Prevalence and Correlates of Physical Fitness Testing in U.S. Schools-2000

By Morrow, James R., Jr.; Fulton, Janet E. et al. | Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, June 2008 | Go to article overview

Prevalence and Correlates of Physical Fitness Testing in U.S. Schools-2000


Morrow, James R., Jr., Fulton, Janet E., Brener, Nancy D., Kohl, Harold W.,, III, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport


Because of the perceived lack of youth physical fitness and/or concerns for increased obesity, physical education teachers are interested in youth fitness and physical activity levels. Statewide mandates are being developed that require school-based teachers to complete physical fitness testing. Data from the nationally representative School Health Policies and Programs Study 2000 were analyzed to investigate the prevalence of fitness testing and the professional characteristics of fitness test users. Data were collected with teachers of either randomly selected classes in elementary schools and randomly selected required physical education courses in middle/junior high and senior high schools (N = 1,564). The prevalence of fitness test use is 65 % across all school levels. Variables associated with physical fitness test usage were professionally oriented. Results showed that teachers in secondary schools (odds ratio [OR] = 2. 25, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 1.18-4.2 7), those with degrees in physical education/kinesiology-related disciplines (OR = 2. 01, 95 % CI = 1.11-3. 63), and those who had completed staff development on physical fitness testing (OR = 3.22, 95 % CI= 1.86-5.60) were more likely than respondents without these characteristics to engage in physical fitness testing. Results changed little when separate analyses were conducted for classes/courses in districts requiring versus not requiring fitness testing. Financial variables, including fitness-oriented facilities available, metropolitan location, and discretionary expenditures per student, were not associated with fitness test use. Results provided national prevalence of school-based physical fitness testing use in the U. S. and conveyed information about those who currently use physical fitness tests.

Key words: health, health-related fitness, schools, SHPPS

**********

Interest in physical fitness levels and fitness testing among American children and youth is often traced to Kraus and Hirschland's (1954) report declaring American youth were less fit than their European peers. As a result of that alarming report, steps were taken to remedy the perceived problem. Efforts ultimately led to developing what is today the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sport (PCPFS). Concurrent with the creation of the PCPFS, the American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (AAHPER) initiated a Youth Fitness Test Project that resulted in the AAHPER Youth Fitness Test (AAHPER, 1958). This test, often referred to as the "President's Physical Fitness Test," because children and youth earned the Presidential Physical Fitness Award for achieving at least the 85th percentile on all test items, was the first attempt at nationwide physical fitness testing in the United States.

Over the next 20 years, the original AAHPER Youth Fitness Test was modified (AAHPERD, 1976). Meanwhile, discussions of the various youth fitness test batteries and items occurred, many of which contrasted health- and performance-related physical fitness (Caspersen, Powell, & Christensen, 1985; Murphy, 1986; Pate, 1988). Two widely used tests were developed and modified over the years. The most recent versions are the President's Challenge (2003b) and the FITNESSGRAM (The Cooper Institute, 2004). Seefeldt and Vogel (1989) suggested this modification period was one of misguided efforts. Nevertheless, fitness testing is widely conducted in schools.

Recently, Burgeson, Wechsler, Brener, Young, and Spain (2001) reported on state and school district requirements for fitness tests in schools. In 2000, 18% of states and 20.4% of districts required senior high schools to administer fitness tests, 15.7% of states and 21.3% of districts required middle/junior high schools do so, and 13.7% of states and 18.3% of districts required elementary schools to give such tests. Among states and districts that required fitness testing, the President's Challenge was most often used (11.1% of states and 27.3% of districts). Second in order of use were state-developed tests (6.7% of states and 16.3% of districts). The third was the FITNESSGRAM (2003) (5.0% of states and 8.4% of districts). Nationwide, 76.5% of schools administered physical fitness tests in at least one required course, a percentage similar to that reported for skills test use (76.8%). Apparently, many schools use physical fitness testing although they are not specifically required to do so. Keating and Silverman (2004) also reported the President's Challenge and FITNESSGRAM were the most often used fitness tests.

