View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Survey Development to Assess Parental Satisfaction with Adapted Physical Education Teachers' Abilities Working with Children with Autism

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Survey Development to Assess Parental Satisfaction with Adapted Physical Education Teachers' Abilities Working with Children with Autism
Language: English
Authors: Columna, Luis, Cook, Allison, Foley, John T., Bailey, JoEllen
Source: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2014 19(5):481-493.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2014
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Adapted Physical Education, Parents, Parent Surveys, Parent Attitudes, Physical Education Teachers, Teacher Competencies, Likert Scales, Reliability, Evidence, Autism, Teacher Qualifications, Parent Teacher Cooperation, Communication Skills, Measures (Individuals)
Geographic Terms: California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas
DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2014.907888
ISSN: 1740-8989
Abstract: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to systematically develop and validate an instrument to assess parental perceptions toward adapted physical education (APE) teachers, who work with children with autism. Methods: Participants included two expert panels and parents of children and youth with autism. The survey used a Likert-scale design where parents rated their level of satisfaction regarding communication with, qualifications of, and rapport with the APE teachers. Results: Based on a coefficients for each of the three subscales, it was concluded that the survey had high internal validity. Split-half reliability determined by the Spearman Brown Prophecy coefficient indicated high reliability. Conclusion: Preliminary evidence demonstrated that the survey may be a useful tool in assessing parental perceptions of their child's APE teacher.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 43
Entry Date: 2014
Accession Number: EJ1040823
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFMtt8DZZRniCd6VJnjll5jAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCWYkeNSBN7gF99KeQIBEICBmm6CUmyhl0hjw61Y0um_7mK-NHHJiW7P-WQkLawgH0QoguU6domffJ8-Wryvr3FXjRzQ2h8-DWgqYBxlWAlcEwUvvE9UmXs3jXaoXMM6hl0aOAMuukn0abk6Ab2m2_kdp-9KskF7ZWG2OI8p_QGnuG1qXuVXugH808ZlLYNKOYDML7zAG7YTFLoA18VpvppvaHdFCuUw-J0FzF0=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0098501765;z3x01oct.14;2019Mar20.13:11;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0098501765-1">Survey development to assess parental satisfaction with adapted physical education teachers' abilities working with children with autism. </title> <p>Purpose: The purpose of this study was to systematically develop and validate an instrument to assess parental perceptions toward adapted physical education (APE) teachers, who work with children with autism. Methods: Participants included two expert panels and parents of children and youth with autism. The survey used a Likert-scale design where parents rated their level of satisfaction regarding communication with, qualifications of, and rapport with the APE teachers. Results: Based on α coefficients for each of the three subscales, it was concluded that the survey had high internal validity. Split-half reliability determined by the Spearman Brown Prophecy coefficient indicated high reliability. Conclusion: Preliminary evidence demonstrated that the survey may be a useful tool in assessing parental perceptions of their child's APE teacher.</p> <p>Keywords: adapted physical education; collaboration; parents; communication; autism</p> <p>On their 2007 Global Burden of Disease report on mental and neurological disorders, the World Health Organization highlighted the critical situation the world faces with a growing population of individuals with autism. This increase is evident around the world (see Table 1). In the USA, for example, 1 in 88 births were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in 2008, affecting four times as many boys as girls (www.autismspeaks.org, 2010). This alarming news calls for an increase in resources and responsibility on the part of both parents and educational specialists (Starr et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref1">38</reflink>]). With the number of children diagnosed with autism rising (Kopetz and Endowed [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref2">20</reflink>]), it is especially important for parents to be educated about characteristics of this condition and the services their children are entitled to receive, especially in the school setting.</p> <p>Table 1. Prevalence of autism.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Country</td><td>Prevalence</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Australia</td><td>6.25 in 1000</td></tr><tr><td>China</td><td>1.1 in 1000</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>9 in 1000</td></tr><tr><td>India</td><td>1 in 250</td></tr><tr><td>Japan</td><td>3 in 1000</td></tr><tr><td>Mexico</td><td>2 to 6 per 1000</td></tr><tr><td>Canada</td><td>1 in 154</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>1 in 188</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>1 in 833</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>1 in 833</td></tr><tr><td>Iceland</td><td>1 in 769</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: Modified from: Kopetz and Endowed ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>The disability of a child can affect a family's emotional, economic, and relationship status (Reichman, Corman, and Noonan [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref4">32</reflink>]). Professionals who provide services to families of children with disabilities need to understand that each family is unique and may have particular needs depending on their ethnicity, socioeconomic status, family composition, and disability of the child (Columna et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref5">7</reflink>]; Kelly [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]). Parents of children with disabilities such as autism historically have reported worries, depression, tiredness, feelings of incompetence, and marital conflicts (Pelchat et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref7">30</reflink>]). The presence of any of these factors may have an effect on these families' daily participation in recreational and physical activities (Havens [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref8">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Physical activity levels tend to be lower among children with autism and their families (Law et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref9">22</reflink>]; Pan, Tsai, and Hsieh [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref10">29</reflink>]; Rosser-Sandt and Grey [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref11">33</reflink>]). These families are constantly in need of support to be involved in physical activity opportunities. Reasons for low activity levels at home may be due to a lack of parents' knowledge of activity modification and programs available to their children with disabilities (Downing and Rebollo [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>]). In addition, the current structure of the physical education curriculum may not allow for the appropriate inclusion of students with autism.</p> <p>A teacher trained in providing physical education services to children with disabilities is known as an adapted physical education teacher (APE). However, not all school districts have an APE teacher on staff. Many school districts in the USA and in other countries such as Japan (Sato et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref13">37</reflink>]) are adopting an inclusive philosophy in which all students with disabilities are educated alongside their peers without disability. Therefore, the task of educating children with disabilities is charged to a general physical education teacher. A main difference between an APE and a physical education (PE) teacher is in terms of the requirements in terms of the number of courses each of them take. For the most part, the preparation to work with children with disabilities is more complete among APE teachers.