L'l W ||||\|H\|Hl\|l|“MIMI“!HWHMLWIILWSHHIm 3 1293 104333 This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Standardization of a Criterion-Referenced Test in Fundamental Motor and Physical Fitness Skills presented by Dale Allen Ulrich has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Physical Education Major professor Date May 18, 1981 ~ 0-7639 MSU LIBRARIES “ SEP 2 5 13:3 WWOng RETURNING MATERIALS: P ace 1n book rop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if Book is returned after the date stamped below. THE STANDARDIZATION OF A CRITERION- REFERENCED TEST IN FUNDAMENTAL MOTOR AND PHYSICAL FITNESS SKILLS BY Dale Allen Ulrich A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation 1981 ABSTRACT THE STANDARDIZATION OF A CRITERION- REFERENCED TEST IN FUNDAMENTAL MOTOR AND PHYSICAL FITNESS SKILLS By DALE ALLEN ULRICH The objectives of this study were: 1) identify and standardize criterion-referenced test items in the physical education domain based on the definition in Public Law 94—142; and 2) develop a set of norms for intellectually normal, educable mentally impaired, and trainable mentally impaired children in the age range of 36 months to 155 months. Three major test functions were identified to guide in the test development process. A test user is advised to administer the test to students for the following purposes: 1. Screening for the identification of children with specific needs in the fundamental motor and physical fitness skill areas; 2. Aid teachers, administrators, and parents in making special education eligibility decisions in the physical education content area; and Dale Allen Ulrich 3. Aid teachers, administrators, and parents in making placement and instructional programming decisions to meet the unique needs of the student in physical education. The sample used in this study was comprised of 279 students, ages 36 to 155 months with normal intelligence or classified according to Michigan's state definitions as educable mentally impaired or trainable mentally impaired. Three criteria were developed for the selection of specific skills within the locomotor, object control, and physical fitness skill areas. The criteria represented an effort to select skills that were relevant to the physical education content being taught in schools through- out the United States. Sixteen skills were selected to be measured by the criterion-referenced test (CRT). This study utilized three content experts to investigate (1) content validity, (2) descriptive validity, and (3) criterion-selection validity. Two aspects of reliability were evaluated. The first indice studied was the internal consistency of the test using Cronbach's alpha coefficient and the second indice measured was the test-retest stability. The results obtained indicated excellent validity and reliability of the CRT. The collection of student performance data was used as a field test under the same conditions in which it Dale Allen Ulrich would be utilized. The initial analysis of the student performance data consisted of computing a three-way analysis of variance to test for differences between sex, age, student classification, and interaction effects. Normative data were established by age and student classification. Student profiles were constructed to aid teachers in making nondiscriminatory decisions. C) Copyright DALE ALLEN ULRICH 1981 To my wife and colleague for her support and understanding during all those lost weekends and promised vacations. To my mother for teaching me the meaning of sacrifice and compassion. To my father for teaching me the meaning of hard work and honesty. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to recognize the invaluable con- tributions of several individuals without whose assistance this task could not have been completed. To my friend and typist, Carol Brody, I owe a profound debt of gratitude. Without her knowledge and assistance this study would surely have been harder to accomplish. To Dr. Janet A. Wessel and Dr. Paul G. Vogel for their professional advisement. To Dr. D. Larry Carmichael for his professional support and friendship throughout my entire doctoral program. To Ms. Barbara Keene for her assistance during the test development and student data collection process. A special thank you is extended to several close friends: Crystal, Jack, Dick, and Jean. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Scope of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . lg . . . 1 Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . 23 Criterion-Referenced Measurement: Non- discriminatory Assessment and Evaluation . . . Standardization Procedures for Criterion- referenced Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Motor Skill and Physical Fitness Assessment . . . 60 Physical Fitness Parameters and Common Test Items Used in Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9O 23 CHAPTER III: METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . 92 DeSign overView O O O O O O O O. O O O O 0 O O O O 92 Functions of the Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Development or Selection of Objectives . . . . . 93 Criterion-referenced Test Item Development . . . 97 Standardization of Directions for Administration and Scoring . . . . . . . . . . 98 Validity of the Test Items . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Collection of Student Performance Data . . . . . 108 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . 115 Identifying and Standardizing Criterion- referenced Test Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Normative Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Page CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 APPENDIX A PUBLIC LAW 94-142 SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES WITH APPLICATIONS TO PHYSICAL EDUCATION. 184 APPENDIX B A REVIEW OF THE QUALITATIVE COMPONENTS MOST COMMONLY USED TO DESCRIBE THE FUNDAMENTAL MOTOR SKILLS SELECTED FOR INCLUSION IN THE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O 0 187 APPENDIX C THE TEST ITEMS COMMONLY USED TO ASSESS THE SELECTED PHYSICAL FITNESS PARAMETERS TO BE USED IN THE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 203 APPENDIX D LIST OF AMPLIFIED OBJECTIVES . . . . . . 207 APPENDIX E CONTENT EXPERT RATINGS OF THE MOST COMMON QUALITATIVE COMPONENTS OF EACH SKILL SELECTED FOR THE CRT EXPRESSED IN CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY . . . . . . . . 213 APPENDIX F A STANDARDIZED CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST IN FUNDAMENTAL MOTOR SKILLS AND PHYSICAL FITNESS - TEST MANUAL . . . . . 216 APPENDIX G CONTENT EXPERT RATINGS OF CRITERION VALIDITY O O O O C C C O O O O O O C O O 254 258 REFERENCE NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 vi Table 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.10 4.11 4.14 4.15 LIST OF TABLES A Summary of Ratings for Content Validity A Summary of Descriptive Validity Ratings Mean standard Deviation and F Ratio for Sex Differences on Each Test Item . . . . Summary of Analysis of Variance for Age Differences on the Run Test Item . . . . Summary of Analysis of Variance for Age Difrerences on the Gallop Test Item . . . Summary of Analysis of Variance for Age Differences on the Hop Test Item . . . . Summary of Analysis of Variance for Age Differences on the Skip Test Item . . . . Summary of Analysis of Variance for Age Differences on the Horizontal Jump Test Item 0 o o o o I O o o o o o o O O O O 0 Summary of Analysis of Variance for Age Differences on the Slide Test Item . . . Summary of Analysis of Variance for Age Differences on the Leap Test Item . . . . Summary of Analysis of Variance for Age Differences on the Overhand Throw Test Item I O C O O O O O O O O O C O O O O 0 Summary of Analysis of Variance for Age Differences on the Catch Test Item . . . Summary of Analysis of Variance for Age Differences on the Stationary Bounce TeSt Item 0 O O O O O O O O O O C O O O 0 Summary of Analysis of Variance for Age Differences on the Kick Test Item . . . . Summary of Analysis of Variance for Age Differences on the Two-Hand Strike Test Item 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 vii Page 124 126 130 131 131 131 131 132 132 132 132 133 133 133 133 Table 4.16 4.23 4.25 Summary of Analysis of Differences on the Sit- Summary of Analysis of Differences on the Sit Item 0 O O O O O O O I Summary of Analysis of Variance for Age Differences on the Push—Ups Test Item . Summary of Analysis of Variance for Age Differences on the Run/Walk Test Item . of Analysis of Classification Test Item. . . Summary Student the Run Summary of Analysis of Student Classification the Gallop Test Item . of Analysis of Classification Test Item . . Summary Student the Hop Summary of Analysis of Student Classification the Skip Test Item . . Summary of Analysis of Student Classification the Horizontal Jump Test Item . . . . Summary of Analysis of Student Classification the Slide Test Item . Summary of Analysis of Student Classification the Leap Test Item . . Summary of Analysis of Student Classification the Overhand Throw Test Item . . . . . Summary of Analysis of Student Classification the Catch Test Item . viii Page Variance for Age Ups Test Item . . 134 Variance for Age and Reach Test 0 o o o o o o o o 134 134 134 Variance for Differences on D O O O I O O O O 135 Variance for Differences on O O O O O O O O O 135 Variance for Differences on O O O O O O O O O 135 Variance for Differences on O I O O O O O O O 1'35 Variance for Differences on . 136 Variance for Differences on O O O O O O O O O 136 Variance for Differences on O o o o o o o g g 136 Variance for Differences on . 136 Variance for Differences on . 137 Table 4.29 4.32 4.38 4.40 Summary of Analysis of Variance for Student Classification Differences on the Stationary Bounce Test Item . . . Summary of Analysis of Variance for Student Classification Differences on the Kick Test Item . Summary of Analysis of Variance for Student Classification Differences on the Two—Hand Strike Test Item . . . . Summary of Analysis of Variance for Student Classification Differences on the Sit-Ups Test Item . Summary Student the Sit Summary Student of Analysis of Classification and Reach Test of Analysis of Classification the Push-Ups Test Item Summary Student of Analysis of Classification the Run/Walk Test Item Variance for Differences on Item . . . . . Variance for Differences on Variance for Differences on Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Age for the Run Test Item . . . . . . Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Age for the Gallop Test Item . . Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Age for the Hop Test Item . . . . . . Summary for Differences in of Tukey Multiple Range Test Test Item . . . . . . Age for the Skip Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Age for the Horizontal Jump Test Item .i. . . . . ix Page 137 137 137 138 138 138 138 , 139 139 139 140 140 Table 4.41 4.43 4.45 4.46 4.47 4.48 4.49 Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Age for the Slide Test Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Age for the Leap Test Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Age for the Overhand Throw Test Item . . . . . . . Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Age for the Catch Test Item 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Age for the Bounce Test Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Age for the Kick TeSt Item 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Age for the Two- Hand Strike Test Item . . . . . . . . . Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classifica- tion for the Run Test Item . . . . . . Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classifica- tion for the Gallop Test Item . . . . . Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classifica- tion for the Hop Test Item . . . . . . Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classifica- tion for the Skip Test Item . . . . . Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classifica- tion for the Horizontal Jump Test Item. Page 140 141 141 141 142 142 142 143 143 143 143 144 Table 4.53 4.56 4.61 Page Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classification for the Slide Test Item . . . . . . . . . 144 Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classification for the Leap Test Item . . . . . . . . . 144 Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classification for the Overhand Throw Test Item . . . . 144 Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classification for the Catch Test Item . . . . . . . . . 145 Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classification for the Stationary Bounce Test Item . . . 145 Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classification for the Kick Test Item . . . . . . . . . 145 Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classification for the Two-Hand Strike Test Item . . . . 145 Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classification for the Sit-Ups Test Item . . . . . . . . 146 Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classification 146 for the Sit and Reach Test Item ‘ ’ ' ' ° Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classification Summary of Tukey Multiple Range Test for Differences in Student Classification for the Run/Walk Test Item . . . . . . . 146 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Run Test Item . . . . . . . 148 xi Table 4.65 4.71 4.74 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Gallop Test Item . . . . . . . Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Hop Test Item . . . . . . . . Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Skip Test Item . . . . . . . . Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Horizontal Jump Test Item . . Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Slide Test Item . . . . . . . Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Leap Test Item . . . . . . . . Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Overhand Throw Test Item . . . Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Catch Test Item . . . . . . . Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Stationary Bounce Test Item . Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Kick Test Item . . . . . . . . Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Two-Hand Strike Test Item . . Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Sit-Ups Test Item . . . . . xii Page 149 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 Page Table 4.77 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Sit and Reach Test Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 4.78 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Push-Ups Test Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 4.79 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Run/Walk Test Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 4.80 Age at Which the Criterion Level of Performance First Appeared for Each Student Classification . . . . . . . . . 164 4.81 Age at Which the Criterion Level of Performance was Mastered by 25%, 50% and 75% or More of the Students in Each of the Student Classification Samples . . . 165 4.82 The Mean and Standard Deviation for the Locomotor Skill Test Items by Age and Student Classification . . . . . . . . . 155 4.83 The Mean and Standard Deviation for the Object Control Skill Test Items and Total Fundamental Motor Skill Test Score by Age and Student Classification . . . . 158 4.84 The Mean and Standard Deviation for the Physical Fitness Skill Test Items and the Total Score by Age and Student Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 xiii Figure 1 10 11 12 13 14 LIST OF FIGURES Uses of criterion- norm-referenced test data in education today . . . . . Parameters of selected physical, motor and fitness tests for normal, mildly and moderately retarded children . . . A summary of the qualitative components of a mature run . . . . . . . . . . . . A summary of the qualitative components of a mature gallop . . . . . . . . . . A summary of the qualitative components of a mature hop . . . . . . . . . . . . A summary of the qualitative components of a mature leap . . . . . . . . . . . A summary of the qualitative components of a mature horizontal jump . . . . . . A summary of the qualitative components of a mature skip . . . . . . . . . . . A summary of the qualitative components of a mature slide . . . . . . . . . . . A summary of the qualitative components of a mature bounce . . . . . . . . . . A summary of the qualitative components of a mature catch . . . . . . . . . . . A summary of the qualitative components Of a mature kiCk O O O O O O I O O O I A summary of the qualitative components of a mature overhand throw . . . . . . A summary of the qualitative components of a mature two-hand strike . . . . . . xiv Page 29 68 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Page Figure 15 A summary of common test items used to measure abdominal strength . . . . . . . 86 16 A summary of common test items used to measure arm and shoulder strength . . . . 87 17 A summary of common test items used to measure cardiorespiratory endurance . . . 88 18 A summary of common test items used to measure trunk and leg flexibility . . . . 89 19 Fundamental motor skill selection checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 20 Checklist for selecting physical fitness parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 96 21 Content validity form . . . . . . . . . . 102 22 Item objective congruency form . . . . . 105 23 An example form used in evaluating criterion validity . . . . . . . . . . . 107 24 Student profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 25 Fundamental motor skill selection checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 26 Physical fitness skill selection CheekliSt O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 118 27 A summary of specific qualitative components selected to represent each 1 20 skill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX LIST OF APPENDICES Page PUBLIC LAW 94-142 SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES WITH APPLICATIONS TO PHYSICAL EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . 184 A REVIEW OF THE QUALITATIVE COMPONENTS COMMONLY USED TO DESCRIBE THE FUNDA- MENTAL MOTOR SKILLS SELECTED FOR INCLUSION IN THE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 THE TEST ITEMS COMMONLY USED TO ASSESS THE SELECTED PHYSICAL FITNESS PARAMETERS TO BE USED IN THE CRITERION- REFERENCED TEST . . . . . . . . . . . 203 LIST OF AMPLIFIED OBJECTIVES . . . . . 207 CONTENT EXPERT RATINGS OF THE MOST COMMON QUALITATIVE COMPONENTS OF EACH SKILL SELECTED FOR THE CRT EXPRESSED IN CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY . . . . . . . 213 A STANDARDIZED CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST IN FUNDAMENTAL MOTOR SKILLS AND PHYSICAL FITNESS . . . . . . . . . . . 216 TEST MANUAL . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 CONTENT EXPERT RATINGS OF CRITERION VALIDITY o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . 254 xvi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In the 1970's significant changes in public policy on education of handicapped Children are reflected in the pro- visions of Public Law 94—142, Education for All Handicapped Children Act, and court actions. The major thrust in current legislation is to provide a free appropriate public education for all handicapped children. Two major pro- visions of the mandate, which are the specific concerns of the study, are the Individualized Education Program (IEP) and "Protection in Evaluation Procedures," nondiscriminatory assessment and evaluation. Public Law 94—142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, mandates assessment for three purposes: to determine eligibility for special education services, instructional planning, and evaluating the effectiveness of the instructional plan. The mandate requires that state and local educational agencies shall ensure that assessment and evaluation procedures be nondiscriminatory. The rules and regulations (Federal Register, August 23, 1977) suggest the following minimum standards: 121a.532 (a) Tests and other evaluation materials: (1) Are provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication; (2) Have been validated for the specific purpose for which they are used; and (3) Are administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producer; (b) Tests and other evaluation materials include those tailored to assess specific areas of educational need and not merely those which are designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient; (c) Tests are selected and administered so as best to ensure that when a test is admin- istered to a child with impaired sensory, manual, or Speaking skills, the test results accurately reflect the Child's aptitude of achievement level or whatever other factors the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the child's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (except where those skills are the factors which the test purports to measure); (d) No single procedure is used as the sole criterion for determining an appropriate educa- tional program for a Child; (e) The evaluation is made by a multi- disciplinary team or group of persons, including at least one teacher or other specialist with knowledge in the area of suspected disability; and (f) The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, where appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities (p. 42496). The Council for Exceptional Children (CEO) and re- searchers in physical education also have shown concern for adequate nondiscriminatory testing. The CEC (March, 1977) established the following policy regarding non- discriminatory evaluation: Assessment instruments shall be appropriately adapted when used with children of impaired sensory, physical, or speaking skills and must consider each child's age and socioeconomic and cultural background. Specialists implementing evaluation procedures must be familiar with local cultural, language, and social patterns and practices. Tests and similar evaluation materials shall be administered in the child's primary language, wherever apprOpriate. Interpreters, in the native language, and/or in sign language may be used throughout all phases of the evaluation. All communication with parents and the child shall be in the native language of the home. Local community norms shall be established when norm-referenced tests are used. Criterion—referenced instruments should be used. Developmental checklist(s) should be used where apprOpriate. Instruments shall be administered only by trained personnel according to the producer's instructions. Instruments shall assess specific abilities, not merely produce a single IQ score. No one result shall determine placement (Exceptional Children, March, 1977). Public Law 94-142 was designed to ensure the avail- ability to all handicapped children of a free, appropriate education. Appropriate placement and effective education of the handicapped are ensured by the section of the Act which provides that an individualized education program (IEP) be developed for each eligible handicapped child. The requirement for formalization of goals, objectives, and procedures for evaluation provides a management tool designed to ensure and facilitate delivery of appropriate special education and/or related services to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child. Although specific information in the IEP will vary from student to student, the regulations outlined by PL 94-142 describe the following minimum components (Federal Register, August 23, 1977): 1. A statement of the child's present level of educational performance; A statement of the annual goals, including short-term instructional objectives; A statement of the specific special education and related services to be provided to the child, and the extent to which the child will be able to participate in regular educational programs; The projected dates for initiation Of services and the anticipated duration of the services; Appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures; and Schedules for determining on at least an annual basis, whether the short-term instructional Objectives are being achieved (p. 42491). Currently, IEP's are written on approximately 155,000 students in the State of Michigan (Michigan Department of Education, 1977-1978). Projected across the United States, the figure increases to over six million. The need for appropriate, efficient assessment becomes readily apparent. Teachers have stated the need for a means of assessing students to a) identify the presence of motor needs, b) determine eligibility for placement in the least re- strictive environment (LRE) continuum, and c) aid in planning appropriate instruction. The effectiveness of the entire process of individualized educational program- ming hinges upon accurate assessment. Unless a teacher can pinpoint exactly what a student needs to learn, and how he learns most successfully, any attempt at individ- ualization will fall far short of its intended goal. Assessment should be inseparable from instruction, characterizing teaching in a diagnostic-prescriptive way. Review of current assessment instruments available to physical educators as to their conformance with the requirements of PL 94-142 and the Council for Exceptional Children shows tremendous need for revision and develop- ment of valid and reliable instrumentation in the physical education domain. Physical education is the only curricu- lar area specifically addressed in PL 94-142 (Federal Register, August 23, 1977), and is defined as "Physical and motor fitness, fundamental motor skills and patterns, and skills in aquatics, dance and individual and group games and sports" (p. 42480). Authorities in the area of physical education for the handicapped (Cratty, 1975; Rarick, 1977, 1979; Wessel, 1980) have advocated develop- ment of valid and reliable assessment instruments for handicapped students. In the opinion of the same author- ities, physical educators need to view assessment within the context of instructional placement and intervention. Also, assessment must be viewed clearly and simply as the process for collecting data for the purpose Of making non- discriminatory decisions about students using the guide- lines provided by PL 94-142 and CEC. At a study conference on research and demonstration needs in 1969, physical educators listed the following two major concerns related to assessment in physical education: 1. The development of diagnostic and evaluative instruments which would effectively measure the motor performance of young children as well as children at low functional levels; and 2. The development of new testing instruments which would hopefully remedy the practice Of modifying existing tools or using instruments which were originally designed for other purposes (Loovis & Ersing, 1979). On January 20, 1977 at the State of the Arts Conference on Adapted Physical Education in Mississippi, participants expressed the following concerns: 1. 2. The need for valid motor instrument methods; The development of a motor assessment instru— ment to aid in determining prOper placement of children; and The necessity for assessments to aid in instructional planning. On August 9, 1979 the National Consortium on Physical Education and Recreation for the Handicapped stated a priority need for the development and validation of motor assessment instruments. Most existing instruments have the following limita- tions: 1. Only provide scores that are interpreted relative to a narrow, poorly described, student population; Are limited in covering the scope Of the motor domain; Are not directly tied to curricular content; Are inadequate for use with low-functioning students; Are scored in a subjective manner causing low reliability estimates; 6. Are based entirely on a motor ability approach that identifies underlying strengths and weak- nesses and has little research support (Salvia & Yesseldyke, 1978); 7. Are difficult to administer and interpret; 8. Provide inadequate data on validity and reliability; and 9. Measure only quantitative performance. Assessment instruments and techniques must focus and emphasize eligibility, placement and instructional plan- ning decisions to meet the demands of teaching in compliance with PL 94-142. The two major diagnostic assessment approaches used in the physical education domain to provide information for systematically making the decisions referred to above are motor ability and criterion-referenced tests. Motor ability testing is an approach which attempts to identify general student strengths and weaknesses which may under- lie the learning Of specific motor tasks (Vogel, 1977). General weaknesses, when remediated, are presumed to facilitate the mastery of more specific tasks included in most physical education curriculums. The criterion- referenced strategy de-emphasizes assumed general abilities and emphasizes identifying the level (from a continuum of skill acquisition) a student has achieved on identified educationally relevant tasks (Vogel, 1977). Instruction is designed to move the student to the next skill level. Both assessment approaches can identify strengths and weaknesses. The major difference in the two ap- proaches is the interpretation as to what the observed strengths and weaknesses represent.r In the criterion-referenced approach, the inter- pretation of identified strengths and weaknesses is restricted to an evaluation of the present level of per- formance on specific target skills. The next level of performance on the skill learning continuum to be I mastered and the behavioral components of that skill level become the emphasis of instruction. Motor ability testing goes beyond observed perfor- mances and attempts to identify general abilities or deficiencies which may be the cause of obtained perfor- mance difficulties (Yesseldyke & Salvia, 1974), Instruc- tion is then prescribed to remediate the general disabil- ities (e.g., coordination, balance) in hopes of improving specific educationally relevant skills. Support for this testing and interpretation approach is weak in that: 1. There is an abundance of data suggesting that skill learning is specific rather than general (Clark & Shelley, 1961; Gallagher, 1970; Henry, 1956). 2. Most standardized general ability tests do not meet acceptable reliability standards (Yesseldyke & Salvia, 1974). 10 3. It offers the teacher little information related to the effective conduct of daily activities (Hofmeister, 1974). Data obtained in the motor ability approach are inter- preted by comparing student scores with a standardized norm group (norm-referenced). Data obtained in the criterion- referenced approach are interpreted relative to a pre- identified criterion. The criterion can be in the form of qualitative and/or quantitative performance. On a criterion-referenced test (CRT), the teacher can report that some percentage of students can meet course objectives and interpret student status and progress on instructional content to be taught in the physical education program. Motor ability tests underrepresent the physical education content domain and are not designed to pinpoint instruc- tional content relevant to student status and progress on course objectives (Mann, 1971; Yesseldyke, 1973; Yesseldyke & Salvia, 1974). Glaser (1963) proposed the concept of CRT's which emphasized establishment of an individual's performance level as it relates to performance along a continuum of skill acquisition. Criterion-referenced test interpreta- tions are useful in content areas that are cumulative and Progressively more complex for the student, such as Physical education where students have to reach some minimal level of proficiency or mastery before proceeding 11 to tasks that are more advanced. A student who cannot graSp a ball should not be given instruction on a mature catching pattern. Any content where mastery is required should incorporate CRT's on an ongoing basis to verify when a student reaches the defined acceptable level. When making decisions concerning the appropriate placement of a student along the continuum of skill acquisition, educators would be best served by CRT's directly related to the content to be learned. The present level or entry level of performance on the skills selected for inclusion in the program should be evaluated to facil- itate student achievement of the next higher performance level. In this manner, CRT's aid in meeting the unique needs of the student. Criterion-referenced tests directly linked to instruc- tional content allows for frequent evaluation of student progress which results in facilitating appropriate changes in the day—to-day prescription of instruction. Continuous monitoring of student progress via CRT's facilitates the communication to students, parents, and administrators, and provides important data necessary for updating IEP'S. Eligibility decisions are best made by interpretation of test results in a norm-referenced manner. A school can develOp eligibility guidelines by comparing the perfor- mances of large groups of students and setting cutoff scores such as the tenth percentile or minus two standard 12 deviations below the mean when compared to the morm group. A norm-referenced test interpretation will facilitate the identification of students that are grossly deficient in the physical education domain. One approach to assessment is not necessarily better or worse than another. Each simply serves a different purpose. Need for the Study Currently there are no valid and reliable criterion— referenced test batteries available for meeting the assess- ment, instruction and/or placement needs for delivering services to handicapped or nonhandicapped students in appro- priately designed (PL 94-142) physical education programs. The construction of a valid and reliable CRT would provide physical educators with much needed standardized instru- mentation. The following major functions would be served with a motor performance CRT: 1. Screening for identification of children with motor needs by specifying strengths and weak- nesses in comparison to the norm group. 2. Provide input to determine eligibility for special education services. 3. Provide input to determine appropriate placement in LRE. 4. Diagnostic and prescriptive programming when tied to instructional content. 13 5. Evaluation for monitoring progress and revising the educational plan. The CRT must be referenced to relevant physical educa- tion program content as defined in PL 94-142. It therefore must include items representative of: l. Fundamental motor skills and patterns; 2. Physical fitness; 3. Aquatics; 4. Dance; and 5. Individual and group games and sports. It must be suitable for populations of handicapped and nonhandicapped students to best serve the screening functiOns and for determining apprOpriate placement in the LRE. Objectives of the Study The objectives of this study were: 1) select and standardize criterion-referenced test items in the physical education domain based on the definition in Public Law 94-142; and 2) develop a set of norms appropriate for intel- lectually normal, educable mentally impaired, and trainable mentally impaired children in the age range of 36 months to 155 months. Scope of the Study The criterion-referenced test instrument was developed to assess fundamental motor skills and physical fitness, 14 not the entire area specified by PL 94-142. The CRT items were constructed to assess the following three levels of qualitative performance: criterion, rudimentary, and assisted. The functional motor skill level was not con- sidered in the development of the CRT. The criterion level was considered the essential prerequisite for students to progress to functional competence. The sample used in this study was comprised of students ages 36 to 155 months with normal intelligence or classified according to Michigan's state definitions as educable mentally impaired or trainable mentally inpaired. The students enrolled in regular classes were classified as normal, learning disabled, or emotionally impaired. The educable mentally impaired students were enrolled in self- contained classes in the regular neighborhood school building. All trainable students were enrolled in self- contained classes in intermediate school districts. Three criteria were developed for the selection of specific skills within the locomotor, object control, and physical fitness skill areas. The criteria represented an effort to select skills that were relevant to the physical education content being taught in Michigan school districts. Characteristics of well-designed CRT items were used as a guide in developing the test items 15 (POpham, 1978b). The following steps were followed in the item development process: 1. Select objectives from I CAN and Michigan Performance Objectives; 2. List potential item components for each Objective; 3. Rate components; and 4. Write items. Subsequent to item development, three testers were trained to reliably administer the test by viewing video- taped performances of educable mentally impaired students performing the 16 test items. Following the completion of the training, the three testers collected performance data on 279 students Classified as normal, educable mentally impaired, or trainable mentally impaired. The performance data were used to construct normative tables across the three populations of students. The validity of the test items was evaluated by the use of content experts in the physical education domain. Reliability of all test items was measured by a test- retest procedure. The internal consistency of the test was measured by computing the Coefficient alpha. 