Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 2015, 32, 93-105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/APAQ.2013-0106 © 2015 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Official Journal of IFAPA www.APAQ-Journal.com ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Parents’ Beliefs and Intentions Toward Supporting Physical Activity Participation for Their Children With Disabilities Mihye Jeong East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania
So-Yeun Kim
Euikyung Lee
Northern Illinois University
Ewha Movement Center, South Korea
The purpose of this study was to examine validity and reliability evidence of a questionnaire regarding parents’ beliefs and intentions toward supporting physical activity (PA) participation of their children with disabilities (CWD). A total of 220 parents of CWD in South Korea completed a questionnaire that was developed using the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Exploratory factor analysis revealed that behavioral, control, and normative beliefs accounted for 31.13%, 20.45%, and 19.63% of the total variance of the intention, respectively. Reliability of entire scale was .85 using Cronbach’s alpha. Reliabilities of the 3 beliefs were .86, .82, and .87, respectively. Standard multiple-regression analysis indicated that behavioral and normative beliefs significantly predicted parents’ intention, p < .01. Intention was a significant predictor of parents’ behavior, p < .01. The results of this study indicated that the TPB can be useful to examine parental support for PA participation of their CWD. Keywords: theory of planned behavior, parental support, questionnaire
Living an inactive lifestyle may lead to secondary health conditions such as coronary heart disease, hypertension, obesity, Type II diabetes, osteoporosis, and decreased functioning in activities of daily living (Rimmer & Braddock, 2002). There have been no specific physical activity guidelines for children and adolescents with disabilities. In general, children and adolescents should engage in 60 min or more of physical activity daily to get health benefits (U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, 2008). Furthermore, in South Korea, a guideline regarding healthrelated fitness has been recommended for children and adolescents. According to
Jeong is with the Dept of Physical Education Teacher Education, East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, East Stroudsburg, PA. Kim is with the Dept of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL. Lee is with the Ewha Movement Center, Seoul, South Korea. Address author correspondence to So-Yeun Kim at [email protected] 93
94 Jeong, Kim, and Lee
the South Korea Ministry of Health and Welfare (2007), children and adolescents should engage in aerobic (at least 3 days/week for 30 min), muscle-strengthening, and flexibility activities. Many children with disabilities (CWD), unfortunately, do not have as many opportunities to participate in physical activity programs as children without disabilities do, and many CWD are not engaging in sufficient physical activity programs (Moran & Block, 2010). A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2010) revealed that opportunities for physical activity were limited for children and youth with disabilities despite legislation obligating states and schools to provide equal access. In addition, it has been reported that physical activity levels of CWD in Canada and South Korea were lower than those without disabilities. Physical inactivity levels of youth with physical disabilities were 4.5 times higher than those of their peers without disabilities based on the national health-survey data in Canada (Steele et al., 2004). According to a study by Chung, Kwon, Kim, and Yang (2011), daily physical activity levels of Korean children with intellectual disabilities were significantly lower than those of children without disabilities. Parents play important roles in physical activity participation of their CWD. Several researchers (An & Goodwin, 2007; Law, Petrenchik, King, & Hurley, 2007; Roh & Oh, 2003) emphasized importance of parental support for physical activity participation in CWD. Some studies reported positive parental perceptions on the value of physical activity for their children with congenital heart disease (Moola, Faulkner, Kirsh, & Kilburn, 2008) and with visual impairments and blindness (Stuart, Lieberman, & Hand, 2006). However, limited research is available about whether parental beliefs and intentions are related to their actual behavior to support physical activity participation of their CWD and what factors affect (facilitate or limit) parental support. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) model can be helpful for providing insights into parental beliefs and behavior toward supporting physical activity participation of their CWD. Specifically, parental beliefs and intentions for supporting physical activity participation of their CWD, as well as whether parental beliefs and intentions are associated with their actual behavior to support physical activity participation of their CWD, can be examined using the TPB model. The TPB was developed to explain and predict human behavior in particular contexts (Ajzen, 1991) such as regular physical activity behavior in different populations (e.g., Martin, Oliver, & McCaughtry, 2007; Plotnikoff, Lippke, Courneya, Birkett, & Sigal, 2010), exercise and sports (Rhodes, Fiala, & Nasuti, 2012), leisure activities (Amireault, Godin, Vohl, & Pérusse, 2008), medical and public health (Edwards et al., 2007), smoking intention (Høie, Moan, Rise, & Larsen, 2012), and education (Underwood, 2012). However, it has not been applied to develop a parental questionnaire to explain parental beliefs and intentions toward supporting physical activity participation of their CWD and whether their beliefs and intentions can predict their behavior. The TPB measures an individual’s intention to perform a behavior by assessing attitude (behavioral belief, whether the individual is in favor of performing a behavior), subjective norm (normative belief, how much the individual feels social pressure to perform a behavior), and perceived behavioral control (control belief, whether the person feels in control of the behavior; Francis et al., 2004).
Parents’ Beliefs and Intentions 95
One of the advantages of using the TPB is that belief statements for the instrument come directly from a pilot study of people who will use the instrument. This is important because either arbitrarily or intuitively selected belief statements may not be salient in the population (Ajzen, 1991). In other words, statements developed by researchers regarding parental beliefs and intentions toward supporting physical activity participation of their CWD may not be relevant or meaningful for parents. Second, by examining behavioral and normative beliefs in addition to control beliefs, the TPB model can provide deeper insight into parents’ beliefs about supporting their children’s physical activity participation. In addition, the TPB allows inspection of demographic variables’ influences on these relationships (Ajzen, 1991). Thus, information regarding what resources and supports parents believe they need to support their CWD to participate in physical activity programs can also be examined using the TPB. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine, using the TPB model, the validity and reliability evidence of a questionnaire that was developed to investigate parental beliefs and intentions toward supporting physical activity participation of their CWD. In this study, physical activity is limited to after-school and leisure physical activity programs, not school-based physical or adapted physical education programs. In addition, in this study, the term parents includes legal guardians of CWD.
Method Participants A convenience sample of 240 parents of CWD in South Korea completed a questionnaire. However, due to missing data points, the final sample consisted of 220 questionnaires. The participants were recruited from three different special schools for CWD and six different physical activity and therapeutic programs for CWD in four different South Korean provinces. Of the participants, 90% were mothers of CWD and 6% were fathers, and the rest were legal guardians. The participants’ children ranged from 5 to 19 years old (M = 11.25, SD = 5.02; 5–10 years old = 47%, 11–15 = 25%, 16–19 = 28%). In addition, their children had intellectual disabilities (42%), autism (22%), physical disabilities (14%), developmental disabilities (9%), and others (13%; e.g., visual impairment, hearing impairment, multiple disabilities). This study was reviewed and approved by a university institutional review board before collecting data. The participants were recruited after this approval, and all participants consented to participation through responses on the submitted questionnaires.
