- Home
- Physical Education
- Physical Activity and Health
- Coaching and Officiating
- Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment
Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment
by Michael Horvat, Luke E. Kelly, Martin E. Block and Ron Croce
296 Pages
Assessment in adapted physical education is not a simple task. Variables in assessment instruments and in the administration and interpretation of tests can sometimes generate more questions than answers.
That’s why special education and adapted physical activity teachers have come to rely on Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment.
Now in its second edition, this is the one of the only textbooks that focuses solely on assessment, providing valuable and in-depth clarity, guidance, and understanding in the principles and practical applications of assessment.
Thorough Examination of the Assessment Process
Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment details the assessment process, explains how to use assessment data when making programming decisions, and reviews specific assessment tools for adapted physical educators and physical therapists. It describes assessment concepts and procedures and provides the information teachers need to accurately assess their students with disabilities.
Written by four of the most experienced and trusted specialists in adapted physical activity, Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment
• walks you systematically through the assessment cycle from beginning to end, providing accountability for all involved;
• helps you assess the whole student—including social, affective, physical, and cognitive domains—to spur development to its fullest potential;
• compares and contrasts existing assessment tools;
• offers in-depth case studies in each chapter to reinforce and enhance understanding of real-world challenges; and
• includes appendixes with sample write-ups of different assessments.
The case studies present assessment problems that focus on real-life situations that teachers encounter daily. These case studies will help teachers learn how to identify which test to use and why. In addition, each chapter supplies key terms, key concepts, and review questions.
New to This Edition
The authors have updated all the chapters to reflect the latest research, regulations, and standards—all information in the text adheres to the newest National Standards for K-12 Physical Education. The updates also emphasize the decisions made in the assessment process and articulate the rationale behind educational decisions. Updated reviews of specific assessment tools emphasize key points where needed and reflect new information based on the most recent versions of the tests.
In addition, Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment offers the following:
• A new chapter on assessing sensory function and cognition
• New information about concussions (one of the most common issues that physical educators encounter) and how to assess them
• A new web resource featuring digital versions of the assessment forms in the book and links to assessment tools, with suggestions for their use
• A new glossary to help with the understanding and study of terms
Guide to Multiple Assessments
This text will guide teachers in developing written recommendations regarding placemennt and instructional programming for
• motor development and motor skill performance,
• physical fitness,
• sensory function and cognition,
• posture and gait, and
• behavior and social competencies.
Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment helps teachers know what tests to use on what people, how to administer the tests, how to interpret the results, and how to plan appropriately for their students.
Chapter 1. Who You Are Assessing
Chapter 2. Why You Are Assessing
Chapter 3. Getting to Know the Student
Chapter 4. Selecting an Appropriate Assessment Instrument
Chapter 5. Selecting and Administering Tests
Chapter 6. Assessing Motor Development and Motor Skill Performance
Chapter 7. Assessing Physical Fitness
Chapter 8. Assessing Posture and Gait
Chapter 9. Assessing Perception and Cognition
Chapter 10. Assessing Behavior and Social Competence
Appendix A. Sample Write-Up for Infant and Early Childhood Motor Development Tests
Appendix B. Sample Write-Up for Fundamental Motor Patterns Tests
Appendix C. Sample Write-Up for Motor Proficiency Tests
Appendix D. Sample Write-Up for Sports Skills Tests
Michael Horvat, EdD, is a professor of adapted physical education and motor behavior at the University of Georgia, where he is also the director of the Movement Studies Laboratory and the Pediatric Exercise and Motor Development Clinic. Dr. Horvat is extensively published, having authored numerous books, monographs, chapters in books, and articles in dozens of refereed journal publications. He is also a highly sought-after speaker, having presented at more than 100 international and domestic conferences.
Dr. Horvat has been elected to many boards and councils and has professional affiliations with a number of organizations, including the International Society of Adapted Physical Activity, the North American Federation of Adapted Physical Activity, and SHAPE America (formerly the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance [AAHPERD]). In 2005 he was named to the Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi, and he has also been named to Who's Who in American Education.
Dr. Horvat was the Southern District AAHPERD Scholar for 1994-1995 and was named a fellow of the North American Society (NAS) of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport, and Dance Professionals in 2008. He also received the 2006 Hollis Fait Scholarly Contribution Award and the 2016 G. Lawrence Rarick Research Award from the National Consortium for Physical Education for Individuals with Disabilities (NCPEID).
Martin E. Block, PhD, is a professor in the department of kinesiology at the University of Virginia. He has been the director of the master's program in adapted physical education (APE) at the University of Virginia since 1993. During that time he has supervised and graduated more than 120 master's students. Dr. Block has served as an APE specialist in Virginia, working with children with severe disabilities and learning and behavioral problems.
Dr. Block has been a consultant to Special Olympics, Inc., helping to create the Motor Activities Training Program (MATP), a sports program for athletes with severe disabilities. He has authored or coauthored four books, more than 20 chapters in books, and more than 80 refereed articles, and he has conducted more than 100 international and national presentations on various topics in APE. He is the editor of the journal Palaestra, and he is on the editorial board of Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly.
Dr. Block is the president of the International Federation of Adapted Physical Activity (IFAPA) and previously served as president of the National Consortium for Physical Education for Individuals with Disabilities (NCPEID) and as chair for the Adapted Physical Activity Council and the Motor Development Academy of SHAPE America. He was named the Virginia College Professor of the Year in 2004.
Luke E. Kelly, PhD, is a certified adapted physical educator, professor of kinesiology, holder of the Virgil S. Ward endowed professorship, and director of the graduate program in adapted physical education at the University of Virginia. He has 40 years of experience working with public schools in evaluating and revising their physical education curricula to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Dr. Kelly has written extensively about the achievement-based curriculum model, assessment, and the use of technology in physical education. Dr. Kelly has served as the president of the National Consortium for Physical Education for Individuuals with Disabilities (NCPEID) and directed the NCPEID adapted physical education national standards project from 1992 to 1999. Dr. Kelly is a fellow of the National Academy of Kinesiology (formerly the American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education). He has also received the G. Lawrence Rarick Research Award and the William A. Hillman Distinguished Service Award from NCPEID.
Ronald V. Croce, PhD, received his doctorate in neuroscience/exercise physiology and special populations from the University of New Mexico, and he is currently a professor in the kinesiology department. His main teaching focus is applied anatomy/kinesiology and medical neuroscience, and he has been the recipient of several university teaching and research awards. Dr. Croce’s research focuses on physical and motor functioning of individuals with cognitive and motor impairments as well as human neuromuscular functioning and cognition. He has over 100 published articles and is a coauthor of Developmental/Adapted Physical Education.
Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education.
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education. Yet many referrals for adapted physical education are for behavior or social interaction problems students display in general physical education rather than physical or motor problems. It is often said that physical education can improve self-concept, but how a student feels about himself or herself in relation to physical education is rarely measured. Finally, many teachers talk about the importance of helping students without disabilities gain a positive, empathetic, caring attitude toward peers with disabilities. This chapter reviews common assessment tools and practices used to measure students' behaviors, social skills, self-concept, play, and attitudes. Each section begins with a short case study relating a real-life situation of a student with a disability.
Students who present difficult behaviors are often the most challenging for both general and adapted physical educators. Difficult behaviors can include passive aggression (refusing to participate), verbal outbursts, running away, destroying equipment, and even physical violence toward peers and staff. Before the IEP team can determine an appropriate program for a student with challenging behaviors, the team needs to determine the types of behaviors being displayed, the intensity of the behaviors, and possible causes of the behaviors.
The ability to effectively meet social and community expectations for personal independence, physical needs, and interpersonal relationships expected for one's age and cultural group is termed adaptive behavior (Brown, McDonnell, & Snell, 2016). Behavior that interferes with everyday activities is called maladaptive behavior, or more often, problem behavior. Maladaptive behavior is undesirable, is socially unacceptable, or interferes with the acquisition of desired skills or knowledge (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996). Problems in acquiring adaptive skills may occur at any age - in developing and mastering basic maturational skills for young children (e.g., the ability to walk or perform self-help skills), in learning academic skills and concepts for school-age children (e.g., basic reading, writing, and math), or in making social and vocational adjustments for older individuals (e.g., getting along with others and developing basic job skills).
Maladaptive behavior ultimately limits independence,the ability to do things on one's own without getting into trouble. Independence is critical for success at school, at home, and in the community. It means not only being able to perform a task but also knowing when to do it and having the willingness to do so. When students exhibit behavior problems that affect independence, it leads to restrictions, extra supervision, additional assistance with behaving more appropriately, and possibly a more segregated placement (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996).
With regard to physical education, adaptive behavior includes following directions, getting along with peers, using equipment appropriately, putting forth an appropriate amount of effort, and generally behaving appropriately for the setting (e.g., not running away or getting into fights). Good adaptive behavior and a lack of behavior problems in physical education allow the student to be more independent (does not need a teacher assistant), be more successful, and be accepted more readily by the general physical education teacher and by peers.
In behavioral assessments, the first step is defining the targeted behavior to determine the extent of its occurrence before treatment. The assessment of behavior depends on accurate observation and precise measurement. Therefore, it is important that the examiner clearly and objectively define the behaviors to be assessed and then accurately observe and record these defined behaviors (Bambara, Janney, & Snell, 2015). For example, saying a student is "always getting in trouble" is vague and not measurable. Even a statement such as "Emily is aggressive toward her peers" is too vague to target for intervention. Aggressive could mean that she hits, bites, yells, or displays other forms of aggression. A better definition might be that "Emily touches and pushes other children two or three times while waiting in line to drink water and four or five times when sitting in a group waiting for instructions."
It is also important to examine antecedents (things that happen just before a behavior occurs that may cause the behavior) as well as consequences (things that happen immediately after a behavior occurs that may reinforce the behavior). For example, being paired with a particular peer may upset a student and cause an inappropriate behavior (screaming when the student sees that peer coming toward him), while chasing after a student who runs away may reinforce that behavior (running away becomes a game) (see the section on functional behavioral analysis in this chapter for more details on measuring antecedents and consequences).
Traditional behavioral assessments usually focus on two areas: adaptive behaviors and behavior problems. Assessing adaptive behaviors involves information such as a student's ability to perform certain adaptive behaviors (e.g., dressing, getting from one place to another, staying on task), how often he performs an adaptive behavior, and how well he performs an adaptive behavior. Assessing behavior problems includes types of maladaptive behaviors, frequency of such behaviors, and intensity of such behaviors. For example, a question on the Scales of Independent Behavior - Revised (SIB-R) (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996) asks whether or not the student is hurtful to others (e.g., biting, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, scratching, or striking). The scale includes a place for the examiner to note the frequency (never to one or more times per hour) as well as the perceived severity of the problem (not serious, not a problem to extremely serious, a critical problem).Thus, the examiner is able to obtain an idea of the student's present abilities, strengths, and deficits with regard to adaptive behaviors and problem behaviors. This information can then be translated into behavioral goals such as "demonstrates the ability to wait turn when playing small-group game in physical education" or "maintains appropriate personal space when playing games and interacting with peers in physical education."
Information from this type of assessment can also help the general physical education teacher determine whether a behavior is significant enough (i.e., occurs fairly frequently and at a serious level) to warrant additional support - such as a teacher assistant or adapted physical educator - or perhaps removal from general physical education into a self-contained setting. Other areas that are measured in behavioral tests include the following (Kazdin, 2000):
- Frequency: number of behaviors during a designated time period
- Response rate: number of responses divided by the time interval
- Intervals: behaviors during a specified time rather than by discrete responses that have a beginning and end point
- Time sampling: observations conducted for brief periods at different times rather than during a single block of time
- Duration: amount of time the response is observed (effective for measuring continuous rather than discrete behaviors)
- Latency: duration measure that observes the time lapse between the cue and the response
- Categorization: classifying responses according to their occurrence (correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate)
- Group: number of individuals who perform a specific behavior or response as opposed to individual responses
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Roles in the Assessment Process
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what.
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what. Physical education assessments of persons with disabilities have not historically been undertaken by adapted physical education personnel. It is not particularly uncommon for persons with disabilities to have been assessed for physical education by general physical education teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, mainstream classroom teachers, special education teachers, and sometimes psychologists. The person responsible for adapted physical education must be thoroughly familiar with the test, test content, and test administration procedures. The person conducting adapted physical education assessments should also be firmly grounded in adapted physical education and its relationship to special education and related services in the school setting.
At times, there will be honest differences of opinion among allied professionals regarding who makes up the MPT. For example, flexibility is one component of physical fitness, and as such, it is typically addressed in a physical education curriculum. Flexibility is also addressed in physical therapy. The occupational therapist may assess throwing because he perceives throwing as a manipulative skill. Yet the same skill might be assessed by an adapted physical education specialist, who sees throwing skill development as being within the purview of her own profession.
Often, there are no clear-cut boundaries for determining if a given activity belongs to a specific profession. This perhaps is how it should be, since professionals who worry more about territorial imperatives than about students may be putting their professions ahead of the very persons whom the professions are trying to serve. Individuals who serve the same students must strive to create a working environment characterized by communication, mutual respect, and, foremost, the development of specific goals in the best interests of the person being served.
Assessment by the Physical Educator
Physical education teachers are involved in assessment at a variety of levels. The elementary physical educator may be responsible for conducting initial posture or scoliosis screening at the preschool or kindergarten levels. Screening is a type of general assessment administered to all students in a class. At early age levels, motor screening becomes part of a larger, more comprehensive screening of general cognitive, affective, psychological, and social development. Individuals diagnosed as having disabilities at early age levels are usually referred for more in-depth diagnostic assessment.
The physical educator and other members of the MPT may also conduct screening tests at the primary and upper elementary grades. General fitness tests, such as FitnessGram, are often administered by the elementary physical education teacher. FitnessGram has health-related items that reflect healthy zones and areas to be improved. Its use as a placement tool among persons who have disabilities may be of somewhat limited value in relation to norm-referenced tests that specifically address individual needs and level of functioning. Teachers make decisions and plan instruction around areas of strength and need. Results of such assessments can help determine whether an individual with a disability meets entry or exit criteria for placement in adapted physical education.
At middle and high school levels, physical educators may administer tests corresponding to certain curricular units of instruction. For example, the teacher may select a soccer skills test for use at the end of a soccer unit. In a skills test, individuals are asked to demonstrate proficiencies in specific skills presented during the physical education class. Secondary-level physical educators may also administer group fitness tests and sometimes may administer written tests to assess knowledge of physical education concepts.
Today, most physical education curricula are objective based, with clearly defined achievement criteria for each grade level (Horvat, Kalakian, Croce, and Dahlstrom, 2011). Objective-based curricula readily lend themselves to ongoing criterion-referenced assessment. In some schools, physical education teachers must report their classes' percentage of mastery on curricular objectives taught during the school year. Objective-based programs with curriculum-embedded assessment provide a clearly defined system for evaluating programs, individualizing instruction, and monitoring pupil progress toward objectives. Objective-based instruction has had tremendous impact on physical education. Curriculum planning, accountability, and curriculum-embedded assessment are now integral parts of a field in which, for some, individualization had seemed next to impossible.
Members of the MPT are faced with the challenge of conducting diagnostic tests. Assessment for diagnostic purposes requires that the teacher gather data that help determine the specific nature of individual motor difficulties or why individuals are having problems in physical education. For example, diagnostic motor testing is utilized to pinpoint particular motor development problem areas such as agility or eye - hand coordination. In-depth diagnostic assessment of motor functioning is usually administered individually. Diagnostic instruments may be formal (e.g., norm referenced) or informal (e.g., criterion referenced). Formal diagnostic tests tend to be more time consuming and may require a separate session for each objective area.
Because diagnostic tests are usually administered to students individually, it is difficult for the general physical educator to find time to test each student. In some school districts, adapted physical educators or other MPT members assume responsibility forall movement-related individual assessments.
The content of skills tests administered by physical educators can vary and may include tests of sports skills, fundamental motor skills, or perceptual-motor abilities. The content of these tests should directly reflect skills taught in the physical education curriculum, and skills in the curriculum should directly reflect skills needed in community- and home-based settings.
Assessments by Specialists Representing Other Therapies
In recent years, schools have become more interdisciplinary in providing opportunities for individuals who have disabilities. An important manifestation of this trend is that occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), and vocational trainers have undertaken contributing roles in public schools. Pursuant to federal mandates, these therapies are provided as related services when determined necessary to facilitate a student's special education program. When therapists are members of the MPT, portions of motor assessment can be conducted by the OT or PT. Traditionally, OTs and PTs have functioned within a medical model, while physical educators have functioned within an educational model. Physical education teachers primarily assess observable, measurable motor skills, while OTs and PTs tend to assess processes underlying movement. For example, the physical educator might assess throwing skill, while the physical therapist might assess range of motion, which to some extent underlies the ability to throw skillfully. The OT might also assess manipulative abilities that facilitate ball handling, which in turn affects throwing proficiency.
These individuals must work together to facilitate appropriate assessments that identify a student's functional performance levels in the following areas:
- Gross and fine motor skills
- Reflex and reaction development
- Developmental landmarks
- Sensorimotor functioning
- Self-help skills
- Prevocational skills
- Social interaction skills
- Ambulatory devices
Several assessment areas overlap between adapted physical education and special education. This sort of overlap of professional responsibilities has been the subject of some controversy. The MPTs, however, can work cooperatively to avoid gaps in both assessment and service. Upon receiving and reviewing the referral of a student for assessment, it is vital that physical educators and therapists cooperatively plan and decide who will administer each type of assessment. Each professional brings unique, relevant information to the team meeting. The MPT approach to assessment emphasizes sharing, respecting, and learning from each team member's contribution. For example, the OT, adapted physical education teacher, and vocational trainer can work together to develop the specific intervention strategies needed for the individualized transition plan (ITP) by assessing components of the tasks required in the workplace and the physical skills needed to accomplish these tasks.
In some schools, physical therapists are available to assist in motor assessment, providing valuable insights for planning appropriate physical activities. For students who have physical disabilities (e.g., cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy), motor assessment may be based primarily on a medical model. Physical therapists can evaluate tonus and persistence of reflexes that interfere with range of motion, posture, and movement patterns. The results of a clinical evaluation by a physical therapist can then be combined with information gathered by a physical educator to develop the program plan. In cases involving physically disabling conditions when only early diagnostic information is available, an evaluation by a physical therapist may shed light on present functional capacity and subsequent implications for physical education programming (e.g., by determining head movements that may induce a reflex). In addition to identifying physiological (motor), topographical (affected parts of body), and etiological (causative) factors used in classifying physical disabilities, physical therapists can also conduct supplemental evaluations, including the following:
- Posture evaluation
- Eye - hand behavior patterns (eye dominance, eye movements, fixation, convergence, grasp)
- Visual status (sensory defects, motor defects)
- Early reflexes
- Joint range of motion and strength
- Stability skills (locomotor, head control, trunk control)
- Motor symptoms (spasticity, athetosis, ataxia, rigidity, tremors)
All the members of the MPT can provide information vital to the intervention process. Since the therapist's intervention is minimal, the adapted physical education teacher needs to translate relevant evaluative information into appropriate educational goals for each student. Within this context, the objectives defined from the evaluation of MPTs must be observable and measurable, and they must be used to develop an appropriate intervention plan based on individual needs.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Cognitive Assessments
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person’s perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills.
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person's perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills. Testing may cover a wide range of areas that might measure, for example, an individual's level of intelligence, perceptual abilities, verbal and nonverbal skills, attention, and processing or memory abilities. Unlike cognitive and perceptual tests administered by qualified clinical psychologists or diagnosticians, cognitive tests administered by adapted physical educators and therapists are geared more toward analyzing an individual's perceptual and cognitive abilities as they relate to movement. In addition, it is critical to appreciate that most standard cognitive assessment instruments are geared for adults - in particular adults recovering from brain injury or stroke or who have Alzheimer's disease. Consequently, there are few cognitive assessment instruments that can be applied to individuals with disabilities in the school setting. Of those instruments available, the Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most reliable for use by adapted physical educators and therapists in schools, and it has been used extensively since its development as part of the Army Individual Test Battery (1944).
Briefly, the TMT requires subjects to connect a sequence of consecutive targets on a sheet of paper or computer screen, in a similar manner to what a child would do in a connect-the-dots puzzle. There are two parts to the test. In the first part, the targets are 25 numbers randomly distributed in space (1, 2, 3, and so on), and the test takers need to connect them in sequential order. The subjects start at the circle marked Begin and continue linking numbers until they reach the endpoint, a circle marked End. Part B is similar to A; however, instead of linking only numbers, the subjects must alternately switch between a set of numbers (1 to 13) and a set of letters (A to L), again linking them in ascending order (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on). At the same time, the subjects connect the array of circles as fast as possible without lifting the pencil.
A commonly reported performance index in the TMT is time to completion. A difference score (B - A) is often reported, meant to remove the speed element from the test evaluation. The first part of the test reflects speed of processing, while the second part reflects executive functioning or fluid cognitive ability. Extensive research indicates that the TMT assesses a variety of cognitive functions including attention, visual scanning, switching speed, mental flexibility, and the ability to initiate and modify an action plan (Bowie & Harvey, 2006; Salthouse, 2011; Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006; Zakzanis, Mraz, & Graham, 2005).
Recently, Horvat and colleagues (Horvat, Fallaize, Croce, & Roswal, in preparation) focused on modifying the TMT to develop a more cognitive-motor-based assessment better suited for use by adapted physical educators and therapists. In this variation, the TMT compares speed of processing and fluid cognitive ability with a running task (subsequently termed a cognitive dash by the authors). Individuals complete a computerized version of the TMT, which is then compared with the time it takes to complete running on a basketball court from baseline to midcourt (42 ft, or 13 m). In condition A, participants pick up a poly spot placed around the center court circle in the appropriate number sequence (1-2-3, and so on), place the poly spot in a bucket, and return to the starting point. Condition B requires the participants to alternatively pick up a number, then a letter (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on), place them both into a bucket, and run back to the starting line. Similar to the TMT, condition A requires connecting a series of numbers, reflecting speed of processing. Condition B, which includes a number and letter in unison, is used to detect executive function and verbal fluency. Here, verbal fluency refers to a cognitive function that facilitates information retrieval from memory, requiring executive control over several cognitive processes such as selective attention, selective inhibition, and response generation.The correlation between the TMT and actual movement times from the cognitive dash gives teachers additional information to assess processing speed and planning a movement sequence.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Case Study
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Mr. Simon has three students with disabilities in one of his fourth-grade physical education classes. He is about to start a new unit that focuses on the overhand throw. He decides to preassess the class so he can plan his instruction according to the needs of these three students, and also to determine whether this class placement is the most appropriate setting for them. Mr. Simon reviews his test and measurement textbook and finds a simple assessment for throwing that can be administered to a group of students. The test, which involves averaging three throws for distance, has face validity for ages 4 through 12. He administers the assessment to his class and compares their scores with the norms provided with the test. The results indicate that the class overall is performing at the 53rd percentile. One of the three students with disabilities is performing above the class mean, while the other two students are among the lower-performing students in the class.
Mr. Simon concludes that the assessment results clearly indicate the class needs to work on throwing. However, having spent one class period conducting the assessment and another two hours interpreting the results, he is a bit perplexed about how to actually use this information to plan his instruction. He could form instructional groups based on how far the students can throw, but he realizes he does not have any information on why they are throwing so poorly. For example, is it because they do not know the correct throwing pattern? Or is it because they are weak and need to work on strength? In regard to the students with disabilities, one student appears to be in the right placement since she is throwing as well as half the other students in the class, but it seems that this may not be the best placement for the other two students.
Mr. Simon needs to make two decisions: an instructional decision regarding the overhand throw and a placement decision to determine whether this class is appropriate for his students with disabilities. His problem is that he used a norm-referenced instrument that measured the outcome, or product, of throwing performance. What he needed in this situation was a criterion-referenced instrument (CRI) to evaluate how the students were actually performing the throw. Had he collected this information, he would have known which components of the throw the students had mastered and which ones still needed work. He could have then used this information to plan his instruction. The criterion-referenced assessment information could have also been used to determine any unique needs the students with disabilities have on the throw objective and how these needs can be accommodated within the class. Teachers learn that they should use assessment to guide their decision making in physical education, but when they actually try to use it, some do not find the assessment results useful and subsequently stop assessing. The assessment process is not the problem; the problem is not knowing how to select the appropriate assessment tool to match the decision that needs to be made.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education.
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education. Yet many referrals for adapted physical education are for behavior or social interaction problems students display in general physical education rather than physical or motor problems. It is often said that physical education can improve self-concept, but how a student feels about himself or herself in relation to physical education is rarely measured. Finally, many teachers talk about the importance of helping students without disabilities gain a positive, empathetic, caring attitude toward peers with disabilities. This chapter reviews common assessment tools and practices used to measure students' behaviors, social skills, self-concept, play, and attitudes. Each section begins with a short case study relating a real-life situation of a student with a disability.
Students who present difficult behaviors are often the most challenging for both general and adapted physical educators. Difficult behaviors can include passive aggression (refusing to participate), verbal outbursts, running away, destroying equipment, and even physical violence toward peers and staff. Before the IEP team can determine an appropriate program for a student with challenging behaviors, the team needs to determine the types of behaviors being displayed, the intensity of the behaviors, and possible causes of the behaviors.
