Assessing Factor Structure of Perceived Physical Literacy Scale for Physical Education Teachers for Turkish Sample

Öz

It is a well-accepted opinion that many learning outcomes of Physical Education courses connected with physical literacy concept emphasize life-long health. In this study, an adaptation of Perceived Physical Literacy Instrument (PPLI) developed to investigate physical literacy level of Physical Education Teachers (Sum et al., 2016) to Turkish language and culture, an evaluation of validity and reliability and associated futures are aimed. 218 Physical Education teachers selected by convenience sampling method participated in the research. Confirmatory (CFA) and Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) have been used for analyzing the structural validity of the scales. According to CFA results, the original structure of PPLI which have 3 factors and 9 items was not confirmed. However, after the EFA and CFA, a new structure consisted 3 factors and 9 items were good and acceptable. It was observed that the fit indexes of the model were higher than the reference values. It was determined that the structure consisted of three factors was capable of explaining determined variance by 69.04%. The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient was estimated at .81. The result of the research has revealed that 3-factor and 9-item PPLI is a valid and reliable instrument to evaluate physical literacy level of Turkish Physical Education Teachers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Physical literacy,physical education,teacher,validity,reliability

Beden Eğitimi Öğretmenleri için Algılanan Beden Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği’nin Faktör Yapısının Türkiye Örneklemine Yönelik Sınanması

Öz

Beden okuryazarlığı kavramının yaşam boyu sağlıklı olmayı niteleyen anlayışının, Beden Eğitimi ve Spor dersinin temel amaçlarıyla olan yüksek ilişkiye sahip olduğu kabul gören bir düşüncedir. Bu araştırmada Beden eğitimi Öğretmenleri’ nin beden okuryazarlığı düzeylerini ölçmeye yönelik geliştirilen (Sum vd., 2016), Algılanan Beden Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği’ nin (ABOÖ) Türkiye örnekleminde geçerliği ve güvenirliği ile ilişkili özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmaya kolay ulaşılabilir örnekleme yöntemi ile seçilen 218 Beden Eğitimi Öğretmeni katılmıştır. Ölçeklerin yapı geçerliliği için Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) kullanılmıştır. Güvenirlik için ise test tekrar test, iç tutarlılık ve madde toplam korelasyon analizlerinden yararlanılmıştır. DFA sonuçlarına göre, orijinal yapısı 3 faktörlü 9 maddeli olan ABOÖ’ nün bu haliyle Türkiye örnekleminde doğrulanmadığı, ancak yapılan AFA ve DFA sınamalarına göre farklı bir 3 faktörlü ve 9 ifadeli yapı ile modelin uyum indekslerinin iyi ve kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Elde edilen modelin uyum indekslerinin referans değerlerinin üzerinde olduğu tespit edilmiştir. 3 faktörlü yapının açıklanan varyans oranının %69,04, Cronbach’s Alpha güvenirlik katsayısının ise .81 olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucu ABOÖ’ nün 3 faktörlü 9 maddeli yapısıyla, Türkiye’deki Beden eğitimi öğretmenlerinin beden okuryazarlığı düzeylerini ölçmeye yönelik psikometrik nitelikleri sağlayan bir ölçme aracı olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Beden okuryazarlığı,beden eğitimi,öğretmen,geçerlik,güvenirlik

Kaynakça

1. Almond, L. (2013). Physical Literacy and Fundamental Movement Skills: an Introductory Critique. ICSSPE Bulletin Journal of Sport Science and Physical Education, 65, 81-90.
2. Almond, L., & Whitehead, M. E. (2012). The value of physical literacy. Physical Education Matters, 7(2), 61-63.
3. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 76-94.
4. Baumgarten S., & Pagnano-Richardson K. (2010). Educational gymnastics: Enhancing children’s physical literacy. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 81(4), 18-25.
5. Bereket, A., & Atay, Z. (2012). Current status of childhood obesity and its associated morbidities in Turkey. Journal of Clinical Research in Pediatric Endocrinology, 4(1), 1–7.
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (1997). Araştırmaya yönelik kaygı ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Eğitim Yönetimi, 3(4), 453-463.
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2004) Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
8. Castelli, D. M., Barcelona, J. M., & Bryant, L. (2015). Contextualizing physical literacy in the school environment. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4(2), 156–163.