</p> <p>For the purpose of this article, the terms APE/PE will be used interchangeably. A reason for this is because APE is not a notion used in all international educational settings. In general the role of a PE specialist who provides services for children with disabilities include but are not limited to: implementing high-quality instruction, designing achievement-based programs, demonstrating leadership, and advocating practices that ensure the well-being of children with disabilities and their families.</p> <p>Even though children with disabilities may participate in physical education at school, often the skills they learn at school are not transferrable to the home environment (Columna et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref14">7</reflink>]). The goal of a PE program should be for the student to practice at home what they learn during class. In many cases, children do not have the opportunity to practice these skills at home or in their community. A reason for this is because parents and community leaders may not possess the skills to include children with special needs in recreational opportunities (An and Goodwin [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>]; Chaapel et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>]). Therefore, APE/PE teachers may assist parents with activity modifications while also being active advocates not only for the child, but for the family as well when it comes to physical activity and available recreational opportunities (Law et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref17">22</reflink>]). In order for APE/PE teachers to be successful with the task of advocating for physical recreational opportunities for children with disabilities in and out of school settings, APE/PE teachers should be knowledgeable on all current laws, programs, and regulations pertaining to students with disabilities and their families (Lytle, Lavay, and Rizzo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref18">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to Susuki ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref19">39</reflink>]), as cited in Sato et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref20">37</reflink>]):</p> <p>In Japan, the passage of the Education Law- Section 22, provides a legal base to advocate for integrated schooling. Under this law, placement and programming decisions about students with disabilities are left to the authority of administrators of schools, department of education, and parents. (p. 212)</p> <p>In the USA, one of the main educational regulations that guarantee educational opportunities for children with disabilities is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA). This law establishes that parents of children with disabilities have the legal right to be involved in all facets of their children's education, including being a part of the multidisciplinary team. The multidisciplinary team is often composed of regular education teachers, special education teachers, qualified representatives of the local education agency, any individuals who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, any individual who has knowledge or special expertise regarding the child (e.g. related service personnel), parents, and when appropriate the child with a disability.</p> <p>Parents play a vital role as part of the multidisciplinary team. For instance, they may assist teachers (including APE/PE teachers) and administrators to determine what content is appropriate, what goals should be stated in the student's individualized education program (IEP), and what the best learning environment for the student may be (Kasari et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref21">18</reflink>]). Even though parental feedback may yield expertise about the educational future of their children, parents' opinions are sometimes not taken into consideration by the PE/APE teacher (Elkins, Van Kraayenoord, and Jobling [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref22">12</reflink>]). Traditionally, PE/APE teachers are taught how to interact with children in their training preparation programs, but too often they are not taught how to collaborate with other professionals, including parents (Samalot-Rivera and Porretta [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref23">35</reflink>]). For this reason, professionals teaching children with disabilities may have a difficult time finding strategies that promote an open and ongoing collaboration with parents.</p> <p>Parents are an integral part of the educational progress of their children for two reasons. First, they are the children's first teachers, and therefore they know them better than anybody else. Second, children with disabilities spend most of their time with their parents. However, when it comes to developing physical activity opportunities for their children, oftentimes they do not have the knowledge to modify activities for their children (Columna et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]). Promoting a collaborative approach in the educational system may facilitate the decision-making process for children with disabilities. Effective collaboration between parents and teachers involves providing equal opportunities for all students and creating successfully integrated PE programs in which children with autism are active and enjoying of the same physical opportunities as their peers without disabilities (Downing and Rebollo [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref25">10</reflink>]). The instruction in these programs must be provided by 'highly qualified' professionals who not only offer quality instruction for children with disabilities, but also possess the knowledge and skills to work in collaboration with other professionals (Lytle and Collier [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref26">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Obtaining parental perspectives on programming may assist in providing better PE/APE services for all children. To date, research on teacher/parent collaboration has primarily focused on academic performance rather than the collaboration to enhance physical education programming. It is important to acknowledge that there is a need to understand parental perspective as regards to physical education as well. Of the research studies that have been conducted, most have been conducted in the field of special education and have not investigated parents' perceptions toward the current PE programs (Starr et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref27">38</reflink>]; Tatar and Horenczyk [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref28">40</reflink>]; Whitaker [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref29">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Downing and Rebollo ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref30">10</reflink>]) conducted a quantitative study to explore parents' perceptions of the factors essential for integrated physical education programs (in which children with disabilities are active and enjoying of the same physical opportunities as their peers without disabilities). A 21-question survey was distributed to parents (<emph>N</emph> = 100) of children with physical disabilities. Researchers found that the most essential components perceived by parents were to participate in balance and coordination activities, gross motor skills, and physical fitness. The findings of this study also highlight administrative support as the most important factors for successful implementation of an integrated PE program.</p> <p>In addition to Downing and Rebollo's study ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref31">10</reflink>]), only two other research studies explored parental perceptions toward APE teachers was explored (Chaapel et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref32">6</reflink>]; Columna et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref33">7</reflink>]). Using a qualitative research design, Columna et al. studied the perceptions of Hispanic parents of children with disabilities toward adapted physical educators in relationship to their child's purposeful play and transition to school programming. Researchers found that parents wanted more oral and written communication (e.g. emails, letters) with the school and adapted physical educators. The results of this study also indicated that parents had a desire to learn different activities that they could do at home with their child.