The ability to effectively meet social and community expectations for personal independence, physical needs, and interpersonal relationships expected for one's age and cultural group is termed adaptive behavior (Brown, McDonnell, & Snell, 2016). Behavior that interferes with everyday activities is called maladaptive behavior, or more often, problem behavior. Maladaptive behavior is undesirable, is socially unacceptable, or interferes with the acquisition of desired skills or knowledge (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996). Problems in acquiring adaptive skills may occur at any age - in developing and mastering basic maturational skills for young children (e.g., the ability to walk or perform self-help skills), in learning academic skills and concepts for school-age children (e.g., basic reading, writing, and math), or in making social and vocational adjustments for older individuals (e.g., getting along with others and developing basic job skills).
Maladaptive behavior ultimately limits independence,the ability to do things on one's own without getting into trouble. Independence is critical for success at school, at home, and in the community. It means not only being able to perform a task but also knowing when to do it and having the willingness to do so. When students exhibit behavior problems that affect independence, it leads to restrictions, extra supervision, additional assistance with behaving more appropriately, and possibly a more segregated placement (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996).
With regard to physical education, adaptive behavior includes following directions, getting along with peers, using equipment appropriately, putting forth an appropriate amount of effort, and generally behaving appropriately for the setting (e.g., not running away or getting into fights). Good adaptive behavior and a lack of behavior problems in physical education allow the student to be more independent (does not need a teacher assistant), be more successful, and be accepted more readily by the general physical education teacher and by peers.
In behavioral assessments, the first step is defining the targeted behavior to determine the extent of its occurrence before treatment. The assessment of behavior depends on accurate observation and precise measurement. Therefore, it is important that the examiner clearly and objectively define the behaviors to be assessed and then accurately observe and record these defined behaviors (Bambara, Janney, & Snell, 2015). For example, saying a student is "always getting in trouble" is vague and not measurable. Even a statement such as "Emily is aggressive toward her peers" is too vague to target for intervention. Aggressive could mean that she hits, bites, yells, or displays other forms of aggression. A better definition might be that "Emily touches and pushes other children two or three times while waiting in line to drink water and four or five times when sitting in a group waiting for instructions."
It is also important to examine antecedents (things that happen just before a behavior occurs that may cause the behavior) as well as consequences (things that happen immediately after a behavior occurs that may reinforce the behavior). For example, being paired with a particular peer may upset a student and cause an inappropriate behavior (screaming when the student sees that peer coming toward him), while chasing after a student who runs away may reinforce that behavior (running away becomes a game) (see the section on functional behavioral analysis in this chapter for more details on measuring antecedents and consequences).
Traditional behavioral assessments usually focus on two areas: adaptive behaviors and behavior problems. Assessing adaptive behaviors involves information such as a student's ability to perform certain adaptive behaviors (e.g., dressing, getting from one place to another, staying on task), how often he performs an adaptive behavior, and how well he performs an adaptive behavior. Assessing behavior problems includes types of maladaptive behaviors, frequency of such behaviors, and intensity of such behaviors. For example, a question on the Scales of Independent Behavior - Revised (SIB-R) (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996) asks whether or not the student is hurtful to others (e.g., biting, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, scratching, or striking). The scale includes a place for the examiner to note the frequency (never to one or more times per hour) as well as the perceived severity of the problem (not serious, not a problem to extremely serious, a critical problem).Thus, the examiner is able to obtain an idea of the student's present abilities, strengths, and deficits with regard to adaptive behaviors and problem behaviors. This information can then be translated into behavioral goals such as "demonstrates the ability to wait turn when playing small-group game in physical education" or "maintains appropriate personal space when playing games and interacting with peers in physical education."
Information from this type of assessment can also help the general physical education teacher determine whether a behavior is significant enough (i.e., occurs fairly frequently and at a serious level) to warrant additional support - such as a teacher assistant or adapted physical educator - or perhaps removal from general physical education into a self-contained setting. Other areas that are measured in behavioral tests include the following (Kazdin, 2000):
- Frequency: number of behaviors during a designated time period
- Response rate: number of responses divided by the time interval
- Intervals: behaviors during a specified time rather than by discrete responses that have a beginning and end point
- Time sampling: observations conducted for brief periods at different times rather than during a single block of time
- Duration: amount of time the response is observed (effective for measuring continuous rather than discrete behaviors)
- Latency: duration measure that observes the time lapse between the cue and the response
- Categorization: classifying responses according to their occurrence (correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate)
- Group: number of individuals who perform a specific behavior or response as opposed to individual responses
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Roles in the Assessment Process
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what.
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what. Physical education assessments of persons with disabilities have not historically been undertaken by adapted physical education personnel. It is not particularly uncommon for persons with disabilities to have been assessed for physical education by general physical education teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, mainstream classroom teachers, special education teachers, and sometimes psychologists. The person responsible for adapted physical education must be thoroughly familiar with the test, test content, and test administration procedures. The person conducting adapted physical education assessments should also be firmly grounded in adapted physical education and its relationship to special education and related services in the school setting.
At times, there will be honest differences of opinion among allied professionals regarding who makes up the MPT. For example, flexibility is one component of physical fitness, and as such, it is typically addressed in a physical education curriculum. Flexibility is also addressed in physical therapy. The occupational therapist may assess throwing because he perceives throwing as a manipulative skill. Yet the same skill might be assessed by an adapted physical education specialist, who sees throwing skill development as being within the purview of her own profession.
Often, there are no clear-cut boundaries for determining if a given activity belongs to a specific profession. This perhaps is how it should be, since professionals who worry more about territorial imperatives than about students may be putting their professions ahead of the very persons whom the professions are trying to serve. Individuals who serve the same students must strive to create a working environment characterized by communication, mutual respect, and, foremost, the development of specific goals in the best interests of the person being served.
Assessment by the Physical Educator
Physical education teachers are involved in assessment at a variety of levels. The elementary physical educator may be responsible for conducting initial posture or scoliosis screening at the preschool or kindergarten levels. Screening is a type of general assessment administered to all students in a class. At early age levels, motor screening becomes part of a larger, more comprehensive screening of general cognitive, affective, psychological, and social development. Individuals diagnosed as having disabilities at early age levels are usually referred for more in-depth diagnostic assessment.
The physical educator and other members of the MPT may also conduct screening tests at the primary and upper elementary grades. General fitness tests, such as FitnessGram, are often administered by the elementary physical education teacher. FitnessGram has health-related items that reflect healthy zones and areas to be improved. Its use as a placement tool among persons who have disabilities may be of somewhat limited value in relation to norm-referenced tests that specifically address individual needs and level of functioning. Teachers make decisions and plan instruction around areas of strength and need. Results of such assessments can help determine whether an individual with a disability meets entry or exit criteria for placement in adapted physical education.
At middle and high school levels, physical educators may administer tests corresponding to certain curricular units of instruction. For example, the teacher may select a soccer skills test for use at the end of a soccer unit. In a skills test, individuals are asked to demonstrate proficiencies in specific skills presented during the physical education class. Secondary-level physical educators may also administer group fitness tests and sometimes may administer written tests to assess knowledge of physical education concepts.
Today, most physical education curricula are objective based, with clearly defined achievement criteria for each grade level (Horvat, Kalakian, Croce, and Dahlstrom, 2011). Objective-based curricula readily lend themselves to ongoing criterion-referenced assessment. In some schools, physical education teachers must report their classes' percentage of mastery on curricular objectives taught during the school year. Objective-based programs with curriculum-embedded assessment provide a clearly defined system for evaluating programs, individualizing instruction, and monitoring pupil progress toward objectives. Objective-based instruction has had tremendous impact on physical education. Curriculum planning, accountability, and curriculum-embedded assessment are now integral parts of a field in which, for some, individualization had seemed next to impossible.
Members of the MPT are faced with the challenge of conducting diagnostic tests. Assessment for diagnostic purposes requires that the teacher gather data that help determine the specific nature of individual motor difficulties or why individuals are having problems in physical education. For example, diagnostic motor testing is utilized to pinpoint particular motor development problem areas such as agility or eye - hand coordination. In-depth diagnostic assessment of motor functioning is usually administered individually. Diagnostic instruments may be formal (e.g., norm referenced) or informal (e.g., criterion referenced). Formal diagnostic tests tend to be more time consuming and may require a separate session for each objective area.
Because diagnostic tests are usually administered to students individually, it is difficult for the general physical educator to find time to test each student. In some school districts, adapted physical educators or other MPT members assume responsibility forall movement-related individual assessments.
The content of skills tests administered by physical educators can vary and may include tests of sports skills, fundamental motor skills, or perceptual-motor abilities. The content of these tests should directly reflect skills taught in the physical education curriculum, and skills in the curriculum should directly reflect skills needed in community- and home-based settings.
Assessments by Specialists Representing Other Therapies
In recent years, schools have become more interdisciplinary in providing opportunities for individuals who have disabilities. An important manifestation of this trend is that occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), and vocational trainers have undertaken contributing roles in public schools. Pursuant to federal mandates, these therapies are provided as related services when determined necessary to facilitate a student's special education program. When therapists are members of the MPT, portions of motor assessment can be conducted by the OT or PT. Traditionally, OTs and PTs have functioned within a medical model, while physical educators have functioned within an educational model. Physical education teachers primarily assess observable, measurable motor skills, while OTs and PTs tend to assess processes underlying movement. For example, the physical educator might assess throwing skill, while the physical therapist might assess range of motion, which to some extent underlies the ability to throw skillfully. The OT might also assess manipulative abilities that facilitate ball handling, which in turn affects throwing proficiency.
These individuals must work together to facilitate appropriate assessments that identify a student's functional performance levels in the following areas:
- Gross and fine motor skills
- Reflex and reaction development
- Developmental landmarks
- Sensorimotor functioning
- Self-help skills
- Prevocational skills
- Social interaction skills
- Ambulatory devices
Several assessment areas overlap between adapted physical education and special education. This sort of overlap of professional responsibilities has been the subject of some controversy. The MPTs, however, can work cooperatively to avoid gaps in both assessment and service. Upon receiving and reviewing the referral of a student for assessment, it is vital that physical educators and therapists cooperatively plan and decide who will administer each type of assessment. Each professional brings unique, relevant information to the team meeting. The MPT approach to assessment emphasizes sharing, respecting, and learning from each team member's contribution. For example, the OT, adapted physical education teacher, and vocational trainer can work together to develop the specific intervention strategies needed for the individualized transition plan (ITP) by assessing components of the tasks required in the workplace and the physical skills needed to accomplish these tasks.
In some schools, physical therapists are available to assist in motor assessment, providing valuable insights for planning appropriate physical activities. For students who have physical disabilities (e.g., cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy), motor assessment may be based primarily on a medical model. Physical therapists can evaluate tonus and persistence of reflexes that interfere with range of motion, posture, and movement patterns. The results of a clinical evaluation by a physical therapist can then be combined with information gathered by a physical educator to develop the program plan. In cases involving physically disabling conditions when only early diagnostic information is available, an evaluation by a physical therapist may shed light on present functional capacity and subsequent implications for physical education programming (e.g., by determining head movements that may induce a reflex). In addition to identifying physiological (motor), topographical (affected parts of body), and etiological (causative) factors used in classifying physical disabilities, physical therapists can also conduct supplemental evaluations, including the following:
- Posture evaluation
- Eye - hand behavior patterns (eye dominance, eye movements, fixation, convergence, grasp)
- Visual status (sensory defects, motor defects)
- Early reflexes
- Joint range of motion and strength
- Stability skills (locomotor, head control, trunk control)
- Motor symptoms (spasticity, athetosis, ataxia, rigidity, tremors)
All the members of the MPT can provide information vital to the intervention process. Since the therapist's intervention is minimal, the adapted physical education teacher needs to translate relevant evaluative information into appropriate educational goals for each student. Within this context, the objectives defined from the evaluation of MPTs must be observable and measurable, and they must be used to develop an appropriate intervention plan based on individual needs.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Cognitive Assessments
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person’s perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills.
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person's perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills. Testing may cover a wide range of areas that might measure, for example, an individual's level of intelligence, perceptual abilities, verbal and nonverbal skills, attention, and processing or memory abilities. Unlike cognitive and perceptual tests administered by qualified clinical psychologists or diagnosticians, cognitive tests administered by adapted physical educators and therapists are geared more toward analyzing an individual's perceptual and cognitive abilities as they relate to movement. In addition, it is critical to appreciate that most standard cognitive assessment instruments are geared for adults - in particular adults recovering from brain injury or stroke or who have Alzheimer's disease. Consequently, there are few cognitive assessment instruments that can be applied to individuals with disabilities in the school setting. Of those instruments available, the Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most reliable for use by adapted physical educators and therapists in schools, and it has been used extensively since its development as part of the Army Individual Test Battery (1944).
Briefly, the TMT requires subjects to connect a sequence of consecutive targets on a sheet of paper or computer screen, in a similar manner to what a child would do in a connect-the-dots puzzle. There are two parts to the test. In the first part, the targets are 25 numbers randomly distributed in space (1, 2, 3, and so on), and the test takers need to connect them in sequential order. The subjects start at the circle marked Begin and continue linking numbers until they reach the endpoint, a circle marked End. Part B is similar to A; however, instead of linking only numbers, the subjects must alternately switch between a set of numbers (1 to 13) and a set of letters (A to L), again linking them in ascending order (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on). At the same time, the subjects connect the array of circles as fast as possible without lifting the pencil.
A commonly reported performance index in the TMT is time to completion. A difference score (B - A) is often reported, meant to remove the speed element from the test evaluation. The first part of the test reflects speed of processing, while the second part reflects executive functioning or fluid cognitive ability. Extensive research indicates that the TMT assesses a variety of cognitive functions including attention, visual scanning, switching speed, mental flexibility, and the ability to initiate and modify an action plan (Bowie & Harvey, 2006; Salthouse, 2011; Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006; Zakzanis, Mraz, & Graham, 2005).
Recently, Horvat and colleagues (Horvat, Fallaize, Croce, & Roswal, in preparation) focused on modifying the TMT to develop a more cognitive-motor-based assessment better suited for use by adapted physical educators and therapists. In this variation, the TMT compares speed of processing and fluid cognitive ability with a running task (subsequently termed a cognitive dash by the authors). Individuals complete a computerized version of the TMT, which is then compared with the time it takes to complete running on a basketball court from baseline to midcourt (42 ft, or 13 m). In condition A, participants pick up a poly spot placed around the center court circle in the appropriate number sequence (1-2-3, and so on), place the poly spot in a bucket, and return to the starting point. Condition B requires the participants to alternatively pick up a number, then a letter (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on), place them both into a bucket, and run back to the starting line. Similar to the TMT, condition A requires connecting a series of numbers, reflecting speed of processing. Condition B, which includes a number and letter in unison, is used to detect executive function and verbal fluency. Here, verbal fluency refers to a cognitive function that facilitates information retrieval from memory, requiring executive control over several cognitive processes such as selective attention, selective inhibition, and response generation.The correlation between the TMT and actual movement times from the cognitive dash gives teachers additional information to assess processing speed and planning a movement sequence.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Case Study
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Mr. Simon has three students with disabilities in one of his fourth-grade physical education classes. He is about to start a new unit that focuses on the overhand throw. He decides to preassess the class so he can plan his instruction according to the needs of these three students, and also to determine whether this class placement is the most appropriate setting for them. Mr. Simon reviews his test and measurement textbook and finds a simple assessment for throwing that can be administered to a group of students. The test, which involves averaging three throws for distance, has face validity for ages 4 through 12. He administers the assessment to his class and compares their scores with the norms provided with the test. The results indicate that the class overall is performing at the 53rd percentile. One of the three students with disabilities is performing above the class mean, while the other two students are among the lower-performing students in the class.
Mr. Simon concludes that the assessment results clearly indicate the class needs to work on throwing. However, having spent one class period conducting the assessment and another two hours interpreting the results, he is a bit perplexed about how to actually use this information to plan his instruction. He could form instructional groups based on how far the students can throw, but he realizes he does not have any information on why they are throwing so poorly. For example, is it because they do not know the correct throwing pattern? Or is it because they are weak and need to work on strength? In regard to the students with disabilities, one student appears to be in the right placement since she is throwing as well as half the other students in the class, but it seems that this may not be the best placement for the other two students.
Mr. Simon needs to make two decisions: an instructional decision regarding the overhand throw and a placement decision to determine whether this class is appropriate for his students with disabilities. His problem is that he used a norm-referenced instrument that measured the outcome, or product, of throwing performance. What he needed in this situation was a criterion-referenced instrument (CRI) to evaluate how the students were actually performing the throw. Had he collected this information, he would have known which components of the throw the students had mastered and which ones still needed work. He could have then used this information to plan his instruction. The criterion-referenced assessment information could have also been used to determine any unique needs the students with disabilities have on the throw objective and how these needs can be accommodated within the class. Teachers learn that they should use assessment to guide their decision making in physical education, but when they actually try to use it, some do not find the assessment results useful and subsequently stop assessing. The assessment process is not the problem; the problem is not knowing how to select the appropriate assessment tool to match the decision that needs to be made.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education.
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education. Yet many referrals for adapted physical education are for behavior or social interaction problems students display in general physical education rather than physical or motor problems. It is often said that physical education can improve self-concept, but how a student feels about himself or herself in relation to physical education is rarely measured. Finally, many teachers talk about the importance of helping students without disabilities gain a positive, empathetic, caring attitude toward peers with disabilities. This chapter reviews common assessment tools and practices used to measure students' behaviors, social skills, self-concept, play, and attitudes. Each section begins with a short case study relating a real-life situation of a student with a disability.
Students who present difficult behaviors are often the most challenging for both general and adapted physical educators. Difficult behaviors can include passive aggression (refusing to participate), verbal outbursts, running away, destroying equipment, and even physical violence toward peers and staff. Before the IEP team can determine an appropriate program for a student with challenging behaviors, the team needs to determine the types of behaviors being displayed, the intensity of the behaviors, and possible causes of the behaviors.
The ability to effectively meet social and community expectations for personal independence, physical needs, and interpersonal relationships expected for one's age and cultural group is termed adaptive behavior (Brown, McDonnell, & Snell, 2016). Behavior that interferes with everyday activities is called maladaptive behavior, or more often, problem behavior. Maladaptive behavior is undesirable, is socially unacceptable, or interferes with the acquisition of desired skills or knowledge (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996). Problems in acquiring adaptive skills may occur at any age - in developing and mastering basic maturational skills for young children (e.g., the ability to walk or perform self-help skills), in learning academic skills and concepts for school-age children (e.g., basic reading, writing, and math), or in making social and vocational adjustments for older individuals (e.g., getting along with others and developing basic job skills).
Maladaptive behavior ultimately limits independence,the ability to do things on one's own without getting into trouble. Independence is critical for success at school, at home, and in the community. It means not only being able to perform a task but also knowing when to do it and having the willingness to do so. When students exhibit behavior problems that affect independence, it leads to restrictions, extra supervision, additional assistance with behaving more appropriately, and possibly a more segregated placement (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996).
With regard to physical education, adaptive behavior includes following directions, getting along with peers, using equipment appropriately, putting forth an appropriate amount of effort, and generally behaving appropriately for the setting (e.g., not running away or getting into fights). Good adaptive behavior and a lack of behavior problems in physical education allow the student to be more independent (does not need a teacher assistant), be more successful, and be accepted more readily by the general physical education teacher and by peers.
In behavioral assessments, the first step is defining the targeted behavior to determine the extent of its occurrence before treatment. The assessment of behavior depends on accurate observation and precise measurement. Therefore, it is important that the examiner clearly and objectively define the behaviors to be assessed and then accurately observe and record these defined behaviors (Bambara, Janney, & Snell, 2015). For example, saying a student is "always getting in trouble" is vague and not measurable. Even a statement such as "Emily is aggressive toward her peers" is too vague to target for intervention. Aggressive could mean that she hits, bites, yells, or displays other forms of aggression. A better definition might be that "Emily touches and pushes other children two or three times while waiting in line to drink water and four or five times when sitting in a group waiting for instructions."
It is also important to examine antecedents (things that happen just before a behavior occurs that may cause the behavior) as well as consequences (things that happen immediately after a behavior occurs that may reinforce the behavior). For example, being paired with a particular peer may upset a student and cause an inappropriate behavior (screaming when the student sees that peer coming toward him), while chasing after a student who runs away may reinforce that behavior (running away becomes a game) (see the section on functional behavioral analysis in this chapter for more details on measuring antecedents and consequences).
Traditional behavioral assessments usually focus on two areas: adaptive behaviors and behavior problems. Assessing adaptive behaviors involves information such as a student's ability to perform certain adaptive behaviors (e.g., dressing, getting from one place to another, staying on task), how often he performs an adaptive behavior, and how well he performs an adaptive behavior. Assessing behavior problems includes types of maladaptive behaviors, frequency of such behaviors, and intensity of such behaviors. For example, a question on the Scales of Independent Behavior - Revised (SIB-R) (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996) asks whether or not the student is hurtful to others (e.g., biting, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, scratching, or striking). The scale includes a place for the examiner to note the frequency (never to one or more times per hour) as well as the perceived severity of the problem (not serious, not a problem to extremely serious, a critical problem).Thus, the examiner is able to obtain an idea of the student's present abilities, strengths, and deficits with regard to adaptive behaviors and problem behaviors. This information can then be translated into behavioral goals such as "demonstrates the ability to wait turn when playing small-group game in physical education" or "maintains appropriate personal space when playing games and interacting with peers in physical education."
Information from this type of assessment can also help the general physical education teacher determine whether a behavior is significant enough (i.e., occurs fairly frequently and at a serious level) to warrant additional support - such as a teacher assistant or adapted physical educator - or perhaps removal from general physical education into a self-contained setting. Other areas that are measured in behavioral tests include the following (Kazdin, 2000):
- Frequency: number of behaviors during a designated time period
- Response rate: number of responses divided by the time interval
- Intervals: behaviors during a specified time rather than by discrete responses that have a beginning and end point
- Time sampling: observations conducted for brief periods at different times rather than during a single block of time
- Duration: amount of time the response is observed (effective for measuring continuous rather than discrete behaviors)
- Latency: duration measure that observes the time lapse between the cue and the response
- Categorization: classifying responses according to their occurrence (correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate)
- Group: number of individuals who perform a specific behavior or response as opposed to individual responses
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Roles in the Assessment Process
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what.
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what. Physical education assessments of persons with disabilities have not historically been undertaken by adapted physical education personnel. It is not particularly uncommon for persons with disabilities to have been assessed for physical education by general physical education teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, mainstream classroom teachers, special education teachers, and sometimes psychologists. The person responsible for adapted physical education must be thoroughly familiar with the test, test content, and test administration procedures. The person conducting adapted physical education assessments should also be firmly grounded in adapted physical education and its relationship to special education and related services in the school setting.
At times, there will be honest differences of opinion among allied professionals regarding who makes up the MPT. For example, flexibility is one component of physical fitness, and as such, it is typically addressed in a physical education curriculum. Flexibility is also addressed in physical therapy. The occupational therapist may assess throwing because he perceives throwing as a manipulative skill. Yet the same skill might be assessed by an adapted physical education specialist, who sees throwing skill development as being within the purview of her own profession.
Often, there are no clear-cut boundaries for determining if a given activity belongs to a specific profession. This perhaps is how it should be, since professionals who worry more about territorial imperatives than about students may be putting their professions ahead of the very persons whom the professions are trying to serve. Individuals who serve the same students must strive to create a working environment characterized by communication, mutual respect, and, foremost, the development of specific goals in the best interests of the person being served.
Assessment by the Physical Educator
Physical education teachers are involved in assessment at a variety of levels. The elementary physical educator may be responsible for conducting initial posture or scoliosis screening at the preschool or kindergarten levels. Screening is a type of general assessment administered to all students in a class. At early age levels, motor screening becomes part of a larger, more comprehensive screening of general cognitive, affective, psychological, and social development. Individuals diagnosed as having disabilities at early age levels are usually referred for more in-depth diagnostic assessment.
The physical educator and other members of the MPT may also conduct screening tests at the primary and upper elementary grades. General fitness tests, such as FitnessGram, are often administered by the elementary physical education teacher. FitnessGram has health-related items that reflect healthy zones and areas to be improved. Its use as a placement tool among persons who have disabilities may be of somewhat limited value in relation to norm-referenced tests that specifically address individual needs and level of functioning. Teachers make decisions and plan instruction around areas of strength and need. Results of such assessments can help determine whether an individual with a disability meets entry or exit criteria for placement in adapted physical education.
At middle and high school levels, physical educators may administer tests corresponding to certain curricular units of instruction. For example, the teacher may select a soccer skills test for use at the end of a soccer unit. In a skills test, individuals are asked to demonstrate proficiencies in specific skills presented during the physical education class. Secondary-level physical educators may also administer group fitness tests and sometimes may administer written tests to assess knowledge of physical education concepts.
Today, most physical education curricula are objective based, with clearly defined achievement criteria for each grade level (Horvat, Kalakian, Croce, and Dahlstrom, 2011). Objective-based curricula readily lend themselves to ongoing criterion-referenced assessment. In some schools, physical education teachers must report their classes' percentage of mastery on curricular objectives taught during the school year. Objective-based programs with curriculum-embedded assessment provide a clearly defined system for evaluating programs, individualizing instruction, and monitoring pupil progress toward objectives. Objective-based instruction has had tremendous impact on physical education. Curriculum planning, accountability, and curriculum-embedded assessment are now integral parts of a field in which, for some, individualization had seemed next to impossible.