Because of the perceived lack of youth physical fitness and/or concerns for increased obesity, physical education teachers are interested in youth physical fitness levels. Additionally, statewide mandates are being developed that require school-based teachers to complete physical fitness testing. The sheer numbers of U.S. children and adolescents who apparently participate in school-based fitness testing, the health benefits of various fitness components in this age group (Strong et al., 2005), and the potential for long-term sustainability all indicate the need for a better understanding of the predictors of school-based fitness testing. One key link in this chain is the role and characteristics of those who administer tests. A characteristic profile of teachers and others who implement youth fitness tests would be useful for a variety of reasons, including a clearer interpretation of levels and trends in youth fitness parameters as well as an enhanced ability to make evidence-based decisions regarding test implementation.

The objectives of this study, therefore, were to (a) provide information on the nationwide prevalence of physical education testing practices in U.S. schools and (b) relate district, teacher, classroom, and school characteristics to physical fitness test usage. Data on these characteristics can provide helpful information in the development of surveillance strategies for children and youth physical fitness levels.

Method

The data used were from the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2000 (SHPPS), a comprehensive national survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data from district-level, school-level, and classroom-level physical education questionnaires were used. Further details on the SHPPS 2000 methodology are in Smith et al. (2001), and the methods for collecting descriptive data on physical education via SHPPS 2000 are described in Burgeson et al. (2001). The CDC Institutional Review Board determined that SHPPS 2000 was exempt from review.

Brener, Kann, and Smith (2003) reported on the quality of the SHPPS 2000 data. Test-retest reliability analyses were conducted for key classroom-level physical education questions, including some of those used in the present research. Reported Kappa coefficients generally exceeded .40, and reliability coefficients (r) generally exceeded .60, suggesting the data were moderately reliable.

The physical education classroom questionnaire consisted of 57 items representing (a) general class characteristics and content, (b) physical activities, (c) teaching and evaluation techniques, and (d) respondents' background. Data were collected via computer-assisted personal interviews. The outcome measure for this analysis was a "yes/no" response to the following item: "In this [physical education] class, did you give ... (a) written tests of students' knowledge related to PE? (b) skills performance tests related to PE? (c) fitness tests?" Skills performance tests and [physical] fitness tests both reflect the psychomotor domain. Skills tests are often associated with specific sports skills and fitness tests are performance based or health-related. Respondents were to refer to a specific class or course that had been randomly identified for data collection.

The sole district-level physical fitness testing question determined whether the district required physical fitness testing. School-level data were collected from elementary, middle/junior high, and senior high schools. During sample recruitment, the principal or another school-level contact designated a faculty or staff respondent for the physical education interview. Most often, the respondents were physical education teachers, teachers of other subjects, or athletic directors. Of the 1,327 schools eligible for the physical education interview, representatives of 921 schools (69%) completed it. Each sampled school provided a complete list of all elementary school classes (e.g., third grade) or secondary school courses (e.g., physical education) that included required instruction in physical education. Elementary and middle/junior and senior high school courses were selected randomly from these lists. The teacher of each sampled class or course served as the respondent. An individual period was randomly identified, and teachers were asked to respond about that specific period when answering questions about content and curricular activities. Of the 1,729 classes meeting the criteria for inclusion, 1,564 (90%) had a teacher who completed the interview. The respondent was the person teaching the specific physical education period. At the elementary level, the respondent could have been a physical education specialist or an elementary classroom teacher. Burgeson et al. (2001) reported that in 69.8% of elementary schools, a physical education specialist alone teaches required physical education and that ONLY a regular classroom teacher teaches physical education in just 10.1% of elementary schools.

The total number of indoor and outdoor fitness-oriented facilities at each school was determined by summing responses to school-level questions about the availability of the following facilities: (a) gymnasium, (b) weight room, (c) cardiovascular fitness center, (d) dance studio, (e) track for walking, jogging, running, or biking, (f) soccer or football field, (g) general use field, and (h) outdoor athletic or playground equipment. These items were used to calculate a facility score ranging from 0 to 8. This variable was then added to the dataset to represent the number of school facilities to which each class or course had access, although access did not necessarily equate to actual availability or facility usage.