Pilot Study As a first step, a pilot study was conducted to ensure content validity of instruments designed to measure three components of the TPB, including behavioral belief, normative belief, and control belief. The pilot questionnaire contained six open-ended questions about beliefs. The questions were developed based on Ajzen’s (2004) guideline to target the behavior of parents’ supporting physical activity participation of their CWD. Questions for eliciting behavioral beliefs were as follows:
96 Jeong, Kim, and Lee
1. In your opinion, what are the advantages of physical activity programs geared toward your child with a disability? 2. In your opinion, what are the disadvantages of physical activity programs geared toward your child with a disability? Questions for eliciting normative beliefs were 3. Are there any individuals or organizations that encourage parental support for physical activity programs of your child with a disability? If yes, who and/or what groups? 4. Are there any individuals or organizations that discourage parental support for physical activity programs of your child with a disability? If yes, who and/ what groups? Questions for eliciting control beliefs were 5. What factors or circumstances would facilitate parental support for physical activity programs of your child with a disability? 6. What factors or circumstances would make it difficult for you to support physical activity programs of your child with a disability? After the completion of the pilot study, the belief-based items were collected and then sorted into behavioral belief, normative belief, and control belief. The pilot data collection generated 61 behavioral-belief responses, 61 normative-belief responses, and 79 control-belief responses from 29 Korean parents of CWD. According to Ajzen (2004), responses on the top 75% elicited from the pilot study inquiry were used as personal accessible beliefs. All the items listed on the top 75% were chosen to be included in the main survey. In addition, an extra five items were chosen to be used for the main study although they were not listed within the top 75%. The five items were “promoting physical activity level” and “increasing focus” on behavioral belief, “disability organization” on normative beliefs, and “instructors’ professional knowledge” and “quality of program” on control belief. These items were included because we believed that they were still important factors for parental support of physical activity participation in their CWD. In addition, the items were within the top 75% in another study we did on American parents; thus, the ability to compare the results from Korean parents with the results from American parents will be meaningful for future study. All the items used in the main study are presented in Table 1.
Instrument Based on the pilot study, the questionnaire for the main study, called the Parents’ Beliefs and Intentions Toward Supporting Physical Activity Participation (PBISPAP) for their CWD, was developed. The questionnaire contained detailed instructions, behavior questions, questions of the TPB components, intention statements, and demographic questions. A 7-point Likert-type rating scale was used with each belief statement, because all examples in Ajzen (2004) used a 7-point scale. In addition, Ajzen (2004), citing Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957), asserted that a 7-point scale is the best measurement of meaning, because participants can choose a neutral midpoint. This is particularly appropriate for this study as participants
Parents’ Beliefs and Intentions 97
Table 1 Pilot Study with 29 Korean Parents on Behavioral, Normative, and Control Beliefs Category of belief and main question
Cumulative %
Behavioral: What are the advantages/disadvantages of physical activity programs geared toward your child with a disability? 1. Enhancing physical fitness
36
2. Increasing social interaction
20
3. Developing sport skills
16
4. Promoting physical activity level
—
5. Increasing focus
—
Normative: Are there any individuals/organizations that encourage/ discourage parental support for physical activity programs for your child with a disability? If yes, who and/or what groups? 1. Family members
35
2. Professionals
22
3. School teachers
13
4. Disability organizations
—
Control: What factors or circumstances would facilitate (or make difficult) parental support for physical activity programs for your child with a disability? 1. Program accessibility
39
2. Financial assistance
29
3. Child’s preference
15
4. Instructors’ professional knowledge
—
5. Quality of programs
—
might have neutral feelings about this topic, and without this option participants are by default forced to choose a positive or negative response. Therefore, a 7-point Likert-type rating scale was used for the survey in each of the TPB components. Belief Statements. In belief statements, five questions of behavioral belief, four
questions of normative belief, and five questions of control belief were developed. For the five behavioral statements, two responses were requested: to indicate belief strength with regard to the likelihood of the outcome and to indicate belief strength with regard to the evaluation of the positiveness (or agreement) or the negativeness (or disagreement) of the outcome.
98 Jeong, Kim, and Lee
For example, behavioral-belief statements included items such as 1. Supporting my child’s participation in physical activity programs would enhance my child’s social interaction. Unlikely : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : Likely 2. Enhancing my child’s social interaction would be Extremely worthless : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :
Extremely valuable
Intention. Intention was measured by means of four statements suggested by
Ajzen’s study (2004) that dealt with the likelihood that a behavior would occur. Intention statements included items such as 1. I intend to support my child’s participation in physical activity programs. Unlikely : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : Likely 2. I will try to support to my child’s participation in physical activity programs. Unlikely : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : Likely 3. I am determined to support my child’s participation in physical activity programs. Unlikely
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : Likely
4. I will plan to support my child’s participation in physical activity programs. Unlikely : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : Likely Behavior. A measure of behavior was generated by using a direct statement:
1. I have been supporting my child’s participation in physical activity programs. Never : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : Always According to the TPB, performance of a behavior is a joint function of intention and perceived behavioral control. For accurate prediction, the measures of intention and of perceived behavioral control must correspond to or be compatible with the behavior that is to be predicted. That is, intention and perceptions of control must be assessed in relation to the particular behavior of interest, and the specified context must be the same as that in which the behavior is to occur. For example, if the behavior to be predicted is donating money to the Red Cross, then we must assess intention to donate money to the Red Cross, not intention to donate money in general or intention to help the Red Cross, as well as perceived control over donating money to the Red Cross (Ajzen, 1991).