Members of the MPT are faced with the challenge of conducting diagnostic tests. Assessment for diagnostic purposes requires that the teacher gather data that help determine the specific nature of individual motor difficulties or why individuals are having problems in physical education. For example, diagnostic motor testing is utilized to pinpoint particular motor development problem areas such as agility or eye - hand coordination. In-depth diagnostic assessment of motor functioning is usually administered individually. Diagnostic instruments may be formal (e.g., norm referenced) or informal (e.g., criterion referenced). Formal diagnostic tests tend to be more time consuming and may require a separate session for each objective area.
Because diagnostic tests are usually administered to students individually, it is difficult for the general physical educator to find time to test each student. In some school districts, adapted physical educators or other MPT members assume responsibility forall movement-related individual assessments.
The content of skills tests administered by physical educators can vary and may include tests of sports skills, fundamental motor skills, or perceptual-motor abilities. The content of these tests should directly reflect skills taught in the physical education curriculum, and skills in the curriculum should directly reflect skills needed in community- and home-based settings.
Assessments by Specialists Representing Other Therapies
In recent years, schools have become more interdisciplinary in providing opportunities for individuals who have disabilities. An important manifestation of this trend is that occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), and vocational trainers have undertaken contributing roles in public schools. Pursuant to federal mandates, these therapies are provided as related services when determined necessary to facilitate a student's special education program. When therapists are members of the MPT, portions of motor assessment can be conducted by the OT or PT. Traditionally, OTs and PTs have functioned within a medical model, while physical educators have functioned within an educational model. Physical education teachers primarily assess observable, measurable motor skills, while OTs and PTs tend to assess processes underlying movement. For example, the physical educator might assess throwing skill, while the physical therapist might assess range of motion, which to some extent underlies the ability to throw skillfully. The OT might also assess manipulative abilities that facilitate ball handling, which in turn affects throwing proficiency.
These individuals must work together to facilitate appropriate assessments that identify a student's functional performance levels in the following areas:
- Gross and fine motor skills
- Reflex and reaction development
- Developmental landmarks
- Sensorimotor functioning
- Self-help skills
- Prevocational skills
- Social interaction skills
- Ambulatory devices
Several assessment areas overlap between adapted physical education and special education. This sort of overlap of professional responsibilities has been the subject of some controversy. The MPTs, however, can work cooperatively to avoid gaps in both assessment and service. Upon receiving and reviewing the referral of a student for assessment, it is vital that physical educators and therapists cooperatively plan and decide who will administer each type of assessment. Each professional brings unique, relevant information to the team meeting. The MPT approach to assessment emphasizes sharing, respecting, and learning from each team member's contribution. For example, the OT, adapted physical education teacher, and vocational trainer can work together to develop the specific intervention strategies needed for the individualized transition plan (ITP) by assessing components of the tasks required in the workplace and the physical skills needed to accomplish these tasks.
In some schools, physical therapists are available to assist in motor assessment, providing valuable insights for planning appropriate physical activities. For students who have physical disabilities (e.g., cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy), motor assessment may be based primarily on a medical model. Physical therapists can evaluate tonus and persistence of reflexes that interfere with range of motion, posture, and movement patterns. The results of a clinical evaluation by a physical therapist can then be combined with information gathered by a physical educator to develop the program plan. In cases involving physically disabling conditions when only early diagnostic information is available, an evaluation by a physical therapist may shed light on present functional capacity and subsequent implications for physical education programming (e.g., by determining head movements that may induce a reflex). In addition to identifying physiological (motor), topographical (affected parts of body), and etiological (causative) factors used in classifying physical disabilities, physical therapists can also conduct supplemental evaluations, including the following:
- Posture evaluation
- Eye - hand behavior patterns (eye dominance, eye movements, fixation, convergence, grasp)
- Visual status (sensory defects, motor defects)
- Early reflexes
- Joint range of motion and strength
- Stability skills (locomotor, head control, trunk control)
- Motor symptoms (spasticity, athetosis, ataxia, rigidity, tremors)
All the members of the MPT can provide information vital to the intervention process. Since the therapist's intervention is minimal, the adapted physical education teacher needs to translate relevant evaluative information into appropriate educational goals for each student. Within this context, the objectives defined from the evaluation of MPTs must be observable and measurable, and they must be used to develop an appropriate intervention plan based on individual needs.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Cognitive Assessments
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person’s perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills.
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person's perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills. Testing may cover a wide range of areas that might measure, for example, an individual's level of intelligence, perceptual abilities, verbal and nonverbal skills, attention, and processing or memory abilities. Unlike cognitive and perceptual tests administered by qualified clinical psychologists or diagnosticians, cognitive tests administered by adapted physical educators and therapists are geared more toward analyzing an individual's perceptual and cognitive abilities as they relate to movement. In addition, it is critical to appreciate that most standard cognitive assessment instruments are geared for adults - in particular adults recovering from brain injury or stroke or who have Alzheimer's disease. Consequently, there are few cognitive assessment instruments that can be applied to individuals with disabilities in the school setting. Of those instruments available, the Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most reliable for use by adapted physical educators and therapists in schools, and it has been used extensively since its development as part of the Army Individual Test Battery (1944).
Briefly, the TMT requires subjects to connect a sequence of consecutive targets on a sheet of paper or computer screen, in a similar manner to what a child would do in a connect-the-dots puzzle. There are two parts to the test. In the first part, the targets are 25 numbers randomly distributed in space (1, 2, 3, and so on), and the test takers need to connect them in sequential order. The subjects start at the circle marked Begin and continue linking numbers until they reach the endpoint, a circle marked End. Part B is similar to A; however, instead of linking only numbers, the subjects must alternately switch between a set of numbers (1 to 13) and a set of letters (A to L), again linking them in ascending order (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on). At the same time, the subjects connect the array of circles as fast as possible without lifting the pencil.
A commonly reported performance index in the TMT is time to completion. A difference score (B - A) is often reported, meant to remove the speed element from the test evaluation. The first part of the test reflects speed of processing, while the second part reflects executive functioning or fluid cognitive ability. Extensive research indicates that the TMT assesses a variety of cognitive functions including attention, visual scanning, switching speed, mental flexibility, and the ability to initiate and modify an action plan (Bowie & Harvey, 2006; Salthouse, 2011; Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006; Zakzanis, Mraz, & Graham, 2005).
Recently, Horvat and colleagues (Horvat, Fallaize, Croce, & Roswal, in preparation) focused on modifying the TMT to develop a more cognitive-motor-based assessment better suited for use by adapted physical educators and therapists. In this variation, the TMT compares speed of processing and fluid cognitive ability with a running task (subsequently termed a cognitive dash by the authors). Individuals complete a computerized version of the TMT, which is then compared with the time it takes to complete running on a basketball court from baseline to midcourt (42 ft, or 13 m). In condition A, participants pick up a poly spot placed around the center court circle in the appropriate number sequence (1-2-3, and so on), place the poly spot in a bucket, and return to the starting point. Condition B requires the participants to alternatively pick up a number, then a letter (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on), place them both into a bucket, and run back to the starting line. Similar to the TMT, condition A requires connecting a series of numbers, reflecting speed of processing. Condition B, which includes a number and letter in unison, is used to detect executive function and verbal fluency. Here, verbal fluency refers to a cognitive function that facilitates information retrieval from memory, requiring executive control over several cognitive processes such as selective attention, selective inhibition, and response generation.The correlation between the TMT and actual movement times from the cognitive dash gives teachers additional information to assess processing speed and planning a movement sequence.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Case Study
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Mr. Simon has three students with disabilities in one of his fourth-grade physical education classes. He is about to start a new unit that focuses on the overhand throw. He decides to preassess the class so he can plan his instruction according to the needs of these three students, and also to determine whether this class placement is the most appropriate setting for them. Mr. Simon reviews his test and measurement textbook and finds a simple assessment for throwing that can be administered to a group of students. The test, which involves averaging three throws for distance, has face validity for ages 4 through 12. He administers the assessment to his class and compares their scores with the norms provided with the test. The results indicate that the class overall is performing at the 53rd percentile. One of the three students with disabilities is performing above the class mean, while the other two students are among the lower-performing students in the class.
Mr. Simon concludes that the assessment results clearly indicate the class needs to work on throwing. However, having spent one class period conducting the assessment and another two hours interpreting the results, he is a bit perplexed about how to actually use this information to plan his instruction. He could form instructional groups based on how far the students can throw, but he realizes he does not have any information on why they are throwing so poorly. For example, is it because they do not know the correct throwing pattern? Or is it because they are weak and need to work on strength? In regard to the students with disabilities, one student appears to be in the right placement since she is throwing as well as half the other students in the class, but it seems that this may not be the best placement for the other two students.
Mr. Simon needs to make two decisions: an instructional decision regarding the overhand throw and a placement decision to determine whether this class is appropriate for his students with disabilities. His problem is that he used a norm-referenced instrument that measured the outcome, or product, of throwing performance. What he needed in this situation was a criterion-referenced instrument (CRI) to evaluate how the students were actually performing the throw. Had he collected this information, he would have known which components of the throw the students had mastered and which ones still needed work. He could have then used this information to plan his instruction. The criterion-referenced assessment information could have also been used to determine any unique needs the students with disabilities have on the throw objective and how these needs can be accommodated within the class. Teachers learn that they should use assessment to guide their decision making in physical education, but when they actually try to use it, some do not find the assessment results useful and subsequently stop assessing. The assessment process is not the problem; the problem is not knowing how to select the appropriate assessment tool to match the decision that needs to be made.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education.
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education. Yet many referrals for adapted physical education are for behavior or social interaction problems students display in general physical education rather than physical or motor problems. It is often said that physical education can improve self-concept, but how a student feels about himself or herself in relation to physical education is rarely measured. Finally, many teachers talk about the importance of helping students without disabilities gain a positive, empathetic, caring attitude toward peers with disabilities. This chapter reviews common assessment tools and practices used to measure students' behaviors, social skills, self-concept, play, and attitudes. Each section begins with a short case study relating a real-life situation of a student with a disability.
Students who present difficult behaviors are often the most challenging for both general and adapted physical educators. Difficult behaviors can include passive aggression (refusing to participate), verbal outbursts, running away, destroying equipment, and even physical violence toward peers and staff. Before the IEP team can determine an appropriate program for a student with challenging behaviors, the team needs to determine the types of behaviors being displayed, the intensity of the behaviors, and possible causes of the behaviors.
The ability to effectively meet social and community expectations for personal independence, physical needs, and interpersonal relationships expected for one's age and cultural group is termed adaptive behavior (Brown, McDonnell, & Snell, 2016). Behavior that interferes with everyday activities is called maladaptive behavior, or more often, problem behavior. Maladaptive behavior is undesirable, is socially unacceptable, or interferes with the acquisition of desired skills or knowledge (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996). Problems in acquiring adaptive skills may occur at any age - in developing and mastering basic maturational skills for young children (e.g., the ability to walk or perform self-help skills), in learning academic skills and concepts for school-age children (e.g., basic reading, writing, and math), or in making social and vocational adjustments for older individuals (e.g., getting along with others and developing basic job skills).
Maladaptive behavior ultimately limits independence,the ability to do things on one's own without getting into trouble. Independence is critical for success at school, at home, and in the community. It means not only being able to perform a task but also knowing when to do it and having the willingness to do so. When students exhibit behavior problems that affect independence, it leads to restrictions, extra supervision, additional assistance with behaving more appropriately, and possibly a more segregated placement (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996).
With regard to physical education, adaptive behavior includes following directions, getting along with peers, using equipment appropriately, putting forth an appropriate amount of effort, and generally behaving appropriately for the setting (e.g., not running away or getting into fights). Good adaptive behavior and a lack of behavior problems in physical education allow the student to be more independent (does not need a teacher assistant), be more successful, and be accepted more readily by the general physical education teacher and by peers.
In behavioral assessments, the first step is defining the targeted behavior to determine the extent of its occurrence before treatment. The assessment of behavior depends on accurate observation and precise measurement. Therefore, it is important that the examiner clearly and objectively define the behaviors to be assessed and then accurately observe and record these defined behaviors (Bambara, Janney, & Snell, 2015). For example, saying a student is "always getting in trouble" is vague and not measurable. Even a statement such as "Emily is aggressive toward her peers" is too vague to target for intervention. Aggressive could mean that she hits, bites, yells, or displays other forms of aggression. A better definition might be that "Emily touches and pushes other children two or three times while waiting in line to drink water and four or five times when sitting in a group waiting for instructions."
It is also important to examine antecedents (things that happen just before a behavior occurs that may cause the behavior) as well as consequences (things that happen immediately after a behavior occurs that may reinforce the behavior). For example, being paired with a particular peer may upset a student and cause an inappropriate behavior (screaming when the student sees that peer coming toward him), while chasing after a student who runs away may reinforce that behavior (running away becomes a game) (see the section on functional behavioral analysis in this chapter for more details on measuring antecedents and consequences).
Traditional behavioral assessments usually focus on two areas: adaptive behaviors and behavior problems. Assessing adaptive behaviors involves information such as a student's ability to perform certain adaptive behaviors (e.g., dressing, getting from one place to another, staying on task), how often he performs an adaptive behavior, and how well he performs an adaptive behavior. Assessing behavior problems includes types of maladaptive behaviors, frequency of such behaviors, and intensity of such behaviors. For example, a question on the Scales of Independent Behavior - Revised (SIB-R) (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996) asks whether or not the student is hurtful to others (e.g., biting, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, scratching, or striking). The scale includes a place for the examiner to note the frequency (never to one or more times per hour) as well as the perceived severity of the problem (not serious, not a problem to extremely serious, a critical problem).Thus, the examiner is able to obtain an idea of the student's present abilities, strengths, and deficits with regard to adaptive behaviors and problem behaviors. This information can then be translated into behavioral goals such as "demonstrates the ability to wait turn when playing small-group game in physical education" or "maintains appropriate personal space when playing games and interacting with peers in physical education."
Information from this type of assessment can also help the general physical education teacher determine whether a behavior is significant enough (i.e., occurs fairly frequently and at a serious level) to warrant additional support - such as a teacher assistant or adapted physical educator - or perhaps removal from general physical education into a self-contained setting. Other areas that are measured in behavioral tests include the following (Kazdin, 2000):
- Frequency: number of behaviors during a designated time period
- Response rate: number of responses divided by the time interval
- Intervals: behaviors during a specified time rather than by discrete responses that have a beginning and end point
- Time sampling: observations conducted for brief periods at different times rather than during a single block of time
- Duration: amount of time the response is observed (effective for measuring continuous rather than discrete behaviors)
- Latency: duration measure that observes the time lapse between the cue and the response
- Categorization: classifying responses according to their occurrence (correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate)
- Group: number of individuals who perform a specific behavior or response as opposed to individual responses
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Roles in the Assessment Process
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what.
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what. Physical education assessments of persons with disabilities have not historically been undertaken by adapted physical education personnel. It is not particularly uncommon for persons with disabilities to have been assessed for physical education by general physical education teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, mainstream classroom teachers, special education teachers, and sometimes psychologists. The person responsible for adapted physical education must be thoroughly familiar with the test, test content, and test administration procedures. The person conducting adapted physical education assessments should also be firmly grounded in adapted physical education and its relationship to special education and related services in the school setting.
At times, there will be honest differences of opinion among allied professionals regarding who makes up the MPT. For example, flexibility is one component of physical fitness, and as such, it is typically addressed in a physical education curriculum. Flexibility is also addressed in physical therapy. The occupational therapist may assess throwing because he perceives throwing as a manipulative skill. Yet the same skill might be assessed by an adapted physical education specialist, who sees throwing skill development as being within the purview of her own profession.
Often, there are no clear-cut boundaries for determining if a given activity belongs to a specific profession. This perhaps is how it should be, since professionals who worry more about territorial imperatives than about students may be putting their professions ahead of the very persons whom the professions are trying to serve. Individuals who serve the same students must strive to create a working environment characterized by communication, mutual respect, and, foremost, the development of specific goals in the best interests of the person being served.
Assessment by the Physical Educator
Physical education teachers are involved in assessment at a variety of levels. The elementary physical educator may be responsible for conducting initial posture or scoliosis screening at the preschool or kindergarten levels. Screening is a type of general assessment administered to all students in a class. At early age levels, motor screening becomes part of a larger, more comprehensive screening of general cognitive, affective, psychological, and social development. Individuals diagnosed as having disabilities at early age levels are usually referred for more in-depth diagnostic assessment.
The physical educator and other members of the MPT may also conduct screening tests at the primary and upper elementary grades. General fitness tests, such as FitnessGram, are often administered by the elementary physical education teacher. FitnessGram has health-related items that reflect healthy zones and areas to be improved. Its use as a placement tool among persons who have disabilities may be of somewhat limited value in relation to norm-referenced tests that specifically address individual needs and level of functioning. Teachers make decisions and plan instruction around areas of strength and need. Results of such assessments can help determine whether an individual with a disability meets entry or exit criteria for placement in adapted physical education.
At middle and high school levels, physical educators may administer tests corresponding to certain curricular units of instruction. For example, the teacher may select a soccer skills test for use at the end of a soccer unit. In a skills test, individuals are asked to demonstrate proficiencies in specific skills presented during the physical education class. Secondary-level physical educators may also administer group fitness tests and sometimes may administer written tests to assess knowledge of physical education concepts.
Today, most physical education curricula are objective based, with clearly defined achievement criteria for each grade level (Horvat, Kalakian, Croce, and Dahlstrom, 2011). Objective-based curricula readily lend themselves to ongoing criterion-referenced assessment. In some schools, physical education teachers must report their classes' percentage of mastery on curricular objectives taught during the school year. Objective-based programs with curriculum-embedded assessment provide a clearly defined system for evaluating programs, individualizing instruction, and monitoring pupil progress toward objectives. Objective-based instruction has had tremendous impact on physical education. Curriculum planning, accountability, and curriculum-embedded assessment are now integral parts of a field in which, for some, individualization had seemed next to impossible.
Members of the MPT are faced with the challenge of conducting diagnostic tests. Assessment for diagnostic purposes requires that the teacher gather data that help determine the specific nature of individual motor difficulties or why individuals are having problems in physical education. For example, diagnostic motor testing is utilized to pinpoint particular motor development problem areas such as agility or eye - hand coordination. In-depth diagnostic assessment of motor functioning is usually administered individually. Diagnostic instruments may be formal (e.g., norm referenced) or informal (e.g., criterion referenced). Formal diagnostic tests tend to be more time consuming and may require a separate session for each objective area.
Because diagnostic tests are usually administered to students individually, it is difficult for the general physical educator to find time to test each student. In some school districts, adapted physical educators or other MPT members assume responsibility forall movement-related individual assessments.
The content of skills tests administered by physical educators can vary and may include tests of sports skills, fundamental motor skills, or perceptual-motor abilities. The content of these tests should directly reflect skills taught in the physical education curriculum, and skills in the curriculum should directly reflect skills needed in community- and home-based settings.
Assessments by Specialists Representing Other Therapies
In recent years, schools have become more interdisciplinary in providing opportunities for individuals who have disabilities. An important manifestation of this trend is that occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), and vocational trainers have undertaken contributing roles in public schools. Pursuant to federal mandates, these therapies are provided as related services when determined necessary to facilitate a student's special education program. When therapists are members of the MPT, portions of motor assessment can be conducted by the OT or PT. Traditionally, OTs and PTs have functioned within a medical model, while physical educators have functioned within an educational model. Physical education teachers primarily assess observable, measurable motor skills, while OTs and PTs tend to assess processes underlying movement. For example, the physical educator might assess throwing skill, while the physical therapist might assess range of motion, which to some extent underlies the ability to throw skillfully. The OT might also assess manipulative abilities that facilitate ball handling, which in turn affects throwing proficiency.
These individuals must work together to facilitate appropriate assessments that identify a student's functional performance levels in the following areas:
- Gross and fine motor skills
- Reflex and reaction development
- Developmental landmarks
- Sensorimotor functioning
- Self-help skills
- Prevocational skills
- Social interaction skills
- Ambulatory devices
Several assessment areas overlap between adapted physical education and special education. This sort of overlap of professional responsibilities has been the subject of some controversy. The MPTs, however, can work cooperatively to avoid gaps in both assessment and service. Upon receiving and reviewing the referral of a student for assessment, it is vital that physical educators and therapists cooperatively plan and decide who will administer each type of assessment. Each professional brings unique, relevant information to the team meeting. The MPT approach to assessment emphasizes sharing, respecting, and learning from each team member's contribution. For example, the OT, adapted physical education teacher, and vocational trainer can work together to develop the specific intervention strategies needed for the individualized transition plan (ITP) by assessing components of the tasks required in the workplace and the physical skills needed to accomplish these tasks.
In some schools, physical therapists are available to assist in motor assessment, providing valuable insights for planning appropriate physical activities. For students who have physical disabilities (e.g., cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy), motor assessment may be based primarily on a medical model. Physical therapists can evaluate tonus and persistence of reflexes that interfere with range of motion, posture, and movement patterns. The results of a clinical evaluation by a physical therapist can then be combined with information gathered by a physical educator to develop the program plan. In cases involving physically disabling conditions when only early diagnostic information is available, an evaluation by a physical therapist may shed light on present functional capacity and subsequent implications for physical education programming (e.g., by determining head movements that may induce a reflex). In addition to identifying physiological (motor), topographical (affected parts of body), and etiological (causative) factors used in classifying physical disabilities, physical therapists can also conduct supplemental evaluations, including the following:
- Posture evaluation
- Eye - hand behavior patterns (eye dominance, eye movements, fixation, convergence, grasp)
- Visual status (sensory defects, motor defects)
- Early reflexes
- Joint range of motion and strength
- Stability skills (locomotor, head control, trunk control)
- Motor symptoms (spasticity, athetosis, ataxia, rigidity, tremors)
All the members of the MPT can provide information vital to the intervention process. Since the therapist's intervention is minimal, the adapted physical education teacher needs to translate relevant evaluative information into appropriate educational goals for each student. Within this context, the objectives defined from the evaluation of MPTs must be observable and measurable, and they must be used to develop an appropriate intervention plan based on individual needs.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Cognitive Assessments
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person’s perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills.
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person's perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills. Testing may cover a wide range of areas that might measure, for example, an individual's level of intelligence, perceptual abilities, verbal and nonverbal skills, attention, and processing or memory abilities. Unlike cognitive and perceptual tests administered by qualified clinical psychologists or diagnosticians, cognitive tests administered by adapted physical educators and therapists are geared more toward analyzing an individual's perceptual and cognitive abilities as they relate to movement. In addition, it is critical to appreciate that most standard cognitive assessment instruments are geared for adults - in particular adults recovering from brain injury or stroke or who have Alzheimer's disease. Consequently, there are few cognitive assessment instruments that can be applied to individuals with disabilities in the school setting. Of those instruments available, the Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most reliable for use by adapted physical educators and therapists in schools, and it has been used extensively since its development as part of the Army Individual Test Battery (1944).
Briefly, the TMT requires subjects to connect a sequence of consecutive targets on a sheet of paper or computer screen, in a similar manner to what a child would do in a connect-the-dots puzzle. There are two parts to the test. In the first part, the targets are 25 numbers randomly distributed in space (1, 2, 3, and so on), and the test takers need to connect them in sequential order. The subjects start at the circle marked Begin and continue linking numbers until they reach the endpoint, a circle marked End. Part B is similar to A; however, instead of linking only numbers, the subjects must alternately switch between a set of numbers (1 to 13) and a set of letters (A to L), again linking them in ascending order (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on). At the same time, the subjects connect the array of circles as fast as possible without lifting the pencil.
A commonly reported performance index in the TMT is time to completion. A difference score (B - A) is often reported, meant to remove the speed element from the test evaluation. The first part of the test reflects speed of processing, while the second part reflects executive functioning or fluid cognitive ability. Extensive research indicates that the TMT assesses a variety of cognitive functions including attention, visual scanning, switching speed, mental flexibility, and the ability to initiate and modify an action plan (Bowie & Harvey, 2006; Salthouse, 2011; Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006; Zakzanis, Mraz, & Graham, 2005).
Recently, Horvat and colleagues (Horvat, Fallaize, Croce, & Roswal, in preparation) focused on modifying the TMT to develop a more cognitive-motor-based assessment better suited for use by adapted physical educators and therapists. In this variation, the TMT compares speed of processing and fluid cognitive ability with a running task (subsequently termed a cognitive dash by the authors). Individuals complete a computerized version of the TMT, which is then compared with the time it takes to complete running on a basketball court from baseline to midcourt (42 ft, or 13 m). In condition A, participants pick up a poly spot placed around the center court circle in the appropriate number sequence (1-2-3, and so on), place the poly spot in a bucket, and return to the starting point. Condition B requires the participants to alternatively pick up a number, then a letter (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on), place them both into a bucket, and run back to the starting line. Similar to the TMT, condition A requires connecting a series of numbers, reflecting speed of processing. Condition B, which includes a number and letter in unison, is used to detect executive function and verbal fluency. Here, verbal fluency refers to a cognitive function that facilitates information retrieval from memory, requiring executive control over several cognitive processes such as selective attention, selective inhibition, and response generation.The correlation between the TMT and actual movement times from the cognitive dash gives teachers additional information to assess processing speed and planning a movement sequence.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Case Study
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Mr. Simon has three students with disabilities in one of his fourth-grade physical education classes. He is about to start a new unit that focuses on the overhand throw. He decides to preassess the class so he can plan his instruction according to the needs of these three students, and also to determine whether this class placement is the most appropriate setting for them. Mr. Simon reviews his test and measurement textbook and finds a simple assessment for throwing that can be administered to a group of students. The test, which involves averaging three throws for distance, has face validity for ages 4 through 12. He administers the assessment to his class and compares their scores with the norms provided with the test. The results indicate that the class overall is performing at the 53rd percentile. One of the three students with disabilities is performing above the class mean, while the other two students are among the lower-performing students in the class.
