 |
|||
| Volume 1, Issue 1, 2007 | |||
| A School-Based Physical Activity Program Tailored to Adolescent Girls | |||
|
Mary Neisen,
mneisen@csbsju.edu Carie A. Braun, cbraun@csbsju.edu Linda Shepherd, lshepherd@csbsju.edu College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University |
|||
|
Abstract Purpose and Significance Female adolescents in physical education (PE) programs have demonstrated increased self-esteem and well-being (Baum, 1998; Boyd & Hrycaiko, 1997; Calfas & Taylor, 1994; Modrcin-Talbott et al., 1998; Steptoe & Butler, 1996). Starting in 9th grade, adolescents exercise less every year and this is especially evident in girls (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2000; Grunbaum et al., 2004). Significant contributing factors to this decline have included perceptions of low exercise efficacy (Baum, 1998; Garcia et al., 1995; Pender, 1998; Wu & Pender, 2002), a lack of time (Tergerson & King, 2002) or social support (Pender, 1998), self consciousness while exercising with males (Taylor et al., 1999), a curriculum focused on team sports (Nahas, Goldfine & Collins, 2003), and increased sedentary activities, such as television watching (Bungum & Vincent, 1997). The decline in physical activity is a concern because of the many documented benefits to exercise in maintaining and improving overall health. Reasons for this decline warrant continued examination to determine how purposeful manipulation of variables, which influence exercise participation, could impact self perceptions, physical fitness, and ongoing exercise. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the standard co-educational competitive curriculum versus the impact of a female-only tailored physical education class on physical fitness and self-perception.
Literature Review The positive aspects of participation in regular exercise have been well-documented (Baum, 1998; Boyd & Hrycaiko, 1997; Calfas & Taylor, 1994; Modrcin-Talbott, Pullen, Ehrenberger, & Muenchen, 1998; Sonstroem, 1998; Steptoe & Butler, 1996; Taylor et al., 1999). Exercise persistence has been shown to be heavily influenced by social support, exercise enjoyment, improved body image, improved emotional well-being, and perceived exercise competence (Allison, Dwyer, & Makin, 1999; Bungum & Vincent, 1997; Pender, 1998; Steptoe & Butler, 1996; Taylor et al., 1999; Tergerson & King, 2002). Although a curriculum based on team sports has been described as an exercise deterrent, weight training and muscle toning, endurance sports, and aerobics have been shown to have a positive impact on self-esteem and physical fitness levels for adolescent females (Daley & Buchanan, 1999; Kirkcaldy, Shephard, & Siefen, 2002; Taylor et al., 1999). In 2003, 44% of the nation’s adolescents were not enrolled in any PE classes. Among females, 71% participated in PE in 9th grade but by the 12th grade only 34.6% participated (Grunbaum et al., 2004). Since adolescents are most often exposed to physical activities in schools through PE classes, program cuts or lack of registration and attendance has a significant impact on physical activity levels. One study reported adolescent females found lack of enjoyment in co-educational PE classes and suggested that a female only class would encourage greater rates of participation (Taylor et al., 1999).
The relationship between regular exercise, higher self-concept, and exercise persistence has been demonstrated in female athletes (Boyd & Hrycaiko, 1997; Sonstroem, 1998). Boys have been found to be more physically active than girls throughout adolescence (Garcia et al., 1995; Grunbaum et al., 2004; Steptoe & Butler, 1996). Historically, boys have been socialized to value strength and mobility and to focus on developing competence in sports (Baum, 1998). Girls have been stereotyped as less athletically competent and less physically active than boys of the same age (Baum, 1998; Sonstroem, 1998; Grunbaum et al., 2004; Pender, 1998). This is also reflected in studies of female adolescents demonstrating significantly lower vigorous metabolic equivalent levels than males, greater number of hours in sedentary activities than males, lower scores on wellbeing scales compared to males, and perceptions that athleticism is less self-defining (Baum, 1998; Garcia et al., 1995; Grunbaum, 2004; Harrell et al., 2003; Pender, 1998).