SHPPS 2000 data were linked with extant data on school characteristics from the Quality Education Database (QED; 1998), which contains information about individual U.S. schools. The QED variables included in this analysis were location (i.e., urban, suburban, rural) and discretionary dollars spent per pupil in the school.

Teachers' responses to questions were weighted to produce national estimates. Weighted correlations were calculated among the three types of tests conducted in physical education classes (i.e., written, skills, and fitness). The correlations were calculated for all schools and by school levels (i.e., elementary, middle/junior high, senior high, and secondary schools). Last, correlations were calculated separately for classes/courses in districts requiting fitness testing versus those not requiring it. High correlations suggested a "testing factor," indicating that respondents either chose generally to test or not to test in physical education classes. Low correlations indicated no general use of tests in physical education factor.

Logistic regression models were developed to investigate school and teacher variables related to the use of physical fitness tests. School variables were school level (elementary, middle, or secondary), location (urban, suburban, or rural), facilities available, and discretionary dollars spent per student. Teacher variables were coaching responsibilities, graduate and undergraduate degrees and fields, certification, history and interest in future staff development on physical fitness testing, and years of teaching experience. The dependent variable was reported physical fitness test use in the specific class or course identified. Unadjusted models were conducted with each of the district, school, and teacher variables, separately. Based on the unadjusted results, a multivariate regression model was conducted to include variables identified as significant in the unadjusted analysis.

It was determined from the district-level survey whether physical fitness testing was required in the district. Correlational and logistic regression models were conducted separately for classes/courses in districts requiring fitness testing and those not requiring fitness testing to determine if the district requirement related to the association between school and teacher variables and test usage. Analyses used SAS 8.0.0 with SUDAAN (Shah, Barnwell, & Bieler, 1997) to account for the complex sample design of SHPPS 2000.

Results

The SHPPS 2000 physical education interview was conducted with teachers representing 521 elementary classes and 1,043 secondary courses. Prevalence results for test use and the respondent's academic major, weighted to reflect national estimates, are presented in Table 1. Skills tests and physical fitness tests were used more than twice as often as written tests in physical education courses. Most physical education periods were taught by teachers with undergraduate and/or graduate majors in physical education (73%) or a related field (8%). For analysis, undergraduate and graduate degree majors were grouped into those related to physical education/kinesiology versus those related to education or other fields.

The weighted correlations between written and skills or fitness test use were low ([P.sub.50] = .26; range = .22-.38); however, the correlations between skills and fitness testing use were somewhat higher ([P.sub.50] = .37; range = .28-.48). Eight of the 10 correlations with written tests were equal to or less than the lowest (r= .28) correlation between skill and fitness testing use. When separated by district requirements, the correlations were similar. Use of psychomotor tests correlated .42-.51, while written tests correlated approximately .30 or lower. The generally low correlations indicated no "general test usage factor" for written, skills, or physical fitness tests. The more moderate correlations between skills and fitness tests suggest a testing factor associated with the psychomotor domain.