Mr. Simon concludes that the assessment results clearly indicate the class needs to work on throwing. However, having spent one class period conducting the assessment and another two hours interpreting the results, he is a bit perplexed about how to actually use this information to plan his instruction. He could form instructional groups based on how far the students can throw, but he realizes he does not have any information on why they are throwing so poorly. For example, is it because they do not know the correct throwing pattern? Or is it because they are weak and need to work on strength? In regard to the students with disabilities, one student appears to be in the right placement since she is throwing as well as half the other students in the class, but it seems that this may not be the best placement for the other two students.
Mr. Simon needs to make two decisions: an instructional decision regarding the overhand throw and a placement decision to determine whether this class is appropriate for his students with disabilities. His problem is that he used a norm-referenced instrument that measured the outcome, or product, of throwing performance. What he needed in this situation was a criterion-referenced instrument (CRI) to evaluate how the students were actually performing the throw. Had he collected this information, he would have known which components of the throw the students had mastered and which ones still needed work. He could have then used this information to plan his instruction. The criterion-referenced assessment information could have also been used to determine any unique needs the students with disabilities have on the throw objective and how these needs can be accommodated within the class. Teachers learn that they should use assessment to guide their decision making in physical education, but when they actually try to use it, some do not find the assessment results useful and subsequently stop assessing. The assessment process is not the problem; the problem is not knowing how to select the appropriate assessment tool to match the decision that needs to be made.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education.
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education. Yet many referrals for adapted physical education are for behavior or social interaction problems students display in general physical education rather than physical or motor problems. It is often said that physical education can improve self-concept, but how a student feels about himself or herself in relation to physical education is rarely measured. Finally, many teachers talk about the importance of helping students without disabilities gain a positive, empathetic, caring attitude toward peers with disabilities. This chapter reviews common assessment tools and practices used to measure students' behaviors, social skills, self-concept, play, and attitudes. Each section begins with a short case study relating a real-life situation of a student with a disability.
Students who present difficult behaviors are often the most challenging for both general and adapted physical educators. Difficult behaviors can include passive aggression (refusing to participate), verbal outbursts, running away, destroying equipment, and even physical violence toward peers and staff. Before the IEP team can determine an appropriate program for a student with challenging behaviors, the team needs to determine the types of behaviors being displayed, the intensity of the behaviors, and possible causes of the behaviors.
The ability to effectively meet social and community expectations for personal independence, physical needs, and interpersonal relationships expected for one's age and cultural group is termed adaptive behavior (Brown, McDonnell, & Snell, 2016). Behavior that interferes with everyday activities is called maladaptive behavior, or more often, problem behavior. Maladaptive behavior is undesirable, is socially unacceptable, or interferes with the acquisition of desired skills or knowledge (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996). Problems in acquiring adaptive skills may occur at any age - in developing and mastering basic maturational skills for young children (e.g., the ability to walk or perform self-help skills), in learning academic skills and concepts for school-age children (e.g., basic reading, writing, and math), or in making social and vocational adjustments for older individuals (e.g., getting along with others and developing basic job skills).
Maladaptive behavior ultimately limits independence,the ability to do things on one's own without getting into trouble. Independence is critical for success at school, at home, and in the community. It means not only being able to perform a task but also knowing when to do it and having the willingness to do so. When students exhibit behavior problems that affect independence, it leads to restrictions, extra supervision, additional assistance with behaving more appropriately, and possibly a more segregated placement (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996).
With regard to physical education, adaptive behavior includes following directions, getting along with peers, using equipment appropriately, putting forth an appropriate amount of effort, and generally behaving appropriately for the setting (e.g., not running away or getting into fights). Good adaptive behavior and a lack of behavior problems in physical education allow the student to be more independent (does not need a teacher assistant), be more successful, and be accepted more readily by the general physical education teacher and by peers.
In behavioral assessments, the first step is defining the targeted behavior to determine the extent of its occurrence before treatment. The assessment of behavior depends on accurate observation and precise measurement. Therefore, it is important that the examiner clearly and objectively define the behaviors to be assessed and then accurately observe and record these defined behaviors (Bambara, Janney, & Snell, 2015). For example, saying a student is "always getting in trouble" is vague and not measurable. Even a statement such as "Emily is aggressive toward her peers" is too vague to target for intervention. Aggressive could mean that she hits, bites, yells, or displays other forms of aggression. A better definition might be that "Emily touches and pushes other children two or three times while waiting in line to drink water and four or five times when sitting in a group waiting for instructions."
It is also important to examine antecedents (things that happen just before a behavior occurs that may cause the behavior) as well as consequences (things that happen immediately after a behavior occurs that may reinforce the behavior). For example, being paired with a particular peer may upset a student and cause an inappropriate behavior (screaming when the student sees that peer coming toward him), while chasing after a student who runs away may reinforce that behavior (running away becomes a game) (see the section on functional behavioral analysis in this chapter for more details on measuring antecedents and consequences).
Traditional behavioral assessments usually focus on two areas: adaptive behaviors and behavior problems. Assessing adaptive behaviors involves information such as a student's ability to perform certain adaptive behaviors (e.g., dressing, getting from one place to another, staying on task), how often he performs an adaptive behavior, and how well he performs an adaptive behavior. Assessing behavior problems includes types of maladaptive behaviors, frequency of such behaviors, and intensity of such behaviors. For example, a question on the Scales of Independent Behavior - Revised (SIB-R) (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996) asks whether or not the student is hurtful to others (e.g., biting, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, scratching, or striking). The scale includes a place for the examiner to note the frequency (never to one or more times per hour) as well as the perceived severity of the problem (not serious, not a problem to extremely serious, a critical problem).Thus, the examiner is able to obtain an idea of the student's present abilities, strengths, and deficits with regard to adaptive behaviors and problem behaviors. This information can then be translated into behavioral goals such as "demonstrates the ability to wait turn when playing small-group game in physical education" or "maintains appropriate personal space when playing games and interacting with peers in physical education."
Information from this type of assessment can also help the general physical education teacher determine whether a behavior is significant enough (i.e., occurs fairly frequently and at a serious level) to warrant additional support - such as a teacher assistant or adapted physical educator - or perhaps removal from general physical education into a self-contained setting. Other areas that are measured in behavioral tests include the following (Kazdin, 2000):
- Frequency: number of behaviors during a designated time period
- Response rate: number of responses divided by the time interval
- Intervals: behaviors during a specified time rather than by discrete responses that have a beginning and end point
- Time sampling: observations conducted for brief periods at different times rather than during a single block of time
- Duration: amount of time the response is observed (effective for measuring continuous rather than discrete behaviors)
- Latency: duration measure that observes the time lapse between the cue and the response
- Categorization: classifying responses according to their occurrence (correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate)
- Group: number of individuals who perform a specific behavior or response as opposed to individual responses
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Roles in the Assessment Process
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what.
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what. Physical education assessments of persons with disabilities have not historically been undertaken by adapted physical education personnel. It is not particularly uncommon for persons with disabilities to have been assessed for physical education by general physical education teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, mainstream classroom teachers, special education teachers, and sometimes psychologists. The person responsible for adapted physical education must be thoroughly familiar with the test, test content, and test administration procedures. The person conducting adapted physical education assessments should also be firmly grounded in adapted physical education and its relationship to special education and related services in the school setting.
At times, there will be honest differences of opinion among allied professionals regarding who makes up the MPT. For example, flexibility is one component of physical fitness, and as such, it is typically addressed in a physical education curriculum. Flexibility is also addressed in physical therapy. The occupational therapist may assess throwing because he perceives throwing as a manipulative skill. Yet the same skill might be assessed by an adapted physical education specialist, who sees throwing skill development as being within the purview of her own profession.
Often, there are no clear-cut boundaries for determining if a given activity belongs to a specific profession. This perhaps is how it should be, since professionals who worry more about territorial imperatives than about students may be putting their professions ahead of the very persons whom the professions are trying to serve. Individuals who serve the same students must strive to create a working environment characterized by communication, mutual respect, and, foremost, the development of specific goals in the best interests of the person being served.
Assessment by the Physical Educator
Physical education teachers are involved in assessment at a variety of levels. The elementary physical educator may be responsible for conducting initial posture or scoliosis screening at the preschool or kindergarten levels. Screening is a type of general assessment administered to all students in a class. At early age levels, motor screening becomes part of a larger, more comprehensive screening of general cognitive, affective, psychological, and social development. Individuals diagnosed as having disabilities at early age levels are usually referred for more in-depth diagnostic assessment.
The physical educator and other members of the MPT may also conduct screening tests at the primary and upper elementary grades. General fitness tests, such as FitnessGram, are often administered by the elementary physical education teacher. FitnessGram has health-related items that reflect healthy zones and areas to be improved. Its use as a placement tool among persons who have disabilities may be of somewhat limited value in relation to norm-referenced tests that specifically address individual needs and level of functioning. Teachers make decisions and plan instruction around areas of strength and need. Results of such assessments can help determine whether an individual with a disability meets entry or exit criteria for placement in adapted physical education.
At middle and high school levels, physical educators may administer tests corresponding to certain curricular units of instruction. For example, the teacher may select a soccer skills test for use at the end of a soccer unit. In a skills test, individuals are asked to demonstrate proficiencies in specific skills presented during the physical education class. Secondary-level physical educators may also administer group fitness tests and sometimes may administer written tests to assess knowledge of physical education concepts.
Today, most physical education curricula are objective based, with clearly defined achievement criteria for each grade level (Horvat, Kalakian, Croce, and Dahlstrom, 2011). Objective-based curricula readily lend themselves to ongoing criterion-referenced assessment. In some schools, physical education teachers must report their classes' percentage of mastery on curricular objectives taught during the school year. Objective-based programs with curriculum-embedded assessment provide a clearly defined system for evaluating programs, individualizing instruction, and monitoring pupil progress toward objectives. Objective-based instruction has had tremendous impact on physical education. Curriculum planning, accountability, and curriculum-embedded assessment are now integral parts of a field in which, for some, individualization had seemed next to impossible.
Members of the MPT are faced with the challenge of conducting diagnostic tests. Assessment for diagnostic purposes requires that the teacher gather data that help determine the specific nature of individual motor difficulties or why individuals are having problems in physical education. For example, diagnostic motor testing is utilized to pinpoint particular motor development problem areas such as agility or eye - hand coordination. In-depth diagnostic assessment of motor functioning is usually administered individually. Diagnostic instruments may be formal (e.g., norm referenced) or informal (e.g., criterion referenced). Formal diagnostic tests tend to be more time consuming and may require a separate session for each objective area.
Because diagnostic tests are usually administered to students individually, it is difficult for the general physical educator to find time to test each student. In some school districts, adapted physical educators or other MPT members assume responsibility forall movement-related individual assessments.
The content of skills tests administered by physical educators can vary and may include tests of sports skills, fundamental motor skills, or perceptual-motor abilities. The content of these tests should directly reflect skills taught in the physical education curriculum, and skills in the curriculum should directly reflect skills needed in community- and home-based settings.
Assessments by Specialists Representing Other Therapies
In recent years, schools have become more interdisciplinary in providing opportunities for individuals who have disabilities. An important manifestation of this trend is that occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), and vocational trainers have undertaken contributing roles in public schools. Pursuant to federal mandates, these therapies are provided as related services when determined necessary to facilitate a student's special education program. When therapists are members of the MPT, portions of motor assessment can be conducted by the OT or PT. Traditionally, OTs and PTs have functioned within a medical model, while physical educators have functioned within an educational model. Physical education teachers primarily assess observable, measurable motor skills, while OTs and PTs tend to assess processes underlying movement. For example, the physical educator might assess throwing skill, while the physical therapist might assess range of motion, which to some extent underlies the ability to throw skillfully. The OT might also assess manipulative abilities that facilitate ball handling, which in turn affects throwing proficiency.
These individuals must work together to facilitate appropriate assessments that identify a student's functional performance levels in the following areas:
- Gross and fine motor skills
- Reflex and reaction development
- Developmental landmarks
- Sensorimotor functioning
- Self-help skills
- Prevocational skills
- Social interaction skills
- Ambulatory devices
Several assessment areas overlap between adapted physical education and special education. This sort of overlap of professional responsibilities has been the subject of some controversy. The MPTs, however, can work cooperatively to avoid gaps in both assessment and service. Upon receiving and reviewing the referral of a student for assessment, it is vital that physical educators and therapists cooperatively plan and decide who will administer each type of assessment. Each professional brings unique, relevant information to the team meeting. The MPT approach to assessment emphasizes sharing, respecting, and learning from each team member's contribution. For example, the OT, adapted physical education teacher, and vocational trainer can work together to develop the specific intervention strategies needed for the individualized transition plan (ITP) by assessing components of the tasks required in the workplace and the physical skills needed to accomplish these tasks.
In some schools, physical therapists are available to assist in motor assessment, providing valuable insights for planning appropriate physical activities. For students who have physical disabilities (e.g., cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy), motor assessment may be based primarily on a medical model. Physical therapists can evaluate tonus and persistence of reflexes that interfere with range of motion, posture, and movement patterns. The results of a clinical evaluation by a physical therapist can then be combined with information gathered by a physical educator to develop the program plan. In cases involving physically disabling conditions when only early diagnostic information is available, an evaluation by a physical therapist may shed light on present functional capacity and subsequent implications for physical education programming (e.g., by determining head movements that may induce a reflex). In addition to identifying physiological (motor), topographical (affected parts of body), and etiological (causative) factors used in classifying physical disabilities, physical therapists can also conduct supplemental evaluations, including the following:
- Posture evaluation
- Eye - hand behavior patterns (eye dominance, eye movements, fixation, convergence, grasp)
- Visual status (sensory defects, motor defects)
- Early reflexes
- Joint range of motion and strength
- Stability skills (locomotor, head control, trunk control)
- Motor symptoms (spasticity, athetosis, ataxia, rigidity, tremors)
All the members of the MPT can provide information vital to the intervention process. Since the therapist's intervention is minimal, the adapted physical education teacher needs to translate relevant evaluative information into appropriate educational goals for each student. Within this context, the objectives defined from the evaluation of MPTs must be observable and measurable, and they must be used to develop an appropriate intervention plan based on individual needs.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Cognitive Assessments
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person’s perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills.
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person's perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills. Testing may cover a wide range of areas that might measure, for example, an individual's level of intelligence, perceptual abilities, verbal and nonverbal skills, attention, and processing or memory abilities. Unlike cognitive and perceptual tests administered by qualified clinical psychologists or diagnosticians, cognitive tests administered by adapted physical educators and therapists are geared more toward analyzing an individual's perceptual and cognitive abilities as they relate to movement. In addition, it is critical to appreciate that most standard cognitive assessment instruments are geared for adults - in particular adults recovering from brain injury or stroke or who have Alzheimer's disease. Consequently, there are few cognitive assessment instruments that can be applied to individuals with disabilities in the school setting. Of those instruments available, the Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most reliable for use by adapted physical educators and therapists in schools, and it has been used extensively since its development as part of the Army Individual Test Battery (1944).
Briefly, the TMT requires subjects to connect a sequence of consecutive targets on a sheet of paper or computer screen, in a similar manner to what a child would do in a connect-the-dots puzzle. There are two parts to the test. In the first part, the targets are 25 numbers randomly distributed in space (1, 2, 3, and so on), and the test takers need to connect them in sequential order. The subjects start at the circle marked Begin and continue linking numbers until they reach the endpoint, a circle marked End. Part B is similar to A; however, instead of linking only numbers, the subjects must alternately switch between a set of numbers (1 to 13) and a set of letters (A to L), again linking them in ascending order (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on). At the same time, the subjects connect the array of circles as fast as possible without lifting the pencil.
A commonly reported performance index in the TMT is time to completion. A difference score (B - A) is often reported, meant to remove the speed element from the test evaluation. The first part of the test reflects speed of processing, while the second part reflects executive functioning or fluid cognitive ability. Extensive research indicates that the TMT assesses a variety of cognitive functions including attention, visual scanning, switching speed, mental flexibility, and the ability to initiate and modify an action plan (Bowie & Harvey, 2006; Salthouse, 2011; Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006; Zakzanis, Mraz, & Graham, 2005).
Recently, Horvat and colleagues (Horvat, Fallaize, Croce, & Roswal, in preparation) focused on modifying the TMT to develop a more cognitive-motor-based assessment better suited for use by adapted physical educators and therapists. In this variation, the TMT compares speed of processing and fluid cognitive ability with a running task (subsequently termed a cognitive dash by the authors). Individuals complete a computerized version of the TMT, which is then compared with the time it takes to complete running on a basketball court from baseline to midcourt (42 ft, or 13 m). In condition A, participants pick up a poly spot placed around the center court circle in the appropriate number sequence (1-2-3, and so on), place the poly spot in a bucket, and return to the starting point. Condition B requires the participants to alternatively pick up a number, then a letter (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on), place them both into a bucket, and run back to the starting line. Similar to the TMT, condition A requires connecting a series of numbers, reflecting speed of processing. Condition B, which includes a number and letter in unison, is used to detect executive function and verbal fluency. Here, verbal fluency refers to a cognitive function that facilitates information retrieval from memory, requiring executive control over several cognitive processes such as selective attention, selective inhibition, and response generation.The correlation between the TMT and actual movement times from the cognitive dash gives teachers additional information to assess processing speed and planning a movement sequence.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Case Study
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Mr. Simon has three students with disabilities in one of his fourth-grade physical education classes. He is about to start a new unit that focuses on the overhand throw. He decides to preassess the class so he can plan his instruction according to the needs of these three students, and also to determine whether this class placement is the most appropriate setting for them. Mr. Simon reviews his test and measurement textbook and finds a simple assessment for throwing that can be administered to a group of students. The test, which involves averaging three throws for distance, has face validity for ages 4 through 12. He administers the assessment to his class and compares their scores with the norms provided with the test. The results indicate that the class overall is performing at the 53rd percentile. One of the three students with disabilities is performing above the class mean, while the other two students are among the lower-performing students in the class.
Mr. Simon concludes that the assessment results clearly indicate the class needs to work on throwing. However, having spent one class period conducting the assessment and another two hours interpreting the results, he is a bit perplexed about how to actually use this information to plan his instruction. He could form instructional groups based on how far the students can throw, but he realizes he does not have any information on why they are throwing so poorly. For example, is it because they do not know the correct throwing pattern? Or is it because they are weak and need to work on strength? In regard to the students with disabilities, one student appears to be in the right placement since she is throwing as well as half the other students in the class, but it seems that this may not be the best placement for the other two students.
Mr. Simon needs to make two decisions: an instructional decision regarding the overhand throw and a placement decision to determine whether this class is appropriate for his students with disabilities. His problem is that he used a norm-referenced instrument that measured the outcome, or product, of throwing performance. What he needed in this situation was a criterion-referenced instrument (CRI) to evaluate how the students were actually performing the throw. Had he collected this information, he would have known which components of the throw the students had mastered and which ones still needed work. He could have then used this information to plan his instruction. The criterion-referenced assessment information could have also been used to determine any unique needs the students with disabilities have on the throw objective and how these needs can be accommodated within the class. Teachers learn that they should use assessment to guide their decision making in physical education, but when they actually try to use it, some do not find the assessment results useful and subsequently stop assessing. The assessment process is not the problem; the problem is not knowing how to select the appropriate assessment tool to match the decision that needs to be made.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education.
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education. Yet many referrals for adapted physical education are for behavior or social interaction problems students display in general physical education rather than physical or motor problems. It is often said that physical education can improve self-concept, but how a student feels about himself or herself in relation to physical education is rarely measured. Finally, many teachers talk about the importance of helping students without disabilities gain a positive, empathetic, caring attitude toward peers with disabilities. This chapter reviews common assessment tools and practices used to measure students' behaviors, social skills, self-concept, play, and attitudes. Each section begins with a short case study relating a real-life situation of a student with a disability.
Students who present difficult behaviors are often the most challenging for both general and adapted physical educators. Difficult behaviors can include passive aggression (refusing to participate), verbal outbursts, running away, destroying equipment, and even physical violence toward peers and staff. Before the IEP team can determine an appropriate program for a student with challenging behaviors, the team needs to determine the types of behaviors being displayed, the intensity of the behaviors, and possible causes of the behaviors.
The ability to effectively meet social and community expectations for personal independence, physical needs, and interpersonal relationships expected for one's age and cultural group is termed adaptive behavior (Brown, McDonnell, & Snell, 2016). Behavior that interferes with everyday activities is called maladaptive behavior, or more often, problem behavior. Maladaptive behavior is undesirable, is socially unacceptable, or interferes with the acquisition of desired skills or knowledge (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996). Problems in acquiring adaptive skills may occur at any age - in developing and mastering basic maturational skills for young children (e.g., the ability to walk or perform self-help skills), in learning academic skills and concepts for school-age children (e.g., basic reading, writing, and math), or in making social and vocational adjustments for older individuals (e.g., getting along with others and developing basic job skills).
Maladaptive behavior ultimately limits independence,the ability to do things on one's own without getting into trouble. Independence is critical for success at school, at home, and in the community. It means not only being able to perform a task but also knowing when to do it and having the willingness to do so. When students exhibit behavior problems that affect independence, it leads to restrictions, extra supervision, additional assistance with behaving more appropriately, and possibly a more segregated placement (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996).
With regard to physical education, adaptive behavior includes following directions, getting along with peers, using equipment appropriately, putting forth an appropriate amount of effort, and generally behaving appropriately for the setting (e.g., not running away or getting into fights). Good adaptive behavior and a lack of behavior problems in physical education allow the student to be more independent (does not need a teacher assistant), be more successful, and be accepted more readily by the general physical education teacher and by peers.
In behavioral assessments, the first step is defining the targeted behavior to determine the extent of its occurrence before treatment. The assessment of behavior depends on accurate observation and precise measurement. Therefore, it is important that the examiner clearly and objectively define the behaviors to be assessed and then accurately observe and record these defined behaviors (Bambara, Janney, & Snell, 2015). For example, saying a student is "always getting in trouble" is vague and not measurable. Even a statement such as "Emily is aggressive toward her peers" is too vague to target for intervention. Aggressive could mean that she hits, bites, yells, or displays other forms of aggression. A better definition might be that "Emily touches and pushes other children two or three times while waiting in line to drink water and four or five times when sitting in a group waiting for instructions."
It is also important to examine antecedents (things that happen just before a behavior occurs that may cause the behavior) as well as consequences (things that happen immediately after a behavior occurs that may reinforce the behavior). For example, being paired with a particular peer may upset a student and cause an inappropriate behavior (screaming when the student sees that peer coming toward him), while chasing after a student who runs away may reinforce that behavior (running away becomes a game) (see the section on functional behavioral analysis in this chapter for more details on measuring antecedents and consequences).
Traditional behavioral assessments usually focus on two areas: adaptive behaviors and behavior problems. Assessing adaptive behaviors involves information such as a student's ability to perform certain adaptive behaviors (e.g., dressing, getting from one place to another, staying on task), how often he performs an adaptive behavior, and how well he performs an adaptive behavior. Assessing behavior problems includes types of maladaptive behaviors, frequency of such behaviors, and intensity of such behaviors. For example, a question on the Scales of Independent Behavior - Revised (SIB-R) (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996) asks whether or not the student is hurtful to others (e.g., biting, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, scratching, or striking). The scale includes a place for the examiner to note the frequency (never to one or more times per hour) as well as the perceived severity of the problem (not serious, not a problem to extremely serious, a critical problem).Thus, the examiner is able to obtain an idea of the student's present abilities, strengths, and deficits with regard to adaptive behaviors and problem behaviors. This information can then be translated into behavioral goals such as "demonstrates the ability to wait turn when playing small-group game in physical education" or "maintains appropriate personal space when playing games and interacting with peers in physical education."
Information from this type of assessment can also help the general physical education teacher determine whether a behavior is significant enough (i.e., occurs fairly frequently and at a serious level) to warrant additional support - such as a teacher assistant or adapted physical educator - or perhaps removal from general physical education into a self-contained setting. Other areas that are measured in behavioral tests include the following (Kazdin, 2000):
- Frequency: number of behaviors during a designated time period
- Response rate: number of responses divided by the time interval
- Intervals: behaviors during a specified time rather than by discrete responses that have a beginning and end point
- Time sampling: observations conducted for brief periods at different times rather than during a single block of time
- Duration: amount of time the response is observed (effective for measuring continuous rather than discrete behaviors)
- Latency: duration measure that observes the time lapse between the cue and the response
- Categorization: classifying responses according to their occurrence (correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate)
- Group: number of individuals who perform a specific behavior or response as opposed to individual responses
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Roles in the Assessment Process
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what.
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what. Physical education assessments of persons with disabilities have not historically been undertaken by adapted physical education personnel. It is not particularly uncommon for persons with disabilities to have been assessed for physical education by general physical education teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, mainstream classroom teachers, special education teachers, and sometimes psychologists. The person responsible for adapted physical education must be thoroughly familiar with the test, test content, and test administration procedures. The person conducting adapted physical education assessments should also be firmly grounded in adapted physical education and its relationship to special education and related services in the school setting.
At times, there will be honest differences of opinion among allied professionals regarding who makes up the MPT. For example, flexibility is one component of physical fitness, and as such, it is typically addressed in a physical education curriculum. Flexibility is also addressed in physical therapy. The occupational therapist may assess throwing because he perceives throwing as a manipulative skill. Yet the same skill might be assessed by an adapted physical education specialist, who sees throwing skill development as being within the purview of her own profession.
