participation in a physical activity due to lack of success and feelings of failure.
Decreases in participation may cause them to fall behind in their skills, thereby
continuing the failure cycle. Therefore, it is plausible that studies regarding perceptions
of competence in individuals with MR are needed.

Perceived Competence and Mental Retardation

There has been little systematic research dealing with the self-perceptions of
physical competence in children with MR and the effect on achievement motivation in
this domain (Ulrich & Collier, 1990). However, several studies (Kozub & Porretta,

1999; Silon & Harter, 1985; Ulrich & Collier, 1990; Yun & Ulrich, 1997) focusing on

31

children with MMR reported that study of perceived competence in children with MMR
did not result in similar applications as in children without disabilities, because of
cognitive-developmental levels, unique environmental experiences encountered in a
transactional manner, or attributional statements of the subjects.

The self-perceptions of individuals with MMR are not structured with the same
level of cognitive complexity as are the self-perceptions of children without disabilities.
Silon and Harter (1985) examined the level of perceived competence in 126 children with
MMR aged 9 to 12 years in both regular and special education classroom settings. The
authors found that children with MMR who are in the chronological age range of 9 to 12
years do not make distinctions about speciﬁc domains. Although the perceived
competence scale produced a four-factor solution among children aged 9 to 12 years
without disabilities (i.e., scholastic competence, athletic competence, social competence,
and general self-worth), the same-aged children with MMR only produced a two-factor
solution (i.e., cognitive/physical competence and social acceptance). The potential
reason why their limited factor pattern emerged to evaluate self-perceptions may be due
to cognitive development levels of the subjects related to age appropriateness. By the
age of 8 years, children can view themselves with a global self-worth (Silon & Harter,
1985). Prior to the age of 8 years, children do not understand the self-worth items or
produce unreliable estimates. Because the mental ages of the children with MMR in the
study by Silon and Harter (1985) were below the age of 8 years, they suggested that the
children aged 9 to 12 with MMR are not able to reliably construct the type of abstract
evaluations about global self-worth. In addition, the ﬁndings showed that the factor

pattern for 9- to 12-year-old children with MMR resembled the pattern for young

32

children without disabilities, aged 4 to 7, which emerged on the pictorial version in the

form of a two-factor solution, competence and social acceptance (Harter & Pike, 1984).
These ﬁndings support the possibility that the construct of the perceived competence is

qualitatively different depending on cognitive-developmental level.

A unique environmental experience such as the reference group employed in
social comparisons may also affect the judgments about self-perceptions. Silon and
Harter (1985) argued that children with MMR most likely employ various reference
groups depending on the context of questioning. For example, if asked to self-evaluate
their performance by referencing either people who are familiar with them or with their
peers with disabilities, their response is more likely to be positive than if they were to
make a comparison to other children at play. Thus, they suggested that it is necessary to
establish what reference group is being employed when attempting to measure the self-
perception of children with MR.

Individuals, including children, with MR have been found to display a different
attributional proﬁle ﬁ'om individuals without disabilities (Wehmeyer, 1994). Kozub and
Porretta (1999) examined whether 86 children with MR (ages 8 to 15) related internal
or exterml attributes to their perceived physical competence. All children with MMR
completed a survey for measuring perceived physical competence and attributional
statements. The results suggested that, as with children without disabilities, internal
attributions of children with MMR increase with age (e.g., viewing success as a result of
ability and failure to poor effort). However, this study showed that children with MMR

displayed a large proportion of external attributions (e.g., viewing success as a result of

33

luck) for competent outcomes that may potentially interfere with achievement of physical
activity.

In considering the selection of suitable instrumentation to measure self-
perceptions in the physical domain, the pictorial approach to assessing perceived
competence was expected to be more engaging and understandable, and better at
sustaining attention for young children and individuals with MR. Because the pictorial
version did not require reading ability for children to respond, it thereby facilitated more
meaningful responses for young children and individuals with MR (Harter & Pike, 1984).
The design of a valid and reliable perceived competence scale for children with MMR
was presented by Ulrich and Collier (1990). They (1990) developed the Pictorial Scale
for Perceived Physical Competence for Children with Mental Retardation (PSPPCCMR)
by modifying the physical domain of the Pictorial Scale for Young Children (Harter &
Pike, 1984). The content of the instrument is modiﬁed for age-appropriateness and does
not require any speciﬁc level of reading ability. The number of items represented 10
fundamental motor skills appropriate for 7- to lZ-year-old children with MMR. The
results showed that a coefﬁcient alpha of .82 was calculated to determine internal
consistency of the items on the modiﬁed scale, and the test-retest stability of estimate of
10 item responses was adequate. Thus, this ﬁnding suggested that the PSPPCCMR
should provide a mechanism to learn more about students with MMR and learning
disabilities, and that the selection of an instrument would be based on the cognitive
developmental level of the subjects, including age-appropriate content. It is important to

note that to help facilitate understanding and increase reliability of measures, pictorial

34

representations are recommended in testing individuals with MR (Wadsworth &
Harper, 1991).
Aggral Motor Competence and Mental Ram

In the present study, the levels of FMS of children with MR were dealt with as the
standard for testing the mentally retarded children’s actual competence in the physical
domain, and it is called actual motor competence. Thus, this section will brieﬂy explain
the characteristics of motor ability and performance of children with MR.

Over the past decades several studies have found that the motor ability and
performance of children with MR are generally deﬁcient when compared with their peers
without disabilities. Rarick, Dobbins, and Broadhead (1976) provided the most
comprehensive comparisons of 406 children with and without MR. The participants
were divided into three groups: young non-disabled children aged 6 to 9, young children
with MR aged 6 to 9, and older children with MR aged 10 to 13. Children with MR in
the study were identiﬁed as educable mentally retarded. Data were collected on 39
movement tasks and seven physical measures for all children. The results demonstrated
that the children with MR lag behind their non-disabled peers of the same chronological
age on mean performnce. Similarly, Holland (1987) studied qualitative fundamental
motor skill performances of children with MMR and those without disabilities, ages 6 to
9 years. Seven fundamental motor skills including run, vertical jump, overth throw,
catch, ball bounce, kick, and two-hand sidearm strike were tested. The results showed
that the qualitative fundamental motor skills of children with MR were signiﬁcantly

lower than those of children without disabilities.

35

As for the demonstration that children with MR display inferior motor
performance scores (i.e., FMS) to their peers without disabilities, some researchers have
explained the reasons why children with MR exhibit inferior motor perforrmnce scores.
DiRocco, Clark, and Phillips (1987) investigated the developmental sequence of
coordination for the propulsive phase of the standing long jump with 39 children with
MMR and 90 children without disabilities, ages 4 to 7 years. The authors determined
that the patterns of leg and arm coordination were similar, but the distances jumped by
children with MMR were similar to the distances jumped by children who were 2 to 3
years younger without disabilities, rather than the same distances jumped by children of
the same chronological ages without disabilities. The authors then offered the poor
coordination of the two synergies (i.e., the arm and leg action) as a possible explanation
for these differences. Both coordination of the arms and legs and timing of movement
together are important for success in jumping. Decreased takeoff velocity, increased
projection angles, or both could be caused by poor coordination, resulting in shorter
distances jumped. The authors also stated that the distance-jumped differences may be
due to difference in control mechanisms.

The developmental delays demonstrated by children with MR are associated with
their cognitive ability, with the more severe the intellectual deﬁcit, the greater the deﬁcit
in motor performance (Krebs, 2000). Bankhead and MacKay (1982) found the
prevalence of ﬁne motor problems to be inversely proportional to intelligence. They
also reported that the performance levels of individuals with “subnormal” intelligence
were inferior to those of “normal” intelligence in the areas of task complexity and

reaction time. A study of Eichstaedt, Wang, Polacek, and Dohrmann (1991) supported

36

the idea that as the degree of disability of MR increases, children exhibit deﬁciency in
motor performance.

Bouffard (1990) demonstrated that educable mentally handicapped children lag
well behind their peers without disabilities in the development of both ﬁne and gross
movement skills, and that their lack of proﬁciency is related to their inability to solve
problems. Citing research conducted mainly in cognitive developmental psychology,
Bouffard (1990) reviewed the ﬁve sources of this lag in movement skill development for
those with MR: (a) deﬁciencies in the knowledge base, such as a lack in the amount of
knowledge a person has; (b) deﬁciencies of spontaneous use of strategies, for example,
lack of technique to overcome problems; (c) inadequate metacognitive knowledge and
understanding, such as the lack of the person’s ability to consider the requirements of the
task, the environmental conditions, and the resources available to cope with the situation;
(d) lack of executive control, including the lack of strategic processing to solve the
problem; and (e) inadequate motivation and practice. Based on these problem areas, it is
important to understand that the overall poor movement performance of this population
(children with MR) can not be attributed solely to one single factor, but rather a
combination of factors must be considered. General factors (e. g., body size and
physique, socio-economic levels, a lack of movement experience, and quality of
instruction) may affect FMS performance of children with MR (Eichstaedt & Lavay,
1992). More research is needed to understand why they display inferior levels of FMS

when compared to their peers without disabilities.

37

Factors Inﬂuencing Perceived Competenaeggl Actual Competent;

Harter’s competence motivation model is developmental in nature because there
are variations across age and gender in perceived competence, actual competence, and
motivation to participate in sport and physical activity. Researchers have found that age
and gender differences provide essential information for understanding the mechanisms
by which children come to evaluate their perceptions of physical competence and actual
competence. The factors assist in providing understanding of interventions that may be
effective for improving perceived competence and actual competence in children (Weiss,
2000; Weiss, Ebbeck, & Horn, 1997).

In addition to individual difference factors such as age and gender, researchers are
interested in the sources of information (e.g., signiﬁcant others, mastery success, etc.)
available in a speciﬁc domain and environment that children use to judge their ability
(i.e., actual competence), and their perceived competence (Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989;
Weiss, Ebbeck, & Horn, 1997). In the physical activity and the sport environment,
Weiss (2000) stated three available sources of information: outcome, social, and internal
source. Outcome sources involve performance scores, ﬁtness testing standards, and
event outcome. Social sources not only include evaluation and comparison by peers, but
also feedback and reinforcement from parents, teachers, and coaches. Internal sources
consist of self-referencing such as enjoyment of activity, effort exerted, and achievement
of personal goals.

Although there are a wide range of sources of information available in any
particular achievement domain that children could use to judge their performance and

their competence in that context, during the early through late childhood years, parents

38

especially appear to be the chief individuals in academic, physical, and social domains
for judging competence and making decisions about future participatory behaviors
(Brustad, 1992, Weiss, Ebbeck, & Horn, 1997). Therefore, in this study, the investigator
was interested in focusing on the role of parents (i. e., parental physical activity) as a
source of information. The following review of literature encompasses three factors,
age, gender, and parents’ role that could inﬂuence one’s perceived competence and actual
competence.

Ag;

Inﬂuence of age on perceived competeng. Children’s perceptions of the degree
of competence (i.e., perceived competence) decline with age. Children also appear to
become more accurate in estimating perceived competence with age, because they
become cognitively more capable of analyzing the causes of performance outcomes
(Horn & Weiss, 1991; Shapiro & Dummer, 1998). Xiang and Lee (1998) stated that
children’s understanding of what ability means (i.e., perceived ability) seems to change
as they increase in age, and reported that both the accuracy and criteria used to assess
perceived ability are age-dependent. Studies concerning age differences on perceived
competence in physical domains have typically found that older children without
disabilities demonstrate lower levels of perceived physical competence than young
children without disabilities (Horn & Hasbrook, 1986; Ulrich, 1987), though there is
evidence of no decline when children aged 9 to 11 years were asked to judge their
competence (Rudisill, Mahar, & Meanney, 1993).

Similar results regarding age differences on perceived physical competence have

been found in children with MMR. Ulrich and Collier (1990) and Yun and Ulrich

39

(1997) demonstrated that children with MMR, aged 7 to 12 years, tend to feel less
competent with increased age. They thus supported the suggestion of Horn and
Hasbrook (1987) which indicated that older children may understand that they do not
have good ability in all skill areas, and thus use social comparison during task
achievement, which is unlike younger children who assume that they are highly skilled at
everything, with no concern for the level of performance of other children. Additionally,
older children may develop more realistic perceptions and possess adequate perceptual
functioning needed to use the scale for self-perception measurement in a meaningful way
(Ulrich & Yun, 1997).

Age is related to the accuracy of perceived competence and to preference for
informational sources of competence. Horn and Hasbrook (1986) investigated a
relationship between age and the sources of information used to judge children’s physical
competence. Participants in the study were children in three age groups (i.e., 8-9, 10-11
and 12-14 years) in a soccer camp. Through factor analysis, 12 information sources
included in the survey were reduced to six factors: social comparison, social evaluation I
(i.e., coaches, peers), social evaluation 11 (i.e., parents, spectators), internal information,
game outcome, and affect. The results indicated that children 8 and 9 years of age more
ﬁ'equently used game outcome and social evaluation 11 (e.g., parent/spectator feedback)
as sources of information than did children 10 to 14 years of age. However, these older
children rated social comparison as a more salient source of information than did the
younger children. Horn and Hasbrook (1987), by using the same sample of their 1986
research, also determined whether particular self-perceptions, as measured by perceived

competence and perceived information control, were linked to the sources of information

40

used to judge personal ability. The results revealed that 8- to 9-year-old children did not
show a signiﬁcant relationship between self-perceptions and sources of competence
information but 10-11 and 12-14 year old children did. Therefore, ﬁom the two studies
of Horn and Hasbrook (1986, 1987) it can be implied that a certain level of sophistication
in cognitive development related to age is necessary for accuracy in the hypothesized
relationships in a motivational model.

Children become more accurate in their perceived competence with age, with
children of 8- to 9-years less accurate than children of 10- to 13-years (Horn & Weiss,
1991). This supported an earlier study by Feltz and Brown (1984) which showed a
linear increase of the accuracy with which children evaluated their soccer competence
ﬁ'om age 9 to 13, and Nicholls (1978) who reported little correlation between perceived
ability and actual performance before age 8. The results may be based on
developmental theory indicating that children’s accuracy levels of judging their physical
competence are related to their cognitive development and age. As age increases,
children’s ability to differentiate between competence, effort, and luck as performance
outcome determiners also increases (Horn & Weiss, 1991). Ages 8 to 12 years are the
critical mental ages for development of the cognitive skills required for analyzing
performance outcome causes, establishing individual goals in regard to mastery,
internalizing personal success standards, and for making comparisons with peers (Harter,
1982).

Some studies extended these results which Show a relationship between age and
the accuracy of perceived competence, and the somce of information used to judge

physical ability, with older aged participants. McKiddie and Maynard (1997) examined

41

perceived competence of British 7m and 10th grade students in physical education. They
found that 10th grade students were more accurate in judging their physical ability than
were 7th grade students. Horn, Glen, and Wentzell (1993) reported age differences in
the sources of information used by 14- to l8-year-old male and female athletes in high
school to judge their competence. They found that older athletes (11m_12m graders)
were likely to judge their sport ability based on self-comparison and internal information.
In contrast, the younger athletes (9m_10m graders) showed lower accuracy in judging their
perceptions of competence than older athletes, and they preferred information that was
external in nature, such as feedback and evaluation ﬁ'om parents and teachers.

Inﬂuence of age on actual compatence. There are a number of factors (e.g.,
environmental or biological inﬂuences) other than aging that contribute to the
improvement in performance (Branta, Haubenstricker, & Seefeldt, 1984). However, in
general, a child’s motor performance naturally improves with age because the child
gradually becomes taller, broader, and stronger, so that age-related differences play a
greater role in skill development (Walkley, Holland, Treloar, & Probyn-Smith, 1993).
Rudisill, Mahar, and Meaney (1993) completed a series of gross motor tests to assess
actual motor competence of 218 children between the ages 9 and 11 years. They found
that among 9-, 10-, and ll-year-old children, older children demonstrated higher levels of
actual motor competence than younger children. Yun and Ulrich (1997) also examined
actual motor competence in children with MMR, aged 7 to 12 years, by measuring
quantitatively the 10 gross motor skills, standing long jump, running, batting a tossed
ball, shooting a basketball, kicking, throwing, skipping, catching, jumping rope, and

dribbling. The results indicated that lZ-year-Old children performed better than the

42

other age groups, and that 7-year-old children performed signiﬁcantly less well than the
other age groups. Their results support a study by Holland (1987) indicating that FMS
performances of elementary-aged students with educable mental impairment (i.e., MMR)
improved with age.
Lender

Inﬂuence of gﬂder on perceived competenae; Gender plays an important role
on perceptions of competence during childhood. Previous studies investigating gender
differences in perceived competence have shown that males report higher perceived
competence than females for their physical performance and their physical appearance
(Brustad, 1993; Feltz & Brown, 1984; Rudisill, Mahar, & Meaney, 1993; Ulrich, 1987);
whereas, females are more invested in social and relational domains (Crocker &
Ellsworth, 1990). Jolly (1997) conducted a study investigating a comparison of
perceived physical competence between fourth-grade boys and girls towards fundamental
gross motor skills as well as the goal setting tendencies of these boys and girls. The
Pictorial Perceived Physical Competence Scale was used to measure perceived physical
competence, and goal setting was analyzed by using a penny-pitching task. The
ﬁndings showed that not only did girls have a signiﬁcantly lower perceived physical
competence than the boys, but the girls also set their goals signiﬁcantly lower more often
than the boys.

Gender difference also has been found to relate to preference for information
sources to judge people’s competence or ability. Gender comparisons with competence
information sources begin to show differences in the adolescent period. Females prefer

the use of self-comparison information and evaluation ﬁ'om peers and coaches, whereas

43

males prefer the use of peer comparison to judge their abilities (Horn, Glenn, & Wentzell,
1993). Horn and Harris (1996) indicated gender differences provide essential
information for understanding the mechanisms by which children and adolescents come
to evaluate their self-competencies in physical activity. During young childhood, girls
have higher perceived competence in play-oriented and locomotor skills, but boys have
higher perceived competence in fundamental motor skills and sport-speciﬁc skill. In
addition, adolescent females indicate greater use of internal sources (e.g., attraction
toward physical activity and achievement of goals) and social sources (e.g., feedback and
evaluation by adults and peers) than adolescent males do, whereas adolescent males cite
competitive outcomes and speed and ease of learning new skills as more important than
adolescent females do. Thus, they suggested that these trends in information sources by
adolescent females and males are likely the result of differential socialization
experiences.

Gender role beliefs and stereotypes affect the development of children’s
perceptions of competence. Lirgg (1991) examined gender differences in self-
conﬁdence with regard to the orientation of physical activity tasks. The author found
that if a task is evaluated as being more masculine than another task, it will result in
gender differences in self-conﬁdence. In other words, the more masculine the task is
considered, the greater the conﬁdence difference between males and females. The
author suggested that when sport activities are gender-linked, males display more
conﬁdence in masculine type tasks and females display more conﬁdence in feminine type
tasks. The relationship between females’ evaluation of their sport ability and their

beliefs about gender-role stereotyping of sports is a positive relationship. Girls estimate

44

their physical competence higher when they perceive sports as appropriate for girls, or as
gender-neutral. In the same way, girls demonstrate less conﬁdence when the task is
perceived as masculine. To the same extent, boys perceive themselves as having more
sports ability when they see sports as being male gender-role stereotyped (Lirgg, 1992,
Lee, 2002). According to suggestions of Yun and Ulrich (1997), the stereotypic gender-
role in the culture should be possible reasons why 12-year-old males with MMR
demonstrated signiﬁcantly higher perceived physical competence than the same aged
females. Males may get more reinforcement for participating in physical activities than
females, and males may have more opportunities to participate in sports than females,
and thereby these opportunities in sport participation may affect on having higher
perceived physical competence.

Inﬂuence of gender on actual competence. Gender differences in children’s
motor performance is one of the most ﬁ'equently studied characteristics inﬂuencing
performance (Thomas, 2000). According to the review of Toole and Kretzschmar
(1993), many studies have been reported for gender differences in motor performance
and in activity level during childhood. They concluded that boys have generally been
considered to be superior to girls in power/force tasks as well as in rurming speed and
agility; whereas, girls usually perform better on balance and ﬂexibility tasks. Thomas
and Thomas (1988) stated that gender differences in motor performance/activity were
related to age at least through adolescence. Patterns of small differences in early
childhood increased during the elementary school years.