Descriptive results for district, school, and teacher characteristics are presented in Table 2. Physical fitness test users outnumbered nonusers about two to one (users: 65% vs. nonusers: 35%). Approximately 31% of classes/courses were in districts that required physical fitness testing; the remainder of classes/courses were in districts that either recommended (39%) or did not require or recommend fitness testing (30%). For further analyses, required physical fitness testing was differentiated from the other two categories. Findings from unadjusted logistic regression analyses (see Table 2) showed the following characteristics were associated with the use of physical fitness tests: having a district requirement (OR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.22-3.76), secondary school level (OR = 1.54; 95% CI = 1.09-2.18), coaching responsibility (OR = 1.54; 95% CI = 1.09-2.18), having an undergraduate degree in the field (OR = 2.24; 95% CI = 1.48-3.38), having a graduate degree in the field (OR = 2.06; 95% CI = 1.10-3.89), current certification (OR = 2.09; 95% CI = 1.11-3.93), staff development training (OR = 3.36; 95% CI = 2.16-5.23), and suburban location (OR = 1.73; 95% CI = 1.06-2.80). The odds of using physical fitness tests were higher for those who were in districts with a physical fitness test requirement, were secondary teachers, had coaching responsibilities, had an undergraduate or graduate degree in kinesiology/physical education, were currently certified or endorsed in physical education, had received staff development training on physical fitness testing, and lived in suburban areas. Teacher and school characteristics not significantly related to physical fitness test use included having an undergraduate degree, a graduate degree, interest in future staff development on fitness testing, years of teaching experience, number of fitness-oriented facilities available on campus, discretionary expenditures per student, and living in urban areas.

On the basis of the unadjusted results, an adjusted, multivariate logistic regression model was created using the unadjusted variables that were significantly related to physical fitness test usage. The only exception was whether the teacher had a graduate degree in the field. Having a graduate degree was not associated with physical fitness test usage; including only those with graduate degrees would have reduced the number of teachers eligible for the analysis by nearly two thirds (from 1,564 to 595). Additionally, although years of teaching experience, fitness-oriented facilities available, and discretionary expenditures were not associated with physical fitness test use, the number of fitness-oriented facilities available and discretionary expenditures were retained in the adjusted model to serve as controlled characteristics. Availability of facilities and discretionary expenditures are often perceived to influence curricula and school activities. Keeping these characteristics in the model helped identify any relation with fitness test usage.

Adjusted logistic regression results are also presented in Table 2. Variables that were significantly related to physical fitness test use in the univariate (unadjusted) model typically remained significant in the presence of the other variables when we controlled for the number of fitness-oriented facilities and discretionary expenditure per student. A notable exception was a district policy on physical fitness testing. When entered into the adjusted model, having a district-wide physical fitness testing policy was unrelated to actual fitness test usage in the presence of the other school and teacher characteristics. Secondary school level (OR = 2.25; 95% CI = 1.82-4.27), having an undergraduate degree in the field (OR = 2.01; 95% CI = 1.11-3.63), and staff development (OR = 3.22; 95% CI = 1.86-5.60) were associated with use of fitness tests. Two variables no longer significant in the adjusted model were coaching experience and location (suburban). Given that coaching experience and school level are related, school level appeared to suppress the effect of coaching because of the collinearity between the two variables. While more than 65% of secondary school respondents had coaching responsibilities, only 38% of elementary school respondents had them. Suburban school teachers were more likely to use physical fitness tests according to the unadjusted analysis, but location was unrelated to physical fitness test use according to the adjusted model.

To confirm that the results were not a function of school level, two additional adjusted models (not presented) were conducted with the identical exposure variables (omitting school level). Similar results were obtained when stratified by elementary and secondary school level suggesting that characteristics associated with fitness testing are similar for elementary and secondary school teachers.

Last, analyses were repeated when separated into classes/courses in districts requiring fitness testing (31%) or did not require fitness testing (69%). Using the variables identified as significant in the adjusted analyses in Table 2, these additional analyses were conducted to ascertain if the characteristics associated with fitness testing were different among those who worked in school districts that required fitness testing compared with those districts that did not require fitness testing. Results (see Table 3) from these separated analyses are similar to those in the aggregate analysis. The key variable related to increased odds of fitness testing in both types of districts was completion of staff development in fitness testing. Teachers in secondary schools were more likely to conduct fitness testing, but this was significant only among teachers in the districts that did not require fitness testing. Interestingly, over two thirds of teachers in districts requiring fitness testing reported completing staff development on fitness testing, but 42% reported such in nonrequiring districts.

Discussion

Texas recently joined California as states mandating physical fitness testing in schools. Additional state legislatures are considering similar statutes. Statewide physical fitness testing is a major undertaking that will require teachers and test administrators to obtain data truly reflective of student physical fitness level. These results describe school-based physical fitness test users and could provide information helpful to state decision makers as they develop protocols for valid testing procedures.