Often, there are no clear-cut boundaries for determining if a given activity belongs to a specific profession. This perhaps is how it should be, since professionals who worry more about territorial imperatives than about students may be putting their professions ahead of the very persons whom the professions are trying to serve. Individuals who serve the same students must strive to create a working environment characterized by communication, mutual respect, and, foremost, the development of specific goals in the best interests of the person being served.
Assessment by the Physical Educator
Physical education teachers are involved in assessment at a variety of levels. The elementary physical educator may be responsible for conducting initial posture or scoliosis screening at the preschool or kindergarten levels. Screening is a type of general assessment administered to all students in a class. At early age levels, motor screening becomes part of a larger, more comprehensive screening of general cognitive, affective, psychological, and social development. Individuals diagnosed as having disabilities at early age levels are usually referred for more in-depth diagnostic assessment.
The physical educator and other members of the MPT may also conduct screening tests at the primary and upper elementary grades. General fitness tests, such as FitnessGram, are often administered by the elementary physical education teacher. FitnessGram has health-related items that reflect healthy zones and areas to be improved. Its use as a placement tool among persons who have disabilities may be of somewhat limited value in relation to norm-referenced tests that specifically address individual needs and level of functioning. Teachers make decisions and plan instruction around areas of strength and need. Results of such assessments can help determine whether an individual with a disability meets entry or exit criteria for placement in adapted physical education.
At middle and high school levels, physical educators may administer tests corresponding to certain curricular units of instruction. For example, the teacher may select a soccer skills test for use at the end of a soccer unit. In a skills test, individuals are asked to demonstrate proficiencies in specific skills presented during the physical education class. Secondary-level physical educators may also administer group fitness tests and sometimes may administer written tests to assess knowledge of physical education concepts.
Today, most physical education curricula are objective based, with clearly defined achievement criteria for each grade level (Horvat, Kalakian, Croce, and Dahlstrom, 2011). Objective-based curricula readily lend themselves to ongoing criterion-referenced assessment. In some schools, physical education teachers must report their classes' percentage of mastery on curricular objectives taught during the school year. Objective-based programs with curriculum-embedded assessment provide a clearly defined system for evaluating programs, individualizing instruction, and monitoring pupil progress toward objectives. Objective-based instruction has had tremendous impact on physical education. Curriculum planning, accountability, and curriculum-embedded assessment are now integral parts of a field in which, for some, individualization had seemed next to impossible.
Members of the MPT are faced with the challenge of conducting diagnostic tests. Assessment for diagnostic purposes requires that the teacher gather data that help determine the specific nature of individual motor difficulties or why individuals are having problems in physical education. For example, diagnostic motor testing is utilized to pinpoint particular motor development problem areas such as agility or eye - hand coordination. In-depth diagnostic assessment of motor functioning is usually administered individually. Diagnostic instruments may be formal (e.g., norm referenced) or informal (e.g., criterion referenced). Formal diagnostic tests tend to be more time consuming and may require a separate session for each objective area.
Because diagnostic tests are usually administered to students individually, it is difficult for the general physical educator to find time to test each student. In some school districts, adapted physical educators or other MPT members assume responsibility forall movement-related individual assessments.
The content of skills tests administered by physical educators can vary and may include tests of sports skills, fundamental motor skills, or perceptual-motor abilities. The content of these tests should directly reflect skills taught in the physical education curriculum, and skills in the curriculum should directly reflect skills needed in community- and home-based settings.
Assessments by Specialists Representing Other Therapies
In recent years, schools have become more interdisciplinary in providing opportunities for individuals who have disabilities. An important manifestation of this trend is that occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), and vocational trainers have undertaken contributing roles in public schools. Pursuant to federal mandates, these therapies are provided as related services when determined necessary to facilitate a student's special education program. When therapists are members of the MPT, portions of motor assessment can be conducted by the OT or PT. Traditionally, OTs and PTs have functioned within a medical model, while physical educators have functioned within an educational model. Physical education teachers primarily assess observable, measurable motor skills, while OTs and PTs tend to assess processes underlying movement. For example, the physical educator might assess throwing skill, while the physical therapist might assess range of motion, which to some extent underlies the ability to throw skillfully. The OT might also assess manipulative abilities that facilitate ball handling, which in turn affects throwing proficiency.
These individuals must work together to facilitate appropriate assessments that identify a student's functional performance levels in the following areas:
- Gross and fine motor skills
- Reflex and reaction development
- Developmental landmarks
- Sensorimotor functioning
- Self-help skills
- Prevocational skills
- Social interaction skills
- Ambulatory devices
Several assessment areas overlap between adapted physical education and special education. This sort of overlap of professional responsibilities has been the subject of some controversy. The MPTs, however, can work cooperatively to avoid gaps in both assessment and service. Upon receiving and reviewing the referral of a student for assessment, it is vital that physical educators and therapists cooperatively plan and decide who will administer each type of assessment. Each professional brings unique, relevant information to the team meeting. The MPT approach to assessment emphasizes sharing, respecting, and learning from each team member's contribution. For example, the OT, adapted physical education teacher, and vocational trainer can work together to develop the specific intervention strategies needed for the individualized transition plan (ITP) by assessing components of the tasks required in the workplace and the physical skills needed to accomplish these tasks.
In some schools, physical therapists are available to assist in motor assessment, providing valuable insights for planning appropriate physical activities. For students who have physical disabilities (e.g., cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy), motor assessment may be based primarily on a medical model. Physical therapists can evaluate tonus and persistence of reflexes that interfere with range of motion, posture, and movement patterns. The results of a clinical evaluation by a physical therapist can then be combined with information gathered by a physical educator to develop the program plan. In cases involving physically disabling conditions when only early diagnostic information is available, an evaluation by a physical therapist may shed light on present functional capacity and subsequent implications for physical education programming (e.g., by determining head movements that may induce a reflex). In addition to identifying physiological (motor), topographical (affected parts of body), and etiological (causative) factors used in classifying physical disabilities, physical therapists can also conduct supplemental evaluations, including the following:
- Posture evaluation
- Eye - hand behavior patterns (eye dominance, eye movements, fixation, convergence, grasp)
- Visual status (sensory defects, motor defects)
- Early reflexes
- Joint range of motion and strength
- Stability skills (locomotor, head control, trunk control)
- Motor symptoms (spasticity, athetosis, ataxia, rigidity, tremors)
All the members of the MPT can provide information vital to the intervention process. Since the therapist's intervention is minimal, the adapted physical education teacher needs to translate relevant evaluative information into appropriate educational goals for each student. Within this context, the objectives defined from the evaluation of MPTs must be observable and measurable, and they must be used to develop an appropriate intervention plan based on individual needs.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Cognitive Assessments
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person’s perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills.
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person's perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills. Testing may cover a wide range of areas that might measure, for example, an individual's level of intelligence, perceptual abilities, verbal and nonverbal skills, attention, and processing or memory abilities. Unlike cognitive and perceptual tests administered by qualified clinical psychologists or diagnosticians, cognitive tests administered by adapted physical educators and therapists are geared more toward analyzing an individual's perceptual and cognitive abilities as they relate to movement. In addition, it is critical to appreciate that most standard cognitive assessment instruments are geared for adults - in particular adults recovering from brain injury or stroke or who have Alzheimer's disease. Consequently, there are few cognitive assessment instruments that can be applied to individuals with disabilities in the school setting. Of those instruments available, the Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most reliable for use by adapted physical educators and therapists in schools, and it has been used extensively since its development as part of the Army Individual Test Battery (1944).
Briefly, the TMT requires subjects to connect a sequence of consecutive targets on a sheet of paper or computer screen, in a similar manner to what a child would do in a connect-the-dots puzzle. There are two parts to the test. In the first part, the targets are 25 numbers randomly distributed in space (1, 2, 3, and so on), and the test takers need to connect them in sequential order. The subjects start at the circle marked Begin and continue linking numbers until they reach the endpoint, a circle marked End. Part B is similar to A; however, instead of linking only numbers, the subjects must alternately switch between a set of numbers (1 to 13) and a set of letters (A to L), again linking them in ascending order (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on). At the same time, the subjects connect the array of circles as fast as possible without lifting the pencil.
A commonly reported performance index in the TMT is time to completion. A difference score (B - A) is often reported, meant to remove the speed element from the test evaluation. The first part of the test reflects speed of processing, while the second part reflects executive functioning or fluid cognitive ability. Extensive research indicates that the TMT assesses a variety of cognitive functions including attention, visual scanning, switching speed, mental flexibility, and the ability to initiate and modify an action plan (Bowie & Harvey, 2006; Salthouse, 2011; Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006; Zakzanis, Mraz, & Graham, 2005).
Recently, Horvat and colleagues (Horvat, Fallaize, Croce, & Roswal, in preparation) focused on modifying the TMT to develop a more cognitive-motor-based assessment better suited for use by adapted physical educators and therapists. In this variation, the TMT compares speed of processing and fluid cognitive ability with a running task (subsequently termed a cognitive dash by the authors). Individuals complete a computerized version of the TMT, which is then compared with the time it takes to complete running on a basketball court from baseline to midcourt (42 ft, or 13 m). In condition A, participants pick up a poly spot placed around the center court circle in the appropriate number sequence (1-2-3, and so on), place the poly spot in a bucket, and return to the starting point. Condition B requires the participants to alternatively pick up a number, then a letter (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on), place them both into a bucket, and run back to the starting line. Similar to the TMT, condition A requires connecting a series of numbers, reflecting speed of processing. Condition B, which includes a number and letter in unison, is used to detect executive function and verbal fluency. Here, verbal fluency refers to a cognitive function that facilitates information retrieval from memory, requiring executive control over several cognitive processes such as selective attention, selective inhibition, and response generation.The correlation between the TMT and actual movement times from the cognitive dash gives teachers additional information to assess processing speed and planning a movement sequence.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Case Study
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Mr. Simon has three students with disabilities in one of his fourth-grade physical education classes. He is about to start a new unit that focuses on the overhand throw. He decides to preassess the class so he can plan his instruction according to the needs of these three students, and also to determine whether this class placement is the most appropriate setting for them. Mr. Simon reviews his test and measurement textbook and finds a simple assessment for throwing that can be administered to a group of students. The test, which involves averaging three throws for distance, has face validity for ages 4 through 12. He administers the assessment to his class and compares their scores with the norms provided with the test. The results indicate that the class overall is performing at the 53rd percentile. One of the three students with disabilities is performing above the class mean, while the other two students are among the lower-performing students in the class.
Mr. Simon concludes that the assessment results clearly indicate the class needs to work on throwing. However, having spent one class period conducting the assessment and another two hours interpreting the results, he is a bit perplexed about how to actually use this information to plan his instruction. He could form instructional groups based on how far the students can throw, but he realizes he does not have any information on why they are throwing so poorly. For example, is it because they do not know the correct throwing pattern? Or is it because they are weak and need to work on strength? In regard to the students with disabilities, one student appears to be in the right placement since she is throwing as well as half the other students in the class, but it seems that this may not be the best placement for the other two students.
Mr. Simon needs to make two decisions: an instructional decision regarding the overhand throw and a placement decision to determine whether this class is appropriate for his students with disabilities. His problem is that he used a norm-referenced instrument that measured the outcome, or product, of throwing performance. What he needed in this situation was a criterion-referenced instrument (CRI) to evaluate how the students were actually performing the throw. Had he collected this information, he would have known which components of the throw the students had mastered and which ones still needed work. He could have then used this information to plan his instruction. The criterion-referenced assessment information could have also been used to determine any unique needs the students with disabilities have on the throw objective and how these needs can be accommodated within the class. Teachers learn that they should use assessment to guide their decision making in physical education, but when they actually try to use it, some do not find the assessment results useful and subsequently stop assessing. The assessment process is not the problem; the problem is not knowing how to select the appropriate assessment tool to match the decision that needs to be made.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education.
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education. Yet many referrals for adapted physical education are for behavior or social interaction problems students display in general physical education rather than physical or motor problems. It is often said that physical education can improve self-concept, but how a student feels about himself or herself in relation to physical education is rarely measured. Finally, many teachers talk about the importance of helping students without disabilities gain a positive, empathetic, caring attitude toward peers with disabilities. This chapter reviews common assessment tools and practices used to measure students' behaviors, social skills, self-concept, play, and attitudes. Each section begins with a short case study relating a real-life situation of a student with a disability.
Students who present difficult behaviors are often the most challenging for both general and adapted physical educators. Difficult behaviors can include passive aggression (refusing to participate), verbal outbursts, running away, destroying equipment, and even physical violence toward peers and staff. Before the IEP team can determine an appropriate program for a student with challenging behaviors, the team needs to determine the types of behaviors being displayed, the intensity of the behaviors, and possible causes of the behaviors.
The ability to effectively meet social and community expectations for personal independence, physical needs, and interpersonal relationships expected for one's age and cultural group is termed adaptive behavior (Brown, McDonnell, & Snell, 2016). Behavior that interferes with everyday activities is called maladaptive behavior, or more often, problem behavior. Maladaptive behavior is undesirable, is socially unacceptable, or interferes with the acquisition of desired skills or knowledge (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996). Problems in acquiring adaptive skills may occur at any age - in developing and mastering basic maturational skills for young children (e.g., the ability to walk or perform self-help skills), in learning academic skills and concepts for school-age children (e.g., basic reading, writing, and math), or in making social and vocational adjustments for older individuals (e.g., getting along with others and developing basic job skills).
Maladaptive behavior ultimately limits independence,the ability to do things on one's own without getting into trouble. Independence is critical for success at school, at home, and in the community. It means not only being able to perform a task but also knowing when to do it and having the willingness to do so. When students exhibit behavior problems that affect independence, it leads to restrictions, extra supervision, additional assistance with behaving more appropriately, and possibly a more segregated placement (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996).
With regard to physical education, adaptive behavior includes following directions, getting along with peers, using equipment appropriately, putting forth an appropriate amount of effort, and generally behaving appropriately for the setting (e.g., not running away or getting into fights). Good adaptive behavior and a lack of behavior problems in physical education allow the student to be more independent (does not need a teacher assistant), be more successful, and be accepted more readily by the general physical education teacher and by peers.
In behavioral assessments, the first step is defining the targeted behavior to determine the extent of its occurrence before treatment. The assessment of behavior depends on accurate observation and precise measurement. Therefore, it is important that the examiner clearly and objectively define the behaviors to be assessed and then accurately observe and record these defined behaviors (Bambara, Janney, & Snell, 2015). For example, saying a student is "always getting in trouble" is vague and not measurable. Even a statement such as "Emily is aggressive toward her peers" is too vague to target for intervention. Aggressive could mean that she hits, bites, yells, or displays other forms of aggression. A better definition might be that "Emily touches and pushes other children two or three times while waiting in line to drink water and four or five times when sitting in a group waiting for instructions."
It is also important to examine antecedents (things that happen just before a behavior occurs that may cause the behavior) as well as consequences (things that happen immediately after a behavior occurs that may reinforce the behavior). For example, being paired with a particular peer may upset a student and cause an inappropriate behavior (screaming when the student sees that peer coming toward him), while chasing after a student who runs away may reinforce that behavior (running away becomes a game) (see the section on functional behavioral analysis in this chapter for more details on measuring antecedents and consequences).
Traditional behavioral assessments usually focus on two areas: adaptive behaviors and behavior problems. Assessing adaptive behaviors involves information such as a student's ability to perform certain adaptive behaviors (e.g., dressing, getting from one place to another, staying on task), how often he performs an adaptive behavior, and how well he performs an adaptive behavior. Assessing behavior problems includes types of maladaptive behaviors, frequency of such behaviors, and intensity of such behaviors. For example, a question on the Scales of Independent Behavior - Revised (SIB-R) (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996) asks whether or not the student is hurtful to others (e.g., biting, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, scratching, or striking). The scale includes a place for the examiner to note the frequency (never to one or more times per hour) as well as the perceived severity of the problem (not serious, not a problem to extremely serious, a critical problem).Thus, the examiner is able to obtain an idea of the student's present abilities, strengths, and deficits with regard to adaptive behaviors and problem behaviors. This information can then be translated into behavioral goals such as "demonstrates the ability to wait turn when playing small-group game in physical education" or "maintains appropriate personal space when playing games and interacting with peers in physical education."
Information from this type of assessment can also help the general physical education teacher determine whether a behavior is significant enough (i.e., occurs fairly frequently and at a serious level) to warrant additional support - such as a teacher assistant or adapted physical educator - or perhaps removal from general physical education into a self-contained setting. Other areas that are measured in behavioral tests include the following (Kazdin, 2000):
- Frequency: number of behaviors during a designated time period
- Response rate: number of responses divided by the time interval
- Intervals: behaviors during a specified time rather than by discrete responses that have a beginning and end point
- Time sampling: observations conducted for brief periods at different times rather than during a single block of time
- Duration: amount of time the response is observed (effective for measuring continuous rather than discrete behaviors)
- Latency: duration measure that observes the time lapse between the cue and the response
- Categorization: classifying responses according to their occurrence (correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate)
- Group: number of individuals who perform a specific behavior or response as opposed to individual responses
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Roles in the Assessment Process
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what.
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what. Physical education assessments of persons with disabilities have not historically been undertaken by adapted physical education personnel. It is not particularly uncommon for persons with disabilities to have been assessed for physical education by general physical education teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, mainstream classroom teachers, special education teachers, and sometimes psychologists. The person responsible for adapted physical education must be thoroughly familiar with the test, test content, and test administration procedures. The person conducting adapted physical education assessments should also be firmly grounded in adapted physical education and its relationship to special education and related services in the school setting.
At times, there will be honest differences of opinion among allied professionals regarding who makes up the MPT. For example, flexibility is one component of physical fitness, and as such, it is typically addressed in a physical education curriculum. Flexibility is also addressed in physical therapy. The occupational therapist may assess throwing because he perceives throwing as a manipulative skill. Yet the same skill might be assessed by an adapted physical education specialist, who sees throwing skill development as being within the purview of her own profession.
Often, there are no clear-cut boundaries for determining if a given activity belongs to a specific profession. This perhaps is how it should be, since professionals who worry more about territorial imperatives than about students may be putting their professions ahead of the very persons whom the professions are trying to serve. Individuals who serve the same students must strive to create a working environment characterized by communication, mutual respect, and, foremost, the development of specific goals in the best interests of the person being served.
Assessment by the Physical Educator
Physical education teachers are involved in assessment at a variety of levels. The elementary physical educator may be responsible for conducting initial posture or scoliosis screening at the preschool or kindergarten levels. Screening is a type of general assessment administered to all students in a class. At early age levels, motor screening becomes part of a larger, more comprehensive screening of general cognitive, affective, psychological, and social development. Individuals diagnosed as having disabilities at early age levels are usually referred for more in-depth diagnostic assessment.
The physical educator and other members of the MPT may also conduct screening tests at the primary and upper elementary grades. General fitness tests, such as FitnessGram, are often administered by the elementary physical education teacher. FitnessGram has health-related items that reflect healthy zones and areas to be improved. Its use as a placement tool among persons who have disabilities may be of somewhat limited value in relation to norm-referenced tests that specifically address individual needs and level of functioning. Teachers make decisions and plan instruction around areas of strength and need. Results of such assessments can help determine whether an individual with a disability meets entry or exit criteria for placement in adapted physical education.
At middle and high school levels, physical educators may administer tests corresponding to certain curricular units of instruction. For example, the teacher may select a soccer skills test for use at the end of a soccer unit. In a skills test, individuals are asked to demonstrate proficiencies in specific skills presented during the physical education class. Secondary-level physical educators may also administer group fitness tests and sometimes may administer written tests to assess knowledge of physical education concepts.
Today, most physical education curricula are objective based, with clearly defined achievement criteria for each grade level (Horvat, Kalakian, Croce, and Dahlstrom, 2011). Objective-based curricula readily lend themselves to ongoing criterion-referenced assessment. In some schools, physical education teachers must report their classes' percentage of mastery on curricular objectives taught during the school year. Objective-based programs with curriculum-embedded assessment provide a clearly defined system for evaluating programs, individualizing instruction, and monitoring pupil progress toward objectives. Objective-based instruction has had tremendous impact on physical education. Curriculum planning, accountability, and curriculum-embedded assessment are now integral parts of a field in which, for some, individualization had seemed next to impossible.
Members of the MPT are faced with the challenge of conducting diagnostic tests. Assessment for diagnostic purposes requires that the teacher gather data that help determine the specific nature of individual motor difficulties or why individuals are having problems in physical education. For example, diagnostic motor testing is utilized to pinpoint particular motor development problem areas such as agility or eye - hand coordination. In-depth diagnostic assessment of motor functioning is usually administered individually. Diagnostic instruments may be formal (e.g., norm referenced) or informal (e.g., criterion referenced). Formal diagnostic tests tend to be more time consuming and may require a separate session for each objective area.
Because diagnostic tests are usually administered to students individually, it is difficult for the general physical educator to find time to test each student. In some school districts, adapted physical educators or other MPT members assume responsibility forall movement-related individual assessments.
The content of skills tests administered by physical educators can vary and may include tests of sports skills, fundamental motor skills, or perceptual-motor abilities. The content of these tests should directly reflect skills taught in the physical education curriculum, and skills in the curriculum should directly reflect skills needed in community- and home-based settings.
Assessments by Specialists Representing Other Therapies
In recent years, schools have become more interdisciplinary in providing opportunities for individuals who have disabilities. An important manifestation of this trend is that occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), and vocational trainers have undertaken contributing roles in public schools. Pursuant to federal mandates, these therapies are provided as related services when determined necessary to facilitate a student's special education program. When therapists are members of the MPT, portions of motor assessment can be conducted by the OT or PT. Traditionally, OTs and PTs have functioned within a medical model, while physical educators have functioned within an educational model. Physical education teachers primarily assess observable, measurable motor skills, while OTs and PTs tend to assess processes underlying movement. For example, the physical educator might assess throwing skill, while the physical therapist might assess range of motion, which to some extent underlies the ability to throw skillfully. The OT might also assess manipulative abilities that facilitate ball handling, which in turn affects throwing proficiency.
These individuals must work together to facilitate appropriate assessments that identify a student's functional performance levels in the following areas:
- Gross and fine motor skills
- Reflex and reaction development
- Developmental landmarks
- Sensorimotor functioning
- Self-help skills
- Prevocational skills
- Social interaction skills
- Ambulatory devices
Several assessment areas overlap between adapted physical education and special education. This sort of overlap of professional responsibilities has been the subject of some controversy. The MPTs, however, can work cooperatively to avoid gaps in both assessment and service. Upon receiving and reviewing the referral of a student for assessment, it is vital that physical educators and therapists cooperatively plan and decide who will administer each type of assessment. Each professional brings unique, relevant information to the team meeting. The MPT approach to assessment emphasizes sharing, respecting, and learning from each team member's contribution. For example, the OT, adapted physical education teacher, and vocational trainer can work together to develop the specific intervention strategies needed for the individualized transition plan (ITP) by assessing components of the tasks required in the workplace and the physical skills needed to accomplish these tasks.
In some schools, physical therapists are available to assist in motor assessment, providing valuable insights for planning appropriate physical activities. For students who have physical disabilities (e.g., cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy), motor assessment may be based primarily on a medical model. Physical therapists can evaluate tonus and persistence of reflexes that interfere with range of motion, posture, and movement patterns. The results of a clinical evaluation by a physical therapist can then be combined with information gathered by a physical educator to develop the program plan. In cases involving physically disabling conditions when only early diagnostic information is available, an evaluation by a physical therapist may shed light on present functional capacity and subsequent implications for physical education programming (e.g., by determining head movements that may induce a reflex). In addition to identifying physiological (motor), topographical (affected parts of body), and etiological (causative) factors used in classifying physical disabilities, physical therapists can also conduct supplemental evaluations, including the following:
- Posture evaluation
- Eye - hand behavior patterns (eye dominance, eye movements, fixation, convergence, grasp)
- Visual status (sensory defects, motor defects)
- Early reflexes
- Joint range of motion and strength
- Stability skills (locomotor, head control, trunk control)
- Motor symptoms (spasticity, athetosis, ataxia, rigidity, tremors)
All the members of the MPT can provide information vital to the intervention process. Since the therapist's intervention is minimal, the adapted physical education teacher needs to translate relevant evaluative information into appropriate educational goals for each student. Within this context, the objectives defined from the evaluation of MPTs must be observable and measurable, and they must be used to develop an appropriate intervention plan based on individual needs.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Cognitive Assessments
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person’s perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills.
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person's perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills. Testing may cover a wide range of areas that might measure, for example, an individual's level of intelligence, perceptual abilities, verbal and nonverbal skills, attention, and processing or memory abilities. Unlike cognitive and perceptual tests administered by qualified clinical psychologists or diagnosticians, cognitive tests administered by adapted physical educators and therapists are geared more toward analyzing an individual's perceptual and cognitive abilities as they relate to movement. In addition, it is critical to appreciate that most standard cognitive assessment instruments are geared for adults - in particular adults recovering from brain injury or stroke or who have Alzheimer's disease. Consequently, there are few cognitive assessment instruments that can be applied to individuals with disabilities in the school setting. Of those instruments available, the Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most reliable for use by adapted physical educators and therapists in schools, and it has been used extensively since its development as part of the Army Individual Test Battery (1944).