9. Castelli, D., & Rink, J. (2003). A comparison of high and low performing secondary physical education programs the school change literature. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 512(22), 512–532.
10. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları, Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
11. Couturier, L., Chepko, S., & Holt, S. A. (2014). National standards & grade-level outcomes for K-12 physical education. London: Human Kinetics.
12. Department for Education (2013). Physical education programmes of study: key stages 1 and 2 National curriculum in England. [Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239040/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Physical_education.pdf], Erişim tarihi: 3 Nisan 2018.
13. Dudley, D. A. (2015). A conceptual model of observed physical literacy. The Physical Educator, 72, 236–260.
14. Edginton, C. R., Chin, M., & Demirhan, G. (2010). Beden Eğitimi ve Sağlık: Yeni Bir Küresel Görüş Birliği. Hacettepe Journal of Sport Sciences, 21(3), 122–128.
15. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
16. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological assessment, 7(3), 286.
17. Giblin, S., Collins, D., & Button, C. (2014). Physical literacy: importance, assessment and future directions. Sports Medicine, 44(9), 1177-1184.
18. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. L., & Tatham, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with reading. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
19. Hastie, P. A., & Wallhead, T. L. (2015). Operationalizing physical literacy through sport education. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4(2), 132-138.
20. Higgs, C. (2010). Physical literacy–Two approaches, one concept. Physical & Health Education Journal, Spring, 6-7.
21. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
22. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
23. Kirk, D. (2013). Educational value and models-based practice in physical education educational value and models-based practice in physical education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(9), 973–986.
24. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd.ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
25. Longmuir, P. E., Boyer, C., Lloyd, M., Yang, Y., Boiarskaia, E., Zhu, W., & Tremblay, M. (2015). The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy: Methods for children in grades 4 to 6 (8 to 12 years). BMC Public Health, 15(1).
26. Lundvall, S. (2015). Physical literacy in the field of physical education: A challenge and a possibility. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4(2), 113–118.
27. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
28. Mandigo, J., Francis, N., Lodewyk, K., & Lopez, R. (2012). Physical literacy for educators. Physical Education and Health Journal, 75(3), 27-30.
29. Maruyama, G. (1997). Basics of structural equation modeling. London: Sage.
30. MEB (2018) Beden eği̇ti̇mi̇ ve spor dersi̇ öğreti̇m programi (5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara: Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü.
31. Meydan, C. H., & Şeşen, H. (2015). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları (2. Baskı). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
32. Nunnally J., & Bernstein I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
33. PHE-Canada (2014) What is physical literacy? Physical and Health Education Canada. [Available online at: https://phecanada.ca/activate/physical-literacy], Erişim Tarihi: 20 Nisan 2018.
34. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G.A. (2000). A first course in structural equation modeling. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Roetert E. P., & Jefferies S. C. (2014). Embracing physical literacy. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 84(8), 38–40.
36. Schreiber, J. B. (2008). Core reporting practices in structural equation modeling. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 4(2), 83-97.
37. SHAPE America, (2013) National Standards for K-12 Physical Education. [Available at: https://www.shapeamerica.org/standards/pe/], Erişim Tarihi: 3 Mayıs 2018.
38. Silverman, S., & Mercier, K. (2015). Teaching for physical literacy: Implications to instructional design and PETE. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4(2), 150–155.
39. Stapleton, C. D. (1997). Basic concepts and procedures of confi rmatory factor analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association (Austin, January).
40. Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893-898.
41. Sum, R. K. W., Ha, A. S. C., Cheng, C. F., Chung, P. K., Yiu K. T. C., Kuo, C. C., Yu, C. K., & Wang, F. J. (2016) Construction and validation of a perceived physical literacy instrument for physical education teachers. PLoS ONE, 11(5), 1-10.
42. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49–74.
43. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidel, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: Ally and Bacon.
44. Tremblay, M. S., Colley, R. C., Saunders, T. J., Healy, G. N., & Owen, N. (2010). Physiological and health implications of a sedentary lifestyle. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 35(6), 725–740.
45. Wall, A. E. (2004). The developmental skill-learning gap hypothesis: Implications for children with movement difficulties. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 21(3), 197-218.
46. Wall, A. E., Reid, G., & Harvey, W. J. (2007). Interface of the knowledge-based and ecological task analysis approaches. In W. E. Davies & D. Broadhead (Eds.), Ecological approach to analysing movement (pp. 259- 277). Champain, IL: Human Kinetics.
47. Wall, J., & Murray, N. (1994). Children and movement: Physical education in the elementary school. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm C Brown Co.
48. Whitehead, M. (2001). The Concept of Physical Literacy. European Journal of Physical Education, 6(2), 127–138.
49. Whitehead, M. (2010) Physical literacy: Throughout the life course. London, UK: Routledge.
50. World Health Organization (2014) Global status report on non-communicable diseases 2014. Geneva: WHO. [Available online at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/148114/1/9789241564854_eng.pdf?ua=1], Erişim tarihi: 22 Aralık 2017).
51. Yıldızer, G., Bilgin, E., Nur Korur, E., Novak, D., & Demirhan, G. (2018). The association of various social capital indicators and physical activity participation among Turkish adolescents. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 7(1), 27–33.
52. Young, D. R., Haskell, W. L., Taylor, C. B., & Fortmann, S. P. (1996). Effect of community health education on physical activity knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. The Stanford Five-City Project. American Journal of Epidemiology, 144(3), 264-274.