Data Analysis To compute all statistics, SPSS PC 18.0 was used. The overall scores of behavioral, normative, and control beliefs and intention were calculated by the following steps. First, the belief scores on the Likert scale were multiplied by the relevant evaluation scores on the positive and negative scale. Second, the resulting products were summed across all the beliefs to create an overall behavioral-belief score. Third,
Parents’ Beliefs and Intentions 99
the overall behavioral-belief score was then divided by the total number of statements to obtain a final score. For the overall normative-belief scores by the four statements, the overall control-belief score by the five statements, and the overall score of intention by the four statements, this same step was used. Reliability. Internal consistencies among the items in each subscale and full scale on the questionnaire were examined using Cronbach’s alpha. Ajzen (2004) stated that internal consistency is not a requirement of the behavioral, normative, and control-belief composites (Belief Strength × Outcome Evaluation) because different accessible beliefs may well be inconsistent with each other. However, we decided to measure internal consistency using only belief strength instead of the belief composite. Therefore, internal consistency and construct validity on the beliefs were established without taking into consideration people’s outcome evaluations in this study. Validity. First, exploratory factor analysis using a principal-component-extraction
method and a varimax rotation was performed on belief-strength items of each belief: behavioral belief (five items), normative belief (four items), and control belief (five items). Second, a standard multiple regression was chosen to examine relationships between the components and test whether behavioral belief, normative belief, and control belief can predict intention. Finally, path analysis was used to investigate whether the components of the TPB and intention predict parents’ behavior.
Results Descriptive Statistics Means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum scores, skewness, and kurtosis for all model variables assessed are presented in Table 2. Average overall composite scores of behavioral belief, normative belief, control belief, and intention were 40.21 (SD = 8.49), 34.43 (SD = 9.69), 19.59 (SD = 11.36), and 5.90 (SD = 1.13), respectively. Average belief-strength scores for behavioral, normative, and control belief were 6.16 (SD = .82), 5.97 (SD = .91), and 3.70 (SD = 1.53), respectively.
Reliability Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of behavioral belief, control belief, and normative belief were .86, .87, and .82, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha value was .85 for the full scale.
Validity The results of exploratory factor analysis indicate that the first factor (Λ = 3.69), referring to behavioral belief, accounted for 26.38%; the second factor (Λ = 3.61), referring to control belief, accounted for 25.80%; and the third factor (Λ = 2.85), referring to normative belief, accounted for 20.57% of total variance. A standard multiple-regression analysis was used to test whether behavioral, normative, and control beliefs significantly predicted intention. The results of the regression (Table 3) indicated that the three predictors explained 46% of the
100 Jeong, Kim, and Lee
Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness, and Kurtosis for the Theory of Planned Behavior Components, Intention, Behavior, and Physical Activity Behavior Variable
M
SD
Range
Skewness
Kurtosis
Behavioral belief
40.21
8.49
6–49
–0.97
0.72
Belief strength
6.16
0.82
2–7
–1.16
1.74
Normative belief
34.43
9.69
7–49
–0.28
–0.70
Belief strength
5.97
0.91
2–7
–0.73
0.02
Control belief
19.59
11.36
1–49
0.51
–0.45
Belief strength
3.70
1.53
1–7
0.19
–0.86
Intention
5.90
1.13
1–7
–1.17
1.48
Behavior
5.49
1.72
1–7
–1.17
0.51
a
a
a
Composite score.
a
Table 3 Standard Multiple-Regression Results Predicting Intention β
t
p
Behavioral belief
.43
7.11
.000
Normative belief
.31
5.05
.000
Control belief
.06
1.28
.202
Variable
variance, F(3, 214) = 62.12, p < .01, R = .68, R2 = .46. It was found that behavioral belief significantly predicted intention (β = .43), as did normative belief (β = .31). However, control belief was not a significant predictor of intention in this study. The path diagram (Figure 1) shows that behavioral belief had the largest effect on intention (β = .43), followed by normative beliefs (β = .31). Both path coefficients were statistically significant at p < .01. The three components explained approximately 47% of variance in parents’ intention. The determinant of parents’ support behavior was parents’ intention (β = .75). The path coefficient of intention on parents’ behavior was statistically significant at p < .01. This path diagram shows that parents’ behavioral and normative beliefs did not directly affect their behavior. However, parents’ behavioral and normative beliefs directly affected their intention to support physical activity participation of their CWD, and parents’ intention affected parents’ support behavior. This model explained approximately 56% of variance in parents’ support behavior. The direct, indirect, and total effects of beliefs on intention and behavior are presented in Table 4. Correlation results among behavior, intention, and the three components of the TPB are summarized in Table 5.
Figure 1 — Path diagram of the theory of planned behavior model. Coefficients associated with single-headed straight arrows are standardized regression weights that indicate the effect of one variable on another, whereas those associated with double-headed curved arrows represent correlations between variables. **p < .01.
Table 4 Summary of Causal Effects From the Theory of Planned Behavior Causal Effects Outcome
Determinant
Direct
Intention (R2 = .47)
Behavioral belief Normative Belief Control belief
.43** .31**
Behavior (R2 = .57)