With reference to actual motor competence in gross motor skills, several studies

have shown gender differences in actual motor competence. Rudisill, Mahar, and

45

Meaney (1993) examined gender differences among children for actual motor
competence which measured ﬁve motor skills including the standing long jump, 50-yard
dash, shuttle run, and ball throw ﬁ'om two different distances. They concluded that the
ﬁve skills for actual motor competence of the boys exceeded those of the girls.
Similarly, Goodway and Rudisill (1997) found that 4-year-old preschool boys at risk of
school failure and/or developmental delays had higher object-control component of actual
motor skill competence (e. g., throw, catch, strike, kick, and bounce) than the same aged
girls, while boys and girls did not signiﬁcantly differ on the locomotor component of
actual skill competence (e.g., run, leap, jump, hop, gallop, slide, and skip). The boys in
this sample showed more familiarity with object-control skills than girls, because it
appeared that the boys had more practice in object-control skills than the girls.

In addition, gender differences in actual motor competence are supported by a
study of Yun and Ulrich (1997) conducted to examine actual motor competence in
children with MMR (54 boys and 55 girls). Actual motor competence was
quantitatively measured by 10 gross motor skills. The results indicated that boys
performed better than girls on the total actual competence scores. More speciﬁcally, the
performance of boys was signiﬁcamly better than the performance of girls on the
standing long jump, batting a tossed ball, shooting a basketball, kicking a ball, catching a
ball, and dribbling a ball. Only on jumping rope did girls outperform boys. On running
and skipping, no signiﬁcant gender differences were found. The results supported the
prediction that for male children activity is rewarded, and involvement in motor skill
activities that are physically challenging leads to positive reinforcement (Greendorfer,

1983).

46

Role of Parents

Inﬂuence of parents on perceived cometma. Harter’s (1978, 1981) theory
directly addresses the emphasis on the role of signiﬁcant others (such as parents, peers,
coaches, and teachers) in the socialization process. Especially among signiﬁcant others,
parents appear to be the chief individuals who are used as sources of information by
children and adolescents in academic, physical, and social domains for judging ability
and making decisions about future participatory behavior (Brustad, 1992; Weiss &
Chaumeton, 1992; Weiss, Ebbeck, & Horn, 1997). The role of parents as the major
initial socializing inﬂuence upon children’s physical activity or sport seems indisputable.
Because children with MR have more difficulty with judging ability and making
decisions about ﬁxture participating behavior than their peers without disabilities,
research on the interaction between children with MR and their parents is needed.

Several studies have emphasized that parental expectations, beliefs, and behaviors
play a crucial role in the nature and extent of their children’s physical activities or sport
opporttmities (Brustad, 1993; Lewko & Greendorfer, 1988), and parental patterns toward
exercise or physical activity is one of the major inﬂuences on health-related behavior
patterns that formed in their children (Chang, 1993; Freedson & Evenson, 1991).
However, despite the role of parents assumed by socializing agents in shaping children’s
developing perspectives on sport/physical activity and self, there currently exists only
limited research focusing on the relevance of parental socialization inﬂuences on the
understanding of children’s psychological processes (Brustad, 1992).

Children may imitate and adopt the behavior and performance of their parents.

Weitzer (1989) tried to examine the parents’ role in the emergence of children’s ability

47

perceptions by investigating the relationships among fourth-grade children’s perceptions
of parental inﬂuence in their sport involvement, children’s self-perceptions of sport
competence, and their level of sport involvement. For girls, the ﬁndings showed that
greater parental inﬂuence was associated with higher perceptions of personal
competence in sport. Additionally, greater parental inﬂuence was related with higher
levels of involvement in sport for both boys and girls. A study conducted by Brustad
and Weigand (1989) examined the link between parental socialization behaviors and
children’s motivational patterns in sport/physical domain within the framework of
Harter’s theory. They found that children who reported that their parents consistently
responded with support and encouragement for their sport-related efforts displayed
greater intrinsic motivation (e.g., a higher preference for challenge) than did children
who received less favorable parental support. From these two studies, it could be
implied that by observing the behavior of parents, perceptions of children’s ability may
be shaped through parental role modeling.

Children’s self-perceptions may be inﬂuenced by a variety of parental
socialization processes, including role modeling and expectancy socialization effects.
The following two studies of Brustad (1993, 1996) provide support for a theory which
links parental socialization processes to children’s motivational characteristics based on
Eccles’s expectancy socialization approach (cited in Brustad, 1992), which focuses on
parental belief systems rather than parental behaviors (i.e., role modeling) as the key
inﬂuence in children’s achievement motivation. In 1993, Brustad tested a conceptual
model that links parental physical activity orientation (e.g., parental enjoyment of

physical activity, parental ﬁtness, and belief about the importance of physical activity)

48

and the child’s gender, parental socialization practices (e.g., parental encouragement),
and children’s self-perceptions with children’s attraction to physical activity.
Participants consisted of fourth-grade children (39 boys and 42 girls) receiving physical
education instruction from a specialist everyday for 30 minutes, and their parents. The
results revealed that children’ gender and parental enjoyment of physical activity was
related to parents’ encouraging their children’s involvement in it and, in turn, that the
encouragement inﬂuenced children’s perceived physical competence and attraction to
physical activity.

In addition, Brustad (1996) used Eccles’ expectancy-value model of motivation in
an effort to better understand the contribution of gender and parental socialization
processes to children’s interest in physical activity. Forty-eight boys and 59 girls in
fourth- through sixth-grade participated in this study and completed questionnaires
assessing attraction to physical activity, perceived physical competence, and parental
socialization scale. The results of the study indicated that signiﬁcant relationships
between children’s perceptions of their parents’ physical activity socialization processes
and their own physical activity orientation (i.e., children’s perceived competence and
attraction to physical activity) was present. Gender differences were also related to their
own physical activity orientation.

Brustad’s two studies (1993, 1996) provide partial support for Eccles’
expectancy-value model of motivation proposing that parental belief systems are more
instrumental to the socialization process than parental role modeling. However, the
ﬁndings of these studies suggested that a large amount of the variability among children

remains unexplained by parental socialization processes. This should encourage

49

researchers to look at other contributors to variability in children’s physical activity
interests.

Inﬂuence of parents on actual comp_etence. Parental behaviors in physical
activity or sport (e.g., sport involvement and physical ﬁtness) are signiﬁcant variables for
improving the behaviors of their children. Freedson and Evenson (1991) conducted a
study in 30 families investigating the relationship between parents’ behaviors and their 5-
to 9-year-old children’s physical activity level. Their analysis indicated that active
parents are likely to have an active child, while low active parents are more likely to have
a low active child. Similarly, Moore et al. (1991) investigated the inﬂuence of parents’
level of physical activity (99 mothers and 92 fathers) on those of their 4-to 7-year-old
children. They used the Caltrac accelerometer (i.e., an electronic motion sensor) to
assess the activity levels of the children and their parents. Parents and children were
classiﬁed as active or inactive in terms of whether they were above or below the median
activity level for their reference group. The results showed that parents who are more
physically active are more likely to have children who are physically active. Kim
(1995) also stated that parents who are regularly involved in physical activity express
more interest toward their disabled children’s physical activity than parents who are not
involved, and suggested parental patterns toward physical activity or sport are likely to
encourage their children with disabilities (including MR) to have active and physical
behavior patterns.

Other research, though, indicates that the exercise patterns and attitudes of parents
had little effect on children’s activity patterns, but showed some effect on children’s

ﬁtness. McMurray, et al. (1993) explored the relationship between parental exercise

50

patterns and attitudes toward exercise and their children’s aerobic ﬁtness and activity
patterns. Healthy children and parents (ﬁom each of 1,253 families) ﬁom 18
elementary schools served as participants for this study. The ﬁndings indicated that
parental exercise patterns and attitudes are not associated with the child’s activity
patterns. However, there is a partial association between parental patterns and attitudes
toward exercise and their children’s aerobic ﬁtness. Therefore, this may support the
idea that parental leisure activity affects their children’s actual competence with regard to
physical domains.
M

The literature presented provides information on how Harter's theory of
competence motivation can help understand the ﬁ'amework of perceived physical
competence and actual motor competence. Perceptions of competence, including
perceived and actual competence, contribute to one's level of motivation to initiate and
persist in sport (Fry, 2001). The study reviewed the relationship between perceived
competence and actual competence in children with and without MR. An understanding
of the relationship between perceived competence and actual competence in children with
MR may help the researcher to generalize these relationships. Because disabilities can
interfere with educational situations, the literature in this study also brieﬂy describes the
relationship between limitation and deﬁcits of children with MR and perceptions of
competence. Finally, as Harter’ model is sensitive to developmental differences, the
variations across age, gender, parental behaviors in perceived competence and actual

competence were mentioned.

51

CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
Participants

The focus of this study was a population of elementary-aged Korean children with
mild mental retardation (MMR) and their parents. The participants in this study were
112 students (61 boys and 51 girls) with MR who attended ﬁve special schools for the
mentally retarded and their parents. In the Korean educational system, there is a
classiﬁcation system comprising 3 classes for students with MR (Class I: below IQ 34,
Class II: IQ 35-49, and Class III: IQ 50-70). Students with Class III are identiﬁed as
those with MR (Choi, Park, & Kim, 2001). They usually receive education at the
special schools for MR, though it is possible to receive education through others sources,
such as home schooling, residential facilities, or clinical centers (Kim & Hong, 1992).

Prior to data collection, a power analysis was conducted to determine the optimal
number of participants for the study. The power analysis indicated a sample size of 80
participants (10 participants in each group which are broken down by age, gender, and
parental physical activity level) would be appropriate for determining signiﬁcance of the
hypotheses (Shavelson, 1996). Therefore, the 112 proposed participants seemed to be
an appropriate number for determining signiﬁcance in this study, because the larger
sample size used in this study would protect against attrition and should increase the
power of the study (Shavelson, 1996).
Smle of Children with MR

One group of participants in this study consisted of a total of 112 children (61

boys and 51 girls) with MR between 8 and 11 years of age (M = 10 years, 2 months;

52

SD = 14.54 months). A breakdown of participant children by age and gender is
provided in Table 1. The participants were attending ﬁve special education schools for
children with MR in Seoul, Korea, which are located in urban school districts.
Participants attended Grades 1-6. Generally, in regular schools children’s age and grade
are almost correlated; however, in special schools for children with MR, the participants
attended various grades without relating to age. Therefore, this study focused on

participants’ ages rather than their grades.

Table 1

Number of Participants by Age and Gender

 

 

 

Group Younger (Age 8-9) Older (Age 10-11)
E 3
Boys 31 30
Girls 24 37

 

Age calculations differ between Korea and the United States. In Korea, a child
is considered to be one year old at birth, and at the ﬁrst birth anniversary is considered to
be two years old, and so on. In the United States, a child’s age is calculated in months
for the ﬁrst year until the ﬁrst birthday anniversary. By way of comparison, an eight-
year-old child in Korea would be considered to be seven-years-old in the United States.

Thus, as protocol of the Test of Gross Motor Development — Second Edition (Ulrich,

53

2000), the child’s exact age was determined by subtracting the birth date from the date on
which the child was tested. For purposes of this study, all references to participant ages
use American age calculation.

All participant children in the study qualiﬁed for special education services
according to the Korean govemment’s educational policy for students with MR, and were
selected from special education school settings to participate in this study. In other
words, only children who attended special schools were included in this study.
According to Kim and Hong (1992), Korean special education for elementary school age
children is not only free but also compulsory. As well, Korean special education
services are provided mainly in the special schools in ﬁrll—time, self-contained special
classes, though residential facilities, clinical centers, and home schooling are provided as
an alternative for children with disabilities. The Korean special education service in the
special schools provided by the government is the most commonly used educational
alternative for students with MMR, and the easiest to access.

Participant children were classiﬁed in school ﬁles as having a Class III (i.e.,
MMR) designation based on school administered IQ test scores. Because the
investigator did not access ﬁles, special education teachers in the classrooms of each
school helped to identify students with IVE/IR who qualiﬁed for this study. Children
ﬁ'om each school did not have any other identiﬁable physical, emotional, visual/hearing,
or behavioral disability that would restrict the assessment of their perceived competence,
and their performance on FMS tests (the measure of actual competence). Children
whose parents responded positively to the informed consent forms were eligible to

participate in this study, and children were asked to give verbal assent to participation.

54

Therefore, if a child asked not to be tested, the child would not be required to participate.
In this study, no children reﬁrsed to participate.
Sample of Parents

The other group of participants in this study was 112 parents of the participant
children in special education schools. One parent for each participant child made up
this participant group. The study had an inclusion criterion which controlled for
parents/children participants, so that only parent/child groupings were tested, and no legal
guardian/child groupings were used. Therefore, of the 115 guardians who consented to
be involved in the study, three guardians (two grandparents and one relative) were
excluded. Participant parents lived in the greater Seoul metropolis area. The parents
consisted of 40 males and 72 females ranging in age between 33 and 52 years. Parents’
educational level ranged from elementary school to doctoral degree. Among 112
parents, 53 parents regularly participated in physical activities or sports (less than 1 year
= 13, 1 year to less than 3 years = 27, and more than 3 years = 13 parents). The three
most frequent locations for physical activity of participant parents were club/gym
(28.6%), park/ground (20.5%), and home (17%).
Informed Consent

Before any part of this study was conducted, permission was obtained from the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subject (UCRIHS) (Appendix A).
Permission also was received directly from principals in each school, after discussing the
nature of a school’s involvement and purposes of the study (Appendix B). With the
assistance of each principal, the investigator contacted classroom teachers and physical

education teachers in a meeting which was usually conducted everyday in each school.

55

At that time, based on each school’s schedule, the testing period, testing place, and
testing date were decided. In addition, a letter describing the study (e.g., an explanation
of the tests, the testing procedures, and the subject’s rights as a participant in this study)
and an informed consent for parental and child involvement was sent home, via the
students, to the parents of the children who would participate in this study (Appendix B).
There were no anticipated psychological risks as a result of participation in this study.
There was minor physical risk of injury in the actual motor competence testing, but this
was tightly controlled and conformed to standard protocols. These risks were carefully
explained in the informed consent. Only students whose parents signed the consent
form were allowed to participate in the study. Also, students whose parents consented
to the study were told brieﬂy about the program and asked to give verbal assent to
participation.
Instrumentation

This study used three instruments to obtain data plus a parent demographic
survey. These instruments were selected in adherence with the following criteria: (a)
the instruments would be valid and reliable, (b) the time necessary to administer the
instruments would not exceed the attention span of the participants who take the tests,
and (c) the instruments’ directions would not be too difﬁcult for the comprehension level
of the participants.
Perceived Physical Competenaa

The Pictorial Scale for Perceived Physical Competence for Children with Mental
Retardation (PSPPCCMR), which was developed by Ulrich (Ulrich & Collier, 1990), was

used to assess perceived physical competence. The PSPPCCMR was a modiﬁed

56

version of Harter and Pike’s (1984) Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence for Young
Children. The content of the instrument was modiﬁed for age-appropriateness, and the
instrument was designed for children with MR, aged seven to 12 years. However, it
was noted that the African American and White children’s versions of this scale were not
considered to be appropriate and reliable for the participants in this study because the
participants would tend to identify better with children of the same ethnic group rather
than of another ethnic group (Goodway & Rudisill, 1997). Thus, in this study, the
children depicted in the picture plates were slightly modiﬁed to represent Asian children
rather than another race. Further, pictorial plates portrayed male and female versions,
respectively.

PSPPCCMR is represented by pictures to assist the child’s understanding of the
content, and it has 10 appropriate test items (standing long jump, running, skipping,
catching, throwing a ball, kicking a ball, batting a tossed ball, shooting a basketball,
jumping rope, and dribbling a ball) for not only young children but also for students who
have mental retardation and learning disability (U hich & Collier, 1990). Each item
contains two pictures placed side by side; one picture depicts a child successfully
performing each skill item, and the other shows a child who is not so competent or
skillful. Under each pair of pictures, there are two circles (Appendix C). A big circle
indicates that a child feels a lot like the child in the picture, and a small circle indicates
that the participant feels a little like the child in the picture. The scores for each item are
based on a 4-point scale: 4 points representing a successfully performing child “a lot like
him/her”, 3 points representing a successﬁrlly performing child “ a little like him/her”, 2

points representing an unsuccessﬁrlly performing child “a little like him/her”, and 1 point

57

representing an unsuccessfully performing child “a lot like him/her.” Therefore, the
lowest possible scores for each item and for total items are, respectively, 1 and 10. The
highest possible scores for each item and for total items are, respectively, 4 and 40. For
this study, the scores for total items (i.e., the sum of 10 items) was used. Figure 2 shows

the example of the running test of perceived physical competence for girls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GO GO

Figm 2. An Example Item ﬁ'om the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Physical Competence
Taken ﬁ'om the Female Plates

58

Results of test-retest reliability for the 10 motor skill items of the PSPPCCMR
with a sample of children with MMR indicated that all coefﬁcients were statistically
signiﬁcant at the .05 levels and the overall test-retest reliability coefﬁcient score was .77
(p < .01) (Ulrich & Collier, 1990). Factor analysis was conducted to determine the
validity of PSPPCCMR. Results of maximum likelihood factor analysis with oblique
rotation suggested the presence of two factors accounting for 93.5 % of the total variance
(Ulrich & Collier, 1990). Thus, Yun and Ulrich (1997) reported that each PSPPCCMR
item is assumed to measure the domain of perceived physical competence, and the total
score for a child represents the domain of perceived physical competence in FMS.
Actaal Motor Competence

The Test of Gross Motor Development — Second Edition (TGMD-2) (Ulrich,
2000) was used to assess actual motor competence. The TGMD-2 is composed of two
subtests that measure six locomotor skills (run, gallop, hop, leap, horizontal jump, slide)
and six object-control skills (striking a stationary ball, stationary dribble, catch, kick,
overhand throw, and underhand rolling) that may be taught to children in preschool,
elementary, and special education classes. Like the ﬁrst edition (Ulrich, 1985), TGMD-
2 is both a criterion and norm referenced test. The test is concerned with the
observation of form in fundamental movement skill that produces process data (i.e.,
portions of the tasks the child is able to do) rather than product data (i.e., how far or how
fast the child can move).

For this study, two subtest standard scores and an overall Gross Motor
Development Quotient (GMDQ) were calculated to determine a child’s actual

competence scores (Appendix D). In the TGMD-2, each locomotor or object-control

59

skill includes three to ﬁve behavioral components to qualitatively describe performance
as performance criteria. If the child performs a behavioral component correctly (in the
subtest items), a score of “l ” is given; if the child shows the absence of that component in
the subtest items, a score of “0” is given. Each test item is administered for two trials,
and then the scores of two trials add up to a raw subtest score. Locomotor and object-
control skills are recorded in raw scores and then converted to standard scores. The
standard scores in the TGMD-2 locomotor and object-control subtest range from 1 to 20.
Then, subtest standard scores are combined and converted to an overall Gross Motor
Development Quotient (GMDQ) with a range of scores from 46 to 160.

The evidence of the reliability for the TGMD—2 has been reported in the test
manual (Ulrich, 2000). Content sampling reliability coeﬂicients for TMMD-2 scores at
eight age intervals for children ages 3 to 10 years are reported to be .85 for locomotor
items, .88 for object-control items, and .91 for GMDQ. Test-retest reliability
coefﬁcients (locomotor items = .88, object-control items = .93, and GMDQ = .96) and
interrater reliability coeﬁcients (locomotor items = .98, object-control items = .98, and
GMDQ = .98) are also reported. In addition, validity for the TGMD-2 has been
established including content and construct related evidence for validity (Ulrich, 2000).
Content validity has been established by having three motor development experts judge
whether the selected motor skills are appropriate items for preschool- and elementary-
aged children, and construct validity is established by factor analysis.

Demographic Qaestionnaire
For this study, the questionnaire (see Appendix E) about parents’ demographic

infommtion such as sex, age, educational level, parents’ physical activity

60

experiences/behaviors, and parents’ perceptions of their child’s motor skills was
composed by the investigator. The primary reason for having the participant parents
complete these questions was to obtain the selected demographic variables for the basis
of comparison.
Parental Physical Activity

The Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ), developed by Godin
and Shephard (1985), was used to assess leisure time physical activity of participant
parents. The questionnaire consists of two questions (including a brief four-item query
of usual leisure-time exercise habits) (Appendix E). The ﬁrst question includes three
intensity levels (i.e., strenuous, moderate, and mild exercise) and shows examples of
sport in each of three intensity levels. The ﬁrst question asks the weekly ﬁequencies of
strenuous, moderate, and mild exercise activities. The second question asks the
intensity of weekly leisure-time activity, e.g., “long enough to work up a sweat.”