Generally, teachers reported use of physical fitness and psychomotor testing in both elementary and secondary schools. Those teachers choosing to conduct physical fitness testing typically taught secondary school (grades 6-12), had an undergraduate degree related to physical education/kinesiology, and had undergone staff development in fitness testing. These results remained when separated by district fitness test requirement, although not for holding an undergraduate degree in the field. The point estimates (ORs) for this variable were high (> 3.00) but not statistically significant.

Sixty-five percent of teachers in this study reported using tests from the psychomotor domain in the form of sport skills or physical fitness tests. Written tests were reportedly used about half as frequently as physical activity tests. The results do not suggest a broad testing orientation among teachers at any school level or district requirement because the correlations among the types of tests used are moderate. There is some indication of interest in testing in the psychomotor domain as reflected in the correlated reported use of sports skills and physical fitness tests. While the correlations are moderate, those who test "physical activity" of some sort tend to do so with both skills and fitness tests. Teachers "teach" by the tests they administer. Failure to test an area suggests it is unimportant. Those who conduct fitness tests have characteristics indicative of related training. Thus, one might expect that data obtained in such settings are more trustworthy. The validity of the obtained data has important implications for interpretation, generalization, and decision making regarding the true state of fitness and potential health risks associated with poor health-related fitness.

Our data are similar to those of Keating et al. (2004) who used a convenience sample of 325 teachers to learn what fitness tests were performed, how teachers prepared their students for testing, and why fitness testing was conducted. They reported that 83% of teachers used fitness tests in a 2-year period, and 61% reportedly used national fitness tests, a number similar to the 65% reported here. While interest here is not in the relation between physical fitness test use and specific knowledge, teachers implicitly inform students about a perceived important variable when they conduct physical fitness testing. It might be argued that the greater prevalence of skills and fitness tests suggests to students that the psychomotor domain is of greater importance than the cognitive domain in physical education classes.

Teachers who report using fitness testing are generally certified, with undergraduate and/or graduate training in kinesiology- or physical education-related fields and have completed specific staff development on physical fitness testing. These characteristics suggest that those with greater professional preparation in content related to physical fitness are more likely to conduct physical fitness testing, regardless of whether the teacher is in a district that requires fitness testing. Additionally, physical fitness test usage was not related to school characteristics, including location, facility availability, and discretionary spending.

These results have implications for assessing, reporting, and tracking of physical fitness levels and potential health risks in children and youth. While fitness tests have been available nationally and implemented in schools for about half a century, national physical fitness testing in children and youth has not been conducted for more than two decades and has not typically been performed in a manner that permits tracking of physical fitness attributes (Morrow, 2005). Nevertheless, media has suggested that children and youth are unfit (Getting Fit: Starting Early, 2005). Recently, Pate, Wang, Dowda, Farrell, and O'Neill (2006) published cardiorespiratory fitness level data on a nationwide sample of school-age youth. Their data were obtained by highly trained individuals. However, the present results suggest that a school-based assessment model is a possibility, because schools already typically conduct physical fitness testing. Additionally, teachers with specific training in fitness testing constitute a group most likely to be interested in conducting such tests. The present results also suggest that if individuals have been trained (academically and through professional development activities), they are more likely to be conducting physical fitness testing and could be more amenable to engaging in such activities. Equally important, a lack of facilities and financial resources does not appear to diminish the use of physical fitness tests. Thus, a school-based model for data collection based on current in-school practices might be effectively developed, resulting in valid estimates of youth fitness levels. The benefit of a school-based data collection strategy is that results from schools could be aggregated and nationwide results tracked over time, resulting in better evidence-based decisions. The downside of a school-based data collection system is that teachers change their jobs, locations, and teaching practices over time and well conducted quality control is often difficult. Any nationwide testing system would require careful quality control to ensure valid assessment (Ross, Delpy, Christenson, Gold, & Damberg, 1987; Ross, Katz, & Gilbert, 1985).

