See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236072161

Creation and validation of the

self-efficacy instrument for
physical education teacher
education majors toward
inclusion
ARTICLE in ADAPTED PHYSICAL ACTIVITY QUARTERLY: APAQ APRIL 2013
Impact Factor: 1.32 Source: PubMed

READS

49
4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Aija Klavina
Latvian Academy of Sports
8 PUBLICATIONS 33 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Aija Klavina

Retrieved on: 25 September 2015

Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 2013, 29, 184-205

2013 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Official Journal of IFAPA

www.APAQ-Journal.com
RESEARCH

Creation and Validation of the Self-Efficacy

Instrument for Physical Education Teacher
Education Majors Toward Inclusion
Martin E. Block
University of Virginia, USA

Yeshayahu (Shayke) Hutzler

Zinman College at the Wingate Institute, Israel

Sharon Barak
The Edmond and Lily Safra Childrens Hospital, Israel

Aija Klavina
Latvian Sports Academy, Latvia
The purpose was to validate a self-efficacy (SE) instrument toward including
students with disability in physical education (PE). Three scales referring to
intellectual disabilities (ID), physical disabilities (PD), or visual impairments
(VI) were administered to 486 physical education teacher education (PETE)
majors. The sample was randomly split, and exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses (EFA and CFA, respectively) were conducted. After deleting items that
did not meet inclusion criteria, EFA item loadings ranged from 0.53 to 0.91, and
Cronbachs alpha reliability was high (for ID = .86, PD = .90, and VI = .92). CFA
showed that the ID scale demonstrated good goodness-of-fit, whereas in the PD
and in the VI scales demonstrated moderate fit. Thus, the content and construct
validity of the instrument was supported.
Keywords: inclusion, self-efficacy scale, preservice physical education teachers

Including students with disabilities into general education is now commonplace

in the United States (USDE, 2008), and it is slowly becoming an educational model in
other countries around the world (Camerini, 2011; MEHR, 2007). While the inclusion

Martin Block is with the Kinesiology Program at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. Yeshayahu
Hutzler is with the Zinman College of Physical Education and Sport Sciences at the Wingate Institute,
Israel. Sharon Barak is with the Edmond and Lily Safra Childrens Hospital, the Chaim Sheba Medical
Center, Israel. Aija Klavina is with the Latvian Sports Academy in Latvia.
184

Self-Efficacy Scale

185

process has been mandated by international legislation (United Nations, 2006), many
barriers have been encountered such as inadequate teacher training and professional
development, lack of competence, limited support, large class sizes, and time and
administrative demands, as well as low efficacy to teach students with disabilities
(Kodish, Kulinna, Martin, Pangrazi & Darst 2006; Konza, 2008). Moreover, higher
education in Europe is currently facing a massive transformation, commonly called
the Bologna process, which promotes the advancement of European institutions
to the top of the world higher education markets. Therefore, faculty members teaching in physical education teacher education (PETE) programs have systematically
reviewed their curricula in reference to the ultimate programmatic goal of preparing
competent physical education (PE) teachers who will be able to teach all students
within a contemporary school environment. For example, Herold and Dandolo (2009)
emphasized the need to upgrade initial teacher training programs to address inclusive
PE more effectively, indicating limitations of the British National Curriculum in
PE as a framework for inclusion. Furthermore, a study by Filipcic (2006) revealed
that PETE majors in their final year at the Faculty of Sport in Ljubljana (Slovenia)
did not feel adequately prepared to work with children who have motor disabilities.
Accommodating students with disabilities in a general physical education
(GPE) setting can be challenging for physical educators. As indicated before,
one major reason why students with disabilities do not always experience success in GPE is because physical educators do not feel prepared or self-confident
enough to make all of the above-listed accommodations (Ammah & Hodge, 2006;
Chandler & Greene, 1995; Hardin, 2005; Hodge, 1998; Kowalski & Rizzo, 1996;
LaMaster, Gall, Kinchin, & Siedentop, 1998; Lienert, Sherrill, & Myers, 2001).
This is a concern, as a key factor in the success of any inclusive PE or recreation
program is training and self-confidence of the instructor (Block & Rizzo, 1995;
Lepore, Gayle, & Stevens, 1998). Research measuring self confidence in physical
educators has been primarily descriptive and atheoretical. For example, LaMaster
et al. (1998), Hardin (2005), and Ammah and Hodge (2006) had six, five, and two
participants in their studies, respectively. These studies were qualitative in nature
using interviews and in one case natural observation (Ammah & Hodge, 2006),
but none of these researchers used a theoretical framework when constructing their
studies or analyzing their data.

Self-Efficacy Theory
Banduras self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977, 1997) provides a useful theoretical framework for understanding and measuring self-confidence. Self-efficacy is
a task- and situation-specific form of self-confidence and is defined by Bandura
(1997) as ones beliefs in ones capabilities to organize and execute the courses
of action required to produce given attainments (p. 3). The way one approaches
a task or challenge is believed to be influenced by his/her level of self-efficacy.
Those with higher levels of self-efficacy are more likely to try a particular task (i.e.,
make accommodations to include a student with a disability) compared with those
with lower levels of self-efficacy. According to this theory, two people with similar
abilities may perform very differently due to their respective levels of self-efficacy
(Bandura, 2001). For example, according to the theory physical educators with
high self-efficacy should have a more favorable attitude toward including children

186

Block et al.