Theoretical Framework Pender’s Revised Health Promotion Model (R-HPM) provided the framework for understanding dimensions on which health promotion interventions can be tailored and has been used to study the impact of certain variables on physical activity patterns of adolescent females (Garcia et al., 1995; Wu & Pender, 2002). The R-HPM proposes three domains of influence on health-promoting behaviors, accounting for twelve variables that explain or influence behavior. The first domain includes individual characteristics and experiences (personal factors: biological, psychological, and sociocultural, and prior related behavior). The second domain, behavior specific cognitions and affect, are considered the dominant influence on exercise behavior and are subject to modification (Pender, Murdaugh & Parsons 2002). Perceived barriers and benefits, self-efficacy, activity related affect, and interpersonal and situational influences are the variables included in this domain. The third domain, behavioral outcomes, includes commitment to an exercise plan and the impact of immediate competing demands and preferences (Pender et al., 2002).
Research Objectives
Methods Selection and Description of Participants This quasi-experimental study was based on a convenience sample of 27 eighth grade adolescent females, ages 13-14 years, from one Midwest middle school. Power analysis indicated a desired sample size of 200 subjects for this research. Three schools were initially approached for participation in the study and one school agreed to participate. Two schools declined participation just weeks prior to the onset of the academic year due to the difficulty with scheduling a female-only section of physical education. The researchers decided to proceed in collecting data with the school that did agree to participate in order to obtain preliminary results and pilot the study procedures.
Of the 89 potential subjects enrolled in physical education for the academic year 2004-2005 in the participating school, 27 agreed to enroll in the study (13 in the control group and 14 in the intervention group) and all of these students completed the study procedures (30% participation, 100% retention). All potential participants (and parents) were mailed a letter providing information about the study including answers to frequently asked questions and assent/consent forms. Several follow up contacts were made to parents and students in order to complete the recruiting process.
Placement in the control or intervention group was performed randomly by school support staff responsible for student registration. Eligibility was based on age, gender (female), English-speaking, and willingness to participate. Students who were receiving adaptive PE services were excluded from the study. The study was approved by the appropriate Institutional Review Board and recommended human subjects protection measures were instituted.
Study Design The tailored PE class (intervention class) was designed so that the teens (in collaboration with the PE teacher) selected activities perceived as enjoyable yet focused on individual, lifelong fitness and met the standards set in the Healthy People 2010 document (U S Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). These activities included weight training, swimming, and jogging; activities previously reported in studies as enjoyable and as positively influencing self-perceptions (Taylor et al., 1999; Kirkcaldy et al., 2002). Participants in the control group (traditional co-ed class) participated in the regular PE curriculum with a heavy focus on competitive team sports and skill development. The intervention group shared a large gym with the control group for the short warm up before separating into the defined classes. A fitness center in the school building was the primary site for many of the activities. Both classes met for 50 minutes every other day during the nine month school year.
Procedures Participants completed pre-intervention measurements during the second week of PE classes and post-intervention measurements during the final week of PE classes to determine physical (fitness testing and body composition), motivational (commitment to ongoing exercise questions), and self-perception (survey) differences between the two groups. Demographic data was collected from pre-existing school records (birth date, attendance records, socioeconomic status [SES] determined by eligibility in the free and reduced lunch program in fall of 8th grade, and race/ethnicity). These data were used to make comparisons between the groups and to support inferences regarding findings.
Measures and Analysis Plan Multiple measures were applied to determine the variables of interest. All of these were coded, entered into SPSS (12.0), and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics for all measures included analysis of mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and range. Inferential statistics, using an independent samples t test, compared pre-intervention and post-intervention results for the intervention group, the control group, and both groups combined. Independent samples t tests were applied to each measure to determine any significant differences at the end of the school year (post-intervention; “Time 2”) as compared to the beginning of the school year (pre-intervention; “Time 1”) between the intervention and control groups. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests were also applied initially to ordinal level data but results were identical to the independent samples t tests and therefore, consistent across all measures, the t tests were used in reporting the results. Statistical significance for all measures was determined at the α=.05 level.
Fitness testing was performed by the PE teacher as part of the required class activities and included: time to complete a mile run/walk (in minutes and seconds), number of completed consecutive pull ups in one session, number of completed consecutive sit ups in one minute, distance of reach held for three seconds in a straight-knee sitting position (in inches), time to complete a shuttle run (in seconds), time to complete a 50 meter dash (in seconds), and distance to complete a standing long jump (in inches). The PE teacher was trained and consistently applied the measurement of these activities, which are a standard part of the PE curriculum.
