Toni Hilland T.A.Hilland@2007.ljmu.ac.uk 0151 2315493

1. Project PE-PAYS:Physically Educated & Physically Active Youth 1) Physical Education Predisposition Scale (PEPS) 2) The Physical Education and School Sport Environment Inventory (PESSEI) Toni Hilland T.A.Hilland@2007.ljmu.ac.uk 0151 2315493

2. Project PE-PAYS Aspects of secondary school physical education and school sport (PESS) that have the strongest influence on developing physically educated and physically active young people Multi-method approach involving PE teachers and pupils Identification of factors that positively influence the development of the ‘PE product’ Development of a practise model, that may inform future pedagogical interventions and continued professional development.

3. Physical Education Predisposition Scale: Preliminary Development & Application.

4. PEPS • Physical activity and health • Physical activity guidelines and recommendations (60 minutes MVPA every day) • Lack of physical activity and sedentary lifestyles • Youth physical activity promotion; School Physical Education • Correlates of youth PA.

5. Welk’s (1999) Youth Physical Activity Promotion Model (YPAPM)

6. YPAPM in PE • Predisposing factors; Am I Able? (perceived competence & self-efficacy) Is it Worth it? (enjoyment & attitudes) • Gender differences (Carroll & Loumidis, 2001; Cardon et al., 2005; Chung & Phillips, 2002; Stelzer et al., 2004; Trost et al., 1997) • Age differences (Butcher & Hall, 1983; Portman, 1995; Subramaniam & Silverman, 2007) • AIMS; 1) Develop and psychometrically test PEPS 2) Explore age and gender differences in PE Worth and Ability.

7. Method PARTICIPANTS & SETTINGS • 400 year 8 and 9 students (aged 12-14 years) • 4 state schools in NW of England INSTRUMENT-PEPS • 4 domains of Predisposing factors in relation to PE • Item identification • 22 item questionnaire • 5-point Likert scale • Example items; The things I learn in PE are useful to me I think I am pretty good at PE.

8. PROCEDURES • Written and verbal information • PEPS administered before PE class • Envelopes to ensure confidentiality and to reduce social desirable responses DATA ANALYSIS • Responses checked and collated • STUDY AIM 1 – Principal components analysis • STUDY AIM 2 – 2X2 ANOVA.

9. Results STUDY AIM 1 • Response rate = 78.75% but on 80 of the questionnaires the students’ gender was not indicated • Suitability of the data for factor analysis • 5 items eliminated • PCA of the 17 remaining items • 2 components (Eigenvalues exceeding 1) • Direct oblimin rotation revealed 2 factor structure; Factor 1 – PERCEIVED PE WORTH Factor 2 – PERCEIVED PE ABILITY • Final solution an 11 item PEPS • Acceptable level of internal consistency (PE Worth: α = .91; PE Ability: α = .89).

10. STUDY AIM 2 • Boys reported significantly higher values on both aspects of the PEPS (PE Worth, F(1, 231) = 17.9, p =.000: PE Ability, F(1, 231) = 5.8, p = .02) • Year 8 students scored significantly higher than Year 9 counterparts on PE Worth (F(1, 231) = 8.2, p = .005) and PE Ability (F(1, 231) = 12.3, p = .001) • There were no significant interactions between gender and age.

11. Discussion • Factorial validity and internal consistency reliabilities of the PEPS • Age and gender differences concurs with past research in the area • Explanations for age and gender differences • Implications and conclusions • PEPS as a short and simple tool for school based research.

12. 2) The Physical Education and School Sport Environment Inventory: Preliminary Validation & Reliability

13. PESSEI • Environmental correlates as “enabling” factors (Welk, 1999) • The physical environment of the school as influential for physical activity (PE, extra-curricular & recess) • Previous measurement of school environment AIMS: • To develop a valid and reliable measure of the school physical environment (PESSEI).

14. Method PARTICIPANTS • 8 Secondary Schools in Northern England INSTRUMENT - PESSEI • Previous measures were studied to inform the development of the PESSEI (Cradock et al., 2007; Fein et al., 2005; Sallis et al., 2001) • 4 Sections: 1) Demographic and context-specific data 2) Indoor, outdoor and off-site spaces 3) Permanent physical resources and PE budget 4) PE and School Sport time

15. PROCEDURES • Initial piloting with a group of experts – content related validity • One named PE teacher per school received instructions, the PESSEI and an aerial photograph of their school’s site obtained from Google™ Earth Pro (GEP).

16. PROCEDURES (CONT.) • Spatial area was calculated using GEP polygons • Next stage involved visiting the schools to objectively observe and record details of PE and School Sport spaces and facilities – criterion validity • At the same time the teachers were given a second PESSEI to complete and return – test-retest reliability DATA ANALYSIS • PESSEI data was collated • Criterion validity analyzed using paired t-tests and Pearson correlation coefficients • Test-retest reliability was assessed by paired t-tests and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).

17. Results PESSEI Validity • Paired t-tests revealed no significant differences in teacher reported and researcher observed variables • Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from r = .80 through .97 indicating strong agreement.

18. Table 4 PESSEI RELIABILITY Test-retest Differences and Correlations between Teacher Responses

19. PESSEI RELIABILITY (cont.) • No significant differences were observed between each pair of variables • ICCs supported the paired t-tests by revealing very high levels of agreement between measurement occasions (ICC = .93 through 1.0) Discussion • Criterion validity was established • Fourteen day test-retest illustrated responses were very stable • Preliminary evidence suggests the PESSEI possess high levels of criterion validity and test-retest reliability • Intended application of the PESSEI.