Behavioral belief Normative belief Control belief Intention
— — — .73**
Indirect
Total .43 .31
.31 .23
.31 .23 .73
**Direct effect is significant at the .01 level.
Table 5 Correlations Among Factors of the Theory of Planned Behavior 1
2
3
4
1. Behavior
1
2. Intention
.75**
1
3. Behavioral belief
.45**
.63**
1
4. Normative belief
.48**
.58**
.57**
1
5. Control belief
.29**
.28**
.29**
.29**
5
1
**p < .01. 101
102 Jeong, Kim, and Lee
Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine validity and reliability evidence of the PBISPAP questionnaire developed based on the TPB. The PBISPAP questionnaire was created to assess parental beliefs and intentions toward supporting physical activity participation of their CWD. Reliability evidence of the questionnaire was established with high levels of internal consistency among the questionnaire items. The construct of the questionnaire was supported with exploratory factor analysis. Moreover, the results of this study revealed that behavioral and normative beliefs predicted parents’ intention to support their children to participate in physical activity programs, explaining 46% in total variance in intention. Parents who had strong behavioral belief (physical activity programs are a benefit for their CWD) and normative beliefs (important people believe that they should support their CWD to participate in physical activity) had greater intention to support their CWD to participate in physical activity programs. Parents who were more intent on supporting their CWD were more likely to support their CWD to participate in physical activity programs. Finally, this study showed two components of behavioral and normative beliefs as good predictors of parents’ intention, and only parents’ intention was a good predictor of parents’ behavior. As described in the results, control belief (perceived behavioral control) was not a predictor of either intention or behavior in this study. The construct of control belief did not affect Korean parents’ intention to support their CWD to participate in physical activity programs. Korean parents participating in this study may have not perceived that their involvement might influence the physical activity participation of their CWD. This could be anchored in cultural or other environmental constrains. A few previous studies (e.g., Conatser, Block, & Gansneder, 2002; Jeong & Block, 2011) examined relationships among beliefs, intention, and behavior in physical activity/education using the TPB. The previous studies found similar results indicating no direct link between control belief and behavior. Conatser et al. found that only intention was a predictor for behavior, so they assumed that as individuals become more favorable and confident about their control belief, the less control belief influences their behavior. Jeong and Block conducted their study using the TPB to examine Korean physical education teachers’ behavior in teaching students with disabilities. Their study found that control belief was not a direct predictor for behavior but control belief was a predictor of intention. In the current study, the reason that control belief was not a direct predictor of Korean parents’ intentions and behaviors may be that control belief was totally beyond the volition of Korean parents. In the current study, control belief included items asking about programs’ accessibility, financial assistance, quality of programs, knowledge of instructors, and preference of their child. Since control belief was beyond most of the Korean parents’ choice, it seemed to have no linear relation to their support behavior for their CWD. It could be that the Korean parents supported physical activity participation of their CWD even with such barriers (indicated with control belief) if they believed that their CWD would get benefits from participation in physical activity (behavioral belief) and were affected by other important people who think the parents should support (normative belief). Therefore, they were willing to try to make a strong effort to support physical activity participation of their CWD. A similar result was also found in a study by Jeong and Block
Parents’ Beliefs and Intentions 103
(2011). In their study, the Korean physical education teachers taught students with disabilities in their physical education class with barriers (control belief) such as almost no accommodations, teacher assistants, equipment, and in-service programs. It seemed that control belief, which was beyond the Korean physical education teachers’ volition, could not affect the teachers’ teaching behavior. Most Korean parents reported that they intended to support physical activity participation of their CWD. It could be due to “education fever” for their children. The term education fever has been used to describe Korean parents’ obsession with education. Seth (2002) explained education fever in South Korea with several examples reporting heavy investment of the South Korean family in the education of their children through private education programs in the evening and on weekends and taking great pride on their children entering a “good” school. According to the Education at a Glance of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, in 2002, it was reported that South Korean parents spent the most money related to private education for their children (Kukminibo, 2003). Korean parents would be likely to support their children for physical activity participation if they believed that it brought more benefits for their children (e.g., increase social interaction, promote physical activity level, enhance physical fitness, develop sport skills, and increase focus). Since there is limited opportunity for CWD to participate in physical education or adapted physical education in South Korea, parents may have high motivation to support after-school physical activity programs for their CWD. According to Roh (2002), about 85% of CWD in inclusive schools were either not fully included or were excluded from general physical education class. In a study by Kim (2007), 30% of the participants including CWD and their special education teachers and parents requested more after-school physical activity programs for CWD. In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that parents who had strong behavioral and normative beliefs had greater intention to support their CWD to participate in physical activity programs. Therefore, it is important to educate parents and other people important to the parents (such as special education teachers and professionals in disability organizations) regarding the benefits of physical activity participation in CWD.
Limitations and Future Research There are a few possible limitations to this study that should be addressed in future research. First, the participants of this study were Korean; therefore, one should be cautious about generalizing the findings outside of Korea. Second, the parents were asked about physical activity program participation, not about physical education, in the survey. However, the survey direction did not specify physical activity programs outside the school setting. Thus, it is possible that some parents might have confused physical education with physical activity programs. Third, the measurement method of “behavior” as parental support for physical activity participation of their CWD can be more objective in future studies. In this current study, one direct item (“I have been supporting my child’s participation in physical activity programs”) with the 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always) was used to measure behavior of the parental support. Even though parents’ intention was the strongest predictor of behavior, this one direct question may not be enough to fully capture the range of parents’ behavior. Further studies can use “total time of physical activity
104 Jeong, Kim, and Lee
participation” or “frequency of physical activity participation” as a result of parental support. In addition, more informative statements such as “I am helping my child to perform the physical activity,” “I look for other children to perform physical activity with my child,” and “I am counting and rewarding the physical activity performed by my child” can be used to measure parental-support behavior. Despite these limitations, to the best of our knowledge, this was the first study to develop a questionnaire using the TPB model to examine parental support for physical activity participation of their CWD and to investigate whether parental beliefs and intentions predict their support for physical activity participation of their CWD. The results demonstrated reliability and validity evidence of the PBISPAP. Behavioral and normative beliefs predicted parents’ intention to support their CWD to participate in physical activity programs. In addition, parents’ intention was a good predictor of parents’ behavior for supporting physical activity participation of their CWD. Using more objective and/or informative measures of parental support behavior, further studies should examine the ability of the TPB model to explain parental beliefs and intentions to support physical activity participation of their CWD, and to predict parents’ behavior in supporting physical activity participation of their CWD also in other countries.
References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Ajzen, I. (2004). Construction of a standard questionnaire for the theory of planned behavior. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~ajzen Amireault, S., Godin, G., Vohl, M.C., & Pérusse, L. (2008). Moderators of the intentionbehaviour and perceived behavioural control-behavior relationships for leisure-time physical activity. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5:7, 1–11. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-7 An, J., & Goodwin, D.L. (2007). Physical education for students with spina bifida: Mothers’ perspectives. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24(1), 38–58. PubMed Chung, J-W., Kwon, H-J., Kim, Y-S., & Yang, H-N. (2011). Study on physical activity level of children with intellectual disability [in Korean]. Korean Journal of Adapted Physical Activity and Exercise, 19(1), 116–123. Conatser, P., Block, M.E., & Gansneder, B. (2002). Aquatic instructors’ beliefs toward inclusion: The theory of planned behavior. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 172–187. Edwards, H., Walsh, A., Courtney, M., Monaghan, S., Wilson, J., & Young, J. (2007). Promoting evidence-based childhood fever management through a peer education programme based on the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(10), 1966–1979. PubMed doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.01767.x Francis, J., Eccles, M., Johnston, M., Walker, A., Grimshaw, J., Foy, R., . . . Bonetti, D. (2004). Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behavior: A manual for health services researchers. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Høie, M., Moan, I.S., Rise, J., & Larsen, E. (2012). Using an extended version of the theory of planned behaviour to predict smoking cessation in two age groups. Addiction Research and Theory, 20(1), 42–54. doi:10.3109/16066359.2011.557165 Jeong, M., & Block, M.E. (2011). Physical education teachers’ beliefs and intentions toward teaching students with disabilities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 239–246. PubMed doi:10.1080/02701367.2011.10599751