Body composition measurements were completed at Time 1 and Time 2 by five trained researchers with backgrounds in nursing or nutrition and consisted of height and weight and skin fold measurements in the triceps and subscapular regions. These data were collected according to procedures in Lohman (1988) and were used to calculate body fat percentage and body mass index (BMI). Two researchers consistently measured skin folds for the same participants at Time 1 and Time 2 to decrease error. Two measures for triceps skin fold and subscapular skin fold were completed and averaged. The averages of skin fold sites were summed to give a total skin fold measurement (TSKF). Percentage body fat was calculated using the formula % body fat= 1.33 (TSKF) – 0.013 (TSKF)2 – 2.5 ( Slaughter, et al., 1988). Body mass index was calculated using the formula BMI=weight in kilograms/height2 in meters.
The participants also completed a five part survey, which took 15 to 20 minutes and measured frequency of exercise participation, planning for exercise, benefits and barriers to exercise, self-regulatory efficacy, and self-perceptions.
Frequency of Exercise Participation Aaron & Kriska’s Modifiable Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents (1997) tool provided the basic structure for self reporting the frequency of “hard,” “moderate,” and “light” exercise in which the adolescent was engaged for at least 20 minutes in the previous seven days both inside and outside of PE class. The response choices were none, 1-2 days, 3-4 days, 5-6 days, or every day for each level of exertion (hard, moderate, and light) and for each location (inside PE class or outside PE class). Moderate reliability (0.61-0.71) and validity (0.73-0.83) data were reported for this instrument (Modifiable Activity Questionnaire, 1997). Responses were coded from 0 (none) to 4 (every day). Participants indicated how many hours a day (0=one hour or less to 4=four hours or more) in the past week were devoted to sedentary activities and how many team or individual sports (0=none to 4=four or more) they participated in on a competitive level in the past 12 months.
Planning for Exercise Pender’s (Sample instruments, n.d.) Commitment to a Plan of Action instrument was comprised of 11 statements, which measured activities indicative of planning for exercise. Participants indicated the frequency of exercise related planning activities, such as planning for a specific time and location to exercise or working toward exercise goals. Responses were coded as 1=never to 3=often. Comparison within and across groups was based on the mean score across the 11 items. Test-retest reliability (.90) and internal consistency (.82) were high for this instrument (Pender, Health promotion model: Psychometric properties, n.d.).
Self-Regulatory Efficacy Pender’s (Sample instruments, n.d.) Self-Regulatory Efficacy was comprised of eight statements, which measured the participant’s commitment to exercise. For example, the participant would choose to exercise even if she were tired, if there were other things she wanted to do, or if she was having a bad day at school. Responses were coded as 0=not true at all to 4=very true. Overall self-regulatory efficacy was determined as the mean score across the eight items. Reliability data were moderate to strong for this instrument (test-retest=.77 and the Cronbach’s alpha=.87) (Pender, Health promotion model: Psychometric properties, n.d.).
Benefits of Exercise Pender’s (Sample instruments, n.d.) Benefits of Action instrument consisted of nine items designed to measure the perceived benefits to exercise and included potential reasons an individual might exercise, such as to look better, to have more energy, and to make more friends. Responses were coded as 0=not true at all to 4=very true. Overall perception of exercise benefits was determined as the mean score across the nine items. Test–retest reliability was reported at .86 and a Cronbach’s alpha at .75-.88. (Pender, Health promotion model: Psychometric properties, n.d.).
In addition, three items were developed and added by the researchers to address the issue of gender (a reason I might exercise is because I can be with girls only), family influences (because my parents exercise), and stress (because it helps control my stress levels). These items were scored and reported separately. Although the items have face validity, there was no reliability data for these additional items.
Barriers to Exercise Pender’s (Sample instruments, n.d.) Barriers to Action instrument consisted of 10 items, which measured issues that might prevent an individual from exercising, such as not having enough time to exercise, not having a good place to exercise, or not knowing how to do a certain type of exercise. Responses were coded as 0=not true at all to 4=very true. Overall perceived barriers to exercise were determined as the mean score across the 10 items. Test–retest reliability was reported at .75 and Cronbach’s alpha was .75-.84. (Pender, Health promotion model: Psychometric properties, n.d.).
In addition, nine items were added to investigate perceived barriers not measured by Pender’s instrument and were scored separately. These include statements related to body image (I might not exercise if I did not feel good about my body), co-ed classes (if boys were in the class), and peer influences (if my friends were not exercising). These items were scored and reported separately. Although the items had face validity, there was no reliability data for these additional items.