16 Limitations of the Study 1. Sample size was unequal within groups. 2. The small sample used to evaluate test-retest stability (n = 7) was selected based on the constraints of time and facilities that occur in all school environments. 3. The selection of observable qualitative components for the criterion level of per- formance for each test item was not a data-based decision. Selection was based on the judgment of three persons knowledgeable in motor skill development. Terminology and Definitions Amplified Objective: An expanded statement of an educa- tional outcome which provides boundary specifications regarding testing situations, response alternatives and criteria of correctness. Commonly used as a criterion- referenced test descriptive scheme that tells the user what the test is measuring. Criterion-Referenced Test (CRT): A test designed to ascer- tain an individual's status on a set of pre-established educationally relevant tasks. To interpret a test in a criterion-referenced manner is to pinpoint target skills and determine whether a student has mastered or not 17 mastered the tasks to be learned. Standardized procedures can be developed and normative data can be collected that will increase the utility Of the CRT. Standardized Test: A test designed to measure a sample of individual performance, administered according to uniform procedures, scored in conformance with uniform rules, and interpreted in reference to certain normative information and/or specific instructional content. Data on reliability and validity of the test must be provided. Motor Ability Test: A test designed to identify general or process strengths and weaknesses (e.g., balance, eye- hand coordination, that are presumed to cause inadequate motor skill development) in order to prescribe interven- tions designed to remediate ability weaknesses and/or facilitate strengths. Scores are interpreted relative to well-described norm groups in which students can be compared to one another. Educable Mentally Impaired (Michigan Requirements): A student identified by an educational planning and placement committee, based upon a comprehensive evaluation by a school psychologist, certified psychologist, or certified con- sulting psychologist, and other pertinent information as having all the following behavioral characteristics: 18 a) Development of a rate approximately two to three stan- dard deviations below the mean as determined through intellectual assessment; b) Scores approximately with the lowest six percentiles on a standardized test in reading and arithmetic; and c) Lack of development primarily in the cognitive domain. Emotionally Impaired (Michigan Requirements): A student identified by an educational planning and placement com— mittee, based upon a comprehensive evaluation by a school psychologist and social worker, a certified psychologist, a certified consulting psychologist, or a certified psy- chiatrist, and other pertinent information as having one or more of the following behavioral characteristics: a) Disruptive to the learning process of other students or himself in the regular classroom over an extended period of time. Learning Disabled (Michigan Requirements): A student identified by an educational planning and placement com- mittee, based upon a comprehensive evaluation by a school psychologist, or certified psychologist, or certified consulting psychologist, or an evaluation by a neurologist, or equivalent medical examiner qualified to evaluate neurological dysfunction, and other pertinent information as having all the following characteristics: 19 a) Disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using spoken or written language, which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculation. b) Manifestation of symptoms characterized by diagnostic labels such as perceptual handicap, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, or aphasia. c) Development at less than the expected rate of age group in the cognitive, affective, or psychomotor domains. d) Inability to function in regular education without supportive special education services. e) Unsatisfactory performance not found to be based on social, economic, and cultural background. Trainable Mentally Impaired (Michigan Requirements): A student identified by an educational planning and placement committee based upon a comprehensive evaluation by a school psychologist, certified psychologist, or certified con- sulting psychologist, and other pertinent information as having all the following behvaioral characteristics: a) Development at a rate approximately 3 to 4.5 standard deviations below the mean as determined through intellectual assessment. b) Lack of development primarily in the cognitive domain. C) Unsatisfactory school performance not found to be based on his social, economic, and cultural background. 20 General Needs Assessment: The administration of criterion- referenced test representing the selected content to be learned in the physical education program which will provide the teacher with information on the student's strengths and weaknesses relative to the program objectives. Objective-Based Instructional System (OBIS): An instruc- tional program which systematically links instruction to assessed student need on stated performance objectives by providing: a) Clearly stated goals. b) Goal-related objectives. c) A program organization built upon the appropriate place- ment of objectives from preschool through secondary levels. d) Objective-related instructional activities and games prescribed for students based on their changing needs. d) Objective-related student and program evaluation system. Screening and Referral: A systematic process for deter- mining the range of variability within a class or age level by comparing a student with established standardized test scores. A teacher can identify those students that are in the lowest portion of the range and refer them for a more in-depth evaluation in physical education. 21 Nondiscriminatory Evaluation Instruments: Testing and evaluation materials and procedures that are not racially and culturally discriminatory. Assessment with a single instrument, use of tests that are inapprOpriate for any of a variety of reasons, and testing by unqualified personnel, are but a few of the practices that allow for discrimination to occur. Perhaps the major solution to the problem is to make as few indirect assessments and predictions as possible to proceed more directly to assessments in the domain of instruction. Teachers themselves might well do most of the assessing and put the results to use immediately in their day-to-day instruction by selecting or develOping criterion- referenced tests that are‘representative of the content to be learned. At the same time, it would be necessary and beneficial to collect normative data on the criterion- referenced test on the local level to minimize discriminatory decision-making practices. Qualitative Performance Level: A mechanically mature move- ment pattern. The following four performance levels were used in the assessment of all 16 skills included in the criterion-referenced test: a) Criterion level (C) - Student completes the item accord- ing to all stated criteria. Any quantitative criteria stating "consecutive trials" require performance of all qualitative criteria the stated number of times. b) 22 Rudimentary level (R) - Student responds according to some of the criteria but not all of the stated criteria (lacks quantitative or qualitative aspects). c) Assisted (A) — Student needs some form of physical d) assistance to respond, such as manipulating the student, guiding a student's hand or tapping of student's limb. Through physical assistance, the student can perform a minimum of one qualitative criterion. Other (0) - Student does not respond, responds inappro- priately, resists assistance, or cannot perform a minimum of one qualitative criterion with physical assistance. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The objectives of this study were: 1) select and standardize criterion-referenced test items in the physical education domain relative to the requirements of Public Law 94-142; and 2) develop a set of norms for intellectually normal, educable mentally impaired, and trainable mentally impaired children in the age range of 36 months (3 years) to 155 months (12 years). The first section of the review of literature presents relevant information relating to criterion-referenced measurement. The second section presents a review of the literature pertaining to the standardization of tests. The final portion presents a review of motor skill and physical fitness assessment. Criterion-Referenced Measurement: Nondiscriminatory Assessment and Evaluation Evidence of bias in our educational system has long been present. While the more obvious examples of bias, such as separate schooling, are diminishing, questions Of bias in assessment and placement of students with individ- ual differences are now rising to the forefront. 23 24 Bias in schools occurs whenever educational decisions are inappropriately affected by a student's culture, race, economic background, or disability. Bias can occur in any phase of the educational program; however, the testing and placement of students in special education classes has be- come a major concern of those interested in equality in the schools (Bailey & Harbin, 1980). Current attempts to reduce bias in assessment and place- ment include the design of new testing procedures, the use of adaptive behavior scales, the use of criterion-referenced measures, and the intepretation of assessment results using local or special group norms (Bailey & Harbin, 1980). The emphasis of this study is on the use of criterion- referenced measures and the establishment of local or special group norms, where appropriate, in an effort to maximize nondiscriminatory educational decisions. Bailey (1979) contends that increased use of criterion-referenced tests in the evaluation process would force decision-makers to focus on the specific educational needs of children, as opposed to focusing on the labeling Of students. A criterion-referenced test (CRT) has been defined in a multitude of ways in the literature (Glaser & Nitko, 1971; Hambleton, Swaminathan, Algina, & Coulson, 1978; Harris & Stewart, 1971; Ivens, 1970; Kriewall, 1969; Livingston, 1972; Popham, 1978a). A very useful definition has been proposed by Glaser and Nitko (1971): "A criterion-referenced test is 25 one that is deliberately constructed so as to yield measure- ments that are directly interpretable in terms of specified performance standards. The performance standards are usually developed by defining specific tasks that the student should perform. Representative samples of tasks from this domain are organized into a test. Measurements are taken and are used to make a statement about the performance of each individual relative to that domain” (p. 653). A criterion-referenced measurement interpretation allows a teacher to describe a student's competency on the content to be learned in absolute terms. A norm-referenced test (NRT) interpretation compares the performance of students with one another. Criterion-referenced tests supplemented with normative data also yield this potential. A CRT approach should facilitate nondiscriminatory decision-making because the process then becomes one of 1) identifying basic skills that all students are expected to master, 2) assessing all students to determine which of these basic skills are present, and 3) designing appro- priate instruction so the remaining skills can be learned. According to Bailey and Harbin (1980), this process does have two problems. The current status of state and federal laws and funding systems requires a continuation of the labeling process which necessitates comparing one student with a norm group. It would be unwise and expen- sive for a school to ignore mandatory guidelines. 26 According to Bailey and Harbin (1980), CRT's can be very useful in making appropriate educational decisions. They can also adhere to the mandates for nondiscriminatory assessment when the following conditions are met: 1. The importance of the content measured by the CRT items and taught in the curriculum are agreed upon by culturally diverse groups within the school system. 2. Criterion-referenced items are constructed so as not to measure the skills of children from a particular cultural group unfairly (p. 593). For a time, information from CRT's was considered inappropriate for making placement decisions because they were not supplemented with normative data. In actuality, they provide information on 1) the content to be learned, 2) the intensity of instruction needed to obtain high levels Of on—task time to meet individual needs, and 3) the appro- priateness of the instructional program to teach the desired content. They provide crucial information in deter- mining the program that best meets a child's educational needs by pinpointing the appropriate content to be emphasized. The Council for Exceptional Children supports the use of CRT's as a strategy to reduce discriminatory educational decisions (Exceptional Children, 1977). Reynolds and Birch (1977) suggest that the major solu- tion to the problem of discriminatory assessment is to make 27 as few indirect assessments and predictions as possible. They suggest we proceed to more direct assessments in the domain of instruction. Local and Special Group Norms Another approach to maximize nondiscriminatory evalua— tion relative to this study deals with the establishment of local and special group norms. The purpose of norms is to provide a reference for interpreting a student's per- formance. Therefore, a set of norms must provide a mean- ingful and relevant standard for comparison. A controversy over the use of local or special group norms exists con- Cerning the conditions under which these norms are relevant (Oakland & Matuszek, 1977). Some professionals claim that many low-income and minority students are restricted by a process that judges their performance relative to the norms of the dominant culture, and that the use of special group or local norms allows comparison of the child to other children who have had similar experiences. Professionals on the other end of the controversy feel that a proper standardization sample is selected from different regions in the United States and is stratified by age, sex, socio- economic status, and cultural groups in the same proportion as that in which they exist in society. The end result of comparing a child to special and local norm groups is that of confining him to those groups (Bailey & Harbin, 1980). 28 There is no easy solution to the complexities of this issue. Currently, the pros and cons of local or special group norms are philosophical in nature and not empirically supported. The need exists to systematically evaluate the effects of using local and special group norms, especially in the determination of whether all students are provided appropriate educational programs. An interim solution may be to perform a test of significance across all stratification variables in the normative sample. If a significance does not exist, all data can be pooled and used as is. If a significance exists on any variable, then special group norms based on that variable should be used to decrease discriminatory decision- making. By providing norms based on several variables, the decision of which norms to use can be made at the LEA level. Uses of Criterion-Referenced Tests Millman (1974) indicated the following four general uses of CRT's: needs assessment, individualizing instruc- tion, program evaluation, and teacher and personnel improve- ment. Figure 1 summarizes the specific uses of both criterion- and norm-referenced test data in education today. Figure l. 29 Criterion-Referenced Facilitate nondiscrimin- atory decision-making. Instructional planning on a day-to-day basis. Designing and evaluating the IEP. Placement decisions within the continuum of skill development. Provide specific content-related feed- back to students, parents, and administration. Program evaluation. Norm-Referenced Determining the range of variability in per- formance (individual differences) within a student, class, and/ or school. Identification of skill deficiencies. Objective criteria for screening and referral decisions. Objective student data— based special education eligibility and LRE placement criteria. Facilitate setting reliable student performance expectations. Uses of criterion- norm-referenced test data in education today. By identifying basic skills that most students are expected to achieve in the physical education motor skill and fitness domain; assessing all students, handicapped and nonhandicapped, to determine which of these skills are present, a CRT should facilitate nondiscriminatory decision-making. The criterion-referenced testing should be limited to direct assessment of the student on the 30 content to be learned rather than trying to predict how a student will do by indirect assessment of the student's general abilities. A CRT can be used as an evaluation device for the teacher to make effective decisions in the individualiza- tion of the student's physical education program. The individualization process should be based on the assessed needs of each student on the content to be learned. By using a CRT the teacher can determine precisely which components of a skill each student has mastered and those that are lacking and need instruction. Another aspect of the individualization process that can be served by a CRT is determining the intensity or rate of instruction needed for the student to progress toward specified goals. If a student is deficient in pre- requisite skills necessary to master the desired content, the student must be provided a higher intenSity or on-task time to learn those skills. The placement of this student where a maximum on-task time can be achieved along the LRE continuum is suggested. The final aspect of the individualization process is designing and evaluating the appropriateness of the instructional program to teach the skills that are needed. The instructional program must consist of activities, drills, games, and instructional sessions designed to take the student from the present level Of performance to the expected level on the content of the program. It is 31 necessary to continually evaluate the student's progress on the specified content and make modifications where needed based on the student's changing status. A CRT linked directly with the content of the program allows for continuous assessment on a day-to-day basis. If no progress is observed over a specified period of instruc- tional time, the teacher must prescribe different activities and use a variety of techniques and procedures that are linked to the program content. When the CRT only represents a sample of the instructional performance Objectives, the assessment will not be as specific, re- sulting in broader unit prescriptions. School personnel responsible for developing and eval- uating a student's IEP will gain valuable information from the use of CRT's. Teachers will be able to develop the IEP in terms of goals and instructional Objectives based on the assessed needs of each student on the content of the program. The teacher will also have a simple instru- ment to continuously monitor the student's progress throughout the implementation of the IEP. Assessment will become part of instruction. The use of a CRT to assess the student's present level of performance will provide the teacher with student data to aid in apprOpriately placing the student within the continuum of motor skill development. It will provide an entry point into the physical education program. 32 Another use of a CRT in education today is based on the mandate requiring educational accountability. The CRT can provide specific content-related feedback to students, parents, and administration on exactly what skills and subskills the student can perform (Millman, 1974). The final use of CRT's is for program evaluation. A CRT will provide student data over an extended period of time to evaluate the effectiveness of the physical educa- tion program. Subsequent to an objective program evalua- tion, modifications can be implemented and re-evaluations can be performed (Hambleton & Gifford, 1977; Millman, 1974; Popham, 1975). A review of the literature reports the development and implementation of a diverse collection of alternative educational programs that seek to improve the quality of education for students with individual differences by individualizing instruction (Gibbons, 1970; Gronlund, 1974; Heathers, 1972; Wessel, 1976). A common characteristic of many of the new programs is that they are goal-directed and defined in terms of instructional Objectives and are generally referred to as "objective-based." The overall goal of an OBIS is to provide an educa- tional program which is maximally adaptive to the require- ments of the individual learner. Among the best examples Of objective—based instructional systems are Individually Prescribed Instruction (Glaser, 1968, 1970); Program for 33 Learning in Accordance with Needs (Flanagan, 1967; 1969); The Individualized Mathematics Curriculum Project (DeVault, Kriewall, Buchanan, & Quilling, 1969); and The I CAN Objective-Based Physical Education Program (Wessel, 1976, 1980). One of the underlying premises of objective-based programs is that effective instruction depends on a knowl- edge of what specific skills the student has. The tests that measure student progress must be closely matched to the instruction. Over the years, standard procedures for testing and measurement within the conext of traditional educational programs (norm-referenced approach) have become well known to educators; however, the procedures are much less appropriate for use within Objective-based programs (Glaser, 1963; Hambleton & Novick, 1973; Popham & Husek, 1969) because they are not closely matched to instructional content. As an alternative to the traditional norm- referenced techniques, criterion-referenced tests directly linked to the objectives Of the program have been intro- duced to meet the testing and measurement requirements of Objective-based programs. Screening, placement, instruction, and evaluation can and should be based on the identified tasks of importance for students to learn and on their status and needs on those tasks (Duffy & Fedner, 1978). 34 Standardization Procedures for Criterion—Referenced Tests According to Mehrens and Lehmann (1978), a standard- ized test is one that provides methods for obtaining samples of behavior under uniform procedures. The test is administered under uniform conditions with the same set of directions and equipment, and the scoring procedure is care- fully delineated and uniform. Usually, a standardized test has been administered to a norm group or groups so that a student's performance can be interpreted in a norm-referenced fashion. Ebel (1979) states that it is imperative that a standardized test has explicit instructions for uniform administration and has tables of norms for score interpreta- tion derived from administration of the test to a defined sample Of students. A major trend in criterion-referenced test standardization is the collection of normative data to increase its utility in making appropriate educational decisions (Popham, 1976; 1978a). The following general guidelines summarize the CRT Characteristics that should be evaluated by educational per- sonnel responsible for developing or selecting a standardized test for making effective educational decisions: 1) Function and purpose of the test (Kosecoff, Fink, & Klein, 1976); 2) Preparation or selection of objectives measured by the test (Hambleton & Eignor, 1978; Kosecoff et al., 1976; Popham, 1978a, 1978b); 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 35 Test item development (Hambleton & Eignor, 1978; Kosecoff et al., 1976); Directions for administration and scoring (Hambleton & Eignor, 1978; Kosecoff et al., 1976; Mehrens & Lehmann, 1978); Normative data (Hambleton & Eignor, 1978; Kosecoff et al., 1976; Mehrens & Lehmann, 1978; Popham, 1976, 1978a); Test score interpretation (Hambleton & Eignor, 1978; Mehrens & Lehmann, 1978); Reliability (Hambleton & Eignor, 1978; Kosecoff et al., 1976; Mehrens & Lehmann, 1978; Popham, 1978a, 1978b); and Validity (Hambleton & Eignor, 1978; Kosecoff et al., 1976; Mehrens & Lehmann, 1978; Popham, 1978a, 1978b). The remainder of this section will be devoted to a more specific explanation of the above guidelines for standardized criterion-referenced tests. Function and Purpose of the Test Criterion-referenced tests are most commonly used In two contexts: (l) instructional diagnosis and planning; (2) student and program evaluation (Kosecoff et al., 1976). In the first context, a CRT can diagnose specific content- related needs of each learner when it is directly linked 36 to the instructional program. Identification of specific strengths and weaknesses on the objectives of the physical education program is used as an assessment of the present levels of performance on a continuum Of development lead- ing toward the acquisition of target objectives. The next level of performance to be mastered and the behavioral components of that skill level become the emphasis of instruction. When the objectives of an OBIS are arranged in an instructional sequence which ranges in ability from little competence to a mature or functional level, the Objectives become the pool of potential items. Instruc- tion is prescribed in accordance with the assessed needs of students on the objectives. A match between the physi- cal education program and the individual student is made by selecting those objectives within the program that accommodate the unique needs of various students and constructing a test to fit the content. In the second context, student achievement can be documented through reasseSsment during and at the end of instruction by the use of CRT's reflecting the content of the selected program objectives for each student. Con- tinuous monitoring of each student's progress on target objectives is facilitated by incorporating an OBIS and a criterion-referenced test within the program organiza- tion. Decisions concerning the impact of instruction on 37 each student and the work of the overall program can be made by documenting the learner outcomes on the objectives Of the program measured by the CRT's. Preparation or Selection of Objectives The basic feature of CRT's is their foundation on clearly defined educational tasks and purposes which con- stitute the test's domain specifications. Objectives for CRT's can be develOped or selected in at least three ways (Kosecoff et al., 1976): 1. Expert judgment. Domain experts assess the educational tasks that are the most relevant to measure and teach within a specific domain (Martuza, 1977). 2. Consensus judgment. Various groups such as community representatives, teachers, curric- ulum specialists, school administrators, and parents decide which educational tasks are the most important and form a pool of potential possibilities (Wilson, 1973). 3. Theories of learning and instruction. A literature review is conducted to formulate series or hierarchies of educational tasks (Keesling, 1974). The initial and most important quality of a well- designed CRT is a descriptive scheme, that, with no ambiguity, spells out just what it is that students who 38 take the test can or can't do. Sometimes these descrip- tive schemes are referred to as test specifications, item forms, or amplified objectives. The descriptive mechanisms are the verbal vehicles that render CRT's useful to educa— tors. Good CRT's must be focused on a limited number of significant learned behaviors. At the same time, the small number of important behaviors being measured must still be described with sufficient clarity to communicate unambig- uously what is being measured (Popham, 1978b). It is important that a CRT be based on clearly defined Objectives and to Choose a representative sample of items. More useful than behavioral objectives are "amplified objectives." According to Millman (1974), "An amplified Objective is an expanded statement of an educational goal which provides boundry specifications regarding standard testing situations, response alternatives (where appro— priate) and criteria of correctness" (p. 335). In light of the recent emphasis on objective-based instructional systems with documented goals and program Objectives which specify the content to be learned, criterion-referenced tests can be constructed that repre— sent the goals and objectives that represent physical education domains. Hambleton and Eignor (1978) suggest the following questions concerning the objectives measured by a CRT: 39 1) Are the objectives stated in a Clear and concise fashion? 2) Can a potential user "tailor" the test to meet local needs by selecting objectives of interest? 3) Is there a match between the content measured by the test and the situation where the test is to be used? 4) Does the set of Objectives measured by the test serve as a representative pool from some content area of interest? Test Item Develgpment Several approaches to the generation of criterion- referenced test items have been prOposed by Anderson (1972), Bormuth (1970), Hively, Maxwell, Rabehl, Senison, and Lundin (1973), and Osborn (1968), but none is appro- priate in the motor skill and physical fitness domains. The most pOpular and widely used of the newer techniques is the "amplified objective" approach of Popham and Baker (1973). This approach begins with an instructional objec- tive and consists of a response description, content lrmits (essentially a rule for determining the content relevant to the achievement of the objective), a detailed description of the Characteristics of the item and the appropriate means of responding to it, standard scoring criteria, 40 and standard item directions and equipment. The popularity of this technique is a result of its wide applicability and because it is an extension of the well-formed objective. It appears to be the most practical approach to content definition in the motor skill and physical fitness domain. It is imperative to maintain a nondiscriminatory approach to item development. The two most important aspects of the item development process that must be con- sidered to maximize nondiscriminatory evaluation are (1) content and (2) wording. The content of a CRT item must be made up of skills that all students can be ex— pected to learn. The wording of an item is Offset by pre- senting it in the Child's native language and presenting an apprOpriate demonstration of the skill according to the set criteria. According to Hambleton et a1. (1978), the quality of CRT items can be determined by the extent to which they reflect, in terms of their content, the objective from which they were developed. A common approach used to determine the validity of the content of CRT items involves judging each item by content experts. The judgments that are made concern the match between an item and the objective that it is designed to measure. 41 Two strategies for the collection and analysis of the judgments of content experts were described by Rovinelli and Hambleton (1977) and others are offered by Popham (1975). Rovinelli and Hambleton (1977) asked con- tent experts to rate test items relative to a set of objectives. The following three possible ratings of a test item were used: +1 = definite feeling that an item matches the objective; 0 = undecided about the item-objective match; -1 = definite feeling that an item does not match the objective. A second strategy used by Rovinelli and Hambleton (1977) incorporated the use of a four-point rating scale. Content specialists are provided an objective and a set Of test items. The task is to judge the appropriateness Of each item as a measure of the objective. The data obtained are the average ratings across content experts. Hambleton and Eignor (1978) suggest the following questions concerning the items in a criterion-referenced test: 1) Are the test items valid indicators of the Objectives they were developed to measure? 2) Do the test items represent content that is important for students to learn? 42 3) Are the test items in an appropriate format to measure the Objectives they were developed to measure? Directions for Administration and Scoring One factor strongly affecting a CRT's usability is the training necessary to administer the test reliably. Since few school systems have personnel specially trained to administer all testing programs, a CRT intended for use in a classroom context has greater utility if it can be administered by the student's teacher or by a paraprofessional. ' A test is more practical if the instructions to the examiner and the student are clear, complete, and well organized (Walker, 1978). Uniform equipment and materials must be easily obtained in an educational setting. Elab- orate and special equipment decreases the CRT's utility in a classroom setting. A test is more practical if it can be scored easily and objectively. Good records of student performance are an important Part of classroom management and meeting accountability requirements. A testing system is more practical when it has usable forms for recording students' test scores that are easily keyed to the objectives, easy to maintain, and easy to interpret (Walker, 1978). 43 The order in which the individual items that comprise the CRT must be administered has important consequences for a CRT's administration. For example, CRT's that re- quire a prescribed order for testing have limited work with curriculums that follow another sequence (Kosecoff et al., 1976). A major consideration related to a CRT's administrative adequacy is the extent to which the instru- ment can be used to make educational decisions (Kosecoff et al., 1976; Walker, 1978). A promising practice in the last few years is the referencing of objectives and test items to specific instructional materials (Bagnato, Laub, & Kurtz, 1978; Loovis & Ersing, 1979; Wessel, 1976, 1980). Hofmeister (1975) states, "CRT's can reach their full potential only when they are integrated into the day-by- day functioning of the classroom" (pp. 77-78). Hambleton and Eignor (1978) suggest the following questions concerning the administration of standardized CRT's: 1. DO the test directions include information relative to test purpose, equipment and materials, and scoring? 2. Are the test directions clear? 3. Is the test easy to score? 