According to a study of Godin and Shephard (1985), in 53 healthy adults, the total
coefficient of a two week test-retest reliability for light, moderate, strenuous exercise, and
sweat question was .74. Also, in 28 mles and 50 females between the ages of 20 and
59 years, the total coefﬁcient of a month test-retest reliability for activity categories, and
sweat question was .62 (Jacobs, Ainsworth, Hartman, & Leon, 1993). Criterion validity
was determined by the relationships with maximum oxygen consumption (V02 max) and
body fat (BF). The strongest correlation was between V02 max (percentile) and
reported strenuous exercise (r = .35). Also, criterion validity was determined by
discriminant analysis to classify individuals by V02 max and BF with activity data

(Godin & Shephard, 1985).

61

Da‘ta Collection Procedures

There were two procedures of data collection for participant children with MR
and their parents.

Maasures for Participant Children

The measures for the perceived physical competence (PSPPCCMR) and actual
motor competence (TGMD-2) were administered by the investigator during two months
at the schools of each participant child. Participant children were assessed on each
measure in a quiet room (e.g., empty gym and classroom) or an open hallway outside the
classroom of each participating school away ﬁ'om distraction and interruptions. Based
on the schedules of each school’s classroom teachers, adapted physical educators, and
students, two or three children were asked to come to the testing location at the same
time. The investigator assisted participant children by walking them ﬁom the classroom
to the testing place. Both measures were administered on the same or the next day for
each participant, because perceived competence in speciﬁc domains can change within a
period of days or weeks (Harter, 1990).

After entering the testing place at each school, the participant children (i.e., two or
three children) listened to the brief explanation of the testing environment and
standardized procedures. Then, the pictorial scales were individually administered ﬁrst
to each participant child. When one of the children was tested on the pictorial scales,
the other children were supervised by an assistant, so that these children were occupied in
play. This process minimized distraction and assured the safety of participant children.
The pictorial scales were followed by a series of motor performance tests to measure the

actual motor competence. The children in each motor performance test group took turns

62

being the ﬁrst one to perform test items. Each test item for motor performance was
administered individually to each participant child. The time to administer both the
PSPPCCMR and the TGMD-2 took approximately 35-40 minutes per child.

In order to complete the pictorial scale, the participant children sat at a desk with
the investigator, and were told to look at the two pictures for each of 10 test items of
PSPPCCMR. At that time, the investigator gave the description of the two pictures of
each test item to the participant children based on gender. Pictorial scales showing male
and female performers were used for male and female participants, respectively. For
example, the investigator pointed to one of two pictures and explained that the child in
the picture is pretty good or not very good. Then, the child selected one of two pictures
which s/he felt most represented her/his competence level. After the selection was
made, the investigator explained the two circles below the picture selected and asked the
participant child to make an “X” in the appropriate circle (see Appendix C). If a child
selected the larger circle, the investigator knew that the participant child felt a lot like the
child in the picture selected; if a child selected the smaller circle, the participant child felt
a little like the child in the picture.

In an effort to minimize response bias, the investigator would not use speciﬁc
verbal or body language cues that would draw attention to one picture or the other in the
PSPPCCMR. The pictures were presented in pairs and, in the presentation or
questioning, inclusive questioning (e. g., “Which picture best represents you?) was used
rather than exclusive questioning (e.g., “Is this picture or that picture the best
representation of your ability?) that might contribute to response bias. It was also noted

that there are no right or wrong responses. After data collection, the investigator

63

converted the pictorial circle data to a number between one and four, with one being
lowest score (representing low perceived physical competence) to four being the highest
score (representing high perceived physical competence). Then, the scores of each 10
items were added to create a ﬁnal perceived physical competence score which could
range from a minimum score of 10 to a maximum score of 40.

After completing the pictorial scales, the TGMD-2 was undertaken at the same
testing place (gym, empty classroom, or open hallway outside the classroom) as the
pictorial scale by the investigator. TGMD-2 protocol was followed, and standardized
testing procedures were used. Verbal directions and physical demonstration of each of
12 items in the TGMD-2 were provided by the investigator prior to testing. Each
participant child then performed two trials of each item, as per the TGMD-2 protocol.
Verbal feedback was given to a participant child if the child had some difficulty in
understanding the task, or to encourage the participant to perform well on the next trial.

To get a careful and correct judgment of performance scores, all TGMD-2
measures were videotaped. A colleague who studies Kinesiology at Yonsei University
in Seoul, Korea, assisted in videotaping the TGMD-2 test. Participants wore stickers
marked with identiﬁcation numbers to protect participant conﬁdentiality. Only the
investigator has a list of the children’s names correlated to their identiﬁcation numbers.
The investigator watched the videotape ﬁom the actual study, and recorded raw scores of
each participant child’s performance for each of the 12 items, and then converted to
standard scores, according to the criteria of the TGMD-2 (see Appendix D). Only the

investigator was the rater of the videotape.

64

To become qualiﬁed to administer and score PSPPCCMR and TGMD-Z, the
investigator read instructional manuals of the PSPPCCMR and TGMD-2. The
investigator not only successfully completed practice in using the PSPPCCMR, but also
completed coursework in administering and assessing the TGMD-Z. In addition, the
investigator has experience using the TGMD-2 in previous research.

Measures for Participant Parents

After obtaining informed consent (see Appendix B) ﬁ'om parents, the parents of
the participant children completed a survey which consisted of two parts. The ﬁrst part
included the parents’ demographic information and the second part was the GLTEQ (see
Appendix E). The survey was translated into Korean by the investigator, and was
reviewed and edited by a Korean professor teaching at an American university. Each
classroom teacher assisted by sending the survey, including the parents’ demographic
questionnaire and GLTEQ, via the children to the parents. After completion of the
survey, the parents returned them to the teacher who retained them for the investigator.
Because the questionnaire was concise and easy to understand, it took approximtely ﬁve
minutes to complete. It is noted that all participant parents returned the survey within
two weeks after the investigator distributed the survey, so that the entire data collection
spanned two months.

To ensure that questions were answered as honestly as possible, the purpose of the
study and procedures were brieﬂy described on a separate piece of paper again. All
participant parents ﬁrst ﬁlled out the demographic information such as sex, age, and
education level, and then completed the GLTEQ. The participant parents were assured

that results would be kept conﬁdential.

65

After collecting the data, the investigator calculated the total weekly leisure
activity scores from the ﬁrst question’s three items by summing the reported weekly
ﬁ'equency of participation at each of three intensity levels multiplied by the
corresponding anticipated MET value (9, 5, or 3 METS). Then, participant parents were
divided into three categories for levels of parental physical activity. Participant parents
(N = 37) who have total leisure activity scores at or above the 67th percentile (i.e., the top
33%) were assigned as the high activity group, and parents (N = 38) who have total
leisure activity scores at or below the 33rd percentile (i.e., the bottom 33%) were assigned
to low activity group. The 37 parents whose scores ranged item the 34m to the 67th
percentiles on parental physical activity level were not included in this study. The data
for parental physical activity times (i.e., parents’ total weekly leisure activity scores)
were visually examined with a frequency distribution to determine cut oﬁ‘ scores for the
top 33 % (i.e., parents who have scores ﬁ'om 65 to 128) and the bottom 33 % (i.e., parents
who have scores from 0 to 26), since it would not be meaningful to divide parents who
have scores around a middle point (Median = 40.5) into two arbitrary categories, such as
a high or low activity group. Table 2 shows the frequency, percent, and cumulative
percent for parental leisure activity scores. The scores highlighted in gray were

excluded.

66

Table 2

Frequency. Percent and Cumulative Percent for the Parental Leisure Activity Scores

 

 

 

Parental Scores Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
0 6 5.4 5.4
6 5 4.5 9.8
9 1 .9 10.7
11 3 2.7 13.4
12 1 .9 14.3
13 1 .9 15.2
14 3 2.7 17.9
15 1 .9 18.7
17 1 .9 19.6
18 1 .9 20.5
19 4 3.6 24.1
20 2 1.8 25.9
21 1 .9 26.8
23 2 1.8 28.6
24 1 .9 29.5
25 l .9 30.4
26 3 2.7 33.0
28 2 1.8 34.8
29 2 1.8 36.6
31 1 .9 37.5
33 2 1.8 39.3
34 3 2.7 42.0
35 2 1.8 43.7
36 1 9 44.6
37 1 9 45.5
39 1 .9 46.4
40 4 3.6 50.0
41 3 2.7 52.7
43 1 .9 53.6
44 1 9 54.5
45 I 9 55.4
47 1 9 56.3
48 1 9 57.1

 

67

Table 2 — Continued

 

 

Parental Scores Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
50 1 .9 58.0
52 1 .9 58.9
53 1 .9 59.8
58 1 .9 61.6
60 1 .9 62.5
61 1 .9 63.4
62 l .9 64.3
63 2 1.8 66.1
65 1 .9 67.0
66 1 .9 67.9
68 3 2.7 70.5
69 1 .9 71.4
70 l .9 72.3
71 1 .9 73.2
74 2 1.8 75.0
75 1 .9 75.9
76 2 1.8 77.7
77 3 2.7 80.4
78 1 .9 81.3
79 1 .9 82.1
82 1 .9 83.0
84 1 .9 83.9
86 2 1.8 85.7
88 l .9 86.6
90 l .9 87.5
92 1 .9 88.4
97 1 .9 89.3
99 l .9 90.2
101 2 1.8 92.0
102 1 .9 92.9
103 2 1.8 94.6
109 1 .9 95.5
1 l4 1 .9 96.4
1 19 2 1.8 98.2
122 1 .9 99.1
128 l .9 100.0
Total 1 12 100.0

 

68

Data Analyses

The collected data were coded to SPSS. First, overall descriptive statistics were
used to summarize the means and standard deviations of the scores on the instruments for
perceived physical competence and actual motor competence. Then, data analyses were
designed to address the hypotheses and research questions (see Table 3). An alpha level
of .05 was used for all statistical tests. Statistical procedures used in analysis of the
hypotheses and research questions are as below:

1. To examine hypothesis #1, Pearson product-moment correlation was
conducted to determine the relationship between perceived physical competence
(PSPPCCMR) and actual motor competence (locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ) in
children with MR.

2. To examine hypotheses #2 to #7, a 2 (gender = boys, girls) x 2 (age = 8-9
years, 10-11 years) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to
determine potential gender and age differences in the combined dependent variables for
both perceived physical competence (PSPPCCMR) and actual motor competence
(locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ). Because four dependent variable scores (i.e.,
PSPPCCMR, locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ) were correlated with one another, a
MANOVA was performed instead of four separate AN OVAS to test for signiﬁcant age
and gender differences in PSPPCCMR, locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ.

3. To examine hypothesis #8 to #9, independent sample t-tests were conducted
to determine differences between the high parental activity group and the low parental
activity group in perceived physical competence (PSPPCCMR) and actual motor

competence (locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ).

69

4. To examine research questions #1 and #2, four separate 2 (gender = boys,
girls) x 2 (age = 8-9 years, 10-11 years) x 2 (parental physical activity = high level, low
level) AN OVAs were conducted to determine whether there is an interaction effect of
gender, age, and parents’ physical activity level on each of the dependent variables
(PSPPCCMR, locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ) for perceived physical competence
and actual motor competence.

Table 3

Data Analyses

 

Hypothesis/ Independent Dependent Statistical
Research Variable (IV) Variable (DV) Analysis
Question

 

H1. There would be a positive relationship between perceived physical competence
and actual motor competence in children with MMR.
PSPPCCMR Pearson correlation
Locomotor
Object-control
GMDQ

H2. Boys with MR would score higher than girls with MR on perceived
physical competence.

Gender PSPPCCMR 2x2 MANOVA &
Age Locomotor F ollow-up univariate
Object-control analysis for PSPPCCMR
GMDQ (focusing on the eﬁect of
gender)

 

70

Table 3 - continued

 

Hypothesis/ Independent Dependent Statistical
Research Variable (IV) Variable (DV) Analysis
Question

 

H3. Boys with MR would score higher than girb with MR on actual motor
competence.

Gender PSPPCCMR 2x2 MANOVA &
Age Locomotor F ollow-up univariate
Object-control analysis for Locomotor,
GMDQ Object-control, and GMDQ
(focusing on the effect of
gender)

H4. Younger children with MMR would score higher than older children with
MR on perceived physical competence.

Gender PSPPCCMR 2x2 MANOVA &
Age Locomotor Follow-up univariate
Object-control analysis for PSPPCCMR
GMDQ (focusing on the effect of
1186)

H5. Older children with MR would score higher than younger children with
MR on actual motor competence.

Gender PSPPCCMR 2x2 MANOVA &
Age Locomotor Fo llow-up univariate
Object-control analysis for Locomotor,
GMDQ Object-control, and GMDQ
(focusing on the effect of
age)

H6. There would not be a signiﬁcant interaction effect of age and gender in
children with MMR on perceived physical competence.

Gender PSPPCCMR 2x2 MANOVA &

Age Locomotor Fo llow-up univariate
Object-control analysis for PSPPCCMR
GIVﬂ)Q (focusing on the effect of

interaction)

 

71

Table 3 — continued

 

Hypothesis/ Independent Dependent Statistical
Research Variable (IV) Variable (DV) Analysis
Question

 

H7. There would not be a signiﬁcant interaction effect of age and gender in
children with MMR on actual motor competence.

Gender PSPPCCMR 2x2 MANOVA &
Age Locomotor Follow-up univariate
Object-control analysis for Locomotor,
GMDQ Object-control, and GMDQ
(focusing on the effect of
interaction)

H8. Children with MR whose parents have high total leisure time scores would
score higher on perceived physical competence than children with MMR whose
parents have low total leisure time scores.

Parental level PSPPCCMR Independent sample t-test

H9. Children with MMR whose parents have high total leisure time scores would
score higher on actual motor competence than children with MR whose parents
have low total leisure time scores.
Parental level Locomotor Independent sample t-tests
Object-control
GMDQ

RQl. Is there a signiﬁcant interaction effect of gender, age, and parental physical
activity level on perceived physical competence?

Gender PSPPCCMR 2x2x2 ANOVA

Age

Parental level

RQ2. Is there a signiﬁcant interaction eﬂ’ect of gender, age, and parental physical
activity level on actual motor competence?

Gender Locomotor 2x2x2 AN OVAS

Age Object-control

Parental level GMDQ

 

72

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

The results of this study are presented in two parts: descriptive and inferential
statistics. The ﬁrst part of this study reports the overall descriptive data of the perceived
physical competence (PSPPCCMR) and actual motor competence (Locomotor, Object-
Control, and GMDQ in the TGMD-2) for the participant children (N = 112). These
descriptive data allow visual examination of the levels of perceived physical competence
and actual motor competence in children with MMR. Then, the second part of this
study reported inferential statistics, including Pearson product-moment correlation,
MAN OVA, t-test, and AN OVA, by order of hypotheses and research questions. These
inferential statistics allow examining the relationship of perceived physical competence
and actual motor competence relative to age, gender, and parental physical activity.

ngall Descriptive Msﬁcs

To examine perceived physical competence of children with MMR, the means
and standard deviations on the items of the PSPPCCMR for the participant children (N =
112) are presented in Table 4. The highest mean score for participant children with
MMR was 3.02 (E = .94) on the running item of the PSPPCCMR. The lowest mean
score for the participant children was 2.54 (S2 = .99) on the jumping rope item of the
PSPPCCMR The total scores of perceived physical competence (PSPPCCMR) for
participant children ranged ﬁ'om 16 to 38, with the mean of 27.80 (_S_D = 4.53). In this
study, total scores of the PSPPCCMR were used in conducting future inferential analyses,
because the total score of the PSPPCCMR could represent the domain of perceived

physical competence in FMS.

73

Table 4

Mean and Standard Deviation Scores on th_e Items if the PSPPCCMR for Participan;
Children

 

 

Item Q M SD
Jumping 112 2.71 .94
Running 1 12 3.02 .94
Batting l 12 2.55 .98
Shooting 1 12 2.69 1.03
Kicking 112 2.88 .95
Throwing 1 12 2.88 .94
Skipping 1 12 2.82 .88
Catching 1 12 2.94 .89
Jumping Rope l 12 2.54 .99
Dribbling l 12 2.75 .86
Total-PSPPCMR l 12 27.80 4.53

 

To examine actual motor competence of the participant children with MR (N =
112), the means and standard deviations of the raw, percentile, and standard scores on the
locomotor and object-control subtests, and those of the GMDQ scores from the TGMD-2
are reported in Table 5. The mean percentiles of 7.40 and 2.87 for both subtests indicate
that the locomotor mean scores of participant children are, on average, at or below the
7.40th percentile, and the object-control mean scores of the participant children are, on
average, at or below the 2.87th percentile. According to descriptive ratings for subtest

standard scores and the gross motor quotient in the TGMD-2 manual (2000, p. 15), the

74

513m

IN

0316

pan

Gl'

bec

0“

la

lg

standard scores of 4.46 and 3.04 for both subtests indicate that participant children with
MMR fall within the “poor” category for the locomotor subtest and the “very poor”
category for the object-control subtest. Also, the GMDQ mean score of 62.55 for
participant children is in the “very poor” range. In this study, two standard scores and
GMDQ scores of the TGMD-2 were used in conducting ﬁrture inferential analyses,
because two standard scores allow comparisons across subtests, and GMDQ represents
overall gross motor ability (i.e., the domain of actual motor competence in FMS).
Table 5

Means and Standard Deviations of Raw, Percentile. and Stan—dard Scores on Two Subtests

 

 

 

 

 

and Thlose of GMDQ Scores
Measure Score _n M SD
Locomotor
Raw 112 30.79 7.25
Percentile 1 12 7.40 1 1 . 18
Standard 112 4.46 2.38
Object-Control
Raw 112 26.42 7.39
Percentile 1 12 2.87 7.22
Standard 1 12 3.04 1.94
GMDQ 112 62.55 11.33

75

 

Inferential Statistics
Nine hypotheses were tested and two research questions were explored via
statistical analyses. The results yielded full, partial, or no support for the hypotheses
and research questions, as summarized in Table 6.
Table 6

Summary of the Support of the Evidence for Each Hypothesis and Research Ouestio_n

 

 

Hypotheses (H)/ Prediction/Topic Supported?
Research Questions (RQ)
H #1 Positive relationship between perceived yes
and actual competence
H #2 Boys > girls on perceived competence yes
H #3 Boys > girls on actual competence partially
H #4 Younger > older on perceived competence no
H #5 Older > younger on actual competence no
H #6 No interaction effect of age and gender on
perceived competence yes
H #7 No interaction effect of age and gender on
actual competence partially
H #8 High parental activity > low parental activity
on perceived competence yes
H #9 High parental activity > low parental activity
on actual competence yes
RQ #1 Is there an interaction effect of gender, age, and
parental activity on perceived competence? no
RQ #2 Is there an interaction effect of gender, age, and
parental activity on actual competence? no

76

 

Hypothesis 1

“There would be a positive relationship between perceived physical
competence and actual motor competence in children with MMR.” Pearson
product-moment correlation was used to determine the relationship between perceived
physical competence (PSPPCCMR) and actual motor competence (locomotor, object-
control, and GMDQ) in children with MMR (see Table 7). The results indicated
moderate positive correlations between PSPPCCMR and locomotor (r = .39, p < .05),
object-control (r = 40, p < .05), and GMDQ (r = .45, p < .05). Therefore, there was
signiﬁcant evidence to support Hypothesis 1.

Table 7

Correlation Matrix of t_h_e PSPPCCMR, Locomotor. Object-Crawl. and Gm

 

 

PSPPCCMR Locomotor Object-Control GMDQ
PSPPCCMR 1 .00 .39* .40* .45*
Locomotor 1 .00 .52* .90*
Object-Control 1 .00 .84*
GMDQ 1 .00

 

Note: * Signiﬁcance at p < .05

77

Hypothesis 2

“Boys with MMR would score higher than girls with MMR on perceived
physical competence.” According to the correlation matrix for PSPPCCMR,
locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ scores (see Table 7), the four dependent variable
scores were statistically correlated with one another. Thus, instead of using four
separate AN OVAs, a 2 x 2 (Gender x Age) MANOVA was performed on the combined
variables of PSPPCCMR, locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ. The results of the
MANOVA showed that there was a signiﬁcant multivariate effect for gender, Wilks’
Lambda = .70, 5(4, 105) = 11.42, p = .00, n2 = .30. Effect size (112) of.30 indicated
that 30 % of the total variability was explained by gender difference.

The results of the follow-up univariate analyses for perceived physical
competence showed that there was a signiﬁcant main effect of gender, E(1, 108) = 12.25,
p = .001 (see Table 8). These results were similar to those obtained in the ANOVA
analysis. Table 9, which contains the means and standard deviations of perceived
physical competence measures (PSPPCCMR) for each gender group, indicates that the
mean of the PSPPCCMR scores for boys with MMR (M = 29.11, S_D = 4.80) was higher
than the mean of the PSPPCCMR scores for girls with MR (M = 26.24, _SL) = 3.64).
Therefore, there was signiﬁcant evidence to support Hypothesis 2.