Self Perceptions Four of the six domains from Harter’s (1985) Self Perception Profile for Children (SPPC) were used to measure self-perceptions of social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance, and global self-worth. Participants were provided opposing statements related to the domain and asked to decide which of the two statements best described her. For example, “some teenagers would rather play outdoors in their spare time” or “other teenagers would rather watch T.V.” Then the participant determined how much the statement was true of her (really true or sort of true). Items were coded based on a 4-point Likert scale with responses of negative polarity=1 and those with positive polarity=4. Internal consistency for each of the subscales is described below; the reliabilities are based on a sample of 6th – 8th grade boys and girls (n=390). Subscale means are also described based on a subsample of 8th grade girls (n=70) (Harter, 1985).
Social acceptance measured acceptance by peers and perceived popularity. The six items related to making friends, having many friends, satisfaction with friendships, having people like you, and being popular with others. Internal consistency was reported at .85; the subscale mean was 3.14 (S.D.=0.63). An overall social acceptance score was determined by calculating the mean across the six items.
Athletic competence measured perception of skill in sports and outdoor activities. The six items related to being good at sports, trying new sports or activities, athletic abilities compared to peers, and interest in sports participation. The subscale reliability based on Cronbach’s alpha was .86; the subscale mean was 2.56 (S.D.=0.74). An overall athletic competence score was determined by calculating the mean across the six items.
Physical appearance was comprised of six items and measured satisfaction with how one looks including height, weight, body, face, hair. The subscale reliability based on Cronbach’s alpha was .82; the subscale mean was 2.62 (S.D.=0.69). An overall physical appearance score was determined by calculating the mean across the six items.
Global Self-Worth measured the extent to which the individual like’s oneself as a person and life satisfaction. The six items relate to happiness with oneself, satisfaction with how one is leading his/her life, liking oneself, and satisfaction with how one does things. The subscale reliability based on Cronbach’s alpha was .80; the subscale mean was 2.91 (S.D.=0.64). An overall global self-worth score was determined by calculating the mean across the six items.
Three items were included from Fox and Corbin’s Physical Self Perception Profile (PSPP) (Fox, 1990) in order to determine perceptions of body attractiveness (embarrassment with wearing few clothes), physical condition (confidence in the ability to maintain regular exercise), and physical strength (perceived confidence in physical strength). Statements on the PSPP tool follow the same format as Harter’s (1985) SPPC with an identical scoring mechanism. However, these individual items were scored and analyzed separately from the SPPC and there was no statistical data related to reliability or validity.
Results There was no statistical significant difference between the intervention and control groups for age, socioeconomic status, race, and days of physical education class attendance that may have influenced the results (Table 1).
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample
Due to the large number of variables measured in this study, the following describes any significant differences, either within the intervention and control groups or when comparing the intervention and controls groups from Time 1 (the pre intervention measurements) to Time 2 (the measurements at the conclusion of the study).
Research Question 1: Were there any differences in fitness levels? When comparing the difference from Time 1 to Time 2, two measures of physical fitness emerged as statistically significant at the conclusion of the intervention. Participants in the intervention group did more sit-ups in one minute, whereas the control group did fewer sit-ups in one minute (Table 2). The control group was faster at completing the shuttle run at the conclusion of the study, whereas the intervention group was slower (Table 2).
Table 2. Difference within each group and between the intervention and control groups.
Research Question 2: Were there any differences in body composition? The initial body fat measures at Time 1 were similar between the intervention (24.7%) and control (26%) groups. Participants in the both the intervention and control groups had a higher percent body fat (intervention 29.8%; control 26.5%) at the conclusion of the study (Table 3).
Table 3. Difference within each group and between the intervention and control groups.
Research Question 3: Were there any differences in frequency of exercise participation, between the two groups, inside and outside of physical education class? There was no significant difference between the groups for frequency of exercise participation inside of PE class. The control group scored significantly higher for exercising “hard” and “moderate” outside of PE class compared with the intervention group (Table 4). Both groups indicated spending 3 hours per day in sedentary activity.
Table 4. Difference within each group and between the intervention and control groups.
Research Question 4: Were there any differences in perceived exercise self-regulatory efficacy? From Time 1 to Time 2, the change in mean self-regulatory efficacy scores was reduced 1.86 Likert points for the control group and 1.83 for the intervention group (Table 5). At Time 2, mean scores were 1.90 for the control group and 1.74 for the intervention group. This indicates the groups had a lower exercise self-regulatory efficacy at the conclusion of the intervention, responding to most questions as “not true at all” or “not very true.”