44 Collecting Normative Data According to Popham (1976, 1978a), rather than de- nouncing normative data, supporters of CRT's should encourage designers of such measures to collect data re- garding how various groups of students perform on the tests. With adequate comparative data, the administrative utility of the CRT is increased. Although CRT's permit educators to describe the extent to which a student pos- sesses a specific skill, it doesn't automatically inform concerned teachers and parents how well a student should be expected to perform with respect to the skill in question. The major reservation that some educators have about norm data for CRT's is that they will cause the test to lose its descriptive clarity. Popham (1976) says: You don't lose Clarity of description by augmenting a test with comparative data, you merely pick up some information that's useful in setting reliable performance expectations (p. 594). Initially, the use of comparative data will help teachers and others responsible for developing goals and objectives for students in physical education. If a stu- dent performs one and one-half to two standard deviations below the mean on fundamental motor skills when compared to student peers, a realistic goal for the student in 45 physical education would be to develop competence in selected fundamental motor skills. It is important to select appropriate fundamental motor skills or teachers may not have enough instructional time to facilitate improvement in performance. Normative data on a CRT will provide educators with decision—making criteria based on student performance data. The following major decisions can be made more efficiently in the presence of normative data representing student performance on the content of the local physical education program: 1. Special education eligibility in physical education; 2. Appropriate placement in the physical education program; 3. IEP development in terms of goals and objectives. The decision that a student is in need of special education services in physical education can be based on how the student performs on the content of the program when compared to student peers. If the results of assess- ment show that the student is grossly deficient in motor skill and/or physical fitness, the student should be eligible for special education services in these areas, regardles of whether the student is considered handicapped or nonhandicapped. Local education agencies (LEA) can 46 determine their own criteria for eligibility (i.e., one, one and one-half, or two standard deviations below the mean on the content when compared to their peers), or, where available, use the criteria established by the state. If the student is grossly deficient on the content (depending on the LEA criteria for such a classification), then a placement within the physical education program where the student will get the most effective instruction (remedial class, additional instructional periods, small group instruction, or self-contained class with peer tutors, volunteers, or paid aides) can be made. An example of decision criteria for making placement decisions would be when an LEA decides that a remedial physical education class is for students deficient in only one or two skills with the expectation of remediating these skills in a relatively short time. An LEA might set criteria for regular education placement in physical education so that a handicapped student that performs within one standard deviation below the mean on the content of the program can participate in the regular program. In the educational context, the term norms generally refers to the statistical information which describes the distribution of scores of a well-defined sample of stu- dents and it provides evaluative information about a 47 student's level of performance when compared to the norm sample (Mehrens & Lehmann, 1978). The statistical informa- tion may be presented in a variety of forms including 1) summary statistics such as means and standard devia- tions, 2) conversion or norms tables which show the association in the norm sample between each possible raw score value and the matching values on derived scales (e.g., T, percentiles, stanine), and 3) student profiles which show at a glance the performances of the norm group on a number of simultaneous dimensions (Martuza, 1977). Most standardized tests tend to present normative data in several forms to maximize the interpretability and ease of use for varied consumer groups. According to Mehrens and Lehmann (1978), normative data must be recent and representative of students found in most schools. As the content of a physical education program changes, not only the norms but the test itself becomes outdated. If the characteristics of the refer- ence group have changed, then the normative data are Obsolete and should result in the collection of new norms based on the present characteristics of the students. If a normative sample is not representative of the general pOpulation being assessed, then sampling error 48 occurs. According to Mehrens and Lehmann (1978) and Ebel (1979), a normative sample should generally be stratified by sex, age, and race when used in an educational setting. The relevance of the norm group is dependent upon the degree to which the population sampled is comparable to the group with which users of the test wish to compare their students (Mehrens & Lehmann, 1978). Hambleton and Eignor (1978) suggest the following questions concerning standardized normative data: 1) Are the norms reported in an appropriate form? 2) Are the samples of students utilized in the norming process described? Test Score Interpretation The interpretation of test scores is important if reliable decisions are to be made in an educational setting. The two most important factors concerning the interpretation of a student's test scores for Classroom use are 1) ease of interpretation; and 2) accuracy. According to Ebel (1979) and Martiza (1977), student test profiles are convenient ways of showing test scores; they are graphic devices enabling educators and parents to see the overall performance of a student at a glance. 49 They provide an excellent means for gaining a comprehensive picture of the strengths and weaknesses of a student or class. In general, profiles are used to show two or more scores for the same student. Before a profile can be plotted, it is necessary to transform the scores to sets of comparable values. One approach is to convert the raw scores into some type of derived scores prior to plotting them. The most common methOd is to use either standard scores, percentile ranks, or stanines (Martuza, 1977). Another common approach is to scale the raw scores on the profile itself so that each scale has an equivalent mean and unit of measurement. Walker (1978) feels that because tests are devices for making decisions about students, they should be constructed in a way that allows decisions to be made with confidence and ease. The information for decision- making should be easy to find, easy to use, and well justified. Although the decision criteria for special education eligibility and placement should be left up to the local test users, the developer should give an indica- tion of the consequences of choosing different criteria. The two most common uses of profiles are l) diatnosis, and 2) planning (Martuza, 1977). For the purpose of 50 diagnosis, educators and parents examine the profile for the most obvious skill strengths and weaknesses shown by the student's performance on the CRT. For the purpose of planning, educators would prescribe instruction based on specific student weaknesses. Educa- tors, parents, and other school personnel could base the development of a student's IEP on the performance profile. If the student was deficient on a certain number of funda- mental motor skills (depending on LEA criteria), an appro- priate goal area in physical education would be to develop competence in fundamental motor skills. This would be placed along with specific objectives in the student's IEP. Hambleton and Eignor (1978) suggest the following questions concerning the score interpretations of a stan- dardized CRT: 1. Are suitable guidelines included in the manual for interpreting individual and group objec- tive score information? 2. Are appropriate guidelines offered in the manual for utilizing test scores to make descriptive statements, instructional decisions, program evaluation decisions, or other stated uses of the test scores? 51 Reliability The extent to which a test measures with consistency is referred to as its reliability. The more consistently a test assesses whatever it is meaSuring, the more reliable it is (Popham, 1978a). It is imperative that, whatever the technique involved in estimating a CRT's reliability, there be at least a small amount of examinee response variance, or else the results of the analysis will be essentially worthless (Popham, 1978a; Swaminathan, Hambleton, & Algina, 1974). According to Mehrens (1980) and Ebel (1980), tradi- tional correlational strategies used to determine the reliability of norm-referenced tests are suitable for CRT's as long as there is at least a small amount of performance variability. Performance variability is not a necessary requisite for a good CRT. When no variability is present, new techniques to determine reliability must be used. The most important types of reliability indices used for standardizing tests are: test-retest stability, equiv- alence and stability, and internal consistency (Popham, 1978a). According to Mehrens (1980), stability and internal consistency are the most appropriate for a CRT in the physical education area. The test—retest procedure for assessing the reliability of a test in a particular examinee sample requires two administrations of the same test, separated by a reasonable 52 period of time (Martuza, 1977). According to Popham (1978a), the actual duration of the delay is particularly crucial. If the between-testing period is too long, signi— ficant events may have occurred that would effect the test's ability to produce consistent scores. Generally, the interval between testing is between one and two weeks, long enough so that the students' recall of the initial testing will not significantly influence their second per- formance, but not too long so as to permit learning of the tested behaviors. Generally, the relationship between the test-retest scores is calculated via an available correla- tional technique such as the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient with hOpes of obtaining a stability coefficient Of at least .80 (Mehrens, 1978). It is recom- mended that higher coefficients be used for making individual placement decisions. With norm-referenced interpretations, internal con- sistency estimates constitute the most widely used pro- cedure of measuring reliability (Popham, 1978a). Internal consistency estimates attempt to measure the amount of consistency among the test items. Internal consistency does not measure the reliability of decisions resulting from a test, but only the characteristics of the items themselves. According to Ebel (1980), Martuza (1977), and Mehrens (1980), the alpha coefficient provides the best 53 measure of internal consistency because of its application to any particular set of test data. Using the coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951), it is possible to Obtain reliabil- ity estimates from only one set of test data. This is accomplished by using the mean of all split-half coeffi- cients resulting from different splittings of the same test. Alpha provides a general method for assessing the reliability of a composite test using information on the component parts of the test. Martuza (1977) and Mehrens (1980) offer one caution when using alpha as a measure of internal consistency of CRT's. They state that the values obtained are directly related to the variability in test scores. The amount Of variability in such a distribution is typically quite low. As a result, an internally consistent test may yield a relatively low alpha coefficient. If this is the case, a newer technique such as Cohen's (1960) kappa statistic should be used. According to Mehrens (1980), as long as an acceptable reliability coefficient results, the amount of variability is unimportant. The basis for much of the recent literature on reli- ability for CRT's is provided by Hambleton and Novick (1973), Popham (1978a), and Swaminathan, Hambleton and Algina (1974). Hambleton and Novick (1973) suggest "the traditional concepts of reliability and validity could be replaced by a complete decision-theoretic 54 formulation" (p. 168). In cases where a CRT is used to categorize people into two groups, the metric of major interest for the test is a zero-one score where non- masters receive zero and masters a One. Reliability can be addressed in terms of the zero-one metric rather than the number-right score of another metric. Since product- moment correlations have undesirable properties for zero- one variables, Hambleton and Novick suggested that "an alternative measure of reliability might simply be the proportion of times the same decision would be made with repeated measurements" (p. 168). Swaminathan, Hambleton, and Algina (1974) considered using the simple proportion of agreement between decisions on two administrations, but rejected this as an index because it "does not take into account the agreement that could be expected by Chance alone" (p. 264). To adjust for chance agreement, Swaminathan et al. (1974) proposed the use of Cohen's (1960) kappa statistic. Kappa is the proportion of agreement uncontaminated by chance. Kappa can range from —1 to +1 with a positive 1 indicating perfect consistency and zero indicating Chance agreement. Negative values imply that the Observed agreement is worse than that which would be expected by change. Moyer (1976, 1977) conducted a study comparing reli- ability results based on traditional strategies and those 55 based on kappa's consistency of classification. She deter- mined that the two techniques yielded very similar informa- tion for the tests used in the Michigan Assessment. Strasler and Raeth (1977) reported similar findings. Moyer (1976) concluded that for practical purposes the traditional measures were preferable since they are more familiar and yielded results similar to kappa. An additional alternative presented in the literature is a coefficient of reproducibility. Cox and Graham (1966) suggested this coefficient for estimating the reliability of a decision-oriented measure. The coefficient of reproducibility is appropriate for some items that are sequentially scaled such that a person is expected to pass items up to a certain point and fail items beyond that point. The items should be expected to approximate a Gutman scale (Torgerson, 1958). It is apparent by the above discussion on measuring the reliability of standardized CRT's that several poten- tial procedures exist. Those procedures that are the most practical and traditional should be attempted initially. If low indices of reliability occur due to a lack of vari— ability in scores, then the newer techniques based on the percent of agreement across several administrations may have more utility. 56 Validity According to Ebel (1979) and Mehrens and Lehmann (1978), the degree of validity is the single most important aspect of a test. Validity can beSt be defined as the degree to which the test is capable of achieving the aims of the user (Mehrens & Lehmann, 1978). A system developed by Kosecoff et a1. (1976) for describing and evaluating CRT's suggests several dimensions that can be used to validate a CRT: 1) content validity, 2) descriptive validity (item—objective congruency), and 3) criterion selection validity. Content validity can be established by determining if the skills selected are representative of skills commonly taught in most school curriculums. This can be accomplished by surveying curriculums and/or having content judges evaluate the selected skills for their relevancy. Item-objective congruence (descriptive validity) can be established by using judgmental data. Usually, content experts are given a variety Of objectives and the items used to measure them, and are requested to comment on the appropriateness of the item—objective relationship. Popham (1978a) considers this notion of item-objective congruency as the test's descriptive validity (whether or not the items are congruent with the test specifications). 57 Popham (1978a) suggests the following procedure for determining the descriptive validity. Locate several content judges and ask them to first read the set of Objectives and then judge, on an item-by-item basis, whether the item is congruent with its objective. All the judges need to do is go through the items and check those that are incongruent; then compute the percentage of congruent items as seen by the judges; then calculate the mean percentage across all judges. Popham goes on to suggest that congruency percentages of 90 or higher would appear to be satisfactory. In certain content domains, such as math concepts or word recognition, it may also be necessary to evaluate the proportion of items representing each objective. According to the system proposed by Kosecoff et a1. (1976) and Popham (1978a), the third dimension is criterion selection validity. This is a procedure for verifying the importance of the behaviors used in a test item criterion. The criterion can be qualitative and/or quantitative in nature. This can be achieved by reviewing the research and selecting relevant behaviors and then asking a group Of individuals knowledgeable in the content area to judge their importance. Kosecoff et a1. (1976) feel that it is best when a CRT is based on objectives that are narrowly defined and operationally stated in such detail that 58 developing items requires only transposing the objectives into test form. Criterion-referenced test score inter— pretations of objectives with these Characteristics are meaningful because the objectives describe skills that can be measured directly by test items. An example that only requires determining the rele— vancy or importance of the Objectives selected to meet criterion validity is when objectives are selected di- rectly from a validated curriculum. Criterion-referenced test score interpretations are significant for these objectives because the skills measured are being taught in classrooms using a specific curriculum. Kosecoff et a1. (1976) suggest a second step in establishing criterion validity. This involves the use of empirical means in determining whether students who perform well on the test have actually achieved the Objec- tive. This can be assessed by comparing results obtained by examinees who, prior to taking the CRT and using independent criteria, are judged to be masters or non— masters of the skills that the objective is intended to measure. To the degree that the CRT discrimination between these two groups of students, the CRT has criterion validity. 59 Summary In an effort to maximize nondiscriminatory assess- ment and evaluation, educators have turned to the develOp— ment and use of criterion-referenced tests that are directly linked to the content of instruction. A CRT approach facilitates nondiscriminatory decision—making by 1) identifying basic physical education skills that are important for students to learn, 2) assessing all students to determine which of these basic skills are present, and 3) designing appropriate instruction so the remaining skills can be learned. To increase the utility Of a CRT, it appears most appropriate to collect norma- tive data on specific groups of students so that norm- referenced decisions can also be made. The major use of normative data on CRT's is to provide educators and parents with student data-based decision criteria. The following eight characteristics are important when developing or selecting a standardized CRT: 1) function or purpose of the test; 2) preparation or selection of objectives measured by the test; 3) test item development; 4) the directions for administration and scoring; 5) normative data; 6) test score interpreta- tion; 5) reliability; and 8) validity. 60 The following conclusions related to standardizing CRT's have been drawn from this review: 1. Criterion-referenced tests must be directly related to the content to be learned in the physical education program. 2. Criterion-referenced test items must be based on clearly defined educational tasks. 3. Content experts' judgment of the educational tasks that are the most relevant to measure and teach in physical education is an acceptable validation strategy. 4. The CRT items should be based on a sufficiently limited focus of relevant and observable behaviors. Motor Skill and PhysicSI Fitness Assessment Assessment in the physical education motor skill domain has become increasingly important with the passage of Public Law 94-142 (94th Congress, 1975). Special treatment given to physical education in this law is demonstrated in various components of the definition of special education (Section 121a.l4 Federal Register, 1977): 61 121a.l4 Special education (a)(l) As used in this part, the term "special education" means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parent, to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, including classroom instruction, instruction in physical education, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions. (b) The terms in this definition are defined as follows: (1) "At no cost" means that all specially designed instruction is provided without charge, but does not preclude incidental fees which are normally charged to nonhandicapped students or their parents as part of the regular education program. (2) "Physical education" is defined as follows: (i) The term means the development of; (A) Physical and motor fitness (B) Fundamental motor skills and patterns; and (C) Skills in aquatics, dance, and indi- vidual and group games and sports (including intramural and lifetime sports). (ii) The term includes special physical education, adapted physical education, movement education, and motor development. A careful examination of the definition of special education reveals that physical education is the only curriculum area specifically mentioned in the law (Federal Register, 1977). The specific inclusion of physical educa- tion in the law necessitates that it be addressed in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) Committee (IEPC) meeting for each child identified as a possible candidate for special education. Therefore, if reliable decisions are to be made by the IEPC, they must be based on a clear picture of what the student can and cannot do (criterion- referenced interpretations) in the physical education 62 motor skill domain and how these performances compare to their student peers (norm-referenced interpretations). Section 121a.530 of PL 94-142_mandates the following seven guidelines to be followed to protect students during evaluation procedures (see Appendix A for a de- tailed list of suggestions and applications to physical education): 1) Be provided and administered in the student's native language; 2) Be administered by trained personnel; 3) Be provided with student data in all areas related to the suspected disability; 4) Be tailored to assess specific program areas; 5) Be selected and administered to ensure non- discrimination; 6) Not to be a single procedure; and 7) Be conducted by a multidisciplinary team. Criterion-Referenced Measures Useful in Motor Skill Assessment Recalling the discussion in an earlier section of this chapter pertaining to the characteristics of an objective-based physical education system, a reader is reminded that the center of an OBIS is found in its objectives. The most important characteristic of the 63 objectives for the system to be useful is that the objectives must be measurable (Vogel, 1980). For ob- jectives to be measurable, educators must be able to reliably assess whether a student has mastered the objective. According to Yelon (1979), a good objective has three major components: 1) the given conditions that are important to the behavior being measured must be identified; 2) the behavior being measured must be stated in observable terms; and 3) the standards for acceptable performance must be identified. Objectives with the above components represent instructional outcomes. According to Vogel (1980), sequential objectives refer to the levels of performance within a specific skill, such as rudimentary level, mature or qualitative level, and the functional (usable) level. An explana- tion of these levels will be provided in the next section. The above levels will accommodate nearly all students from almost zero competence to the highly skilled indi- vidual. If a teacher has students that do not fit into one of these levels, it is suggested that a lower level or assistance level be added that requires the student to perform components of the quality level with physical assistance. 64 When objectives are stated in measurable terms and are subdivided into sequential levels, criterion—referenced tests can be designed to assess student status to determine their unique instructional needs on each objective. The educator's task becomes one of facilitating student achieve- ment of the next performance level. Criteria Selection for Performance Standards Motor skill acquisition is a sequential and complex process during which attention is focused successfully from simple to more complex competency. The most common levels of motor skill acquisition used to describe the degree of competency in a specific skill, discussed in the preceding section, are: l) rudimentary (nonmature) level; 2) mature or qualitative level; and 3) functional (qualita- tive and quantitative) level. The rudimentary level represents initial learning of the skill without having all of the required components. An example of a rudimentary overhand throw would be if a student has all the components of the skill except that he steps on the wrong foot when transferring his weight, or the student may lack only consistency to perform the throw three consecutive times with all the required components. The mature or qualitative level represents a degree of competency exemplary of mastery of all the stated qualitative components of a skill. The only competency 65 lacking is the competency for the components of accuracy and/or distance. An example of a functional overhand throw would be when a student can throw a ball with all the stated qualitative components and hit a specific target, i.e., a four-foot square target from a distance of 40 feet, three consecutive times. Although highly competent performers demonstrate variations in style, these differences do not violate underlying skill or common components that are require- ments for skilled movement. There is general agreement regarding the identification of these common skilled elements among those who are familiar with the bio- mechanical similarities and differencesin skilled per- formance (Espenschade & Eckert, 1967; Seefeldt, 1976a, 1976b, 1976c; Seefeldt & Haubenstricker, 1974, 1975, 1976a, 1976b; Wickstrom, 1977). Two common approaches used to determine the perfor- mance criteria established in motor skill and physical fitness assessment instruments are 1) factor analysis, and 2) biomechanical analysis. Several studies have investigated the manner in which scores collected in batteries of motor ability tests tend to cluster into common factors indicative of unique and separate attributes. In a recent factor analysis of motor performance in normal children by Rarick and Dobbins (1975), 66 the scores on 47 tests were analyzed. Six factors ac- counted for the major portion of the variance in both sexes: 1. Strength-power-body size, combining measures of height, weight, grip, and limb strength. 2. Gross limb coordination, including measures of throwing, running, and crawling. 3. Fine visual-motor coordination. 4. Fat, or dead weight. 5. Balance, including both static and dynamic balance. 6. Leg power and coordination. Rarick and Dobbins (1972) investigated the factor structure of motor abilities of educable mentally retarded boys and girls in the age ranges 6 to 9 years and 10 to 13 years. Forty—seven tests were administered with the following factors occurring most often: 1. Muscular strength and power. 2. Visual—motor coordination (fine manipulative skill and hand-eye coordination). 3. Gross body coordination. 4. Dead weight or body fat. They also concluded that the factor structures of normal and educable mentally retarded boys and girls are indeed quite similar. 67 In a similar study conducted by Rarick and McQuillan (1977), the following common factor structures were identified for trainable mentally retarded children: 1. Fine visual-motor coordination 2. Balance 3. Upper limb-eye coordination 4. Arm strength 5. Spinal flexibility 6. Leg-power coordination In light of the above studies and results reported by others (Carpenter, 1940, 1941; Cumbee, 1957; Vandenberg, 1964), it appears that the following common factor struc- tures exist across normal, educable and trainable mentally retarded children: 1. Eye-limb coordination 2. Gross body coordination 3. Upper body strength 4. Flexibility 5. Leg-power coordination Most motor assessment instruments can be classified into two groups: 1) those that assess the quanitative aspects of motor performance; and 2) those that assess the qualitative performance. The vast majority of instruments surveyed fall into the first category. Figure 2 represents the tests reviewed in the literature. 68 .2332“. BEBE 38.....on o5. 33 E £5.50: new ".de mug: can use .Hwowmzzm PhYSicai, moor and/or Fitness Btphasis ._. r o . \I . t t w a .2 a u f a .1 .m 1 . .m am .1 O y % m mm. m .m m. m .s I.\ 0 . m 0.1 a .m m. m... m... W. . m. mm mm m. a, p s ... .m m... I a m. «w. . 89.. 395 no Hon... 8.33 .mu» 3 £033.58 8.. V bozoofioz .085 8 v (a 2 .80 8930 65 839.88 AU .95 m H.488 .88: E25 50338.58 8:3 .2.» w €033.68 oz oz oz 2 S H) E .QE .8538 .83988 Eoz .o... H .888 8.6: .88: man. .SflmfiouBo . Hobo: 3.33. 23.0%.. .853... .83 .9... w 83330.. a oz ufihg 8.. mm «N H} m3 .9503 38sz 6958.. .562 .9... q Hog .95.. 3.659. 5033880 9.3 .8... Sfloddoo we. oz oz 8 a H} 8 .96 .558 .839608 6oz mm... Hog ~89. 83m ncfimbooo 2.310%...— .wo:mamm mu.» m 833% oz oz 8.. 2 .. H} S .83888 .SEQBoSg .502 :95 N Hogs .88: 8333.38 .309. 6.3 m .N 83358.. 02 02 now me 3 a) S on: .8393 .8386. .502 :8... N 3.350 ~89. Buomfiom mo mnsgouom .N v.53... 258-28 . 03.3%. mug-Em;— ucboocgcums . wioofim .38... £2.38 :38 . 33on do Law—aonE :03 15335 3.3a . amen. €5.58 Hausa... .mofigoo .825: . .oamow ~89. 8.5 833.8 swim. . 69 ~ E8 . c . ”GEM... 4.0.3.5... Ecyndmu 535mg... 65... :39. .1250: .8 mummy mmmfiwu cam Mono... 763.53 How we mggnwa A u 00. m _ p a m... t m ) , t m. m .m m um m m w... mm mm e wm m. . .m. M m. .x .. .W. .m z. ... w... . . l. t .o . a Q l W W .8 .mm WWW _ 5 mm MEMWM . m m... m m M m. .9... ma 53330... #5553050 WWW“ oz 3.3.5.9. 8.. me m. Q. on ugfig .88: 5.82 -E... m .888 .89. 33880508... . boamufiamouofimfimo .83... 3.6.3». .5688 .3on .g 8.. 3.58: m5 Ben. .33.? .oSousua .228 .2. m. 8859. m8: .8. now... mag... oz oz 8... .5 s Q. h A... .251... doing 6oz .mh. a 3.38.. L... .38.... 5.5.2 . mHwam 05029..— ..Qzfi. 50333.88 38:: mg it. on @0839. use... oz oz 8.. .5 on Q. 3 .832888 28.2. .35 So: .mu» m 3.35.. .89. $.82 8.... . 59.0qu 503w .5380 3.0%... 5039.. .809. .- .08.. £39. 9:... £033 6.; 833390.. a umfixoofi u... oz oz 8 3 Q. 9.. Lara: .338... .8528 .552 m... 385.. 6...... .83... $33.. . . 38:02: .828 .9... m 83m? 2.3m .55... oz oz oz E. m Q. .. ”.830 o5 53958.. .52 .9; m 38.0... .89. .35.: 8.68 . 70 Quantitative measures of fundamental motor skills for primary and elementary age children were generated by a number of investigators. Taylor (1941) and Latchaw (1954) collected comparative data for activities found in the con- text of a physical education curriculum for the primary and elementary grades. Carpenter (1942), Glassow and Krause (1957), Govatos (1959), Johnson (1962), and Kane and Meredith (1953) investigated quantitative performance of what they termed "general motor ability." These studies of fundamental motor skills consisted of measuring dis- tances and times with emphasis on age—appropriate behaviors. Quantitative aspects of motor performance provide little, if any, information required in making program- matic decisions on the rudimentary and qualitative per- formance levels. They do provide valuable information once a student masters the qualitative level and moves toward the functional level in terms of distance and time expectancies. In reviewing the available literature, it is apparent that quantitative methods are still used because little has been done to provide a qualitative guide in evaluating most of the motor skills. The factor analysis studies reviewed above used tests of a quantitative nature. If they had used qualitative tests as well, they may have found quite different, or at least more complete, findings. 71 Qualitative analysis of fundamental motor skills was first identified in detail when Wild (1938) studied the overhand throw of 32 children ranging in age from 24 months to 144 months. Hellebrandt, Lawrence, Glassow, and Carns (1961) studied the broad jump and were able to document the sequential development of that skill as the 47 subjects demonstrated various stages of the skill. Seefeldt and Haubenstricker (1972-1976), Milne (1972), and Wickstrom (1977) have attempted to qualitatively establish common sequences of motor skill development in several funda- mental motor skills. According to Herkowitz (1978), a major strength of intraskill sequencing (rudimentary, qualitative, and functional) is its lack of emphasis on age-appropriate behaviors and focus on delivering instruc- tion associated with actual instructional needs. A review of the literature pertaining to the avail- ability of materials develOped with this developmental approach was conducted. Wessel (1976) has developed an objective-based curriculum through a task-analysis pro- cedure in fundamental motor skills, body management skills, physical fitness, and aquatics. Wessel (1979) has recently finalized a leisure skill component of the objective-based system which task-analyzed various leisure skills and games. Wessel (1980) has also completed a component on preschool motor skills that are designed as prerequisite or lead-in 72 skills to the primary motor skill components developed earlier. The State of Michigan (1979) has recently developed minimal performance objectives in physical education with the intent of assessing the competence of students in grades three, six, and nine. These minimal performance objectives have been generated through task analyzing motor skills and listing both qualitative and quantita- tive aspects of skilled performance levels. To determine performance criteria in motor skill and physical fitness assessment, a review of the available literature for established components was conducted. Lit- erature pertaining to the fundamental mOtor skills and physical fitness skills selected for inclusion in this study has been reviewed in an attempt to identify basic skill criteria or elements of mastery to set standards for performance on both qualitative and quantitative levels. Figures 3 through 14 present a summary of common qualita- tive components of the mature pattern of the skills selected for inclusion in this test. A more detailed review can be found in Appendix B. Physical Fitness Parameters and Common Test Items Used in Assessment According to the factor analysis studies reported above (Rarick & Dobbins, 1972; Rarick & Dobbins, 1975; 73 8 H c o c: u 3 -H o o .c u u c u -a H u w m o ‘H m o O 04 O a) 44 CL 04 C 04 .’J C H o m o u o p c -a c ‘\ c c o x w c o -H.u c m m E c 5 c .4 w m m m w 4: war4 o o >.o o m w m 8 m 8‘ ii '3. B a 3 '8 :4 o m o -H o. u w .4 u 5.2 L: o (m o c w o H a) O :i O «4 a) O m w m m m m(H :IH Cratty (1979) X Espenschade & Eckert (1967) X I CAN (Wessel, 1976) X X X X X Minimal Performance Objectives in Physcial Education (Michigan Department of Education, 1979) X X X X X Seefeldt (1976) X X X Seefeldt, Reuschlein & X Vogel (1972) X X Wickstrom (1977) X X X X Figure 3. A summary of the qualitative components of a mature run. 74 u c o m u c o o 4.: v—o Has 0 w m u o o th c a: 44 4.: "-4 000 E o .5 to o '0 H .p 8“ saws g a gag 4.) .2 zaa= .. fi de 5“ eggs as r o.“ m . '30 6.3%“; “8135.5“; 8 m o In a w m .4 w u u.c.q a. w m u.u -H m u v: ”:33 :5 m: 388 ¢H <3muzcn: am How Espenschade & Eckert (1967) X Fuller (1973) X I CAN (Wessel, 1976) X X X X X Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education (Michigan Department of Education, 1979) X X X X X Nester (1977) X 53PP (1980) X X x Sinclair (1971) X X Figure 4. A summary of the qualitative components of a mature gallop. 75 cowuoscoum wou0m ca cam ou mafizm mod HmHsccmm >©on mo xomn cw wwwuumo ma ova uuommsm :0: mo Doom and HHOQQSm msu uw>o womwuumo xcnuu ugmfiuma afluzmfiam pawn m3onaw cam oumzm: can cumsuom Eflsm Sum Umuwcounocwm omxmam maunmwam mod uuommsm :0: mo womHHHmu Doom mean on» :0 band can uoom mco :0 MMO mxwe X X X X X X X X X X X X X n SB) 699 v.17 ) cling 7 tCl 6 t 0.1 9 d 6M: 1 l .1..l\n l\ e b O f Oni t e \1 0.... r e 6 8.13 e S 7. CtC k 9 nau C & l acd E mUE r r d 8 e 1 \I OEf ) k e .5 .r o 7 e C S 7 r1... 7 d .1 s 9 eat 9 a r e 1 Pcn 1 h t W ( .16 I\ C S 1‘ 13m 8 n) 3 av. r n 85 N .1 mhu e e b7 m V . P t m. mm o P... a E Hlx I m Mik N A summary of the qualitative components of a mature hop Figure 5. 