with disabilities into their classes (i.e., They will take the time to learn about each
student with a disability and make the necessary accommodations to ensure the
students success) than physical educators with low self-efficacy. In addition, those
with higher self-efficacy should persevere in their efforts to make the students
experiences successful, even when things are not going as planned.
While self-efficacy theory has been used successfully in research with general
and special education teachers (e.g., Armor et al., 1976; Ashton & Webb, 1986;
Roll-Peterson, 2008; Soodak & Podell, 1993; Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2006) and
with PE teachers (e.g., Martin & Hodges Kulinna, 2003, 2004, 2005; Stephanou
& Tsapakidou, 2007), Hutzler, Zach and Gafni (2005) were the first and only
researchers to apply self-efficacy theory to PETE majors in regard to the inclusion
of students with disabilities in GPE. Participants (153 PETE majors in Israel) were
asked to comment on their confidence toward including students with disabilities in
reference to four different disabilities: (a) physical disabilities, (b) developmental
disorder, (c) attention deficit disorders, and (d) visual impairments. Results showed
variables were significantly related to higher levels of self-efficacy, including previous experience in instructing students with disabilities, attendance in a course
focused on students with disabilities, and years in the PETE program. It was
concluded that self-efficacy was related to attitudes toward teaching students with
disabilities in PE. However, the authors noted several limitations with the survey,
including lack of a clear description of the factor structure, lack of clear descriptions of disabilities, limited descriptions of the PE situations, and a relatively small
sample size (Hutzler et al., 2005).
The issue of a lack of a description for each disability type was particularly
troublesome in Hutzlers study. Prior research in the field of adapted physical education (APE) has supported findings that teachers attitudes and perceived competence
varied depending upon the type and severity of the students disability (Block &
Rizzo, 1995; Kowalski & Rizzo, 1996; Rizzo, 1984; Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995;
Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991). In addition, recommendations by Hutzler and his colleagues
included controlling for disability type. A disability-specific instrument with clear
definitions would allow teachers to make judgments of their self-efficacy beliefs in
regard to a particular teaching framework. This would also allow for self-efficacy
beliefs to be compared across disabling conditions.
The purpose of this study was to create and then analyze the properties of a
survey instrumentthe Self-Efficacy Scale for Physical Education Teacher Education Majors toward Children with Disabilities (SE-PETE-D)which could be
used to investigate self-efficacy beliefs of PETE majors toward the inclusion of
students with specific disabilities in GPE. Based on previous attitude surveys in
Europe and the U.S. (Downs & Williams, 1994; Hodge & Jansma, 1999; Rizzo,
1984; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991), it was concluded that different disabilities are differentially perceived by practitioners, and that physical, intellectual, and sensory
disabilities appear to create the greatest challenges when including students (Hutzler,
2003). Further studies based on student and teacher reports have supported this
notion (e.g., Blinde & McCallister, 1998; Casebolt & Hodge, 2010; Goodwin &
Watkinson, 2000; Hutzler, Fliess, Chacham, & Van den Auweele, 2002; Lieberman,
Robinson, & Rollheiser, 2006; Place & Hodge, 2001). Therefore, in the current
study it was decided to target the following three disabilities: intellectual disability
(ID), physical disability (PD), and visual impairment (VI).

Self-Efficacy Scale

187

Methods
Based on Banduras (2006) recommendations for constructing a self-efficacy instrument, an instrument was constructed and an initial validation was performed to
measure PETE majors self-efficacy toward including students with ID, PD, and VI
in PE frameworks, including teaching skills, playing sport games, and performing
fitness activities. This study involved the preliminary procedures of developing
an instrument and assessing its content validity (Phase I), followed by the data
collection using the developed instrument and the data analysis, to measure the
instruments construct validity (Phase II).

Phase I: Preliminary Procedures-Instrument Development

The process used to construct the instrument in Phase I followed guidelines in
scale development as discussed by Bandura (2006) and DeVellis (1991), and was
conducted in four steps: (a) Step 1Considering content, (b) Step 2Item pool
(c) Step 3Format, and (d) Step 4Expert review. Due to space limitations only
part of this process is presented here. More details on each step in Phase I are
available from the first author.
Step 1Considering content. The content being measured in the SE-PETE-D
instrument is both context- (i.e., specific PE frameworks detailed in step 2), and
situation (the three predetermined disability conditions) specific, as recommended
by Bandura (2006).
Step 2Item pool. To generate possible items, an e-mail was sent to practicing

GPE and APE teachers known to the researchers in selected counties in Virginia
and Maryland asking them to respond to three questions for each of the three disability contexts, regarding obstacles or challenges to inclusion for each disability,
and three things good physical educators do to facilitate inclusion of each disability. Each disability was described with a vignette describing a student with that
type of disability (e.g., a student with a VI). Questions concerning both obstacles/
challenges and things good physical educators do revolved around three specific
situations: (a) when conducting fitness testing, (b) when teaching sport skills, and
(c) when actually playing the sport.
Responses were obtained from a total of 21 general and 14 adapted physical
educators. Responses for each situation and for each disability were listed and ranked
from most to least cited. In total there were 1724 obstacles/challenges listed for
fitness testing situation, 1921 for teaching sport skills, and 1822 for playing the
sport across the three disabilities. Regarding things good physical educators should
do there were 1219 skills or abilities listed for fitness testing situation, 1013 for
teaching sports, and 1517 for situations when playing sports. Final items generated
for the instrument were based on categories yielding the highest total responses for
each question, as well as on researcher judgment of how well items represented the
construct being measured. The final version of the SE-PETE-D used in this study
included 11, 12, and 10 items in the ID, PD, and VI scales, respectively.

Step 3format. Following Banduras (2006) guidelines, content validity was

evidenced by phrasing the questions in terms of can do rather than will do.
Item scaling deviated from Banduras recommendation for a 010 scale based

188

Block et al.

on recent evidence by Feltz, Short, and Sullivan (2008); Myers et al. (2008); and
Myers, Wolfe, and Feltz (2005), suggesting that a 14 or 15 scale is as effective
when measuring self-efficacy as a 010 scale. As a result, a 15 scale was used
with the following criteria: 1 = no confidence, 2 = low confidence, 3 = moderate
confidence, 4 = high confidence, and 5 = complete confidence.
Step 4Expert review. Step four involved sending the newly created survey

instrument to ten university professors from the U.S. and Europe with expertise in
self-efficacy theory, test construction, and/or expertise in APE, as well as to five
graduate students. Experts were asked to critique the readability, clarity, conciseness,
and layout of each section of the survey, including the directions, the self-efficacy
scale itself, and demographic questions and each scale. While a different group
of experts were previously asked to review the definitions of ID, PD, and VI, the
new panel of experts was also asked to review these definitions. Feedback from
experts further contributed to content and face validity evidence (DeVellis, 1991).

Phase II: Participants

The total sample for phase II was 486 participants (170 females; 316 males). The
participants ages ranged from 19 to 46 years. As two sets of factor analyses were
conducted, the sample was randomly split into two groups of 243 cases. The number
of items in the ID, PD, and VI scales was 11, 12, and 10, respectively. Therefore,
the ratio of number of cases per item in the ID, PD, and VI scales was 22, 20,
and 24, respectively. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), this sample size
satisfies the minimum amount of data and is considered good for factor analysis.
The distribution of participants across the years enrolled in college was 31 in
the first year, 50 in the second year, 181 in the third year, 190 in the fourth year,
and 34 in the fifth year or above. Fifty-five participants reported having attended
two APE courses or more, 263 reported one APE course, 83 reported not having
attended any APE course, and 85 participants did not report their attendance in
APE courses. Sixty-four participants reported participation in two APE practicum
sessions or more, 328 reported having participated in one APE practicum session,
82 reported not having participated in any APE practicum session, and one participant did not report.