This study has several limitations. Because the SHPPS 2000 methodology provides cross-sectional data, the direction of some of the associations found in this analysis cannot be determined. While fitness testing use is related to staff development experiences, it is impossible to determine if interest in fitness testing resulted from exposure to staff development or if using physical fitness tests resulted in teachers seeking additional staff development related to that specific content. The relation between preservice training and use of physical fitness tests is more direct, given that academic preparation most often precedes teaching careers. Furthermore, these data are based on self-report, and, thus, respondents who were well trained in the content area may have provided professionally desirable responses.

In summary, those most likely to report using physical fitness tests in a nationally representative sample were in districts that require physical fitness testing, were teachers in secondary schools, those trained in the physical education/kinesiology discipline, and those who had received staff development in physical fitness test use. Equally important, lack of teaching experience, facilities, and support through discretionary spending per student did not appear to be related to reduced physical fitness testing. Identifying appropriately trained teachers and providing appropriate staff development might provide the necessary foundation for assessing current physical fitness levels in children and youth and providing evidence of potential health risks. Use of educationally prepared specialists and staff development are possible avenues to increase the likelihood that comprehensive assessments of youth physical fitness will be conducted, which are potentially more valid for evidence-based decision making.

Authors' Notes

This research was conducted while the first author served as a Guest Researcher at the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Nutrition & Physical Activity, Atlanta, GA. At the time of this study, the fourth author was with the Division of Nutrition & Physical Activity at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Please address all correspondence concerning this article to James R. Morrow, Jr., Regents Professor, Department of Kinesiology, Health Promotion, and Recreation, P.O. Box 310769, University of North Texas, Denton TX 76203-0769.

E-mail: jim.morrow@unt.edu

Submitted: June 14, 2005

Accepted: June 26, 2007

References

American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. (1958). AAHPER youth fitness test manual. Washington, DC: Author.

American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. (1976). AAHPERD youth fitness test. Reston, VA: Author.

Brener, N. D., Kann, L., & Smith, T. K. (2003). Reliability and validity of the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2000 questionnaires. Journal of School Health, 73, 29-37.

Burgeson, C. R., Wechsler, H., Brener, N. D., Young, J. C., & Spain, C. G. (2001). Physical education and activity: Results

from the School Health Polices and Programs Study 2000. Journal of School Health, 71, 279-293.

Caspersen, C.J., Powell, K. E., & Christensen, G. M. (1985). Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: Definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Reports, 100, 126-131.

Cooper Institute, The. (2004). FITNESSGRAM/ACTIVITY-GRAM 8.0 [Computer software]. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

FITNESSGRAM/ACTIVITYGRAM. (2003). http://www.cooperinst.org/ftgmain.asp.

Getting fit: Starting early. (2005, June 6). Time Magazine, 165, 56-58.

Keating, X. D., & Silverman, S. (2004). Teachers' use of fitness tests in school-based physical education programs. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 8, 145-165.

Kraus, H., & Hirschland, R. P. (1954). Minimum muscular fitness tests in school children. Research Quarterly, 25, 178-188.

Morrow, J. R., Jr. (2005). Are American children and youth fit? It's time we learned. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 377-388.

Murphy, P. (1986). Youth fitness testing: A matter of health or performance? The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 14(5), 189-190.

Pate, R. (1988). The evolving definition of physical fitness. Quest, 40, 174-179.

Pate, R. R., Wang, C. Y., Dowda, M., Farrell, S. W., & O'Neill, J. R. (2006). Cardiorespiratory fitness levels among US youth 12 to 19 years of age: Findings from the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 160, 1005-1012.

President's Challenge, The. (2003). http://www.presidentschallenge.org

Quality Education Data, Inc. (1998). Quality education data national education database. Denver, CO: Author.

Ross, J. G., Delpy, L. A., Christenson, G. M., Gold, R. S., & Damberg, C. L. (1987). Study procedures and quality control. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 56(1), 57-62.