</p> <p>The lack of available literature reveals a need to understand how parents regard APE and the required skills of the APE teachers. The inclusion of physical education in the federal definition (IDEIA in the US) highlights the importance of physical education for children with disabilities. As opposed to related services, physical education is a direct service that must be provided to all students who qualify for special education services. Unfortunately, because of the large student–teacher ratio of APE teachers they may not have the time to communicate and interact with parents. In addition, most APE teachers invest most of their time providing direct services to large case loads of students limiting their opportunities to consistently interact with their students' parents (Obrusnikova and Kelly [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref34">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>There is a growing need to develop instruments that demonstrate an acceptable level of reliability and validity to assess parental attitudes regarding their child's physical education. Researchers have focused mainly on exploring parental perception toward essential components of PE programs (Downing and Rebollo [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref35">10</reflink>]). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to systematically develop and validate an instrument to assess parental perceptions toward APE teachers and programs. This survey may help APE teachers to understand how parents perceive their abilities and assist APE/PE teachers in closing the gap between parents and professionals as regards to sharing information. Furthermore, it may foster communications that lead to the discussion of what goals and objectives are important to the family and promote active lifestyles for children with autism. Consequently, services to children with autism in APE may be improved.</p> <hd id="AN0098501765-2">Conceptual framework</hd> <p>Education policies have been developed to regulate the inclusion of children and youth with disabilities in school settings (Sato et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref36">37</reflink>]). The inclusion of children and youth with disabilities arose in the USA and Europe in the mid-twentieth century (Samaniego [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref37">36</reflink>]), however it was only at the end of this century when the regulations and laws in Latin American countries, such as Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela, legitimized the integration of children and youth with cognitive, physical, or sensory disabilities in regular classrooms (Croso [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref38">8</reflink>]; Davila, Naya, and Lauzurika [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref39">9</reflink>]; Samaniego [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref40">36</reflink>]; Vasquez and Caceres [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref41">42</reflink>]). In the USA and Europe, several organizations have improved educational services for children with disabilities by implementing guidelines and regulations to determine who is qualified to provide physical education services to individuals with disabilities (Kelly [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref42">19</reflink>]; Samaniego [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref43">36</reflink>]; Sato et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref44">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>The European Federation of Adapted Physical Activity (EUFAPA) aims to encourage European cooperation in the field of physical activity to benefit individuals of all abilities. In 2010, EUFAPA developed the standards for training professionals who will be responsible for the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in the areas of physical activities. One of the objectives of the project was to describe the professional competencies in each of the three areas of Adapted Physical Activities (APA): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>) APE in schools; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>) APA in sport, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>) APA in rehabilitation. As part of this initiative, EUFAPA developed a functional map, which is a structured way of describing the functions of APE teachers. They indicated that an APE professional should: (a) plan developmentally appropriate learning experiences for students with disabilities, (b) teach students with disabilities together (when appropriate) with students without disabilities, (c) evaluate learning progress of students with special educational needs and effectiveness of applied teaching and support strategies; and (d) to take part in professional collaboration to improve teaching quality for students with disabilities. Parents of children with disabilities should be part of this collaboration (Columna et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref48">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>The EUFAPA functional map framework that describes the functions of an APE teacher, along with the definition of a 'highly qualified' APE teacher proposed by Lytle, Lavay, and Rizzo ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref49">27</reflink>]), served as the conceptual framework for the current study. The functional map framework identified four key areas in which APE teachers should be proficient. These areas are: planning, teaching, evaluating, and collaborating. Additionally, the Adapted Physical Activity Council and the National Consortium for Physical Education and Recreation for Individuals with Disabilities authored a position statement that explains what constitutes a 'highly qualified' APE teacher (Kelly [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref50">19</reflink>]). The three main areas discussed in these documents are qualifications of the APE teacher, parent and teacher rapport, and communication. We recognize that in some countries the term 'adapted physical educator' may not exist or may have a different meaning. If this is the case, we propose that readers consider the characteristics of a qualified physical educator presented herein as being universal. We believe that these are the qualities that a physical educator who works with children with disabilities should exhibit.</p> <hd id="AN0098501765-3">Teacher qualifications</hd> <p>Physical Education teachers who provide services to children with disabilities, including autism, must be 'highly qualified' (IDEIA [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref51">17</reflink>]; Lytle et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref52">26</reflink>]; Lytle, Lavay, and Rizzo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref53">27</reflink>]; Ryndak et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref54">34</reflink>]). In the USA, to be considered 'highly qualified' professionals must possess a comprehensive content knowledge on teaching children with disabilities, special education law, development of the individualized program (or IEP), assessment methods for service qualifications, and instructional design (Lytle, Lavay, and Rizzo [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref55">27</reflink>]). They must also be familiar with behavior management techniques, individual learning styles, advocacy, inclusion practices, community and family resources, professional leadership, assistive technology for physical education, and collaborative skills with different professionals, including parents (Kelly [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref56">19</reflink>]). Finally, APE teachers need to be able to provide a quality education for all students, while considering and trying to meet families' needs as much as possible (Columna et al [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref57">7</reflink>]). In Europe, according to the Functional map Framework, APE teachers are expected