Phase II: Data Collection

Instrumentation. The SE-PETE-D included three different scales but with a
similar structure. After a detailed description of the purpose of the survey and how
to complete the survey, three scales followed, each preceded by a vignette demonstrating a student with an ID, PD, or VI, who would be attending a GPE class.
Below is an example of the vignette for a student with ID:

Noah is a high school student with an intellectual disability, so he doesnt

learn as quickly as his classmates. Because of his intellectual disability, he also
doesnt talk very well, so sometimes it is hard to understand what he is saying.
However, he will point or gesture to help people know what he wants. He also
has trouble understanding verbal directions, particularly when the directions
have multiple steps. Noah likes playing the same sports as his classmates,

Self-Efficacy Scale

189

but he does not do very well when playing actual games. Even though he can
run, he is slower than his peers and tires easily. He can throw, but not very
far, and he can catch balls that are tossed directly to him. He likes soccer, but
he cannot kick a ball very far, and he never can remember where to go on the
field. He also likes basketball, but he does not have enough skill to dribble
without losing the ball, and he is not coordinated enough to make a basket. He
also does not really know the rules for basketball or other team sports, and he
easily gets distracted and off task during the game.
Following the vignette, three sets of questions with varying numbers were
presented focusing on how confident the respondent felt in the specific context of
conducting fitness testing (34 questions), teaching sport skills (35 questions), and
organizing the actual playing of a sport (34 questions), totaling 1012 questions in
each scale. Demographic questions were included at the end of the instrument. An
example of a fitness testing question was, How confident are you in your ability to
keep Noah on task during fitness testing? An example of a question targeting teaching
a sport skill was, How confident are you in your ability to modify the actual skills
to help Noah when teaching sport skills? Finally, an example of a question targeting
organizing the actual sport with the class was, How confident are you in your ability
to modify the rules of the game for Noah? As noted above, participants rated their
degree of confidence to complete these situational-specific GPE activities for each
of the targeted disabilities on a scale of 1 (no confidence) to 5 (complete confidence).
Test administration. After receiving approval from the first authors institutional

review board, paper surveys were sent to professors in APE from five universities,
representing four states that had undergraduate PE teacher education programs.
Surveys were administered by professors during APE, PE pedagogy or motor development courses. There was no effort to determine response rate. Rather, professors
informed the lead researcher how many students were in a targeted undergraduate class or who had a minor in APE and that many surveys were then sent to the
professor. In total 486 questionnaires filled in by the PETE majors were collected.

Phase II Data Analysis

The expectationmaximization (EM) algorithm (Dempster, Laird, & Rubin 1977)
was used for estimating missing values in returned questionnaires.
Construct validity. An integrated confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis
approach (CFA and EFA, respectively; see Marsh et al., 2009) was followed. The
data were randomly divided into two (n = 243 cases in each half). Overall, 3.7% of
the values were missing (9 values in the ID scale and 9 values in the PD scale). In
addition, the missing data mechanism was missing completely at random. Because
only a trivial number of values were missing, and the missing pattern was random, it
is reasonable to hypothesize that the remaining cases are representative of the entire
sample and that missing cases are no different than nonmissing cases in terms of
the analysis being performed (Little & Rubin, 1987). Therefore, we implemented
an ad hoc deletion of missing data.
EFA were conducted on the first half of the data (group = 0) and CFA were
conducted on the second half (group = 1). All analyses were conducted separately

190

Block et al.

for each of the three scales (ID, PD, and VI), as each subgroup addressed a different disability context (i.e., one EFA and one CFA were conducted for each of
the three scales).
Exploratory factor analyses. The EFA was conducted via the principal component analyses (PCA) extraction method, followed by orthogonal (varimax) rotation
to maximize variance. Before conducting the PCA, various statistical assumptions
necessary for PCA were tested (Field, 2005). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index
of sampling adequacy was set at > 0.75. Bartletts test of sphericity has to be highly
significant (p < .001; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). In addition, multicollinearity
was examined via the variance inflation factor (VIF). A VIF of > 2.5 and above
might indicate a multicollinearity problem (Allison, 1999). The optimal number
of factors was determined by latent root criteria (eigenvalues > 1.0, the Kaisers
criterion K1) and inspection of the scree plot (Field, 2005; Velicer & Fava, 1998).
Per factor, three variables are the minimum, as a factor with fewer than three items
is generally weak and unstable (Costello & Osborne, 2005). An item with communality of less than 0.40 was removed from the analysis (Velicer & Fava, 1998)
and the PCA was computed again. Crossloading of items was evaluated as well.
A crossloading item was defined as an item that loads at 0.32 or higher on two
or more factors (Costello & Osborne, 2005). Crossloading items were dropped
from the analysis and the PCA was reconducted. In addition, to assess the fit of the
factor models, we examined the differences between the model-based correlations
and the observed correlations. No more than 50% of the residuals should be greater
than 0.05 (Field, 2005). Once no communalities, crossloading or residual issues
were identified, the PCA was completed. The PCA procedure was conducted with
IBM SPSS 15 software (IBM Corporation, NY, USA).
Confirmatory factor analysis. Based on the EFA results, CFA was performed
with IBM SPSS-Amos 19 (IBM Corporation, NY, USA). The goodness-of-fit of
each model was assessed using chi-square, normal fit index (NFI), comparative fit
index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA;
Steiger, 1990). Nonsignificant chi-squares are considered as an acceptable model fit
(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1981). Values greater than 0.90 are considered as an acceptable model fit for the NFI and CFI (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). RMSEA values below
0.05 are considered to reflect good fit to the model, values 0.050.10 moderate
fit, and values greater than 0.10 bad fit (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009).

Results
This section describes the outcomes of the data collection and analysis performed
to establish SE-PETE-Ds construct and predictive validity, following the establishment of the instruments content validity that had been reached within the four
steps of initial instrument development. The total collection of items in the three
separate scales and their loadings is described in Table 1. The items accepted by
the EFA are described in Table 1. In both tables scale items are designated with
alphabetical labels for facilitating orientation throughout the manuscript. These
labels do not necessarily identify similar items across scales.

191

PD

Scales
ID

Modify the actual skills to help Noah when teaching sport skills.

Modify rules of the game for Noah.

Modify equipment to help Ashton when teaching sport skills.

Instruct peers to help Ashton during the game.

Instruct peers to help Ashton when teaching sport skill.

Make modifications to sports skills if Ashton cannot perform sport skills

when teaching sport skills?

