689904 research-article2017
JVI0010.1177/0264619617689904British Journal of Visual ImpairmentBrian et al.
BJVI
Research Article
Construct validity and reliability of the Test of Perceived Motor Competence for children with visual impairments
British Journal of Visual Impairment 2017, Vol. 35(2) 113–119 © The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619617689904 DOI: 10.1177/0264619617689904 journals.sagepub.com/home/jvi
Ali Brian
University of South Carolina, USA
Laura Bostick
Louisiana Tech University, USA
Sally Taunton and Adam Pennell University of South Carolina, USA
Abstract The Test of Perceived Motor Competence for children with visual impairments (TPMC-VI) is currently content validated. Further validation and reliability were needed to report the psychometric properties of the TPMC-VI; therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the construct validity and the internal consistency for the TPMC-VI. Children aged 3–8 years with visual impairments completed the TPMC-VI with assistance from their parents or members of the research team. Results indicated that the TPMC-VI is a valid and reliable (α = .68) assessment. Researchers and practitioners can confidently use the TPMC-VI to evaluate children’s perceived motor competence. Keywords Blindness, disability, motor competence, motor development, self-efficacy
Perceived motor competence (PMC), or one’s thoughts or beliefs in personal ability to perform gross motor skills (e.g. running, skipping, or hopping), may be one of the most powerful predictors of physical activity in children, adolescents, and youth (Babic et al., 2014). Participating in physical activity on a regular basis promotes health-related fitness and can combat negative effects Corresponding author: Ali Brian, Department of Physical Education and Athletic Training, University of South Carolina, 1300 Wheat Street, Suite 218, Columbia, SC 29208, USA. Email:
[email protected]
114
British Journal of Visual Impairment 35(2)
associated with obesity and a sedentary lifestyle (Robinson et al., 2015). Unfortunately, many young children with visual impairments demonstrate low levels of physical activity (Haegele & Porretta, 2015). Children with visual impairments are almost twice as likely to be overweight or obese than peers who are sighted (Weil et al., 2002). As a mechanism to combat obesity, intervention strategies are needed to increase physical activity levels and decrease sedentary behaviors of children with visual impairments. Frequently, physical activity interventions focus on improving acute participation in moderateto-vigorous physical activity (MVPA; Haegele & Porretta, 2015) and/or developing gross motor skills (Haegele, Brian, & Goodway, 2015). To drive children’s future choices with regard to MVPA, interventions should promote PMC as well (Babic et al., 2014; Robinson et al., 2015; Stodden et al., 2008). Individuals with higher levels of PMC often persist with tasks that may be perceived as challenging (Harter, 1978), such as vigorous physical activity or games/sports that require gross motor skill competence. In addition, higher levels of PMC associate with an increased likelihood of choosing to participate in physical activity throughout the life span (Robinson et al., 2015). Few interventions exist for promoting physical activity in youth with visual impairments (Haegele & Porretta, 2015) and most do not promote PMC (Brian, Haegele, & Bostick, 2016a; Brian, Haegele, Lieberman, & Bostick, 2016b). Regardless, assessing PMC levels of young children with visual impairments may be challenging due to a lack of available valid and reliable instruments (Brian et al., 2016a, 2016b). The Pictorial Scales for Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance Perceived Physical Competence (PPC) subscale (Harter & Pike, 1984) is consistently used as an assessment of PMC for young children who are sighted. The PPC is valid and reliable, but features pictorial plates as its mode of delivery (Harter & Pike, 1984), making it unsuitable for children with visual impairments. The PPC requires modification before assessing the PMC of young children with visual impairments. In 2016, Brian and colleagues modified the PPC by developing and validating the Test of Perceived Motor Competence for children with visual impairments (TPMC-VI; Brian et al., 2016b). Reliability data were not obtained during the initial validation of the TPMC-VI. Obtaining reliability data is necessary to produce psychometric instruments of the highest quality (Ary, Jacobs, Sorenson, & Walker, 2013). Reliability refers to the extent to which an assessment tool generates results consistently either within a sample or across multiple data points (Ary et al., 2013). Instruments can be reliably good (producing accurate results over and over) or reliably bad (failing to produce accurate results over and over) (Ary et al., 2013). Reliability should only be determined after validity is established (Ary et al., 2013). Validity refers to the extent to which an instrument measures what it originally intended to assess (Ary et al., 2013). Validity can be established in a wide variety of ways including face and content validity (e.g. does the assessment appear to address the constructs as intended) and also through construct validity. Construct validity provides an estimation evaluating the extent to which individual items load into one factor. For example, do the six items of the TPMC-VI load as one factor, PMC? Brian and colleagues provided an estimation of content validity for the TPMC-VI in 2016b. Further validity evidence is also needed to strengthen the psychometric properties for the TPMC-VI. Therefore, the purpose of this study was twofold: to establish the construct validity for the TPMC-VI and to assess the internal consistency of the TPMC-VI to provide an estimate for its reliability.
