Öğle Arası Fiziksel Aktivite ve Oyun Hoşlanma Anketinin Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, ortaokul öğrencileri Öğle Arası Fiziksel Aktivite ve Oyun Hoşlanma (ÖFAOH) anketinin psikometrik özelliklerini incelemektir (n=518). Yöntem: Anket Sosyal-Ekolojik Model (SEM) temel alınarak geliştirilmiş olup, bireysel, sosyal ve çevresel değişkenlerin çeşitli seviyelerini geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Temel olarak, model bireysel, kişilerarası, kurumsal, toplumsal, fiziksel çevre ve politika düzeylerine odaklanmaktadır. Veri analizleri için, yapıları belirlemek amacıyla Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) modelleri serisi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: DFA, modelde üç faktörü doğrulamaktadır: χ2 [52] = 224.47, p < .001; CFI = .90; TLI = 0.87; RMSEA = 0.08; SRMR = 0.05. Çalışmada, kişisel içerikli bileşen 6 madde içerirken, kişilerarası bileşen sadece bir madde içermekte ve fiziksel çevre ile politika/organizasyon bileşeni 5 madde içermektedir. DFA, modelin SEM tarafından desteklendiğini göstermektedir. Sonuç: Elde edilen sonuçlara göre Öğle arası Fiziksel Aktivite ve Oyun Hoşlanma anketi sosyal ekolojik model temelinde 4.-8. sınıflar için geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyal-ekolojik model
• fiziksel aktivite
• teneffüs
• hoşlanma
• ortaokul.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Turkish Enjoyment of School Play and Lunchtime Questionnaire

Öz

Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the structure of the Lunchtime Enjoyment of Activity and Play (LEAP) Questionnaire among middle school students (grade 4-7) in the Turkish context (n=518). Method: The questionnaire based on the Social-Ecological Model (SEM) aims to improve various levels of individual, social, and environmental variables. The model focuses on intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, physical environment, and policy levels (Hyndman et al., 2014; Stokols, 1996). For data analyses series of confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) models were undertaken to delineate the constructs. Results: CFA confirms three factors in the model χ2 [52] = 224.47, p < .001; CFI =0.90; TLI =0.87; RMSEA=0.08; SRMR=0.05. In the study the intrapersonal component included 6 subcategories, the interpersonal component included only one item and the physical environment and policy/organization component included 5 subcategories with a total of 36 items. The CFA showed that the model is supported by the SEM. Conclusion: According to the results, the Turkish Lunchtime Enjoyment of School Play (LESP) questionnaire for the 4th-7th grades based on the social-ecological model has been calculated as a valid and reliable tool.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Social-ecological model
• Physical activity
• Recess
• Enjoyment
• Middle school

Kaynakça

1. Andersen, K. L., Seliger, V., Rutenfranz, J., & Nesset, T. (1980). Physical performance capacity of children in Norway. European Journal of Apllied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 45(2), 155–166.
2. Beighle, A., Morgan, C.F., LeMasurier, G., & Pangrazi, R.P. (2006). Children’s physical activity during recess and outside of school. Journal of School Health, 76(10), 516-520.
3. Brislin, R.W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In: Triandis, H.C. and Berry, J. W., Eds., Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 389-444.
4. Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Cengiz, C. (2011). Sosyo-ekolojik uygulamanın kırsal alandaki öğrencilerin fiziksel aktivite bilgisi ve davranışlarına etkileri. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Ankara, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü: Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
6. Cengiz, C., & Ince, M.L. (2014). Impact of social-ecologic intervention on physical activity knowledge and behaviors of rural students. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 11(8), 1565-1572.
7. Chou C.P., & Bentler, P.M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In Rick H. Hoyle, (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 37-55).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
8. Christiansen, L.B., Toftager, M., Pawlowski, C.S., Andersen, H.B., Ersboll, A.K., & Troelsen, J. (2017). Schoolyard upgrade in a randomized controlled study design—how are school interventions associated with adolescents’ perception of opportunities and recess physical activity. Health Education Research, 32(1), 58-68.