Create individual goals for Ashton during fitness testing?

Modify the [fitness] test for Ashton.

variance explained

Modify the test for Noah.

Modify equipment to help Noah when teaching sport skills.

0.13

0.24
0.16

0.92

0.67

0.23

0.10

0.24

0.69

0.24

0.29

0.21

0.80

0.07

F3

0.93

0.20

0.06

33.16%
0.84

0.28

0.45

0.52

0.20

0.39

0.69

0.82

34.97%

0.24

0.55

0.45

0.13

0.64

0.10

Help Noah stay on task when teaching sport skills.

Keep Noah on task during fitness testing.

0.18
0.10

Help Noah stay on task during the game.

Modify your instructions to help Noah understand what to do when teaching

sport skills.

0.01
0.30

0.81
0.78

Instruct peers to help Noah during fitness testing.

Instruct peers to help Noah during the game.

K
0.83

F2
0.13

F1
0.88

Items
Instruct peers to help Noah when teaching sport skills.

Sign
H

Factor Loadings

(continued)

68.14%

Total
variance
explained

Table 1 Factor structures of the Situational-Specific Self-Efficacy and Inclusion Students With Disabilities
in Physical Education by Exploratory Factor Analysis

192

0.68

Modify rules of the game for Ashton.

Modify equipment to help Ashton during the game.

0.24

Instruct peers to help Sofia when teaching sport skills.

Modify the fitness testing requirements for Sofia during fitness testing.

Modify equipment to help Sofia when teaching sport skills.

variance explained

0.23

Instruct peers to help Sofia during the game.

37.07%

0.30

0.28

33.45%

0.28

0.54

0.82

0.84

0.89

0.31
0.16

Instruct peers to help Sofia during fitness testing.

0.57

Modify instructions to help Sofia when teaching sport skills.

0.26
0.30

Modify rules of the game for Sofia.

Make the environment safe for Sofia during fitness testing.

0.76

0.25

0.84

Make the environment safe for Sofia during fitness testing.

0.69

0.21

25.16%

0.30

0.23

0.25

0.89

0.66

0.08
0.17

25.47%

Make the environment safe for Sofia during the game.

variance explained

0.23

Make the environment safe for Ashton during the game.

0.19
0.22

Make the environment safe for Ashton during fitness testing.

Make the environment safe for Ashton when teaching sport skills.

23.80%

0.29

0.09

0.80

0.83

0.88

F3
0.27

F2
0.75

70.52%

74.43%

Total
variance
explained

Notes: ID = intellectual disability; PD = Physical disability, VI = visual impairment; F, Factor; in ID, F1 = peers instruction, F2 = staying on task; in PD F1 = specific
adaptations, F2 = peers instruction, F3 = safety; in VI F1 = specific adaptations, F2 = peers instruction; extraction method-principal component analysis; rotation
method- varimax; factor loadings 0.32 are shown in bold; items which were removed on account of low communality (less than 0.4), crossloading issues (items that
load at 0.32 or higher on two or more factors) and/or collinearity issues are represented in the gray cells. All items start with the phrase How confident are you in your
ability to. Remark: Following items removal, an additional EFA was conducted on each scale. The secondary EFA demonstrated that in the various scales the proportion
and variance explained by each factor did not significantly alter. Additional information and exact results of the secondary EFA analysis will be presented upon request.

VI

F1
0.30

PD
(cont.)

Factor Loadings

Instruct peers to help Ashton during fitness testing.

Sign

Scales

Items

Table 1 (continued)

Self-Efficacy Scale

193

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Before conducting the PCA, we tested several of the statistical assumptions for such
analyses. The KMO index ranged from 0.825 (ID) to 0.870 (VI) and Barletts test
of sphericity was statistically significant (p < .0001). These results indicated that
the sample size was adequate and the extracted factors accounted for substantial
observed variance. The descriptive statistics (mean and STD) of the questionnaires items and scales Cronbachs reliability coefficients are presented in Table
2. Cronbachs alpha reliability for all items in each of the scales was high (for ID
= .86, PD = .90 and VI = .92).
Intellectual Disability (ID) scale. The ID scale originally included 11 items;

however, an initial examination of the items using PCA revealed very low communalities (< 0.4) in items B and I. Subsequent analysis demonstrated that items
A, F, and G were crossloading. Accordingly, items A, B, F, G, and I were removed
from the PCA, and a total of six items were retained in subsequent analyses. The
K1-criterion and scree plot indicated a two-factor solution explaining 68.14%
of the variance. The communalities ranged from 0.49 (item D) to 0.79 (item H).
The first and second factors both consisted of three items each. For factor loadings, see Table 2. Judged by the items content, the first factor was comprised of
items describing Peers Instruction (PI); the second factor was comprised of items
describing Staying on Task (ST).

Physical Disability (PD) scale. The PD scale originally included 12 items;

however, the VIF test indicated a multicollinearity problem in items I and J (VIF
> 2.5). Therefore, these two items were dropped from the analyses, and a total
of 10 items were retained in subsequent analyses. The K1-criterion and the scree
plot resulted in a three-factor solution explaining 74.43% of the variance. After
removing items I and J from the analyses, communalities ranged from 0.57 (item
E) to 0.88 (item L). The first, second, and third factors consist of four, three, and
three items, respectively (see Table 3). The first factor included items addressing
Specific Adaptations (SA); the second factor included items related to Peers
Instruction (PIalso appearing in the ID scale); and the third factor included items
addressing Safety (S).

The VI scale originally included 10 items.

However, item F had a low communality (< 0.4) and therefore was not included
in the PCA, resulting in the retention of nine items in subsequent analyses. The
K1-criterion and the scree plot resulted in a two-factor solution explaining 70.52%
of the variance. The communalities ranged from 0.50 (item C) to 0.84 (item H).
The first factor consisted of five items, whereas the second factor consisted of four
items (see Table 3). Although we labeled the first factor Specific Adaptations (SA),
items H and G were logically more likely to be within the safety factor, which was
not generated in the VI scale. The second factor was labeled Peers Instruction (PI),
but included item B, which was originally intended to be within the ST factor and
was not generated in the VI scale.

Visual Impairment (VI) scale.