Briefly, the TMT requires subjects to connect a sequence of consecutive targets on a sheet of paper or computer screen, in a similar manner to what a child would do in a connect-the-dots puzzle. There are two parts to the test. In the first part, the targets are 25 numbers randomly distributed in space (1, 2, 3, and so on), and the test takers need to connect them in sequential order. The subjects start at the circle marked Begin and continue linking numbers until they reach the endpoint, a circle marked End. Part B is similar to A; however, instead of linking only numbers, the subjects must alternately switch between a set of numbers (1 to 13) and a set of letters (A to L), again linking them in ascending order (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on). At the same time, the subjects connect the array of circles as fast as possible without lifting the pencil.
A commonly reported performance index in the TMT is time to completion. A difference score (B - A) is often reported, meant to remove the speed element from the test evaluation. The first part of the test reflects speed of processing, while the second part reflects executive functioning or fluid cognitive ability. Extensive research indicates that the TMT assesses a variety of cognitive functions including attention, visual scanning, switching speed, mental flexibility, and the ability to initiate and modify an action plan (Bowie & Harvey, 2006; Salthouse, 2011; Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006; Zakzanis, Mraz, & Graham, 2005).
Recently, Horvat and colleagues (Horvat, Fallaize, Croce, & Roswal, in preparation) focused on modifying the TMT to develop a more cognitive-motor-based assessment better suited for use by adapted physical educators and therapists. In this variation, the TMT compares speed of processing and fluid cognitive ability with a running task (subsequently termed a cognitive dash by the authors). Individuals complete a computerized version of the TMT, which is then compared with the time it takes to complete running on a basketball court from baseline to midcourt (42 ft, or 13 m). In condition A, participants pick up a poly spot placed around the center court circle in the appropriate number sequence (1-2-3, and so on), place the poly spot in a bucket, and return to the starting point. Condition B requires the participants to alternatively pick up a number, then a letter (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on), place them both into a bucket, and run back to the starting line. Similar to the TMT, condition A requires connecting a series of numbers, reflecting speed of processing. Condition B, which includes a number and letter in unison, is used to detect executive function and verbal fluency. Here, verbal fluency refers to a cognitive function that facilitates information retrieval from memory, requiring executive control over several cognitive processes such as selective attention, selective inhibition, and response generation.The correlation between the TMT and actual movement times from the cognitive dash gives teachers additional information to assess processing speed and planning a movement sequence.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Case Study
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Mr. Simon has three students with disabilities in one of his fourth-grade physical education classes. He is about to start a new unit that focuses on the overhand throw. He decides to preassess the class so he can plan his instruction according to the needs of these three students, and also to determine whether this class placement is the most appropriate setting for them. Mr. Simon reviews his test and measurement textbook and finds a simple assessment for throwing that can be administered to a group of students. The test, which involves averaging three throws for distance, has face validity for ages 4 through 12. He administers the assessment to his class and compares their scores with the norms provided with the test. The results indicate that the class overall is performing at the 53rd percentile. One of the three students with disabilities is performing above the class mean, while the other two students are among the lower-performing students in the class.
Mr. Simon concludes that the assessment results clearly indicate the class needs to work on throwing. However, having spent one class period conducting the assessment and another two hours interpreting the results, he is a bit perplexed about how to actually use this information to plan his instruction. He could form instructional groups based on how far the students can throw, but he realizes he does not have any information on why they are throwing so poorly. For example, is it because they do not know the correct throwing pattern? Or is it because they are weak and need to work on strength? In regard to the students with disabilities, one student appears to be in the right placement since she is throwing as well as half the other students in the class, but it seems that this may not be the best placement for the other two students.
Mr. Simon needs to make two decisions: an instructional decision regarding the overhand throw and a placement decision to determine whether this class is appropriate for his students with disabilities. His problem is that he used a norm-referenced instrument that measured the outcome, or product, of throwing performance. What he needed in this situation was a criterion-referenced instrument (CRI) to evaluate how the students were actually performing the throw. Had he collected this information, he would have known which components of the throw the students had mastered and which ones still needed work. He could have then used this information to plan his instruction. The criterion-referenced assessment information could have also been used to determine any unique needs the students with disabilities have on the throw objective and how these needs can be accommodated within the class. Teachers learn that they should use assessment to guide their decision making in physical education, but when they actually try to use it, some do not find the assessment results useful and subsequently stop assessing. The assessment process is not the problem; the problem is not knowing how to select the appropriate assessment tool to match the decision that needs to be made.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education.
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education. Yet many referrals for adapted physical education are for behavior or social interaction problems students display in general physical education rather than physical or motor problems. It is often said that physical education can improve self-concept, but how a student feels about himself or herself in relation to physical education is rarely measured. Finally, many teachers talk about the importance of helping students without disabilities gain a positive, empathetic, caring attitude toward peers with disabilities. This chapter reviews common assessment tools and practices used to measure students' behaviors, social skills, self-concept, play, and attitudes. Each section begins with a short case study relating a real-life situation of a student with a disability.
Students who present difficult behaviors are often the most challenging for both general and adapted physical educators. Difficult behaviors can include passive aggression (refusing to participate), verbal outbursts, running away, destroying equipment, and even physical violence toward peers and staff. Before the IEP team can determine an appropriate program for a student with challenging behaviors, the team needs to determine the types of behaviors being displayed, the intensity of the behaviors, and possible causes of the behaviors.
The ability to effectively meet social and community expectations for personal independence, physical needs, and interpersonal relationships expected for one's age and cultural group is termed adaptive behavior (Brown, McDonnell, & Snell, 2016). Behavior that interferes with everyday activities is called maladaptive behavior, or more often, problem behavior. Maladaptive behavior is undesirable, is socially unacceptable, or interferes with the acquisition of desired skills or knowledge (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996). Problems in acquiring adaptive skills may occur at any age - in developing and mastering basic maturational skills for young children (e.g., the ability to walk or perform self-help skills), in learning academic skills and concepts for school-age children (e.g., basic reading, writing, and math), or in making social and vocational adjustments for older individuals (e.g., getting along with others and developing basic job skills).
Maladaptive behavior ultimately limits independence,the ability to do things on one's own without getting into trouble. Independence is critical for success at school, at home, and in the community. It means not only being able to perform a task but also knowing when to do it and having the willingness to do so. When students exhibit behavior problems that affect independence, it leads to restrictions, extra supervision, additional assistance with behaving more appropriately, and possibly a more segregated placement (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996).
With regard to physical education, adaptive behavior includes following directions, getting along with peers, using equipment appropriately, putting forth an appropriate amount of effort, and generally behaving appropriately for the setting (e.g., not running away or getting into fights). Good adaptive behavior and a lack of behavior problems in physical education allow the student to be more independent (does not need a teacher assistant), be more successful, and be accepted more readily by the general physical education teacher and by peers.
In behavioral assessments, the first step is defining the targeted behavior to determine the extent of its occurrence before treatment. The assessment of behavior depends on accurate observation and precise measurement. Therefore, it is important that the examiner clearly and objectively define the behaviors to be assessed and then accurately observe and record these defined behaviors (Bambara, Janney, & Snell, 2015). For example, saying a student is "always getting in trouble" is vague and not measurable. Even a statement such as "Emily is aggressive toward her peers" is too vague to target for intervention. Aggressive could mean that she hits, bites, yells, or displays other forms of aggression. A better definition might be that "Emily touches and pushes other children two or three times while waiting in line to drink water and four or five times when sitting in a group waiting for instructions."
It is also important to examine antecedents (things that happen just before a behavior occurs that may cause the behavior) as well as consequences (things that happen immediately after a behavior occurs that may reinforce the behavior). For example, being paired with a particular peer may upset a student and cause an inappropriate behavior (screaming when the student sees that peer coming toward him), while chasing after a student who runs away may reinforce that behavior (running away becomes a game) (see the section on functional behavioral analysis in this chapter for more details on measuring antecedents and consequences).
Traditional behavioral assessments usually focus on two areas: adaptive behaviors and behavior problems. Assessing adaptive behaviors involves information such as a student's ability to perform certain adaptive behaviors (e.g., dressing, getting from one place to another, staying on task), how often he performs an adaptive behavior, and how well he performs an adaptive behavior. Assessing behavior problems includes types of maladaptive behaviors, frequency of such behaviors, and intensity of such behaviors. For example, a question on the Scales of Independent Behavior - Revised (SIB-R) (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996) asks whether or not the student is hurtful to others (e.g., biting, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, scratching, or striking). The scale includes a place for the examiner to note the frequency (never to one or more times per hour) as well as the perceived severity of the problem (not serious, not a problem to extremely serious, a critical problem).Thus, the examiner is able to obtain an idea of the student's present abilities, strengths, and deficits with regard to adaptive behaviors and problem behaviors. This information can then be translated into behavioral goals such as "demonstrates the ability to wait turn when playing small-group game in physical education" or "maintains appropriate personal space when playing games and interacting with peers in physical education."
Information from this type of assessment can also help the general physical education teacher determine whether a behavior is significant enough (i.e., occurs fairly frequently and at a serious level) to warrant additional support - such as a teacher assistant or adapted physical educator - or perhaps removal from general physical education into a self-contained setting. Other areas that are measured in behavioral tests include the following (Kazdin, 2000):
- Frequency: number of behaviors during a designated time period
- Response rate: number of responses divided by the time interval
- Intervals: behaviors during a specified time rather than by discrete responses that have a beginning and end point
- Time sampling: observations conducted for brief periods at different times rather than during a single block of time
- Duration: amount of time the response is observed (effective for measuring continuous rather than discrete behaviors)
- Latency: duration measure that observes the time lapse between the cue and the response
- Categorization: classifying responses according to their occurrence (correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate)
- Group: number of individuals who perform a specific behavior or response as opposed to individual responses
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Roles in the Assessment Process
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what.
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what. Physical education assessments of persons with disabilities have not historically been undertaken by adapted physical education personnel. It is not particularly uncommon for persons with disabilities to have been assessed for physical education by general physical education teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, mainstream classroom teachers, special education teachers, and sometimes psychologists. The person responsible for adapted physical education must be thoroughly familiar with the test, test content, and test administration procedures. The person conducting adapted physical education assessments should also be firmly grounded in adapted physical education and its relationship to special education and related services in the school setting.
At times, there will be honest differences of opinion among allied professionals regarding who makes up the MPT. For example, flexibility is one component of physical fitness, and as such, it is typically addressed in a physical education curriculum. Flexibility is also addressed in physical therapy. The occupational therapist may assess throwing because he perceives throwing as a manipulative skill. Yet the same skill might be assessed by an adapted physical education specialist, who sees throwing skill development as being within the purview of her own profession.
Often, there are no clear-cut boundaries for determining if a given activity belongs to a specific profession. This perhaps is how it should be, since professionals who worry more about territorial imperatives than about students may be putting their professions ahead of the very persons whom the professions are trying to serve. Individuals who serve the same students must strive to create a working environment characterized by communication, mutual respect, and, foremost, the development of specific goals in the best interests of the person being served.
Assessment by the Physical Educator
Physical education teachers are involved in assessment at a variety of levels. The elementary physical educator may be responsible for conducting initial posture or scoliosis screening at the preschool or kindergarten levels. Screening is a type of general assessment administered to all students in a class. At early age levels, motor screening becomes part of a larger, more comprehensive screening of general cognitive, affective, psychological, and social development. Individuals diagnosed as having disabilities at early age levels are usually referred for more in-depth diagnostic assessment.
The physical educator and other members of the MPT may also conduct screening tests at the primary and upper elementary grades. General fitness tests, such as FitnessGram, are often administered by the elementary physical education teacher. FitnessGram has health-related items that reflect healthy zones and areas to be improved. Its use as a placement tool among persons who have disabilities may be of somewhat limited value in relation to norm-referenced tests that specifically address individual needs and level of functioning. Teachers make decisions and plan instruction around areas of strength and need. Results of such assessments can help determine whether an individual with a disability meets entry or exit criteria for placement in adapted physical education.
At middle and high school levels, physical educators may administer tests corresponding to certain curricular units of instruction. For example, the teacher may select a soccer skills test for use at the end of a soccer unit. In a skills test, individuals are asked to demonstrate proficiencies in specific skills presented during the physical education class. Secondary-level physical educators may also administer group fitness tests and sometimes may administer written tests to assess knowledge of physical education concepts.
Today, most physical education curricula are objective based, with clearly defined achievement criteria for each grade level (Horvat, Kalakian, Croce, and Dahlstrom, 2011). Objective-based curricula readily lend themselves to ongoing criterion-referenced assessment. In some schools, physical education teachers must report their classes' percentage of mastery on curricular objectives taught during the school year. Objective-based programs with curriculum-embedded assessment provide a clearly defined system for evaluating programs, individualizing instruction, and monitoring pupil progress toward objectives. Objective-based instruction has had tremendous impact on physical education. Curriculum planning, accountability, and curriculum-embedded assessment are now integral parts of a field in which, for some, individualization had seemed next to impossible.
Members of the MPT are faced with the challenge of conducting diagnostic tests. Assessment for diagnostic purposes requires that the teacher gather data that help determine the specific nature of individual motor difficulties or why individuals are having problems in physical education. For example, diagnostic motor testing is utilized to pinpoint particular motor development problem areas such as agility or eye - hand coordination. In-depth diagnostic assessment of motor functioning is usually administered individually. Diagnostic instruments may be formal (e.g., norm referenced) or informal (e.g., criterion referenced). Formal diagnostic tests tend to be more time consuming and may require a separate session for each objective area.
Because diagnostic tests are usually administered to students individually, it is difficult for the general physical educator to find time to test each student. In some school districts, adapted physical educators or other MPT members assume responsibility forall movement-related individual assessments.
The content of skills tests administered by physical educators can vary and may include tests of sports skills, fundamental motor skills, or perceptual-motor abilities. The content of these tests should directly reflect skills taught in the physical education curriculum, and skills in the curriculum should directly reflect skills needed in community- and home-based settings.
Assessments by Specialists Representing Other Therapies
In recent years, schools have become more interdisciplinary in providing opportunities for individuals who have disabilities. An important manifestation of this trend is that occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), and vocational trainers have undertaken contributing roles in public schools. Pursuant to federal mandates, these therapies are provided as related services when determined necessary to facilitate a student's special education program. When therapists are members of the MPT, portions of motor assessment can be conducted by the OT or PT. Traditionally, OTs and PTs have functioned within a medical model, while physical educators have functioned within an educational model. Physical education teachers primarily assess observable, measurable motor skills, while OTs and PTs tend to assess processes underlying movement. For example, the physical educator might assess throwing skill, while the physical therapist might assess range of motion, which to some extent underlies the ability to throw skillfully. The OT might also assess manipulative abilities that facilitate ball handling, which in turn affects throwing proficiency.
These individuals must work together to facilitate appropriate assessments that identify a student's functional performance levels in the following areas:
- Gross and fine motor skills
- Reflex and reaction development
- Developmental landmarks
- Sensorimotor functioning
- Self-help skills
- Prevocational skills
- Social interaction skills
- Ambulatory devices
Several assessment areas overlap between adapted physical education and special education. This sort of overlap of professional responsibilities has been the subject of some controversy. The MPTs, however, can work cooperatively to avoid gaps in both assessment and service. Upon receiving and reviewing the referral of a student for assessment, it is vital that physical educators and therapists cooperatively plan and decide who will administer each type of assessment. Each professional brings unique, relevant information to the team meeting. The MPT approach to assessment emphasizes sharing, respecting, and learning from each team member's contribution. For example, the OT, adapted physical education teacher, and vocational trainer can work together to develop the specific intervention strategies needed for the individualized transition plan (ITP) by assessing components of the tasks required in the workplace and the physical skills needed to accomplish these tasks.
In some schools, physical therapists are available to assist in motor assessment, providing valuable insights for planning appropriate physical activities. For students who have physical disabilities (e.g., cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy), motor assessment may be based primarily on a medical model. Physical therapists can evaluate tonus and persistence of reflexes that interfere with range of motion, posture, and movement patterns. The results of a clinical evaluation by a physical therapist can then be combined with information gathered by a physical educator to develop the program plan. In cases involving physically disabling conditions when only early diagnostic information is available, an evaluation by a physical therapist may shed light on present functional capacity and subsequent implications for physical education programming (e.g., by determining head movements that may induce a reflex). In addition to identifying physiological (motor), topographical (affected parts of body), and etiological (causative) factors used in classifying physical disabilities, physical therapists can also conduct supplemental evaluations, including the following:
- Posture evaluation
- Eye - hand behavior patterns (eye dominance, eye movements, fixation, convergence, grasp)
- Visual status (sensory defects, motor defects)
- Early reflexes
- Joint range of motion and strength
- Stability skills (locomotor, head control, trunk control)
- Motor symptoms (spasticity, athetosis, ataxia, rigidity, tremors)
All the members of the MPT can provide information vital to the intervention process. Since the therapist's intervention is minimal, the adapted physical education teacher needs to translate relevant evaluative information into appropriate educational goals for each student. Within this context, the objectives defined from the evaluation of MPTs must be observable and measurable, and they must be used to develop an appropriate intervention plan based on individual needs.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Cognitive Assessments
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person’s perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills.
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person's perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills. Testing may cover a wide range of areas that might measure, for example, an individual's level of intelligence, perceptual abilities, verbal and nonverbal skills, attention, and processing or memory abilities. Unlike cognitive and perceptual tests administered by qualified clinical psychologists or diagnosticians, cognitive tests administered by adapted physical educators and therapists are geared more toward analyzing an individual's perceptual and cognitive abilities as they relate to movement. In addition, it is critical to appreciate that most standard cognitive assessment instruments are geared for adults - in particular adults recovering from brain injury or stroke or who have Alzheimer's disease. Consequently, there are few cognitive assessment instruments that can be applied to individuals with disabilities in the school setting. Of those instruments available, the Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most reliable for use by adapted physical educators and therapists in schools, and it has been used extensively since its development as part of the Army Individual Test Battery (1944).
Briefly, the TMT requires subjects to connect a sequence of consecutive targets on a sheet of paper or computer screen, in a similar manner to what a child would do in a connect-the-dots puzzle. There are two parts to the test. In the first part, the targets are 25 numbers randomly distributed in space (1, 2, 3, and so on), and the test takers need to connect them in sequential order. The subjects start at the circle marked Begin and continue linking numbers until they reach the endpoint, a circle marked End. Part B is similar to A; however, instead of linking only numbers, the subjects must alternately switch between a set of numbers (1 to 13) and a set of letters (A to L), again linking them in ascending order (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on). At the same time, the subjects connect the array of circles as fast as possible without lifting the pencil.
A commonly reported performance index in the TMT is time to completion. A difference score (B - A) is often reported, meant to remove the speed element from the test evaluation. The first part of the test reflects speed of processing, while the second part reflects executive functioning or fluid cognitive ability. Extensive research indicates that the TMT assesses a variety of cognitive functions including attention, visual scanning, switching speed, mental flexibility, and the ability to initiate and modify an action plan (Bowie & Harvey, 2006; Salthouse, 2011; Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006; Zakzanis, Mraz, & Graham, 2005).
Recently, Horvat and colleagues (Horvat, Fallaize, Croce, & Roswal, in preparation) focused on modifying the TMT to develop a more cognitive-motor-based assessment better suited for use by adapted physical educators and therapists. In this variation, the TMT compares speed of processing and fluid cognitive ability with a running task (subsequently termed a cognitive dash by the authors). Individuals complete a computerized version of the TMT, which is then compared with the time it takes to complete running on a basketball court from baseline to midcourt (42 ft, or 13 m). In condition A, participants pick up a poly spot placed around the center court circle in the appropriate number sequence (1-2-3, and so on), place the poly spot in a bucket, and return to the starting point. Condition B requires the participants to alternatively pick up a number, then a letter (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on), place them both into a bucket, and run back to the starting line. Similar to the TMT, condition A requires connecting a series of numbers, reflecting speed of processing. Condition B, which includes a number and letter in unison, is used to detect executive function and verbal fluency. Here, verbal fluency refers to a cognitive function that facilitates information retrieval from memory, requiring executive control over several cognitive processes such as selective attention, selective inhibition, and response generation.The correlation between the TMT and actual movement times from the cognitive dash gives teachers additional information to assess processing speed and planning a movement sequence.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Case Study
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Mr. Simon has three students with disabilities in one of his fourth-grade physical education classes. He is about to start a new unit that focuses on the overhand throw. He decides to preassess the class so he can plan his instruction according to the needs of these three students, and also to determine whether this class placement is the most appropriate setting for them. Mr. Simon reviews his test and measurement textbook and finds a simple assessment for throwing that can be administered to a group of students. The test, which involves averaging three throws for distance, has face validity for ages 4 through 12. He administers the assessment to his class and compares their scores with the norms provided with the test. The results indicate that the class overall is performing at the 53rd percentile. One of the three students with disabilities is performing above the class mean, while the other two students are among the lower-performing students in the class.
Mr. Simon concludes that the assessment results clearly indicate the class needs to work on throwing. However, having spent one class period conducting the assessment and another two hours interpreting the results, he is a bit perplexed about how to actually use this information to plan his instruction. He could form instructional groups based on how far the students can throw, but he realizes he does not have any information on why they are throwing so poorly. For example, is it because they do not know the correct throwing pattern? Or is it because they are weak and need to work on strength? In regard to the students with disabilities, one student appears to be in the right placement since she is throwing as well as half the other students in the class, but it seems that this may not be the best placement for the other two students.
Mr. Simon needs to make two decisions: an instructional decision regarding the overhand throw and a placement decision to determine whether this class is appropriate for his students with disabilities. His problem is that he used a norm-referenced instrument that measured the outcome, or product, of throwing performance. What he needed in this situation was a criterion-referenced instrument (CRI) to evaluate how the students were actually performing the throw. Had he collected this information, he would have known which components of the throw the students had mastered and which ones still needed work. He could have then used this information to plan his instruction. The criterion-referenced assessment information could have also been used to determine any unique needs the students with disabilities have on the throw objective and how these needs can be accommodated within the class. Teachers learn that they should use assessment to guide their decision making in physical education, but when they actually try to use it, some do not find the assessment results useful and subsequently stop assessing. The assessment process is not the problem; the problem is not knowing how to select the appropriate assessment tool to match the decision that needs to be made.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education.
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education. Yet many referrals for adapted physical education are for behavior or social interaction problems students display in general physical education rather than physical or motor problems. It is often said that physical education can improve self-concept, but how a student feels about himself or herself in relation to physical education is rarely measured. Finally, many teachers talk about the importance of helping students without disabilities gain a positive, empathetic, caring attitude toward peers with disabilities. This chapter reviews common assessment tools and practices used to measure students' behaviors, social skills, self-concept, play, and attitudes. Each section begins with a short case study relating a real-life situation of a student with a disability.
Students who present difficult behaviors are often the most challenging for both general and adapted physical educators. Difficult behaviors can include passive aggression (refusing to participate), verbal outbursts, running away, destroying equipment, and even physical violence toward peers and staff. Before the IEP team can determine an appropriate program for a student with challenging behaviors, the team needs to determine the types of behaviors being displayed, the intensity of the behaviors, and possible causes of the behaviors.
The ability to effectively meet social and community expectations for personal independence, physical needs, and interpersonal relationships expected for one's age and cultural group is termed adaptive behavior (Brown, McDonnell, & Snell, 2016). Behavior that interferes with everyday activities is called maladaptive behavior, or more often, problem behavior. Maladaptive behavior is undesirable, is socially unacceptable, or interferes with the acquisition of desired skills or knowledge (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996). Problems in acquiring adaptive skills may occur at any age - in developing and mastering basic maturational skills for young children (e.g., the ability to walk or perform self-help skills), in learning academic skills and concepts for school-age children (e.g., basic reading, writing, and math), or in making social and vocational adjustments for older individuals (e.g., getting along with others and developing basic job skills).
Maladaptive behavior ultimately limits independence,the ability to do things on one's own without getting into trouble. Independence is critical for success at school, at home, and in the community. It means not only being able to perform a task but also knowing when to do it and having the willingness to do so. When students exhibit behavior problems that affect independence, it leads to restrictions, extra supervision, additional assistance with behaving more appropriately, and possibly a more segregated placement (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996).
With regard to physical education, adaptive behavior includes following directions, getting along with peers, using equipment appropriately, putting forth an appropriate amount of effort, and generally behaving appropriately for the setting (e.g., not running away or getting into fights). Good adaptive behavior and a lack of behavior problems in physical education allow the student to be more independent (does not need a teacher assistant), be more successful, and be accepted more readily by the general physical education teacher and by peers.
In behavioral assessments, the first step is defining the targeted behavior to determine the extent of its occurrence before treatment. The assessment of behavior depends on accurate observation and precise measurement. Therefore, it is important that the examiner clearly and objectively define the behaviors to be assessed and then accurately observe and record these defined behaviors (Bambara, Janney, & Snell, 2015). For example, saying a student is "always getting in trouble" is vague and not measurable. Even a statement such as "Emily is aggressive toward her peers" is too vague to target for intervention. Aggressive could mean that she hits, bites, yells, or displays other forms of aggression. A better definition might be that "Emily touches and pushes other children two or three times while waiting in line to drink water and four or five times when sitting in a group waiting for instructions."
It is also important to examine antecedents (things that happen just before a behavior occurs that may cause the behavior) as well as consequences (things that happen immediately after a behavior occurs that may reinforce the behavior). For example, being paired with a particular peer may upset a student and cause an inappropriate behavior (screaming when the student sees that peer coming toward him), while chasing after a student who runs away may reinforce that behavior (running away becomes a game) (see the section on functional behavioral analysis in this chapter for more details on measuring antecedents and consequences).