Methods Participants and procedures Prior to the start of this study, the University Review Board approved all procedures. Parents provided informed consent for their children (N = 32) to participate. We secured our convenience
Brian et al.
115
sample in one of two ways: email recruitment via online listserv for parents of children who are visually impaired (anonymized per institutional review board [IRB] request; n = 17) or through existing contacts of members of the research team (n = 15). Our sample (N = 32, girls = 19, boys = 13, Mage = 59.95 ± 16.11 months) included mostly Caucasian participants (Caucasian = 69%, Asian = 13%, African-American = 6%, Hispanic = 3%, and other = 8%). In all, 12 participants were co-morbid with other documented disabilities (autism spectrum disorders = 4, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD] = 4, epilepsy = 2, other health impairment = 2). The majority of the sample (n = 19; 60%) had a congenital visual impairment. A total of 26 participants attend public/private schools (81%), with two attending a home school and four a school for the deaf and blind. A total of 25 participants utilized a cane for orientation and mobility. Participants’ levels of visual impairment were classified based on the United States Association of Blind Athletes (USABA) system. Within the USABA classification system, levels of visual impairment range from B1 to B4. B1 (n = 16) corresponds to little to no light perception, inability to recognize a hand; B2 (n = 6) is better than B1 up to 20/600, with a visual field less than 5 degrees with the best corrective lens); B3 (n = 6) is 20/600–20/200 with a visual field greater than 5 degrees and less than 20 with the best eye and corrective lens; and B4 (n = 4), is 20/200–20/70 with a visual field larger than 20 with the best eye and corrective lens. Children recruited from the parent listserv filled out an online version of the TPMC-VI with their parents. We provided explicit instructions to the parents that identically matched all procedures on the TPMC-VI manual (Brian et al., 2016b). Parents then filled in all child responses along with demographic information online; the results were disseminated to the research team via SurveyMonkey. Participants recruited from personal contacts completed the TPMC-VI at a center for the blind in a quiet room with a member of the research team. Members of the research team obtained self-reported demographic information directly from all participants. All members of the research team possessed either a doctorate in Kinesiology with special emphasis in motor development and adapted physical education or were doctoral students studying motor development/ adapted physical education at the time of data collection. According to SurveyMonkey records and in corroboration with records from the research team, the TPMC-VI required approximately 10– 15 min for completion. Participants completed the TPMC-VI one time.
Instrumentation All participants completed the TPMC-VI (Brian et al., 2016b). The TPMC-VI is a modification from the PPC (Harter & Pike, 1984). The PPC is valid and reliable for assessing PMC of young children. The PPC includes pictorial plates for six global measures of motor proficiency (shoe tying, climbing bars, swinging on a swingset, running, skipping, and hopping) upon which children gauge decisions. While looking at the plate, the test administrator says to the child, “This boy (girl) is very good at climbing, while this boy (girl) is not very good. Which one is like you?” The child points to a picture. The administrator next states, “Is that really true or sort of true for you?” If a child picks the plate that is not very good and then responds with that being really true, the child scores a “1” and with sort of true being a “2.” If the child picks the plate that is very good and corresponds with really true or sort of true, then the child scores a “4” or a “3,” respectively. The six items within the TPMC-VI are identical to the items within the PPC. The TPMC-VI includes vignettes derived from the original picture plates found within the PPC and uses the same scoring structure. The administrator begins by asking whether the child is familiar with the skill. If the child says yes, then the administrator moves directly to the vignette. If the child says no, the administrator provides the scripted description of the skill content located within the TPMC-VI (Brian et al., 2016b). After the description of the skill, the administrator then reads the vignette. This procedure, which is different than the PPC (the child’s familiarity with the skill is not assessed
116
British Journal of Visual Impairment 35(2)
Table 1. Correlation matrix for six items from the TPMC-VI. Item
Swingset
Climbing
Swingset Climbing Shoe tying Skipping Running Hopping
1.00 .35** .11 .39** .31* .30*
1.00 .36** .30* .20 .10
Shoe tying
1.00 .40** .22 −.07
Skipping
1.00 .22 .44**
Running
Hopping
1.00 .34**
1.00
**p