76 4.) s o ,c u '0 44 8 ('1. .c: 3 '5' m o ,u » E0 -H w o u w w 3.: 0:» o :.n u 44 o w o u .c In ‘H o o m u o c c c u m u .c o m 0 O O a) «4 ON c: to H o H m u -H m a m ‘H'U‘H o o -# w a m c vo o.o !H.4 m c o m m H cum I m o c) .4 u m o :.x m c a) H a '0 -H s: H 'U -H x'c m E m s c m m c o o m c u u S 0 a m D. m m.4 « u o .4 Broer (1973) X X Espenschade & Eckert (1967) X Godfrey & Kephart (1969) X I CAN (Wessel, 1976) X X X X Latchaw (1954) X X Minimun Performance Objectives in Physical Education (Michigan Department of Education, 1979 draft) X X X X Milne (1972) X Nester (1977) X X X Schurr (1967) X X Figure 6. A summary of the qualitative components of a mature leap. qoedm; qe aueq saaux premzo; 8 plenxoeq smxe sq; butbutns 5 burqonoza peaq sq: aAoqe uorsueqxa {In} burqoeez 'ggo -axe: uodn pzemdn pus pzem -10; KtsnoxobtA pueqxa smxv burpuet burznp uorqoe mJe pzeMJo; snoaueq -tnmrs :unop-qonoq as 1001; egg on tattezed Jeau subrqm 'ssem Kpoq go peaqe IOOI; anm noequoo exam 3935 (CS ;)099 as atbue ggo axe; JJO-axen :9 shat an: 30 uorsuanxa II“; '3 $111.19 unoq go nsnzua Ingaozoa Apoq purqaq papueqxa ste ann seeux quoq go “OIXEIJ (002 ;)006 sapnto -ur quemanom Kloqezedezd bulpuet 300; on: s ggo—axeq noog-omm 77 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X E: can 000 p-Hh A «4520‘ I\ “OH \O U-u-l ON ”2‘ "" '3"8 0 G-H 4“ A 0-“ H \D (1)-th Q) t‘ 0-90 .2 0‘ £365 0 H MO'O A ~ '0 \O (x O‘ 0 ‘H O l‘ m H 0‘ 'O 02 mm» as v r1 m w m o c F: g v .C 3 «40) v u o U V H015 '0 g >fl m “>1 A H H 4) 4.) t: Z SSH“ d) O) U) «U Q) :2 - menu-a U 'H X S 3* 0 EH”: 3 $ 3 u m H Z‘H 8'0 2 m 3 A summary of the qualitative components of a mature horizontal jump. Figure 7. 78 I - I,II.|- t-,..l|.l0:l0‘9l|"l it“.-lll|'.l.. . 9.0.23 magma—C: . vcfiuct cpoutzm Moo: COHM . unto 30H :zmuuomazm mo Doom swan; bzvflw3 mo umwmcmuu mcfihzt :OHbco Eur ccozcwm """"" 11-1-0:an .lvn'l.-..l.| . "4 usz$3 >tOn no tarmac»; ccw3CHu Luocsm c I4ll!slllluu!l!4 cccuuzr poo: amH upoamcm Ice: :8 :cwxcéu 30H SDOOEm d illllll' Loclmwum comm :uHS uuomosmco: cc poHuom d >HunmflHm ach can mmmH cu :oHuHmCQQo :H m>OE mend Doom mumsuou IHc co :uouuom docuamum d X X X X X X 1976) Espenschade & Eckert (1967) Godfrey & Kephart (1969) I CAN (Wessel, in Physical Education (Michigan (1974) Minimal Performance Objectives Department of Education, 1979 draft) Seefeldt & Haubenstricker Nester (1977) Sinclair (1973) l? a mature sk r h A summary of the qualitative components 0 gure 8. J. 0 Q H I 79 mcfiocmHmn CH mfim mfihm cum3uom unmsoun mH uoom HHmnu may mm uuommamscoc mo cowumm < uoom UmmH msu ou mwum m>m3wowm mcoH d uwwH ms» on w uanH man on moHHw Hm>muu mo cowuomufio pwuflmwp ou mzmsmch moans» xpom mCflH unmflmuum m ocon DOOM ommH ms» ou uoom mow Imeuu may scum ummmcmuu unonz coauflmom unmwums cw CH cmcwmuCMME xcnue X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X n 33 899 v.17 .lhg tCl C.l e M I mim Oni ) 0t 6 9.13 7 CtC 9 nau 1 aCd mUE ) I \I d 1 1 9 OEf \l \l 7 e 6 f O 7 7 9 S 9 r1 7 6 l S 1 eat 9 9 I\ e I\ Pcn 1 1 W ole I\ I.\ r I_\ W 13m .1 a ay \l r r a N h mhrt e r 1 A C .1Paf t u C c t mnwm % m m I m MiDd N S S A summary of the qualitative components of a mature slide. Figure 9. 80 mucmcomeoo mo cofiumumwucw £u008m sum mchcson may no owfim msu co poem may no acoum cw uoon muomucoo HHmm HHmn on» 0» wouom puma 15H ou 3onHm pcwpxm can umwu3 wam can: noguflm mo mumwcmm sums Hams swam panama aw: usonm um HHMQ uomucoo coupon can no cofiuuom oumsms :0 uomucoo HHmm HHMQ muomucoo new: mac X X X X X X X X X X X \H” 6 9 1 . I\ let aDn t \I C O r 6 eini e 7 csat k 9 nyga C 1 h.lC E mPhu I Cd & l oniE e fiM e S r (f) d 8 es ot a 6 Pen f h W vota m c 33.... n N ca e A .mecmg m. c 3.qu E I MOEPl A summary of the qualitative components of a mature bounce. Figure 10. 81 mquComEoo mo CoHumumwaH suOOEm saco moan: Cups Hamn on» uomucoo uomuCoo HHmQ Hem COHumummmum CH mEHm on» no ConCwuxm woman HmmC nwwam m3on IHw..>oon mo uCOum CH mecca umCummou mummCHm mHuuwH Ho mnECCu CuH3 pmmmso mum mCCmm anon on» NO mwfiwm 03”.. OH OHM m3OQHm mCCMC Cuws uumuCoo mmxmfi HHMQ mm own mzonHm is X 1976) A summary of the qualitative components of a mature catch. (Wessel, Department of Education, Minimal Performance Ob— 1979 draft) jectives in Physical Education (Michigan Cratty (1975) Espenschade & Eckert (1967) I CAN Seefeldt (1976) Wickstrom (1977) Figure 11. aorx 192;? 3sn§ bat azoddns uo doq v uoenuoo burlap pue on Jorzd pzemxoeq paurtour s; xunzq sq; XOTX sun on Jorxd nsnf deeq snueuodmoo go uorqezbaqur qqooms daqsut 10 5303 ann Iteq go Januao noenuoa uorxaI; aaux pue uorsuanxe drH IIPQ egg on qxau uuamaoetd :00; untn baI EUIHOIX -uou aq: uo pzemzo; dens 691 bur -xorx go q5n01q3 M01103 neat Apoq premzo; nueqrmoouoo quIM burnsxoeq bat Itng uorqrsoddo qoog—mlv uorqom snonutquoo etburs V Iteq on qoeozdde buruunu A summary of the qualitative components of a mature kick. (Michigan 1979 draft) Figure 12. Seefeldt & Haubenstricker (1975) Cratty (1975) Espenschade & Eckert (1967) I CAN (Wessel, 1976) Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education Department of Edu- cation, Wickstrom (1977) assets: IIEH aeux sq: 32 1913391 —exquoo an: 30 uorsueqxg zaptnoqs 8 aurds 'sdrq sq: go uorqenoxaa dnpurn sanerarur was but —mozqq aqq 30 are plemunop V snueuodmoo aqq go uornezbazur qqooms assets: IIPq puoXaq IIGM qbnozq; MOIIOJ moan go uorqoaz -1p premoq uoraenuerxo aprs dnpurn anerqrur on mze burnozq; sq: go uorsuanxa anatdmoo nsomTv :00; PJPMJO; an: 0: nqbtam :JIQS uorqeqoz zaptnoqs 3 xumq-d‘FH mxe burnozqn an: antsod -do goo; QQIM pIEMJOJ dens A summary of the qualitative components of a mature overhand throw. (Michigan Objectives in Physical Figure 13. Education cation, 1979 draft) Seefeldt & Hauben— stricker (1976) Wickstrom (1977) Minimal Performance Department of Edu- Cratty (1975) Espenschade & Ecker (1967) I CAN (Wessel, 1976) 84 premzog pup punoxe burns mxv nuamerm plem10g go uotqetqru; egg :2 Xpoq aqa zeau ndex s; neg xoeq butAom IIIQS s; neg strum sxnooo goo; pxemxog on nqbram go qgrqs snueuod -moo go uorqezbaqur qnooms qoenuoo go nurod puofieq TISM qfinozqn MOII03 burns burxnp goo; nuozg on 300; xoeq mozg zagsuexn Jubram uornegoz aurds pue dIH axrxns on Jorzd Jeptnoqs 3UP -u;mop PUTQBQ PTSU 5? 198 I8A911 go uornoexrp piano: uotqenuatzo aprs pueq queurmopuou anoqe neg burddrzb pueq queurmoa ; x! X I X x X x X x X X X X X X X X X X l X X H M A U \D (Du-1C: !\ UUJI'UIA I O :XU‘DU C ~ H U '3 to l\ H OC'HU-I :35 C‘. U: H V C" H v U) 430) UN (JV 0.) QGCCO‘ E E; > 0 0-4 H H O H-H~H S '5 0 H '54—‘44 C Hg 4.) 'HmUM'H N'H x U Chase.“ 05-: O H £5.00ng DU "-1 on: U mm 3 A summary of the Qualitative Components of a Mature Two-Hand Strike. Figure 14. 85 Rarick & McQuillan, 1977), the following factor structures relate to the physical fitness area and exist across normal, educable, and trainable mentally retarded children: 1. Upper body strength; 2. Flexibility; and 3. Leg—power coordination. Recently, a joint committee representing the Physical Fitness, Measurement and Evaluation and Research Councils of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPER Joint Committee, 1977) identified three areas of physiological function that are related to positive health: 1) cardiorespiratory function, 2) body composition, and 3) abdominal and low back muscu- loskeletal function. Based on the above, four parameters were selected to represent the common factor structures and health-related fitness areas as defined by the Joint Committee. These four parameters were: 1) arm and shoulder strength, 2) abdominal strength, 3) trunk and leg flexibility, and 4)-cardiorespiratory endurance. Literature pertaining to various test batteries used to measure the four selected parameters was reviewed. Figures 15 through 18 present a summary of the most common test items used to measure these parameters. A more detailed review can be found in Appendix C. 86 Perform continuous bent leg sit-ups for specified minimal performance cri- teria based on age and sex Five quality bent leg Bent leg sit-ups in sit-ups 30 seconds One bent leg sit-up Flexed leg sit-ups Sit-ups AAHPERD Health Related Physical Fitness Test (1979) X AAHPER Special Fitness Test for Mildly Mentally Retarded Persons (AAHPER, 1976) X AAHPER Youth Fitness Test Hunsicker & Reiff, 1976) X Fitness & Work Capacity \ Testing (Sharkey, 1977) X I CAN (Wessel, 1976) x \ Kraus-Weber Minimum Muscu- lar Fitness Tests (Kraus & Hirschland, 1954) _. X Minimal Performance Ob- jectives in Physical Education (Michigan De- partment of Education, 1979 draft) X Motor Fitness Test for the Moderately Mentally Retarded (Johnson & Londeree.) X 1976 Physical Fitness for the Mentally Retarded (Hayden. 1964) x Figure 15. A summary of common test items used to measure abdominal strength. lexed arm hang or time Three quality push-ups Straight arm hang for time Push-ups in 60 seconds pull-ups (males) vklexed arm hang (females) } AAHPER Special Fitness Test for Mildly Mentally Retarded Persons (AAHPERJ 1976) X AAHPER Youth Fitness Test (Hunsicker and Reiff, 1976) X Fait Physical Fitness Battery for Mentally Retarded Children (Fait, 1972) X Fitness and Work Capacity Test (Sharkey, 1977) X ) I CAN (Wessel, 1976) X Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education (Michigan \ Department of Edu- cation, 1979 draft) Motor Fitness for the Moderately Mentally Retarded (Johnson and Londeree, 1976) X Physical Fitness for the Mentally Retarded (Hay- | den, 1964) X Figure 16. A summary of common test items used to measure arm.and shoulder strength. AAHPERD Health Related Physical Fitness Test (AAHPERD. 1979) AAHPER Special Fitness test for Mildly Retar- ded Persons (AAHPER, 1976) AAHPER Youth Fitness Test (Hunsicker & Reiff, 1976) Fait Physical Fitness Battery for Mentally Retarded Children (Fait, 1972) Fitness and Wbrk Ca- pacity Testing (Sharkey, 1977) I CAN (Wessel, 1976) Minimal Performance Ob- jectives in Physical Education (Michigan Department of Educa- tion, 1979 draft) Motor fitness test for the Moderately Mentally Retarded (Johnson & Londeree, 1976) Figure 17. 88 ' >. > I .4 H w m U) ”.4 :1 :1 'U x .2 o o 91 F: u C m w a u H on an 0 Com 3: O O 3 3 #4 'H u m -H 44 ~u \ \ ES..- ‘é a 5 a g 8.g o 8 o a C B .. “.2; :1 .3 a. 'g 2 'g 2 .4 34-4-d 35 s a u *1 -3 od d 1'0 8 w 5 7“ a 50 {mg {H *8 H 58 o»u lo 9 1n 5 Stu a. C H <3 5 .g E 5 o o «o o Ovi o m ‘g 0 c3- ¢n1u \994 r1+s b'H'O 44 «1+1 F‘ as» X X X X X X X X X piratory endurance. A summary of common test items used to measure cardiores- 89 Sitting, bending, reaching Standing floor Sit and Reach touch AAHPERD Health Related Physical Fitness Test (1979) X Frostig Movement Skills Test Battery (Orpet, 1972) X I CAN (Wessel, 1976) X Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education (Michigan Department of Education, 1979 draft) X Motor Fitness Test for the Moderately Mentally Retarded (Johnson and Londeree, 1976) X ‘__ Physical Fitness for the Mentally Retarded (Hayden, 1964) X Figure 18. A summary of common test items used to measure trunk and leg flexibility. 90 Summary The review of the literature was guided by the objec— tives of this study: 1) select and standardize criterion- referenced test items in the physical education domain based on the definition in Public Law 94—142; and 2) develop a set of norms for intellectually normal, educable mentally impaired and trainable mentally im- paired students in the age range of 36 months to 155 months. The three major content areas for this chapter are: l) criterion-referenced measurement; nondiscriminatory assessment and evaluation; 2) standardization procedures for criterion-referenced tests; and 3) motor skill and physical fitness assessment. Current attempts to reduce bias in assessment and placement include the design of new testing procedures, the use of adaptive behavior scales, the use of criterion- referenced measures, and the interpretation of assessment results using local or special group norms. A criterion- referenced testing and instructional approach facilitates nondiscriminatory decision-making because the process becomes one of 1) identifying basic skills that all stu- dents are expected to master, 2) assessing all students to determine which of these basic skills are present, and 3) designing appropriate instruction so that remaining skills can be learned. 91 Recent interest in objective-based instructional systems generates a need for CRT's. The implementation of an objective-based instructional system facilitates the use of CRT's to assess the entry status of the students on the objectives, the progress of students on the objectives, and the exit abilities of the students on the objectives. The use of CRT's facilitates a con— tinuous evaluation process. A review of the literature provides eight guide- lines that were followed during the CRT standardization process: 1) Function or purpose of the test. 2) Preparation or selection of objectives to be measured by the test. 3) Test item development. 4) Standardization of directions for admin- istration and scoring of the test. 5) Collection of normative data. 6) Test score interpretation. 7) Reliability of the test. 8) Validity of the test. The content of the test should include test items that measure the common factor structures of the motor domain and qualitative skill analysis. The importance of qualitative skill analysis is its lack of emphasis on age-appropriate behaviors. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES The objectives of this study were: 1) select and standardize criterion-referenced test items in the physical education domain based on the definition in Public Law 94-142; and 2) develop a set of norms for intellectually normal, educable mentally impaired, and trainable mentally impaired children in the age range of 36 months to 155 months. Design Overview The first objective of this study was reached by following a six-step process. First, the developer had to decide what functions the items would serve. Second, objectives had to be developed or selected from previously constructed objective-based programs. Third, criterion- referenced test items had to be designed to measure the objectives. Fourth, directions for administering and scoring each test item had to be developed. Fifth, data had to be collected on the validity of the test items; and last, reliability of the test items had to be evaluated. 92 93 Functions of the Test The following functions will be served by this stan- dardized CRT: 1) Screening for identification of children with motor needs by specifying strengths and weak— nesses in comparison to the child's norm group; 2) Provide input to determine eligibility for special education services in physical educa- tion; and 3) Instructional assessment to aid in decisions regarding appropriate placement and instruc- tional programming to meet the unique needs of the student in physical education. The above three purposes were used as a guide in the test-development process. Any decisions that were made during this process were made relative to their impact on meeting these purposes. Development or Selection of Objectives If the above functions of the test were to be met, it was necessary to develop or select objectives that were representative of physical education skills most commonly taught in American schools. Fundamental motor skills and physical fitness skills were selected as being representative of skill areas most commonly taught to students in the age range of three to 12. 94 These two skill areas also were specifically selected from the definition of physical education in Public Law 94-142. Three criteria were used during the selection of specific skills within each of the two skill areas. These criteria represented another effort to maximize the selection of skills most commonly taught in Michigan schools. It was assumed that Michigan was representative of most states. The criteria used were: 1. The skill had to be listed as a minimal per- formance objective in physical education in the State of Michigan within the object control, locomotor, or physical fitness skill areas (Michigan Department of Education, 1979 draft); 2. The skill had to be a program objective in the I CAN Objective-Based Instructional System within the object control, locomotor, or physical fitness skill area (Wessel, 1976); and 3. The skill had to be determined as content valid by surveying selected physical education literature. Figure 19 was used as a checklist in selecting those fundamental motor skills that met the above three criteria. Figure 20 was used as a checklist in selecting physical fitness parameters that met the same criteria. 95 mfiumufluu ccfiuomamm mummz Renae. souumxoes .mama. .fino .muma .caz ccmfiaofiz uo macaw iohmatmamee umxoauumcwnsmz can unemummm imamae memem mumum oeno “mamas smumsm Hm ucoeuoonumcH zau H AhmmHv uumxom can momcmcodmm “enmev umsmc foams .eemflv suumuu Climb Gallop Hop Horizontal Jump - Leap Run Skip Slide Walk Backhand Strike Bounce Catch Forehand Strike Kick Overhand Strike Overhand - Throw Punt Side-Arm Strike Underhand Roll Underhand Strike Underhand Throw Figure 19. Fundamental motor skill selection checklist. 96 Mahmuwuu coauowflmm #002 “mama. smxumsm AHmmHv uwummm imkmev .flnc OOGMEHOMHOA Hdfificwz ammMnOflz mo mumum Amhma .memwzv z<0 H Aobmav «meme a umxowmqsm Amamav pawn “Hbmdv H900 thmflv mcomumm vwcumumm waamucwz mawaflz new umoa mmmcuwm Howommm mmmm<¢ Abdominal Strength Agility Arm & Shoulder Strength Balance Cardiorespiratory Endurance Explosive Muscular Power Flexibility Relaxation Speed Weight Mainten- ance Checklist for selecting physical fitness parameters. Figure 20. 97 Subsequent to specific skill selection, amplified objectives were developed from the program objectives con— tained in the I CAN Objective-Based Physical Education System (Wessel, 1976) and the Minimal Performance Objec- tives for Physical Education in the State of Michigan (Michigan Department of Education, 1979 draft). The ampli- fied objective for each specific skill was used as the test item's descriptive scheme to guide in the CRT item construction. A descriptive scheme constitutes the "criterion" to which the test is "referenced." It provides a clear description of the behaviors that the student can or cannot perform. The major purpose of the descriptive scheme is to communicate to the test users what it is that the test is measuring. The amplified objectives can be reviewed in Appendix D. Criterion-Referenced Test Item Development The following two characteristics of well-designed CRT items were used as a guide in developing the test items (Popham, 1978b): 1) An established descriptive scheme in the form of an amplified behavioral objective; and 2) A sufficiently limited focus on those behaviors that are judged to be the most relevant and observable in the everyday physical education class. 98 The major task in item develOpment following the specification of amplified objectives was to determine which behaviors were relevant and observable. This task was accomplished by 1) listing the most common qualita- tive components of each of the selected fundamental motor skills and physical fitness skills, 2) selecting three content experts, and 3) having each content expert rate each qualitative skill component for a) ease of observability in the physical education setting, and b) its compatibility with the research that describes a quality performance. Those qualitative components that received a negative rating on observability and/or compatibility by two or more raters were deleted. Those components that survived the selection process were placed in the criterion level of each test item. It is important to note that the selection of observable behaviors was not a data-based decision. Standardization of Directions for Administration and Scoring During the development of standard directions for administration of each CRT item it was necessary to keep in mind the requirements of Public Law 94-142 with re- gard to nondiscriminatory evaluation practices. The following four stimulus attributes were used in the directions for administering each test item in an attempt to minimize any discriminatory practices: 99 l. Preceded by a demonstration and verbal request; 2. Two practice trials to assure that the student understands what to do; 3. One additional demonstration is provided where the student does not know what to do on the first trial; 4. Instructions are provided in the student's native language or mode of communication (e.g., sign language). Four response alternatives were used in an attempt to include the majority of possible performance levels that might exist when assessing normal, educable mentally impaired and trainable mentally impaired stu- dents in the age range of 3 through 12 years. The following response alternatives represent a range of performance from no ability to a quality pattern: 1. Criterion Level (C) - Student completes the item according to all the stated criteria. Any quantitative criteria stating “consecutive trials" require performance of all qualitative criteria the stated number of times. 2. Rudimentary Level (R) - Student responds according to some of the criteria, but not all of the criteria (lacks quantitative or qualita- tive aspects). 100 Assisted Level (A) - Student needs some type of physical asistance to respond, such as mani- pulating the student, guiding a student's hand or tapping the student's limb. Through physical assistance the student can perform a minimum of one qualitative criterion. Other Level (0) - Student does not respond, responds inappropriately, resists assistance, or cannot perform a minimum of one qualita- tive criterion with physical assistance. Validity of the Test Items Three content experts were utilized in this study. These experts investigated 1) content validity, 2) de- scriptive validity, and 3) criterion selection validity. Based on the purpose of the investigation, the criteria for selection of these experts included: 1. 2. A minimum of 18 credits in motor development beyond the master's degree; A minimum of three years experience in teaching physical education skills to children or youth; and A minimum of three years experience in ob- serving and assessing the qualitative motor performance of children or youth. 101 These criteria were used to help ensure the view of persons knowledgeable in the systematic study of motor development and the practitioner. Content Validity Two aspects of content validity were investigated: 1. The degree to which the objectives represent the fundamental motor skill (locomotor and object control skills) and physical fitness skill domains; and 2. The degree to which the objectives represent the following factors (subareas) identified in most motor ability studies of normal, educable mentally retarded and trainable mentally retarded children: (a) Balance I (b) Flexibility (c) Limb-eye coordination (d) Leg power (e) Upper body strength Content validity was measured by having the three experts read a clear description of each skill selected for the study. They were then given a chart identical to Figure 21. Their task was to independently mark an "X" in the appropriate cell if they felt that the objective (skill) was representative of that particular domain and/or subarea. If they felt the objective was not representative of a specific domain or subarea, they were asked to mark a 102 I S H . FI F4 @ -a o I u x H u o m u -H >. o : a.~I u U x H o .4 -a u w u m.x m -H 3 >w m u o u u m o .o o m m E 0:4 -H c -H m I c u c o oI4 m m m x .2 o m m u ~FwH >Im .4 m UI -H DIM S .Q.¥ .c m m Ia m -H.u o.u o m m c m m g, A m D>m Objectives Gallop Hop Horizontal Jump Leap Run Skip Slide Bounce Catch Kick Overhand Throw Sidearm Strike Sit-Ups T Push—Ops S-Minute Run/Walk Sit and Reach Directions: Place an "X" in the cell if you feel that the objective is representative of that specific domain or subarea. Place an "O" in the cell if you feel that the objective is not representative of that specific domain or subarea. Signature of rater: Percent of agreement Figure 21. Content Validity Form. 103 "O" in the space provided. The percentage of agreement between raters was calculated and used as the measure of content validity. A percentage of .90 was used as an indicator of satisfactory content validity (Popham, 1976). Where a .90 percentage agreement was not reached, a dis- cussion session was encouraged. At this time, each rater was asked to provide a rationale for his/her rating. Following the discussion, the content experts were asked to rerate the content validity. A .67 percentage of agree- ment was used for the rerating of content validity. Descriptive Validity Descriptive validity was measured by judging the item- objective congruency. Item-objective congruency was de- fined as "the ability of a test item to measure a Specific objective." The same content experts were first asked to read the "amplified behavioral objectives" that constitute the CRT specifications and then read the test items. Each rater was then requested to judge on an item—by-item basis whether the item was congruent with its objective. The following rating described by Kosecoff et a1. (1976), Martuza (1977), and Popham (1978a) was utilized. +1 - if the item was definitely congruent with its objective; 0 — if the rater was not sure of the congruency; or ~l - if the item was definitely not congruent with its objective. 104 Figure 22 represents the item-objective congruency form that was used in the descriptive validity study. Following the independent ratings, the responses were tallied and the index of item-objective congruency was calculated. This computation was the mean score obtained for each item. An item had to receive an index of +1 to be accepted as having descriptive validity. Those items that received less than +1 were redesigned until a +1 was reached. Criterion or Domain-Selection Validity Two aspects of criterion validity were measured: 1) whether the components of the criterion level of each test item were compatible with what experts consider a quality pattern, and 2) whether the components of the criterion level could be reliably observed in the physical education class. Each content expert was given a copy of the components selected for the criterion level of each item. The raters were requested to independently rate each item by placing an "X" in the appropriate space if the component was compatible and another "X" in the appro- priate space if the component was observable by teachers in the physical education class. If a rater gave a compo- nent a "0", meaning it was not compatible or was not observable, the raters were asked to write a rationale for their decision. The written rationales were reviewed to make any potential changes in item content. 105 Objective Rating Run Gallop Hop Skip Horizontal Jump Slide Leap Abdominal Strength Overhand Trhow Trunk and Leg Flexibility Catch Bounce Arm and shoulder strength Kick Two-hand strike Cardiorespiratory Endurance Directions: (1) Read the amplified objective (2) Rate the item-objective congruency using the following: +1 Item is definitely congruent with objective 0 Unsure of congruency -1 Item is definitely not congruent with objective Figure 22. Item objective congruency form. 106 It was anticipated that minor discrepancies would exist and be tolerated due to the fact that the test de- veloper was looking for a compromise between 1) what con- tent authorities consider the components of a quality pattern, 2) what components could reliably be observed in physical education class, and 3) administrative utility (as few components as necessary). As could be expected, some were willing to compromise more than others. Those components receiving two or more "0's" were deleted or revised based on the rationale provided. Figure 23 repre- sents an example form used in the evaluation of criterion validity. Reliability The two reliability measures investigated in this study were: 1) internal consistency and 2) test-retest stability. The internal consistency of the CRT was mea- sured by calculating Cronbach's (1951) alpha coefficient. According to Ebel (1979), a coefficient of .80 or higher is acceptable. The standard used in this study was .85. The test-retest procedure was used to measure the stability of the decision-making process. An available 7) were sample of educable mentally impaired students (N administered the test (16 items) on a Friday morning by three independent raters. Two weeks later the same three raters readministered the same test. A Pearson Product 107 Objective Components Compatible Observable Rationale A period when both Run feet are off the floor Toe-heel or heel-toe foot contact Arms move in opposi- tion to legs, elbows bent Smooth pattern for 50 feet Gallop Brief periods where both feet are off the floor Trailing foot does not cross in front of lead foot at floor contact Smooth, rhythmical pattern 5 consecutive gallop strike leading with each foot HOP foot of nonsupport leg remainds behind body Maintain upright body position, el- bows bent 5 consecutive hops forward on each foot Directions: (1) Place an "X" in the appropriate box if the component is compatible with a quality pattern and a "0" if it is not. (2) Place an "X" in the appropriate box if the component is observable and a "0" if it is not. (3) Provide a rationale for any components receiving a "on Figure 23. An example form used in evaluating criterion validity. 108 Moment Correlation was calculated on the two groups of test scores with a .90 coefficient used as a standard of accept- able test stability. Failure to get a .90 coefficient due to inadequate variability in test Scores would result in the calculation of one of the newer methods of determining CRT reliability. Live performance ratings (as contrasted to videotaped) were used to get a more realistic reliability measure similar to the physical education class. Collection of Student Performance Data To meet the functions of the test, namely, 1) screening, 2) determining eligibility for special education services in physical education, and 3) instructional assessment for placement and programming, it was necessary to collect stu- dent performance data (norms) to which scores could be referenced. Training the Testers Three testers were employed to collect student per— formance data. Two of the testers were master's degree students in physical education. The other tester was a doctoral student in physical education for the handicapped. The three testers were given a copy of the test and admin— istration manual for their review. The testers were trained through repetition and practice over a one-week period of time by administering each test item to each other and to several available children. 109 Establishing the Performance Standards A videotape of a representative sample of students available from the Lansing School District was developed. Students were selected who represent all skill levels on the motor skill test items. The researcher administered standard procedures for each test item while a technician videotaped three trials per test item. The following stan- dard test administration procedures were used: 1. Use equipment specified in the criterion- referenced test description; 2. A verbal request in the child‘s native language and a demonstration of the skill; 3. Three trials per student; 4. A physical prompt when the student fails to perform at a rudimentary level (R) in the first two trials. Three expert raters were employed to rate the training videotape. The expert raters were selected on the follow- ing criteria: 1. A minimum of two years teaching physical education to children or youth in a school or clinical setting; 2. A minimum of two years experience assessing the qualitative motor performance of children or youth; and 110 3. A minimum of a master’s degree in physical education. The raters were given an opportunity to study the test items prior to rating the videotape. They were asked to rate the performance of all the children on all the items as a group, rather than an independent rating. They were encouraged to discuss any discrepancies and allowed to replay the tape as many times as needed. The final per- formance ratings were used as the standard to train the three testers. Prior to any formal data collection, each tester had to meet a 1.0 level of mastery when compared to the expert ratings (performance standards) on the videotape for each student and item. Subsequent to reading the mandatory level of assessment accuracy, the testers evaluated the motor performance of 279 children. Sampling Design A 2x10x3 fixed effects research design was employed in this study. There were 60 possible levels across the three independent variables. The sampling technique required that each of the 60 cells have a minimum of three subjects which would result in 180 total. Several schools would not allow students to be sampled from classes but insisted that all students in a given class be used. This resulted in a total sample size of 279. 111 Subsequent to reaching the mandatory level of assess- ment accuracy, student performance data were collected on a stratified sample (N = 279) of normal, learning disabled and emotionally impaired students placed in the regular physical education program (N = 117), educable mentally impaired students placed in special classes in the regular neighborhood school (N = 96), and trainable mentally impaired students placed in special classes in inter- mediate school districts (N = 66). The age range of the sample was 36 months to 155 months with sample sizes by age including: 3-year-olds (N = 18), 4-year-olds (N = 21), S-year-olds (N = 29), 6-year-olds (N = 29), 7-year-olds (N = 33), 8-year-olds (N = 39), 9-year-olds (N = 46), lO-year-olds (N = 26), ll-year-olds (N = 21), and lZ—year—olds (N = 17). The sample was also stratified by sex: females (N = 134) and males (N = 145). The purpose of stratifying the sample was to assure representation of various groups in at least minimum proportions. Each tester administered all test items on an addi- The tester was responsible for completing vidual basis. a score sheet for each student with necessary information concerning subject's name, age, sex, claSSification (normal, educable, trainable), date, test administrator's 112 name, and starting and ending times. The data concerning age and classification were obtained from the student's teacher. Following the completion of daily assessment activity, a code number was substituted for the stu- dent's name. Analysis of the Student Performance Data The student performance data were initially analyzed by computing a three-way analysis of variance to test for a significant interaction effect. If an interaction effect was significant, the means were plotted to deter- mine if it was ordinal or disordinal. Where disordinal interaction was present, the main effects were tested. If main effects were significant, the Tukey Multiple Range Test was conducted. If the interaction was not significant, the main effects were evaluated. The next level of analysis consisted of computing item percentiles (cumulative). Subtotal and total test score cumulative percentiles were then constructed. The final level of analysis was to compute the mean and standard deviation for each item, subtotal, and total test score to aid in the construction of student per- formance profiles. 113 Test Score Interpretations Subsequent to student performance data analysis, guidelines for making special education eligibility and placement decisions were developed. The guidelines were based on the construction of student performance pro- files. These profiles were developed by using the mean and standard deviation data available for each item, sub- total score, and total test score by age and classifica- tion. Figure 24 represents an example of a student profile. It would be realistic for a school district to pro- vide special education services in physical education to a child that performs consistently below the mean on fundamental motor skills and/or physical fitness skills. If a student performs two or three standard deviations below the mean in one particular skill area, it might be realistic to place that student in an adapted class or provide more physical education classes until the student reaches an acceptable level. A trainable mentally impaired student that performs as well as normal students should realistically be placed in the regular physical education class. These and other decisions will be aided by consulting the student per- formance profiles. 114 wH mm wed wom wvw «mm wmm uoeea 9 3:3 sdn-qsna oa «ma I and sdn-qrs ITEM/““3 annuxw s none: moxqm deaq aP'FIS dmnp drxs doH dOIIes UUH Umml UmNI UMHI cma+ cmm+ Umm+ waawoum ucmcsum em magmas Hm>wq uoruo H0>mq nmumwmmc Hm>mq humucweacsm Hm>oq coeumueuu CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION It was the objective of this investigation to: (1) select and standardize criterion—referenced test items in the physical education domain based on the definition in Public Law 94-142; and (2) develop a set of norms for intellectually normal, educable mentally impaired, and trainable mentally impaired children in the age range of 36 months to 155 months. This chapter includes the findings of this study. The chapter is divided into the following two major sections with eight subsections: 1. Selecting and standardizing criterion-referenced test items. l.l Determining the functions to be served by the test. 1.2 Selecting objectives to be measured by the test items. 