Hymthesis 3

“Boys with MMR would score higher than girls with MMR on actual motor
competence.” A 2 x 2 (Gender x Age) MAN OVA revealed a signiﬁcant multivariate
main effect for gender, Wilks’ Lambda = .70, _F_(4, 105) = 11.42, p = .00, n2 = .30. The

results of the follow-up univariate analyses for actual motor competence (locomotor,

78

object-control, and GMDQ) (see Table 8) showed that there was a signiﬁcant main effect
of gender for locomotor, E(1, 108) = 33.83, p = .00, and for GIVHDQ, E(l, 108) = 18.30, p
= .00. Boys with MMR performed better than girls with MR on the locomotor and
GMDQ. However, for object control, there was no signiﬁcant main effect of gender,
E(1, 108) = 2.56, p = .11, though the mean of the object-control scores for boys with
MMR (M = 3.30, SD = 2.17) was marginally higher than that for girls with MMR (M =
2.75, §I_) = 1.60) (see Table 9). Therefore, partial support was evident for the hypothesis
that boys with MMR would score higher than girls with MMR on actual motor

competence.

79

Table 8

Follow-Up Univar_iate Analyses for Gender, Age, and Gender by Age Interactions on

Measures of Perceived Physical Competence an;dActu_al Motor Competence

 

 

Measure Variable (_lf 1;“ p
PSPPCCMR
Gender (A) 1 12.25 .001 *
Age (B) 1 .24 .625
A x B 1 .18 .669
Locomotor
Gender (A) 1 33.83 .000‘
Age (B) 1 3.34 .070
A x B l .04 .840
Object-Control
Gender (A) 1 2.56 .113
Age (B) 1 .79 .376
A x B 1 4.54 .035 *
GMDQ
Gender (A) 1 18.30 .000“
Age (B) 1 2.47 .119
A x B l 1.08 .302

 

Note: * Signiﬁcance at p < .05

80

Table 9

Mean and Standard Deﬂation Scores on the Dependaat Variable Measures by Gender

 

 

 

Boys Girls
Measure .11 M S_D a M SD
PSPPCCMR 61 29.1 1 4.80 51 26.24 3.64
Locomotor 61 5.49 2.31 51 3.22 1.80
Object-Control 61 3 .30 2.17 51 2.75 1.60
GMDQ 61 66.36 11.67 51 58.00 9.02

 

Hypothesis 4

“Younger children with MMR would score higher than older children with
MR on perceived physical competence.” A 2 x 2 (Gender x Age) MANOVA was
performed on the combined variables of PSPPCCMR, locomotor, object-control, and
GMDQ. The results of the MANOVA showed that there was not a signiﬁcant
multivariate effect for age, Wilks’ Lambda = .97, £(4, 1105) = .82, p = .52, n2 = .03.
Effect size (112) of .03 indicated that 3 % of the total variability was explained by age
difference.

The follow-up univariate analyses for perceived physical competence showed that
there was no signiﬁcant main effect of age, _E(1, 108) = .24, p = .63 (see Table 8). The
mean of the PSPPCCMR scores for older children with MR was 27.96 (S12 = 4.44);

whereas, the mean of the PSPPCCMR for younger children with MMR was 27.64 (_S_D =

81

4.65). For the PSPPCCMR scores, the difference of means between two groups is
only .32 (see Table 10). Therefore, this result did not support Hypothesis 4, since there
was no signiﬁcant age difference.
Hypothesis 5

“Older children with MR would score higher than younger children with
MMR on actual motor competence.” Similar to Hypothesis #4, a 2 x 2 (Gender x
Age) MANOVA did not reveal a signiﬁcant multivariate main effect for age, Wilks’
Lambda = .97, 34, 105) = .82, p = .52, n2 = .03. Means and standard deviations of
three actual motor competence measures by age are also reported in Table 10. The
results of the follow-up univariate analyses for actual motor competence (locomotor,
object-control, and GMDQ) (see Table 8) also showed that there was not a signiﬁcant
main effect of age for locomotor, E(1, 108) = 3.34, p = .07, for object control, E( 1, 108)
= .79, p = .38, and for GMDQ, _F_(l, 108) = 2.47, p = .12. Therefore, these results did

not support Hypothesis 5.

82

Table 10

Mean and Standard Deviation Scores on the Depgndent Variable Measures by Aga

 

 

 

 

Younger Older
Measure a M Q n M SD
PSPPCCMR 55 27.64 4.65 57 27.96 4.44
Locomotor 55 4.13 2.26 57 4.77 2.46
Object-Control 55 2.93 2. 18 57 3.16 1 .94
GMDQ 55 61.22 11.76 57 63.84 10.79
Hypothesis 6

 

“There would not be a signiﬁcant interaction effect of age and gender in
children with MMR on perceived physical competence.” A 2 x 2 (Gender x Age)
MANOVA was perforrmd on the combined variables of PSPPCCMR, locomotor, object-
control, and GMDQ. The results of the MAN OVA showed that there was not a
signiﬁcant multivariate effect for interaction of gender and age, Wilks’ Lambda = .93,
13(4, 105) = 2.11, p = .09, n2 = .07. Effect size (112) of.07 indicated that 7 0/. ofthe total
variability was explained by the interaction difference of gender and age.

Means and standard deviations of perceived physical competence measures
(PSPPCCMR) by the interaction of gender and age are reported in Table 11. Follow-up

univariate analyses for perceived physical competence showed that there was no

83

signiﬁcant gender by age interaction effect, _E(1, 108) = .18, p = .67 (see Table 8).
Therefore, Hypothesis 6 was supported.
Hyppthesis 7

“There would not be a signiﬁcant interaction effect of age and gender in
children with MMR on actual motor competence.” As same as Hypothesis #6, a 2 x
2 (Gender x Age) MANOVA did not reveal a signiﬁcant multivariate effect for
interaction of gender and age, Wilks’ Lambda = .93, E(4, 105) = 2.11, p = .09, n2 = .07.
Means and standard deviations of three actual motor competence measures (locomotor,
object-control, and GMDQ) by the interaction of age and gender are also reported in
Table 11. The results of the follow-up univariate analyses for actual motor competence
(see Table 8) showed that there was no signiﬁcant gender by age interaction effect for
locomotor, £(1, 108) = .04, p = .84, and for GMDQ, E(1, 108) = 1.08, p = .30.
However, for object control, there was a signiﬁcant gender by age interaction effect, E(1,
108) = 4.54, p = .04. Thus, these results partially support Hypothesis 7. The mean
object-control scores of girls with MR increased between a younger group (M = 2.17,
S_D = 1.34) and an older gr011p (M = 3.26, SD = 1.65) while the mean object-control
scores of boys with MMR decreased (Table 11). Figure 3 depicts the mean object-
control scores of younger and older groups by gender difference. The Schefee tests for
post hoc comparisons showed that the differences between the means of the young boy
group and the young girl group (|t,.,,.,.,| = 2.55) and those of the young girl group and the
old girl group (Itobml = 2.60) exceed a critical range of 1.99. Therefore, these

differences were statistically signiﬁcant.

84

 

Table 11

Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Perceived Physical Competence aid Actua1_

Motor Competence Measures by the Interaction of GendeLand Ag;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measure Gender Age a M SD
PSPPCCMR
Boys Younger 3 1 28.74 4.95
Older 30 29.50 4.70
Girls Younger 24 26.21 3.88
Older 27 26.26 3.48
Locomotor
Boys Younger 3 l 5.10 2.29
Older 30 5.90 2.31
Girls Younger 24 2.88 1.51
Older 27 3.52 2.01
Object-Control
Boys Younger 3 1 3 .52 2.53
Older 30 3.07 l .74
Girls Younger 24 2.17 1.34
Older 27 3 .26 1.65
GMDQ
Boys Younger 25 65.84 12.55
Older 20 66.90 10.87
Girls Younger 12 55.25 7.29
Older 18 60.44 9.81

 

 

 

Gender

0

 

male

 

' female

 

 

Object-Control Mean Scores

 

8—9fyrs 10-11 yrs

Age
F igare 3. Mean values of object-control test for gender-by-age comparison.

Hyppthesis 8

“Children with MR whose parents have high total leisure activity scores

(at or above 67tII percentile for total participants) would score higher on perceived
physical competence than children with MMR whose parents have low total leisure
activity scores (at or below the 33"“ percentile for total participants).” An
independent sample t-test was used to determine the effect of parental physical activity
on PSPPCCMR The mean of the PSPPCCMR scores for the children whose parents
have high total leisure activity scores was 28.89 (SD = 4.56); whereas, the mean of the
PSPPCCMR scores for the children whose parents have low physical activity levels was

25.59 (SD = 4.34) (see Table 12). The t-test results showed that the PSPPCCMR scores

86

were signiﬁcantly different between high parental group and low parental group, 1 (73) =
-3.21, p = .00, two-tailed. Therefore, Hypothesis 8 was supported.

Hymthesis 9

“Children with MMR whose parents have high total leisure activity scores would
score higher on actual motor competence than children with MR whose parents
have low total leisure activity scores.” Three separate independent sample t-tests were
used. Table 12 indicated that the means of the locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ
scores for children whose parents have high physical activity level were, respectively,
6.13 (S_D = 2.16), 3.95 (SD = 2.10), and 70.32 (S_D = 10.32); whereas, the means of the
locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ scores for children whose parents have low
physical activity level were 3.30 (S_D = 1.90), 2.05 (SD = 1.18), and 56.14 (S_D = 7.56).
The t-test results showed that the children in both groups did have signiﬁcant difference
in locomotor scores, _t_ (73) = -6.03, p = .00, in object-control, t (73) = -4.79, p = .00, and
in GMDQ, t (73) = -6.77, p = .00, two-tailed. Therefore, there was signiﬁcant evidence

to support Hypothesis 9.

87

 

Table 12

Mean and Standard Deviation Scores on the Dependent Variable Measures by Parental

 

Activity Level

 

 

 

Low Level High Level
Measure L! M S_D 3 M S_D
PSPPCCMR 37 25.59 4.34 38 28.89 4.56
Locomotor 37 3.30 1.90 38 6.13 2.16
Object-Control 37 2.05 1.18 38 3.95 2.10
GMDQ 37 56.14 7.56 38 70.32 10.32

 

Research Question 1

“Is there a signiﬁcant interaction effect of gender, age, and parental physical
activity level on perceived physical competence?” A 2 x 2 x 2 (Gender x Age x
Parental Activity Level) AN OVA was used to determine potential gender, age, and
parental physical activity level difference in perceived physical competence
(PSPPCCMR). Means and standard deviations of the scores for perceived physical
competence by the interaction of gender, age, and parental physical activity level are
reported in Table 13. The results of the three-way AN OVA showed that there was a
signiﬁcant main effect for gender, H1, 67) = 4.67, p = .03, and for parental level, _E(1, 67)
= 4.92, p = .03. However, no signiﬁcant interaction effect of gender, age, and parental
physical activity level, F(1, 67) = .30, p = .59, was found in the PSPPCCMR (see Table

14). Therefore, Research Question 1 can be explored as there would not be a signiﬁcant

88

interaction effect of gender, age, and parental physical activity level on perceived
physical competence.
Table 13

Mean and Sta_n_dard Deviation Scores on the PSPPCCMR by the Interaction of Gender.
Age and Parental Physical Activity Level

 

 

 

 

 

Gender Age Parents’ Level 3 M S_D
Boys Younger Low 9 25.00 4.74
High 16 29.56 4.57
Older Low 8 26.38 4.50
High 12 30.67 4.75
Girls Younger Low 8 24.25 3.96
High 4 26.00 3.74
Older Low 12 26.42 4.44

High 6 25.50 1 .87

 

89

Table 14

Three-Way Analysis of Variance with Geader, Age, and Parents’ Level as Indep_endent

Variables on Measures of Perceived Physical Competenaq

 

 

Measure Variable d_f E p
PSPPCCMR
Gender (A) l 4.67 .034“
Age (B) 1 .90 .346
Parents’ Level (C) 1 4.92 .030*
A x B 1 .04 .853
A x C 1 3.37 .071
B x C 1 .45 .504
A x B x C 1 .30 .585
Error 67
Total 75

 

Note: * Signiﬁcance at p < .05

90

limb Queatjpn 2

“Is there a signiﬁcant interaction effect of gender, age, and parental physical
activity level on perceived physical competence?” Three separate 2 x 2 x 2 (Gender x
Age x Parental Activity Level) AN OVAs were used to determine potential gender, age,
and parental physical activity level difference in actual motor competence (locomotor,
object-control, GIVHDQ scores). Means and standard deviations of these three measures
for actual motor competence by the interaction of gender, age, parental physical activity
level are reported in Table 15. The results of three separate AN OVAs showed that there
was no signiﬁcant interaction effect of gender, age, and parental physical activity level
for locomotor, F(1, 67) = .19, p = .68, for object-control, F(1, 67) = .10, p = .75, and for
GMDQ, F(1, 67) = .00, p = .98 (see Table 16). Therefore, Research Question 2 can be
explored as there would not be a signiﬁcant interaction effect of gender, age, and parental

physical activity level on perceived physical competence.

91

Table 15

Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Actual Motor Comﬁtence Measures by the

Interaction of Gender. Agﬂnd Paregntal Physicﬂ Activity Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Measure Gender Age Parents’ Level a M S_D
Locomotor
Boys Younger Low 9 3.89 2.20
High 16 6.06 1.77
Older Low 8 4.63 1.19
High 12 7.58 2.23
Girls Younger Low 8 2.25 1 . 16
High 4 4.25 .96
Older Low 12 2.67 1.92
High 6 4.67 l .75
Object-Control
Boys Younger Low 9 1 .78 1 .20
High 16 4.25 2.41
Older Low 8 2.00 .93
High 12 4.08 1 .98
Girls Younger Low 8 1 .75 1 .04
High 4 2.75 1 .71
Older Low 12 2.50 1.38

High 6 3.67 1.86

 

92

Table 15 — Continued

 

 

 

 

 

Measure Gender Age Parents’ Level a M S_D
GMDQ
Boys Younger Low 9 57.00 8.62
High 16 70.94 10.02
Older Low 8 59.88 3.91
High 12 75.00 10.50
Girls Younger Low 52.38 5.66
High 4 61 .00 5.48
Older Low 12 55.50 9.03
High 6 65.50 8.64

 

93

Table 16

Three-Way Analysis of Variaape with Gender. Age, and Parents’ Level as Independent

Variables on Measures of Actual Motor Competenaa

 

 

 

Measure Variable M” E p

Locomotor
Gender (A) 1 21.08 .000“
Age (B) 1 2.90 .093
Parents’ Level (C) 1 25.35 .000“
A x B l .62 .435
A x C 1 .39 .535
B x C 1 .19 .667
A x B x C l .19 .667
Error 67
Total 75

Object-Control
Gender (A) 1 .69 .410
Age (B) 1 .98 .327
Parents’ Level (C) 1 14.88 .000*
A x B 1 .86 .359
A x C 1 1.88 .175
B x C 1 .02 .899
A x B x C 1 .10 .751
Error 67
Total 75

 

Note: * Signiﬁcance at p < .05

94

Table 16 — continued

 

 

Measure Variable d_f E p
GMDQ
Gender (A) 1 10.75 .002"
Age (B) l 2.82 .098
Parents’ Level (C) 1 30.24 .000“
A x B 1 .01 .937
A x C 1 1.45 .233
B x C 1 .09 .769
A x B x C 1 .00 .983
Error 67
Total 75

 

Note: " Signiﬁcance at p < .05

95

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
This study examined the relationship between perceived physical competence and
actual motor competence in Korean children with MMR and the effects of age, gender,
and parental physical activity on perceived physical competence and actual motor
competence. Nine hypotheses and two research questions, consisting of four groups,
were proposed in the study: (a) one hypothesis investigating the relationship between
perceived physical competence and actual motor competence; (b) six hypotheses with
respect to the inﬂuences of age and gender of the participant children on perceived
physical competence and actual motor competence; (c) two hypotheses investigating the
differences in perceived physical competence and actual motor competence between the
children whose parents have high physical activity and those whose parents have low
physical activity; and ((1) two research questions relating to the inﬂuence of the
interaction of age, gender, and parental physical activity on perceived physical
competence and actual motor competence. This chapter will be organized by the three
hypothesis groups and the research question group presented above. The descriptive
data of perceived physical competence and actual motor competence for participant
children will be included with the discussion of the hypotheses and research questions
where appropriate.
Relationship between Perceived Physical Commtence
Md Actual Motor Competence
The ﬁrst hypothesis is based on the ﬁrst purpose of this study which was to

determine whether there was a relationship between perceived physical competence and

96

actual motor competence in Korean children with MMR. The results of this study
showed that there was a statistically signiﬁcant relationship between the two variables in
Korean children with MMR. The results of this study are in agreement with the study of
Shapiro and Dummer (1998) which found this relationship for older subjects with MR
(i.e., adolescent males ages 12 to 15). However, the results of this study are not
consistent with some parts of the study of Yun and Ulrich (1997) which found that there
was no signiﬁcant correlation between perceived physical competence and actual motor
competence for children with MMR ﬁom 7 to 12 years. Yun and Ulrich (1997)
indicated that the theoretical relationship between perceived physical competence and
actual motor competence in children with MMR is not well-established.

A possible reason as to why there are different results regarding the relationship
between perceived physical competence and actual motor competence in children with
MMR can be explained by the participants’ age (e.g., grouping/range of age). Yun and
Ulrich (1997) indicated that although there was no signiﬁcant correlation between
perceived physical competence and actual motor competence for children (7 to 12 years)
with MR, the partial correlation which was used for controlling the age factor showed a
signiﬁcant relationship (I = .25, p < .05) between perceived physical competence and
actual motor competence. Further, to determine the relationship between the two
variables in the speciﬁc age groups, the participant children in speciﬁc age groups were
sequentially partialed out. The substantial correlations between perceived competence
and actual competence were signiﬁcant for 95 children of 8 to 12 years (a = .27, p < .01),
for 74 children of9 to 12 years (a = .33, p < .01), for 52 children of 10 to 12 years (a

= .33, p < .05), and for 32 children of 11 to 12 years (; = .55, p < .01). The present

97

study, which examined the children with MMR ﬁom ages 8 to 11, agrees in part with the
study of Yun and Ulrich (1997) which provided partial correlations on the similar age
group (i.e., 8-12 years) and the older age groups (i.e., 9-12, 10—12, 11-12 years), and
could support the study of Shapiro and Dummer (1998) which found this relationship for
older subjects with MMR (i.e., adolescents with MMR from ages 12 to 15).

Considering the comparisons between studies, the ﬁndings suggest that the strength of
this relationship should increase with age and cognitive functioning. With increasing
age, children with MMR may reach a certain cognitive functioning to evaluate the
perceived and actual competence. Thus, more research pertaining to the relationship
between perceived and actual competence on the various age/cognitive functioning
groups and each age/cognitive functioning group is needed.

In this study, unlike the studies of Yun and Ulrich (1997) and Shapiro and
Dummer (1998), the motor competence tasks (i.e., the items of TGMD-Z) were not
perfectly paired with the perceived competence items (i.e., the items of PSPPCCMR).
This may inﬂuence the degree of the relationship between perceived physical competence
and actual motor competence of these participants. However, this study was adapted
from a recommendation of Ulrich (1987), who suggested that motor activities be chosen
in which the sample participants were commonly involved, and that the motor items be
related to those activities. In the present study, the motor items for measuring perceived
physical competence and actual motor competence focused on FMS in which the Korean
children with MMR were commonly involved in physical education classes. Therefore,
children with MMR seem to be much more accurate with their self-perceptions of

physical competence related to FMS than to sport-speciﬁc skills which may be most

98

relevant to participation in organized sport (Ulrich & Ulrich, 1997). In this study,
children with MMR showed low mean scores on the PSPPCCMR test possibly because
lack of cognitive ﬁrnctioning may make it difficult to form adequate perceptions
(Eichstaedt & Lavay, 1992). They also had lower mean scores than children without
disabilities on the TGMD-Z tests. Their physical/cognitive abilities and lack of
movement experiences could inﬂuence results on the motor items (Eichastaedt & Lavay,
1992; Krebs, 2000). However, both the PSPPCCMR and TGMD-2 have been validated
on elementary aged children (including those with MMR). Therefore, they were
believed to be an effective means by which to assess the relationship between perceived
physical competence and actual motor competence in elementary aged children with
MMR.