to: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>) assess the needs of students, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref59">2</reflink>) adapt school curriculum, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref60">3</reflink>) plan developmentally appropriate learning, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref61">4</reflink>) prepare the teaching environment, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>) be able to collaborate with relevant partners, including teachers and parents (EUFAPA [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref63">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0098501765-4">Parent and teacher rapport</hd> <p>Parental satisfaction with programs for their children will vary greatly depending on the student's disability (Starr et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref64">38</reflink>]). To the maximum extent possible, professionals should understand and appreciate the feelings and needs of each family. Yet, some APE/PE teachers tend to focus only on the needs of the child and lack concern toward family needs (Fiorini, Stanton, and Reid [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref65">14</reflink>]; Kozub [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref66">21</reflink>]). Consideration of family needs can be a step toward more effective relationships and likewise programs for students with autism or any other developmental or intellectual disabilities. Sharing the decision-making process about appropriate education and collaboration as a united group may help alleviate unnecessary stress and build positive relationships between parents and school personnel.</p> <p>Families tend to become more involved in the education of their child if they feel the programs are supportive and responsive to their needs (Columna et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref67">7</reflink>]; Unger, Wayne Jones, and Park [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref68">41</reflink>]). Parental involvement is also more likely to occur if there are open lines of communication between the school and home environment. Therefore, another key component for an APE teacher is the ability to communicate effectively with parents. It is evident that the role parents play in the educational achievement for children with assorted disabilities is recognized in the literature (Chaapel et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref69">6</reflink>]; Columna et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref70">7</reflink>]; Kelly [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref71">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0098501765-5">Communication skills</hd> <p>Professionals in the field of APE need to establish an ongoing communication with their students' parents, as highlighted in the literature (Columna et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref72">7</reflink>], Downing and Rebollo [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref73">10</reflink>]) and by professional organizations such as the adapted physical education national standards (APENS) in the USA. The APENS consist of 15 standards that explore all aspects of an APE curriculum and provide a reference to professionals in the field of APE during planning and instruction (Kelly [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref74">19</reflink>]). Standard 15 indicates that a 'highly qualified' professional must possess the skills to communicate effectively with parents and families of children with disabilities and professionals providing services to these students. This standard also states that professionals who provide PE services to children with disabilities should 'understand the importance of family support during the IEP process, the individualized family service plan, and other parent/teacher conferences/meetings' (p. 156). Standard 15 clearly explains that APE teachers should be family advocates and also counselors of physical activity to ensure students are being active as much as possible (Kelly [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref75">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to the Functional Map Framework, professional collaboration to improve teaching quality for students with disabilities is an important component for the provisions of educational services. APE teachers are expected to collaborate and establish an ongoing communication with parents of children with disabilities. In addition, they must be able to communicate with other PE/APE specialists to share their experiences and learn about the examples of best practices.</p> <hd id="AN0098501765-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0098501765-7">Participants</hd> <p>Prior to the selection of the participants, permission was obtained from the Institutional Review Board Office from a local university. The systematic development and validation of the scale included three groups of volunteers who participated in different stages of the validation process. The first group was an expert panel consisting of professionals in the field of APE (<emph>n</emph> = 4), and a parent of a child with autism to assess content validity. The second group were parents (<emph>n</emph> = 11) of children with autism (mean age = 12.20) who were currently enrolled in PE/APE through their school. For parent recruitment purposes, the lead investigator distributed flyers with a link to take the online version of the survey to assorted universities and colleges in the states of California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The third group consisted of a panel (<emph>n</emph> = 8) who were nationally recognized professors in APE or had 10 or more years of experience teaching APE in school districts. This panel implemented the Delphi method to analyze the revised survey (Glazer [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref76">15</reflink>]). This method will be explained later.</p> <hd id="AN0098501765-8">Instrument development</hd> <p>The Parent Perceptions toward Adapted Physical Education Teachers (PPTAPET) survey was developed based on an extensive literature review (Aiken [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>]; Columna et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref78">7</reflink>]; Downing and Rebollo [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref79">10</reflink>]; Dunn, Bouffard, and Rogers [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref80">11</reflink>]; Glazer [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref81">15</reflink>]; Kelly [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref82">19</reflink>]). A multi-step approach was employed in the development and validation of the PPTAPET survey. This step by step procedure can be found in Figure 1. The first step in this process was to obtain the content validity of the PPTAPET. This process was done by sending the initial survey questions developed by the researchers to an expert panel consisting of professionals in the field of APE (<emph>n</emph> = 4), and a parent of a child with autism. This panel gave written feedback on question structure on items they thought should be retained in the survey.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Survey development flow chart.</p> <p>The second step in the process was item reduction using a correlational pairwise matrix. Item selection was based on the correlation values for items under the three survey constructs. Data for the correlation were from the revised survey developed after step 1. The surveys were completed by parents (<emph>n</emph> = 11) of students with autism who were recruited by the local school district based on the diagnoses of autism listed on their IEP. Parents were given the option to take the survey in one of two ways, either a paper version or online using the web address given on distributed flyers.</p> <p>The third step in the survey development was to take the revised survey, developed after step 2, and use the Delphi method for item validation (Dunn, Bouffard, and Rogers [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref83">11</reflink>]). This process was completed by using the second panel of experts (<emph>n</emph> = 8) who were nationally recognized higher education professors in APE or had 10 or more years of experience teaching APE in the school setting. This panel used the Delphi method to analyze survey questions. Lastly, the fourth step, <emph>α</emph> coefficients for each construct were calculated to determine the internal validity of the final questions.