194

G
L
H
C
D
F
K
H
G
J
A
D
B
I
E
C

3.95
3.87
3.81
3.81
4.20
4.08
4.07
3.76
3.99
3.78
3.88
3.70
3.96
3.83
3.87
3.89

Mean
3.85
3.97
3.78
3.44
3.78
3.47
3.93
4.10
3.80
0.88
0.83
0.79
0.83
0.84
0.82
0.90
1.08
0.94
0.82
0.96
0.85
0.81
0.88
0.83
0.88

SD
0.81
0.77
0.82
0.83
0.78
0.77
0.82
0.86
0.83
SA
PI
PI
PI
S
S
S
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
PI
PI
PI
PI

PI
PI
PI
ST
ST
ST
SA
SA
SA

0.86

0.88

.84

.89

.81

.73

.81

Scale

Legend: ID, Intellectual disability; PD, physical disability; VI, visual impairment; PI, peers instruction; S, safety; SA, specific adaptations; ST, staying on task; STD,
standard deviation.

VI

PD

Sign
H
C
K
J
D
E
B
A
E

Scale
ID

Item
Instruct peers to help Noah, when teaching sport skills.
Instruct peers to help Noah during fitness testing.
Instruct peers to help Noah during the game.
Help Noah stay on task during the game.
Modify your instructions to help Noah understand what to do when teaching sport skills.
Help Noah stay on task when teaching sport skills.
To Modify the [fitness] test for Ashton.
Create individual goals for Ashton during fitness testing?
Make modifications to sports skills if Ashton cannot perform sport skills when teaching
sport skills?
Modify equipment to help Ashton when teaching sport skills.
Instruct peers to help Ashton when during the game.
Instruct peers to help Ashton when teaching sport skill.
Instruct peers to help Ashton during fitness testing.
Make the environment safe for Ashton during fitness testing.
Make the environment safe for Ashton when teaching sport skills.
Make the environment safe for Ashton during the game.
Make the environment safe for Sofia during the game.
Make the environment safe for Sofia during fitness testing.
Modify rules of the game for Sofia.
Make the environment safe for Sofia during fitness testing.
Modify instructions to help Sofia when teaching sport skills.
Instruct peers to help Sofia during fitness testing.
Instruct peers to help Sofia during the game.
Instruct peers to help Sofia when teaching sport skills.
Modify the fitness testing requirements for Sofia during fitness testing.

Descriptive Statistics of Scale Items and Cronbachs Reliability

Table 2

Self-Efficacy Scale

195

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFA were performed for the models that were found by EFA. The results of the
CFA can be seen in Figure 1. To improve the model-data fit, the Amos software
automatically created a modification index, which suggested several errors
(residuals, designated as an e + number in Figure 1) to be correlated. These correlated variables share some content, such as, for example, the instruction in items
K and D and the game in items K and J of the ID scale (see Table 2).
Although the chi-square was significant (compromising model fit) in all models
except for the ID, other goodness of fit measures demonstrated acceptable model
fit. For instance, in the three evaluated models the NFI and CFI exceeded the 0.90
cutoff criteria. Moreover, in the ID subgroup the RMSEA demonstrated good fit,
whereas in the PD and in the VI subgroups only moderate fit.
To better understand the reduced model fit in the PD and VI subgroups, an
EFA was conducted to the group that was used in the CFA (group = 1). The results
suggested that there was an agreement between group 0 and group 1 in the EFA
regarding the number of factors and the items in each factor. However, the order of
the items in each factor in terms of loading was not always similar (see Table 3).

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to create and validate the content and construct of a
new disability-specific self-efficacy instrument labeled SE-PETE-D, comprised of
three disability specific scales addressing the ID, PD, and VI conditions. As reported
in the Methods section regarding the first stage of the instrument development, content validity of these scales was established by an expert panel. Cronbachs reliability
analyses, performed in each of the factors and the total s generated, confirmed their
internal consistency after deleting items that did not satisfy statistical requirements.
The factor structure, which appeared in each of the scales during Phase II, in both
the EFA and the CFA, was not consistent with the PE situational contexts developed
in Phase I. However, these scales generated factors consisting of groups of items
representing what good physical educators do while engaging in such situations,
which were proposed in Step 2 of Phase I. In total, four factors were generated: (a)
instructing peers to assist the student with disability (PI), across all three scales; (b)
coping with specific adaptation requirements (SA) across the ID and VI scales; (c)
assuring the safety of the students with disability (S), only in the PD scale; and (d)
adapting instructions to keep students with disability staying on task (ST), only in
the PD scale. The generation of these factors provides, for the first time, empirical
evidence for what PETE majors perceive as significant expertise domains while
considering inclusion of students with disabilities in general PE classes. The linking of residuals performed according to the modification index proposed within
the CFA procedure also represents cross-factorial relationships, such as specific
adaptations and peer instruction items to the VI scale, which represent the intensive
use of peer instruction while including students with VI (Lieberman et al., 2006).
Overall, the statistical procedures indicated good data model fit in the ID scale
and moderate-to-good data model fit in the PD and VI scales.
In the following sections, the factors and items of each scale will be discussed
according to the frequency in which they appear in the scale: Peer instruction (all

196

Figure 1 1a: Intellectual disability scale; 1b: Physical disability scale; 1c: Visual impairment scale.

197

H
K

D
K

Group 1

Factor 3
Group 0

A
D

Group 1

Group 0

Factor 1

Group 0

Group 1

Factor 2

Visual Impairment (Factor Loadings)

Notes. Group 0 represents the exploratory factor analysis that was conducted on the first half of the data; group 1 represents the confirmatory factor analysis that was
conducted on the second half of the data; shaded cells represent misfit between groups 0 and 1 in items factor loadings order; item labels appear in Table 1.

Group 1

Factor 2

Group 0

Group 1

Factor 1

Group 0

Physical Disability (Factor Loadings)

Table 3 Physical Disability and Visual Impairment Subgroups Items Order (From the Highest to the Lowest
Factor Loadings) in Subgroups 0 and 1

198

Block et al.

three scales), followed by specific adaptations (in PD and VI), and then safety
and staying on task, which only appear in one of each condition (VI and ID,
respectively).

Peers Instruction (PI)

This factor was validated in all three scales across all three contexts. The usefulness of instructing peers to assist students with disability has been demonstrated
in many scholarly contributions (see a summary review in Block & Obrusnikova,
2007). Thus, it is important for PETE graduates to master the peer tutoring process. Utilizing peers as a natural support might facilitate interactions between
students with and without disabilities, while also providing individualized teaching
instructions (Block, 2007; Klavina & Block, 2008; Murata & Jansma, 1997). More
specifically, using peer rather than adult support is important when addressing the
behavior change goals (Block & Zeman, 1996; Slininger, Sherrill, & Jankowski,
2000; Vogler, Koranda, & Romance 2000). Studies demonstrated that peer tutoring
can be effective in increasing physical participation, instructional assistance and
positive social interactions for students with severe ID and PD (Klavina & Block,
2008), and in increasing active learning time and skilled performance in students
with VI (Wiskochil, Lieberman, Houston-Wilson, & Petersen, 2007). Having a
valid instrument for assessing the SE of PETE in peer tutoring may be useful in
both teaching design and program assessment.