By including a special population of Korean participants with MR in this study,
the generalizability of the knowledge base regarding the theoretical relationship between
perceived physical competence and actual motor competence might be enhanced. Much
research (Feltz & Brown, 1984; Poole, Mathias, & Stratton, 1996; Rudisill, Mahar, &
Meaney, 1993; Ulrich, 1987) has shown that perceived physical competence is related to
actual motor competence in children with disabilities. Therefore, the ﬁndings of this
study could support the generalization of Harter’s ( 1978) hypothesized relationship
between perceived and actual competence to children with MMR in the age range of 8 to
11 years. As the participants with MMR of most studies dealing with the relationship
between perceived and actual competence in physical domains are predominantly African
and Caucasian American (Shapiro & Dummer, 1998; Yun & Ulrich, 1997), these

ﬁndings would contribute to the generalizability of the theoretical relationship between

99

these two variables in children with MMR. Because, culturally or educationally,
children with MMR in Korea often participate in a physical education program on a
limited basis, due to lack of facilities, lack of scheduling priority, or Korean people’s low
perception of children with MMR (Hong, 1996), these results would be of beneﬁt for
understanding possible cultural or educational differences regarding the relationship
between perceived physical and actual motor competence in children with MMR.
Further research including other race populations will be needed.
Inﬂuences of Age and Gender

The second and third hypotheses investigated whether there were signiﬁcant
gender differences for perceived physical competence and actual motor competence in
children with MMR. Overall, the result which shows a signiﬁcant multivariate main
effect of gender for the combined dependent variables (i.e., PSPPCCMR, locomotor,
object-control, and GMDQ) in children with MMR provided support for the second and
third hypotheses. According to the follow-up univariate analyses, the results for
perceived physical competence showed a signiﬁcant gender difference on PSPPCCMR
and, thus, supported the second hypothesis. However, the results for actual motor
competence provided partial support for the third hypothesis; that is, there were
signiﬁcant gender differences for the locomotor and GMDQ components, but not a
signiﬁcant difference for the object-control component. Therefore, the results for actual
motor competence showed that boys with MMR had more developed mobility skills (i.e.,
locomotor) that helped them move from place to place in an eﬁicient manner than girls
with MMR. Boys with MMR had similar object manipulation, grasping, and visual-

motor integration skills (i.e., object-control) to girls with MR.

100

With regard to gender differences on perceived physical competence, the results
of this study are in agreement with other studies (Feltz & Brown, 1984; Horn & Harris,
1996; Rudisill, Mahar, & Meaney, 1993; Ulrich, 1987) involving elementary aged
children without disabilities and the study of Yun and Ulrich (1997) involving the age
group of 7 tol2 years, in which differences were found in the 12-year-old children with
MMR. Therefore, the results of this study suggested that 8- to 11-year-old males with
MMR had higher perceived physical competence than 8- to 11-year-old females with
MMR. Similarly, these results also are consistent with other studies investigating the
gender differences for actual competence within physical domains (Goodway & Rudisill,
1997; Rudisill, Mahar, & Meaney, 1993, Yun & Ulrich, 1997), although some
discrepancy is apparent between the present results showing the gender difference for the
locomotor component of actual motor competence and those found by Goodway and
Rudisill (1997) which showed signiﬁcant differences for only the object-control
component of actual motor competence.

The discrepancy may have occurred because children with MMR may have had
minimal experience and practice in object-control skills compared to locomotor skills due
to the perceived difﬁculty of controlling children with MR when using equipment such
as balls. A possible reason for minimal experience and practice in object-control skills
is that four of ﬁve schools ﬁ'om which participants were studied did not have physical
education teachers. Classroom teachers, who have only received general training for
special education, were required to teach physical education without adapted physical
education training. Because of increased classroom management problems, these

teachers were reluctant to use physical education equipment that may have contributed to

101

increased object-control ability. As a result, children with MMR may demonstrate more
familiarity with locomotor skills than with object-control skills. For a further study, it
would be appropriate to compare the performances of children who learn FMS ﬁ'om
adapted physical educators to those of children who learn FMS from classroom teachers
without adapted physical education training.

A possible reason as to why gender differences for perceived physical
competence and actual motor competence were found in this study could be social and
cultural differences. In Korea, stereotypic beliefs or thoughts that boys, with or without
disabilities, are more naturally gifted in sports or physical activities and culturally based
reservations about women participating in sport may inﬂuence the participation of boys
and girls in sports or physical activities (Lee, 2002). Thus, boys may have more
opportunities to participate in sports or physical activities than girls, and it is expected
that these opportunities in sport participations may provide higher perceived physical
competence and actual motor competence for boys. Yun and Ulrich (1997) suggested
that in North American culture, male children receive increased social reinforcement for
participating in physical activities. Further research may be directed to examining
whether such stereotypic beliefs exist in other cultures, and how those beliefs may aﬂ‘ect
gender differences in perceived physical competence and actual motor competence.

The fourth and ﬁfth hypotheses were not supported by the data, with no
signiﬁcant multivariate main effect of age for the combined dependent variables (i.e.,
PSPPCCMR, locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ) in children with MMR. The
univariate analyses showed no signiﬁcant differences for perceived physical competence

(PSPPCCMR) and actual motor competence (locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ) for

102

the two age groups. The results of this study do not agree with some studies concerning
age differences on perceived competence in physical domains which typically found that
older children without disabilities demonstrate lower levels of perceived physical
competence than younger children without disabilities (Horn & Hasbrook, 1986; Ulrich,
1987), and that children with MR, aged 7 to 12 years, tend to feel less competent with
increased age (Ulrich & Collier, 1990; Yun & Ulrich, 1997). The results of this study
also do not agree with the ﬁndings of previous studies (Rudisill, Mahar, & Meaney,
1993; Yun & Ulrich, 1997) showing that older children outperformed younger children
on several motor performances, and did not support a study of Holland (1987) indicating
that FMS performances of elementary-aged students with educable mental impairment
(i.e., MMR) improved with age.

There are some possible explanations why age differences did not exist for
perceived physical competence and actual motor competence. At ﬁrst, age grouping
could provide an explanation for no signiﬁcant age differences for both perceived
physical and actual motor competence. In the present study, two age groups comprised
of the younger group (8 to 9 year old) and the older group (10 to 11 year old) were used
to determine differences in perceived physical and actual motor competence. In
contrast, previous studies (Rudisill, Mahar, & Meaney, 1993; Ulrich & Collier, 1990;
Yun & Ulrich, 1997) examining age differences for actual and perceived competence
generally focused on each age level rather than age grouping. Therefore, it appeared
that children with MMR did not demonstrate differences in perceived physical and actual

motor competence between the ages of 8 to 9 and the ages of 10 to 11.

103

Similarities in cognitive functioning between the ages of 8 to 11 for children with
MMR could be a possible reason why age differences do not exist for perceived physical
competence. To explain typical and atypical cognitive development, Piaget divided the
process into four sequential stages: the sensorimotor stage (birth to approximately 18
months), the preoperational stage (approximately 2-7 years of age), the stage of concrete
operations (approximately ages 7-12 years), and the stage of formal operations (after 12
years of age) (Krebs, 2000; Piaget, 1952). However, because of weaknesses in learning
processes such as attention, memory, or generalization, children with MR usually have
delays in cognitive functioning (Nugent & Mosley, 1987; Hoover & Horgan, 1990;
Krebs, 2000), and in elementary years, they may have similar cognitive functioning. In
the present study, it is difﬁcult to discern the stage of cognitive development of children
with MR aged 8 to 11 years because they seemed to demonstrate processes in both the
preoperational stage (e.g., use of language, and the ability to acknowledge personal and
situational experiences) and the concrete operational stage (e.g., better able to order and
classify numbers, and understanding of the pictorial scales). Thus, this may suggest that
when studying the perceptions of children with MMR, not only chronological age but
also mental age/cognitive stage should be considered. The present study supports the
ﬁndings of Silon and Harter (1985) who indicated that the construct of perceived
competence is qualitatively different depending on cognitive-developmental level.

Environmental factors, such as experiences of practice and instruction, may be
another contributing inﬂuence as to why age differences did not exist for actual motor
competence. Due to lack of facilities or lack of scheduling priority, children with MR

in Korea oﬁen participate in a physical education program on a limited basis, so that they

104

do not have enough experiences with and opportunities for various physical activities
(Hong, 1996). This may support the suggestion of Branta, Haubenstricker, and Seefeldt
(1984) which indicated that although age is a factor for change in performance in a basic
motor skill (standing long jump), the differences of performance may be due to
environmental inﬂuence (e.g., opportunity for practice, interest, and motivation) more
than to chronological age.

According to the data analyses of the sixth and seventh hypotheses, the result for
the combined dependent variables (i.e., PSPPCCMR, locomotor, object-control, and
GMDQ) indicated no multivariate interaction of gender and age in children with MMR
Overall, this result suggested that the effect of gender did not depend on age. In other
words, age and gender would be independently effective for the combined dependent
variables of perceived physical competence and actual motor competence. At the
follow-up univariate analyses, like the result for overall variables of perceived physical
and actual motor competence (i.e., MANOVA), the results for the PSPPCCMR of
perceived physical competence (PSPPCCMR) and the locomotor and GMDQ
components of actual motor competence did not show signiﬁcant differences between
boys and girls across the children’s age. However, for the object-control component of
actual motor competence, there was signiﬁcant difference between boys’ and girls’ mean
scores across age levels.

Younger boys and younger girls with MMR have respectively 3.52 and 2.17 mean
scores for object-control component of actual motor competence. They have a mean
difference of 1.35 (Table 10, Figure 3). However, as age increases, the mean of older

boys decreases to 3.07; whereas, that for older girls increases to 3.26, so that only a small

105

difference of. 19 remains. The Scheffe tests for examining the comparison of the means
for boys and girls in each of the age groups indicated that there were signiﬁcant
differences between means of younger boys and younger girls, and between means of
older girls and younger girls. These data suggest that at a relatively young age, object-
control skills are regarded as more gender-appropriate for boys with MMR than for girls
with MR, because young boys with MMR might have more opportunities for
interaction in the environmental situation with object-control equipment items (e.g.,
balls) than do young girls with MMR. As age increases, object-control interaction
opportunities might equalize. Therefore, it may be implied that adapted physical
education curriculum for younger age groups should place more emphasis on object-
control skills for young girls than for young boys, in an effort to address the signiﬁcant
skill differences. As age increases, the curriculum should reﬂect a more equalized
approach to object-control skill interaction.
Inﬂuences of PaLeatal Physical Activity

Although Harter (1978, 1981) and Weiss and Chaumeton (1992) have placed a
great deal of emphasis on the role of signiﬁcant others (e. g., parents, peers, and coaches)
upon children’s emerging self-related perceptions, this aspect of the developmental
competence motivation model has only received modest attention in the sport-related
research in terms of coaching inﬂuences (Black & Weiss, 1992; Wong & Bridges, 1995).
Furthermore, there has been limited research in sport or physical domains on parental
inﬂuence, although such research is ongoing within academic contexts. Therefore, the
value of the ﬁnding of the eighth hypothesis lies in the empirical research in the sport or

physical domain which dealt with the inﬂuence of parental physical behavior (i.e., leisure

106

activity time) on perceived physical conrpetence in children with MMR. For children
with special needs, parents also play an integral role in the development within academic,
social, and physical domains. The use of special populations, such as children with
MMR, seems to provide strong evidence of parental inﬂuence on children’s perceived
and actual competence, which can be generalized to the physical domain, and may have
direct application to research in adapted physical areas.

According to the data analysis of the eighth hypothesis, children with MMR
whose parents have high leisure activity time scores (i.e., the top 33 % of GLTEQ scores)
had signiﬁcantly higher mean scores of perceived physical competence (PSPPCCMR)
than those whose parents have low leisure activity time scores (i.e., the bottom 33 % of
GLTEQ scores). Thus, the ﬁnding of this hypothesis revealed that parents’ physical
behavior (i.e., parental leisure activity time) is linked to the differences of perceived
physical competence in children with MR. Consequently, the ﬁnding of this
hypothesis provides support for the developmental competence motivation model (Harter,
1978; Weiss & Chaumeton; 1992) which addressed the inﬂuence of signiﬁcant others,
especially parents, upon children’s physical activity and sport environment for judging
ability and making decisions about future participatory behavior.

The ﬁnding of this study could be explained by two possible mechanisms which
are useful for understanding the socializing role of parents; role model/social learning
(Bandura, 1977) and the expectancy socialization model (Eccles & Harold, 1991). At
ﬁrst, parents serve as role models for activity. By observing the behaviors (i.e., physical
activity) of parents, children may imitate and adopt the physical behavior or activity, and

they may come to value physical activity as well. In other words, children’s self-

107

perceptions may be shaped through role modeling of parental behaviors. Second,
children may be inﬂuenced to adopt particular self-perception characteristics through the
expectational standards conveyed by parents. Parental enjoyment, attitudes, and
encouragement may give children reason to want to do well and to believe they can do
well. Some studies (Brustad, 1993, 1996; Kimiecik, Horn, & Shurin, 1996) provided
support of the Eccles’ expectancy socialization model which links parental physical
activity orientations to children’s perceived physical competence.

Like the ﬁnding of the eighth hypothesis, the ninth hypothesis was also supported
by data, with differences in the mean scores of actual motor competence (locomotor,
object-control, and GMDQ) between children with MMR with high parents’ physical
activity level (i.e., the top 33 % of GLTEQ scores) and those with low parents’ physical
activity level (i.e., the bottom 33 % of GLTEQ scores). This ﬁnding was consistent
with the ﬁnding of Freedson and Evenson (1991) showing that active parents are likely to
have active children, while low active parents are more likely to have low active children.
This ﬁnding agreed with the study conducted by Moore et a1. (1991) suggesting tlmt there
are positive correlations between parental physical activity behaviors and their children’s
physical behaviors. Therefore, considering the similarities between studies, it was
found that parental physical activity affects children’s actual motor competence.

In the methodological processes for analyzing the inﬂuence of parental physical
activity on perceived physical competence and actual motor competence, there are
several points of discussion. First, recently designed questionnaires dealing with levels
of physical activity include the frequency, duration, and intensity of both leisure and

occupational activities. However, this study has been limited in only focusing on

108

parental leisure activities as measuring the levels of parental physical activity. Since in
the majority of industrialized countries the levels of employment-related physical activity
has continued to decline, it is frequently assumed that an assessment of leisure oriented
physical activity, such as the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ), is
the most common and practical measure of physical activity for adults in a population
(Kriska & Caspersen, 1997).

Second, although 112 children with MMR and their parents participated in this
study, only 75 children and parents were used for the analyses of the parental inﬂuence
(i.e., the eighth and ninth hypotheses) because the investigator attempted to determine the
difference between a high parental activity group and a low parental activity group.
Therefore, the parents’ scores of GLTEQ between the 33rd and the 67til percentile were
eliminated for these analyses. Third, one parent of each participant child (mother or
father) completed the questionnaire (GLTEQ). In other words, this study did not
consider the gender of parents in analyzing the data In future studies, data should be
collected ﬁom both parents, so that an examination of the relative inﬂuence of mothers
and fathers on perceived physical competence and actual motor competence can be made.

Inﬂueace of the Interaction ofﬁge. Geralen and Pareatal Physical Activity

 

The ﬁrst and second research questions were posed for this study to determine
whether there was an interaction effect of gender, age, and parents’ physical activity level
on perceived physical competence and actual motor competence on children with MMR.
As mentioned above, because the parental groups only focused on two groups (i.e., the
top 33% of high activity group and the bottom 33% of low activity group), only 75

parents and their children among the total of 112 parents and children were used for data

109

analyses of the research questions. Thus, since the sample size seemed to be insufﬁcient
to allow including multivariate procedure on the combined dependent variables of
perceived physical competence (i.e., PSPPCCMR) and actual motor competence (i.e.,
locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ), four separate 3-way ANOVAS were used for
each dependent variable.

The ﬁndings of the ﬁrst and second research questions were explored as there
were no signiﬁcant interaction effects of gender, age, and parental physical activity level
for PSPPCCMR, locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ. The ﬁndings suggest no
signiﬁcant age-related difference between boys’ and girls’ mean scores of perceived
physical competence and actual motor competence across the level of parental physical
activity. Because these research questions about the interaction effects (using parental
physical behavior) have never been examined, there is no evidence to support these
ﬁndings conclusively. However, this study may represent a pioneer attempt to begin a
statistical experimental database demonstrating the values of parents’ physical activity
level and the interaction effects of parents’ physical activity level and children’s
individual information such as age and gender on perceived physical competence and

actual motor competence children with MMR.

110

CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purposes of this study were to examine: (a) the relationship between
perceived physical competence and actual motor competence in Korean children with
MMR, (b) the inﬂuences of age and gender on perceived physical competence and actual
motor competence in Korean children with MMR, (c) the differences in perceived
physical competence and actual motor competence between Korean children with MMR
whose parents have high physical activity and those whose parents have low physical
activity, and (d) the inﬂuence of the interaction of age, gender, and parental physical
activity on perceived physical competence and actual motor competence in Korean
children with MMR.

This study consisted of two groups of participants: children with MMR and their
parents. One group of participants in this study was 112 children ﬁom 8 to 11 years of
age with MMR who attend ﬁve special schools for the mentally retarded in Seoul, Korea.
In the Korean educational system, there is a classiﬁcation system comprising 3 classes for
students with MMR (Class 1: below IQ 34, Class II: IQ 35-49, and Class III: IQ 50-70).
Participant children were classiﬁed in school ﬁles as being Class III (i.e., MMR).
Therefore, special education teachers in classrooms of each school helped to identify
students with MMR who qualiﬁed for this study. Children ﬁom each school did not
have any other identiﬁable physical, emotional, visual/hearing, or behavioral disability
that would restrict the assessment of their perceived competence, and their performance

on FMS tests (the measure of actual competence). The other group of participants in

111

this study was 112 parents of the participant children in special education schools. One
parent for each participant child made up this participant group.

For this study, the Test of Gross Motor Development, Second Edition (TGMD-2;
Ulrich, 2000) and the Pictorial Scale for Perceived Physical Competence for Children
with Mental Retardation (PSPPCCMR; Ulrich & Collier, 1990) were the instruments
used to assess the perceived physical competence and actual motor competence of
participant children. A survey including the demographic questionnaire and the Godin
Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ; Godin & Shephard, 1985) was used to
assess demographic information and leisure time physical activity of participant parents.

The measures of the perceived physical competence and actual motor competence
among children with MMR were administered in a quiet room (e.g., empty gym and
classroom) or an open hallway outside the classroom of each participating school.
Based on the schedules of each school’s classroom teachers and students, two or three
children were asked to come to the testing location at the same time. The pictorial
scales (i.e., PSPPCCMR) were administered ﬁrst to each participant child. When one of
the children was tested on the pictorial scales, the other children were supervised by an
assistant, so tlmt these children were occupied in play. This process minimized
distraction and assured the safety of participant children. The pictorial scales were
followed by a series of motor performance tests (i.e., TGMD-2) to measure the actual
motor competence. The children in each motor performance test group took turns being
the ﬁrst one to perform test items. Each test item for motor performance was
administered individually to each participant child. The time to administer both the

PSPPCCMR and the TGMD—2 took approximately 35-40 minutes per child.

112

A survey measuring parents’ demographic information and parents’ leisure time
physical activity (GLTEQ) was administered to the parents of the participant children
with MMR Each classroom teacher assisted by sending and receiving the survey,
including the parents’ demographic questionnaire and GLTEQ, via the children to the
parents. Because the questionnaire was concise and easy to understand, it took
approximately ﬁve minute to complete.

Overall, four statistical tests (Pearson product-moment correlation, MANOVA, t-
tests, and AN OVAs) were used to analyze the hypotheses and research questions in this
study. First, the Pearson product-moment correlation was conducted to determine the
relationship between perceived physical competence (PSPPCCMR) and actual motor
competence (locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ) in children with MMR. Second, a
2 (gender = boys, girls) x 2 (age = 8-9 years, 10-11 years) MANOVA (including follow-
up mrivariate analyses) was conducted to determine potential gender and age differences
in perceived physical competence (PSPPCCMR) and actual motor competence
(locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ). Third, independent sample 1 tests were
conducted to determine between high parental activity group and low parental activity
group in perceived physical competence (PSPPCCMR) and actual motor competence
(locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ). Last, four separate 2 (gender = boys, girls) x 2
(age = 8-9 years, 10-11 years) x 2 (parental activity level = high, low) ANOVAS were
conducted to determine whether there is an interaction effect of gender, age, and parents’
physical activity level on perceived physical competence (PSPPCCMR) and on actual

motor competence (locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ).