</p> <p>The survey used a five-point Likert-scale design where parents rated their level of satisfaction (strongly agree, agree) or dissatisfaction (strongly disagree, disagree) as well as a neutral selection where parents could select neither agree nor disagree with the statement. The original form of the PPTAPET contained 56 questions. The demographic/background section comprised 19 of the questions. The remainder of the survey was split among the following three different subscales: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>) the communication subscale, comprising 20 questions, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref85">2</reflink>) the APE teacher knowledge/qualifications subscale, comprising 12 questions, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref86">3</reflink>) the parent and teacher rapport subscale, comprising five questions. After all item reduction was completed, the final version of the survey was composed of 12 questions, four from each subscale.</p> <hd id="AN0098501765-9">Data analysis</hd> <p>All data were entered into Excel and then converted into Stata v.10 (StataCorp, TX), using Stat Transfer v. 8 (Circle Systems, WA). Stata v.10 was used for all analysis purposes. To reduce the survey to a reasonable number of questions, item reduction was done by a multi-trait/multi-method using a pairwise correlational matrix. We reduced to survey to four items per construct to avoid questionnaire fatigue, it is important that we were able to get questionnaires completed by parents of children with disabilities who had limited time to participate in studies. For each of the three subscales of communication, teacher knowledge, and rapport, matrixes were computed using Pearson product moment correlation coefficients. Four questions per subscale were selected and items under the same construct with a low correlation <0.5 were removed, and anything >0.5 was retained. Further question selection was based on question significance to the specific construct, each question's <emph>p</emph> value of <0.05, and low relationship to the other constructs.</p> <p>Once item reduction was complete, 12 questions remained and six spurious questions (two for each subscale) were added to comprise the revised survey. The 18-question survey was then given to the third panel of experts (<emph>n</emph> = 8). This select panel used the Delphi method to analyze the revised 18 questions. The Delphi method has experts rate each item on a scale from one to five, with one representing <emph>no match</emph> to the construct and five representing 'excellent match' to the construct (Table 2)<emph>.</emph> Item-content relevance was assessed according to the Delphi method. The Delphi method offers a justifiable and practical means for developing surveys (Dunn, Bouffard, and Rogers [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref87">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 2. Summary of item-content relevance ratings of the panel of experts of the parents' perceptions toward APE teachers survey.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Item</td><td>Mean</td><td>±SD</td><td><italic>V</italic> Coefficient</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Communication</td></tr><tr><td>1. I am satisfied with the frequency in which I communicate with my child's APE/GPE teacher</td><td char=".">3.63</td><td char=".">±0.74</td><td char=".">0.91</td></tr><tr><td>2. The APE/GPE teacher encourages me to participate in the decision-making process regarding my child's PE program</td><td char=".">3.50</td><td char=".">±1.07</td><td char=".">0.88</td></tr><tr><td>3. The APE/GPE teacher provides useful information about PE services provided to my child</td><td char=".">3.38</td><td char=".">±1.41</td><td char=".">0.84</td></tr><tr><td>4. The APE/GPE teacher keeps me informed about my child's progress</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">±1.60</td><td char=".">0.75</td></tr><tr><td>APE teacher qualifications</td></tr><tr><td>5. I feel the APE/GPE teacher is qualified to instruct children with Autism</td><td char=".">3.25</td><td char=".">±1.49</td><td char=".">0.81</td></tr><tr><td>6. I feel the APE/GPE instruction is always adapted to the needs of my child</td><td char=".">3.13</td><td char=".">±1.46</td><td char=".">0.78</td></tr><tr><td>7. I feel that the current instruction provided to my child in the APE/GPE class is appropriate</td><td char=".">3.25</td><td char=".">±1.49</td><td char=".">0.81</td></tr><tr><td>8. I feel instruction provided by the APE/GPE teacher to my child needs to be improved</td><td char=".">3.25</td><td char=".">±1.49</td><td char=".">0.81</td></tr><tr><td>Parent and teacher rapport</td></tr><tr><td>9. The APE/GPE teacher shows a willingness to learn more about my child's needs</td><td char=".">3.38</td><td char=".">±1.19</td><td char=".">0.84</td></tr><tr><td>10. The APE/GPE teacher shows sensitivity to the needs of my child</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">±1.41</td><td char=".">0.75</td></tr><tr><td>11. The APE/GPE teacher understands my concerns regarding my child's performance at school</td><td char=".">3.63</td><td char=".">±0.74</td><td char=".">0.91</td></tr><tr><td>12. The APE/GPE teacher listens and values my concern regarding my child's education</td><td char=".">3.75</td><td char=".">±0.71</td><td char=".">0.94</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>After implementing the Delphi Method, the panel's ratings were analyzed using content validity <emph>V</emph> coefficients, which represent the degree to which the panel of experts decided on the match of each item in the proposed construct (Aiken [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>]; Dunn, Bouffard, and Rogers [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref89">11</reflink>]). As stated by Aiken, the <emph>V</emph> coefficient is calculated for the ratings provided by <emph>n</emph> judges on the domain specific interest for each item. To calculate <emph>V,</emph> an item is evaluated by judges on a rating scale of <emph>c</emph> successive integers. In this case, the number of judges was eight (<emph>n</emph> = 8)<emph>,</emph> and the successive integer was five (<emph>c</emph> = 5). Designating the integer assigned to the lowest validity category as lo (which in this study was 1), and the rater's validity rating as <emph>r,</emph> the <emph>r</emph> values are transformed to the formula <emph>s</emph> = <emph>r</emph> − <emph>lo</emph> (Aiken [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>], 133). The values of <emph>s</emph> for all the raters are then added to yield <emph>S.</emph> The <emph>V</emph> coefficient is computed by the formula: .Any questions in the survey with a <emph>V</emph> coefficient of >0.75 was accepted (Dunn, Bouffard, and Rogers [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref91">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>The final steps to validating the PPTAPET involved calculating the alpha coefficients for the four items left in each subscale. The <emph>α</emph> value is determined by the following formula:</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>According to Bland and Altman ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref92">3</reflink>]), <emph>α</emph> values of 0.70–0.80 are regarded as satisfactory and would support the surveys internal validity. The split-half reliability was determined by the Spearman Brown Prophecy coefficient. The formula yielded the Spearman Brown coefficient of the scale.</p> <hd id="AN0098501765-10">Results</hd> <p>During the initial phases of survey development questions that reflected the content to be assessed and had statistically significant p values of <0.05 were accepted for the final version. These correlations were calculated to support evidence of construct validity. The top four questions from each of the three subscales were retained based on their statistical significance and/or correlational coefficients and <emph>r</emph> values within the construct.