Traditional behavioral assessments usually focus on two areas: adaptive behaviors and behavior problems. Assessing adaptive behaviors involves information such as a student's ability to perform certain adaptive behaviors (e.g., dressing, getting from one place to another, staying on task), how often he performs an adaptive behavior, and how well he performs an adaptive behavior. Assessing behavior problems includes types of maladaptive behaviors, frequency of such behaviors, and intensity of such behaviors. For example, a question on the Scales of Independent Behavior - Revised (SIB-R) (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996) asks whether or not the student is hurtful to others (e.g., biting, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, scratching, or striking). The scale includes a place for the examiner to note the frequency (never to one or more times per hour) as well as the perceived severity of the problem (not serious, not a problem to extremely serious, a critical problem).Thus, the examiner is able to obtain an idea of the student's present abilities, strengths, and deficits with regard to adaptive behaviors and problem behaviors. This information can then be translated into behavioral goals such as "demonstrates the ability to wait turn when playing small-group game in physical education" or "maintains appropriate personal space when playing games and interacting with peers in physical education."
Information from this type of assessment can also help the general physical education teacher determine whether a behavior is significant enough (i.e., occurs fairly frequently and at a serious level) to warrant additional support - such as a teacher assistant or adapted physical educator - or perhaps removal from general physical education into a self-contained setting. Other areas that are measured in behavioral tests include the following (Kazdin, 2000):
- Frequency: number of behaviors during a designated time period
- Response rate: number of responses divided by the time interval
- Intervals: behaviors during a specified time rather than by discrete responses that have a beginning and end point
- Time sampling: observations conducted for brief periods at different times rather than during a single block of time
- Duration: amount of time the response is observed (effective for measuring continuous rather than discrete behaviors)
- Latency: duration measure that observes the time lapse between the cue and the response
- Categorization: classifying responses according to their occurrence (correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate)
- Group: number of individuals who perform a specific behavior or response as opposed to individual responses
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Roles in the Assessment Process
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what.
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what. Physical education assessments of persons with disabilities have not historically been undertaken by adapted physical education personnel. It is not particularly uncommon for persons with disabilities to have been assessed for physical education by general physical education teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, mainstream classroom teachers, special education teachers, and sometimes psychologists. The person responsible for adapted physical education must be thoroughly familiar with the test, test content, and test administration procedures. The person conducting adapted physical education assessments should also be firmly grounded in adapted physical education and its relationship to special education and related services in the school setting.
At times, there will be honest differences of opinion among allied professionals regarding who makes up the MPT. For example, flexibility is one component of physical fitness, and as such, it is typically addressed in a physical education curriculum. Flexibility is also addressed in physical therapy. The occupational therapist may assess throwing because he perceives throwing as a manipulative skill. Yet the same skill might be assessed by an adapted physical education specialist, who sees throwing skill development as being within the purview of her own profession.
Often, there are no clear-cut boundaries for determining if a given activity belongs to a specific profession. This perhaps is how it should be, since professionals who worry more about territorial imperatives than about students may be putting their professions ahead of the very persons whom the professions are trying to serve. Individuals who serve the same students must strive to create a working environment characterized by communication, mutual respect, and, foremost, the development of specific goals in the best interests of the person being served.
Assessment by the Physical Educator
Physical education teachers are involved in assessment at a variety of levels. The elementary physical educator may be responsible for conducting initial posture or scoliosis screening at the preschool or kindergarten levels. Screening is a type of general assessment administered to all students in a class. At early age levels, motor screening becomes part of a larger, more comprehensive screening of general cognitive, affective, psychological, and social development. Individuals diagnosed as having disabilities at early age levels are usually referred for more in-depth diagnostic assessment.
The physical educator and other members of the MPT may also conduct screening tests at the primary and upper elementary grades. General fitness tests, such as FitnessGram, are often administered by the elementary physical education teacher. FitnessGram has health-related items that reflect healthy zones and areas to be improved. Its use as a placement tool among persons who have disabilities may be of somewhat limited value in relation to norm-referenced tests that specifically address individual needs and level of functioning. Teachers make decisions and plan instruction around areas of strength and need. Results of such assessments can help determine whether an individual with a disability meets entry or exit criteria for placement in adapted physical education.
At middle and high school levels, physical educators may administer tests corresponding to certain curricular units of instruction. For example, the teacher may select a soccer skills test for use at the end of a soccer unit. In a skills test, individuals are asked to demonstrate proficiencies in specific skills presented during the physical education class. Secondary-level physical educators may also administer group fitness tests and sometimes may administer written tests to assess knowledge of physical education concepts.
Today, most physical education curricula are objective based, with clearly defined achievement criteria for each grade level (Horvat, Kalakian, Croce, and Dahlstrom, 2011). Objective-based curricula readily lend themselves to ongoing criterion-referenced assessment. In some schools, physical education teachers must report their classes' percentage of mastery on curricular objectives taught during the school year. Objective-based programs with curriculum-embedded assessment provide a clearly defined system for evaluating programs, individualizing instruction, and monitoring pupil progress toward objectives. Objective-based instruction has had tremendous impact on physical education. Curriculum planning, accountability, and curriculum-embedded assessment are now integral parts of a field in which, for some, individualization had seemed next to impossible.
Members of the MPT are faced with the challenge of conducting diagnostic tests. Assessment for diagnostic purposes requires that the teacher gather data that help determine the specific nature of individual motor difficulties or why individuals are having problems in physical education. For example, diagnostic motor testing is utilized to pinpoint particular motor development problem areas such as agility or eye - hand coordination. In-depth diagnostic assessment of motor functioning is usually administered individually. Diagnostic instruments may be formal (e.g., norm referenced) or informal (e.g., criterion referenced). Formal diagnostic tests tend to be more time consuming and may require a separate session for each objective area.
Because diagnostic tests are usually administered to students individually, it is difficult for the general physical educator to find time to test each student. In some school districts, adapted physical educators or other MPT members assume responsibility forall movement-related individual assessments.
The content of skills tests administered by physical educators can vary and may include tests of sports skills, fundamental motor skills, or perceptual-motor abilities. The content of these tests should directly reflect skills taught in the physical education curriculum, and skills in the curriculum should directly reflect skills needed in community- and home-based settings.
Assessments by Specialists Representing Other Therapies
In recent years, schools have become more interdisciplinary in providing opportunities for individuals who have disabilities. An important manifestation of this trend is that occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), and vocational trainers have undertaken contributing roles in public schools. Pursuant to federal mandates, these therapies are provided as related services when determined necessary to facilitate a student's special education program. When therapists are members of the MPT, portions of motor assessment can be conducted by the OT or PT. Traditionally, OTs and PTs have functioned within a medical model, while physical educators have functioned within an educational model. Physical education teachers primarily assess observable, measurable motor skills, while OTs and PTs tend to assess processes underlying movement. For example, the physical educator might assess throwing skill, while the physical therapist might assess range of motion, which to some extent underlies the ability to throw skillfully. The OT might also assess manipulative abilities that facilitate ball handling, which in turn affects throwing proficiency.
These individuals must work together to facilitate appropriate assessments that identify a student's functional performance levels in the following areas:
- Gross and fine motor skills
- Reflex and reaction development
- Developmental landmarks
- Sensorimotor functioning
- Self-help skills
- Prevocational skills
- Social interaction skills
- Ambulatory devices
Several assessment areas overlap between adapted physical education and special education. This sort of overlap of professional responsibilities has been the subject of some controversy. The MPTs, however, can work cooperatively to avoid gaps in both assessment and service. Upon receiving and reviewing the referral of a student for assessment, it is vital that physical educators and therapists cooperatively plan and decide who will administer each type of assessment. Each professional brings unique, relevant information to the team meeting. The MPT approach to assessment emphasizes sharing, respecting, and learning from each team member's contribution. For example, the OT, adapted physical education teacher, and vocational trainer can work together to develop the specific intervention strategies needed for the individualized transition plan (ITP) by assessing components of the tasks required in the workplace and the physical skills needed to accomplish these tasks.
In some schools, physical therapists are available to assist in motor assessment, providing valuable insights for planning appropriate physical activities. For students who have physical disabilities (e.g., cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy), motor assessment may be based primarily on a medical model. Physical therapists can evaluate tonus and persistence of reflexes that interfere with range of motion, posture, and movement patterns. The results of a clinical evaluation by a physical therapist can then be combined with information gathered by a physical educator to develop the program plan. In cases involving physically disabling conditions when only early diagnostic information is available, an evaluation by a physical therapist may shed light on present functional capacity and subsequent implications for physical education programming (e.g., by determining head movements that may induce a reflex). In addition to identifying physiological (motor), topographical (affected parts of body), and etiological (causative) factors used in classifying physical disabilities, physical therapists can also conduct supplemental evaluations, including the following:
- Posture evaluation
- Eye - hand behavior patterns (eye dominance, eye movements, fixation, convergence, grasp)
- Visual status (sensory defects, motor defects)
- Early reflexes
- Joint range of motion and strength
- Stability skills (locomotor, head control, trunk control)
- Motor symptoms (spasticity, athetosis, ataxia, rigidity, tremors)
All the members of the MPT can provide information vital to the intervention process. Since the therapist's intervention is minimal, the adapted physical education teacher needs to translate relevant evaluative information into appropriate educational goals for each student. Within this context, the objectives defined from the evaluation of MPTs must be observable and measurable, and they must be used to develop an appropriate intervention plan based on individual needs.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Cognitive Assessments
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person’s perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills.
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person's perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills. Testing may cover a wide range of areas that might measure, for example, an individual's level of intelligence, perceptual abilities, verbal and nonverbal skills, attention, and processing or memory abilities. Unlike cognitive and perceptual tests administered by qualified clinical psychologists or diagnosticians, cognitive tests administered by adapted physical educators and therapists are geared more toward analyzing an individual's perceptual and cognitive abilities as they relate to movement. In addition, it is critical to appreciate that most standard cognitive assessment instruments are geared for adults - in particular adults recovering from brain injury or stroke or who have Alzheimer's disease. Consequently, there are few cognitive assessment instruments that can be applied to individuals with disabilities in the school setting. Of those instruments available, the Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most reliable for use by adapted physical educators and therapists in schools, and it has been used extensively since its development as part of the Army Individual Test Battery (1944).
Briefly, the TMT requires subjects to connect a sequence of consecutive targets on a sheet of paper or computer screen, in a similar manner to what a child would do in a connect-the-dots puzzle. There are two parts to the test. In the first part, the targets are 25 numbers randomly distributed in space (1, 2, 3, and so on), and the test takers need to connect them in sequential order. The subjects start at the circle marked Begin and continue linking numbers until they reach the endpoint, a circle marked End. Part B is similar to A; however, instead of linking only numbers, the subjects must alternately switch between a set of numbers (1 to 13) and a set of letters (A to L), again linking them in ascending order (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on). At the same time, the subjects connect the array of circles as fast as possible without lifting the pencil.
A commonly reported performance index in the TMT is time to completion. A difference score (B - A) is often reported, meant to remove the speed element from the test evaluation. The first part of the test reflects speed of processing, while the second part reflects executive functioning or fluid cognitive ability. Extensive research indicates that the TMT assesses a variety of cognitive functions including attention, visual scanning, switching speed, mental flexibility, and the ability to initiate and modify an action plan (Bowie & Harvey, 2006; Salthouse, 2011; Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006; Zakzanis, Mraz, & Graham, 2005).
Recently, Horvat and colleagues (Horvat, Fallaize, Croce, & Roswal, in preparation) focused on modifying the TMT to develop a more cognitive-motor-based assessment better suited for use by adapted physical educators and therapists. In this variation, the TMT compares speed of processing and fluid cognitive ability with a running task (subsequently termed a cognitive dash by the authors). Individuals complete a computerized version of the TMT, which is then compared with the time it takes to complete running on a basketball court from baseline to midcourt (42 ft, or 13 m). In condition A, participants pick up a poly spot placed around the center court circle in the appropriate number sequence (1-2-3, and so on), place the poly spot in a bucket, and return to the starting point. Condition B requires the participants to alternatively pick up a number, then a letter (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on), place them both into a bucket, and run back to the starting line. Similar to the TMT, condition A requires connecting a series of numbers, reflecting speed of processing. Condition B, which includes a number and letter in unison, is used to detect executive function and verbal fluency. Here, verbal fluency refers to a cognitive function that facilitates information retrieval from memory, requiring executive control over several cognitive processes such as selective attention, selective inhibition, and response generation.The correlation between the TMT and actual movement times from the cognitive dash gives teachers additional information to assess processing speed and planning a movement sequence.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Case Study
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Mr. Simon has three students with disabilities in one of his fourth-grade physical education classes. He is about to start a new unit that focuses on the overhand throw. He decides to preassess the class so he can plan his instruction according to the needs of these three students, and also to determine whether this class placement is the most appropriate setting for them. Mr. Simon reviews his test and measurement textbook and finds a simple assessment for throwing that can be administered to a group of students. The test, which involves averaging three throws for distance, has face validity for ages 4 through 12. He administers the assessment to his class and compares their scores with the norms provided with the test. The results indicate that the class overall is performing at the 53rd percentile. One of the three students with disabilities is performing above the class mean, while the other two students are among the lower-performing students in the class.
Mr. Simon concludes that the assessment results clearly indicate the class needs to work on throwing. However, having spent one class period conducting the assessment and another two hours interpreting the results, he is a bit perplexed about how to actually use this information to plan his instruction. He could form instructional groups based on how far the students can throw, but he realizes he does not have any information on why they are throwing so poorly. For example, is it because they do not know the correct throwing pattern? Or is it because they are weak and need to work on strength? In regard to the students with disabilities, one student appears to be in the right placement since she is throwing as well as half the other students in the class, but it seems that this may not be the best placement for the other two students.
Mr. Simon needs to make two decisions: an instructional decision regarding the overhand throw and a placement decision to determine whether this class is appropriate for his students with disabilities. His problem is that he used a norm-referenced instrument that measured the outcome, or product, of throwing performance. What he needed in this situation was a criterion-referenced instrument (CRI) to evaluate how the students were actually performing the throw. Had he collected this information, he would have known which components of the throw the students had mastered and which ones still needed work. He could have then used this information to plan his instruction. The criterion-referenced assessment information could have also been used to determine any unique needs the students with disabilities have on the throw objective and how these needs can be accommodated within the class. Teachers learn that they should use assessment to guide their decision making in physical education, but when they actually try to use it, some do not find the assessment results useful and subsequently stop assessing. The assessment process is not the problem; the problem is not knowing how to select the appropriate assessment tool to match the decision that needs to be made.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education.
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education. Yet many referrals for adapted physical education are for behavior or social interaction problems students display in general physical education rather than physical or motor problems. It is often said that physical education can improve self-concept, but how a student feels about himself or herself in relation to physical education is rarely measured. Finally, many teachers talk about the importance of helping students without disabilities gain a positive, empathetic, caring attitude toward peers with disabilities. This chapter reviews common assessment tools and practices used to measure students' behaviors, social skills, self-concept, play, and attitudes. Each section begins with a short case study relating a real-life situation of a student with a disability.
Students who present difficult behaviors are often the most challenging for both general and adapted physical educators. Difficult behaviors can include passive aggression (refusing to participate), verbal outbursts, running away, destroying equipment, and even physical violence toward peers and staff. Before the IEP team can determine an appropriate program for a student with challenging behaviors, the team needs to determine the types of behaviors being displayed, the intensity of the behaviors, and possible causes of the behaviors.
The ability to effectively meet social and community expectations for personal independence, physical needs, and interpersonal relationships expected for one's age and cultural group is termed adaptive behavior (Brown, McDonnell, & Snell, 2016). Behavior that interferes with everyday activities is called maladaptive behavior, or more often, problem behavior. Maladaptive behavior is undesirable, is socially unacceptable, or interferes with the acquisition of desired skills or knowledge (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996). Problems in acquiring adaptive skills may occur at any age - in developing and mastering basic maturational skills for young children (e.g., the ability to walk or perform self-help skills), in learning academic skills and concepts for school-age children (e.g., basic reading, writing, and math), or in making social and vocational adjustments for older individuals (e.g., getting along with others and developing basic job skills).
Maladaptive behavior ultimately limits independence,the ability to do things on one's own without getting into trouble. Independence is critical for success at school, at home, and in the community. It means not only being able to perform a task but also knowing when to do it and having the willingness to do so. When students exhibit behavior problems that affect independence, it leads to restrictions, extra supervision, additional assistance with behaving more appropriately, and possibly a more segregated placement (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996).
With regard to physical education, adaptive behavior includes following directions, getting along with peers, using equipment appropriately, putting forth an appropriate amount of effort, and generally behaving appropriately for the setting (e.g., not running away or getting into fights). Good adaptive behavior and a lack of behavior problems in physical education allow the student to be more independent (does not need a teacher assistant), be more successful, and be accepted more readily by the general physical education teacher and by peers.
In behavioral assessments, the first step is defining the targeted behavior to determine the extent of its occurrence before treatment. The assessment of behavior depends on accurate observation and precise measurement. Therefore, it is important that the examiner clearly and objectively define the behaviors to be assessed and then accurately observe and record these defined behaviors (Bambara, Janney, & Snell, 2015). For example, saying a student is "always getting in trouble" is vague and not measurable. Even a statement such as "Emily is aggressive toward her peers" is too vague to target for intervention. Aggressive could mean that she hits, bites, yells, or displays other forms of aggression. A better definition might be that "Emily touches and pushes other children two or three times while waiting in line to drink water and four or five times when sitting in a group waiting for instructions."
It is also important to examine antecedents (things that happen just before a behavior occurs that may cause the behavior) as well as consequences (things that happen immediately after a behavior occurs that may reinforce the behavior). For example, being paired with a particular peer may upset a student and cause an inappropriate behavior (screaming when the student sees that peer coming toward him), while chasing after a student who runs away may reinforce that behavior (running away becomes a game) (see the section on functional behavioral analysis in this chapter for more details on measuring antecedents and consequences).
Traditional behavioral assessments usually focus on two areas: adaptive behaviors and behavior problems. Assessing adaptive behaviors involves information such as a student's ability to perform certain adaptive behaviors (e.g., dressing, getting from one place to another, staying on task), how often he performs an adaptive behavior, and how well he performs an adaptive behavior. Assessing behavior problems includes types of maladaptive behaviors, frequency of such behaviors, and intensity of such behaviors. For example, a question on the Scales of Independent Behavior - Revised (SIB-R) (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996) asks whether or not the student is hurtful to others (e.g., biting, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, scratching, or striking). The scale includes a place for the examiner to note the frequency (never to one or more times per hour) as well as the perceived severity of the problem (not serious, not a problem to extremely serious, a critical problem).Thus, the examiner is able to obtain an idea of the student's present abilities, strengths, and deficits with regard to adaptive behaviors and problem behaviors. This information can then be translated into behavioral goals such as "demonstrates the ability to wait turn when playing small-group game in physical education" or "maintains appropriate personal space when playing games and interacting with peers in physical education."
Information from this type of assessment can also help the general physical education teacher determine whether a behavior is significant enough (i.e., occurs fairly frequently and at a serious level) to warrant additional support - such as a teacher assistant or adapted physical educator - or perhaps removal from general physical education into a self-contained setting. Other areas that are measured in behavioral tests include the following (Kazdin, 2000):
- Frequency: number of behaviors during a designated time period
- Response rate: number of responses divided by the time interval
- Intervals: behaviors during a specified time rather than by discrete responses that have a beginning and end point
- Time sampling: observations conducted for brief periods at different times rather than during a single block of time
- Duration: amount of time the response is observed (effective for measuring continuous rather than discrete behaviors)
- Latency: duration measure that observes the time lapse between the cue and the response
- Categorization: classifying responses according to their occurrence (correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate)
- Group: number of individuals who perform a specific behavior or response as opposed to individual responses
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Roles in the Assessment Process
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what.
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what. Physical education assessments of persons with disabilities have not historically been undertaken by adapted physical education personnel. It is not particularly uncommon for persons with disabilities to have been assessed for physical education by general physical education teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, mainstream classroom teachers, special education teachers, and sometimes psychologists. The person responsible for adapted physical education must be thoroughly familiar with the test, test content, and test administration procedures. The person conducting adapted physical education assessments should also be firmly grounded in adapted physical education and its relationship to special education and related services in the school setting.
At times, there will be honest differences of opinion among allied professionals regarding who makes up the MPT. For example, flexibility is one component of physical fitness, and as such, it is typically addressed in a physical education curriculum. Flexibility is also addressed in physical therapy. The occupational therapist may assess throwing because he perceives throwing as a manipulative skill. Yet the same skill might be assessed by an adapted physical education specialist, who sees throwing skill development as being within the purview of her own profession.
Often, there are no clear-cut boundaries for determining if a given activity belongs to a specific profession. This perhaps is how it should be, since professionals who worry more about territorial imperatives than about students may be putting their professions ahead of the very persons whom the professions are trying to serve. Individuals who serve the same students must strive to create a working environment characterized by communication, mutual respect, and, foremost, the development of specific goals in the best interests of the person being served.
Assessment by the Physical Educator
Physical education teachers are involved in assessment at a variety of levels. The elementary physical educator may be responsible for conducting initial posture or scoliosis screening at the preschool or kindergarten levels. Screening is a type of general assessment administered to all students in a class. At early age levels, motor screening becomes part of a larger, more comprehensive screening of general cognitive, affective, psychological, and social development. Individuals diagnosed as having disabilities at early age levels are usually referred for more in-depth diagnostic assessment.
The physical educator and other members of the MPT may also conduct screening tests at the primary and upper elementary grades. General fitness tests, such as FitnessGram, are often administered by the elementary physical education teacher. FitnessGram has health-related items that reflect healthy zones and areas to be improved. Its use as a placement tool among persons who have disabilities may be of somewhat limited value in relation to norm-referenced tests that specifically address individual needs and level of functioning. Teachers make decisions and plan instruction around areas of strength and need. Results of such assessments can help determine whether an individual with a disability meets entry or exit criteria for placement in adapted physical education.
At middle and high school levels, physical educators may administer tests corresponding to certain curricular units of instruction. For example, the teacher may select a soccer skills test for use at the end of a soccer unit. In a skills test, individuals are asked to demonstrate proficiencies in specific skills presented during the physical education class. Secondary-level physical educators may also administer group fitness tests and sometimes may administer written tests to assess knowledge of physical education concepts.
Today, most physical education curricula are objective based, with clearly defined achievement criteria for each grade level (Horvat, Kalakian, Croce, and Dahlstrom, 2011). Objective-based curricula readily lend themselves to ongoing criterion-referenced assessment. In some schools, physical education teachers must report their classes' percentage of mastery on curricular objectives taught during the school year. Objective-based programs with curriculum-embedded assessment provide a clearly defined system for evaluating programs, individualizing instruction, and monitoring pupil progress toward objectives. Objective-based instruction has had tremendous impact on physical education. Curriculum planning, accountability, and curriculum-embedded assessment are now integral parts of a field in which, for some, individualization had seemed next to impossible.
Members of the MPT are faced with the challenge of conducting diagnostic tests. Assessment for diagnostic purposes requires that the teacher gather data that help determine the specific nature of individual motor difficulties or why individuals are having problems in physical education. For example, diagnostic motor testing is utilized to pinpoint particular motor development problem areas such as agility or eye - hand coordination. In-depth diagnostic assessment of motor functioning is usually administered individually. Diagnostic instruments may be formal (e.g., norm referenced) or informal (e.g., criterion referenced). Formal diagnostic tests tend to be more time consuming and may require a separate session for each objective area.
Because diagnostic tests are usually administered to students individually, it is difficult for the general physical educator to find time to test each student. In some school districts, adapted physical educators or other MPT members assume responsibility forall movement-related individual assessments.
The content of skills tests administered by physical educators can vary and may include tests of sports skills, fundamental motor skills, or perceptual-motor abilities. The content of these tests should directly reflect skills taught in the physical education curriculum, and skills in the curriculum should directly reflect skills needed in community- and home-based settings.
Assessments by Specialists Representing Other Therapies
In recent years, schools have become more interdisciplinary in providing opportunities for individuals who have disabilities. An important manifestation of this trend is that occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), and vocational trainers have undertaken contributing roles in public schools. Pursuant to federal mandates, these therapies are provided as related services when determined necessary to facilitate a student's special education program. When therapists are members of the MPT, portions of motor assessment can be conducted by the OT or PT. Traditionally, OTs and PTs have functioned within a medical model, while physical educators have functioned within an educational model. Physical education teachers primarily assess observable, measurable motor skills, while OTs and PTs tend to assess processes underlying movement. For example, the physical educator might assess throwing skill, while the physical therapist might assess range of motion, which to some extent underlies the ability to throw skillfully. The OT might also assess manipulative abilities that facilitate ball handling, which in turn affects throwing proficiency.
These individuals must work together to facilitate appropriate assessments that identify a student's functional performance levels in the following areas:
- Gross and fine motor skills
- Reflex and reaction development
- Developmental landmarks
- Sensorimotor functioning
- Self-help skills
- Prevocational skills
- Social interaction skills
- Ambulatory devices
Several assessment areas overlap between adapted physical education and special education. This sort of overlap of professional responsibilities has been the subject of some controversy. The MPTs, however, can work cooperatively to avoid gaps in both assessment and service. Upon receiving and reviewing the referral of a student for assessment, it is vital that physical educators and therapists cooperatively plan and decide who will administer each type of assessment. Each professional brings unique, relevant information to the team meeting. The MPT approach to assessment emphasizes sharing, respecting, and learning from each team member's contribution. For example, the OT, adapted physical education teacher, and vocational trainer can work together to develop the specific intervention strategies needed for the individualized transition plan (ITP) by assessing components of the tasks required in the workplace and the physical skills needed to accomplish these tasks.