113

Sir—wary of F indinga

Based on the statistical analyses of four purposes of this study the following
ﬁndings were reached:

1. Analysis of the Pearson product-moment correlation revealed moderate
positive correlations between PSPPCCMR and locomotor (g = .3 8, p < .05), object-
control (a = 40, p < .05), and GMDQ (g = .45, p < .05). Therefore, the ﬁnding of the
Pearson product-moment correlation indicated that there would be a positive relationship
between perceived physical competence and actual motor competence in Korean children
with MR Further, the ﬁnding could support the generalization of Harter’s (1978)
hypothesized relationship between perceived and actual competence to children with
MMRintheagerange of8 to 11 years.

2. The initial 2 x 2 (Gender x Age) MANOVA revealed that the combined
dependent variables for both perceived physical competence (PSPPCCMR) and actual
motor competence (locomotor, object-control, and GMDQ) were signiﬁcantly affected by
gender, _F_(4, 105) = 11.42, p < .05. However, there was no signiﬁcant multivariate main
effect for age, and no signiﬁcant multivariate interaction effect for gender by age. The
subsequent univariate analyses for each of four dependent variables revealed that boys
with MMR scored signiﬁcantly higher than girls with MR on the PSPPCCMR for
perceived physical competence, F(1, 108) = 12.26, p < .05, and the locomotor and
GMDQ components for actual motor competence, respectively F(1, 108) = 33.83, p < .05
and E (1, 108) = 18.29, p < .05. These ﬁndings could suggest the effect of gender on

perceived physical competence and actual motor competence.

114

3. The independent sample t-tests revealed that between children with MMR
whose parents have a high physical activity level and those whose parents have a low
physical activity level, there were signiﬁcantly different scores on PSPPCCMR, t (73) = -
3.21, p < .05, on locomotor, t (73) = -6.03, p < .05, on object-control, t (73) = -4.79, p
< .05, and on GMDQ, t (73) = -6.77, p < .05. Children with MR with high parental
physical activity scored higher on perceived physical competence and actual motor
competence than children with MR with low parental physical activity. Therefore,
these ﬁndings indicated the effect of parental physical activity on perceived physical
competence and actual motor competence.

4. Four separate 2 x 2 x 2 (Gender x Age x Parental Activity Level) AN OVAs
revealed no signiﬁcant interaction effect of gender, age, and parental physical activity
level for PSPPCCMR, for locomotor, for object-control, and for GMDQ. Therefore,
these ﬁndings suggest that there would not be a signiﬁcant interaction of gender, age, and
parental physical activity level on perceived physical competence and actual motor
competence.

lmplic_ations for Education

The ﬁndings of this study have implications for researchers (i.e., those who are
studying Harter’s theory of competence motivation), for practitioners such as adapted
physical education teachers/special education teachers, and for school administrators.

The researchers should know that, as in children without disabilities, there was the
positive relationship between perceived physical competence and actual motor
competence in Korean children with MMR The inclusion of Korean children with

MMR should help the researchers to expand the generalization of Harter’s theoretical

115

view of the relationship between perceived competence and actual competence. Also,
gender and parental physical activity have inﬂuences on changing perceived physical
competence and actual motor competence of Korean children with MMR.

As the development of FMS is an integral part of all children’s lives, American
governmental guidelines established FMS development as a major component of physical
activity programs for children in special education (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, 1997; Gallahue, 2000). Likewise, Korean elementary schools, including
special schools, have included the development of FMS in a teaching curriculum for
physical education class. Though this study may not directly address or develop a
teaching curriculum or the pedagogical methods that can be utilized in teaching such a
curriculum, understanding perceived competence and actual competence pertaining to the
area of FMS in children with MR should help adapted physical educators or special
education teachers develop a more effective physical education program or curriculum
for instruction in basic motor skills.

Elementary aged children with MR in Korea are not much involved in sports or
physical leisure activities out of special schools. Thus, physical education programs in
the schools should have a crucial role, since the physical education programs in schools
must be provided to children with MMR in order to meet their needs with respect to
health and well-being. When studying perceived physical competence and actual motor
competence in a speciﬁc domain, such as FMS, it can be implied that school
administrators or principals need to connect children’s preferences to content taught in
elementary physical education classes. This should enhance the value of the appropriate

evaluation for perceived and actual competence. They should encourage parents to play

116

an important role in children’s perceived physical competence and actual motor
competence by modeling regular physical activity, and that parents should collaborate as
partners in the education of children with MMR.

Recommandations for Further Research

The ﬁndings of this study showed that there was a positive relationship between
perceived physical competence and actual motor competence in Korean children with
MMR. Subject selection in this study was limited to primary school children with
MMR in Seoul, Korea. Further studies could investigate children with different types of
disabilities or children with MMR in other countries to determine the relationship of
perceived physical competence and actual motor competence relative to age, gender, and
parental physical activity. By expanding a theory (e. g., competence motivation theory
dealing with the relationship between perceived and actual competence) to certain other
populations such as children with different types of disabilities or children with MMR in
other countries, it might be of beneﬁt to improve the validation and generalizability of the
theory.

To measure the perceived physical competence (PSPPCCMR) and actual motor
competence (TGMD-2), only one rater (i.e., the investigator) assessed all these tests.
Further studies should examine two possible types of the reliability coefficients. First,
the scores of the investigator (primary rater) would be compared to the scores of other
raters who specialize in rate checking in order to determine an intra-rater reliability.
Second, to determine the objectivity of the investigator, the inter-rater reliability statistics

for second trial scores using the PSPPCCMR and TGMD-2 tests would be established.

117

In addition, if further studies assess the perceived physical competence and actual motor
competence by using different types of instruments, it may yield more precise results.

In the present study, two age groups consisting of the younger group (8 to 9 year
old) and the older group (10 to 11 year old) were used to determine differences in
perceived physical competence and actual motor competence. Further studies should
examine the possible difference in each age group (8, 9, 10, 11 year old) to ﬁnd more
precise age differences in perceived physical competence and actual motor competence.
It might be helpﬁrl to indicate exactly how the children with MMR perceive and perform
the FMS in each age group, so that accurate levels regarding their competence can be
known. Studies should also examine participants older than 11 years of age, so that
more various comparisons of age, such as elementary aged children with MMR vs.
middle school aged children with MMR, could be found.

The ﬁndings of this study provided signiﬁcant evidence that parental physical
activity has an inﬂuence on perceived physical competence and actual motor competence
in children with MMR. However, to gain a more complete understanding of the
inﬂuence of parents on perceived physical competence and actual motor competence,
there is the need to examine more parental mechanisms such as attitudes, encouragement,
and expectation. It might be helpful to better understand parent-child interactions and
the rationale of parental inﬂuences. Social learning (Bandura, 1977) and the expectancy
socialization model (Eccles & Harold, 1991) can be used to drive and design ﬁrrther
research about parental inﬂuences on perceived physical competence and actual motor

competence.

118

Further studies should examine these research questions in different educational
settings. Children with MMR in the present study are attending public special schools
for students with MR. However, they can attend residential facilities, clinical centers,
and home schooling as an alternative for children with disabilities (Kim & Hong, 1992).
Moreover, recently some children with MR are attending the regular classrooms and
schools in Korea. Therefore, a study of the comparison of perceived physical
competence and actual motor competence between the children with MMR in the special
schools and those in other alternative schools should be of beneﬁt for understanding
difference of school settings.

Finally, further studies should examine dynamic relationships between the
elements in the model of competence motivation (e.g., perceived physical competence,
actual competence, perceived control, motivational orientation, and affect) with
application to children with MMR. According to Ulrich (1989), the dynamical systems
perspective proposed that observed human behavior might be explained by multiple

factors in the human system.

119

APPENDIX A

HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL

120

N“:

[I

MICHIGAN STATE
u N I v E R s I T Y

 

June 4, 2002

TO: Crystal F. BRANTA
130 I.M. Sports Circle

RE: IRB# .02-277 CATEGORY: FULL REVIEW
APPROVAL DATE: June 3, 2002

TITLE: PERCEIVED PHYSICAL AND ACTUAL MOTOR COMPETENCE IN KOREAN
CHILDREN WITH MILD MENTAL RETARDATION: RELATIONSHIP TO AGE,
GENDER, AND PARENTAL ACTIVITY

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this
project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal
form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a
project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal, please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB#
and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments.
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work.
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indimting
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and

 

OFFICEOF approved.
RESEARCH .
ETHICS AND If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or via email:
STANDARDS UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
_ http:/Mwwmsueduluser/ucrihs
University Committee err
Beeeerclrl lvl .
m“ 3%.: Sincerely,

    
 
 

  

“mom State University
202 Olds Hall , , '
E351 Lans' . Ml ‘
$42324 ‘ hir Kumar, MD.
5173554180 UCRIHS Chair
FAX; 517/432-4503
0 mnmedu/user/ucrins
E-Mail' ”lhm'wu
AK:
- Ji Tae Kim
133 Rampart way #304
the MM sue Unlmrly East Lansing, MI 48823
IDEA rs mammal am»): 121

fraudu- m Aaron

MSU vs an ammnrrveamon.
cabal Wily Instill/(Ion.

APPENDIX B

INFORMED CONSENT FORMS

122

INFORMED CONSENT
Dear Principal or Teacher:

My name is Ji-Tae Kim. I am a doctoral student at Michigan State University,
USA, specializing in the development of motor ability in children. In my dissertation
project, I am conducting a study to investigate the difference in mentally retarded
children’s perceptions of ability in motor skills (i.e., perceived physical competence) and
actual ability in basic motor skills (i.e., actual motor competence). I am also interested in
how activity level of parents inﬂuences mentally retarded children’s abilities.

For this project, principals and teachers in each special school will help to identify
students ﬁom 8 to 11 years of age with mild mental retardation who qualify for this
study, according to classiﬁcation of disability level in school ﬁles. Also, with classroom
teachers’ assistance, children who meet the criteria will be provided envelopes containing
an informed consent document for parent’s and child’s participation, and will encourage
the children and parents to return them to their classroom. Only those parents and
children who return approved consent forms will participate in the project.

The measures of perceived physical competence and actual motor competence
among children with mild mental retardation will be administered by the investigator
(Mr. Kim) in a quiet room of each participating school (e.g., empty gym and classroom).
Children will be videotaped during the test for basic motor skills. The videotape will be
used by the investigator (Mr. Kim) to assess and score children’s basic motor skills. The
videotape will be transcribed and stored in the investigator’s locked cabinet to maintain
security of the information. The videotape will be retained for no more than 2 years by
the researcher and will be used only by the researcher for purposes of this study. After
two years, the videotape will be erased. The tests will be administered at your child’s
school, and the time to administer both tests will take approximately 30 minutes.

A request by any subject towithdraw his/her (children or parents’) consent and to
discontinue participation in the investigation shall be honored promptly and
unconditionally. Participation for children and their parents is voluntary, and they will
be free to withdraw from participation at any time without penalty. Also, all of the
information collected during this study will be kept strictly conﬁdential.

A copy of the results of the study will be made available at the conclusion of the
study to each participating school. '

There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts to a child if s/he participates in this
study. If a slight minor injury such as scrapes, bruises, or small cuts occurs, child’s
school medical! staff, as normal, will take care of any such minor injuries. If a child
sustains a minor or serious injury as a result of his/her participation in this research
project, the child’s school will provide emergency medical care if necessary. In other
words, the child’s school will pay in the event of a medical emergency during the testing.

123

If you agree to you or your school participating in this study of children with mild
mental retardation and their parents, please sign below and return the form to Mr. Kim.
You will be asked to allow access to relevant school records for the purpose of
identifying children qualiﬁed for this study. In addition, you will be asked to help
identify and help Mr. Kim test the children. You may cease to participate in the project
at any time during the study. If you have any questions regarding this study, please feel
ﬂee to contact Ji-T‘ae Kim by phone in Korea: 02-532-5390 or e-mail: kimjitae@msu.edu
or Dr. Crystal F. Branta, the project supervisor, by phone: 001-1-517-353-9467 or e-mail:
cbranta@msu.edu. Also, if you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, you may contact Dr. Ashir Kumar, Chair of the University Committee
on Research Involving Human Subject, by phone: 001-1-517-353-2976 or e—mail:

ucrrhs@msu.edu.

Thank you for your help.

Kim Ji-T‘ae

 

Consent Form for Principals and Teachers

Title: Perceived physical and actual motor competence in Korean children with mild
mental retardation: Relationship to age, gender, and parental activity.

I. I agree to participate in this study by providing access to relevant school records.
2. I also will help identify children who qualify for this study.

3. I will assist Mr. Kim in the assessment of the children.

 

 

 

 

Principal’s signature: Date:
Teacher’s signature: Date:
School:

 

UCRIHS APPROVAL FOR
THIS project EXPIRES:

JUN - 3 2003

8 IT R NEWALAPPLICATION
lB3NE SONTH PRIOR TO
ABOVE DATE TO CONTINUE

124

JR)
NO

as ease as: asap":

as was Ill 0I—§ O a: IIEH gun. as m2 sIAIaI IEEHS—tOllkl gems? EL'
drug’s: age a; 6m arr-:3 U and stage. “921 slang TE I xaasou
mega as: sea tﬂl anu— aou was as: 95:3l0ﬂ ate mugs- EU!
emu.

llllO

Olll

0| 9:15 946", ’4 24512419 m3 Sgt-3'11} 8%! Egg-:78- 8k||0||kl llkll
MOI—91 Iliil 3E} JéJOHE 3H3 Olgg (112511 ¥§ 3d QUE}. 130 7| {ﬁg-2‘8 Gig-2'91 8m
(3 ‘5'er Olgagl $1930)" 0| 9:991 89} SENS QDI $48l015-r2ix“ 3* QUE}.
OI 9:95 ENG" $9173 $2233} IlL=lOII §6l04 Olga 7" % 9=IL|CL

2* (Oil, Hg?!
CélLllll. 0|

g 3" OIEN, QEHE
BIE MES El §lé§ 8

{ﬂiiIQJ ENE 5‘23} SJ—‘lg‘é’ 5g. 0" BE}
58 EQWIIM OlaOl XIUl, OlEEQJ gatgg E
UIEIQ EllOl_-.—_- Gig—l g’SlS-aag DIESII’. é’c‘i'l
GE 85E MEQXI PIE-31 21L”). $DlII E1
9" 30E QED} 3.552% a OALID.

02!
H0
J3
J2.”
EJ
12
FE
>5! 0H

$EL'E 3% IlL=lQJ 8045 ”$510M”, Div-19.: O-IEBEl g—CROIIE EilﬁEQJ @042
gﬁlg’ #91901, Olﬂié‘l EON-{OIL} i-lté'g tILJII 92% a all—IE}. 0| E410" #QE BE-
532': ‘33 6})“ Ulgé Il34 Q ﬁ‘élLlCl.

Ol 93?-‘:- ‘é’ﬂ IlL=lOlDll Gilli?! SHEE gE‘é’Sa-z ¥I| 94% ﬁEJLICl. 92’
é’lllé! £8 gﬂlél QJ'HD} °'OlLlEl, IIHQJ 3431.0“ ‘21-:- are 34%8 gﬁﬂl éOl IHSIPJ
Ali-IS KIESDI SHE g-EZSili 54% a ‘élLlCl. Pig? Ol 91:12 SlE E§0ll gilt?
‘élﬂClE, QDLOllki E: 29210" EH33 ilﬁ Ulgg E’c‘l gt a glLllll.

919$ 9&9 QED“ 91%.- gd IliiIOlg-ca-I’J DESI 519‘5'94 @015 313* SH‘JUE,
"fd’é’Oll 91E SEEING" MESH $ﬁ2m ELIE}. 99? 9330" {”33 £50 | 919.91, ?:l IIEH
(ﬂaw-532-5390 $8 @Hﬂll‘élzkimjitae@msu.edu) 28 Dr. CrystalF. BrantaOIIJII (@ﬂﬂOl-l-
517-353-9467 3?: @Hmloéxbrantﬁmsucdu) Eat 2F—lkl’a' UlEiLIU. EE, ‘PJQt ﬁ-T‘S’J
i-S’Dlllikl 9&9 ERIEOH File-ﬂ ’éE—Ol 912A|_ ,.Dr Ashir KumarOlDll (@§:001-l-517-353-
2976 $8 EIHH° ':ucrihs@msu. edu)°'1 r_.—1 $Alja' UlEiLlCl. - ”MEN—ID.-

125

E’DIEPJH

2; Eli- gtﬂllill Ol§91 Gill (Bill-3%)} $33352”
H3950" [113.1 9131!.

OIF
JS!
.C
2
01
In
ls.’
-|lI
H3
19

3173 @%%Il} %% ciglaDll/dE:

1. 0| 9:10" {$93.1} 35129 2E 52% Mag-46ml, %?91 £043 Eli’éllll.
2. 0| %-_r‘§ $l§l Gig-2- %8IE3 E2 ﬁOICl.
3. 0| Err“; $46" Ol§§91 BIAS-E Egg- E2 ﬁOlCl.

 

 

 

 

E33 {ﬂéﬂ‘el N%: am:
8% {38% NE“ gm:
1’12:

 

126

INFORMED CONSENT LETTER

Dear Parent:

My name is Ji-Tae Kim. 1 am a doctoral student at Michigan State University, USA, specializing in the
development of motor ability in children. As a researcher for adapted physical education in Korea, I have
a strong interest in research that has practical application for Korean children with mild mental retardation.
In my dissertation project I am conducting a study to investigate the difference in children’s perceptions of
ability in motor skills (i.e., perceived physical competence) and actual ability in basic motor skills (i.e.,
actual motor competence). I am also interested in how activity level of parents inﬂuences children’s
abilities.

For this study, you and your child’s participation are being requested. Your child will be asked to
complete a test for perceived physical competence and participate in a test for basic motor skills. Your
child will be videotaped during the test for basic motor skills. The videotape will be used by the
researcher (Mr. Kim) to assess and score your child’s basic motor skills. The videotape will be
transcribed and stored in the researcher’s cabinet to maintain security of the information. The videotape
will be retained for no more than 2 years by the researcher and will used only by the researcher for
purposes of this study. After two years, the videotape will be erased. The tests will be administered at
your child’s school, and the time to administer both tests will take approximately 30 minutes. In addition
to your child’s participation, you will be asked to ﬁll out a questionnaire, which includes personal
demographic questions and questions about your physical activity levels.

Participation for you and your child is voluntary, and you and your child will be free to withdraw from
participation at any time without penalty. The testing procedures will be carefully explained to your child
before testing. Your child will be asked to give verbal assent to participation. Your child will not be
required to participate if s/he asks not to be tested. Also, you do not need to answer any questions that
make you uncomfortable.

There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts to your child if he/she participates in this study. If a slight
minor injury such as scrapes, bruises, or small cuts occurs, your child’s school medical staff, as normal,
will take care of any such minor injuries. If your child sustains a minor or serious injury as a result of
his/her participation in this research project, the child’s school will provide emergency medical care if
necessary. In order words, the child’s school will pay in the event of a medical emergency during the
testing.

All of the information collected during this study will be kept strictly conﬁdential. The names of all
participants (including you and your child) will be replaced with identiﬁcation numbers as soon as all
testing is completed. It is possible that the results of this study will be published or presented, but
participants’ names and identities will not be revealed. Only group information will be referred to in any
publication/presentation of the results of this study. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum
extent allowable by law.

The principal of your child’s school has reviewed the procedures of this study and has approved this study.
I (The researcher) believes that participation in this study will provide information to understand and
enhance the motivation of children to participate in sport and/or physical activity, and the knowledge
gathered will be valuable to all educators and parents, and most importantly will help improve children’s
program. Also, each child will receive a copy of the results of his/her actual motor skill competence for
10 basic motor skill areas.

If you will approve the participation of you and your child, please sign and return the attached consent
form. If you have any questions regarding this study, please feel free to contact Ji-Tae Kim by phone: 02-
532-5390 or e-mail: kimjitae@msu.edu or Dr. Crystal F. Branta, the project supervisor, by phone: 01 1-1-

127

517-353-9467 or e-mail: cbranta_@msu.edu. Also, if you have questions or concerns regarding your rights
as a study participant, you may contact Dr. Ashir Kumar, Chair of the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subject, by phone: 011-1-517-353-2976 or e-mail: ucrih§@msu.edu. Upon my return to
the USA in July 2002 to complete my doctoral degree, you may contact Dr. Kim, long-Hun (Professor at
Yonsei University) in Korea at phone number 001-798-5390 if you have any questions regarding this
research. The questions will be relayed to me and I will respond promptly. Or, if you wish, you may use
the e—mail address provided above.

Please sign the consent form below, and return the form to the school by / /2002.

...........................

CUT HERE
CONSENT FORM FOR THIS PROJECT
1. Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement for your child to participate in this study

regarding perceived and actual motor competence in relation to parental physical activity levels, to
be conducted by Mr. Kim.

2. Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement for your child to be videotaped for the
purposes of this study, as outlined in the Informed Consent Letter.

3. Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study regarding
perceived and actual motor competence in relation to parental physical activity levels, to be
conducted by Mr. Kim.

Child’ name:

 

Parent’s name:

 

Parent’s signature:

 

Date:

 

* If you do not wish to consent to participation, please ﬁll in your child’s name and draw lines in the space
given for your name and signature and return the form unsigned.
Thank you for your help.

ucnII-Is Arr-now FOR
THIs prom amass:

JUN - 3 2003

W RENEWAL app. ICATlm
ONENONTH PRIOR TO
ABOVE DATE TO CONTINUE

128

759719.141??-

‘IEI
H]
[1C
2

%%61k1|3. Ill OIEE % XIEH %L|Cl. Ii-‘= Uli’ UIAIPJ 3cEllillé.’01|kl EJ‘ﬂIE 94
dill ’3 'é’é’g 51-2-6131. (RAE E'Mllll’éi §l§2§kt 3.5.1291 Eﬂi-SIOH Ol§01| CHEI %?Oll
Qgéf 81:15 91113. 913L113. $61,5—Mlﬂ’g Ez-a- $1611, TIE IIE.Jl $291 ﬂlgg‘g

45%5—01 33.. I330” mega saw—<1 as been SE! axle—.0" onus: %§§ BIS-EX!

g
351% $5 %L|C1.
Ol %?91 $1315.21 ﬁgs 14511, 3'31} 519% 1151.91 £10131 B?SLIU.
XILEI g8 01 %?Ollk1 diil ERIE—.31} DIEEJ—‘lol diiléx’OII 33d BIﬁES Bl’é' 3J%Lllll.

gel, ages egg $16104 dill
0| Ell gags IIL=ISI arm

Tageo

Eg- E‘IIAE 2’ 11115 “HES! 51° §% Q 3d%L|Cl.
Oll/d OI§OIIIUL 91’ 305'- EEDI £8 a %%L|Cl.

351%,
| 91-71% $151M, 512%!21 311%3—‘1 £221 illgiig 4‘-

5-011 8% @5112 Egg’

[1

>2

‘éJL—ICI.

$931111 IIL=194 é’Ol-E 11%510101, 32° OIEHEE %ZIOIL1 E019! 810l %H|31E

E;—J £3013 Qilg’ X11901 Ail-ELIE}. Ell.__ x‘ ‘i— 1151-2-01 Eilﬁ£=2613l £0“ Ilkil6l

ggg 33mm. 2+2: gas IIL=131 snags seIxI stews, gala IIL=IE snags
601 31 seem as a %LIC1.

OI %-7‘-E 8&1 115101011 OHHEI 94%} Eﬁgg $Il °

sum. 910* X391
ems; so %D|3.J an» emu

—|_L

£21 £01 IlL=19-1

See’- a
%, Ila-9| 333.0" 915 %§ “81.8 g
ﬁg EEO" IHéDl 9mg

«Stag meson as 222.51% 2:422: %LIC1. as: 0+2: I
$211119, am :EE anon we :13 tIIg-ss— E’s! ea an.

01 %?011 #513 BE ’33: %3—".6131|tl|°'§ X|34 i—E._' 31%LIC1. 2E £31321

8 Hlﬁ§910l§m1l%,m EI§§ Elli“ g §%LICL 51313 01 9.47991 £3.15

éeamu 23% e 9194. same ores-3- essm as; %%L|Cl. OI 9:10" as
OIuIaI as as 6*

EEO“; JHRIE 251231 OtLlal, EII 215011 946* gEEM £3.12
3% %%Lllil. $23.1 ease; $1015} 3H%§£’J EPJOItHAIS- Es‘a
ﬁgILICI.

mg.

2A 2
%.=_.-r%a

129

IILIQI am mé‘ﬂéﬂb‘fé 93:19 gm; aéaaem, 0| 9.4?5 anon/d 2 42
915% 6I§I magma. 0| 3:5 xIIagIgou é’OIléiDl $I§I OI§§9J Isms O|6H8LTJ
§DI~5I3| W1 3&2; III-36m, 9.229 2g mangmnu 0%ng 7ng gang";
avg/Halal 9m WESJ 25:25 may aguu. 9.: 0| 9:5 SSW, 2: mag-8
BIAEEI $3190“ $322 g'HIX—I :2; OISHSIE 0I2I0I 91% a0 L'ICI. 24:1} [MFR-a3 IIII,
ms g9 83% gm" 28¢ Eff-E $29 mo" 96m am I A 91am.

5&9? $933.} I} L421 £012 51%?!09, OIBHOH SHE éQJ/VIOH MIOJES‘H 5&19‘3
ELI C}- 99? $7901! I’JSJ QED! 91_ E, g} IIEH (3%:02-532-5390 38

among °' :kimiitae@msu. edu) £8 rystal F. Branta0||31| (@§:OOI-l-Sl7-353-9467 38
EIHJII° ':cbranta@msu.°4edu) _—. 25%|" Uia’LICI. EQ 0,J‘-’.‘ 9399! {Simﬂikl 9&9
Eal g0" 33* Jéa-Ol AJQME‘, Dr. Ashir Kumar01|31| (EQIOOI-l-517-353-2976 :8
EXP [HIo ':ucrihs@msu. edu)°4 _‘2‘ TAIDEI UIELIC}.

OiaHOII ° EEDI§9JMOH N" 'g 6'Mlﬂ, Q/ C.«3=».'/20027JII| é? PLO“ Hléoim XQ'AIQ.

 

/\

£861)

EDIEPJ/d

1. $38 Iidel IILIDI a IIEHOII 946Hk| gga MIMI gam g'HlE‘. (Binge-”1m
$E§9J MIN—<1 32m MIaI-‘a a0" (98.: 24:10" 5:01am 5%.: gap:- 31‘-

2. E88 IIL=I.°J {ﬂiil gig Eilﬁéa $422 muse ﬁgs;— aIéIaICI.

3- £398 a: IIEHOII sum/d gags MIMI 52m gala. (‘.U'RIIEQOI $259 mm
333. III MISIE 3:0" 3:81 24le acme a; $9330.
“L494 0%:
$139.! 0|§z
$294 ”2' :8 533:
E1‘}:

 

 

 

 

* 919} oI <39th 797% %918IZI aIEEIa 9w xILI9I oIg—mI 3:101 mu mum.
- www.—

I30

APPENDIX C

PICTORIAL SCALES FOR ASIAN BOYS AND GIRLS

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

139

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q

 

 

 

 

140

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I41

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\S‘
I,»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

143

 

 

 

 

 

\I

391' .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

147

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

148

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

151

APPENDIX D

TGMD-Z SCORE SHEETS

152

Proﬁle/Examiner

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Record Form
Test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition
TGMD-Z
Section 1: Identifying Information
Name School
Male E] Female C] Grade Referred by
Date of Testing Reason for Referral
Date of Birth Examiner
Age Examiner’s Title
Section 11: Record of Scores
Raw Score Standard Score Percentile Age Equivalent
Locomotor
Object Control
Sum of Standard Scores
Gross Motor Quotient
Section III: Testing Conditions
A. Place of Tested
Interfering Not interfering
B. Noise Level 1 2 3 4 5
C. Interruptions l 2 3 4 5
D. Distractions I 2 3 4 5
E. Light 1 2 3 4 5
F. Temperature 11 2 3 4 S
G. Notes and other considerations
Section IV: Other Test Data
Name of Test Date Standard TGMD-2
Score Equivalent

 

l53

 

 

 

Section V: Profile of Standard Scores
Standard Quotients

Standard Locomotor

Scores
20 -
l9 -
18 -
17 -
l6 -
15 -
14 -
13 -
12 -
11 -

_..
O
|

-whm0~qoo~o
l

Object
Control

Scores
20
19
18
17
16
15
14

H—I—du—s
CI—Nw

~NW$MQQO¢O

154

150
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
6O
55

Gross Motor
Quotient

Quotients

150
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
8O
75
7O
65
6O
55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

w _ 23m =§m
J J _ .8. .
, . .c.: 9.3% a “modem
, . n3. «5 33093 E; 9: 5;) :32 925.8 m .0352. of :26 Q3. 3:» a: :3: uca
g 95:5: :55 com:o_ 0&3 05 :0 new: 2.5 of o>uz .95 2.2 cc»
tczocm 9: to E... 58 509 Set; baton < .~ .caon 0...» E0: >93 you» 0. Eu 3 _o__mv 63:3: a .33»
a «02 Lad n. z 3 .8: St E. was *0 3E: a in? Co 2.3
3 £830 2: :o tam. use “02 ace :0 to 9.3 ._ 58; :00: 2: co mmncaun m 32.. o~ *0 835.5,: < nmﬂ .v
r
r
__ J 28m ___._m
, .08 US$3.20:
I I :0 3E: 953323 YES 3:2 _ucm to $5.2. .m
I] .8. 3:8
.ma :0 SE: 2.5538 02:. 3:2 9cm. to 85.2. .v
I I I. 9.3 3.69.. 2 3133. 9:35 ucm v98: 2:6. .m .35 9.83 a woody: .52 3:8 2:
“I I I III I #1: I IIIlI IwmomImEIWIn @wﬁoﬁmE :0 8E: 32. :2: new 3553 £22.
., 8.8 3355 2 :c. REE-naumov 83 v2.38: 3: 5 m2 :9 33m .33 .0 $2
, .55 5:5ch E E323 3:33 mo. tonnacoz .— 36: 3...: no: 3 22g 2: :3 m. we EJEEE. < ac: .m
J a 83m :33.
J J 30:5 025328 53 II I I II
J W .8 Soto... 2E5}: m 355m! .v
j 50: 9: to En $2 50: :23 torus 3.5 .m
d. 82 two. of 9.23 .o 9 6:8 1595
_ E313 coated m 9 .02 9:5: or: 5.3 not 2: 9 in: 9.50:3 .3 _E: “583
I m E 330:2 «o2 _unu. 0.: 5:5 3252 9.3» < .~ a $33. .550 up: 3 ace wco Eat «0:3 oz:
,H $09.3 um ao=mm 2 2.5 2.: =0» .09: 5 8:8 3 32 can .32.:
J _o>o_ «2.95 2 03:. cc». Son 254. .p 025 5.3 «oﬁ ma Co oucaﬁv a to £22 :3? co “co. m~ amino N
J
J 28m 5.;
.. . .9: .333 a «none: .60..
ﬁﬁSSn 9 So.» u 3 >3 30> _
. 5:,» $50 of S 33 wco
I 8995 ca >.3~E_xo._nn~ “can 00. tonnawcoz v Eu: :3 can 8 o... no 52 mm :3: 3
. 5302 no: 5: 2.5 2: :3 .353»... @583“ 33
I II I I .c.: we“ 5 .3: :oWEuE. «cwEaumE «8. 26th .m m .5. 0:3 ocean of Egon 32: H
I Emowowpc tow} was» 1W0: 39.3 ectwbwcm .~I .0 Se» 9 9 m ﬂaw. an m. 0.35 23 3:8 oz: 95 ,
Eon (sen—o .33 2 557230 E ESE FE< .w 933. .tmam 33 cm 8:3 92 3a.: .33, .3: *0 $3 of :3: _
23m ~ .3; p 3:... 510:0 avenger—on. “8.39.5 33.322 H :18

 

 

 

 

_ J nwsmznmﬁm 82 _ w
_ _ 3.3sz .oz _ _ :3 i 29:

 

$233 339:0qu
£3 29: :00: 3:32;
ice: 3:805

 

Poem: mucmEBtmn umwwnzm ._> 5:53

155

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ mun-um =§m
, g 2559.
9 you. 05 26:. 3 m:_>u: 505:; 23:39.. 35......“ Ea:
, 263028 58 .2 :3 .o .228 2.5: a! .c datum ﬂummnuowow
, on: $.32: 05 :o 33 yo . . ..
. E: .333 a 583. :3 0.... 9:283 =22»an a .m 9 m
: «2930 a...» 8 3 *0 «cot 5 cont...“ 95:8 in m .6 no: :05 new .22 0:0 9:3 moan 55:5 .2
as. o .8. 2:59.: 5.; =8 852. .~ Joe. .2. .o “z 9.32. 52:; 8...... =2 2:922: 22::
.25. :3 53. u. 9...; «co .23 :3 98:8 .F 58 =3 05 039.6 2 £6 05 _3 Sci: 2 -n 5 322.3 IN
9.03 Exm
:3 88:0“. awn .m
60. :5: 2 29a; :62. ”.325: .v
m5?» acts: :0589 .0239.“ ucu 3.: .m
3.2!. «02 5:3 .038
E352: 9: “32 >3: +0 a2“ 3:035:02 .~ .3: 293 a $33. .92 :3 9: «2 vegan u “Em =3
9.2 E 2 25 as _E .33. :3 “.35 as 9:5: a .__3 22235
EuEEovco: 93m .3 8.5 new: 22.600 .F 2: “a you 5:52. 05 :0 :3 2.: 3m... 2992:9— ﬁsé < a 9.3:; g
28m N .3.» F .3.» «:35 3559:: 22625 23.322 :3
.333 .228 950
6
€28“ :3“ u «5 «o 5.5 23m 33.. $053 33590.. M
2.8m Exm
to. 0.: 2
8.5 02.30% 30::zc3 .53 we EEEEE < .v
Eu: 9: 2
8.5 227.3: 903529 58 *0 E:E_:_E ( .m
.08 was 8:3
2: o. :3: «£0: a 3 «08 05:2» 05 we 92.» .3: 233 a $32.. at»: .23 oz: 93 d::
a 5 316:2 So. tau. 5.2. 3958: no: < .N 3:8 «5 8 33 «co Ea: £3.» 2 £92: a .33»
.8: 9: co 9.: m5 5:! 35 2: =£ :8: 0.: co 9:: m 3 in: _o 58 m~
3:9.» 2m €02.55 3 $9529? tech: #5: .— no. :o :3» :2: «N 8:3 05 3!: *0 E:E_:_E < 25m .w
_
Baum 5.3
9:22 055: Eugen 5:5 Em «E? .v
I . I. . 5o. 53 :o .62 new to «an... .m
.30: 2.: 93¢ c2335 :3 0:23! .55 9.33 m Sony: :3 97
II I I I I I I II II 34%: 8; uI.m¢.InG_._.eeéImémw ERIN a 2 a 5 a as... 2 2:: 2: =8 82 us 32...
€09 223 39.35 3.5 5:; $05. 6:: 05 3:23 :3... Eat 9: 28: 52v .0 52 SE: ,
Tl £02 ‘0 :25: «£53.: 22:26:. 33523:. ._. :00: 9: co 9:: 95:3“ 0 to :32 0.. *0 E2552 < 3505.5: .3
I: I I I] II
28m N E.» F .3: E25 senators. 25.625 25.322 :5 a
:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ $203 =3“ m as“ we San. 23m 32. Suﬁsm 182.5 “3.30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23m =3».
:9; 3:95 v :2: 20.: 8:33
«cc 80$ :3 cm .00: as. 9 82v :3 «33.3. .v m u u 93 a .39 . a u o Ewan.“
. .. : c z m _ v
309 .250. 8 305. 3:3 m .328 «5 502:3 30o w. «.5 2 95 ”can“ 30:8 92
8:3 «5 9852 3:2 3:3 Po; :3 2: =9 9 25 05 :0» =9: 6— on n «can :95
Au:— wé 2:230 58 _t_? $33.2 «025m M may :5: 38 ON .60: 2: :0 32 *0 .Et .0. =mntom a
3:8 “33 «35 22? x55 a... ucion 30:. m 523 .tona “out v 2m 52.: 6 2 M 3m» 56:5 :0:
meats. Juan 9:... Esau 3525 ucm; 3:395 ._ 9 :25 m .269 3:8 oz: up: 30: .8 =3 «_ccﬁ < ucmﬁovca .w
29m =33 ‘ 1
wt: uwtﬂwaco: 2: Page“ >32. 2: 39%.
23:03:. 33.2 :3 98an 2925-323". 6
“En... 9:39.: v...“ 3.8.30
.02 05 5.3 9.3%: 5 3:838. m_ 2935 .m .3.» 9.38 a Kano: .=m§ 2.»
=3, 2: $5 at; a BE =3 9: 26.5 2 22“. a... .E
r, I .2: 82.3 .58 a 2 £3.39: new m2 «330: .~ .=m_s «5 953 cc: 802K 2: 9.23 323 50:
Emacs... *0 25: Big 9: gm: :2; m :5: 33 3 3.: 2 new .38 39.5
EwEu>oE 925.56“. ﬁts SEE... u_ nan—ES .— o~ 50: on. :0 an». .6 33¢ m 522 so; m $3 35.2 < 9.9th .m
28m :33
«S 5 392 ..£: 333
.35. 52 “98.396 «o 565 5.21.3 335. .v _ m 52.3. .=~.s 2: P839 Ba; :3
x - ‘ ‘ f i! 1 Y :3 2: 3 sum... 2: xx.— ucm a: E: 3 229 2: =3 32
. dc: 550 2: .5 EB: S 35 of was ”33m .3:
c_ 229., 8 5:5 :26 v82: 63 ociuicoz m =2. .=§> 05 :23: we: 05 co can *0 So. on 63.33
62:8 =2. 8 .53 «5 .0 a3 8 :3 it 32.“. .=§> a £3 .933 .o
‘ Eta >._.a.~‘.ww£ls‘_taolo_lmm:om:.~u 35.9.01 5‘... ~.. 2: E9— 32 2 2.: 850cm .23 =3S €555.83 052a
:3 v5 o. 585% genes—.3 3%: A. m 591626 33 cm ac: ace :0 {22 55.9 2 .w c< to. .v
J 88m =13
. ‘ ‘ I! i 1,. \ xii ! ‘ ll : ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ y . .3: 9.33
J a Sony: .22. .25 $0239: “i=5
«5 coozaon 0..» if 339 03.: :58
J 2:0 .65.; £3 5:5 =3 2: :33 2 ,
J 28 6:2 5 £33 a =3 m 2:: m5 :3 485 .2 a E .2 9:55
J 52.3 :m 59.» a 5.2. 0:5 9: 9 >325 as
J ._ a». :3, up: .2 ”W292: 253 3:23 “ERIN ucmfoucs :3 a5 38 .350 «5 :o ucm .323 .3: ,
‘ i111 . , 1 ‘ may... as 3‘3»qu >32“? .38. 2t 9; 3.. 95 8 6%: 22g 3 :3. m. .__3
Jo ES. 5. 9m 5:2 222, $53 8:82;... .. 9: £2? .8. E 3:: oz; to {22 2:2“. 55.: < :38 m
23m ~ 3:... _. 3...; J 2.8.5 wuss—Eat“... 32525 mitoums. J :33

 

 

157

APPENDIX E

PARENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE

158

 

PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Parent’s Name:

 

Your Child’s Name:

 

Directions: Please answer the following questions about yourself by ﬁlling in the blank,
or placing a check mark next to the correct choice.

Part 1: Demographic Background

1. What sex are you? Male Female

2. What is your age?

 

3. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

(a) Elementary school (b) Middle school (c) High school
((1) Junior college (6) Bachelor’s degree (f) Master’s degree
(g) Doctoral degree (h) Post-doctoral

4. Do you regularly participate in physical activities/sports?

(a) Yes (If your answer is 1e_s, please go to question 4-1)
(b) No

4-1. How long have you participated in physical activities/sports?
(a) Less than 1 year (b) 1-3 years (c) More than 3 years

5. Where do you usually participate in physical activities/ sports? (Check all that apply)

(a) In home (b) Health club or gym

(0) Park or playground (d) Country side park or biking area
(e) Swimming pool (e) Instructional physical activity class
(1) Other

 

6. On a scale of 1 (Not Very Competent) to 5 (Extremely Competent), rate how well
your child can do motor skills. Mark only one line.

 

 

 

 

 

1 . 2. 3. 4. 5.
Not Very Fairly Average Fairly Extremely
Competent Incompetent Competence Competent Competent

159

Part II: Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire

1. Considering a 7-day period (a week), how many times on the average do you do the
following kinds of exercise for more than 15 minutes during your free time (write
in each line the appropriate number).

TIME PER
WEEK
a) STRENUOUS EXERCISE
(HEART BEATS RAPIDLY)

(i.e., running, jogging, hockey, football, soccer,
squash, basketball, cross country skiing, judo,
roller skating, vigorous swimming

vigorous long distance bicycling)

 

b) MODERATE EXERCISE
(NOT EXHAUSTING)

(i.e., fast walking, baseball, tennis, easy bicycling,
volleyball, badminton, easy swimming, alpine skiing,
popular and folk dancing)

 

c) MILD EXERCISE
(MINIMAL EFFORT)

(i.e., yoga, archery, ﬁshing form river band, bowling,
horseshoes, golf, snow-mobiling, easy walking)

 

2. Considering a 7-day period (a week), during your leisure-time, how often do you
engage in any regular activity long enough to work up a sweat (heart beats rapidly)?