</p> <p>The Delphi method yielded <emph>V</emph> coefficients for each question and then each item was compared with a one-tail probability table by Aiken ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>]). From Aiken's table, it was determined that items with <emph>V</emph> ≥ 0.75 (<emph>p</emph> < 0.05) were accepted. The PPTAPET's revised 12 questions were retained based on their significant <emph>V</emph> coefficients and relevance with respect to the constructs they were intended to measure. These questions along with their <emph>V</emph> coefficients are given in Table 2. The six non-significant items were eliminated. By following guidelines set forth by Dunn, Bouffard, and Rogers ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref94">11</reflink>]), item-content relevance was established.</p> <p>The <emph>α</emph> coefficients for each of the three subscales concluded that the PPTAPET survey had high internal validity. Each subscale of communication, APE teacher knowledge/qualifications, and parent/teacher rapport possessed high <emph>α</emph> values of 0.89, 0.89, and 0.92, respectively. Split-half reliability of the scale was determined by the Spearman Brown Prophecy coefficient of <emph>r</emph>″ = 0.90.</p> <hd id="AN0098501765-11">Implications</hd> <p>This research set out to systematically develop and validate an instrument to assess parental perceptions toward APE teachers who work with children with autism. The process in determining validity of the PPTAPET was comparable to that found in previous research. Similar to work by Glazer ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref95">15</reflink>]), the current study utilized the Delphi method in developing the survey and finding internal validity. As in Glazer's study to assess athletes' readiness after injuries, the paired-down PPTAPET survey was returned to the panel of experts for the evaluation of content relevance. Bland and Altman ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref96">4</reflink>]) used similar procedures in the development of a scale to measure patient satisfaction with contact from general practitioners. Both of these previous validation studies, along with the current study, utilized similar methods in the development of survey instruments.</p> <p>The results of the current study indicated that the three PPTAPET survey constructs of communication, APE teacher knowledge, and parent/teacher rapport had strong internal validity. The PPTAPET survey may assist APE/PE teachers to better understand what parents perceive and expect for their child with autism. This survey may also assist APE/PE professionals with appropriate inclusion practices and emphasize the importance of inclusion for all students with disabilities, not just those with autism. Last, but not least, this instrument may assist in the decrease in miscommunication issues between parents and their child's PE/APE teacher (Lieberman, James, and Ludwa [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref97">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Due to the dramatic global increase in diagnosed cases of autism, there is an immediate need for parents and teachers to work together to provide the best possible programming for students with autism (Loiacono and Valenti [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref98">24</reflink>]). The availability of reliable and valid instruments to assess parental attitudes regarding their children's physical education is essential. Parents, who are students' first teachers, see their children's skills, habits, and abilities from birth and should be used by professionals as an important resource (Downing and Rebollo [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref99">10</reflink>]). The collaborative efforts between parents and APE/PE teachers may assist in enhancing the quality of the instruction and services for children with autism in PE settings (An and Goodwin [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref100">2</reflink>]; Castaneda and Sherrill [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref101">5</reflink>]). The PPTAPET survey has the potential to bridge the communication gap between teachers and parents.</p> <p>According to Perkins et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref102">31</reflink>]), parents of students with visual impairments were concerned about the communication with their child's APE teacher. The parents were unaware of what their child was learning in APE and felt unable to share their own programming ideas with the APE teacher. This dilemma was reiterated in Columna's et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref103">7</reflink>]) study, in which the parents of Hispanic children with disabilities wanted to reinforce skills being learned in APE. The lack of information regarding physical activities they can do as a family brought frustration and the desire for improved communication. Parents in Chaapel et al. study ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref104">6</reflink>]) voiced a desire for more communication with APE teachers. According to parents, if there was effective communication, they perceived teachers as caring and respectful of families' needs and expectations. Parents articulated a longing to work with the APE teacher to enhance the educational future for their child with a disability. For this to be accomplished, parents wanted all educators to be a part of the team and attend IEP and transition meetings where goals and decisions were made.</p> <p>Facilitation of communication could be done at IEP meetings, however, APE teachers do not always attend those meetings (Chaapel et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref105">6</reflink>]). The PPTAPET survey could be an initial attempt at improving the exchange of information between parents and APE teachers.</p> <p>School principals may find the PPTAPET survey a valuable tool to evaluate the performance of their APE staff. Since most PE pre-service teachers are only required to take minimal coursework in APE, they often lack knowledge and experience working with students with disabilities Lytle, Lavay, and Rizzo ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref106">27</reflink>]). Adapted physical educators who are not confident in their knowledge of working with students with autism may be fearful of challenging those students.</p> <hd id="AN0098501765-12">Future research</hd> <p>This study's findings should be reviewed with caution. A limitation to this research involved a small sample of parents of children with autism who completed the survey. However, this limitation was partially offset by using multiple stages in the validation process.</p> <p>Further research is needed with a larger sample size to confirm the current results. The survey could also be extended to investigate perceptions of parents of children with various disabilities, not just autism. Adjustments to the survey may provide the opportunity to compare the perception of parents across different disabilities. In addition, research is needed to explore teachers' perceptions toward parents' involvement in their child's education. Lastly, with the prevalence of autism increasing globally, there is a need to explore parental perceptions toward APE teachers in other countries.</p> <p>The positive results of this research suggest that the PPTAPET has adequate internal validity and reliability. The PPTAPET could be a useful tool in assessing parents' views of their children's APE teachers. By investigating parental perceptions, educators improve communication with parents and may provide better APE services to children with autism. Parental feedback could be vital in improving programming for all students with disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0098501765-13">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>Special thanks to Dr Lynn Couturier from the Physical Education Department at the State University of New York at Cortland and Dr Kevin Keffernam from the Exercise Department at Syracuse University for their assistance in this paper.