Ross, J. G., Katz, S.J., & Gilbert, G. G. (1985). Quality control. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 56(1), 57-61.

Seefeldt, V., & Vogel, P. (1989). Physical fitness testing of children: A 30-year history of misguided efforts? Pediatric Exercise Science, 1, 295-302.

Shah, B. V., Barnwell, B. G., & Bieler, G. S. (1997). SUDAAN user's manual. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.

Smith, T. K., Brener, N. D., Kann, L., Kinchen, S. A., McManus, T., & Thorne, J. (2001). Methodology for the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2000. Journal of School Health, 71, 260-265.

Strong, W. B., Malina, R. M., Blimkie, C. J., Daniels, S. R., Dishman, R. K., Gutin, B. et al. (2005). Evidence based physical activity for school-age youth. Journal of Pediatrics, 146, 732-737.

James R. Morrow, Jr., is with the Department of Kinesiology, Health Promotion, and Recreation at the University of North Texas. Janet E. Fulton is with the Division of Nutrition & Physical Activity at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. Nancy D. Brener is with the Division of Adolescent and School Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Harold W. Kohl III is with the School of Public Health at the University of Texas-Austin.

Table 1. Frequency of testing and professional training,
School Health Policies and Programs Study 2000 (a)

                Question                   %

In this class did you give:
  Written tests of students' knowledge
    related to physical education?         29
  Skills performance tests related
    to physical education?                 65
  Fitness tests?                           65
Did you major (b) in:
  Physical education and
    health education combined?             32
  Physical education?                      41
  Health education?                         4
  Other education?                         21
  Kinesiology?                              2
  Exercise physiology?                      1
  Exercise science?                         1
  Other?                                   21
Was your graduate degree (b) in:
  Physical education and health
    education combined?                    14
  Physical education?                      29
  Health education?                         2
  Other education?                         37
  Kinesiology?                              2
  Exercise physiology?                      1
  Exercise science?                         2
  Other?                                   27

(a) Weighted to produce national estimates of individual
classes.

(b) Sums to more than 100 because respondents could
identify more than one major.

Table 2. Teacher- and school-level characteristics of physical
fitness test use, School Health Policies and Programs Study 2000

                                                     Unadjusted odds
Characteristic                        Percentages    ratio (95% CI)

Fitness test
use by teacher     No                     35
                   Yes                  65 (c)
District fitness
test requirement   No                     69%              1.0
                   Yes                    31%       2.14 (1.22, 3.76)
School level       Elementary (K-5)       75               1.0
                   Secondary (6-12)       25        1.54 (1.09; 2.18)
Coaching
responsibilities   No                     55               1.0
                   Yes                    45        1.67 (1.10; 2.55)
Undergraduate
degree             No                      3               1.0
                   Yes                    97        1.99 (0.51; 7.71)
Undergraduate
degree in
field (d)          No                     40               1.0
                   Yes                    60        2.24 (1.48; 3.38)
Graduate degree    No                     62               1.0
                   Yes                    38        0.92 (0.61; 1.38)
Graduate degree
in field           No                     61               1.0
                   Yes                    39        2.06 (1.10; 3.89)
Currently
certified          No                     16               1.0
                   Yes                    84        2.09 (1.11; 3.93)
Had staff
development
on physical
fitness testing?   No                     52               1.0
                   Yes                    48        3.36 (2.16; 5.23)
Would like staff
development on
physical fitness
testing?           No                     75              1.00
                   Yes                    25        0.99 (0.63; 1.55)
Location           Urban                  32        1.65 (0.96; 2.85)
  Suburban                                49        1.73 (1.06; 2.80)
  Rural                                   19              1.00
                                       Weighted
                                      mean (SEM)
Teaching experience (years)           12.9 (0.51)   1.00 (0.98; 1.03)
Facilities total
  (number of facilities)              3.7 (0.07)    1.12 (0.96; 1.30)
Discretionary dollars per student       $354.15     1.00 (1.00; 1.00)
                                       ($17.72)