1.3 Development of criterion-referenced test items to measure the selected objectives. 1.4 Standardizing the directions for admin- istration and scoring of each test item. 1.5 Evaluating the validity of the test. 115 116 1.6 Evaluating the reliability of the test. 2. Developing a set of norms. 2.1 Collecting student performance data. 2.2 Developing guidelines for test score interpretation. Identifying and Standardizing Criterion—Referenced,Test Items The Functions of the Test Three major test functions were identified to guide in the test development process. Any subsequent deci- sions that were made were based on their impact on these functions. Selection of Objectives Fundamental motor skills and physical fitness skills were selected as being representative of the Public Law 94-142 definition of physical education and of skill areas most commonly taught to students in the age range of 3 through 12. Figure 25 presents the fundamental motor skills and Figure 26 presents the physical fitness skills that were selected to be used in the CRT. 117 meumuauo cofiuomaom mummz wococvmum Aeeoav souumx0fl3 imnmav .nbo .mumm Hmswcez cmmeroez mo mumum imamHImamHV HwROAHDmcmosmm can poamummm imamee msaem mumum once leeway smumam Hm Icoauosuumce 24o H Anomav uuwxom can wcmnmcmmmm hahmav “mama imama.memac xuumuo Climb Gallop Hop Horizontal Jump Leap Run Skip Slide Walk Backhand Strike Bounce Catch Forehand Strike Kick Overhand Strike Overhand Throw Punt Side-Arm Strike Underhand Roll Underhand Strike Underhand Throw Fundamental motor skill selection checklist. Figure 25. 118 maumufiuu cofluooaom Dow: >ucmsvoum imamec swxumnm AHmmHV uakmcm imemao .nno mocmEHOMme Hmfiflcwz cmmflsofl: mo mumum .mema .Hmmmwso zmo H X 7 X X X Awbmav wwamm w um£oamcsm Annmav pwmm AHhmHv Mama X thmav mCOmumm pwpumumm seamucmz sateen uou umme mmocuam Hmeomdm amazed Abdominal Strength Agility Arm & Shoulder Strength Balance Cardiorespiratory Endurance Explosive Muscular Power Flexibility Relaxation Speed Weight Main- tenance Physical fitness skill selection checklist Figure 26. 119 Development of the Criterion-Referenced Test Items The major task in CRT item develOpment was to deter- mine which qualitative behaviors would be used in each test item. Those qualitative components listed in Appendix B were placed on a rating form and evaluated for 1) their observability in a physical education class, and 2) their consistency with what research described as a mature pattern. Three content experts were used in this rating and the subsequent result was a sufficiently limited focus on relevant and observable behaviors. Figure 27 presents a summary of those specific qualita- tive components selected to represent each skill. Appendix E provides the content expert ratings for each qualitative component. Subsequent to skill selection and the determination of the specific qualitative behaviors for each selected skill, amplified objectives were developed from the pro- gram objectives contained in the I CAN Objective—Based Physical Education System (wessel, 1976) and the Minimal Performance Objectives for physical education in the State of Michigan (Michigan Department of Education, 1979 draft). The amplified objective for each skill can be found in Appendix D. It is important to note that the I CAN format of including the qualitative behavior, "smooth, rhythmical pattern," is assumed in each of the amplified objectives. 2120 Run A period when both feet are off the floor. Arms move in opposition to legs, elbows bent. The-heel or heel-toe foot contact. Gallop Brief periods where both feet are off the floor. Trailing foot does not cross in front of lead foot at floor contact. E92 Carriage of nonsupport leg is slightly bent. Maintain upright body position, elbows bent. Arms swing forward and upward. Skip A step-hop pattern of alternate feet. Arms move in Opposition to legs and are slightly bent. Horizontal Jump Take off and land on two feet. Arms thrust during take off with full extension of legs. Figure 27. represent each skill. Slide Period when both feet are off the floor and remain parallel. Weight transfer from trail foot to lead foot along a straight line to the side. Leap Take off on one foot, balanced landing on the other foot. Forward reach with arm oppo- site lead foot. Overhand Throw Downward arc of throwing arm to initiate throw. Hip and trunk rotation. Weight transfer to foot oppo- site throwing arm. Follow through well beyond ball release. Catch Hands in front of body, elbows bent. Extension of arms in prepara- tion for ball contact. Contact and control ball with hands only. Stationary Bounce Contact the ball between thighs and waist. Push ball with fingers of one hand only. Maintain a stable stationary position. A summary of specific qualitative components selected to 121 Kick A preliminary forward leap on the non-kicking leg. Foot placement next to the ball. A single continuous kicking motion. Two-Hand Strike Side orientation toward desired direction of travel. Hip and spine rotation during swing. weight transfer onto front foor during swing. Sit-Ups Lie on back, knees bent, feet flat on floor, arms crossed over chest. Curl up to touch elbows to thighs. Return to lying position. Sit and Reach Assume a sitting position with legs together and knees straight. Bend and reach forward to feet with one hand on top of the other. Keep legs straight. Hold position for 3 seconds. Figure 27 Continued. Push-Ups Assume a prone position parallel to floor, toes on floor, hands directly under shoulders. Keep body parallel to floor while lowering body to 1-3" above floor. Raise body to starting position. Run alk Run or walk continuously. Five consecutive minutes. 122 The rationale for this assumption is based on teachers' comments concerning students that learn a skill by learning one qualitative behavior at a time. The final product of their performance sometimes looks mechanical in form because they have not mastered a smooth rhythmical sequence of the components. A quantitative behavior component was also included in each amplified objective as a standard for mastery. In most objectives, the student was required to perform the specific skill three consecutive trials before mastery was achieved. In certain cases it was more appropriate to use a distance standard such as 50 feet. Standardizing the Directions for Administration and Scoring of Each Test Item The most important factor in the development of standard directions was the requirements of Public Law 94-142 concerning nondiscriminatory evaluation practices. Four stimulus attributes were included in the directions for each test item administration in an attempt to max- imize any discriminatory practices. To allow for a range of performance levels that would be expected from normal, educable, and trainable students in the age range of 3 through 12 years, four response alternatives were used in each test item. A complete test manual with test items, directions for administration, scoring, and interpretation, can be found in Appendix F. 123 Validity of the Criterion-Referenced Test Items This study utilized three content experts to investi— gate (1) content validity, (2) descriptive validity, and (3) criterion-selection validity. Content Validity. Two aspects of content validity were studied: 1. The degree to which the objectives represent the fundamental motor skill (locomotor and object control skills), and physical fitness skill domains; and 2. The degree to which the objectives represent the following factors (subareas) identified in most motor ability studies of normal, educable mentally retarded and trainable mentally retarded children: a. b. C. d. e. Balance Flexibility Limb-eye coordination Leg power Upper body strength The three content experts independently rated all 16 skill objectives relative to the above two aspects of content validity. A 97.6% of agreement was obtained from the three raters across all skills. Table 4.1 provides a summary of ratings (n = 3 raters) for content validity. 124 Table 4.1 A Summary of Ratings for Content Validity DOMAINS SUBAREAS q :1 a s O m a 2 E3 3 m E .4 E z m m E E z: 9. .. a: O H a: E-I Q g 0 g d E E g 8 [-4 B m 0 I31 H 5 U H 54 H DI I a m 1‘3 "’ d 33 a 9 2 § m S .4 .4 53 H 8 n. O DI U) in In I-‘l U D OBJECTIVES x3 o)D x O x O x O x O x O x O GALLOP 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 HOP 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 HORIZONTAL JUMP 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 LEAP 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RUN 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 SKIP 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 SLIDE 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 BOUNCE 3 3 3 3 3 3 CATCH 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 KICK 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 OVERHAND THROW 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 SIDEARM STRIKE 3 3 3 3 3 3 SIT-UPS 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 PUSH-UPS 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RUN/WALK 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 SIT AND REACH 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 5 4 5 2 4 4 aThe Objective is a measure of that domain or subarea. The Objective is not a measure of that domain or subarea. 125 Descriptive validity. This form of validity was measured by having three content experts judge the CRT item-objective congruency. The judges were required to rate the ability of the test item to measure its ampli- fied Objective. All 16 test items received a +1 rating, meaning that, in the Opinion Of the content experts, all test items measured the objective that they were designed to measure. Table 4.2 presents a summary of the descrip- tive validity ratings (n = 3 raters). According to these results, the test items had excellent descriptive validity. Criterion-Selection Validity. This form of validity was evaluated by having three content experts rate the components selected for each test item on (1) their observability in the physical education class and (2) their consistency with what research describes as a mature pattern. All components used in the 16 test items received at least two "X's" on their observability and consistency (an "X" denoting a positive rating), resulting in acceptable criterion validity. Complete criterion validity ratings can be found in Appendix G. According to these results, the test has adequate validity. 126 Table 4.2 A Summary Of Descriptive Validity Ratings Objective Rater l 2 3 Run +1 +1 +1 Gallop +1 +1 +1 Hop +1 +1 +1 Skip +1 +1 +1 Horizontal Jump +1 +1 +1 Slide +1 +1 +1 Leap +1 +1 +1 Abdominal Strength +1 +1 +1 Overhand Throw +1 +1 +1 Trunk and Leg Flexibility +1 +1 +1 Catch +1 +1 +1 Bounce +1 +1 +1 Arm and Shoulder +1 +1 +1 Kick +1 +1 +1 Two-Hand Strike +1 +1 +1 Cardiorespiratory Endurance +1 +1 +1 Note: A +1 was used to denote in item that was definitely congruent with its objective. 127 Reliability of the Test Items Two aspects of reliability were evaluated in this section Of the study. The first measure studied was the internal consistency of the test. ~This was evaluated by calculating Cronbach's (1951) alpha coefficient for 279 students across all 16 test items. An alpha coef- ficient of .92 was obtained resulting in acceptance of inter-item homogeneity. The second aspect of reliability studied was the test-retest stability. Three raters independently assessed an available sample of seven educable mentally impaired students on all 16 test items. This means that a total of 336 data were collected. Exactly two weeks later the same three raters readministered the same 16 test items to the same students. A Pearson product- moment correlation was calculated on the two groups of test scores. A correlation coefficient Of .97 was obtained. This high correlation between test and re- test data is not extremely surprising in light Of the attempt to validate qualitative behaviors that were observable in the physical education class. These behaviors that were rated "difficult to Observe“ were deleted from the test items. It is important to note that the student's test scores did not change signifi- cantly due to vagueness of test instructions, varia- tions in testing conditions or other irrelevant factors 128 that are common in the field. Most of these conditions can be controlled through the use Of videotapes but, to keep the situation as realistic as possible, live per- formances were analyzed. Based on the above results, Cohen's kappa statistic was not needed. Mehrens (1980) Ebel (1980) believe that the traditional strategies of using correlation coef- ficients is fine as long as high coefficients are obtained. Normative Data Analysis of the Student Performance Data Initial analysis of the data consisted of computing a three-way analysis of variance to test for an inter- action between sex, age, and student classification. The run test item resulted in a significant (.007) disordinal effect for age by student classification. The gallop test item resulted in a significant (.026) disordinal interaction for age by student classification. The horizontal jump test item resulted in a signifi- cant (.003) disordinal interaction for sex by age by student classification and also for age by student classification (.037). The leap test item resulted in a significant (.014) disordinal interaction for sex by student classification. There was no significant 129 interaction for any of the five object control skill test items. The sit and reach test item resulted in a Significant disordinal interaction (.002) for sex by age by student classification. 7 Subsequent fo the initial data analysis, the main effects of sex, age, and student classification were evaluated. Table 4.3 shows that the only two test items that resulted in significant differences across sex were the overhand throw and the two-hand strike. Tables 4.4 through 4.19 Show that all 12 fundamental motor skill test items resulted in significant main effects for age (3-12), while none Of the physical fitness test items resulted in Significant age effects. Significant main effects resulted for all 16 test items across the three student classifications (normal, educable mentally impaired, and trainable mentally impaired). Tables 4.20 through 4.35 present a summary of the analysis of variance for student classification differences on each test item. Where significant main effects were realized, the Tukey Multiple Range Test was conducted to pinpoint exactly where the Significance was located. Tables 4.36 through 4.63 provide data on the results of the Tukey test for age and student classification differences. In 10 of the test items, neither of the three student 130 Table 4.3 Mean Standard Deviation and F Ratio for Sex Differences on Each Test Item Item Sex M SD F Run M 3.37 .75 75 F 3.30 .67 ° Gallop M 3.08 .88 F 3.22 .87 1'59 Hop M 3.10 .96 F 3.11 1.06 ~01 Skip M 2.66 1.08 F 2.83 1.13 1-58 H. Jump M 3.24 .85 F 3.25 .74 -02 Slide M 2.92 .89 F 2.97 .95 '18 Leap M 2.31 .98 F 2.30 1.06 -01 0. Throw M 3.19 .75 a F 2.94 .59 9-30 Catch M 3.12 .80 F 2.93 .79 4-08 Stationary Bounce M 3.12 .85 F 3.00 .80 1-43 Kick M 3.15 .57 F 3.02 .51 3-95 Two-Hand Strike M 3.27 .65 a F 2.90 .57 26-12 Sit-ups M 3.11 .72 F 3.10 .66 -01 Sit and Reach M 3.22 .58 F 3.30 .60 1-20 Push-ups M 2.79 .92 F 2.47 .79 5'03 Run/Walk M 3.69 .76 F 3.66 .78 ~07 aSignificant at .01 level. 131 Table 4.4 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE RUN TEST ITEM Source df MS y F p Between Groups 9 3.07 7.33 .001 Within Groups 269 .42 Total 278 Table 4.5 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE GALLOP TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 9 7.19 13.11 .001 Within Groups 267 .55 Total 276 Table 4.6 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE HOP TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 9 10.30 14.64 .001 Within Groups 269 .70 Iptal 278 Table 4.7 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE SKIP TEST ITEM ___ Source df MS F P Between Groups 9 9.95 10.71 .001 Within Groups 269 .93 IQtal 278 132 Table 4.8 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE HORIZONTAL JUMP TEST ITEM Source df MS - F p Between Groups 9 3.68 6.88 .001 Within Groups 269 .54 Total 278 Table 4.9 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE SLIDE TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 9 9.07 16.09 .004 Within Groups 267 .56 Total 276 Table 4.10 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE LEAP TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 9 10.50 14.67 .01 Within Groups 269 .72 TOtal 278 Table 4.11 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE OVERHAND THROW TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 9 2-91 7-55 -01 Within Groups 269 .39 Total 278 133 Table 4.12 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE CATCH TEST ITEM Source df Ms F p Between Groups 9 6.16 13.59 .001 Within Groups 268 .45 Total 277 Table 4.13 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE STATIONARY BOUNCE TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 9 8.17 19.13 .001 Within Groups 268 .43 Total 277 Table 4.14 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE KICK TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 9 2.16 9.08 .01 Within Groups 267 .24 Total 276 Table 4.15 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE TWO-HAND STRIKE TEST ITEM Source df MS F 9 Between Groups 9 2.77 8.42 .01 Within Groups 267 .33 Total 276 134 Table 4.16 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE SIT-UPS TEST ITEM Source df MS F yp Between Groups 4 , .64 1.37 .23 Within Groups 142 .47 Total 146 Table 4.17 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE SIT AND REACH TEST ITEM Source df MS F _p Between Groups 4 .78 2.33 .02 Within Groups 142 .34 Total 146 Table 4.18 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE PUSH-UPS TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 4 1.25 1.70 .14 Within Groups 142 .73 Total 146 Table 4.19 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE DIFFERENCES ON THE RUN/WALK TEST ITEM Source df MS F 9 Between Groups 4 1.37 2.46 .04 Within Groups 142 .56 Total 146 135 Table 4.20 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE RUN TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 13.43 32.67 .001 Within Groups 276 .41 TOtal 278 Table 4.21 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE GALLOP TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 29.31 52.74 .001 Within Groups 274 .56 Total 276 Table 4.22 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE HOP TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 32.24 40.90 .001 Within Groups 276 .79 Total 278 Table 4.23 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE SKIP TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 57.92 71.50 .001 Within Groups 276 .81 TOtal 278 136 Table 4.24 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE HORIZONTAL JUMP TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 15.85 30.12 .001 Within Groups 276 .53 TOtal 278 Table 4.25 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE SLIDE TEST ITEM Source df MS F yp Between Groups 2 28.53 44.63 .001 Within Groups 274 .64 Total 276 Table 4.26 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE LEAP TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 32.12 39.77 .001 Within Groups 276 .81 Total 278 Table 4.27 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE OVERHAND THROW TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 8.17 19.88 .001 Within Groups 276 .41 Total 278 137 Table 4.28 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE CATCH TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 14.72 27.47 .001 Within Groups 275 .54 Total 277 Table 4.29 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE STATIONARY BOUNCE TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 10.69 17.64 .001 Within Groups 275 .61 Total 277 Table 4.30 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE KICK TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 3.14 11.24 .001 Within Groups 274 .28 Total 276 Table 4.31 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE TWO-HAND STRIKE TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 6.30 17.23 .001 Within Groups 274 .37 Total 276 138 Table 4.32 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE SIT-UPS TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 12.86 42.12 .001 Within Groups 146 .31 TOtal 148 Table 4.33 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE SIT AND REACH TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 1.96 5.78 .004 Within Groups 146 .34 Total 148 Table 4.34 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE PUSH-UPS TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 15.57 28.49 .001 Within Groups 146 .55 Total 148 Table 4.35 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON THE RUN/WALK TEST ITEM Source df MS F p Between Groups 2 10.37 23.25 .001 Within Groups 141 .45 Total 143 139 Table 4.36 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN AGE FOR THE RUN TEST ITEM Subset . Homogeneous Ages 3...: w h U1 6 7 N .5 Ln \lC‘ 8 11 10 9 12 Table 4.37 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN AGE FOR THE GALLOP TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Ages 1 3 4 _ 2 5 6 ll 10 7 8 9 12 Table 4.38 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR.DIFFERENCES IN AGE FOR THE HOP TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Ages 1 3 4 2 4 5 6 3 5 6 7 ll 8 12 4 7 ll 8 12 9 10 140 Table 4.39 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN AGE FOR THE SKIP TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Ages MP on A 11 5 6 7 8 12 10 9 Table 4.40 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN AGE FOR THE HORIZONTAL JUMP TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Ages 1 3 4 6 2 4 6 11 5 7 3 6 11 5 7 8 9 12 10 Table 4.41 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN AGE FOR THE SLIDE TEST ITEM §pbset Homogeneous Ages 1 3 4 2 4 5 3 5 6 7 ll 8 4 6 7 ll 8 10 5 7 ll 8 10 9 l2 141 Table 4.42 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN AGE FOR THE LEAP TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Ages 1 3 4 5 2 4 5 6 3 5 6 7 4 6 7 8 11 5 8 ll 9 10 12 Table 4.43 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN AGE FOR THE OVERHAND THROW TEST ITEM Spbset Homogeneous Ages 1 3 4 5 6 2 4 5 6 10 7 3 5 6 10 7 8 ll 4 10 7 8 ll 9 12 Table 4.44 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN AGE FOR THE CATCH TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Ages 1 3 4 5 2 4 5 6 3 5 6 7 4 6 7 8 11 5 7 8 ll 9 10 12 142 Table 4.45 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN AGE FOR THE STATIONARY BOUNCE TEST ITEM Subset Hompgeneous Ages 1 3 4 2 5 6 7 3 7 8 11 10 4 8 ll 10 9 12 Table 4.46 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN AGE FOR THE KICK TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Ages 1 3 4 5 2 4 5 6 7 3 5 6 7 8 4 6 7 8 9 10 ll 5 7 8 9 10 ll 12 Table 4.47 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN AGE FOR THE TWO-HAND STRIKE TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Ages NH 4500 UlIb 143 Table 4.48 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE RUN TEST ITEM Hompgeneous Classifications Subset 1 TMI: 2 EMI 3 Normalc aDenotes the Trainable Mentally Impaired Classification bDenotes the Educable Mentally Impaired Classification cDenotes the Normal Classification Table 4.49 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE GALLOP TEST ITEM Homogeneous Classifications Subset 1 TMI 2 EMI 3 Normal Table 4.50 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE HOP TEST ITEM Subset Hompgeneous Classifications l TMI 2 EMI 3 Normal Table 4.51 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE SKIP TEST ITEM §gpset Homogeneous Classifications l TMI 2 EMI __§ Normal - 144 Table 4.52 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE HORIZONTAL JUMP TEST ITEM Subset *‘Homogeneous Classifications l TMI 2 EMI 3 Normal Table 4.53 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE SLIDE TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Classifications l TMI 2 EMI 3 Normal Table 4.54 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE LEAP TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Classifications l TMI 2 EMI __3 Normal Table 4.55 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE OVERHEAD THROW TEST ITEM §pbset Homogeneous Classifications 2 EMI Normal , 145 Table 4.56 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE CATCH TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Classifications 1 TMI 2 EMI 3 Normal Table 4.57 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE STATIONARY BOUNCE TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Classifications 1 TMI 2 EMI Normal Table 4.58 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE KICK TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Classifications 1 TMI 2 EMI Normal Table 4.59 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE TWO-HAND STRIKE TEST ITEM §pbset Homogeneous Classifications E 2 EMI Normal " 146 Table 4.60 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE SIT-UPS TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Classifications 1 TMI 2 EMI 3 Normal Table 4.61 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE SIT AND REACH TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Classifications l EMI TMI 2 TMI Normal Table 4.62 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE PUSH-UPS TEST ITEM Subset Homogeneous Classifications 1 TMI 2 EMI 3 Normal Table 4.63 SUMMARY OF TUKEY MULTIPLE RANGE TEST FOR DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE RUN/WALK TEST ITEM §pbset Homogeneous Classifications l TMI 2 ' EMI Normal 147 classifications resulted in homogeneous student per- formances. Six of the test items (overhand throw, stationary bounce, kick, two—hand strike, sit and reach, and run/walk) had homogeneous student performance in some combination relative to student classification. Those test items that resulted in homogeneous performance relative to student classification were pooled for the purpose of student profile development. The next phase of student performance data analysis was the development of cumulative percentiles by age and student classification for each student performance level (criterion, rudimentary, assisted, and other). Tables 4.64 through 4.79 present the cumulative percentiles for each test item. It is important to remember that the physical fitness test items were administered only to students 8 years Old and above. Table 4.80 presents a summary of ages at which the criterion level of perfor- mance first appeared for each student classification on each test item. Table 4.81 presents a summary of ages at which the criterion level of performance was mastered by 25%, 50%, and 75% or more of the students in each Of the student classification samples. The final phase of student performance data analysis resulted in the formulation of student profiles for ease 148 Table 4.64 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Run Test Item Classification Age Ca Rb Ac Od Normal 3 ll 89 100 100 4 50 100 100 100 5 47 100 100 100 6 63 100 100 100 7 56 100 100 100 8 44 100 100 100 9 94 100 100 100 10 86 100 100 100 11 100 100 100 100 12 83 100 100 100 Educable Men- tally Impaired 3 O 67 100 100 4 0 100 100 100 5 0 83 100 100 6 0 86 100 100 7 41 100 100 100 8 40 100 100 100 9 71 100 100 100 10 67 100 100 100 11 57 86 86 100 12 100 100 100 100 Trainable Men- tally Impaired 3 0 O 33 100 4 O 29 58 100 5 0 50 83 100 6 0 83 83 100 7 14 86 100 100 8 25 100 100 100 9 25 88 100 100 10 0 83 100 100 ll 33 100 100 100 12 33 100 100 100 m Denotes the criterion level of performance Denotes the rudimentary level of performance Denotes the assisted level of performance Denotes the other level of performance (I DID , 149 Table 4.65 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Gallop Test Item Classification Age Ca RB Ac Od Normal 3 0 56 89 100 4 0 75 100 100 5 53 100 100 100 6 69 94 100 100 7 89 100 100 100 8 88 94 100 100 9 88 100 100 100 10 64 100 100 100 ll 80 100 100 100 12 100 100 100 100 Educable 3 0 17 77 100 4 0 33 100 100 5 0 83 100 100 6 0 86 100 100 7 44 100 100 100 8 20 100 100 100 9 52 100 100 100 10 60 80 100 100 11 14 100 100 100 12 80 80 100 100 Trainable 3 0 0 0 100 4 0 0 14 100 5 0 0 33 100 6 0 50 67 100 7 0 72 86 100 8 0 88 100 100 9 0 100 100 100 10 0 67 100 100 ll 33 66 89 100 12 17 100 100 100 aDenotes the criterion level Of performance bDenotes the rudimentary level of performance cDenotes the assisted level Of performance dDenotes the other level of performance 1 150 Table 4.66 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Hop Test Item Classification Age Ca Rb AC Od Normal 3 11 34 67 100 4 25 63 100 100 5 53 100 100 100 6 44 94 94 100 7 78 100 100 100 8 88 100 100 100 9 88 100 100 100 10 93 100 100 100 ll 80 100 100 100 12 83 100 100 100 Educable 3 0 0 50 100 4 0 17 84 100 5 0 33 83 100 6 14 57 86 100 7 37 100 100 100 8 33 100 100 100 9 62 100 100 100 10 83 100 100 100 11 72 86 100 100 12 80 100 100 100 Trainable 3 0 0 O 100 4 0 0 14 100 5 0 0 33 100 6 0 0 67 100 7 0 29 86 100 8 38 63 100 100 9 25 63 100 100 10 33 83 83 100 11 33 66 77 100 12 17 83 100 100 aDenotes the criterion level of performance bDenotes the rudimentary level of performance cDenotes the assisted level of performance d Denotes the other level of performance 151 Table 4.67 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Skip Test Item a b c d Classification Age C R A 0 Normal 3 0 22 44 100 4 13 38 88 100 5 41 94 94 100 6 38 94 100 100 7 33 77 100 100 8 38 100 100 100 9 82 100 100 100 10 71 100 100 100 ll 40 100 100 100 12 67 100 100 100 Educable 3 0 0 0 100 4 0 0 50 100 5 17 33 83 100 6 42 71 100 100 7 29 94 94 100 8 33 80 100 100 9 48 96 100 100 10 33 100 100 100 ll 43 86 86 100 12 33 67 100 100 Trainable 3 0 0 0 100 4 0 0 13 100 5 0 0 17 100 6 0 l7 17 100 7 0 14 14 100 8 0 13 63 100 9 13 38 100 100 10 0 17 67 100 11 ll 22 44 100 12 25 38 88 100 aDenotes the criterion level of performance bDenotes the rudimentary level of performance cDenotes the assisted level of performance d Denotes the other level of performance 152 Table 4.68 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Horizontal Jump Test Item Classification Age Ca Rb AC Od Normal 3 0 67 100 100 4 38 100 100 100 5 53 100 100 100 6 44 100 100 100 7 67 100 100 100 8 50 100 100 100 9 77 100 100 100 10 86 100 100 100 ll 40 100 100 100 12 83 100 100 100 Educable 3 0 17 100 100 4 17 83 100 100 5 17 100 100 100 6 42 71 71 100 7 35 94 94 100 8 40 87 100 100 9 52 100 100 100 10 67 100 100 100 ll 57 86 86 100 12 80 100 100 100 Trainable 3 0 0 O 100 4 0 14 43 100 5 0 33 83 100 6 17 34 67 100 7 0 86 100 100 8 38 100 100 100 9 13 100 100 100 10 33 83 100 100 11 22 78 89 100 12 17 100 100 100 aDenotes the criterion level of performance bDenotes the rudimentary level of performance cDenotes the assisted level Of performance d Denotes the other level of performance , 153 Table 4.69 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Slide Test Item Classification Age Ca Rb AC Od Normal 3 0 33 78 100 4 25 75 100 100 5 35 88 100 100 6 13 100 100 100 7 44 88 100 100 8 38 100 100 100 9 71 100 100 100 10 64 100 100 100 11 100 100 100 100 12 100 100 100 100 Educable 3 0 0 0 100 4 0 O 83 100 5 0 17 , 100 100 6 0 71 100 100 7 25 100 100 100 8 27 94 100 100 9 48 100 100 100 10 50 100 100 100 11 29 86 100 100 12 100 100 100 100 Trainable 3 O 0 33 100 4 0 0 0 100 5 O 0 17 100 6 0 33 67 100 7 0 33 67 100 8 0 63 100 100 9 0 100 100 100 10 0 50 100 100 ll 0 67 78 100 12 0 83 100 100 aDenotes the criterion level of performance bDenotes the rudimentary level of performance cDenotes the assisted level of performance d Denotes the other level of performance 154 Table 4.70 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Leap Test Item a b c d Classification Age C R A 0 Normal 3 0 0 33 100 4 0 0 88 100 5 0 29 76 100 6 13 69 94 100 7 ll 67 89 100 8 13 88 100 100 9 47 100 100 100 10 50 93 100 100 ll 80 100 100 100 12 67 100 100 100 Educable 3 0 0 o 100 4 0 0 0 100 5 0 0 50 100 6 0 14 43 100 7 6 42 71 100 8 13 33 87 100 9 14 62 100 100 10 17 100 100 100 ll 0 57 86 100 12 20 100 100 100 Trainable 3 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 5 0 0 0 100 6 0 0 0 100 7 0 l4 14 100 8 0 25 63 100 9 0 25 75 100 10 0 17 67 100 ll 0 ll 78 100 12 O 33 83 100 aDenotes the criterion level of performance bDenotes the rudimentaty level of performance cDenotes the assisted level Of performance d Denotes the other level of performance 155 Table 4.71 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Overhand Throw Test Item Classification Age Ca Rb AC Oa Normal 3 12 56 100 100 4 25 88 88 100 5 6 88 100 100 6 19 94 100 100 7 56 100 100 100 8 31 94 100 100 9 71 100 100 100 10 21 100 100 100 11 40 100 100 100 12 50 100 100 100 Educable 3 0 50 83 100 4 0 83 100 100 5 0 67 100 100 6 0 71 100 100 7 35 94 100 100 8 33 93 100 100 9 38 95 100 100 10 33 100 100 100 11 29 100 100 100 12 100 100 100 100 Trainable 3 0 0 67 100 4 0 14 100 100 5 O 33 100 100 6 0 17 100 100 7 0 57 86 100 8 13 88 100 100 9 0 75 100 100 10 17 50 100 100 ll 33 89 100 100 12 17 100 100 100 aDenotes the criterion level of performance bDenotes the rudimentary level of performance cDenotes the assisted level of performance d Denotes the other level of performance 156 Table 4.72 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Catch Test Item Classification Age Ca Rb Ac Od Normal 3 O 33 100 100 4 0 63 100 100 5 12 82 100 100 6 33 80 100 100 7 67 100 100 100 8 63 94 100 100 9 76 94 100 100 10 71 100 100 100 11 100 100 100 100 12 83 100 100 100 Educable 3 0 0 83 100 4 O 0 100 100 5 0 50 100 100 6 0 43 100 100 7 30 71 100 100 8 27 100 100 100 9 43 91 100 100 10 50 100 100 100 ll 43 100 100 100 12 80 100 100 100 Trainable 3 0 0 67 100 4 0 0 100 100 5 0 0 100 100 6 0 17 100 100 7 0 29 86 100 8 0 100 100 100 9 0 71 100 100 10 0 67 100 100 ll 33 55 100 100 12 17 67 100 100 aDenotes the criterion level of performance bDenotes the rudimentary level of performance cDenotes the assisted level of performance d Denotes the other level of performance 157 Table 4.73 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Stationary Bounce Test Item Classification Age Ca Rb Ac Od Normal 3 0 14 100 100 4 O 37 100 100 5 12 77 100 100 6 25 75 100 100 7 56 89 100 100 8 50 94 100 100 9 76 100 100 100 10 79 100 100 100 ll 80 100 100 100 12 100 100 100 100 Educable 3 0 0 83 100 4 0 0 100 100 5 20 80 100 100 6 0 57 100 100 7 29 76 100 100 8 33 100 100 100 9 90 100 100 100 10 33 100 100 100 ll 43 100 100 100 12 100 100 100 100 Trainable 3 0 0 33 100 4 0 0 86 100 5 0 0 100 100 6 0 17 100 100 7 0 43 100 100 8 12 75 100 100 9 25 75 100 100 10 17 83 83 100 ll 33 78 100 100 12 33 83 100 100 aDenotes the criterion level of performance bDenotes the rudimentary level of performance cDenotes the assisted level of performance d Denotes the other level Of performance " 158 Table 4.74 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Kick Test Item Classification Age Ca RB Ac 06 Normal 3 0 56 100 100 4 0 100 100 100 5 6 94 100 100 6 6 94 100 100 7 22 100 100 100 8 27 100 100 100 9 47 100 100 100 10 64 100 100 100 ll 75 100 100 100 12 50 100 100 100 Educable 3 0 33 100 100 4 0 67 100 100 5 0 100 100 100 6 0 100 100 100 7 18 100 100 100 8 33 93 100 100 9 14 100 100 100 10 17 100 100 100 11 29 100 100 100 12 80 100 100 100 Trainable 3 0 33 100 100 4 0 57 100 100 5 0 50 83 100 6 0 67 100 100 7 0 57 100 100 8 13 100 100 100 9 13 88 100 100 10 0 83 100 100 ll 22 100 100 100 12 17 100 100 100 aDenotes the criterion level of performance bDenotes the rudimentary level of performance cDenotes the assisted level of performance d Denotes the other level or performance ’ 159 Table 4.75 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Two-Hand Strike Test Item Classification Age Ca Rb AC Od Normal 3 0 44 100 100 4 25 88 100 100 5 13 93 100 100 6 25 100 100 100 7 44 100 100 100 8 31 94 100 100 9 53 100 100 100 10 29 100 100 100 ll 20 100 100 100 12 50 100 100 100 Educable 3 0 0 100 100 4 0 33 100 100 5 17 100 100 100 6 14 71 100 100 7 35 94 100 100 8 33’ 93 100 100 9 33 100 100 100 10 50 100 100 100 ll 57 100 100 100 12 80 100 100 100 Trainable 3 0 33 100 100 4 0 14 100 100 5 0 33 100 100 6 0 33 100 100 7 14 71 100 100 8 0 75 100 100 9 0 75 100 100 10 17 83 100 100 ll 13 88 100 100 12 0 100 100 100 aDenotes the criterion level of performance bDenotes the rudimentary level Of performance CDenotes the assisted level of performance d Denotes the other level of performance , 160 Table 4.76 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Sit-Ups Test Item . Classification Age Ca Rb AC Od Normal 8 38 100 100 100 9 53 100 100 100 10 72 93 100 100 ll 80 100 100 100 12 67 100 100 100 Educable 8 15 69 100 100 9 5 84 100 100 10 20 100 100 100 ll 29 86 100 100 12 80 100 100 100 Trainable 8 O 38 100 100 9 10 60 100 100 10 18 76 100 100 11 26 91 100 100 12 51 98 100 100 ID Denotes the criterion level of performance Denotes the rudimentary level of performance Denotes the assisted level of performance Denotes the other level of performance 0‘ 040 161 Table 4.77 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Sit and Reach Test Item - Classification Age Ca Rb Ac Od Normal 8 31 94 100 100 9 47 100 100 100 10 50 100 100 100 ll 40 100 100 100 12 83 100 100 100 Educable 8 20 93 100 100 9 5 95 100 100 10 17 83 100 100 ll 43 86 86 100 12 60 100 100 100 Trainable 8 25 88 100 100 9 38 100 100 - 100 10 33 67 100 100 ll 33 100 100 100 12 33 100 100 100 w Denotes the criterion level of performance Denotes the rudimentary level of performance Denotes the assisted level of performance Denotes the other level of performance D" 040 1 162 Table 4.78 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Push-Ups Test Item ‘ ‘ Classification Age Ca Rb AC Od Normal 8 19 75 100 100 9 41 88 100 100 10 14 71 100 100 11 20 100 100 100 12 50 83 100 100 Educable 8 0 23 85 100 9 10 74 90 100 10 0 67 100 100 11 14 57 , 86 100 12 0 100 100 100 Trainable 8 0 38 75 100 9 0 25 88 100 10 0 17 50 100 ll 0 ll 56 100 12 17 33 83 100 aDenotes the criterion level of performance b Denotes the rudimentary level of performance Denotes the assisted level of performance Denotes the other level of performance on ’ 163 Table 4.79 Cumulative Percentiles by Age and Student Classification for Each Student Performance Level on the Run/Walk Test Item Classification Age Ca Rb AC 0d Normal 8 92 100 100 100 9 100 100 100 100 10 100 100 100 100 11 100 100 100 100 12 100 100 100 100 Educable 8 85 85 100 100 9 90 95 100 100 10 100 100 100 100 ll 86 86 86 100 12 100 100 100 100 Trainable 8 38 50 100 100 9 100 100 100 100 10 50 67 100 100 11 56 56 100 100 12 17 17 67 100 Denotes the criterion level of performance Denotes the rudimentary level of performance Denotes the assisted level of performance Denotes the other level of performance 0400‘!!! .l£54 Table 4.80 Age at Which the Criterion Level of Performance First Appeared for Each Student Classification Test Item Classification Age Test Item Classification Age 8 Run Nb 3 Catch N 5 EC 7 E 7 T 7 T 11 Gallop N S Stationary N 5 E 7 Bounce E 5 T 11 T 8 Hop N 3 Kick N S S 6 E 7 T T 8 Skip N 4 Two-Hand N 4 E S Strike E 5 T 9 T 7 Horizontal Jump N 4 Sit-upse N 8 E 4 E 8 T 6 T 9 Slide N 4 Sit and Reache N 9 E 7 E 8 T -d T 6 183: N 6 Push-upse N 5 E 7 E 9 T - T 12 Overhand Throw h 3 Run/Walke N 8 E 7 E 8 T 8 T e a n. b CenOtes the normal student classification C Denotes the educable mentally impaired student classification é Denates the trainable mentally impaired student classification Denotes that the criterion level of performance did not appear in the age rance 3-12 e - This teSt item was administered to students 8 years Old and above 1.655 Table 4.81 Age at which the Criterion Level of Performance was Mastered by 25%, 50% and 753 or More of the Students in E on of the Student Classification Samples Age Age Test Item Classification 25% 504 754 Test Item Classification 25% 508 75% Run N: 4 4 9 Catch N 6 7 9 E 7 9d 12 E 7 10 12 TC 8 - - T 11 - - Gallop N 5 5 7 Stationary N 6 7 9 E 7 12 Bounce E 7 9 9 T 11 - T 9 - - Hop N 4 S 7 Kick N 8 11 E 7 9 10 E 8 12 1“ T 8 - - T - - Ski; N 5 9 9 Two-Hand N 4 9 - E 6 - - Strike E “ 10 12 T 12 - - T - - Horizontal N 4 s 9 Sit-upse N 8 9 Jump E 6 9 12 E 11 12 1“ T 8 - - T 11 12 Slide N 4 9 11 Sit and Reache N 8 10 12 E 7 10 12 S 11 I: - T - - - T 8 - - Lea; N 9 10 11 Push-upse N 9 12 - S - - - S - - - T - - - T - - - Overhand x 4 7 - Run/Walke N 8 e 8 Throw a 7 12 12 E 8 8 8 T 11 - T 8 9 9 l Denotes the normal student Classification Denotes the educable mentally impaired student Classification Denotes the trainable mentally impaired student Classification Denotes that the criterion level was not mastered by this Percent Of the students e at any age between 3-12 This test item was administered to students 8 years Old and above 0. (I (1‘ W 166 nII 6626:6669 ~MuoeIosm 66H 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6H6 66” 6H6 66“ M.mI 66666666 uouoeococ 66 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6 6 66 6 6 66. . 