statewide physical fitness testing: rqes lecturers a big...
TRANSCRIPT
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #1
Statewide Physical Fitness Testing:A BIG Waist or a BIG Waste?
James R. Morrow, Jr.
University of North Texas
RQES Lecture
AAHPERD – Tampa FL
April 3, 2009
Alison Ede
RQES Lecturers
• Kathleen Williams
– UNC‐Greensboro
• Deborah Feltz
– Michigan State University
• Barbara Ainsworth
– Arizona State University
RQES Editors‐in‐Chief
1989‐1993Mitchell, Elmer D. 1930-1943Wibel, Mary 1943-1950Perlmutter, Jerome H. 1950-1951Wright, Ella H. 1951-1958Rosenberg, Nancy 1958-1965Bookwalter, Carolyn 1965-1969Mitchem, John 1969-1972Scott M Gladys 1973-1977
RQES Editors‐in‐Chief
Scott, M. Gladys 1973-1977Safrit, Margaret J. 1977-1980Falls, Jr., Harold B. 1980-1983Thomas, Jerry R. 1986-1989Morrow, Jr., James R. 1989-1993Weiss, Maureen R. 1993-1995Magill, Richard 1996-1999Reeve, T. Gilmour 1999-2002Silverman, Stephen 2002-2005Williams, Kathleen 2005-present
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #2
Franklin Junior High School Franklin Junior High School
Newspaper Headlines
• Cold spell tied to temperature change
• Tornado hits cemetery, hundreds dead
• Plane crash due to problem experts say• Plane crash due to problem, experts say
• Baby born 10 months premature
Some Obesity Headlines
• New study of obesity looks for larger test group
• TV ads boost eating of obese children
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #3
http://carolinacoastonline.com/articles/2009/01/29/news-times/news/doc4980999784250599843516.txt
CDC Headlines
Body Mass Index Measurement in Schools
There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against school-based body mass index measurement programs as an effective strategy for preventing or reducing childhood obesity. Decision makers need to consider the pros and cons. If implemented, these programs should be part of a comprehensive approach to address obesity.
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/ChildBMI/
Cardiorespiratory fitness levels among US youth 12 to 19 years of age: Findings from the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Males higher than femalesNo difference across race/ethnicity
Older males higher
Pate et al. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Oct;160(10):1005-12.
Younger females higher
Approximately 1/3 don’t meet cardiovascular standards
Am J Hlth Ed, 2009, 40(1),30-36
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #4
Fitness Achievement and School Environment
• Academic Achievement (TAKS)– CV = .54
– BMI = .30
• School Attendance– CV = .52
– BMI = .18
• Negative School Incidents– CV = -.52
– BMI = -.24
Controlled for SES, minority status, school size
Distribution of CV Fitness and TAKS Achievement by County
Distribution of BMI Fitness and TAKS Achievement by County
5060708090
100
CV Fitness Corresponds with Academic Performance when Schools Stratified by State Rating System
CVTAKS
010203040
Exemplary
Recognized
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Texas Youth Fitness StudySchool Ratings
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #5
CaliforniaEnglish‐Language Arts & FITNESSGRAM® HFZs Achieved
350
370
390
G d 5ale
Sc
ore
270
290
310
330
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Grade 5
Grade 7
Grade 9
CS
T E
LA
Sc
a
FITNESSGRAM® HFZs Achieved
Calif PF Test – 2004 Results
CaliforniaMATH & FITNESSGRAM® HFZs Achieved
350
370
390
G d 5ca
le S
co
re
270
290
310
330
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Grade 5
Grade 7
Grade 9
CS
T
MA
TH
Sc
FITNESSGRAM® HFZs Achieved
Calif PF Test – 2004 Results
Pinellas CountyFlorida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT) &
FITNESSGRAM® HFZs Achieved
2
2.5
3
3.5
d
FCAT
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Read
Math
FITNESSGRAM® HFZs Achieved
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #6
Are American Children and Youth Fit?It’s Time We Learned
James R. Morrow, Jr.