In some schools, physical therapists are available to assist in motor assessment, providing valuable insights for planning appropriate physical activities. For students who have physical disabilities (e.g., cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy), motor assessment may be based primarily on a medical model. Physical therapists can evaluate tonus and persistence of reflexes that interfere with range of motion, posture, and movement patterns. The results of a clinical evaluation by a physical therapist can then be combined with information gathered by a physical educator to develop the program plan. In cases involving physically disabling conditions when only early diagnostic information is available, an evaluation by a physical therapist may shed light on present functional capacity and subsequent implications for physical education programming (e.g., by determining head movements that may induce a reflex). In addition to identifying physiological (motor), topographical (affected parts of body), and etiological (causative) factors used in classifying physical disabilities, physical therapists can also conduct supplemental evaluations, including the following:
- Posture evaluation
- Eye - hand behavior patterns (eye dominance, eye movements, fixation, convergence, grasp)
- Visual status (sensory defects, motor defects)
- Early reflexes
- Joint range of motion and strength
- Stability skills (locomotor, head control, trunk control)
- Motor symptoms (spasticity, athetosis, ataxia, rigidity, tremors)
All the members of the MPT can provide information vital to the intervention process. Since the therapist's intervention is minimal, the adapted physical education teacher needs to translate relevant evaluative information into appropriate educational goals for each student. Within this context, the objectives defined from the evaluation of MPTs must be observable and measurable, and they must be used to develop an appropriate intervention plan based on individual needs.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Cognitive Assessments
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person’s perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills.
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person's perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills. Testing may cover a wide range of areas that might measure, for example, an individual's level of intelligence, perceptual abilities, verbal and nonverbal skills, attention, and processing or memory abilities. Unlike cognitive and perceptual tests administered by qualified clinical psychologists or diagnosticians, cognitive tests administered by adapted physical educators and therapists are geared more toward analyzing an individual's perceptual and cognitive abilities as they relate to movement. In addition, it is critical to appreciate that most standard cognitive assessment instruments are geared for adults - in particular adults recovering from brain injury or stroke or who have Alzheimer's disease. Consequently, there are few cognitive assessment instruments that can be applied to individuals with disabilities in the school setting. Of those instruments available, the Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most reliable for use by adapted physical educators and therapists in schools, and it has been used extensively since its development as part of the Army Individual Test Battery (1944).
Briefly, the TMT requires subjects to connect a sequence of consecutive targets on a sheet of paper or computer screen, in a similar manner to what a child would do in a connect-the-dots puzzle. There are two parts to the test. In the first part, the targets are 25 numbers randomly distributed in space (1, 2, 3, and so on), and the test takers need to connect them in sequential order. The subjects start at the circle marked Begin and continue linking numbers until they reach the endpoint, a circle marked End. Part B is similar to A; however, instead of linking only numbers, the subjects must alternately switch between a set of numbers (1 to 13) and a set of letters (A to L), again linking them in ascending order (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on). At the same time, the subjects connect the array of circles as fast as possible without lifting the pencil.
A commonly reported performance index in the TMT is time to completion. A difference score (B - A) is often reported, meant to remove the speed element from the test evaluation. The first part of the test reflects speed of processing, while the second part reflects executive functioning or fluid cognitive ability. Extensive research indicates that the TMT assesses a variety of cognitive functions including attention, visual scanning, switching speed, mental flexibility, and the ability to initiate and modify an action plan (Bowie & Harvey, 2006; Salthouse, 2011; Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006; Zakzanis, Mraz, & Graham, 2005).
Recently, Horvat and colleagues (Horvat, Fallaize, Croce, & Roswal, in preparation) focused on modifying the TMT to develop a more cognitive-motor-based assessment better suited for use by adapted physical educators and therapists. In this variation, the TMT compares speed of processing and fluid cognitive ability with a running task (subsequently termed a cognitive dash by the authors). Individuals complete a computerized version of the TMT, which is then compared with the time it takes to complete running on a basketball court from baseline to midcourt (42 ft, or 13 m). In condition A, participants pick up a poly spot placed around the center court circle in the appropriate number sequence (1-2-3, and so on), place the poly spot in a bucket, and return to the starting point. Condition B requires the participants to alternatively pick up a number, then a letter (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on), place them both into a bucket, and run back to the starting line. Similar to the TMT, condition A requires connecting a series of numbers, reflecting speed of processing. Condition B, which includes a number and letter in unison, is used to detect executive function and verbal fluency. Here, verbal fluency refers to a cognitive function that facilitates information retrieval from memory, requiring executive control over several cognitive processes such as selective attention, selective inhibition, and response generation.The correlation between the TMT and actual movement times from the cognitive dash gives teachers additional information to assess processing speed and planning a movement sequence.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Case Study
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Mr. Simon has three students with disabilities in one of his fourth-grade physical education classes. He is about to start a new unit that focuses on the overhand throw. He decides to preassess the class so he can plan his instruction according to the needs of these three students, and also to determine whether this class placement is the most appropriate setting for them. Mr. Simon reviews his test and measurement textbook and finds a simple assessment for throwing that can be administered to a group of students. The test, which involves averaging three throws for distance, has face validity for ages 4 through 12. He administers the assessment to his class and compares their scores with the norms provided with the test. The results indicate that the class overall is performing at the 53rd percentile. One of the three students with disabilities is performing above the class mean, while the other two students are among the lower-performing students in the class.
Mr. Simon concludes that the assessment results clearly indicate the class needs to work on throwing. However, having spent one class period conducting the assessment and another two hours interpreting the results, he is a bit perplexed about how to actually use this information to plan his instruction. He could form instructional groups based on how far the students can throw, but he realizes he does not have any information on why they are throwing so poorly. For example, is it because they do not know the correct throwing pattern? Or is it because they are weak and need to work on strength? In regard to the students with disabilities, one student appears to be in the right placement since she is throwing as well as half the other students in the class, but it seems that this may not be the best placement for the other two students.
Mr. Simon needs to make two decisions: an instructional decision regarding the overhand throw and a placement decision to determine whether this class is appropriate for his students with disabilities. His problem is that he used a norm-referenced instrument that measured the outcome, or product, of throwing performance. What he needed in this situation was a criterion-referenced instrument (CRI) to evaluate how the students were actually performing the throw. Had he collected this information, he would have known which components of the throw the students had mastered and which ones still needed work. He could have then used this information to plan his instruction. The criterion-referenced assessment information could have also been used to determine any unique needs the students with disabilities have on the throw objective and how these needs can be accommodated within the class. Teachers learn that they should use assessment to guide their decision making in physical education, but when they actually try to use it, some do not find the assessment results useful and subsequently stop assessing. The assessment process is not the problem; the problem is not knowing how to select the appropriate assessment tool to match the decision that needs to be made.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Adaptive and Maladaptive Behavior
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education.
Behaviors, social skills, and how well a student plays with equipment are important yet often undermeasured concepts in general and adapted physical education. Yet many referrals for adapted physical education are for behavior or social interaction problems students display in general physical education rather than physical or motor problems. It is often said that physical education can improve self-concept, but how a student feels about himself or herself in relation to physical education is rarely measured. Finally, many teachers talk about the importance of helping students without disabilities gain a positive, empathetic, caring attitude toward peers with disabilities. This chapter reviews common assessment tools and practices used to measure students' behaviors, social skills, self-concept, play, and attitudes. Each section begins with a short case study relating a real-life situation of a student with a disability.
Students who present difficult behaviors are often the most challenging for both general and adapted physical educators. Difficult behaviors can include passive aggression (refusing to participate), verbal outbursts, running away, destroying equipment, and even physical violence toward peers and staff. Before the IEP team can determine an appropriate program for a student with challenging behaviors, the team needs to determine the types of behaviors being displayed, the intensity of the behaviors, and possible causes of the behaviors.
The ability to effectively meet social and community expectations for personal independence, physical needs, and interpersonal relationships expected for one's age and cultural group is termed adaptive behavior (Brown, McDonnell, & Snell, 2016). Behavior that interferes with everyday activities is called maladaptive behavior, or more often, problem behavior. Maladaptive behavior is undesirable, is socially unacceptable, or interferes with the acquisition of desired skills or knowledge (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996). Problems in acquiring adaptive skills may occur at any age - in developing and mastering basic maturational skills for young children (e.g., the ability to walk or perform self-help skills), in learning academic skills and concepts for school-age children (e.g., basic reading, writing, and math), or in making social and vocational adjustments for older individuals (e.g., getting along with others and developing basic job skills).
Maladaptive behavior ultimately limits independence,the ability to do things on one's own without getting into trouble. Independence is critical for success at school, at home, and in the community. It means not only being able to perform a task but also knowing when to do it and having the willingness to do so. When students exhibit behavior problems that affect independence, it leads to restrictions, extra supervision, additional assistance with behaving more appropriately, and possibly a more segregated placement (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996).
With regard to physical education, adaptive behavior includes following directions, getting along with peers, using equipment appropriately, putting forth an appropriate amount of effort, and generally behaving appropriately for the setting (e.g., not running away or getting into fights). Good adaptive behavior and a lack of behavior problems in physical education allow the student to be more independent (does not need a teacher assistant), be more successful, and be accepted more readily by the general physical education teacher and by peers.
In behavioral assessments, the first step is defining the targeted behavior to determine the extent of its occurrence before treatment. The assessment of behavior depends on accurate observation and precise measurement. Therefore, it is important that the examiner clearly and objectively define the behaviors to be assessed and then accurately observe and record these defined behaviors (Bambara, Janney, & Snell, 2015). For example, saying a student is "always getting in trouble" is vague and not measurable. Even a statement such as "Emily is aggressive toward her peers" is too vague to target for intervention. Aggressive could mean that she hits, bites, yells, or displays other forms of aggression. A better definition might be that "Emily touches and pushes other children two or three times while waiting in line to drink water and four or five times when sitting in a group waiting for instructions."
It is also important to examine antecedents (things that happen just before a behavior occurs that may cause the behavior) as well as consequences (things that happen immediately after a behavior occurs that may reinforce the behavior). For example, being paired with a particular peer may upset a student and cause an inappropriate behavior (screaming when the student sees that peer coming toward him), while chasing after a student who runs away may reinforce that behavior (running away becomes a game) (see the section on functional behavioral analysis in this chapter for more details on measuring antecedents and consequences).
Traditional behavioral assessments usually focus on two areas: adaptive behaviors and behavior problems. Assessing adaptive behaviors involves information such as a student's ability to perform certain adaptive behaviors (e.g., dressing, getting from one place to another, staying on task), how often he performs an adaptive behavior, and how well he performs an adaptive behavior. Assessing behavior problems includes types of maladaptive behaviors, frequency of such behaviors, and intensity of such behaviors. For example, a question on the Scales of Independent Behavior - Revised (SIB-R) (Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996) asks whether or not the student is hurtful to others (e.g., biting, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, scratching, or striking). The scale includes a place for the examiner to note the frequency (never to one or more times per hour) as well as the perceived severity of the problem (not serious, not a problem to extremely serious, a critical problem).Thus, the examiner is able to obtain an idea of the student's present abilities, strengths, and deficits with regard to adaptive behaviors and problem behaviors. This information can then be translated into behavioral goals such as "demonstrates the ability to wait turn when playing small-group game in physical education" or "maintains appropriate personal space when playing games and interacting with peers in physical education."
Information from this type of assessment can also help the general physical education teacher determine whether a behavior is significant enough (i.e., occurs fairly frequently and at a serious level) to warrant additional support - such as a teacher assistant or adapted physical educator - or perhaps removal from general physical education into a self-contained setting. Other areas that are measured in behavioral tests include the following (Kazdin, 2000):
- Frequency: number of behaviors during a designated time period
- Response rate: number of responses divided by the time interval
- Intervals: behaviors during a specified time rather than by discrete responses that have a beginning and end point
- Time sampling: observations conducted for brief periods at different times rather than during a single block of time
- Duration: amount of time the response is observed (effective for measuring continuous rather than discrete behaviors)
- Latency: duration measure that observes the time lapse between the cue and the response
- Categorization: classifying responses according to their occurrence (correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate)
- Group: number of individuals who perform a specific behavior or response as opposed to individual responses
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Roles in the Assessment Process
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what.
Interpretation of test data provides a major means of getting to know the student. Yet there has not always been clear determination or agreement among allied professionals on the MPT regarding who assesses what. Physical education assessments of persons with disabilities have not historically been undertaken by adapted physical education personnel. It is not particularly uncommon for persons with disabilities to have been assessed for physical education by general physical education teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, mainstream classroom teachers, special education teachers, and sometimes psychologists. The person responsible for adapted physical education must be thoroughly familiar with the test, test content, and test administration procedures. The person conducting adapted physical education assessments should also be firmly grounded in adapted physical education and its relationship to special education and related services in the school setting.
At times, there will be honest differences of opinion among allied professionals regarding who makes up the MPT. For example, flexibility is one component of physical fitness, and as such, it is typically addressed in a physical education curriculum. Flexibility is also addressed in physical therapy. The occupational therapist may assess throwing because he perceives throwing as a manipulative skill. Yet the same skill might be assessed by an adapted physical education specialist, who sees throwing skill development as being within the purview of her own profession.
Often, there are no clear-cut boundaries for determining if a given activity belongs to a specific profession. This perhaps is how it should be, since professionals who worry more about territorial imperatives than about students may be putting their professions ahead of the very persons whom the professions are trying to serve. Individuals who serve the same students must strive to create a working environment characterized by communication, mutual respect, and, foremost, the development of specific goals in the best interests of the person being served.
Assessment by the Physical Educator
Physical education teachers are involved in assessment at a variety of levels. The elementary physical educator may be responsible for conducting initial posture or scoliosis screening at the preschool or kindergarten levels. Screening is a type of general assessment administered to all students in a class. At early age levels, motor screening becomes part of a larger, more comprehensive screening of general cognitive, affective, psychological, and social development. Individuals diagnosed as having disabilities at early age levels are usually referred for more in-depth diagnostic assessment.
The physical educator and other members of the MPT may also conduct screening tests at the primary and upper elementary grades. General fitness tests, such as FitnessGram, are often administered by the elementary physical education teacher. FitnessGram has health-related items that reflect healthy zones and areas to be improved. Its use as a placement tool among persons who have disabilities may be of somewhat limited value in relation to norm-referenced tests that specifically address individual needs and level of functioning. Teachers make decisions and plan instruction around areas of strength and need. Results of such assessments can help determine whether an individual with a disability meets entry or exit criteria for placement in adapted physical education.
At middle and high school levels, physical educators may administer tests corresponding to certain curricular units of instruction. For example, the teacher may select a soccer skills test for use at the end of a soccer unit. In a skills test, individuals are asked to demonstrate proficiencies in specific skills presented during the physical education class. Secondary-level physical educators may also administer group fitness tests and sometimes may administer written tests to assess knowledge of physical education concepts.
Today, most physical education curricula are objective based, with clearly defined achievement criteria for each grade level (Horvat, Kalakian, Croce, and Dahlstrom, 2011). Objective-based curricula readily lend themselves to ongoing criterion-referenced assessment. In some schools, physical education teachers must report their classes' percentage of mastery on curricular objectives taught during the school year. Objective-based programs with curriculum-embedded assessment provide a clearly defined system for evaluating programs, individualizing instruction, and monitoring pupil progress toward objectives. Objective-based instruction has had tremendous impact on physical education. Curriculum planning, accountability, and curriculum-embedded assessment are now integral parts of a field in which, for some, individualization had seemed next to impossible.
Members of the MPT are faced with the challenge of conducting diagnostic tests. Assessment for diagnostic purposes requires that the teacher gather data that help determine the specific nature of individual motor difficulties or why individuals are having problems in physical education. For example, diagnostic motor testing is utilized to pinpoint particular motor development problem areas such as agility or eye - hand coordination. In-depth diagnostic assessment of motor functioning is usually administered individually. Diagnostic instruments may be formal (e.g., norm referenced) or informal (e.g., criterion referenced). Formal diagnostic tests tend to be more time consuming and may require a separate session for each objective area.
Because diagnostic tests are usually administered to students individually, it is difficult for the general physical educator to find time to test each student. In some school districts, adapted physical educators or other MPT members assume responsibility forall movement-related individual assessments.
The content of skills tests administered by physical educators can vary and may include tests of sports skills, fundamental motor skills, or perceptual-motor abilities. The content of these tests should directly reflect skills taught in the physical education curriculum, and skills in the curriculum should directly reflect skills needed in community- and home-based settings.
Assessments by Specialists Representing Other Therapies
In recent years, schools have become more interdisciplinary in providing opportunities for individuals who have disabilities. An important manifestation of this trend is that occupational therapists (OTs), physical therapists (PTs), and vocational trainers have undertaken contributing roles in public schools. Pursuant to federal mandates, these therapies are provided as related services when determined necessary to facilitate a student's special education program. When therapists are members of the MPT, portions of motor assessment can be conducted by the OT or PT. Traditionally, OTs and PTs have functioned within a medical model, while physical educators have functioned within an educational model. Physical education teachers primarily assess observable, measurable motor skills, while OTs and PTs tend to assess processes underlying movement. For example, the physical educator might assess throwing skill, while the physical therapist might assess range of motion, which to some extent underlies the ability to throw skillfully. The OT might also assess manipulative abilities that facilitate ball handling, which in turn affects throwing proficiency.
These individuals must work together to facilitate appropriate assessments that identify a student's functional performance levels in the following areas:
- Gross and fine motor skills
- Reflex and reaction development
- Developmental landmarks
- Sensorimotor functioning
- Self-help skills
- Prevocational skills
- Social interaction skills
- Ambulatory devices
Several assessment areas overlap between adapted physical education and special education. This sort of overlap of professional responsibilities has been the subject of some controversy. The MPTs, however, can work cooperatively to avoid gaps in both assessment and service. Upon receiving and reviewing the referral of a student for assessment, it is vital that physical educators and therapists cooperatively plan and decide who will administer each type of assessment. Each professional brings unique, relevant information to the team meeting. The MPT approach to assessment emphasizes sharing, respecting, and learning from each team member's contribution. For example, the OT, adapted physical education teacher, and vocational trainer can work together to develop the specific intervention strategies needed for the individualized transition plan (ITP) by assessing components of the tasks required in the workplace and the physical skills needed to accomplish these tasks.
In some schools, physical therapists are available to assist in motor assessment, providing valuable insights for planning appropriate physical activities. For students who have physical disabilities (e.g., cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy), motor assessment may be based primarily on a medical model. Physical therapists can evaluate tonus and persistence of reflexes that interfere with range of motion, posture, and movement patterns. The results of a clinical evaluation by a physical therapist can then be combined with information gathered by a physical educator to develop the program plan. In cases involving physically disabling conditions when only early diagnostic information is available, an evaluation by a physical therapist may shed light on present functional capacity and subsequent implications for physical education programming (e.g., by determining head movements that may induce a reflex). In addition to identifying physiological (motor), topographical (affected parts of body), and etiological (causative) factors used in classifying physical disabilities, physical therapists can also conduct supplemental evaluations, including the following:
- Posture evaluation
- Eye - hand behavior patterns (eye dominance, eye movements, fixation, convergence, grasp)
- Visual status (sensory defects, motor defects)
- Early reflexes
- Joint range of motion and strength
- Stability skills (locomotor, head control, trunk control)
- Motor symptoms (spasticity, athetosis, ataxia, rigidity, tremors)
All the members of the MPT can provide information vital to the intervention process. Since the therapist's intervention is minimal, the adapted physical education teacher needs to translate relevant evaluative information into appropriate educational goals for each student. Within this context, the objectives defined from the evaluation of MPTs must be observable and measurable, and they must be used to develop an appropriate intervention plan based on individual needs.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Cognitive Assessments
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person’s perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills.
Cognitive assessments may include a variety of formal and informal assessments of a person's perceptual and cognitive abilities and skills. Testing may cover a wide range of areas that might measure, for example, an individual's level of intelligence, perceptual abilities, verbal and nonverbal skills, attention, and processing or memory abilities. Unlike cognitive and perceptual tests administered by qualified clinical psychologists or diagnosticians, cognitive tests administered by adapted physical educators and therapists are geared more toward analyzing an individual's perceptual and cognitive abilities as they relate to movement. In addition, it is critical to appreciate that most standard cognitive assessment instruments are geared for adults - in particular adults recovering from brain injury or stroke or who have Alzheimer's disease. Consequently, there are few cognitive assessment instruments that can be applied to individuals with disabilities in the school setting. Of those instruments available, the Trail Making Test (TMT) is one of the most reliable for use by adapted physical educators and therapists in schools, and it has been used extensively since its development as part of the Army Individual Test Battery (1944).
Briefly, the TMT requires subjects to connect a sequence of consecutive targets on a sheet of paper or computer screen, in a similar manner to what a child would do in a connect-the-dots puzzle. There are two parts to the test. In the first part, the targets are 25 numbers randomly distributed in space (1, 2, 3, and so on), and the test takers need to connect them in sequential order. The subjects start at the circle marked Begin and continue linking numbers until they reach the endpoint, a circle marked End. Part B is similar to A; however, instead of linking only numbers, the subjects must alternately switch between a set of numbers (1 to 13) and a set of letters (A to L), again linking them in ascending order (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on). At the same time, the subjects connect the array of circles as fast as possible without lifting the pencil.
A commonly reported performance index in the TMT is time to completion. A difference score (B - A) is often reported, meant to remove the speed element from the test evaluation. The first part of the test reflects speed of processing, while the second part reflects executive functioning or fluid cognitive ability. Extensive research indicates that the TMT assesses a variety of cognitive functions including attention, visual scanning, switching speed, mental flexibility, and the ability to initiate and modify an action plan (Bowie & Harvey, 2006; Salthouse, 2011; Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006; Zakzanis, Mraz, & Graham, 2005).
Recently, Horvat and colleagues (Horvat, Fallaize, Croce, & Roswal, in preparation) focused on modifying the TMT to develop a more cognitive-motor-based assessment better suited for use by adapted physical educators and therapists. In this variation, the TMT compares speed of processing and fluid cognitive ability with a running task (subsequently termed a cognitive dash by the authors). Individuals complete a computerized version of the TMT, which is then compared with the time it takes to complete running on a basketball court from baseline to midcourt (42 ft, or 13 m). In condition A, participants pick up a poly spot placed around the center court circle in the appropriate number sequence (1-2-3, and so on), place the poly spot in a bucket, and return to the starting point. Condition B requires the participants to alternatively pick up a number, then a letter (1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D, and so on), place them both into a bucket, and run back to the starting line. Similar to the TMT, condition A requires connecting a series of numbers, reflecting speed of processing. Condition B, which includes a number and letter in unison, is used to detect executive function and verbal fluency. Here, verbal fluency refers to a cognitive function that facilitates information retrieval from memory, requiring executive control over several cognitive processes such as selective attention, selective inhibition, and response generation.The correlation between the TMT and actual movement times from the cognitive dash gives teachers additional information to assess processing speed and planning a movement sequence.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Case Study
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Matching the Assessment Tool to the Assessment Decision
Mr. Simon has three students with disabilities in one of his fourth-grade physical education classes. He is about to start a new unit that focuses on the overhand throw. He decides to preassess the class so he can plan his instruction according to the needs of these three students, and also to determine whether this class placement is the most appropriate setting for them. Mr. Simon reviews his test and measurement textbook and finds a simple assessment for throwing that can be administered to a group of students. The test, which involves averaging three throws for distance, has face validity for ages 4 through 12. He administers the assessment to his class and compares their scores with the norms provided with the test. The results indicate that the class overall is performing at the 53rd percentile. One of the three students with disabilities is performing above the class mean, while the other two students are among the lower-performing students in the class.
Mr. Simon concludes that the assessment results clearly indicate the class needs to work on throwing. However, having spent one class period conducting the assessment and another two hours interpreting the results, he is a bit perplexed about how to actually use this information to plan his instruction. He could form instructional groups based on how far the students can throw, but he realizes he does not have any information on why they are throwing so poorly. For example, is it because they do not know the correct throwing pattern? Or is it because they are weak and need to work on strength? In regard to the students with disabilities, one student appears to be in the right placement since she is throwing as well as half the other students in the class, but it seems that this may not be the best placement for the other two students.
Mr. Simon needs to make two decisions: an instructional decision regarding the overhand throw and a placement decision to determine whether this class is appropriate for his students with disabilities. His problem is that he used a norm-referenced instrument that measured the outcome, or product, of throwing performance. What he needed in this situation was a criterion-referenced instrument (CRI) to evaluate how the students were actually performing the throw. Had he collected this information, he would have known which components of the throw the students had mastered and which ones still needed work. He could have then used this information to plan his instruction. The criterion-referenced assessment information could have also been used to determine any unique needs the students with disabilities have on the throw objective and how these needs can be accommodated within the class. Teachers learn that they should use assessment to guide their decision making in physical education, but when they actually try to use it, some do not find the assessment results useful and subsequently stop assessing. The assessment process is not the problem; the problem is not knowing how to select the appropriate assessment tool to match the decision that needs to be made.
Learn more about Developmental and Adapted Physical Activity Assessment, Second Edition.
Related Books