666602 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66 «Iml IIIIII . . . IIuII a: 669 66. 6.6 66. 6.6. 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66.- 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66 6 6 66 6.6 ownccwcca 6666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66 6 6 6 oz 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6 6 6666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 666666666 6 66m 6 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 6666266 6. 6 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66502 mw. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 Imma 6.6 66. 6.6 66.6 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 6666:6666 . 66. 6.6 66.6 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66.6 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66660666 66:6 = 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 665602 66.6 6.6 66.6 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 666666666 66.6 6.6 66.6 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66.6 6.6 66.6 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66660666 6666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 . 662602 66. 6.6 66.6 6.6 66.6 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.mI 6666:6666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 mm. 6.6 66660566 60: 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66.6 6.6 662662 66. 6.6 66.6 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 6w. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 6666:6666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66660666 606666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 663602 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66” 6H6 66H 6H6 66H 6H6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 6666:6666 66” 6H6 66H6 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66” 6H6 66“ 6.6 66. 6.6 66660666 :66 66 6 6 m6 6 6 66 6 6 66 6 6 66 6 6 66 6 6 66 6 6 66 m 6 66 6.6 66. 6.6 662602 66 z 66 z 66 z 66 z 66 x 66 z 66 x 66 x 66 x 66 z 6 6 6 6 66 66 6 6 m 6 6 60666666666666 66666 omc ’Illl I'I'Illll II. III 66666066666660 6:66:66 666 666 an 65666 6666 66666 60608003 65 wow 6.036666 66666536 one :66: an... mm.v cancfi , 167 of teacher interpretation. The mean and standard devia- tion for each test item, subtotal score (locomotor skills, object control skills, and physical fitness skills), and total test score was calculated by age and student class- ification. Table 4.82 provides the mean and standard deviation for all seven locomotor skill test items and subtotal by age and student classification. Table 4.83 presents the mean and standard deviation for each of the five object control skill test items along with the object control skill subtotal and total fundamental motor skill test score (combines both locomotor and object control skills). Table 4.84 presents the mean and standard deviation for each of the four physical fitness test items by student classification and age along with the physical fitness subtotal and total test score (this combines all 16 test items for ages 8-12). This phase of analysis required that a numerical value be assigned to each performance level (criterion = 4, rudimentary = 3, assisted = 2, and other = 1). In reviewing Tables 4.82, 4.83, and 4.84, a definite trend was noticed. All locomotor skill subtotals re- sulted in the normal student classification scoring the highest, followed by educables and then trainables for all ages. This same trend existed for the object control 168 111 . . . . . 1411 6 66666 66066 6666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66 6 6 66 c H 66 6 6 666 66662 c o I t o NcN mHo 50H wflnmuag HHfixm 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66 c 6 66 c 6 66 . . . 662662 66666566666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. c.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66 6 6 66 6 6 1.Il1.| . . . Cl: 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6 6 66 6.6 66666wmua Howowumow 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 6666 m6 666666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. c.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6 6 66E 2 . 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 666666666 166. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66666666 666666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 666662 66621636 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. c.6 66. 6.6 6666:6666 1M6. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66660666 6666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. c.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 662602 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 66.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 666666666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66666666 666666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 665602 6666066666 166. 6.6 6w. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 666666666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66“ 6.6 cc“ 6.6 66” 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66660666 66666 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66 6.6 66 6 6 66 c 6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 662602 .6 .H. ..H 6. 6.6 m .6 m 66 m. 6H 6.. .6 .H. .6 .H. .6 ......... 66 6 6 66 6 - . . . -. . 6 66 6 6 66 6 6 66 6.6 66. 6.6 66666666 366 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6 6 66 6 6 66 6 6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66. 6.6 66566 66 cm 2 cw : cm x cm x cm 2 cm 2 cm 2 cm 2 cm x cm :1: z pcmsuv>o 6H 66 66 6 6 6 c 6 6 6 111 111111111111111111111- 69¢ :06 w .u o6u666660 666xm 1111111111111111111111- 60666066666666 6:66:66 6:6 66< 66 66666 6666 66666 60 do: Hmuzwfifl =3 6:6 66666 6666 66666 6666666 666666 666 uoc co6un6>66 6 6 66666 fihuvcc&m 6:6 cam: $59 mm.v o~nmfi 169 Table 4.84 The Mean and Standard Deviation for the Physical Fitness Skill Test Items and the Total Test Score by Age and Student Classification Skill Classification Age 8 9 10 ll 12 M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Normal 3.4 .50 3.5 .51 3.6 .63 3.8 .45 3.7 .52 Sit-ups Educable 2.9 .69 2.9 .46 3.2 .45 3.1 .69 3.8 .45 Trainable 2.4 .52 2.4 .52 2.7 .52 2.4 .53 2.8 .41 Normal 3.3 .58 3.5 .51 3.5 .52 2.4 .53 2.8 .41 Sit & Reach Educable 3.1 .52 3.0 .32 3.0 .63 3.1 1.10 3.6 .55 Trainable 3.1 .64 3.4 .52 3.0 .89 3.3 .50 3 3 .52 Normal 2.9 .68 3.3 .69 2.9 .67 3.2 .45 3.3 .82 Push-ups Educable 2.1 .64 2.7 .81 2.7 .52 2.6 .98 3.0 .51 Trainable 2.1 .83 2.1 .64 1 7 .82 1 7 .71 2 3 1.00 Normal 3.9 .28 3.9 .38 3.9 .24 3.9 .25 3.9 .22 Run/Walk Educable 3.7 .75 3.8 .50 3.9 .34 3.6 1.10 3.9 .21 Trainable 2.9 .99 3.9 .34 3.2 .98 3.1 1.10 2.0 1.10 Physical Normal 3.3 .38 3.6 .25 3.5 .35 3.6 .23 3.7 .40 Fitness Educable 2.9 .45 3.2 .38 3.2 .30 3.0 .83 3.6 .23 (Sub-total) Trainable 2.6 .40 3.0 .25 2.6 .63 2.7 .53 2 6 .58 Total Test Normal 3.4 .24 3.7 .18 3.6 .19 3.7 .19 3 8 .28 Score Educable 3.1 .34 3.3 .27 3.4 .19 3.2 .54 3.7 .21 Trainable 2.8 .31 2.9 .26 2 6 .51 2.7 .58 2 9 .44 170 subtotal and total fundamental motor skill score, with only one slight exception. The lZ-year-old educables scored slightly above normal students in the object control skill subtotal. This may have been due in part to several of the normal lZ-year-olds' attitudes toward participating in "kids" activities. It would be normal for most lZ-year—olds to be more interested in sports skills than in fundamental skills. Physical fitness sub- totals along with the total test score resulted in the same trend. Subsequent to the calculation of means and standard deviations for all test items, subscores and total test score, student profiles were developed by age and student classification (Appendix F). The four possible perfor- mance levels for each item (criterion = C, rudimentary = R, assisted = A, and other = 0) were plotted on the student profile according to where that performance fell relative to the normative sample. If a 3-year-old normal student performed a rudimentary run, it would be an average per- formance, but if the same student performed the run at the criterion level, it would result in a performance 2 standard deviations above the mean relative to that child's peer group. It was decided that 4 standard 171 deviations above or below the mean was adequate for describing a student's performance on each test item. It was also decided that 3 standard deviations above or below the mean for subtotal scores and total test scores was adequate description of student performance. The subtotals and total test score were reported in numerical form on each student profile. On several test items all of the students in a particular student classification group performed at the same level. For example, all trainable mentally impaired 3-year-olds performed at the other level on the leap test item. This resulted in no standard deviation and was reflected as such on the profile. This was also common on several of the fundamental motor skills for normal lZ-year-olds. It was felt that this represented the actual performance level expected by lZ-year-olds rather than lack of sample size, although given a large sample, it would be most likely that a small standard deviation would develop. Guidelines for Student Profile Interpretation The final subsection of this chapter deals with the presentation of several possible guidelines to aid teachers and parents in interpreting the student ’ 172 profiles and making appropriate deciions relative to the functions of this test. The first function of the test can be achieved by observing which skills the student performs poorly. If a specific student performs below the mean on a test item when compared to the performance of his/her peer group, that skill could be listed as a unique need of that student. By plotting the student's performance across all 16 test items on the student profile, the teacher or parent can quickly see which skills should be listed as weaknesses. If the student performs below the mean on several of the test items within a given skill area (locomotor, object control, or physical fitness), or if the student's subtotal test score is below the mean for that peer group, then the entire skill area can be listed as a general weakness. It will be more precise to pin- point each skill that is in need of improvement rather than the general skill area. General skill area weak- nesses can be used to develop program goal statement for each student. It would be useful and appropriate to include this test in the initial screening inventory that all kinder- garten children are administered prior to enrollment in 173 public school. This way, the teacher and parent can identify specific or general motor skill needs prior to the first day of class. The second test function can be attained by estabv lishing local criteria for eligibility of special educa- tion services in the physical education domain. This function may be best served by observing the subtotal and total test score for each student. For example, if a student's performance falls at 2 standard deviations or more below the mean when compared to normal students, a school system may decide that the student should be eligible for special education in physical education. It is the reaponsibility of the local school district to set the criteria, whether it's 1, 2, or 3 standard deviations below the mean. Most qualified physical education teachers that individualize their instruction should be able to meet the needs of students that perform a 1 standard deviation below the mean without specially designed instruction, given that all other learning and social variables are within a normal or average range. These local criteria should be applied to the locomotor skill, object control skill, and physical 174 fitness skill subtorals along with the total test score for each student. By plotting the student's performance levels on the student profile for each of the 16 test items and converting the performance levels to a numerical scale (4-1 for criterion level through the other level respectively) and adding up the subtotals and total test score, a teacher should be able to make more precise decisions concerning each student's eligibility. If a student meets the local eligibility criteria, specially designed instruction should be developed and placed in his/her IEP. Placement decisions can be made by comparing a student's performance with the performance of other students in a particular class or setting. If any student, regardless of classification, performs around the mean when compared to a given group, then it appears that the proper placement would be with that group or class. A school district may want to establish criteria for alternative placements. The following criteria should be viewed as possible examples: ’ 175 Regular class placement - Students that perform around the mean or above on the test items under consideration. Remedial or adapted class placement - Students that exhibit several minor skill weaknesses. This might be for short periods of time until several skill easknesses are remediated or in addition to the regular class placement. This is appropriate for students that perform at l or 2 standard deviations below the mean on a few skills but at the mean or above on most of them. If a student is placed in this setting, specially designed instruction should be developed to remediate skill weaknesses. Special class placement - Students that perform well below the mean on most or all of the skills. This placement is appropriate for students with gross deficiencies in physical education. The placement may be on a full- or part-time basis depending on the student's performance. If a student is placed in this class, specially designed instruction should be mandatory. 176 If a regular class placement is being considered for educable or trainable mentally impaired students, then it is necessary to compare their performance on each test item with that of the normal students. This can be accomplished by plotting the student's scores on the normal student classification portion of the student profile. A different colored pencil can be used for this purpose rather than a new student profile sheet. Instructional programming decisions can be made if a local school district's physical education curriculum matches the objectives measured by this test. A precise instructional prescription can be develOped based on the identification of skills that the student has not mastered. If a student has mastered the mature run, hop, and hori- zontal jump, it would be more appropriate to prescribe instruction on the skills that have not been mastered, rather than duplicating instruction on already learned skills. This last function does not require the use of the student profiles. Simply by looking at the raw test scores on each item, a teacher can determine the student's present level of performance and select those skills that have not been mastered at the criterion level. This same strategy can be employed for making instructional grouping decisions within a class. By grouping those students together that have the same instructional needs, a teacher can plan more appropriate learning activities. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The objectives of this study were: 1) select and standardize criterion-referenced test items in the physi- cal education domain based on the definition in Public Law 94-142; and 2) develop a set of norms for intellec- tually normal, educable mentally impaired,_and trainable mentally impaired students in the age range of 36 months to 155 months. Public Law 94-142 mandates assessment for three purposes: to determine eligibility for special education services, instructional planning (including the IEP develOp- ment), and evaluating the effectiveness of the instruc- tional plan. The mandate requires that state and local educational agencies shall ensure that assessment and evaluation procedures be nondiscriminatory. Assessment must be viewed clearly and simply as the process of collecting data for the purpose of making nondiscrimina- tory decisions about students using the guidelines provided by PL 94-142. 177 178 Review of current assessment instruments available to physical educators as to their conformance with the requirements of PL 94-142 shows tremendous need for revision and develOpment of valid and reliable instru- mentation in the physical education domain. A CRT approach should facilitate nondiscriminatory decision—making because the process becomes one of 1) identifying basic skills that all students are expected to master, 2) assessing all students to determine which of these basic skills are present, and 3) designing appropriate instruction so the remaining skills can be learned. The CRT instrument validated in this study was designed to assess part of the physical education domain, not the entire area Specified by PL 94-142. Using I CAN and the Michigan Performance Objectives, locomotor Skills, object control skills, and physical fitness skills were identi- fied as representative skill areas for selection of Objectives from physical education program goals. The CRT items were constructed to assess the following four levels of performance: criterion (a mature or quality pattern), rudimentary, assisted, and other. A review of the literature on CRT construction pro- vided eight guidelines that were followed during the CRT standardization process: 179 1) Determine the function(s) or purpose of the test. 2) Prepare or select objectives to be measured by the test items. 3) Develop the test items. 4) Standardize the directions for administration and scoring of each test item. 5) Evaluate the validity of the test. 6) Evaluate the reliability of the test. 7) Collect normative data. 8) Develop guidelines for test score interpretation. An effort was made during the standardization process to include test items designed to measure the common factor structures of the motor domain established in studies by Rarick and Dobbins (1972 and 1975) and Rarick and McQuillan (1977). The criterion level of performance for each test item was established by content experts. The most common qual- itative behaviors for each test item were rated on their observability and consistency with research findings on quality performances. Content validity, descriptive validity and criterion- selection validity were established along with the internal consistency of the test items and the test-retest reliability. Student performance data were collected on a sample of 279 students in the age range of 3 through 12. The 180 student performance data were analyzed to determine signi- ficant interaction effects between sex, age, and student classification. Main effects were also evaluated. All test items that resulted in significant interaction were of a disordinal nature. The overhand throw and the two-hand strike resulted in significant differences by sex. All 12 fundamental motor skills resulted in significant differences across age (3-12). Significant student performance differences existed in all 16 test items across the three Student classifications (normal, educable, and trainable). Where significant performance differences were detected, the Tukey Multiple Range Test was conducted to pinpoint the exact location of the difference to aid in student profile development. Where no difference was detected, the per- formance data were pooled and are reflected on the student profiles. Cumulative percentiles by age and student classifica- tion were computed for each student performance level (criterion, rudimentary, assisted, and other). A Table was constructed to provide a summary of ages at which the criterion level of performance first appeared for each student classification on each test item. Another Table was designed to present a summary of ages at which the criterion level of performance was mastered by 25%, 50% and 75% or more of the students in each of the student classification samples. 181 The mean and standard deviation for each test item, subtotal score (locomotor, object control, and physical fitness skills), and total test score were calculated by age and student classification. These data were used to develop student profiles by age and student classification for ease of interpreting the test results. The four possible performance levels for each test item were plotted on the student profile according to where that performance fell relative to the normative sample. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. The CRT standardized in this study has acceptable content validity, descriptive validity, and criterion selection validity. 2. The CRT standardized in this study has excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability. 3. Males perform significantly better than females on the overhand throw and two-hand strike across all ages and student classifications in the total sample. 4. A significant difference in student performance existed on all 12 fundamental motor skill test items across age for the total sample. 5. A significant difference in student performance existed on all 16 test items across the three student classifications. 182 Recommendations The following suggestions are recommended for future research concerned with the development and standardiza- tion of criterion-referenced tests in physical education: 1. Add the functional performance level to each skill test item. This would result in five performance levels. The functional level would become the criterion performance while the present criterion level would be called the mature level. 2. DeveIOp and standardize CRT items to measure the other content areas within the PL 94-142 definition of physical education. 3. Collect normative data on other student classi- fication groups such as the hearing impaired and visually impaired. Determine if there is a significant difference between these student classifications. 4. Develop a group test score sheet that is capable of facilitating continuous assessment and evaluation on the same student. This can be achieved by allotting space on the test sheet where several dates and scores can be placed. 5. Evaluate the CRT's sensitivity to appropriately planned instruction. 183 6. Using a regression strategy, determine which test items account for the most variance within each subtotal and total test score. This might help to determine which test items are the most predictive of the locomotor and object control subtotals, the funda- mental motor skill subtotal, and the physical fitness skill subtotal. 7. Determine the observability of the qualitative components placed in the criterion level of performance by collecting assessment data across several content experts. Those components that can be reliably assessed by a majority of the experts should be placed in the criterion'level. 8. Establish the degree to which teachers can be trained to use the CRT instrument. 9. Evaluate the CRT's ability to aid parents, teachers, and administrators in making special education eligibility decisions in the physical education content area. 10. Evaluate the CRT's ability to aid in making placement and instructional programming decisions. APPENDICE S APPENDIX A PUBLIC LAW 94-142 SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES WITH APPLICATIONS TO PHYSICAL EDUCATION 184 PUBLIC LAW 94-142 SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES WITH APPLICATIONS TO PHYSICAL EDUCATION PL 94-142 suggests that Application to assessment and evalua- physical educaEIOn tionprocedures: Be tailored to assess Use tests designed to assess Specific program areas a student's physical per- of educational need for formance in program areas instruction in physical for instruction for this education and not merely purpose and not as a means those designed to provide of determining basic motor a single general test development or general quotient. ability levels. Make generalizations cau- tiously; because a student does well or not on a specific test item Should not automatically be inter- preted as strength or weak- ness in more than that particular skill or pattern. Avoid a single general physical or motor quotient in the same way and for the same reasons a single general intelligence quotient is prohibited. Base decisions about physical and motor needs of the ' student on appropriate assess- ment data about physical and motor levels of functioning on the specific objectives of the program not on categorical information about handicapping conditions. 185 Be selected and admin- istered so as to best ensure that when a test is given to a student with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, test results accurately re- flect the student's achievement level or whatever other factors the test purports to measure rather than reflecting the student's impairment. Be provided and admin- istered in the student's native tongue or other mode of communication unless it is clearly not feasible to do so. Be administered by trained personnel in conformance with instruc- tions provided by the producer of the test. Be provided with student data in all areas related to the suspected dis- ability including, where. appropriate, health, viSion, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, com- munication, and physical and medical status. Use test items that measure an individual's present level of performance in physical and motor fitness, fundamental motor skills or patterns or skills in aquatics, dance, individual and group games and sports, and lifetime sports. Give necessary instruction for assessment in physical education program areas in the student's native language. Use accurate demonstrations of the skill being assessed. Include other modes of com- munication where necessary, i.e., Sign language, braille, etc. Use physical education instructions or others Specially trained to assess the physical education content area. Select or develop physical education tests that have clear standardized pro- cedures and directions for administration and scoring. Assess the physical educa- tion skills of each student suspected of having a dis- ability. Develop Special education eligibility guide- lines in physical education. Screen students for gross deficiencies in physical or motor development. 186 Not be a single procedure as a single criterion for determining an appropriate educational program for a child. Be conducted by a multi- disciplinary team or group of persons including at least one teacher or other specialist with knowledge of the area of suspected disability. Use a variety of sources and procedures to determine spe- cific physical and motor needs of each student, such as formal and informal tests, qualitative and quantitative measures, objective and sub- jective data, and observa- tional and anecdotal input. APPENDIX B A REVIEW OF THE QUALITATIVE COMPONENTS MOST COMMONLY USED TO DESCRIBE THE FUNDAMENTAL MOTOR SKILLS SELECTED FOR INCLUSION IN THE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST A REVIEW OF THE QUALITATIVE COMPONENTS MOST COMMONLY USED TO DESCRIBE THE FUNDAMENTAL MOTOR SKILLS SELECTED FOR INCLUSION IN THE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST Qualitative Components of a Mature Run Literature Source Cratty (1979) Espenschade and Eckert (1967) I CAN (Wessel, 1976) Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (Department of Education, 1979 Draft) Seefeltdt, Reuschlein, and Vogel (1972) Components Reciprocal arm action Short period where body is propelled off the ground Brief periods of nonsupport 90° leg flexion of the non- support leg Foot placement approximately two inches either side of a one-inch line Heel-toe (moderate speed) or toe—heel—toe (fast speed) foot placement Arms in opposition to legs, elbows bent Smooth integration of the above components Knee of nonsupporting leg bent at least 90° Consistent periods of non- support Foot placement near or on line Heel-toe and/or toe-heel- toe foot contact Arms in direct opposition to legs, with elbows bent Smooth integration of the above Heel-toe-foot contact at modest speed Arm opposition to leg action Knee of nonsupport leg may flex until it is nearly in contact with buttocks 188 Wickstrom (1977) Qualitative Components of a Period of no support from either leg Flexion of the knee of the swinging leg being brought closer to the buttocks Arms in synchronized opposition to the leg action Toe-heel-foot contact Mature Gallop Literature Source Espenschade and Eckert (1967) Fuller (1973) I CAN (Wessel, 1976) Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (1979) Components A coordinated lift of the arms to assist with the balancing Maintain a steady rhythmical pattern A step forward with the lead foot is followed by a step with the rear foot to a position slightly behind the heel of the lead foot Brief periods of nonsupport as the rear foot approaches the lead foot, during which time the weight is Shifted Slight flexion of the rear knee during nonsupport phase so that rear foot does not drag on the ground Arms flexed at sides at about waist level, lifting in a coordinated movement in front of the body during weight transfer Smooth integration of the above A step forward with the lead foot followed by a step with the rear foot to a position slightly behind the heel of the lead foot ’ 189 — A period of nonsupport as the rear foot approaches lead foot during which time the weight is shifted to trail foot . - A lifting of flexed arms at waist level coordinated with the shift of weight - A smooth integration of the above Nester (1977) - Able to use either foot as lead leg - A coordinated lift of the arms Sapp (1980) - A smooth, rhythmical pattern - Trail leg may cross in front of or move adjacent to the lead leg during the airborne phase but is placed adjacent to or behind the lead leg at contact Sinclair (1971) - Rhythmical and steady action Qualitative Components of a Mature Hop Literature Source Components Espenschade and - Take off on one foot and Eckert (1967) land on same foot Haubenstricker - Knee of nonsgpport leg is and Seefeldt (1975) flexed at 90 or less - Pendular leg swing to aid in force production - Arms carried close to the sides of the body with elbow flexion at 900 I CAN (weSSEII 1976) - Carriage of nonsupport leg near the mid—line of body and Slightly flexed at the knee so that nonsupport foot is not more than six inches from the floor 190 Loovis (1975) Minimal Performace Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (1979) Nester (1977) Qualitative Components of a Literature Source Broer (1973) EspenSChade and Eekert (1967) GOdfrey and Kephart (1969) - Lift of both arms in front of body coordinated with the push-off phase of the hopping action; elbows bent approx- imately 900 - Smooth integration of the above - Arms swing forward and upward synchronously — Upright trunk carriage over the support foot - Carriage of nonsupport leg near the midline and slightly flexed at the knee - Lift up both arms in front of body coordinated with the take-off phase of the hop, elbows bent about 90° - Smooth integration of the above - Upright trunk carriage over support leg - Carrying nonsupport leg near the midline of body - Arms lift in coordination with the push-off phase of hop - Foot of nonsupport leg is carried in back of body Mature Leap Components - Take off on one foot and land on opposite foot with smooth transfer of weight — Forward reach - Take off on one foot and land on the alternate foot - Take off on one foot and land on opposite foot I CAN (Wessel, 1976) Latchaw (1954) Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (1979) Milne (1972) Nester (1977) Schurr (1967) 191 Take off on one foot, land on the other, with a gliding motion in the air and a longer period of nonsupport than in running An in-flight forward trunk lean of 80° or less Forward reach with arm opposite the lead foot Land on the lead foot without losing balance Smooth integration of the above components Take off on one foot and land on opposite foot Forward reach in a forceful manner Take off on one foot, land on the other An in-flight forward trunk lean of 80° or less from side view Forward reach with arm opposite the lead foot Land on the lead foot without losing balance Smooth integration of the above Take off on one foot and land on