25th Annual C.H. McCloy Lecture
April 1, 2004
Physical Fitness Testing
50 Years of History
James R. Morrow, Jr.Christine Spain
Marilu D. MeredithB. Don Franks
Weimo Zhu
Statewide Physical Fitness Testing:A BIG Waist or a BIG Waste?
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #7
PES, 1989, 1, 295-302.
ChildhoodPhysicalActivity
ChildhoodPhysicalFitness
ChildhoodHealth
AdultPhysicalActivity
AdultHealth
AdultPhysicalFitness
Children/AdultPhysical
Activity/Fitness
1954 1958 1961 1980 1988 2008
1954Flexibility Test Failures
From: Kraus & Hirschland. (1954). RQ, 25, 178-188.
Age
%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
AmericanEuropean
1954 1958 1961 1980 1988 2008
1954
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
USAAustria
Italy
Switzerland
Percentage of Test Failures
From: Kraus & Hirschland. (1954). RQ, 25, 178-188.
Age
%
1954 1958 1961 1980 1988 2008
1954Weakness Failures
From: Kraus & Hirschland. (1954). RQ, 25, 178-188.
Age
%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
AmericanEuropean
1954 1958 1961 1980 1988 2008
1954Incidence of Test Failures
From: Kraus & Hirschland. (1954). RQ, 25, 178-188.
Age
%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
USAAustriaItalySwitzerland
• PCPFS/AAHPERD
– 1958– 1965
Nationwide Physical Fitness Tracking
– 1975– 1985
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #8
• NCYFS I– 1984 (N = 8,800)– Grades 5-12
NSPFS
Nationwide Physical Fitness Testing/Tracking
1954
• NSPFS– 1985 (N = 18,857)– Ages 6-17
• NCYFS II– 1987 (N = 4,678)– Ages 6-9
Fitness Test Development1958‐2008
Statewide
• California
• Illinois
• Indiana
National
• AAHPERD Youth Fitness– 1958 – 1965 – 1976
• AAHPERD Health‐Related Fitness
• New York
• Oregon
• South Carolina
• Texas
• Vermont
• Washington
• AAHPERD College Age Health‐Related Fitness
• Fit Youth Today
• AAU Fitness Test
• FITNESSGRAM®
• President’s Challenge
Interest in Statewide Fitness Testing
• Alabama
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• New York (City)
• North Carolina
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina• Colorado
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Maryland
• Missouri
• South Carolina
• Texas
• Washington
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #9
Arkansas BMI Assessments
60%
80%
100%
0%
20%
40%
'03‐'04 '04‐'05 '05‐'06 '06‐'07 '07‐'08
Underweight
Healthy
At risk
Overweight
Higher
“Risk”
Bone healthCADCancerCVDDeathDiabetesFunctional limitationsHypertensionMental health
MenWomenChildrenElderlyNorth AmericansChineseDanesJapaneseNative Americans30
35
40
Physical Activity “Risk” Generalization
Low Moderate High
Fitness Level/Physical Activity/Energy Expenditure
Lower
Low Moderate High
Metabolic syndromeStroke
Scandinavians
0
5
10
15
20
25
Trend of Health Care Costs in the U.S.