Table 5. Difference within each group and between the intervention and control groups.
Research Question 5: Were there any differences in perceived benefits and barriers to exercise participation? For benefits to exercise, the average participant score indicated “in between” to “sort of true” when describing the reasons they might exercise: to look better, have more energy, feel happier, have fun, make friends, get stronger, like themselves more, get in better shape or feel healthier. The difference, or change in perceived benefits, did not change between Time 2-Time 1 and was therefore not statistically significant (Table 6). None of the adolescent responses to the additional three benefit statements regarding gender, family influences, and stress were statistically significant.
For barriers to exercise, the average participant score indicated “not very true” or “in between” when describing the reasons they might not exercise: not enough time, too many chores/homework to do, didn’t have a good place to exercise, the weather was bad, didn’t have the right clothes/shoes/equipment, didn’t know how to do certain types of exercise, didn’t have anyone to exercise with, and didn’t like to exercise. The difference, or change in perceived barriers, was not significantly different between Time 2-Time 1 (Table 6). None of the adolescent responses to the additional nine barrier statements were statistically significant. Adolescents responded “not true at all” to “not very true” when describing themselves in response to “I might not exercise if I was concerned about sweating;” “if I was concerned about how my make-up would look;” “if it would cause my hair to get wet” or “out of place;” or “if I had to take a shower afterwards.” Participants responded “not very true” when describing themselves in response to “I might not exercise if I didn’t feel good about myself;” “if I didn’t feel good about my body;” or “if my friends were not exercising.” And finally, adolescents responded “not very true” to “in between” that “I might not exercise if I had to wear few clothes” or “if boys were in the class.”
Table 6. Difference within each group and between the intervention and control groups.
Research Question 6: Was there a stronger commitment to a plan for ongoing exercise? Both groups indicated that they infrequently (never to sometimes) plan for exercise and there was no statistical significant difference between the groups (Table 7).
Table 7. Difference within each group and between the intervention and control groups.
Research Question 7: Were there any differences in perceived social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance, and global self-worth? Only one of the four domains (Physical Appearance) from Harter’s (1985) SPPC had any statistical significant difference (Table 8). The additional three statements from Fox and Corbin’s (1990) PSPP (body attractiveness, physical condition, and physical strength) had no statistical significant differences.
Table 8. Difference within each group and between the intervention and control groups.
DiscussionThe present study examined the differences in physical fitness and self perceptions among and between female adolescents in a traditional co-ed PE class and a female-only tailored PE class. Overall there were little differences between the groups and few significant results.
Although the groups ended at a similar place in terms of fitness testing measures, the intervention group showed greater gains in abdominal strength but lost ground in measures of quickness with a shuttle run. This indicates that there were no notable fitness gains for the intervention group as compared to the control group.
Measures of body composition were not statistically different between the groups. Interestingly, the intervention group gained a greater percentage of body fat over the course of the academic year. Any change in body composition may be reflective of sexual maturation in this age group, and the researchers did not control for stage of pubertal development.
Responses to frequency of exercise were based on the adolescents’ exercise patterns over the past week, and reflected the number of days they had PE class (every other day) in the past week. Both groups exercised (at all levels) fewer days in and outside of PE class at the end of the study. This change may have been a result of seasonal variations and the number of activities the participant was involved in over the summer, when there is more free time and the weather permits outdoor activities, as compared to during the school year when the colder weather interferes with outdoor activities and there is less free time. Overall the control group averaged twice as many competitive sport activities (in the past 12 months) as the intervention group and would explain why the control group exercised more days outside of PE at hard and moderate levels of intensity then the intervention group. Interestingly, both groups perceived exercising harder outside verses inside of PE class. The fact that physical activities (outside of PE class) most often consisted of involvement on competitive sports teams may explain this perception.
A concerning result is that both groups indicated spending 3 hours per day in sedentary activities. This was higher than the trend reported in Harrell et al. (2003) where 67% of 8 to 16 year olds spent two hours a day in sedentary activities. Spending greater than two hours a day viewing television, a sedentary activity, was found to be associated negatively with physical activity (Bungum & Vincent, 1997). Strategies are needed to decrease the number of hours children and adolescents watch television.