OFTEN SOMETIMES NEVER/RARELY

1.1:) 2.[] 1C]

160

IIE: W6} XIAOIIZ
j(ADI Utensil—IE}.

UIO
I10

LU

ill

6

M‘G-ﬁs’

E80" EE’

I.—

0|
2

l. WEIR} Ila—91 ENE?

. 348K?! UOIE?

(") 3%
(a) 755"
(A) 2w;

(") Ul

.El6l9—l EJa’EQE—‘i-E-

(0+

l..—

tux-a

.___'

EQ‘élLICl.

i“

I kll

(‘-)
(D)
(O)

l> mm Ill)!

2’;-
EH
E

('Lil' BID. £36}

(L—) OILIE

HU

II

 

 

(E) 3%

(a) ’A‘Al—E

:2. am

 

. was swag; £35 argon Edam Jaguar?
' 518 4-191

E§§ DIEM-3H EQAIE)

4-1. :Hc‘blE EDI’EEE AEZ $5; SHLIII gum SUD}?

 

 

 

 

 

(ﬁne DIE‘! (qua-3e DIPJ (cue Oils;
5. 916% 252 Ol_ Eaton/cl Egg algum?
(—. )EPJ (L) £2.55 {ﬂElLl alga
(c) 2% as sma (a) 21mm {9
(D) 4%33 (u) iilg; m8; Eéjga EDI
(a) DIE}
6.lOl|/d SEQE 33¢ EOE, ‘é’t' IlL=lQJ 35mg 3% 8 a Email water/slum?
1. 2. 3. 4. s.
0}; 22m 320! 2% gaon 0% 32m
mg. ﬁg a% ﬁg

16]

I]. [15.38 J‘ISIQI EIIII ”38‘ng HQ QEQILJCI.
I}

9.235% 590", :HC'ﬂ-E EBEEE EIE'SIBI EAIZISPJ 15.5.1 0V3 9:40" LIQI ‘21-“:
E2 gal ’c‘JESID NIélLIDI? (54933 ENE ll 93% $40“ JEOI EHIB)

HO 7"

g$ggat 94¢

—') 2!?2 ES (#2? erg—:22 IIEJII SI-t- 53%) HI

 

(OII: é‘DIEI ré’BlDl, SIBI, ‘l‘ﬂl, §?, ﬁFi‘I/Kl, 8?, 3E5. ELIEF'J ﬁal,
9rE, SEI ﬁS‘IlOIE, $213 45%, 33318| IIEUI EDI)

l—)3—183._I 5.3% (EDI IlilXI ° E 53%) ”.1_
(OII: 'é’al ’c‘Dl, OI-TI, EIILIZE, DIE)“ H5131 EDI, UH-TI, UHEPJE,
‘é’UIE' ﬁal, DWI-E 45%, E335)
I2) DWI-$— EE (BEEP—l Egg PEWISI-E 53%) '91—
(OII: EDI, ‘33, L-FIAI, E35}, £11., £529- E‘éI, EESI EDI)
2. 7% (cg-719%) $91 EHIII ﬂS-‘é 6I-E DIEIOII, Eli'sl-E EDI PJE‘ "3% HIE/d ESE
5132 JIIéILIDI?
w) zI—r— w I.) 7% Eu} :) 73.64 6le til—EDI

I62

REFERENCES

163

References

Agnew, N. M., & Pyke, S. W. (1994). The science game: An introduction to
research in th_e social sciengg. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efﬁcacy: Toward a unifying theory of personality
change. Psychological Review. 84. 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American
Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184.

Bankhead, 1., & MacKay, D. N. (1982). Fine motor performance in subjects of
subnornul, normal, and superior intelligence: Reaction time and task complexity. Journal
of Mental Deﬁciency Research. 26(2), 73-89.

Black, S. J., & Weiss, M. R. (1992). The relationship among perceived coaching
behaviors, perceptions of ability, and motivation in competitive age-group swimmers.
Journal of Sport and Exercise chhology, 14, 309-325.

Bouﬂ'ard, M. (1990). Movement problem solutions by educable mentally
handicapped individuals. _A_d_apted Physical Activity Quarterly. 7, 183-197.

Branta, C., Haubenstricker, J., & Seefeldt, V. (1984). Age changes in motor skill
during childhood and adolescences. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews. 12, 467-520.

Brustad, R. J. (1992). Integrating socialization inﬂuences into the study of
children’s motivation in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14, 59-77.

Brustad, R. J. (1993). Who will go out and play? Parental and psychological
inﬂuences on children’s attraction to physical activity. Pecmtric Exercise Science. 5. 210-
223.

Brustad, R. J. (1996). Attraction to physical activity in urban schoolchildren:

Parental socialization and gender inﬂuences. Research Qgrterly in Exercise and Spam,
6_7(3), 316-324.

164

Brustad, R. J., & Weigand, D. A. (1989). Relationship of parental attitudes and
affective patterns to lauds of intrinsic motivation in you_ng male and female athletes.
Paper presented at the meeting of the North American Society for the Psychology of
Sport and Physical Activity, Kent, OH.

Buschner, C, A. (1994). Teaching children movement concepts and skills:
Becoming a master teacher. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Chang, K. H. (1993). Parental factors of participation in adapted physical
programs, ﬂe Koreaa Journal of Adapted PhysicLEducation. 1. 1-10.

Choi, J. 0., Park, H, C., & Kim, J. H. (2001). Educaiion for children with mental I
retardation. Seoul, Korea: Yangseowon. I...

Connolly, B. H., & Michael, B. T. (1986). Performance of retarded, with and
without Down Syndrome, on the Bruininks Oseretsky Test of Motor Proﬁciency.

Physical Therapy, 66(3), 344-348.

Crocker, P. R. E., & Ellsworth, J. P. (1990). Perceptions of competence in
physical education students. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences 4, 262-266.

 

 

DiRocco, P. J., Clark, J. E., & Phillips, S. J. (1987). Jumping coordination
patterns of mildly mentally retarded children. _A_dapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 4,
178-191.

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement:
Applying the Eccles expectancy-value model. Journal of Applied Smrt Psychology, 3, 7-
3S.

Eichstaedt, C. B., & Lavay, B. W. (1992). Physical activity for in_dividuals with
mental retardation. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Eichstaedt, C. B., Wang, P., Polacek, J., & Dohrmann, P. (1991). Physical ﬁtness
and motor akill levels of individuals with men_tal retardation. Normal, IL: Illinois State
University.

 

165

 

Feltz. D. L., & Brown, E. (1984). Perceived competence in soccer skills among
young soccer players. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 385-395.

Fowler, J. S. (1981). Movement education. Philadelphia: Saunders College.

 

Freedson, P. S., & Evenson, S. (1991). Familial aggregation in physical activity.
Research Calarterly for Exerciae an_d Sport. 62. 384-389.

Fry, M. D. (2001). The development of motivation in children In G. C. Roberts
(Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport aad exercise (pp. 51-70). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.

Gallahue, D. L. (1989). Understanding motor development. Indianapolis:
Benchmark.

Gallahue, D. L. (2000). Motor development. In J. P. Winnick (Ed.), Adapted
physical education and §p_ort (pp.265-279). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Gearheart, B. R., Weishahn, M. W., & Gearheart, C. (1996). The exceptional
student in the regplar classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Godin, G., & Shephard, R. J. (1985). A sample method to assess exercise
behavior in the community. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science. 10. 141-146.

Goodway, J. D., & Rudisill, M. E. (1997). Perceived physical competence and

actual motor skill competence of African American preschool children. Adapted Physical
_Aativity Quarterly. 14. 314-326.

Greendorfer, S. L. (1983). A challenge for sociocultural sport studies. Journal of
Physical Edupation. Recreation. and Dance 54, 18-20.

 

Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental
mode. Human Development, 21, 34-64.

166

Harter, S. (1981). The development of competence motivation in the mastery of
cognitive and physical skills: Is there still a place for joy? In G. C. Roberts & D. M.
Landers (Eds.), Paycholpgy of motor behavior and sport-1980 (pp. 3-29). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.

Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child
Developmeat. 53. 87-97.

Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates and the ﬁinctional role of global self-worth:
A life-span perspective. In R. J. Stemberg & J. Kolligan (Eds), Corrmatgce considered
(pp. 67-97). New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Harter, S., & Pike, R (1984). The perceived competence scale for young children.
Child Develapmenj. 55. 1969-1982.

Haubenstricker, J ., & Seefeldt, V. (1986). Acquisition of motor skills during
childhood. In V. Seefeldt (Ed), Physical activity & well-being (pp. 42-102). Reston, VA:
American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance.

Hickson, L., Blackmn, L. S., & Reis, E. M. (1995). Mental retardation:
Foundations of educational proggamming. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.

Holland, B. V. (1987). Fundamental motor skill performance of non-handicapped
and educable mentally impaired students. Educaaion an_d Training in Mega] Retardatioa,
_2_2, 197-204.

Hong, Y. J. (1996). Adapted physical education. Seoul, Korea: Tae-Keen.

Hoover, J. H., & Horgan, J. S. (1990). Short-term memory for motor skills in

mentally retarded persons: Training and research issues. In G. Reid (Ed.), Problems in
movement comm (pp. 217-239). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Horn, T. 8., Glen, S. D., & Wentzell, A. B. (1993). Sources of information
underlying personal ability judgments in high school athletes. Pediatric Exercise Scienaa,
5, 263-274.

167

Horn, T. S., & Harris, A. (1996). Perceived competence in young athletes:
Research ﬁndings and recommendations for coaches and parents. In F. L. Smoll & R. E.
Smith (Eds), Children aad youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp. 309-329).
Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.

Horn, T. S., & Hasbrook, C. (1986). Informational components inﬂuencing
children’s perceptions of their physical competence. In M. R. Weiss & D. Gould (Eds),
Sport for children and youths: Proceedings of the 1984 Olympic Scientiﬁc Congress (pp.
81-88). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Horn, T. S., & Hasbrook, C. (1987). Psychological characteristics and the criteria
children use for self-evaluation. Joumji of Sport Psychology, 9, 208-221.

Horn, T. S., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). A developmental analysis of children’s self-
ability judgments in the physical domain. Pediatric Exercise Sciencs 3. 310-326.

Ignico, A. (1994). Early childhood physical education: Providing the foundation.
Jougal of Physical Education. Recreation and Dance 65(6), 28-30.

 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (1997). Iadivigals with Disabilities
Education Act Amendmgrts of 1997. Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Jacobs, D. R, Ainsworth, B. E., Hartman, T. J., & Leon, A. S. (1993). A
simultaneous evaluation of 10 commonly used physical activity questionnaires, Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise. 25. 81-91.

Jolly, J. A. (1997). Effects of failure on goal setting: Perceived physical
competence and gender comparison of fourth graders (Doctoral dissertation, Texas
woman’s university, 1997). Disserﬂtion Abstracts International, 57, 5098.

Kim, J. T. (1995). The analysis of inﬂuential factors in handicapped child’s
physical activities. Unpublised master’s thesis, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.

Kim, Y. S., & Hong, Y. J. (1992). Smcial physical education: Admd. corrective
developmental. Seoul, Korea: Rok-Won.

168

Kimiecik, J. C., Horn, T. S., & Shurin, C. S. (1996). Relationships among
children’s beliefs, perceptions of their parents’ beliefs, and their moderate-to-vigorous
physical activity. Research (barterly for Exercise Qd Sport. 67(3), 324-336.

Klint, K A, Weiss, M. R (1987). Perceived competence and motives for
participating in youth sports: A test of Harter’s competence motivation theory. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 9, 55-65.

Kozub, F. M., & Porretta, D. L. (1999). Internal and external attributions for
levels of perceived physical competence in children with mental retardation. Education
and Training in Meﬁntal Retardation aria Developmental Disabilities. 34(1), 35-42.

 

Krebs, P. L. (2000). Mental retardation. In J. P. Winnick (Ed.), Adapted physical
education and apart (pp. 111-126). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Kriska, A. M. & Caspersen, C. J. (1997). Introduction to a collection of physical
activity questionnaires, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 29(6), 5-9.

Lavay, B (1985). Instruction of team sport strategies for the mild/moderate
mentally handicapped. Palaestr_a, 2(1), 10-13.

Lee, C. W. (2002). Modern leisure. Seoul, Korea: Daehanmedia

Lewko, J. H., & Greendorfer, S. L. (1988). Family inﬂuences in sport
socialization of children and adolescents. In F. L. Smoll, R A. Magill, & M. J. Ash
(Eds), Children in sport (pp. 287-300). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Lirgg, C. D. (1991). Gender differences in self-conﬁdence in physical activity: A
meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Sport aad Exercise Psychology, 13(3), 294-
3 10.

Lirgg, C. D. (1992). Girls and women, sport, and self-conﬁdence. Qpest, 44, 158-
178.

McAuley, E., & Gill, D. L. (1983). Reliability and validity of the physical self-
efﬁcacy scale in a competitive sport setting. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 410-418.

 

169

McKiddie, B., & Maynard, I. W. (1997). Perceived competence of schoolchildren
in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 16. 324-339.

McMurray, R. G., Bradley, C. B., Harrell, J. S., Bernthal, P. R., Frauman, A. C.,
& Bangdiwala, S. I. (1993). Parental inﬂuences on childhood ﬁtness and activity patterns.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Smrt, 64(3), 249-255.

Moore, L. L., Lombardi, D. A., White, M. J., Campbell, J. L., Oliveria, S. A., &
Ellison, R. C. (1991). Inﬂuence of parents’ physical activity levels on activity levels of
young children. Journal of Pediatrics. 118. 215-219.

Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability,
perceptions of own attainment, and the understanding that difﬁcult tasks require more
ability. Child Developmeatg49. 800-814.

Nugent, P. M., & Mosley, J. L. (1987). Mentally retarded and nonretarded
individuals’ attention allocation and capacity. American Joumal on Menlal Retardatiop,
ﬂ (6), 598-605.

Olrich, T. W. (2002). Assessing fundamental motor skills in the elementary
school setting: Issues and solutions, Journal of Physical Education. Recreation and
Dance 73(7), 26-28.

 

Pangrazi, R. P. (1998). Marnie physical education for elementag school
children. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: lntemational
Universities Press.

Poole, J. R., Mathias, K., & Stratton, R. K. (1996). Higher-skilled and lower-
skilled children’s perceived ability and actual performance with kicking and striking
tasks. Physical Educator. 53(4), 214-221.

170

Rarick, G. L. (1973). Motor performance of mentally retarded children. In G. L.
Rarick (Ed.), Physical activity: Human growth a_n_d developmen; (pp. 225-256). New
York: Academic Press.

Rarick, G. L., Dobbins, D. A., & Broadhead, G. D. (1976). The motor domain
and its correlates in educationally handicappe_d children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Riggs, M. L. (Ed). (1980). Movement education for preschool children. Reston,
VA: Association of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation &

Dance.

Rimmer, J. H., & Kelly, L. E. (1989). Gross motor development in preschool
children with learning disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. 6. 266-279.

Roberts, G. C. (1984). Toward a new theory of motivation in sport: The role of

perceived ability. In J.M. Silva & R.S. Weinberg (Eds), Psychological foundations in
smrt (pp. 214-228). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Roberts, G. C., Kleiber, D. A., & Duda, J. L. (1981). An analysis of motivation in
children’s sport: The role of perceived competence in participation. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 3, 206-216.

Rudisill, M. E., Mahar, M. T., & Meaney, K. S. (1993). The relationship between
children’s perceived and actual motor conrpetence. Perceptional and Motor SkLls. 76(3),
895-906.

Seefeldt, V., & Haubenstricker, J. (1982). Patterns, phases, or stages: An
analytical model for the study of developmental movement. In J. A. S. Kelso & J. E.
Clark (Eds), The developmenl of mavemenp control and coordination (pp. 309-318).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Shapiro, D. R., & Dummer, G. M. (1998). Perceived and actual basketball
competence of adolescent males with mild mental retardation. _Agpted Physical Activity
Quarterly. 15. 179-190.

171

Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Statistical reasoningfor th_e behavioral sciences.
Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Silon, E. L., & Harter, S. (1985). Assessment of perceived competence,
motivational orientation, and anxiety in segregated and mainstreamed educable mentally
retarded children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 217-230.

Stipek, D., & Mac Iver, D. (1989). Developmental change in children’s
assessment of intellectual competence. Child Development. 60. 521-538.

Thomas, J. R. (2000). Children’s control, learning, and performance of motor
skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sp_oa, 71(1), 1-9.

 

Thomas, J. R., & Thomas, K T. (1988). Development of gender differences in
physical activity. Quest, 40, 219-229.

Toole, T., & Kretzschmar, J. C. (1993). Gender differences in motor performance
in early childhood and later childhood. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal,
2(1), 41-71.

Ulrich, B. D. (1987). Perceptions of physical competence, motor competence, and
participation in organized sport: Their interrelationships in young children. Research
m_arterly for Exercise an‘d Sport.58(l), 56-67.

Ulrich, B. D. (1989). Development of stepping patterns in human infants: A
dynamical systems perspective. Journal of Motor Behavior, 21. 392-408.

Ulrich, D. A. (1985). Test of gross motor developmerlt. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Ulrich, D. A. (2000). Test of goss m_otor developmen_t_ (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-
Ed.

Ulrich, D. A., & Collier, D. H. (1990). Perceived physical competence in children
with mental retardation: Modiﬁcation of a pictorial scale. Aiapted Physical Activity
Quarterly. 7. 338-354.

172

Walkley, J., Holland, 3., Treloar, R., & Probyn-Smith, H. (1993). Fundamental
motor skill proﬁciency of children. ACHPER Imonjal JournaL40. 11-14.

Wadsworth, J. S., & Harper, D. C. (1991). Increasing the reliability of self-report
by adults with moderate mental retardation. _Tae Journal of thp Association for Persona
with Severe Handicaps, 16, 228-232.

 

Wang, J ., & Wiese, D. M. (1995). Test of Harter’s competence motivation theory
in the people’s Republic of China. Journal of the lntemational Council for Health.
Physical Educaaion. Recreatioa, Smrt, and Dance, 31(3), 34-39.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1994). Perceptions of self-deterrnination and psychological
empowerment of adolescents with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental

Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 29, 9-21.

Weiss, M. R. (1993). Social-psychological factors inﬂuencing children’s physical
activity. Pediatric Exercise Scierlce. 5(3), 34-39.

Weiss, M. R. (2000). Motivating kids in physical activity. President’s Council on
Physical Fitness and Sports Reseaach Disgest [On-line]. Available Internet:
http://www.ﬁtness.gov/activity/activity2/digest_sept2000/digest_sept2000.htrnl

Weiss, M. R., & Chaumeton, N. (1992). Motivational orientations in sport. In T.

S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in amrt pgchology (pp. 66-99). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.

Weiss, M. R., & Ebbeck, V. (1996). Self-esteem and perceptions of competence
in youth sport: Theory, research and enhancement strategies. In 0. Bar-Or (Ed.), '_I_'he@_;
child and adolescent_athlete (pp. 364-3 82). Oxford: Blackwell Scientiﬁc.

Weiss, M. R., Ebbeck, V., & Horn, T. S. (1997). Children’ self-perceptions and
sources of physical competence information: A cluster analysis. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 19, 52-70.

173

Weiss, M. R., & Horn, T. S. (1990). The relation between children’s accuracy
estimates of their physical competence and achievement-related characteristics. Research
Qu_arterly for Exercise a_nd Sport. 61. 250-258.

Weitzer, J. E. (1989). Childhood socialization into physical activlty: Parenarl roles
in perceptions of competence and goal orientations. Unpublished master’s thesis,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.
Paghological Revieva 66(5), 297-333.

Wickstrom, R (1983). Fundamental motor pa_t1erns. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Williams, H. G. (1983). Perceptual and motor developmen_t_. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wong, E. H., & Bridges, L. J. (1995). A model of motivational orientation for
youth sport: Some pereliminary work. Adalescerlce. 30. 437-452.

Yun, J., & Ulrich, D. A. (1997). Perceived and actual physical competence in
children with mild mental retardation. ﬂagged Physical Activity Quarterly. 14. 285-297.

Xiang, P., & Lee, A. (1998). The development of self-perceptions of ability and
achievement goals and their relations in physical education. Research Quarterly for

Exercise and 8mg, 69(3), 231-241.

174

111111111111 11111

3 1293 02

 
    

I
1

111111111

11

 

493 8288