Parents’ Beliefs and Intentions 105
Kim, H.K. (2007). Perceptions of special education teachers, parents, and students with disabilities on after school programs for students with disabilities [in Korean]. The Journal of Special Children’s Education, 9(2), 93–114. Kukminibo. (2003, September 17). OECD high heavy burden for education in South Korea based on OECD indicators [in Korean]. Law, M., Petrenchik, T., King, G., & Hurley, P. (2007). Perceived environmental barriers to recreational, community, and school participation for children and youth with physical disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88(12), 1636–1642. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.07.035 Martin, J.J., Oliver, K., & McCaughtry, N. (2007). The theory of planned behavior: Predicting physical activity in Mexican American children. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29(2), 225–238. PubMed Moola, F., Faulkner, G.E., Kirsh, J.A., & Kilburn, J. (2008). Physical activity and sport participation in youth with congenital heart disease: Perceptions of children and parents. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 25(1), 49–70. PubMed Moran, T.E., & Block, M.E. (2010). Barriers to participation in youth sports. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 6(3), 5. Retrieved from http://journals.cec.sped.org/tecplus/ vol6/iss3/art5 Plotnikoff, R.C., Lippke, S., Courneya, K., Birkett, N., Sigal, R. (2010). Physical activity and diabetes: An application of the theory of planned behaviour to explain physical activity for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in an adult population sample. Psychology & Health, 25(1), 7–23. PubMed doi:10.1080/08870440802160984 Rhodes, R.E., Fiala, B., & Nasuti, G. (2012). Action control of exercise behavior: Evaluation of social cognition, cross-behavioral regulation, and automaticity. Behavioral Medicine (Washington, D.C.), 38(4), 121–128. PubMed Rimmer, J.H., & Braddock, D. (2002). Health promotion for people with physical, cognitive, and sensory disabilities: An emerging national priority. American Journal of Health Promotion, 16, 220–224. PubMed doi:10.4278/0890-1171-16.4.220 Roh, H-K. (2002). The practical realities of inclusive physical education and cognition of physical education teachers toward inclusive physical education in Korea [in Korean]. Journal of Korean Adapted Physical Activity & Exercise, 10(2), 13–26. Roh, H-K., & Oh, K-J. (2003). Parents’ perceptions of children with disabilities who participated in adapted physical activity programs [in Korean]. Korean Journal of Adapted Physical Activity and Exercise, 11(1), 1–14. Seth, M.J. (2002). Education fever: Society, politics, and the pursuit of schooling in South Korea. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. South Korea Ministry of Health and Welfare. (2007). 2007 guideline for healthy living practices [in Korean]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Health and Welfare. Steele, C.A., Kalnins, I.V., Rossen, B.E., Biggar, D.W., Bortolussi, J.A., & Jutai, J.W. (2004). Age-related health risk behaviors of adolescents with physical disabilities. Sozial- und Praventivmedizin, 49(2), 132–141. PubMed doi:10.1007/s00038-004-3056-4 Stuart, M.E., Lieberman, L., & Hand, K.E. (2006). Beliefs about physical activity among children who are visually impaired and their parents. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100(4), 223–234. Underwood, P.R. (2012). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction of English grammar under national curriculum reforms: A theory of planned behaviour perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 911–925. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.04.004 U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2010). Student with disabilities: More information and guidance could improve opportunities in physical education and athletics. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/310/305770.pdf
Copyright of Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Official Journal of IFAPA www.APAQ-Journal.com ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Parents’ Beliefs and Intentions Toward Supporting Physical Activity Participation for Their Children With Disabilities Mihye Jeong East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania
So-Yeun Kim
Euikyung Lee
Northern Illinois University
Ewha Movement Center, South Korea
The purpose of this study was to examine validity and reliability evidence of a questionnaire regarding parents’ beliefs and intentions toward supporting physical activity (PA) participation of their children with disabilities (CWD). A total of 220 parents of CWD in South Korea completed a questionnaire that was developed using the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Exploratory factor analysis revealed that behavioral, control, and normative beliefs accounted for 31.13%, 20.45%, and 19.63% of the total variance of the intention, respectively. Reliability of entire scale was .85 using Cronbach’s alpha. Reliabilities of the 3 beliefs were .86, .82, and .87, respectively. Standard multiple-regression analysis indicated that behavioral and normative beliefs significantly predicted parents’ intention, p < .01. Intention was a significant predictor of parents’ behavior, p < .01. The results of this study indicated that the TPB can be useful to examine parental support for PA participation of their CWD. Keywords: theory of planned behavior, parental support, questionnaire
Living an inactive lifestyle may lead to secondary health conditions such as coronary heart disease, hypertension, obesity, Type II diabetes, osteoporosis, and decreased functioning in activities of daily living (Rimmer & Braddock, 2002). There have been no specific physical activity guidelines for children and adolescents with disabilities. In general, children and adolescents should engage in 60 min or more of physical activity daily to get health benefits (U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, 2008). Furthermore, in South Korea, a guideline regarding healthrelated fitness has been recommended for children and adolescents. According to
Jeong is with the Dept of Physical Education Teacher Education, East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, East Stroudsburg, PA. Kim is with the Dept of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL. Lee is with the Ewha Movement Center, Seoul, South Korea. Address author correspondence to So-Yeun Kim at [email protected] 93
94 Jeong, Kim, and Lee
the South Korea Ministry of Health and Welfare (2007), children and adolescents should engage in aerobic (at least 3 days/week for 30 min), muscle-strengthening, and flexibility activities. Many children with disabilities (CWD), unfortunately, do not have as many opportunities to participate in physical activity programs as children without disabilities do, and many CWD are not engaging in sufficient physical activity programs (Moran & Block, 2010). A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2010) revealed that opportunities for physical activity were limited for children and youth with disabilities despite legislation obligating states and schools to provide equal access. In addition, it has been reported that physical activity levels of CWD in Canada and South Korea were lower than those without disabilities. Physical inactivity levels of youth with physical disabilities were 4.5 times higher than those of their peers without disabilities based on the national health-survey data in Canada (Steele et al., 2004). According to a study by Chung, Kwon, Kim, and Yang (2011), daily physical activity levels of Korean children with intellectual disabilities were significantly lower than those of children without disabilities. Parents play important roles in physical activity participation of their CWD. Several researchers (An & Goodwin, 2007; Law, Petrenchik, King, & Hurley, 2007; Roh & Oh, 2003) emphasized importance of parental support for physical activity participation in CWD. Some studies reported positive parental perceptions on the value of physical activity for their children with congenital heart disease (Moola, Faulkner, Kirsh, & Kilburn, 2008) and with visual impairments and blindness (Stuart, Lieberman, & Hand, 2006). However, limited research is available about whether parental beliefs and intentions are related to their actual behavior to support physical activity participation of their CWD and what factors affect (facilitate or limit) parental support. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) model can be helpful for providing insights into parental beliefs and behavior toward supporting physical activity participation of their CWD. Specifically, parental beliefs and intentions for supporting physical activity participation of their CWD, as well as whether parental beliefs and intentions are associated with their actual behavior to support physical activity participation of their CWD, can be examined using the TPB model. The TPB was developed to explain and predict human behavior in particular contexts (Ajzen, 1991) such as regular physical activity behavior in different populations (e.g., Martin, Oliver, & McCaughtry, 2007; Plotnikoff, Lippke, Courneya, Birkett, & Sigal, 2010), exercise and sports (Rhodes, Fiala, & Nasuti, 2012), leisure activities (Amireault, Godin, Vohl, & Pérusse, 2008), medical and public health (Edwards et al., 2007), smoking intention (Høie, Moan, Rise, & Larsen, 2012), and education (Underwood, 2012). However, it has not been applied to develop a parental questionnaire to explain parental beliefs and intentions toward supporting physical activity participation of their CWD and whether their beliefs and intentions can predict their behavior. The TPB measures an individual’s intention to perform a behavior by assessing attitude (behavioral belief, whether the individual is in favor of performing a behavior), subjective norm (normative belief, how much the individual feels social pressure to perform a behavior), and perceived behavioral control (control belief, whether the person feels in control of the behavior; Francis et al., 2004).