$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500$4,000
n B
illi
on
$B
ar)
141516171819
% o
f G
DP
ine)
$0$500
$1,000$1,500$ ,000
1990
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Co
sts
in (B
1011121314
Co
sts
as
(Li
Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of Actuary
Overweight U.S. Children and Adolescents
%
Ogden et al., JAMA, October 9, 2002, p. 1728
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #10
Overweight U.S. Children and AdolescentsMale (BMI > 95%ile)
%
Ogden et al., JAMA, October 9, 2002, p. 1728
Overweight U.S. Children and AdolescentsFemale (BMI > 95%ile)
%
Ogden et al., JAMA, October 9, 2002, p. 1728
Childhood Overweight Prevalence (CDC)
http://www.cdc.gov/print.do?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnccdphp%2Fdnpa%2Fobesity%2Fchildhood%2Fprevalence.htm
YRBSS Obesity TrendsGrades 9‐12
12
14
16
18
20
Students > 95% compared to reference data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #11
Boys Age 15
%
Lissau et al., Arch Ped Adol Med, 2004
Girls Age 15
%
Lissau et al., Arch Ped Adol Med, 2004
Overweight in Youth
• Tripled in past 3 decades
• At least 15% aged 6-19 are overweight
• 30% of overweight children meet criteria for Metabolic Syndrome
• Disproportionate in underserved populations
Odds of Childhood ObesityTracking into Adulthood
OR
Whitaker et al., NEJM, 1997, 337:869-873
Obese or very obeseObese
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #12
J. Am Diet Assoc. (2004)104(4),525-527
Can Fam Phy. (2007),53(Sept),1494-1499
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #13
Can Fam Phy. (2007),53(Sept),1494-1499
Would you care or say the same things about
academic performance in schools?
J. Am Diet Assoc. (2004)104(4),525-527
Interest in Statewide Fitness Testing
• Alabama
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• New York (City)
• North Carolina
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina• Colorado
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Maryland
• Missouri
• South Carolina
• Texas
• Washington
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
Why do Statewide Testing?
• Health Status
– Overweight/Obesity
– Aerobic fitness
• CVD• CVD
– Diabetes
– Musculoskeletal fitness
Missing Data
• Health Status
– Aerobic fitness
• CVD
– Pate paper most recentp p
– Musculoskeletal fitness
• Strength
• Endurance
• Flexibility
– Physical Activity
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #14
Why do Statewide Testing?
Individual
• Status
• Risk
• Change
State/Nation
• Surveillance– Status
– Riskg
• Variables
– Physical
• Fitness
• Activity
– School
• Academic performance
• Classroom discipline
• Absences
– Change
• Variables
– Physical
• Fitness
• Activity
– School
• ??
Assess the availability of fitness assessment programs, such as the President’s Challenge Physical Fitness Program, which could be adopted by schools or an entire school district in order to provide information regarding student fitness; ________________________________________________________________
Florida Department of EducationPhysical Education Report and Recommendations – March 2005
Individual
Determine the methods of providing feedback to a parent through a student assessment report that would summarize a student’s results and the school’s resultsas set forth in an assessment tool, such as the FITNESSGRAM or the School Health Index of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
FDOE, Physical Education Report and Recommendations, March 24, 2005http://www.fldoe.org/BII/CSHP/pdf/pemaster.pdf
Surveillance
Statewide Testing Issues
• Teacher training
• Student preparation
• Test reliability
• Test validity
• Large group testing issues
– Testers
– Participants
– Test‐related
– Environment
Quality Data Collection• Controlled settings
• Well‐trained:
– Teachers
– Administrators
• Prepared students
• Comparison
– Individual
– National
– Statewide
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #15
Texas Youth Evaluation Project (2008) – N = 2,596,565
Texas Youth Evaluation Project (2008)
20
25
30
35
% Achieving6 HFZ
0
5
10
15
20
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Girls
Boys
Grade
N = 2,596,565
60708090
100
ng
Sta
nd
ard
Cardiovascular Fitness by Grade% Achieving “Healthy Fitness Zone”
0102030405060
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Pe
rce
nt
Ac
hie
vin
GradeTexas Youth Fitness Study
60708090
100
ng
Sta
nd
ard
Body Mass Index (BMI) by Grade% Achieving Healthy Fitness Zone
01020304050
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Per
ce
nt
Ac
hie
vin
GradeTexas Youth Fitness Study
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #16
rxx’
rxy
California Statewide Testing
60
70
80
90
100
1998‐1999
2000‐2001
2001‐2002
2002 2003
% Achieving6 HFZ
0
10
20
30
40
50
5 7 9
2002‐2003
2003‐2004
2004‐2005
2005‐2006
2006‐2007
2007‐2008
Grade
California Statewide Testing
60
70
80
90
1005
7
9
% Achieving6 HFZ
Grade
0
10
20
30
40
50
1998‐1999
2000‐2001
2001‐2002
2002‐2003
2003‐2004
2004‐2005
2005‐2006
2006‐2007
2007‐2008
Year
California Statewide Testing
25
30
35
405
7
9
% Achieving6 HFZ
Grade
0
5
10
15
20
1998‐1999
2000‐2001
2001‐2002
2002‐2003
2003‐2004
2004‐2005
2005‐2006
2006‐2007
2007‐2008
Year
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #17
Georgia Youth Fitness AssessmentGrades 5 and 7 (N = 5,248)
60
80
100
% NOT Achieving HFZFailed > 2 MSEF< 60 min/day MVPA
%
0
20
40
BMI PACER MSEF MVPA
2330
52
22
Powell et al., 2009 AJPM, 36(4), 304-310
Significance
• Texas
– N > 2,600,000 (3rd ‐ 12th)
• California
– N ≈ 1,000,000 (5th, 7th, & 9th)
Y k Ci• New York City
– N ≈ 600,000 (K ‐ 12th)
• Missouri
– N ≈ 60,000 (5th & 9th)
• Georgia
– N = 5,248 (5th & 7th)p < .0000000000001
What do you interpret as fit?
• Body composition (BC)
• Aerobic capacity (AC)
• Musculoskeletal (MSF)
– Which tests?
• BC & AC
• 6 of 6 HFZ
• 5 of 6 HFZ
• 4 of 6 HFZ
• 3 of 6 HFZ
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #18
Psychometric Considerations
• Reliability
– Body Composition
– Aerobic Capacity
Musculoskeletal Fitness
Σ
σ
ρ– Musculoskeletal Fitness
• Validity
– Body Composition
– Aerobic Capacity
– Musculoskeletal Fitness
μ
Item Reliability
• Aerobic Capacity– N ≈ 23
– rxx’ (P50) ≈ .84
• Body Compositiona
txx
r
'Body Composition– N ≈ 11
– rxx’ (P50) ≈ .86
• Musculoskeletal Fitness– N ≈ 106
– rxx’ (P50) ≈ .91
o
aincludes adults
Item Validity
• Aerobic Capacity– N ≈ 31
– rxy (P50) ≈ .72
• Body Compositionxyr
– N ≈ 3
– rxx’ (P50) ≈ .79
• Musculoskeletal Fitness– N ≈ 79
– rxx’ (P50) ≈ .39
Field Test8077.57572.57067.5
Cri
teri
on
2200.00
2000.00
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
Battery Reliability & Validity
• Safrit & Wood– RQES, 1987, p. 160‐167
• ValidityValidity
– Content
– Concurrent
– Predictive
• Morbidities
• Mortality
– Construct
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #19
What battery/items?
• Performance fitness– Endurance
– Speed
– Agility
– Strength
• Health‐Related fitness– Aerobic Capacity
– Body Composition
– Musculoskeletal
• Functional fitness
Commonalities Among Fitness Types
PerformanceFitness
HealthFitness
P-H Fitness
FunctionalFitness
Morrow et al., 2009, RQES.
Commonalities Among Fitness Types
PerformanceFitness
P-H FitnessHealthFitness
PerformanceHealth
Functional
FunctionalFitness
Morrow et al., 2009, RQES.
Functional
Overlap of Fitness Types
P-F Cut-OffScore
H F
H-F Cut-OffScore
F-F Cut-OffScore
P-F
FI
F-F
H-F
Morrow et al., 2009, RQES.
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #20
Performance-relatedfitness
Changes in Fitness Importance Across Age
Functionalfitness
Health-relatedfitness
Morrow et al., 2009, RQES.