Specific Adaptations (SA)

The outcomes of our analysis grouped SE perceptions toward adapting tasks, environment, methods and equipment while including students with PD and VI (e.g.,
Block, 2007; Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 2011; van Lent, 2006) in a factor
labeled specific adaptations (SA). Recent surveys done in Eastern and Western
European countries demonstrated that PE teachers have a lack of knowledge on how
to adequately adapt the environment and the limited resources to acquire adapted
equipment when including students with disabilities (Klavina & Kudlacek, 2011).
In the VI scale, SA items reflected all three contextual frameworks. However, in
the PD scale (unlike the PI and S contextual frameworks), SA items reflected only
the contexts of fitness testing and skill instructions, probably due to the omission of
items I and J (confidence in the ability to modify rules of the game and equipment
to help during the game, respectively). From the EFA it appeared that the omitted
items were interrelated. A revised description of adaptation within the game context
for PD is warranted and should be included in future research.

Safety (S)
This factor was considered for the PD and VI scales, and confirmed by CFA across
all three situational contexts only in PD. Accommodating students with PD has
been reported to cause instructional and safety concerns, particularly when creating
modifications to team sports such as basketball and soccer (Casebolt & Hodge,
2010). The construction of a specific factor accounting for SE while adapting
safety precautions during the preparation of PETE majors to inclusion of students

Self-Efficacy Scale

199

with PD appears very useful for assisting practitioners to maintain an accountable

teaching framework. In the VI scale three items including safety statements (A,G,
and H) were included in the SA factor, probably due to prioritizing the need of
modification in these items, while PETE programs were envisioning these tasks.
This ambiguity was also demonstrated in the modification index generated in
this scale, which linked interfactorial item residuals. Further work is required to
enable the construction of safety precautions within the adaptations provided for
students with VI.

Staying on Task (ST)

This factor was generated only in the ID scale. Children with ID have been reported
to be lacking the motivation to maintain sport activity or a designated exercise
protocol for sufficient periods of time (Fernhall, Tymeson, & Donaldson, 1988;
Fernhall, Tymeson, Millar, & Burkett, 1989; Vashdi, Hutzler, & Roth, 2008). Similarly, Temple and Walkley (1999) found that children with ID were less physically
active compared with their peers without ID in inclusive PE settings. Therefore,
having a specific factor in the ID scale focusing on keeping their attention on task
reflects a major teaching concern for general physical educators. The scale items
confirmed in this study exhibit contexts of skill learning and game participation, but
not of fitness testing, where item A (keeping on task during fitness testing) had to
be excluded due to high overlapping variance with the PI factor. This overlapping
may be due to using peer tutoring while keeping the participant with ID on task
during training and measuring fitness (Stanish & Temple, 2012). Clarifying this
aspect requires future research and is warranted due to the importance of fitness in
school children with ID (Sit, McManus, McKenzie, & Lian, 2007).

Limitations
The preliminary phase of construction of the SE-PETE-D was based on collective
assumptions and an item pool regarding all types of disabilities included in the three
scales. This may have impacted the need to delete some of the items in each scale.
A differential and specific construction of item pools for each disability may have
changed the structure of the final scale and should be explored in future studies.
A primary consideration in scale development is the choice of the number of
response categories (Shaftel, Nash, & Gillmor, 2012). Accordingly, it has been
argued that the number of response categories is an important factor influencing the
scales reliability, validity, and stability (Andrews, 1984; Comrey, 1988; Preston,
& Colman, 2000). However, others have also stated that after four or five response
categories, the benefits to reliability obtained from additional scale points diminishes
(Andrews, 1984; Lozano, Garcia-Cuento, & Muniz, 2008). Our scale construction
followed this rationale. Due to the need to further validate the PD and VI scales,
more responses may be expected in future research.
Another concern was that the modification index proposed in the CFA Models
included linking of residuals across factors in the PD and VI scales. However, this
appears to be related to the complex interaction of adaptations required in these
situations for enhancing learning and performance of both the students with and
those without the disability, while assuring their safety.

200

Block et al.

Conclusion
In agreement with Banduras postulation of situation and context specificity,
it appears that indeed the scales of the SE-PETE-D instrument each have a
unique structure based on differences in how respondents perceive the attributes
of each disability and the impact of these attributes on the inclusion practice.
These scales should be further explored with GPE and APE PETE students and
PE practitioners. Furthermore, revised versions of the scales may include more
detailed vignettes to increase the consistency of disability perception by respondents (e.g., various mobility patterns in PD). Nevertheless, the individual factors
internal consistency (Cronbach reliability) ranged from .73 to .89, which is
acceptable to good. Therefore, these particular scales with the items confirmed
exhibit significant construct validity evidence; however, to be used for exploring
the impact of different programs on SE in PETE students, more external validation studies are required.

Recommendations for Future Research

Based on the findings of this study, it is suggested that all three scales of the SEPETE-D can be used to identify the discriminative power of demographic variables
hypothesized to be meaningful predictors of PETE majors SE, including teaching
experience, academic course work, practicum and nonteaching specific exposure to
students with disability. In addition, the results of this study imply several follow-up
research studies to further understand the SE of PETE students toward including
students with disabilities. Specifically, research should compare PETE students
who had an undergraduate minor in APE and the more traditional PETE programs
that provide only one APE course. It would seem rather obvious that students
who minor in APE would have more course work and practical experiences with
students with disabilities, and as a result students with APE minors should have
higher levels of self-efficacy toward inclusion.
In addition, qualitative studies using interviews and focus groups are needed to
better understand the reasons behind self-efficacy of PETE students. For example,
what specific information, readings or practical experiences had the greatest impact
on self-efficacy toward inclusion, and why? What elements in the PETE training
program were missing that PETE students believe would improve self-efficacy
toward inclusion? These more detailed questions would provide a deeper understanding of how PETE programs can contribute to the development of self-efficacy.
It would be particularly interesting to interview students who have an APE minor
and to have them explain in more detail which coursework and experiences were
most helpful when it came to accommodating students with disabilities who are
included in GPE. While some experiences may be helpful in understanding and
feeling comfortable with students with disabilities in general (e.g., working with
a child one-on-one in a laboratory setting), are there specific experiences or activities that help PETE students learn how to include one child with a disability into
a GPE class?
Third, research should examine the effects of a specific APE course on improving self-efficacy of PETE students toward inclusion. As noted earlier, the typical
model for PETE programs is to have one APE course, and it is assumed that this