The required PE class may have influenced several results including the lack of a strong commitment to a plan for ongoing exercise and the downward trend in exercise self-regulatory efficacy (for both groups) at the conclusion of the study. The PE class provided a curriculum of regular physical activity to promote fitness and required very little planning on the participants’ part. The school environment provided safe and appropriate indoor and outdoor facilities and equipment for exercising. And, because of the participant’s age, parents may have had a significant role in participation in activities outside of school (competitive sports teams), although this was not assessed.
The required PE class may have also influenced results on perceived benefits and barriers to exercise, social support, and self perceptions. There were no significant changes in benefits or barriers to exercise from Time 1 to Time 2 in either group. However, the majority of the adolescents in this study indicated that looking better, having more energy, having fun, reducing stress levels, and feeling happier, stronger, in better shape and healthier were benefits to exercise. These results are similar to the perceived benefits identified in previous studies (Allison et al., 1999; Garcia et al., 1995; Pender, 1998; Wu & Pender, 2002). Age may have had an impact on how adolescents perceived the influence of benefits to exercise. A study of college females found that the influence of benefits on exercise participation increased with age (Nahas et al., 2003). And perhaps the adolescents in this study were too young to perceive benefits to exercise as influencing their exercise participation.
The majority of the adolescents in this study indicated lack of time and too much homework as barriers to exercise, despite the fact that they were averaging three hours per day in sedentary activities (for example television, videos, computer games). The participants did not identify having chores, a good place to exercise, the right clothes/equipment, or not liking to exercise as significant barriers. These findings are not surprising considering the required PE class was part of the school day. The participants did not identify any of the additional nine barrier statements as being true for them, contrary to being identified as barriers (Taylor et al., 1999). In fact, participants indicated that statements related to “I might not exercise if I was concerned about; sweating in class, how my make-up would look, about my body, getting my hair out of place, and having to shower afterwards” were “not true at all” to “not very true” when it came to describing themselves. Further investigation is warranted with a larger number of subjects to rule out these factors as having influence on middle school girls’ exercise participation.
The variable of social support (friends, family, and role models) was found to both directly and indirectly influence exercise behavior (Garcia et al., 1995; Pender, 1998; Wu & Pender, 2002). These adolescents did not perceive exercise, as a way to make more friends, a significant benefit and indicated they could exercise, even if they had to exercise alone. In addition, the majority of participants did not identify the lack of a friend with whom to exercise as a barrier. This may be a reflection of the participants’ age; Tergerson & King (2002) found peer influence to have had a stronger impact on physical activity behavior in high school, the presence of friends in class prevented the perception of lack of friends to be an issue, and additional social support was provided by the teacher. The adolescents in this study felt they could exercise even if they did not know how to do an activity or were not very good at it and did not perceive being in a girl’s only class as a significant benefit to exercise or having boys in the class as a barrier despite being identified as important variables (Taylor et al., 1999). Again, further investigation is warranted with a larger number of subjects to rule out these factors as having influence on middle school girls’ exercise participation.
PE classes based on traditional compulsory exercise and competitive team sports has been found to be a deterrent for some students and continued failure at those skills adversely affected perceived self-efficacy (Taylor et al., 1999). Yet, there was not a positive change in perceived exercise self-efficacy (the confidence in ones ability to perform a physical activity skill), reflected in athletic competence scores, within the groups from Time 1 to Time 2 as the adolescents developed and practiced new skills during the nine month study. There was also no change between the groups from Time 1 to Time 2 when there were choices in curricular activities.
The tailored PE class allowed for curricular changes from the traditional class to include activities perceived as enjoyable. Enjoyment has been identified as essential to exercise adherence (Nahas et al., 2003; Taylor et al., 1999). However; the way enjoyment is perceived is complex and was not measured in this study.
Changes in self perceptions have been positively correlated with participation in and adherence to physical activity (Garcia et al., 1995; Pender, 1998; Sonstroem, 1998; Wu & Pender, 2002). In these adolescent females there were no differences in social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance, global self-worth, body attractiveness, physical condition, and physical strength between the groups at the end of the study.
Limitations The researchers had no control over the PE classroom environment and individualized instruction by the teacher. The limitations of this sample group, (small size and lack of diversity) make it difficult to draw any conclusions but provide valuable information for future research.
Conclusion There were few differences between the intervention and control groups in this study of middle school adolescents at the conclusion of the study. This may be due to their stage of development, for example the adolescent females may not have reached the developmental age to be concerned about exercising with boys, to prefer tailored activities or to be concerned with their physical appearance during exercise. The present study contributes to the |