9. Dobbins, M., DeCorby, K., Robeson, P., Husson, H., & Tirilis, D. (2009). School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6-18. Cochrane Database System Review, (1), CD007651 10.1002/14651858.CD007651.
10. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü (2010). Global recommendations on physical activity for health. Geneva.
11. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü (2020). WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: web annex: evidence profiles. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/336656/9789240015128-eng.pdf?sequence=1
12. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü (2022). Promoting physical activity through schools: policy brief. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/354605/9789240049567-eng.pdf?sequence=1
13. Edwards, L. C., Bryant, A. S., Keegan, R. J., Morgan, K., & Jones, A. M. (2017). Definitions, foundations and associations of physical literacy: a systematic review. Sports Medicine, 47, 113-126.
14. Flohr, J.A, Todd, M.K., & Tudor-Locke, C. (2006). Pedometer-assessed physical activity in young adolescents. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(3), 309-315.
15. Fox K. R., Cooper A., & McKenna, J. (2004). The School and Promotion of Children's Health-Enhancing Physical Activity: Perspectives from the United Kingdom. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23(4), 338-358.
16. Gauvin, L., Levesque, L., & Richard, L. (2001) Helping people initiate and maintain a more active lifestyle: A public health framework for physical activity promotion research. In R. N. Isnger, H. A. Hausenblaus, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of research in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 718-739). New York: John Wiley.
17. Glanz, K., & Rimer, B.K. (2008). Viswanath K. Health behavior and health education – theory, research and practice. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
18. Graham, M., Dixon, K., Azevedo, L. B., Wright, M. D., & Innerd, A. (2022). A socio-ecological examination of the primary school playground: Primary school pupil and staff perceived barriers and facilitators to a physically active playground during break and lunch-times. Plos one, 17(2), e0261812.
19. Hu L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
20. Hyndman, B.P., Benson, A.C., Ullah, S., & Telford, A. (2014). Evaluating the effects of the Lunchtime Enjoyment Activity and Play (LEAP) school playground intervention on children’s quality of life, enjoyment and participation in physical activity. BMC Public Health, 14, 164.
21. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016) A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163.
22. Langille, J.D., & Rodgers,W.M. (2010). Exploring the influence of a social ecological model on school-based physical activity. Health Education & Behavior. 37(6), 879-894.
23. Longmuir, P. E., & Tremblay, M. S. (2016). Top 10 research questions related to physical literacy. Reserach Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 87(1), 28-35.
24. McLeroy, K.R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15, 351-377.
25. Metzler, M., McKenzie, T., van der Mars, H., Barrett-Williams, S., & Ellis, R. (2013). Health Optimizing Physical Education (HOPE): A New Curriculum for School Programmes-Part 1: Establishing the Need and Describing the Model. JOPERD, 84, 41-47.
26. Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1998-2012). Mplus User’s Guide: Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
27. Pate, R. R., Davis, M. G., Robinson, T. N., Stone, E. J., McKenzie, T. L., & Young, J. C. (2006). Promoting physical activity in children and youth: a leadership role for schools: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism (Physical Activity Committee) in collaboration with the Councils on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young and Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation, 114(11), 1214-1224.
28. Rasmussen, M., & Laumann, K. (2013). The academic and psychological benefits of exercise in healthy children and adolescents. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 945–962. doi: 10.1007/s10212-012-0148-z
29. Richard, L., Gauvin, L., & Raine, K. (2011). Ecological models revisited: their uses and evolution in health promotion over two decades. Annual Review of Public Health, 32, 307-326.
30. Ridgers, N.D., Salmon, J., Parrish, A.M., Stanley, R.M., & Okely, A.D. (2012). Physical activity during school recess: a systematic review. American Journal of PreventiveMedicine, 43(3), 320–328.
31. Ridgers, N.D., Stratton, G., & Fairclough, S.J. (2006). Physical activity levels of children during school playtime. Sports Medicine, 36(4), 359–371. Ridgers, N.D., Stratton, G., Fairclough, S.J., & Twisk, J.W. (2007). Long-term effects of a playground markings and physical structures on children’s recess physical activity levels. Preventive Medicine, 44(5), 393–397. Ridgers, N.D., Timperio, A., Crawford, D. & Salmon, J. (2012). Five-year changes in school recess and lunchtime and the contribution to children's daily physical activity. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 46(10), 741-746.
32. Sallis, J.F., Cervero, R., Ascher, W.W., Henderson, K., Kraft, M.K., & Kerr, J. (2006). An ecological approach to creating more physically active communities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 297-322.
33. Stokols, D. (1996). Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10(4), 282-298.
34. Tudor-Locke, C., Lee, S.M., Morgan, C.F., Beighle, A., & Pangrazi, R.P. (2006). Children’s pedometer-determined physical activity during the segmented school day. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(10), 1732–1738.
35. Türkiye Fiziksel Aktivite Rehberi. (2014). Çocuk ve ergenlerde fiziksel aktivite. Türkiye Halk Sağlığı Kurumu, Sağlık Bakanlığı, Kuban Matbaacılık ve Yayıncılık. https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/saglikli-beslenme-ve-hareketli-hayat-db/Dokumanlar/Rehberler/Turkiye_Fiziksel_Aktivite_Rehberi.pdf
36. Vincent, S.D., & Pangrazi, R.P. (2002). An examination of the activity patterns of elementary school children. Pediatric Exercise Science, 14(4), 432-441.
37. Yabancı, N. (2011). Okul Sağlığı ve Beslenme Programları. TAF Preventive Medicine Bulletin, 10 (3), 361-368.