Self-Efficacy Scale

201

one course adequately prepares PETE students to accommodate students with disabilities into GPE classes. Most would agree that one APE course is not enough to
prepare PETE students for inclusion, particularly when the course is a survey course
that focuses on information about disability (e.g., what is cerebral palsy, what is
an intellectual disability) rather than the constraints presented by these disabilities
and how to accommodate these students with these disabilities in GPE. Interesting
research could focus on prepost self-efficacy after an APE course. Further research
could examine prepost self-efficacy in APE courses that are more general in content
compared with those which have a more practical focus.
Finally, research should examine the effects of a practicum experience on
self-efficacy toward inclusion. There is no doubt that hands-on experience with
children with disabilities will improve the understanding and comfort level of PETE
students toward students with disabilities (Hodge, Davis, Woodard, & Sherrill,
2002; Hodge & Jansma, 1999; Hodge, Tannehill, & Kluge, 2003). However, does
a one-on-one experience in a university-based swim-and-gym program help PETE
students develop the skills (and ultimately the self-efficacy) toward including one
child with a disability into a GPE class of 3040 students without disabilities?
Again, such information could be obtained from survey data collected prepost
practicum experiences. However, it would be interesting to include interviews of
students to determine what specifically in their practicum did they find most helpful, and how the practical experiences could be modified to better prepare PETE
students for inclusion.
Acknowledgment
Authors would like to thank Professor Gershon Tenenbaum from the College of Education,
Florida State University for his constructive remarks concerning the statistical analysis.

References
Allison, P.D. (1999). Logistic regression using the SAS System: Theory and application.
Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Ammah, J.O., & Hodge, S.R. (2006). Secondary physical education teachers beliefs and
practices in teaching students with severe disabilities: A descriptive analysis. High
School Journal, 89(2), 4054. doi:10.1353/hsj.2005.0019
Andrews, F.M. (1984). Construct validity and error components of survey measures: a structural modeling approach. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 409442. doi:10.1086/268840
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., et al. (1976).
Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority
schools (Rep. No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers sense of efficacy and
student achievement. New York: Longman.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191, PMid:847061.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentive perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 126. PubMed doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307337). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.

202

Block et al.

Bentler P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,

107, 238-246.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238, PMid:2320703
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis
of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588606. doi:10.1037/00332909.88.3.588
Blinde, E.M., & McCallister, S.G. (1998). Listening to the voices of students with physical
disabilities. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69(6), 6468.
Block, M.E. (2007). A teachers guide to including students with disabilities in general
physical education (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Block, M.E., & Rizzo, T.L. (1995). Attitudes and attributes of GPE teachers associated with
teaching individuals with severe and profound disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 8087.
Block, M.E., & Zeman, R. (1996). Including children with disabilities in regular physical education: Effects on nondisabled children. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 3849.
Block, M.E., & Obrusnikova, I. (2007). Inclusion in physical education: A review of the
literature from 1995-2005. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24, 103124. PubMed
Camerini, A. (September, 2011). Full inclusion in Italy: A radical reform. Paper presented
at the Conference on Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities. Moscow.
Casebolt, K.M., & Hodge, S.R. (2010). High school physical education teachers beliefs about
teaching students with mild to severe disabilities. Physical Educator, 67(3), 140156.
Chandler, J.P., & Greene, J.L. (1995). A statewide survey of adapted physical education
service delivery and teacher in-service training. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
12, 262274.
Comrey, A.L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 754761. PubMed
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.56.5.754
Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J.W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 10(7), http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7.
Dempster, A.P., Laird, N.M., & Rubin, D.B. (1977). Maximum Likelihood from incomplete
data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B. Methodological, 39(1), 138 (Methodological).
DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. London: Sage Publications.
Downs, P., & Williams, T. (1994). Student attitudes toward integration of people with
disabilities in activity settings: A European comparison. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 11, 3243.
Feltz, D., Short, S.E., & Sullivan, P.J. (2008). Self-efficacy in sport. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Fernhall, B., Tymeson, G.T., & Donaldson, E. (1988). Cardiovascular fitness of the mentally
retarded. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 5, 1228.
Fernhall, B., Tymeson, G.T., Millar, L., & Burkett, L.W. (1989). Cardiovascular fitness testing and fitness levels of adults with mental retardation, including Downs syndrome.
Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 133138.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Filipcic, T. (2006). Zagotavljanje kompetentnosti bodocih sportnih pedagogov pogoji za
uspesno inkluzijo. In M. Kovac & A. Rot (Eds.), Zbornik referatov 19. Strokovni
posvet Zveze drusev sportnih pedagogov (pp. 3033). Ljubljana: ZDSPS.
Goodwin, D.L., & Watkinson, E.J. (2000). Inclusive physical education from the perspective of students with physical disabilities. Adapted Physical Education Quarterly, 17,
144160.

Self-Efficacy Scale

203

Hardin, B. (2005). Physical education teachers reflections on preparation for inclusion.