Parents’ Beliefs and Intentions 95
One of the advantages of using the TPB is that belief statements for the instrument come directly from a pilot study of people who will use the instrument. This is important because either arbitrarily or intuitively selected belief statements may not be salient in the population (Ajzen, 1991). In other words, statements developed by researchers regarding parental beliefs and intentions toward supporting physical activity participation of their CWD may not be relevant or meaningful for parents. Second, by examining behavioral and normative beliefs in addition to control beliefs, the TPB model can provide deeper insight into parents’ beliefs about supporting their children’s physical activity participation. In addition, the TPB allows inspection of demographic variables’ influences on these relationships (Ajzen, 1991). Thus, information regarding what resources and supports parents believe they need to support their CWD to participate in physical activity programs can also be examined using the TPB. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine, using the TPB model, the validity and reliability evidence of a questionnaire that was developed to investigate parental beliefs and intentions toward supporting physical activity participation of their CWD. In this study, physical activity is limited to after-school and leisure physical activity programs, not school-based physical or adapted physical education programs. In addition, in this study, the term parents includes legal guardians of CWD.
Method Participants A convenience sample of 240 parents of CWD in South Korea completed a questionnaire. However, due to missing data points, the final sample consisted of 220 questionnaires. The participants were recruited from three different special schools for CWD and six different physical activity and therapeutic programs for CWD in four different South Korean provinces. Of the participants, 90% were mothers of CWD and 6% were fathers, and the rest were legal guardians. The participants’ children ranged from 5 to 19 years old (M = 11.25, SD = 5.02; 5–10 years old = 47%, 11–15 = 25%, 16–19 = 28%). In addition, their children had intellectual disabilities (42%), autism (22%), physical disabilities (14%), developmental disabilities (9%), and others (13%; e.g., visual impairment, hearing impairment, multiple disabilities). This study was reviewed and approved by a university institutional review board before collecting data. The participants were recruited after this approval, and all participants consented to participation through responses on the submitted questionnaires.
Pilot Study As a first step, a pilot study was conducted to ensure content validity of instruments designed to measure three components of the TPB, including behavioral belief, normative belief, and control belief. The pilot questionnaire contained six open-ended questions about beliefs. The questions were developed based on Ajzen’s (2004) guideline to target the behavior of parents’ supporting physical activity participation of their CWD. Questions for eliciting behavioral beliefs were as follows:
96 Jeong, Kim, and Lee
1. In your opinion, what are the advantages of physical activity programs geared toward your child with a disability? 2. In your opinion, what are the disadvantages of physical activity programs geared toward your child with a disability? Questions for eliciting normative beliefs were 3. Are there any individuals or organizations that encourage parental support for physical activity programs of your child with a disability? If yes, who and/or what groups? 4. Are there any individuals or organizations that discourage parental support for physical activity programs of your child with a disability? If yes, who and/ what groups? Questions for eliciting control beliefs were 5. What factors or circumstances would facilitate parental support for physical activity programs of your child with a disability? 6. What factors or circumstances would make it difficult for you to support physical activity programs of your child with a disability? After the completion of the pilot study, the belief-based items were collected and then sorted into behavioral belief, normative belief, and control belief. The pilot data collection generated 61 behavioral-belief responses, 61 normative-belief responses, and 79 control-belief responses from 29 Korean parents of CWD. According to Ajzen (2004), responses on the top 75% elicited from the pilot study inquiry were used as personal accessible beliefs. All the items listed on the top 75% were chosen to be included in the main survey. In addition, an extra five items were chosen to be used for the main study although they were not listed within the top 75%. The five items were “promoting physical activity level” and “increasing focus” on behavioral belief, “disability organization” on normative beliefs, and “instructors’ professional knowledge” and “quality of program” on control belief. These items were included because we believed that they were still important factors for parental support of physical activity participation in their CWD. In addition, the items were within the top 75% in another study we did on American parents; thus, the ability to compare the results from Korean parents with the results from American parents will be meaningful for future study. All the items used in the main study are presented in Table 1.
Instrument Based on the pilot study, the questionnaire for the main study, called the Parents’ Beliefs and Intentions Toward Supporting Physical Activity Participation (PBISPAP) for their CWD, was developed. The questionnaire contained detailed instructions, behavior questions, questions of the TPB components, intention statements, and demographic questions. A 7-point Likert-type rating scale was used with each belief statement, because all examples in Ajzen (2004) used a 7-point scale. In addition, Ajzen (2004), citing Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957), asserted that a 7-point scale is the best measurement of meaning, because participants can choose a neutral midpoint. This is particularly appropriate for this study as participants
Parents’ Beliefs and Intentions 97
Table 1 Pilot Study with 29 Korean Parents on Behavioral, Normative, and Control Beliefs Category of belief and main question
Cumulative %
Behavioral: What are the advantages/disadvantages of physical activity programs geared toward your child with a disability? 1. Enhancing physical fitness
36
2. Increasing social interaction
20
3. Developing sport skills
16
4. Promoting physical activity level
—
5. Increasing focus
—
Normative: Are there any individuals/organizations that encourage/ discourage parental support for physical activity programs for your child with a disability? If yes, who and/or what groups? 1. Family members
35
2. Professionals
22
3. School teachers
13
4. Disability organizations
—
Control: What factors or circumstances would facilitate (or make difficult) parental support for physical activity programs for your child with a disability? 1. Program accessibility
39
2. Financial assistance
29
3. Child’s preference
15
4. Instructors’ professional knowledge
—
5. Quality of programs
—
might have neutral feelings about this topic, and without this option participants are by default forced to choose a positive or negative response. Therefore, a 7-point Likert-type rating scale was used for the survey in each of the TPB components. Belief Statements. In belief statements, five questions of behavioral belief, four
questions of normative belief, and five questions of control belief were developed. For the five behavioral statements, two responses were requested: to indicate belief strength with regard to the likelihood of the outcome and to indicate belief strength with regard to the evaluation of the positiveness (or agreement) or the negativeness (or disagreement) of the outcome.