                                        Adjusted odds
Characteristic                        ratio (b) (95% CI)

Fitness test
use by teacher     No
                   Yes
District fitness
test requirement   No                        1.0
                   Yes                1.71 (0.91, 3.23)
School level       Elementary (K-5)          1.0
                   Secondary (6-12)   2.25 (1.18; 4.27)
Coaching
responsibilities   No                        1.0
                   Yes                1.67 (0.85; 3.28)
Undergraduate
degree             No                         NR
                   Yes                        NR
Undergraduate
degree in
field (d)          No                        1.0
                   Yes                2.01 (1.11; 3.63)
Graduate degree    No                         NR
                   Yes                        NR
Graduate degree
in field           No                         NR
                   Yes                        NR
Currently
certified          No                         NR
                   Yes                        NR
Had staff
development
on physical
fitness testing?   No                        1.0
                   Yes                3.22 (1.86; 5.60)
Would like staff
development on
physical fitness
testing?           No                         NR
                   Yes                        NR
Location           Urban              1.52 (0.62; 3.73)
  Suburban                            1.46 (0.69; 3.08)
  Rural                                      1.00
Teaching experience (years)                   NR
Facilities total
  (number of facilities)              0.91 (0.73; 1.12)
Discretionary dollars per student     1.00 (1.00; 1.00)

Note. CI = confidence interval; SEM = standard error
of the mean; NR = not reported with the adjusted model.

(a) The percentages are weighted to reflect national estimates.

(b) Adjusted model included all the variables in the model plus
the facilities total and discretionary dollars spent per student
as controlled variables.

(c) The percentage reported here differs from that reported (76.5%)
by Burgeson et al. (2001), because the unit of analysis in the current
data was the classroom rather than the school.

(d) Grouped into majored within the field (physical education and
health education combined or physical education or health education
or kinesiology or exercise physiology, or exercise science) versus
out of the field (other education or other).

Table 3. Logistic regression analyses by whether
teacher is in a district requiring fitness testing

                                    School district(n = 318)
                                    requires fitness testing

Characteristic                           Yes (n = 318)

                                Percentage (a)    AOR (b) (95% CI)

School level
  Elementary (K-5) = referent        82.2               1.00
  Secondary (6-12)                   17.8        2.91 (0.77; 11.04)
Coaching responsibilities
  No = referent                      62.5               1.00
  Yes                                37.5        2.04 (0.64; 6.50)
Undergraduate degree in field
  No = referent                      33.7               1.00
  Yes                                66.3        3.54 (0.94; 13.25)
Completed staff development
on physical fitness testing?
  No = referent                      33.7               1.00
  Yes                                66.3        3.86 (1.24; 12.04)
Location
  Rural = referent                   12.9               1.00
  Suburban                           43.8        0.53 (0.09; 3.24)
  Urban                              43.3        0.71 (0.12; 4.01)

                                     School district(n = 318)
                                     requires fitness testing

Characteristic                            No (n = 765)

                                Percentage (a)    AOR (b) (95% CI)

School level
  Elementary (K-5) = referent        73.9               1.00
  Secondary (6-12)                   26.1        2.18 (1.04; 4.58)
Coaching responsibilities
  No = referent                      55.3               1.00
  Yes                                44.7        1.55 (0.70; 3.42)
Undergraduate degree in field
  No = referent                      40.9               1.00
  Yes                                59.1        1.61 (0.82; 3.18)
Completed staff development
on physical fitness testing?
  No = referent                      57.8               1.00
  Yes                                42.2        3.03 (1.63; 5.67)
Location
  Rural = referent                   22.2               1.00
  Suburban                           50.0        1.76 (0.76; 4.04)
  Urban                              27.8        1.69 (0.57; 4.98)

Note. AOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

(a) The percentages are weighted to reflect national estimates.

(b) Odds ratios are adjusted for all variables listed, including
facilities and discretionary expenditures.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Prevalence and Correlates of Physical Fitness Testing in U.S. Schools-2000
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.