Continuing Issues
• Battery
• Scheduling
• Equipment
• Students
• Parent
• Teachers
Logistic People
• Logic
• Theory
• Policies
• Support
• Politics
• Administrators
• Politicians
• Constituencies
– Art
– Music
Teacher Training• Interest
• Time
• Money
– Equipment
– Training
• Methods
– None
• Read the manual
– Train the trainer
• Skilled?
– Reading
– In person
– On‐line
• Logistics (plan ahead)
– Fire drill
– CD skips
– Call the police!
Student Performance• Interest
– Most physical activity they get
– Instructional units
• Fitness/Physical Activity/Wellness
• Motivation– Teachers/Students
• Practice– Proper/improper
• Specificity
• Scoring– Teacher
– Student
– Partner
– Volunteers
– Testing teams
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #21
Student/Teacher “Excitement”?
• Elementary– Much practice
– “Can we do it again?”
– Want a “true” score
• Secondary– “Where can I hide?”
– Some females don’t want to be weighed.
– Set goals for HFZ.
– Others do only minimum!
• Teacher– Viewed as “punishment” – state requirement
– Some enthusiastic• FITNESSGRAM “Hall of Fame”
– Some “grade” students
– “Herding cattle” – test entire school
Results Confidence
• Psychometrics
– Reliability
– Validity
– Objectivity
i• Scoring
• Interpretation
• Use
• Translation
– Teacher Student Parents
Score Error Sources
• Tester– Administrator
– Scorer
• Experience
• Skill
• Participant
• Test‐related– Instructions
– Equipment• None
• Faulty
• EnvironmentParticipant– Tired
– Unmotivated
– Nervous
– Ill
– Peer pressure
– Intimidation
– Self‐consciousness
– Weather
– Surfaces
– Cultural context
– Peer pressure
Mahar, M.T. & Rowe, D.A. (2008). MPEES, 12(3),126-145.
Ongoing ResearchHFZ Reliability & Validity
No
No
Yes
Yes
Teacher Time 2
Tea
cher
Tim
e 1
No
No
Yes
Yes
Expert Time 2
Exp
ert
Tim
e 1
No
No
Yes
Yes
Teacher Time 1
Exp
ert
Tim
e 1
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #22
Positives & Negatives
• Convey important information– Parents
– Students
– Teachers
• Bad data collection
• Data entry
• Convey WRONG information
– Administrators
• Powerful change agent– Newspaper Headlines
– Influence decision makers
• More MONEY for PE
• More TIME for PE
– Influence curricula
– Budget
• Opportunities
• Weak/Poor data
• Poor interpretation– Causality
SB 891
More Legislation - 2009
More Legislation - 2009
SB 891
More Legislation - 2009
HB 229
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #23
More Legislation - 2009
HB 229
Students Get Involved
Students Get Involved Ask Yourself• Why?
– Purpose
• Individual
• Surveillance
• How?
– StudentsStudents
– Teachers
• Training
• Audiences?
– Students
– Parents
– Administrators
– Government
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #24
Expected Outcomes
• Reports– To whom?
– For what?
• Changes?g– Testing alone
– Programs/Educational Experiences• AAHPERD’s Physical Best
• CATCH
• SPARK
• MSPAN
“Throwing a test” out there is NO better than
“throwing the ball” out there!
Franklin Junior High School
Physical Fitness testing CAN be an agent for change and
assessment is a KEY element to a quality physical education program.
Conclusion• Good stuff happens with testing
– “What I test is important”
– Communication• Students, Teachers, Administrators, Parents, Public, Health Professionals
• Bad stuff happens with testing
– Expensive
– Bad dataBad data
– Time consuming
– Impact
• Any DIRECT impact from testing?
• Bad data are useless
• Uses– Public Health perspective
• Individual
• Statewide/National surveillance
Practical
Pedagogical
Responsible
Morrow – AAHPERD 2009 – Page #25
So ‐‐ do you want to do this?
Think, reason, and plan!
MORE!
MORE!MORE!
Otherwise…….
We will continue to havea BIG WAIST…and
We will continue to havea BIG WASTE.