Opposite foot Push off with one foot and land on opposite foot Forward and upward reach of arm Opposite lead leg More than 75° forward body lean Take off on one foot and land on opposite foot Forward reach 192 Qualitative Components of a Literature Source Cratty (1979) Espenschade and Eckert (1967) I CAN (Wessel, 1976) Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (1979) Mature Horizontal Jump Components - Two-foot takeoff and two— foot landing - Two-foot takeoff and two- foot landing - Preparatory movement includes 90° (1 20°) flexion of both knees with arms extended behind the body - Forceful thrust of both arms and full extension of the legs at takeoff - Take off and land on both feet - Takeoff angle at 45°(: 5°) - Feet make contact with floor ahead of body mass - Thighs near parallel to the floor at touch-down; simultaneous forward arm action during landing - Smooth integration of the above - Preparatory movement includes 9o°(i 20°) flexion of both knees with arms extended behind the body - A forceful forward-upward thrust of both arms and full extension of the legs at takeoff. - Takeoff angle at 45°(i 5°) - Simultaneous foot contact at landing well ahead of body's center of mass - Thighs near parallel to the floor at touch-down - Arms extended forward during landing - Smooth integration of the above 193 Nester (1977) Seefeldt (1976) Wickstrom (1977) Qualitative Components of a Literature Source ESpenschade and Eckert (1967) GOdfrey and Kephart (1969) A 90° forward and upward thrust of both arms Take off with both legs simultaneously Approximate full extension of both legs in forward and upward direction Both feet landing simultaneously Simultaneous vigorous forward thrust of arms as feet make contact Arms extend vigorously forward and upward upon takeoff, reaching full extension above the head Full extension of hips and knees Arms are brought downward and legs are thrust forward until the thigh is parallel to the surface Crouching and swinging the arms backward and upward Arms swing forward and upward and body extends Lower legs flex Hips flex, arms and trunk move forward and downward Lower legs extend just prior to landing Knees bend at impact Mature Skip Cpmponents - A step-hop pattern Step-hop action . . Arm and leg opposxtion 194 I CAN (Wessel, 1976) Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (1979) Nester (1977) Seefeldt and Haubenstricker (1974) Sinclair (1973) Qpalitative Components of a Literature Source I CAN (Wessel, 1976) Repeat the step and hop on alternate feet Arms move in opposition to legs at about waist level A smooth integration of the above components Repeat the step and hop on alternate feet Arms move in a lifting action in opposition to legs A period of nonsupport with each step-hop Smooth integration of the above A rhythmical repetition of the step-hop on alternate feet along a straight line A smooth low flexion on non- support leg near surface Arms alternately moving in opposition to leg at about waist level A smooth-flowing transfer of body weight A step-hop pattern Rhythmical transfer of weight Reduced arm action during transfer of weight phase Foot of supporting leg carried near surface during hopping phase Arm and leg opposition Mature Slide Components - Trunk maintained in an upright position - Weight transfer from the following foot to lead foot along a straight line - Body turned sideways to desired direction of travel Latchaw (1969) Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (1979) Nester (1977) Schurr (1957) SinClair (1971) 195 Slide to the right and to the left Smooth integration of the above components A long sideways step of the lead foot Smooth-flowing weight transfer along a straight line Trunk maintained in an upright position A step sideways followed by a slide of the training leg to a landing position within six inches of the original lead foot position A period of nonsupport as the trail foot is brought forward Weight transfer from the following foot to the lead foot ’ Body turned Sideways to the desired direction of travel Smooth integration of the above A step sideways with the lead foot Body faces forward A slide of following foot next to lead foot A short nonsupport period A smooth-flowing weight transfer from following leg to lead foot Can Slide in a straight line A long sideways step of the lead foot Smooth-flowing weight transfer along a straight line A long sideways step of the lead foot Arms aid in balancing Sideways straight line motion I 196 Qualitative Components of a Mature Bounce Literature Source Components Espenschade and — One hand contacts ball Eckert (1967) - Ball contact on upward portiOn of the bounce I CAN (Wessel, 1976) - Contact ball at hip height - Push ball with fingers of either hand - Flex wrist and extend elbow to impart force to ball - Ball contacts floor in front of the foot on the side of the bounding arm - Smooth integration of the above components Minimal Performance - Contact ball at hip height Objectives in Physical - Contact ball with fingers Education in the State of either hand of Michigan (1979) - Ball contacts floor in front of (or slightly outside of) the foot on the side of the bouncing arm - Smooth integration of the above Qualitative Components of a Mature Catch Literature Source Components Cratty (1975) - Elbows bend as ball makes contact with hands E8penschade and - Elbows are to the sides of Eckert (1967) body - Hands are cupped with thumbs or little fingers together I CAN (Wessel, 1976) - Hands in front of body, elbows flexed near sides - Extension of the arms in preparation for ball contact - Contact ball with hands only - Elbows bend as arms absorb the force of the ball - Smooth integration of the above components 197 Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (1979) Seefeldt (1976) Wickstrom (1977) Qualitative Components of a Literature Source Cratty (1975) Espenschade and Eckert (1967) Preparatory positioning with hands in front of body, elbows flexed and near the sides Extension of arms in preparation for ball contact Contact ball with hands only Elbows bend as arms absorb the force of the ball (hands retract at least six inches) Smooth integration of the above Preparation phase where elbows are flexed and arms are ahead of frontal plane Ball is caught and controlled by hands only Move hands into position for catching Arms raise in front of body Hands are cupped with fingers oriented towards the ball Hands grasp and control ball Hands give upon contact with ball Mature Kick Components Running approach to ball A continuous single motion of approach and kick Arm-foot Opposition Full leg backswing with a concomitant forward body lean Follow-through of kicking leg I CAN (Wessel, 1976) Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (1979) Seefeldt and Haubenstricker (1975) 198 Step forward on the non- kicking leg with foot placement next to ball Hip extension and knee flexion (at least 120°) during preliminary kicking motion Contact center of ball with toes or instep Forward swing of arm opposite kicking leg Follow-through of kicking foot in an upward motion Smooth integration of the above components A preliminary forward step on nonkicking leg with foot landing next to the ball Hip extension and knee flexion (of at least 120°) during preliminary kicking motion , Contact ball with toes or instep Forward swing of the arm opposite kicking leg Follow-through to a foot position well beyond and above the point of contact Smooth integration of the above The distance just prior to the kick is covered by a leap The knee of the kicking leg is slightly flexed just prior to kicking The trunk is inclined back- ward prior to and during contact The momentum of the kick is dissipated by hopping on the support leg 199 wickstrom (1977) - A preliminary forward step on the support leg - A forward swing of the kicking leg with simultaneous flexion at the hip and knee - VigorOus extension by the lower part of kicking leg — A forward swing of opposite arm in reaction to the action of the kicking leg Qualitative Components of a Mature Overhand Throw Literature Source Components Cratty (1975) - Step forward with foot opposite to the throwing arm - Hip-trunk and shoulder rotation - Shift weight to the forward foot Espenschade and - Trunk rotation Eckert (1967) - Weight transfer to foot opposite throwing arm I CAN (Wessel, 1976) - Almost complete extension of the throwing arm to initiate windup - Side orientation toward direction of throw - Weight transfer to foot opposite throwing arm - Hip and Spine rotation in preparation for and during the throwing action - Follow-through well beyond ball release and toward the desired direction of travel - Smooth integration of the above components Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (1979) Seefeldt and Haubenstricker (1976) Wickstrom (1977) 200 Side orientation with weight on rear leg to initiate the throw Near complete extension of the throwing arm to initiate the throw Weight transfer to the foot opposite the throwing arm Marked hip and spine rota- tion during throw A follow-through well beyond the ball release and in line with target Smooth integration of the above A downward arc of the throwing arm initiates the windup Rotation of the hip and Spine The leg opposite throwing arm strides forward Derotation of the hips, spine and shoulder Extension of contralateral leg at the knee Follow-through toward side opposite throwing arm The body pivots to the side of throwing arm with weight on same foot and throwing arm swings backward and upward The opposite foot strides forward in the intended direction of throw Hips, spine and shoulder rotation The upper arm is rotated medially and then the forearm is extended Ball release Follow-through diagonally downward across body toward the stable forward foot 201 Qualitative Components of a Literature Source I CAN (Wessel, 1976) Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (1979) Seefeldt and Haubenstricker (1976) Mature Two-Hand Strike Components — Dominant hand gripping bat above nondominant hand - Side orientation toward direction of travel - Bat is held behind dominant shoulder prior to strike - Hip and spine rotation during swing and follow- through - Weight transfer from back foot to front foot during swing - Follow through well beyond point of contact - Smooth integration of the above components - Dominant hand gripping ball (palm up) above nondominant hand (palm down) - Side orientation (non- dominant side toward direction of travel) - Bat held behind dominant shoulder prior to strike - Hip and spine rotation during swing and follow- through - Weight transfer from back foot to front foot during swing - Follow through well beyond point of contact - Smooth integration of the above - Transfer of weight is in a contralateral pattern - Shift of weight to forward foot occurs while bat is still moving backward - Bat is kept near body at the initiation of forward movement - Weight is on forward foot at ball contact Wickstrom (1977) 202 Body weight is Shifted in direction of intended hit while shoulders and arms are coiled in the opposite direction Hips and spine are rotated in rapid succession in the same direction as the weight shift Arms swing around and forward APPENDIX C THE TEST ITEMS COMMONLY USED TO ASSESS THE SELECTED PHYSICAL FITNESS PARAMETERS TO BE USED IN THE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST ' 203 THE TEST ITEMS COMMONLY USED TO ASSESS THE SELECTED PHYSICAL FITNESS PARAMETERS TO BE USED IN THE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST Literature pertaining to the physical fitness skills selected for inclusion in this study has been reviewed in an attempt to identify various test items that are appro- priate for assessing the following four common physical fitness parameters. The four parameters appear to be representative of the physical fitness domain. Various tests will be identified along with the test item cor- responding to each parameter. Measures of Cardiorespiratory Endurance Test Source AAHPER Special Fitness Test for Mildly Mentally Re- tarded Persons (AAHPER, 1976) AAHPER Youth Fitness Test (Hunsicker & Reiff, 1976) Fait Physical Fitness Battery for Mentally Retarded Children (Fait, 1972) Fitness and Work Capacity Testing (Sharkey, 1977) I CAN (Wessel, 1976) Test Item 300 yd. run-walk for time 600 yd. run-walk for time 300 yd. run-walk 1.5-mile run for time Jog/walk continuously . for 5-15 minutes depending on age 204 Test Source Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (1979) Motor Fitness Test for the Moderately Mentally Retarded (Johnson and Londeree, 1976) Measures of Abdominal Strength AAHPER Special Fitness Test for Mildly Mentally Retarded Persons (AAHPER, 1976) AAHPER Youth Fitness Test (Hunsicker and Reiff, 1976) Fitness and Work Capacity Testing (Sharkey, 1977) I CAN (Wessel, 1976) Kraus-Weber Minimum Muscular Fitness Tests (Kraus and Hirschland, 1954) Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (1979) Test Item Run-walk continuously until designated dis- tance is covered Maintain a steady pace throughout the run At least one mile distance 300 yd. run-walk for time 300 yd. run for time Sit-ups Flexed leg sit-ups Bent let Sit-ups in 30 seconds Perform continuous bent leg sit-ups for speci- fied minimal performance criteria (from 5-31 de- pending on age and sex) One bent leg sit-up Quality Bent Leg Sit-up Student lies on floor in supine position with knees bent approximately 90°, feet flat on floor and together, hands clasped behind head Initiates curl-up by tucking chin and lifting trunk Completes curl-up by touching the elbows to the knees ‘ ’ 205 Test Source Motor Fitness Test for the Moderately Mentally Retarded (Johnson and Londeree, 1976) Physical Fitness for the Mentally Retarded (Hayden, 1964) Test Item - Lowers upper body in a controlled movement (shoulder blades return to surface) - Five consecutive times Bent leg sit-ups in 30 seconds Sit-ups in 30 seconds Measures of Trunk and Leg Flexibility Frostig Movement Skills Test Battery (Orpet, 1972) I CAN (Wessel, 1976) Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (1979) Motor Fitness Test for the Moderately Mentally Retarded (Johnson and Londeree, 1976) Sitting, bending, reaching Perform a sit and reach for 3 seconds A Quality Sit and Reach - Sit on floor and place legs such that the heels are 5-7 inches apart and feet in con- tact with a vertical surface - Knees maintain contact with the floor (legs straight) - Place one hand on top of the other, lean forward, leaning as far past the feet as possible - Maintain the flexed position for at least 3 seconds Sitting bob and reach 206 Test Source Physical Fitness for the Mentally Retarded (Hayden, 1964) Test Item Standing floor touch Measures of Arm and Shoulder Strength Test Source AAHPER Special Fitness Test for Mildly Mentally Retarded Persons (AAHPER, 1976) AAHPER Youth Fitness Test (Hunsicker and Reiff, 1976) Fait Physical Fitness Battery for Mentally Retarded Children (Fait, 1972) Fitness and Work Capacity Testing (Sharkey, 1977) I CAN (Wessel, 1976) Minimal Performance Objectives in Physical Education in the State of Michigan (1979) Motor Fitness Test for the Moderately Mentally Retarded (Johnson and Londeree, 1976) Physical Fitness for the Mentally Retarded (Hayden, 1964) Test Item Flexed-arm hang for time Flexed-arm hang (females), pull-ups (males) Bent-arm hang for time Push-ups in 60 seconds To perform a flexed-arm hang A Quality Push-up Assume a prone position parallel to floor, hands directly under shoulder, toes on floor (K-3, knees on floor) Body lowered until elbows flexed to 90° or less At least 5 seconds Three consecutive push-ups Flexed-arm hang for time Straight-arm hang for time APPENDIX D LIST OF AMPLIFIED OBJECTIVES 2 207 LIST OF AMPLIFIED OBJECTIVES Given a demonstration, verbal request, 50 feet of clear space, and three trials, the student can per- form a quality run three consecutive times in the following manner: - A period when both feet are off the floor - Toe-heel or heel-toe foot contact (not flat-footed) - Arms move in opposition to legs, elbows bent A smooth pattern for 50 feet with the above components. Given a demonstration, verbal request, 30 feet of clear space, and three trials, the student can per- form a quality gallop three consecutive strides leading with each foot in the following manner: - Brief period when both feet are off the floor - Training foot does not cross in front of lead foot at floor contact - Arms swing forward and upward. Given a demonstration, a verbal request, a minimum of 10 feet of clear space, and three trials, the student can perform a quality hop three consecutive times forward on each foot in the following manner: 208 - Carriage of nonsupport leg is slightly bent - Maintain upright body position, elbows bent - Arms swing forward and upward. Given a demonstration, a verbal request, 30 feet of clear Space, and three trials, the student can perform a quality skip for three consecutive Skipping cycles in the following manner: - Repeat the step and hop on alternate feet in a rhythmical pattern - Arms move in opposition to legs and are slightly bent. Given a demonstration, a verbal request, 10 feet of clear space, and three trials, the student can perform a quality horizontal jump three consecutive times in the following manner: - Two-foot takeoff and a two-foot landing - Arm thrust during takeoff with full extension of legs - Jump 2/3 of standing height or more. Given a demonstration, a verbal request, 30 feet of clear space, and three trials, the student can per- form a quality slide three consecutive times to each side in the following manner: 209 - Period where both feet are off the ground and remain parallel - Weight transfer from trail foot to lead foot along a straight line to the side. Given a demonstration, a verbal request, 50 feet of clear space, and three trials, the student can per— form a quality leap three consecutive times in the following manner: - Takeoff on one foot and a balanced landing on the other foot - Forward reach with arm opposite lead foot. Given a demonstration, a verbal request, an 8-10- inch playground ball, and three trials, the student can perform a quality stationary ball bounce for three consecutive bounces in the following manner: - Contact the ball between thighs and waist - Push ball with fingers of one hand only - Maintain a stable, stationary position. Given a demonstration, a verbal request, a 6-inch playground ball tossed underhand to chest height from a distance of 15 feet, and three trials, the student can perform a quality catch three consecu- tive times in the following manner: - Hands in front of the body, elbows bent - Extension of arms in preparation for ball contact - Contact and control ball with hands only. 10. 11. 12. 210 Given a demonstration, a verbal request, an 8-10- inch playground ball, and three trials, the student can perform a quality kick three consecutive times in the following manner:. - A preliminary forward leap on the nonkicking leg with foot placement next to the ball - A continuous kicking motion - Contact ball so it travels forward at least 30 feet. Given a demonstration, a verbal request, a 3-4-inch ball, and three trials, the student can perform a quality overhand throw three consecutive times in the following manner: - Downward arc of throwing arm to initiate over- hand throw - Hip/trunk rotation - Weight transfer to foot opposite the throwing arm - Follow through well beyond ball release - Ball travels forward 30 feet or more. Given a demonstration, a verbal request, a plastic hat, a light-weight, 6-inch ball suspended at waist height, and three trials, the student can per- form a quality two-hand, side-arm strike three consecutive times in the following manner: 13. 14. 211 - Side orientation toward desired direction of travel - Hip and spine rotation during swing - Transfer weight onto front foot during swing. Given a demonstration, a verbal request, and three trials, the student can perform a quality bent-leg sit-up three consecutive times in the following manner: - Lie on back, knees bent, feet flat on floor-and arms crossed over chest - Curl up to touch elbows to thighs - Return to lying position. Given a demonstration, a verbal request, a flat surface, and three trials, the student can perform a quality push-up three consecutive times in the following manner: - Assume prone position (belly down) parallel to floor, toes on floor, hands directly under shoulders - Keep body parallel to floor while lowering body until it is l-3 inches above floor - Raise body to starting position. 15. 16. ’ 212 Given a demonstration, a verbal request, a flat vertical surface, and three trials, the student can perform a quality sit and reach three consecutive times in the following manner: - Assume a sitting position with legs together and knees straight Bend and reach forward to feet with one hand on top of the other Keep legs straight Hold for three seconds. Given a demonstration, a verbal request and a minimum of 30-by-50 feet of clear space, the student will perform a continuous run/walk for five consecutive minutes. APPENDIX E CONTENT EXPERT RATINGS OF THE MOST COMMON QUALITATIVE COMPONENTS OF EACH SKILL SELECTED FOR THE CRT EXPRESSED IN CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY SKILL RUN GALLOP HOP SKIP HORIZONTAL JUMP 213 QUALITATIVE COMPONENTS .A period when both feet are off the floor .Arms move in opposition to legs, elbows bent .90o leg flexion of non support leg .Toe—heel or heel toe foot Contact .Brief periods of non- support .A coordinated lift of the arms .Trailing foot does not cross in front of lead foot at floor contact .A steady rhythmical pattern .Carriage of nonsupport leg is slightly flexed .Synchronized arm swing forward and upward and elbows bent slightly .Upright trunk carriage over the support leg .A step-hop pattern on alternate feet .Arms move in opposition to legs and slightly bent .Two foot take off and two foot landing .Forceful trust of both arms and full extention of legs at take off .Thighs near parallel to floor at touch down and arms move forward during landing .Arms extend vigorously forward and upward upon take-off a bX denotes a yes response 0 denotes a no response OBSERV- ABILITY xa 0b 3 o 3 0 l 2 3 0 3 0 l 2 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 o 3 o 3 0 2 l o 3 3 o CONSISTENT ERBSEARQE >5: 0b 3 0 3 0 2 l 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 2 l 3 0 SKILL SLIDE LEAP OVERHAND THROW CATCH STATIONARY BOUNCE 214 QUALITATIVE COMPONENTS .Weight transfer from the trailing foot to the lead foot along a straight line to the side .Period where both feet are off ground and remain parallel .Take off on one foot and a balanced landing on the other foot .Forward reach with arm opposite lead foot .An in-flight forward trunk lean of 80° or less .Step forward with foot opposite the throwing arm .Hip, trunk, and shoulder rotation .A downward arc of the throwing arm to initate overhand throw .Shift weight to forward foot .Side orientation toward direction of throw .Follow through well be- yond ball release .Hands in front of body, elbows flexed near sides .Extension of the arms in preparation for ball con- tact .Contact the ball with hands only .Elbows bend as ball makes contact with hands .Contact ball at about hip height .Push ball with fingers of either hand .Ball contacts floor in front of the foot on the side of the bouncing arm OBSERV- ABILITY X 0 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 3 0 2 1 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 2 l 3 0 l 2 3 0 3 0 3 0 CONSISTENT W/RESEARCH x 0 T o 3 o 3 o 3 o 2 l 3 0 3 o 3 o 3 o 1 2 3 0 3 o 2 l 3 0 2 l 3 o 3 0 0 3 SKILL KICK TWO-HAND STRIKE SIT-UPS SIT AND REACH PUSH-UPS RUN/WALK 215 QUALITATIVE COMPONENTS .Arm-foot opposition .Step forward on the non— kicking leg with foot placement next to the ball .Hip extension and knee flexion .Leap just prior to the kick .A single continuous motion .Side orientation toward direction of travel .Hip and spine rotation .Weight transfer from back foot to front foot during swing .Lie on back, knees bent, feet flat on floor, arms crossed over chest .Curl up to touch elbows to thighs .Return to lying position .Bend and reach forward to feet with one hand on top of the other .Keep legs straight .Hold position .Assume a prone position parallel to floor, toes on floor, hands direct- ly under shoulders .Keeping body parallel to floor while lowering to 1-3" above floor .Raise body to starting position .Run or walk continu- ously for five consecu- tive minutes OBSERV- ABILITY X 0 3 0 2 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 CONSISTENT W/RESEARCH ST 0__ 3 0 1 2 2 l 3 0 3 o 3 o 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 o 2 1 3 o 3 0 3 0 2 l APPENDIX F A STANDARDIZED CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST IN FUNDAMENTAL MOTOR SKILLS AND PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST MANUAL FIELD TEST EDITION Field Service Unit in Physical Education and Recreation for the Handicapped Michigan State University 2115 A STANDARDIZED CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST IN FUNDAMENTAL MOTOR SKILLS AND PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST MANUAL Name Student Classification Sex Test Date Age Test Administrator OBJECTIVE EQUIPMENT DIRECTIONS CRITERIA 50 feet of Mark Off a starting - A period when both RUN clear space; line. Mark off a feet are off the colored tape: finishing line 50 floor chalk or other feet away. Instruct - Toe-heel or heel-toe C R marking devices student to "run fast" foot contact (not from one line to the flat footed) . A 0 other. - Arms move in opposi- tion to legs, elbows bent ' - Smooth (not jerky) pattern for 50 feet A minimum of Ask student to - Brief period where GALLOP 30 feet of gallop leading both feet are off clear space with one foot and the floor then the other. - Trailing foot does C R not cross in front . of lead foot at A 0 floor contact - Arms swing forward and upward - 3 consecutive gallop strides leading with each foot SCORING KEY :eriorms toicriterion level as specified in description. er orms sk 11, but lacks some quantitative or alitative a Requires some physical assistance. qu spects. No response or inappropriate. 0,500 217 OBJECTIVE EQUIPMENT DIRECTIONS CRITERIA A minimum of Ask student to hop Carriage of non- HOP 10 feet of 3 times, first on support leg is clear space one foot and then slightly bent on the other. - Maintain upright 3 body position, elbows bent A O - Arms swing forward - 3 consecutive hops forward on each foot A minimum of Ask student to - Repeat the step and SKIP 30 feet of skip. Emphasize hop on alternate clear space the step-hop. feet in a rhythmical (not jerky) pattern - Arms move in Opposi- C R tion to legs and are slightly bent A 0 - 3 consecutive skip- ping cycles (a step- hop) 10 feet of Mark off a start- - Two-foot takeoff and HORIZONTAL clear space: ing line on floor, a two-foot landing JUMP tape or other mat or carpet. - Arm thrust during marking Have student start takeoff with full devices behind the line. extension of legs C R Tell student to - 3 consecutive jumps “jump far." of 2/3 of standing A 0 height or more A minimum of Mark off a straight - Period where both SLIDE 30 feet of line. Ask student feet are off ground clear space: to do a slide 3 and remain parallel colored tape times to each side, - Weight transfer from c n or other staying on the trail foot to lead marking device line. foot along a straight A 0 line to the side. . - 3 consecutive slides to each side of Ask student to - Takeoff on one foot LEAP gomégimugf leap. Tell him/ and a balanced,landing clear space her to take on the other foot large steps - Forward reach with C R leaping from one arm opposite lead foot to the other. foot 3 consecutive leaps 218 OBJECTIVE EQUIPMENT DIRECTIONS CRITERIA SIT-UPS Mat or carpet: Instruct student - Lie on back, knees (Abdominal stopwatch that on the signal bent, feet flat on strength) "90:" s/he should floor, arms crossed do 3 Sit-ups. over chest . Student's ankles - Curl up to touch C R should be held elbows to thighs by another person. - Return to lying A 0 Delete this item position for students - 3 consecutive sit-ups under 8 years of age. 3-4-inch ball; Place a target on - Downward arc of OVERHAND target 5x5 the wall. Mar k throwing arm to THROW feet; wall; off a starting initiate overhand 40 feet of line 30 feet throw clear space; from wall. Ask - Hip/spine rotation C R tape for student to throw — Weight transfer to marking ball "hard" at foot opposite A O purposes the target. throwing arm - Follow-through well beyond ball release - Ball travels 30 feet or more - 3 consecutive throws SIT AND Bench or Place a bench on - Assume a sitting REACH flat verti- its Side. Sitting position with legs (Trunk/Le cal surface with legs straight together and knees flexibil-g (wall) and feet flat straight . against bench, - Bend and reach forward lty) ask student to to feet with one hand touch his/her toes on top of the other C R without bending keeping legs straight the knees. - Hold for 3 seconds A O - 3 consecutive reaches 6-8-inch Mark off 2 lines 15 - Hands in front of playground feet apart. Student body, elbows bent near CATCH ball; 20 feet stands on one line Sides . ‘ of clear space; and the tosser on - ExtenSion of arms in tape or other the other. Toss the preparation for ball C R marking device ball underhand contact directly to student - Contact and control A O with a slight arc ball with hands only and tell him/her to "catch it with your hands." Only count those tosses that are between student's shoulders and waist. t__________, 3 consecutive catches 2119 OBJECTIVE EQUIPMENT DIRECTIONS CRITERIA 8-lO-inch Ask student to - Contact the ball STQSSSEQRY playground bounce ball as between thighs and ball: hard, many times as waist flat surface he/she can, using - Push ball with R (floor, one hand. fingers of one hand pavement) only A O - Maintain a stable, stationary position - 3 consecutive bounces A flat surface Ask student to do - Assume prone position PUSH-UPS 3 push-ups. parallel to floor, (Arm/ Delete this item toes on floor, hands shoulder for students directly under strength) under 8 years of shoulders age. - Keep body parallel to floor while C R lowering body to 1-3 inches above A 0 floor - Raise body to starting position - 3 consecutive push-ups 8-lO-inch Mark off a line - A preliminary forward KICK playground 30 feet away from leap on the non- ball: a wall. Place the kicking leg with foot 30 feet of ball on the line placement next to the - {clear space: and ask student to ball ‘ tape or other kick ball toward - Continuous kicking A O marking device the wall. motion - Contact ball so it travels fdrward at least 30 feet - 3 consecutive kicks 4-6-inch Place the ball on - Side orientation TWO-HAND light-weight . the batting tee. toward desired SIDEARM ball: batting Give student the direction of travel STRIKE tee: plastic bat and ask him/ - Hip and spine rota- bat: traffic has to “hit the tion during swing cone or ball ball far.‘ - Transfer weight onto C R suspended on front foot during rope swing A - 3 consecutive strikes 220 OBJECTIVE EQUIPMENT DIRECTIONS CRITERIA WALK/RUN (Cardio- respira- tory endurance) A minimum of 30x50 feet of clear space: 4 chairs or cones; stopwatch or clock Mark off a clear oval space by placing chairs or cones at 4 corners of a gym. If available, use a round track . Ask student to run around the outside of the chairs. Tell student to run slowly and as long as he/she can. If student tires, he/ she may walk. Delete this item for students under 8 years of age. - Run/walk continuously - 5 consecutive minutes 221 Functions of the Test 1. Screening for the identification of students with specific needs in the fundamental motor and physical fitness skill areas. 2. Aid teachers, administrators and parents in making special education eligibility decisions in the physical education content area. 3. Aid teachers, administrators and parents in making placement and instructional programming decisions to meet the unique needs of the student in physical education. Appropriate Student Population This test was standardized on students within the age range of 3-12 years. The stratified sample consisted of 145 male (52%) and 134 female (48%) students in the regular education setting (normal, learning disabled and emotionally impaired), educable mentally impaired and trainable mentally impaired students. The sample was representative of whites (82%), blacks (15%), and other minority groups (3%). The standardization sample was reflective of the white collar and blue collar labor force. Students in urban, suburban, and rural schools in Midhigan were sampled. 222 Directions for Administration and Scoring General Directions 1. 3. Before testing, read the entire test to acquaint your- self with each item, its equivalent requirements, directions, and criteria. Assemble all materials prior to testing. appropriate distances. Materials Colored tape/chalk/ marking devices Mat or carpet StOpwatch 3-4-inch ball Target 5x5 feet Bench or flat vertical surface 6-8-inch playground ball 9-lO-inch playground ball 4-6-inch light-weight ball Plastic bat Batting tee/traffic cone/ suspended ball 4 chairs or cones Mark off the Distances to Mark Off 50 feet for running 30 feet for overhand throw and kick 15 feet for catch 30x50 feet of clear space for run/walk The test administrator may want to set up stations to facilitate moving students from one item to the next. Start at any point in the test battery; however, 223 continue according to the specified order. The test was designed to alternate strenuous with less strenuous items. 4. The average administration time to assess one student on all 16 items is 25 minutes. This will obviously vary according to the age and performance level of the student. Specific Directions 1. Precede the assessment by an accurate demonstration and verbal request. 2. Allow two practice trials where no feedback or instruction is provided to assure that the student understands what to do. 3. Provide one additional demonstration where the student does not know what to do on the first trial. 4. Provide instructions in the student's native language or mode of communication (e.g., sign language, bliss symbols). 224 Scoring The scoring grid would appear as such: OBJECTIVE ,EQUIPMENT DIRECTIONS CRITERIA STATIONARY One 8-10-inch Instruct stu- -Contact ball BOUNCE playground dent to re- between thigh ball lease ball, and waist and then -Push ball bounce with fingers C R (dribble) of one hand it in place. only A 0 -Maintain a stable, sta- tionary position -Bounce ball 3 consecutive trials There are four letters that can be circled to describe the student's response. Circle the letter that best describes the individual's responses. C - Student completes the item according to all stated criteria. Any quantitative criteria stating "con- secutive trials" requires performance of all qualita- tive criteria the stated number of times. R - Student responds according to some of the criteria but not all of the stated criteria (lacks quantitative or qualitative aspects). 225 A - Student needs some form of physical assistance to respond, such as manipulating the student, guiding a student's hand or tapping of student's limb. Through physical assistance, the student can perform a minimum of gap qualitative criterion. 0 - The student does not respond, responds inappropriately, resists assistance, or cannot perform a minimum of one qualitative criterion with physical assistance. Sample Item: Stationary Bounce The materials needed are an 8-lO-inch playground ball and a hard surface (floor, pavement) for the student to bounce the ball on. Ask the student to bounce (dribble) the ball. Demonstrate the skill according to the stated criteria. Observe student to make sure he/she performs the skill the specified number of repetitions or the specified distance. Then, circle the letter on the score sheet that best describes the student's performance. C - Criterion Level: The student performs the skill in accordance with all the stated criteria: contact ball between thigh and waist push ball with fingers of one hand only - maintain stable, stationary position bounce ball 3 consecutive times 226 R - Rudimentary Level: The student performs the skill without assistance but not in accordance with all the stated criteria. There must be at least one observable qualitative or quantitative aspect. Examples for "bounce”: - slaps ball with hand; or - uses two hands to bounce; or travels while bouncing; or - doesn't bounce 3 consecutive times A - Assistance Level: The student performs the skill at the rudimentary level with some physical prompting. Example for "bounce": - the teacher holds student's hand(s) and guides him/her through the bouncing action. 