</p> <ref id="AN0098501765-14"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref45" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aiken, L. R. 1985. "Three Coefficients for Analyzing the Reliability and Validity of Ratings." Educational and Psychological Measurement 45: 131–142. doi: 10.1177/0013164485451012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref15" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> An, J., and D. L. Goodwin. 2007. "Physical Education for Students with Spina Bifida: Mothers' Perspectives." Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 24 (1): 38–58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref47" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bland, J. M., and D. G. Altman. 1997. "Cronbach's Alpha." British Medical Journal 314: 572. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref61" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bland, J. M., and D. G. Altman. 2007. "Agreement Between Methods of Measurement with Multiple Observations Per Individual." Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 17 (4): 571–582. doi: 10.1080/10543400701329422</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref62" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Castaneda, L., and C. Sherrill. 1999. "Family Participation in Challenger Baseball: Critical Theory Perspectives." Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 16 (4): 372–388.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref16" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chaapel, H., L. Columna, R. Lytle, and J. Bailey. 2012. "Parental Expectations about Adapted Physical Education Services." Journal of Special Education. <ulink href="http://sed.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/29/0022466912447661.full.pdf">http://sed.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/29/0022466912447661.full.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref5" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Columna, L., J. Pyfer, T. Senne, L. Velez, N. Bridenthrall, and M. Y. Canabal. 2008. "Parental Expectations of Adapted Physical Educators: A Hispanic Perspective." Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 25 (3): 228–246.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref38" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Croso, C. 2010. "El Derecho a la educación de personas con discapacidad: impulsado el concepto de la educación Inclusiva." Revista Latinoamericana de Educacion Inclusiva 4 (2): 79–95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref39" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Davila, P., L. Naya, and A. Lauzurika. 2010. "Las personas con discapacidad, el derecho a la educación y la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño en América Latina." Revista Latinoamérica de educación inclusiva 4 (2): 97–118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Downing, J. H., and J. Rebollo. 1999. "Parent's Perceptions of the Factors Essential for Integrated Physical Education Programs." Remedial and Special Education 20 (3): 152–159. doi: 10.1177/074193259902000305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, J. H., M. Bouffard, and W. T. Rogers. 1999. "Assessing Item Content-Relevance in Sport Psychology Scale-Construction Research: Issues and Recommendations." Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 3 (1): 15–36. doi: 10.1207/s15327841mpee0301_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elkins, J., C. E. Van Kraayenoord, and A. Jobling. 2003. "Parents' Attitudes to Inclusion of their Children with Special Needs." Journal of Research in Special Education Needs 3 (2): 122–129. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.00005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> European Standards in Adapted Physical Activities. 2010. <ulink href="http://eusapa.upol.cz/">http://eusapa.upol.cz/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fiorini, J., K. Stanton, and G. Reid. 1996. "Understanding Parents and Families of Children with Disabilities: Consideration for Adapted Physical Activity." Palaestra 12 (2): 16–29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glazer, D. D. 2009. "Development and Preliminary Validation of the Injury-Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport (i-prrs) Scale." Journal of Athletic Training 44 (2): 185–189. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-44.2.185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Havens, A. C. 2005. "Becoming a Resilient Family: Child Disability and the Family System." Access Today (17): 1–13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. 2004. Public Law 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647 et seq.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kasari, C., S. F. Freeman, N. Bauminger, and M. Alkin. 1999. "Parental Perspectives on Inclusion: Effects of Autism and Down Syndrome." Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 29 (4): 297–305. doi: 10.1023/A:1022159302571</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, L. E. 2006. Adapted Physical Education National Standards. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kopetz, P. B., and D. L. Endowed. 2012. "Autism Worldwide: Prevalence, Perceptions, Acceptance, Action." Journal of Social Science 8 (2): 196–201. doi: 10.3844/jssp.2012.196.201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kozub, F. 2001. "The Family System Theory." Palaestra 17 (3): 30–42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Law, M., G. King, S. King, M. Kertoy, P. Hurley, P. Rosenbaum, N. Young, and S. Hanna. 2006. "Patterns of Participation in Recreational and Leisure Activities among Children with Complex Physical Disabilities." Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 48 (5): 337–342. doi: 10.1017/S0012162206000740</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lieberman, L. J., A. R. James, and N. Ludwa. 2004. "The Impact of Inclusion in General Physical Education for all Students." Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 75 (5): 37–55. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2004.10607238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loiacono, V., and V. Valenti. 2010. "General Education Teachers need to be Prepared to Co-Teach the Increasing Number of Children with Autism in Inclusive Settings." International Journal of Special Education 25 (3): 24–32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lytle, R. K., and D. Collier. 2002. "The Consultation Process: Adapted Physical Education Specialists' Perceptions." Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 19 (3): 261–279.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lytle, R., B. Lavay, N. Robinson, and C. Huettig. 2003. "Teaching Collaboration and Consultation Skills to Preservice Adapted Physical Education Teachers." Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance 74 (5): 49–53. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2003.10608486</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lytle, R., B. Lavay, and T. Rizzo. 2010. "What is a Highly Qualified Adapted Physical Education Teacher?" Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 81 (2): 40–44. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2010.10598433</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Obrusnikova, I., and L. E. Kelly. 2009. "Caseloads and Job Responsibilities of Public School Adapted Physical Educators in the United States." Perceptual and Motor Skills 109 (3): 1–10. doi: 10.2466/pms.109.3.737-746</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pan, Chein-Y., C. L. Tsai, and K. W. Hsieh. 2011. "Physical Activity Correlates for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders in Middle School Physical Education." Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport 82 (3): 491–498. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2011.10599782</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelchat, D., H. Lefebvre, M. Proulx, and M. Reidy. 2004. "Parental Satisfaction with an Early Family Intervention Program." The Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing 18 (2): 128–144. doi: 10.1097/00005237-200404000-00008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perkins, K., L. Columna, L. Lieberman, and J. Bailey. 2013. "Parents' Perceptions of Physical Activity for their Children with Visual Impairments." Journal of Visual Impairments and Blindness 107 (2): 131–142.