Physical Educator, 62(1), 4456.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., & Babin, B.J., & Anderson R.E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Herold, F., & Dandolo, J. (2009). Including visually impaired students in physical education lessons: a case study of teacher and pupil experiences. British Journal of Visual
Impairment, 27(1), 7584. doi:10.1177/0264619608097744
Hodge, S. (1998). Prospective physical education teachers attitudes toward teaching students
with disabilities. Physical Educator, 55(2), 6877.
Hodge, R., Davis, R., Woodard, R., & Sherrill, C. (2002). Comparison of practicum types in
changing pre-service teachers attitudes and perceived competence. Adapted Physical
Activity Quarterly, 19, 155171.
Hodge, S.R., & Jansma, P. (1999). Effects of contact time and location of practicum experiences on attitudes of physical education majors. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
16, 4863.
Hodge, S.R., Tannehill, D., & Kluge, M.A. (2003). Exploring the meaning of practicum
experiences for PETE students. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 381399.
Hutzler, Y. (2003). Attitudes toward the participation of individuals with disabilities in
physical activity: a review. Quest, 55, 347373. doi:10.1080/00336297.2003.10491809
Hutzler, Y., Fliess, O., Chacham, A., & Van den Auweele, Y. (2002). Perspectives of children
with physical disabilities on inclusion and empowerment: Supporting and limiting
factors. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 300317.
Hutzler, Y., Zach, S., & Gafni, O. (2005). Physical education students attitudes and self- efficacy towards the participation of children with special needs in regular classes. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(3), 309327. doi:10.1080/08856250500156038
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: analysis of linear structural relationships
by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago: National Educational Resources.
Klavina, A., & Block, M. (2008). The effect of peer tutoring on interaction behaviors in inclusive physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 25, 132158. PubMed
Klavina, A., & Kudlacek, M. (2011). Physical education for students with special education needs in Europe: Findings of the EUSAPA Project. European Journal of Adapted
Physical Activity, 4(2), 4662.
Kodish, S., Kulinna, P.H., Martin, J., Pangrazi, R., & Darst, P. (2006). Determinants of physical activity in an inclusive setting. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 23, 390409.
Konza, D. (2008). Inclusion of students with disabilities in new times: Responding to the
challenge. In P. Kell, W. Vialle, D. Konza, & G. Vogle, (Eds.) (2008). Learner and
the learner: exploring learning for new times. University of Wollongong (pp. 39-64).
Available from http://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/36/.
Kowalski, E.M., & Rizzo, T.L. (1996). Factors influencing preservice student attitudes
toward individuals with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 180196.
LaMaster, K., Gall, K., Kinchin, G., & Siedentop, D. (1998). Inclusion practices of effective
elementary specialists. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 15, 6481.
Lepore, M., Gayle, G.W., & Stevens, S.F. (1998). Adapted aquatics programming; A professional guide. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lieberman, L., & Houston-Wilson, C. (2011). Strategies for inclusion: A handbook for
physical educator (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lieberman, L.J., Robinson, B.L., & Rollheiser, H. (2006). Youth with visual impairments:
experiences in general physical education. Rehabilitation and Education for Blindness
and Visual Impairment, 38(1), 3548. doi:10.3200/REVU.38.1.35-48
Lienert, C., Sherrill, C., & Myers, B. (2001). Physical educators concerns about integrating children with disabilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 18, 117.

204

Block et al.

Little, R.J.A., & Rubin, D.B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Lozano, L.M., Garcia-Cuento, E., & Muniz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response
categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology, 4, 7379.
Marsh, H.W., Muthn, B., Asparouhov, A., Ldtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A.J.S., &
Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and
EFA: Application to students evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation
Modeling, 16, 439476. doi:10.1080/10705510903008220
Martin, J.J., & Hodges Kulinna, P.H. (2003). The development of a physical education teachers self-efficacy instrument. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 219232.
Martin, J. J., & Kulinna, P. H. (2004). Self-efficacy theory and the theory of planned behavior:
Teaching physically active physical education classes. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 75, 288-297. PMid:15487292.
Martin, J.J., & Kulinna, P.H. (2005). A social cognitive perspective of physical-activityrelated behavior in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
24, 265281.
Ministry of Education and Human Resources. (2007). Special education annual report to
congress. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Education and Human Resources.
Murata, N.M., & Jansma, P. (1997). Influence of support personnel on students with and
without disabilities in general physical education. Clinical Kinesiology, 51(2), 3746.
Myers, N.D., Feltz, D.L., & Wolfe, E.W. (2008). A confirmatory study of rating scale category effectiveness for the coaching efficacy scale. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 79, 300311. PubMed doi:10.5641/193250308X13086832905752
Myers, N.D., Wolfe, E.W., & Feltz, D.L. (2005). An evaluation of the psychometric properties of the coaching efficacy scale for American coaches. Measurement in Physical
Education and Exercise Science, 9, 135160. doi:10.1207/s15327841mpee0903_1
Place, K., & Hodge, S.R. (2001). Social inclusion of students with physical disabilities in
GPE: A behavioral analysis. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18, 389404.
Preston, C.C., & Colman, A.M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating
scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta
Psychologica, 104, 115. PubMed doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5
Rizzo, T.L. (1984). Attitudes of physical educators toward teaching handicapped pupils.
Adapted Physical Education Quarterly, 1, 267274.
Rizzo, T.L., & Kirkendall, D.R. (1995). Teaching students with mild disabilities: What affects
attitudes of future physical educators. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12, 205216.
Rizzo, R.L., & Vispoel, W.P. (1991). Physical educators attributes and attitudes toward teaching students with handicaps. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8, 411.
Roll-Peterson, L. (2008). Teachers perceived efficacy and the inclusion of a pupil with
dyslexia or mild mental retardation: Findings from Sweden. Education and Training
in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 174185.
Shaftel, J., Nash, B.L., & Gillmor, S.C. (2012, April). Effects of the number of response
categories on rating scales. Roundtable presented at the Annual Conference of the
American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, April 15th.
Sit, C.H., McManus, A., McKenzie, T.L., & Lian, J. (2007). Physical activity levels of
children in special schools. Preventive Medicine, 45, 424431. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.
ypmed.2007.02.003
Slininger, D., Sherrill, C., & Jankowski, C.M. (2000). Childrens attitudes towards classmates with severe disabilities: Revisiting contact theory. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 17, 176196.
Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special education referral. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 6681.
doi:10.1177/002246699302700105

Self-Efficacy Scale

205

Stanish, H.I., & Temple, V.A. (2012). Efficacy of a peer-guided exercise programme for
adolescents with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual
Disabilities, 25, 319328. PubMed doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2011.00668.x
Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173180. 10.1207/
s15327906mbr2502_4.
Stephanou, G., & Tsapakidou, A. (2007). Teachers teaching styles and self-efficacy in
physical education. The International Journal of Learning, 14(8), 112.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Temple, V.A., & Walkley, J.W. (1999). Academic learning time physical education (ALTPE) of students with mild intellectual disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
16, 6475.
United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional
Protocol.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). To assure the free appropriate public education of all
children with disabilities: Twenty-eighth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC.
van Lent, M. (Ed.). (2006). Count me in: A guide to inclusive physical activity, sport and
leisure for children with a disability. Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
Vashdi, E., Hutzler, Y., & Roth, D. (2008). Compliance of children with moderate to severe
intellectual disability to treadmill walking: A pilot study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52, 371-379. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2007.01034.x, PMid:18179510.
Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor
pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3, 231-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082989X.3.2.231, doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1, PMid:11148297
Vogler, E.W., Koranda, P., & Romance, T. (2000). Including children with severe cerebral
palsy in physical education: A case study. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17,
161175.
Wiskochil, B., Lieberman, L.J., Houston-Wilson, C., & Petersen, S. (2007). The effects of
trained peer tutors on the physical education of children who are visually impaired.
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 101, 339350.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Davis, H.A. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the
achievement of adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of
adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 117137). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.