98 Jeong, Kim, and Lee
For example, behavioral-belief statements included items such as 1. Supporting my child’s participation in physical activity programs would enhance my child’s social interaction. Unlikely : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : Likely 2. Enhancing my child’s social interaction would be Extremely worthless : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 :
Extremely valuable
Intention. Intention was measured by means of four statements suggested by
Ajzen’s study (2004) that dealt with the likelihood that a behavior would occur. Intention statements included items such as 1. I intend to support my child’s participation in physical activity programs. Unlikely : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : Likely 2. I will try to support to my child’s participation in physical activity programs. Unlikely : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : Likely 3. I am determined to support my child’s participation in physical activity programs. Unlikely
: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : Likely
4. I will plan to support my child’s participation in physical activity programs. Unlikely : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : Likely Behavior. A measure of behavior was generated by using a direct statement:
1. I have been supporting my child’s participation in physical activity programs. Never : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : Always According to the TPB, performance of a behavior is a joint function of intention and perceived behavioral control. For accurate prediction, the measures of intention and of perceived behavioral control must correspond to or be compatible with the behavior that is to be predicted. That is, intention and perceptions of control must be assessed in relation to the particular behavior of interest, and the specified context must be the same as that in which the behavior is to occur. For example, if the behavior to be predicted is donating money to the Red Cross, then we must assess intention to donate money to the Red Cross, not intention to donate money in general or intention to help the Red Cross, as well as perceived control over donating money to the Red Cross (Ajzen, 1991).
Data Analysis To compute all statistics, SPSS PC 18.0 was used. The overall scores of behavioral, normative, and control beliefs and intention were calculated by the following steps. First, the belief scores on the Likert scale were multiplied by the relevant evaluation scores on the positive and negative scale. Second, the resulting products were summed across all the beliefs to create an overall behavioral-belief score. Third,
Parents’ Beliefs and Intentions 99
the overall behavioral-belief score was then divided by the total number of statements to obtain a final score. For the overall normative-belief scores by the four statements, the overall control-belief score by the five statements, and the overall score of intention by the four statements, this same step was used. Reliability. Internal consistencies among the items in each subscale and full scale on the questionnaire were examined using Cronbach’s alpha. Ajzen (2004) stated that internal consistency is not a requirement of the behavioral, normative, and control-belief composites (Belief Strength × Outcome Evaluation) because different accessible beliefs may well be inconsistent with each other. However, we decided to measure internal consistency using only belief strength instead of the belief composite. Therefore, internal consistency and construct validity on the beliefs were established without taking into consideration people’s outcome evaluations in this study. Validity. First, exploratory factor analysis using a principal-component-extraction
method and a varimax rotation was performed on belief-strength items of each belief: behavioral belief (five items), normative belief (four items), and control belief (five items). Second, a standard multiple regression was chosen to examine relationships between the components and test whether behavioral belief, normative belief, and control belief can predict intention. Finally, path analysis was used to investigate whether the components of the TPB and intention predict parents’ behavior.
Results Descriptive Statistics Means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum scores, skewness, and kurtosis for all model variables assessed are presented in Table 2. Average overall composite scores of behavioral belief, normative belief, control belief, and intention were 40.21 (SD = 8.49), 34.43 (SD = 9.69), 19.59 (SD = 11.36), and 5.90 (SD = 1.13), respectively. Average belief-strength scores for behavioral, normative, and control belief were 6.16 (SD = .82), 5.97 (SD = .91), and 3.70 (SD = 1.53), respectively.
Reliability Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of behavioral belief, control belief, and normative belief were .86, .87, and .82, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha value was .85 for the full scale.
Validity The results of exploratory factor analysis indicate that the first factor (Λ = 3.69), referring to behavioral belief, accounted for 26.38%; the second factor (Λ = 3.61), referring to control belief, accounted for 25.80%; and the third factor (Λ = 2.85), referring to normative belief, accounted for 20.57% of total variance. A standard multiple-regression analysis was used to test whether behavioral, normative, and control beliefs significantly predicted intention. The results of the regression (Table 3) indicated that the three predictors explained 46% of the
100 Jeong, Kim, and Lee
Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Skewness, and Kurtosis for the Theory of Planned Behavior Components, Intention, Behavior, and Physical Activity Behavior Variable
M
SD
Range
Skewness
Kurtosis
Behavioral belief
40.21
8.49
6–49
–0.97
0.72
Belief strength
6.16
0.82
2–7
–1.16
1.74
Normative belief
34.43
9.69
7–49
–0.28
–0.70
Belief strength
5.97
0.91
2–7
–0.73
0.02
Control belief
19.59
11.36
1–49
0.51
–0.45
Belief strength
3.70
1.53
1–7
0.19
–0.86
Intention
5.90
1.13
1–7
–1.17
1.48
Behavior
5.49
1.72
1–7
–1.17
0.51
a
a
a
Composite score.
a
Table 3 Standard Multiple-Regression Results Predicting Intention β
t
p
Behavioral belief
.43
7.11
.000
Normative belief
.31
5.05
.000
Control belief
.06
1.28
.202
Variable
variance, F(3, 214) = 62.12, p < .01, R = .68, R2 = .46. It was found that behavioral belief significantly predicted intention (β = .43), as did normative belief (β = .31). However, control belief was not a significant predictor of intention in this study. The path diagram (Figure 1) shows that behavioral belief had the largest effect on intention (β = .43), followed by normative beliefs (β = .31). Both path coefficients were statistically significant at p < .01. The three components explained approximately 47% of variance in parents’ intention. The determinant of parents’ support behavior was parents’ intention (β = .75). The path coefficient of intention on parents’ behavior was statistically significant at p < .01. This path diagram shows that parents’ behavioral and normative beliefs did not directly affect their behavior. However, parents’ behavioral and normative beliefs directly affected their intention to support physical activity participation of their CWD, and parents’ intention affected parents’ support behavior. This model explained approximately 56% of variance in parents’ support behavior. The direct, indirect, and total effects of beliefs on intention and behavior are presented in Table 4. Correlation results among behavior, intention, and the three components of the TPB are summarized in Table 5.