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reichman, N. E., K. Corman, and K. Noonan. 2008. "Impact of Child Disability on the Family: Implications for the Family." Maternal & Child Health Journal 12 (6): 679–683. doi: 10.1007/s10995-007-0307-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosser-Sandt, D. D., and G. C. Grey. 2005. "Comparison of Physical Activity Levels between Children with and without Autistic Spectrum Disorders." Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 22 (3): 146–159.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryndak, D. L., J. E. Downing, A. P. Morrison, and L. J. Williams. 1996. "Parents' Perceptions of Educational Settings and Services for Children with Moderate or Severe Disabilities." Remedial & Special Education 17 (2): 106–188. doi: 10.1177/074193259601700206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samalot-Rivera, A., and D. L. Porretta. 2009. "Perceptions and Practices of Adapted Physical Educators on the Teaching of Social Skills." Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 26 (2): 172–186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samaniego, P. 2009. Personas con discapacidad y acceso a servicios educativos en Latinoamérica: Análisis de situación. Madrid: Grupo Editorial CINCA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sato, T., S. R. Hodge, N. M. Murata, and J. K. Maeda. 2007. "Japanese Physical Education Teachers' Belief about Teaching Students with Disabilities." Sport, Education and Society 12 (2): 211–230. doi: 10.1080/13573320701287536</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Starr, E. M., J. B. Foy, K. M. Cramer, and H. Singh. 2006. "How are Schools Doing? Parental Perceptions of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders, Down Syndrome, and Learning Disabilities: A Comparative Analysis." Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 41 (4): 315–332.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suzuki, I. ed. 2002. Japan Educational Law (Section 22). 5th ed. Tokyo: Gakuyo Shobo.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tatar, M., and G. Horenczyk. 2000. "Parental Expectations of their Adolescents' Teachers." Journal of Adolescence 23 (4): 487–495. doi: 10.1006/jado.2000.0333</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unger, D., C. Wayne Jones, and E. Park. 2001. "Promoting Involvement between Low-Income Single Caregivers and Urban Early Intervention Programs." Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 21 (4): 197–212. doi: 10.1177/027112140102100401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vázquez, A., and N. Cáceres. 2008. El abordaje de la discapacidad desde la atención primaria en salud. 1a ed. Buenos Aires: Organización Panamericana de la Salud – OPS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitaker, P. 2007. "Provisions for Youngsters with Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Mainstream Schools: What Parents Say- and What Parents Want." British Journal of Special Education 34 (3): 170–178. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8578.2007.00473.x</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Luis Columna; Allison Cook; John T. Foley and JoEllen Bailey</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref102"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1040823
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Survey Development to Assess Parental Satisfaction with Adapted Physical Education Teachers' Abilities Working with Children with Autism
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Columna%2C+Luis%22">Columna, Luis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cook%2C+Allison%22">Cook, Allison</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Foley%2C+John+T%2E%22">Foley, John T.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bailey%2C+JoEllen%22">Bailey, JoEllen</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Physical+Education+and+Sport+Pedagogy%22"><i>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</i></searchLink>. 2014 19(5):481-493.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adapted+Physical+Education%22">Adapted Physical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parents%22">Parents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Surveys%22">Parent Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Attitudes%22">Parent Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education+Teachers%22">Physical Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Competencies%22">Teacher Competencies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Likert+Scales%22">Likert Scales</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reliability%22">Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence%22">Evidence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autism%22">Autism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Qualifications%22">Teacher Qualifications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Teacher+Cooperation%22">Parent Teacher Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Communication+Skills%22">Communication Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22California%22">California</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Florida%22">Florida</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22New+York%22">New York</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pennsylvania%22">Pennsylvania</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Texas%22">Texas</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/17408989.2014.907888
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1740-8989
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to systematically develop and validate an instrument to assess parental perceptions toward adapted physical education (APE) teachers, who work with children with autism. Methods: Participants included two expert panels and parents of children and youth with autism. The survey used a Likert-scale design where parents rated their level of satisfaction regarding communication with, qualifications of, and rapport with the APE teachers. Results: Based on a coefficients for each of the three subscales, it was concluded that the survey had high internal validity. Split-half reliability determined by the Spearman Brown Prophecy coefficient indicated high reliability. Conclusion: Preliminary evidence demonstrated that the survey may be a useful tool in assessing parental perceptions of their child's APE teacher.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 43
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1040823
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1040823
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/17408989.2014.907888
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 481
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Adapted Physical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Competencies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Likert Scales
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Autism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Qualifications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Teacher Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Communication Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: California
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Florida
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: New York
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pennsylvania
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Texas
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Survey Development to Assess Parental Satisfaction with Adapted Physical Education Teachers' Abilities Working with Children with Autism
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Columna, Luis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cook, Allison
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Foley, John T.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bailey, JoEllen
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2014
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1740-8989
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 19
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
              Type: main
ResultId 1