0 - Other Response Level: The student does not achieve a minimum of one criterion even with physical assistance, refused to respond, or responds inappropriately. Examples for "bounce": - after student is given a demonstration, he/ she throws the ball away - student releases ball and chases after it as it bounces, attempting to hit it, but without success. Student resists assistance of instructor. 227 Suggestions to Aid in the Administration and Scoring of the Test Based on Field Test Experiences Listen to the feet as student runs. If they are slapping loudly on the floor, this is a sign that toe-heel, heelrtoe contact is not being made. When assisting the student, hold his/her hand and run slightly in front of him/her, pulling on the arm. To score "A", be sure there is a period when both feet are off the floor; otherwise it is just a walk. GALLOP l. HOP 1. Tell student to put his/her favorite foot in front and gallop. Then, tell him/her to put the other foot in front. Be sure to observe student with each foot as the lead foot. If student needs assistance, hold his/her hand and verbally cue as you gallop together. The hop should be controlled. The student should be balanced on his/her landing. If student needs assistance, allow him/her to hold onto something for support (person, wall, chair, etc.). 228 §§_I_P_ 1. Student must demonstrate s/he can perform the step- hop pattern on each foot in order to receive a "C" or an "R". 2. Skip should look smooth and rhythmical and not choppy. 3. If student needs assistance, hold his/her hand and verbally cue as you slowly "step-hop" together. HORIZONTAL JUMP 1. When assisting student, stand facing him/her, hold both hands and pull forward as you verbally cue him/ her to jump. SLIDE 1. Have student do the Slide along a line near a wall. Cue the student to watch the wall. Be sure feet are parallel to each other. 2. Watch to see that there is a moment when both feet are off the ground. 3. If student needs assistance, stand behind him/her and touch each leg as you verbally cue student to pick it up and slide it along a line. LEAP 1. Verbally cue student to jump from one foot to the other. Tell him/her to pretend there are big puddles on the ground and to take "big jumping steps" to get over the puddles. 229 2. Students will often "run" instead of leap. Watch to make sure the legs are straight (not bent at the knee) for each stride. 3. If student needs assistance, stand beside him/her holding his/her hand. Touch one leg and verbally cue to jump forward onto it. Repeat with the other leg. SIT-UPS If the student needs assistance, place your arm across the lower back and exert pressure upward to initiate sitting up. OVERHAND THROW 1. When beginning the throw, the ball should be extended slightly in front of the student, then dropped down- ward in an arc (a wind-up), then drawn up and back over the shoulder. 2. In watching for the hip and spine rotation, student's hips should turn first, followed by rotation of the upper body as ball is released. SIT AND REACH 1. If you do not have a bench to use, you can have student sit with feet against a wall. 2. When assisting student, hold his/her knees down and help him/her reach forward to touch toes. 230 CATCH 1. If student traps ball against the body with his/her arms, score "R". 2. If student needs assistance, stand behind him/her. Have someone toss the ball. Take student's hands and assist him/her to catch ball with hands or trap the ball against the body. BOUNCE 1. If student bounces ball with two hands, ask him/her to use only one hand. If student still uses two hands, score "R". 2. Student should not be moving his/her feet while bouncing. 3. If student needs assistance, stand behind him, drop ball for him/her, take student's hand and bounce ball together. PUSH-UPS 1. Be sure hands are pointed forward, student on toes. 2. The lowering action should be caused by the elbows bending. The raising action will be caused by the elbows extending. 3. If student needs assistance, hold him/her at the waist with both hands. Verbally cue to "bend the elbows" as you assist to lower and "extend the elbows" as you assist to raise. 231 KICK 1. The forward leap onto the non-kicking foot is sometimes difficult to observe. A good indication that this has occurred is if a) the ball is airborne (vs. rolling on ground, and b) student hOps forward onto the non-kicking foot following the kick. When demonstrating, emphasize and verbally cue the leap forward onto the non-kicking foot. If student needs assistance, hold one hand and use your other hand to guide the kicking leg to contact the ball. 4. The teacher or aide should position themselves close to the ball in case student steps on ball and falls backwards. STRIKE 1. Weight transfer is observable by student picking up forward foot and stepping onto it as s/he swings. 2. If student needs assistance, stand behind him/her, holding your hands on tOp of the student's. Swing together to hit the ball. WALK-RUN 1. Score "C" if student walks/runs for five consecutive minutes. 2. Score "R" if student stops once but resumes walking/ running after verbal prompt- 232 Score "A" if student stops one or more times but resumes running/walking after verbal and physical prompting. Score "O" if student stops and sits down, does not respond to verbal and physical prompting, or refuses to continue. Directions for Usipg Student Profiles Locate the appropriate student profile (in the next section of this manual) according to the age of the student (3-12 years). Transfer student's test results onto the student profile. 2.1 Determine which student classification is appropriate (normal, educable mentally im- paired, or trainable mentally impaired). Determine the student's gender for the over- hand throw and two-hand strike (M-F). 2.2 Using the student's test score sheet, trans- fer the item scores onto the student profile by circling the appropriate letter for each item. 2.3 Convert each of the item scores into a numerical form using the following scale: C = 4, R = 3, A=2,0=1. 2.4 Calculate the locomotor subtotal by adding up the first seven test items. Circle the subtotal score on the profile closest to that of the student. 233 Calculate the object control subtotal by adding up test items 8-12. Circle the score on the student profile closest to that of the student. Calculate the fundamental mOtor skill subtotal by adding the student's locomotor subtotal and object control subtotal. Circle the score on the profile closest to that of the student. For students 8-12 years of age, calculate the physical fitness subtotal by adding up test items 13-16. Circle the score on the profile closest to that of the student. For students 8-12 years of age, calculate the total test score by adding up the three subtotal scores. Circle the score on the profile closest to that of the student. For ease of viewing the student profile and making decisions about the student's performance, it is recommended that a light line be drawn between the zero at the top of the profile and the zero at the bottom. This line will represent the average per- formance in which to make normative interpretations. The completed profile should look something like the following example of a 9-year—old normal male student. 234 AGE 9 99.9fi eésd +3sd 98% 1’0 510 2 -15d 0 +lsd *25d 2% -25d 3:3 ~45d -M F Mm —£ xmm amm xmm 3mm umm nmm mum xmm mm xmm umm smm umm smm umm sum xmm N sA Ipeso a03f 40¢ Mme m m mam mmmmm WWW +3sd +Lsd +lsd +2sd 0 -1sd aThis performance level falls above or below the mean by more than 4 standard deviations -25d -3sd -4sd 235 AGE 9 . 1% 2% 16% 50”: 849. 98% 99. 9% -45d -3sd -2=,d -lsd 0 Had +253 +3sd +4sd 0a A n n ‘7 SIT‘UPS G ‘2‘, R C C HUI: Cf A R C 15': 0a A 4:1 C r: SIT 5 REACH 0: A V C PM: 0 A R C :31: Ce A @___..c N PUSH-UPS c A R C :11: (R R C '1": OaAa R {3? y: ram/mu: 0a A g c 3.: OaAa R A R- C \: SIT-UPS o A g c 5.. CA A R C '1)" 0a A R —C 5: SIT & mm (A A R c 13’: CR 3. R C 2311 (A A a c A PUSH-UPS O: A .. c 55: o A R c m: OiA?--R C N RUN/I‘m o A“ .. c m (A A R C m: Pm'SICAL 10.0 11.3 12.7 14.0 15.4 16.7 18.1 1. FITNESS 9.4 10.5 11.7 12.8 14.0 15.2 16.3 1m SUB 'IUIAL 3 c 5.5 8 o 10.5 13.0 15.5 18.0 '15: m TEST 49.1 52.0 54.9 57.7 60.7 63.6 66.6 :4 SCORE 45.0 48.0 51.1 54.2 57.2 60.3 63.3 .1: 17.8 26.0 34.2 42.3 50.5 58.7 66.9 m: -4sd -35d -st -lsd 0 +lsd +2$d +3sd +4sd a’l‘his perfonrance level falls above or below the mean by more than 4 standard deviations xmm 8mm 86m 8mm 8mm 8mm 6mm umm mm .5. M . . +F m mm mm mm mm mm mm 5m N . . .\. . N 5 N N . v... 5 . N NE w. c W. .0 091 795 63... 95 . . . . . . . . 1 5 95 any man n55 C «6.3 064 401 176 8 s C C C CR . . C C C C . . . . . .7 000 997 3 .. ”.0...” 222 444 4 .30 138 228 701 s C C r CR C C C . . . C CC CC C C me . . . . . . 1 7 3‘. w my _ ””1 ““w I aw C a C C A r.» R C R C R C C C l L. . . 201 044 246 JO \ “ n “ n a I I \ ‘ \ n \ u o n I 5 I m 5 fl.» " D D D “D Fvfl An 627 D Fv D. D. D D D 865 82 . u u 2 1 111 33 7 5.2.. R 5.5.." m. J“ A A R R R .d . . 375 861 780 4 "b s A A“ b“ A" b‘ AA“ I I D“ D‘ D‘ A" a“ D“ A" I I I I I I 11 1 2 . m . m umn " . mu an n u m. ” Am» & A R R R d 448 r 687 225 . ‘ \ ‘ O I I “ I . C I l I To.“ nw n. my PA mw nwmw 9% 15 A fir a A" A 6:5an 5H0 977 . 1 1 1 321 R A A Afir A :0 411 304 860 Ibs In \ I I I “ I I I I I .3 A mw n 9 av 06 RR 5 A 418 610 . 2 11 321 Aw A A d w a.“ A A A «V A mw & mgr . u 3A .445 . 8A a a a o 5r .56 .o .o .m o .50 do .00 4050 .350 40 ‘1) mm. om STATIONAfl m KICK HID-HAND S'DUKE SUB mm. FLA momma. m WSICELL SUB mm. +3sd 945d -st olsd 0 4-13d +25d 3‘31: performance level falls above or below the mean by more than A Standard deviations ~3sd 048d 248 mu .1% 25 16% 50% 84% 98% 99.95 -450 -350 —250 -150 0 +150 +250 +350 +450 0a A :2 c SI'HIPs C} A :2 c (A A :2 0 0a A 12 c SITGREACH 0? A :2 c a o A 12 0 0a A A c PUSH-UPS c A A c <> AA :2 5 OaAa——R c RUN/mu: (A A :2 c o A 12 0 PHYSICAL 11.7 12.6 13.5 14.4 15.3 16.2 17.1 PI'I‘NBSS 2.3 5.6 8.9 12.1 15.4 18.7 22.0 scam 4.2 6.3 8.4 10.6 12.7 14.8 16.9 'IUI‘AL'I‘EBT 49.7 52.7 55.6 58.6 61.6 64.5 67.5 500125 24.4 331 41.8 50.6 59.3 68.0 76.8 15. 24.5 33.8 43.1 52.4 61.7 71.0 -450 -350 -250 ~150 0 +150 +250 +350 +450 a'Ihis perfomnoe level falls above or below the mean by mre than 4 standard deviations 249 AGEIZ in! :1 .. . . 30.0.3; . C" .,.«... .VE M p... Wmu J; o . . fi :fi MW M1 3 M N M 1..“ . a /_ I 4 E . 3 mm M mm MM :;2 A 1 Na: 35M 3%} MM NEW NMM NMM Jm XEM WM nmm N W N N 793 219 7.41. . . . . 3. xxx 83m 5%@ 4 C 758 521 938. _ fv Pu . . . Pu PC flu . . .LJ 5.0 C C u C 5 823 032 025 . n. . . . C C C . . . .9 c nun mmu was . C C 1w C R C C " C C C C C R C u C C R b 888 AFC 343 222 . . A . . CR C CR RC . . 5.5.3 1 . 4 mum A mmu 443 R RR R a.» R R R 29 RR 9.4.6. RR A a. 7.5.5 3. . I I 2 fiBU mm Q40 mw R fir 5" . . 6 R A PR mr 9.2.. R 30.“. AA 12.“ RR R R RR AM” ”Hi 15 _ . " final U11 332 m w a a . R An an 0714 47.5. (0.13 “ an Aug LAG. . Anflw Aw An An B69 662 u. n 21 1 332 u . 2.“ u n . 3n .5 mr $5" 1n 5n An xv." _ . . - . _ aa . a a . AA. A A a a __ a .438 a 3 A . A _. A 000 o & ff 0 fff & ffi & & ff & fff & f RL‘x CRUD? amnmi WED 17.0-mm 0313C! 0mm SUB NEAL +3sd 465d -23d -1sd O +1361 *2st -33d «a -ormance perform“ level falls above or below the mean by more than 1+ standard deviaticrs All scudmts in this classification scored at this level. of p fins j 250 AGE 12 .l% 2% 16% 50% 845 98% 99.9% -4sd -3sd -st -lsd O +lsd +25d +35d +455 o: A A c N 51150125 0a A .. c .1 0 A A 0 m1 0: A :2 c x 51': s REACH 0a A :2 c no 0 A 12 C m: o A :2 c A PUSH-UPS :5 A 2 c 15:. o— A :2 c :1 ozAg-“a\ C N mmw 0 A --:2 c EMI o A A c m: PHYSICAL 10.0 11.6 13.2 14.8 16.4 18.0 19.6 12 121131855 11.7 12.6 13.5 14.4 15.3 16.2 17.1 mt SUB mm 3.8 6.0 8.3 10.5 12.8 15.0 17.3 13:1 mrAL TEST 46.7 51.2 55 6 60.0 64.4 68.8 73.3 1. 500125 49.5 52.9 56.2 59.6 63.0 66 3 69.7 .1 25.1 32.2 39.3 46.3 53.4 60 5 67.6 1141 ~4sd —3sd -st -lsd 0 +lsd +256. +35d +4sd a{This performance level falls above or below we mean by more than 4 standard deviations 251 Guidelines for Interpreting Student Profiles Test item scores to the left of the line represent student weakness (or unique needs). Test item scores falling on the line or to the right represent student strengths. Subtotal test scores to the left of the line represent skill area weaknesses. Subtotal test scores falling on the line or to the right represent skill area Ania?“ . _ . ' ‘ ' strengths. Special education eligibility decisions can be made by ‘r. u. ' —'—"'_~-.-.. . 13.5.5130 establishing local criteria. An example of appropriate local special education criteria might be 2 standard deviations or more below the mean when compared to normal students' motor skills. It is recommended that teachers and parents use the subtotal and total test scores to make such eligibility decisions. If a student performs 2 or more standard deviations below the mean, specially designed instruction may be required. Physical education placement decisions can be made by comparing a student's performance with the performance of other students in a particular class or setting. If any student, regardless of classification (assuming the student has acceptable learning charac— teristics), performs around the mean when compared to a ’ 252 given group, then it appears that the proper place- ment would be with that group or class. Placement decisions can be made for units of instruction (e.g., locomotor skills, object control skills, or physical fitness skills). There is no reason why a student that performs poorly in physical fit- ness but around the mean for other units of instruc— tion should be placed in a special or remedial class for all units. A student should be given as many opportunities as possible to participate in the regular education program. Instructional programming decisions can be made if a local school district's physical education curriculum matches the objectives measured by this test. A precise instructional prescription can be develOped based on the identification of skills that the student has not mastered. Duplication of instruction on skills that the student has already learned is not appropriate. Simply by looking at the test score sheet, a teacher can determine the student's present level of performance and select those skills that have not been mastered at the criterion level. By grouping those students together that have the same instructional needs, a‘ teacher can plan more appropriate learning activities. 253 Reliability of the Test An alpha coefficient of .92 was obtained on 140 students across all 16 test items, resulting in accep- tance of inter-item homogeneity. A test-retest reliability coefficient of .97 was obtained when the test was admin- istered on two separate occasions by three independent administrators. Validity of the Test A 97.6% agreement was obtained on content validity when reviewed by three independent content experts. A perfect +1 item-objective congruency rating was obtained on all 16 test items when reviewed by three independent content experts. Criterion-selection validity was obtained when three content experts rated the components selected for each test item on (1) their observability in the physical education class, and (2) their consistency with what research describes as a mature pattern. APPENDIX G C(N'I‘ENT EXPERT RATINGS CF CRITERION VALIDITY 254 OGVSIS'I'ENI' M We W/RESEARCH xa 0b 1.RUN a.Aperiodwhenbothfeet 3 are off the floor b. Toe-heel or heel-toe "3 foot contact c. Arms trove in Opposi- 3 tion to legs, elbows bent d. S'l'DOth pattern for 50 3 feet 2. GALLOP a. Brief period where 3 both feet are off the floor b. Trailing foot does 3 not cross in front of lead foot at floor contact c. Arms swing forward 3 and upward d. 3 consecutive ga110p 3 strides 3 . HOP a . Carriage of nonsupport 3 leg is slightly bent b. Maintain upright body 3 position, elbows bent c. Arms wing forward and 3 upward d. 3 consecutive hops on 3 each foot 4. SKIP a. A step-hop pattern 3 on alternate feet b. Arms move in OPPOSi" 3 tion to legs and are slightly bent c. 3 consecutive skip- 3 ping cycles (step-TOP) a"Denotes a positive rating bDenotes a negative rating r“? 255 C(NSIS'IENT CBJEITI‘IVE CQGPQJEN'I'S W/RESEARCH x‘3 0h 5. HORI- a. The feet take off and 3 ZCNI‘AL a two foot landing JUMP b. Arm thrust during '3 take-off with full extension of legs c. 3 consecutive junps 2 l of 2/3 of standing height or more 6. SLIDE a. Weight transfer fran 3 trailing foot to lead foot along a straight line to the side b. Period where both feet 3 are off the ground and remain parallel c. 3 consecutive slides 3 to each side 7. LEAP a. Take off on one foot 3 and a balanced landing on the other foot b. Forward reach with 3 arm Opposite lead foot c. 3 consecutive leaps 3 8.0VERHAND a.Adownwardarcofthe 3 THRGV thruvingarmtoini— tiate overhandthrow b.Hipandspinerotation 3 c. Stqa forwardwithfoot 3 oppositethethrowing arm d. Follow through well 3 beyond release e. Ball travels 30 feet 2 1 or none f. 3 consecutive throws 3 9. CATCH a.Handsinfrontofbody. 3 elbows flexed near sides b. Extension of arms in 3 preparation for ball contact c. Contact ball with hands 3 only ' .. -‘——..—.m . F‘- r . .. ....r.a°mm?¢unm ww 256 CONSIS'IEN'I' m Gammon-rs W/RESEARCH 2: ob d. 3 consecutive catches 3 10. S'IATICN— a. Contact ball between 2 l ARY thighs and waist BCIJNCE b. Push ball with fingers 3 of one hand only c. Maintain a stable, 3 stationary, position (1. 3 consecutive bounces 3 ll. KICK a. A preliminary forward 3 leap on the nonkicking leg with foot place- ment next to the ball b. A continuous kicking 3 notion c. Contact ball so it 3 travels forward at least 30 feet d. 3 consecutive kicks 3 12. TWO- a. Side orientation toward 3 HAND desired direction of STRIKE travel b. Hip and spine rotation 3 c. Weight transfer frcm 3 back foot to front foot during swing d. 3 consecutive strikes 3 13. SIT-UPS a. Lie on back, knees bent, 3 feet flat on floor, arms crossed over chest b. Curl up to touch elbows 3 to thighs c. Return to lying position 3 d. 3 consecutive sit-ups 3 l4. SIT & a. Assume a sitting posi- 3 REACH tion with legs together. knees flat b.13endandreachforward 3 tofeetwithonehand ontopoftheother, keq>ingkneesstraight www r-fi‘; 257 OBJECTIVECINPQIENI'S c. Hold position for 3 seconds d. 3 consecutive reaches 15. PUSH- a. Assure a prone posi- UPS tion parallel to floor, toes on floor, hands directly under shoulders b. Keep body parallel to floor while lowering body to 1-3 inches above floor 0. Raise body to starting position d. 3 consecutive push—ups 16. RUN/WALK a. Run or walk continuously b. 5 consecutive minutes (INSISTENT OBSERV- W/RESEARCH ABLE xa 013 x o 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 REFERENCE NOTES 258 Reference Notes Ebel, R. L. Personal communication. Michigan State University, 1980. Mehrens, W. Personal Communication. Michigan State University, 1980. Vogel, P. G. Personal communication. Michigan State University, 1980. Yelon, S. L. Personal communication. Michigan State University, 1980. BIBLIOGRAPHY 259 BIBLIOGRAPHY American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation. Joint Committee position paper on physical fitness, 1977. American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation. Special fitness test manual for mildly retarded persons. Washington, D.C., 1976. Anderson, R. C. How to construct achievement tests to assess comprehension. Review of Educational Research, Bagnato, S. J., Laub, K. W., & Kurtz, P. D. A descrip- tive manual and comprehensive process of linking screening, assessment, and programming for the - handiCapped preschooler. University Park, Pennsylvania: ; The Pennsylvania State University, 1978 (ERIC Document ' Reproduction Service No. ED 171 734). Bailey, D. B. A comparison of non-biased screening pro- cedures to identifyhigh-risk kindergarten children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer51ty of Washington, 1979. Bailey, D. B., & Harbin, G. L. Nondiscriminatory evaluation. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46, 590-596. Bormuth, J. R. On the theory of achievement test items. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Broer, M. Efficiency of human movement (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1973. . Tests of motor educability for the first Car enter A. p ' Child Development, 1940, 1, 37-61. three grades. The differential measurement of speed in carpenter’ A' Child Development, 1941. primary school children. £3. 64-71. 1 motor capacity Car enter A. The measurement of genera End general motor ability in the first three grades. Research Quarterl , 1942, 13, 444-465. 260 Clark, H. H., & Shelley, M. R. Maturity structure strength motor ability and intelligence test pro- files of outstanding elementary and junior high school athletes. Physical Educator, 1961, 18, 132. Cohens, J. A. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1960, 29, 37-46. Council for Exceptional Children. Policy regarding non- discriminatory evaluation. Exceptional Children, 13(6), March 1977. Cox, R. C., & Graham, G. T. The development of a sequentially scaled achievement test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1966, 3, 147-150. Cratty, B. J. Remedial motor activity for children. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1976. Cratty, B. J. Perceptual and motor_development in infants and children. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1979. Cronbach, L. B. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 297-334. Cumbee, F. Z. A factorial analysis of motor coordina- tion. Research Quarterly, 1957, 25, 412-420. Dauer, V. P. Dynamic physical education for elementary school children (4th ed.). Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 1971 Devault, M. V., Kriewall, T. E., Buchanan, A. B., & Quilling, M. R. Teacher's manua1:_Computer manage- ment for individualized instruction in mathematics and reading. Madison, Wisconsin: Research and . Development Center for Coqnitive Learning, UniverSity of Wisconsin, 1969. M. L. Educational diagnosis . B. & Fedner . Duffy. J r ' Exceptional Children, with instructional use. 1978, 44, 246-251. I O t Ebel R. L. Essentials of educational measuremen . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1979. t. de A. & Eckert H. Motor developmen Espggifiggus; Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1967. 261 Fait, H. F. Special_physical education: Adapted, corrective, developmental. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1972. Federal Register, Volume 42, No. 163, Tuesday, August 23, 1977, 42480-42496. Flanagan, J. C. Functional education for the seventies. Phi Delta Kappan, 1967, 49, 27-32. Flanagan, J. C. Program for learning in accordance with needs. Psychology in the Schools, 1969, 6, 133-136. Fuller, D. A. Evaluating motor performance of trainable mentally handicapped boys and girls, ages eight through twenty—one. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Gallagher, J. D. Motor learning characteristics of low- skilled college men. Research Quarterly, 1970, 41, 59-67. Gibbons, M. What is individualized instruction? Interchange, 1970, 1, 28-52. Glaser, R. Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes. American Psychologist, 1963, 18, 519-521. Glaser, R. Adapting the elementary school curriculum to individual performance. In Proceedings of the 1967 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. Pfinceton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1968. . Glaser, R. Evaluation of instruction and changing educational models. In M. C. Wittrock & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The evaluation of instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Glaser, R., & Nitko, A. J. Measurement in learning and instruction. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement. Washington: American Council on Education, 1971. Glassow, R., & Krause, P. Motor performance of girls age 6 to 14 years. Research Quarterly, 1942, 13, 4 4-465. ’7' -— Godfrey, B., & Kephart, N. Movement patterns and motor education. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969. 262 Govatos, L. Relationships and age differences in growth measures and motor skill. Child Development, 1959, 39, 333-340. Gronlund, N. E. Individualizing classroom instruction. New York: Macmiilan Publishing Co., 1974 Hambleton, R. K., & Eignor, D. R. Guidelines for evaluating criterion-referenced tests and test manuals. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1978, 15, 321-327. Hambleton, R. K., & Gifford, J. A. Development and use of criterion-referenced tests to evaluate progpam effectiveness. (Report No. 52. Amherst, Mass.: School of Education, Laboratory of Psychometric and Evaluation Research, University of Massachusetts, 1977). Hambleton, R. K. & Novick, M. R. Toward an integration of theory and method for criterion-referenced tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1973, 10, 159-170. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., Algina, J., & Coulson, D. B. Criterion-referenced testing and measurement: A review of technical issues and developments. Review of Educational Research, 1978, 48, 1-47. Harris, M. L., & Stewart, D. M. Application of classical strategies to criterion-referenced test construction. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmeriCan Educational Research Association, 1971. Haubenstricker, J., Henn, J., & Seefeldt, V. Develppmental stages of hopping. Unpublished paper, Michigan State Univergity, 1975. Hayden, F. Physical fitness for the mentally retarded. Ontario, Canada: Metropolitan Toronto Association for Retarded Children, 1964. Heathers, G. Overview of innovations in organization for learning. Interchange, 1972, 3, 47-68. Hellebrandt, F., Lawrence, G., Glassow, R., & Carns, M. PhySiological analysis of basic motor skills. American Journal of Physical Medicine, 1961, 40, 14-25. Henry, R. M. Coordination and motor learning. Proceedings College Physical Education Association, 1956, 68-75. 263 Herkowitz, J. Developmental task analysis: The design of movement experiences and evaluation of motor develop- ment status. In M. V. Ridenour (Ed.), Motor develop- ment: Issues and applications. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Book Co., 1978. Hively, E., Maxwell, G., Rabehl, G., Senison, D., & Lundin, S. Domain-referenced curriculum evaluation: Minnemast Project. CSE monograph series in evaluation. No. 1. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, 1973. Hofmeister, A. Trends in testing the handicapped. Utah State University, Exceptional Child Center, October, 1974. Hofmeister, A. Integrating criterion-referenced testing and instruction. In W. Hively & M. Reynolds (Eds.), Domain-referenced testing in special education. Minneapolis: Leadership Training Institute/Special Education, University of Minnesota, 1975. Hunsicker, P., & Reiff, G. AAHPEngouth fitness test manual. Washington, D.C.: American Alliance for Health, PhySical Education, and Recreation, 1976. Ivens, S. H. An investigation of item analysis, reliabil- ity, and validity in relation to criterion-referenced tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1970. Johnson, L., & Londeree, B. Motor fitness testing manual for the moderately mentally retarded. Washington, D.C.: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1976. Johnson, R. Measurements of achievement in fundamental skills of elementary school children. Research Quarterly, 1962, 33, 94-103 Kane, R. J., & Meredith, N. V. Ability in the standing broad jump of elementary school children 7, 9, and 11 years of age. Research Quarterly, 1953, 33, 198-208. Keesling, J. W. Identification of differing intended out- comes and their implications for evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., 1974. Kosecoff, J., & Fink, A. The appropriateness of criterion- referenced tests for evaluation studies. (TM Report 60) Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1976. 264 Kosecoff, J., Fink, A., & Klein, 5. P. A system for describingyand evaluatinggcriterion-referenced tests. TTM Report 57) Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1976. Kraus, H., & Hirschland, R. Minimum muscular fitness tests in school children. Research Quarter3y, 1954, 33, 178-188. Kriewall, T. E. Applications of information theory and acceptance samplifig principles to the management of mathematics instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1969. Latchaw, M. Measuring selected motor skills in fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. Research Quarterly, 1954, 33, 439-449. Latchaw, M., & Egstrom, G. Human movement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. Livingston, S. A. Criterion-referenced applications of classical test theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1972, 3, 13-26. Loovis, E. M. Model for individualizing physical educa- tion experiences for the preschool moderately retarded chiid. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1975. Loovis, E. M., & Ersing, W. F. Assessing and programmipg gross motor development for children. Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1975. Mann, L. Psychometric phrenology and the new faculty psychology: The case against ability assessment and training. Journal of Special Education, 1971, 3, 3-14. Martuza, V. R. Applying norm referenced and criterion- referenced measurement in education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1977. Mehrens, W. A., & Lehmann, I. J. Measurement and evalua- tion in education and psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978. Millman, J. Criterion-referenced measurement. In W. J. Popham (Ed.), Evaluation in education: Current applica- tions. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Company, 1974. 265 Milne, C. Fundamental motor skills seguences. Unpublished ‘ paper, Ufiiversity of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 1972. Moyer, J. E. A comparison of the Kuder-Richardson formula and kappa as estimates of the reliability of criterion- referenced tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western MiEhigan University, 1976. Moyer, J. E. Alternative reliability indices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York, 1977. Nester, G. M. Development and evaluation of visual descriptor models for the assessment of selected funda- mental locomotor skills in trainable mentally impaired children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Nineth-fourth Congress, Federal Public Law 94-142. Congressional Record, November 29, 1975, 33, 773-796. Oakland, T., & Matuszek, P. Using tests in nondiscrimina- tory assessment. In T. Oakland (Ed.), Psychological and educational assessment of minority children. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1977. Orpet, R. E. Frostig_movement skills test battery. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1972. Osborn, H. G. Item sampling for achievement testing. Educational and ngchological Measurements, 1968, _2__8-' 95-1040 Popham, W. J. Educational evaluation. Englewood cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975. Popham, W. J. Normative data for criterion-referenced tests? Phi Delta Kappan, 1976, 33, 593-594. Popham, W. J. Criterion-referenced measurement. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978(a). Popham, W. J. Well-crafted criterion-referenced tests. Educationa Leadership, 1978, 33, 91-95 (b). Popham, W. J., 8 Baker, E. L. Writing tests which measure objectives. The Prentice-Hall Teacher Competency System. Englewodd Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1973. 266 Popham, W. J., & Husek, T. R. Implications of criterion- referenced measurement. Journal of Educational Measurement. 1969, 3, 1-9. Rarick, G. L. Research in physical education: Issues and concerns. UnpubliEHéd paper presented—at the Annual Meeting of the National Consortium on Physical Education and Recreation for the Handicapped, Rochester, New York, 1979. Rarick, G. L., & Dobbins, D. A. Basic components in the motor performance of educable mentally retarded children: ImpliEatian for curriculum development. Department of Physical Education, University of California, Berkeley, 1972 O Rarick, G. L., & Dobbins, D. A. Basic components in the motor performance of children six to nine years of age. Medicine and Science in Sports, 1975, 3, 105-110. Rarick, G. L., & McQuillan, J. The factor structure of motor abilities of trainable mentally retarded children: Implications for curriculum development. Final Report USOE-BEH, 1977. Reynolds, M. C., & Birch, J. W. Teaching exceptional children in all America's schools: A first course for teachers and principals. Reston, Virginia: Council for Exceptional Children, 1977. Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal for Educational Safrit, M. J. Evaluation ingphysical education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981. Salvia, J., & Yesseldyke, J. E. Assessment in special and remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1978. Sapp, M. M. Developmental sequences of gglloping: Preliminary stages. Unpublished paper, Michigan State UniVersity, 1980. Schurr, E. Movement experiences for children. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Seefeldt, V. Developmental sequence of catchipg. Unpublished paper, Michigan State University, 1976(a). 267 Seefeldt, V. Developmental sequence of running. Unpublished paper, Michigan State University, 1976(b). Seefeldt, V. Developmental sequence of the standing long 'um . Unpublished paper, Michigan State University, 976(c). Seefeldt, V., & Haubenstricker, J. Developmental sequence in skippiog. Unpublished paper, Michigan State University, 1974. Seefeldt, V., & Haubenstricker, J. Developmental sequence of kicking. Unpublished paper, MiEhigan State Uni§ersity, 1975. Seefeldt, V., & Haubenstricker, J. Developmental sequence of striking. Unpublished paper, Midhigan State University, 1976(a). Seefeldt, V., & Haubenstricker, J. DevelOpmental sequence of throwing. Unpublished paper, Michigan State University, 1976(b). Seefeldt, V., Reuschlein, S., & Vogel, P. Sequencing motor skills within the physical education curriculum. Report to the nationai convention of American Aliiance for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Houston, March, 1972. Sharkey, B. J. Fitness and work capacity testing. Missoula, Montana: Forest Service, 0.8. Department of Agriculture, 1977. Sharkey, B. J. Physiology of fitness. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1979. Sinclair, C. Movement and movement patterns of early childhood. Division of Educdiional Research and Statistics, State Department of Education, Richmond, Virginia, June 1973. Strasler, G. M., & Raeth, P. G. An internal consistency estimate for criterion-referenced tests. Paper pre- sented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York, 1977. Swaminathan, H., Hambleton, R. K., & Algina, J. Reli- ability of criterion-referenced tests: A decision- theoretic formulation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1974, ll, 263-268. 268 Taylor, E. Achievement scales in physical education skills for children in grades I, II, III. 322 Elementapy School Journal, May, 1941, 677-682. Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958. Factor analytic Studies of the Lincoln- Vandenberg, S. G. Perceptual and Oseretsky test of motor proficiency. Motor Skills, 1964, 33, 23-41. 'Vogel, P. G. Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching: A compari- son of norm and criterion-referenced approaches. Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meéiing of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Seattle, 1977. Walker, C. B. Standards for evaluati_g criterion-referenced tests. Los Angeles: California University, Center for the Study of Evaluation, 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 179 595). Wessel, J. A. I CAN phyeical education curriculum. Northbrook, Illinois: Hubbard, 1979. Wessel, J. A. I CAN_preprimary motor and_play skills program. East Lansing, Michigan: Marketing Division, Instructional Media Center, Michigan State University, 1980. Wickstrom, R. L. Fundamental motor_patterns. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1977. Wild, M. R. The behavior pattern of throwing and some observations concerning its course of development in children. Researchguarterly, 1938, 3, 20-24. Wilson, H. A. A humanistic approach to criterion- referenced testing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1973. Yesseldyke, J. E. Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching: The search for aptitude-treatment interactions. In L. Mann & D. A. Sagatina (Eds.), The first review of epecial education. Philadelphia: JSE Press, 1973. Yesseldyke, J. E., & Salvia, J. Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching: Two models. Exceptional Children, 1974, 41,181-185. HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES INIIIIWIWINlllilllllfll‘lllllllNlHllHlllllllllllHHll 31293104333095