Figure 1 — Path diagram of the theory of planned behavior model. Coefficients associated with single-headed straight arrows are standardized regression weights that indicate the effect of one variable on another, whereas those associated with double-headed curved arrows represent correlations between variables. **p < .01.
Table 4 Summary of Causal Effects From the Theory of Planned Behavior Causal Effects Outcome
Determinant
Direct
Intention (R2 = .47)
Behavioral belief Normative Belief Control belief
.43** .31**
Behavior (R2 = .57)
Behavioral belief Normative belief Control belief Intention
— — — .73**
Indirect
Total .43 .31
.31 .23
.31 .23 .73
**Direct effect is significant at the .01 level.
Table 5 Correlations Among Factors of the Theory of Planned Behavior 1
2
3
4
1. Behavior
1
2. Intention
.75**
1
3. Behavioral belief
.45**
.63**
1
4. Normative belief
.48**
.58**
.57**
1
5. Control belief
.29**
.28**
.29**
.29**
5
1
**p < .01. 101
102 Jeong, Kim, and Lee
Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine validity and reliability evidence of the PBISPAP questionnaire developed based on the TPB. The PBISPAP questionnaire was created to assess parental beliefs and intentions toward supporting physical activity participation of their CWD. Reliability evidence of the questionnaire was established with high levels of internal consistency among the questionnaire items. The construct of the questionnaire was supported with exploratory factor analysis. Moreover, the results of this study revealed that behavioral and normative beliefs predicted parents’ intention to support their children to participate in physical activity programs, explaining 46% in total variance in intention. Parents who had strong behavioral belief (physical activity programs are a benefit for their CWD) and normative beliefs (important people believe that they should support their CWD to participate in physical activity) had greater intention to support their CWD to participate in physical activity programs. Parents who were more intent on supporting their CWD were more likely to support their CWD to participate in physical activity programs. Finally, this study showed two components of behavioral and normative beliefs as good predictors of parents’ intention, and only parents’ intention was a good predictor of parents’ behavior. As described in the results, control belief (perceived behavioral control) was not a predictor of either intention or behavior in this study. The construct of control belief did not affect Korean parents’ intention to support their CWD to participate in physical activity programs. Korean parents participating in this study may have not perceived that their involvement might influence the physical activity participation of their CWD. This could be anchored in cultural or other environmental constrains. A few previous studies (e.g., Conatser, Block, & Gansneder, 2002; Jeong & Block, 2011) examined relationships among beliefs, intention, and behavior in physical activity/education using the TPB. The previous studies found similar results indicating no direct link between control belief and behavior. Conatser et al. found that only intention was a predictor for behavior, so they assumed that as individuals become more favorable and confident about their control belief, the less control belief influences their behavior. Jeong and Block conducted their study using the TPB to examine Korean physical education teachers’ behavior in teaching students with disabilities. Their study found that control belief was not a direct predictor for behavior but control belief was a predictor of intention. In the current study, the reason that control belief was not a direct predictor of Korean parents’ intentions and behaviors may be that control belief was totally beyond the volition of Korean parents. In the current study, control belief included items asking about programs’ accessibility, financial assistance, quality of programs, knowledge of instructors, and preference of their child. Since control belief was beyond most of the Korean parents’ choice, it seemed to have no linear relation to their support behavior for their CWD. It could be that the Korean parents supported physical activity participation of their CWD even with such barriers (indicated with control belief) if they believed that their CWD would get benefits from participation in physical activity (behavioral belief) and were affected by other important people who think the parents should support (normative belief). Therefore, they were willing to try to make a strong effort to support physical activity participation of their CWD. A similar result was also found in a study by Jeong and Block
Parents’ Beliefs and Intentions 103
(2011). In their study, the Korean physical education teachers taught students with disabilities in their physical education class with barriers (control belief) such as almost no accommodations, teacher assistants, equipment, and in-service programs. It seemed that control belief, which was beyond the Korean physical education teachers’ volition, could not affect the teachers’ teaching behavior. Most Korean parents reported that they intended to support physical activity participation of their CWD. It could be due to “education fever” for their children. The term education fever has been used to describe Korean parents’ obsession with education. Seth (2002) explained education fever in South Korea with several examples reporting heavy investment of the South Korean family in the education of their children through private education programs in the evening and on weekends and taking great pride on their children entering a “good” school. According to the Education at a Glance of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, in 2002, it was reported that South Korean parents spent the most money related to private education for their children (Kukminibo, 2003). Korean parents would be likely to support their children for physical activity participation if they believed that it brought more benefits for their children (e.g., increase social interaction, promote physical activity level, enhance physical fitness, develop sport skills, and increase focus). Since there is limited opportunity for CWD to participate in physical education or adapted physical education in South Korea, parents may have high motivation to support after-school physical activity programs for their CWD. According to Roh (2002), about 85% of CWD in inclusive schools were either not fully included or were excluded from general physical education class. In a study by Kim (2007), 30% of the participants including CWD and their special education teachers and parents requested more after-school physical activity programs for CWD. In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that parents who had strong behavioral and normative beliefs had greater intention to support their CWD to participate in physical activity programs. Therefore, it is important to educate parents and other people important to the parents (such as special education teachers and professionals in disability organizations) regarding the benefits of physical activity participation in CWD.
Limitations and Future Research There are a few possible limitations to this study that should be addressed in future research. First, the participants of this study were Korean; therefore, one should be cautious about generalizing the findings outside of Korea. Second, the parents were asked about physical activity program participation, not about physical education, in the survey. However, the survey direction did not specify physical activity programs outside the school setting. Thus, it is possible that some parents might have confused physical education with physical activity programs. Third, the measurement method of “behavior” as parental support for physical activity participation of their CWD can be more objective in future studies. In this current study, one direct item (“I have been supporting my child’s participation in physical activity programs”) with the 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always) was used to measure behavior of the parental support. Even though parents’ intention was the strongest predictor of behavior, this one direct question may not be enough to fully capture the range of parents’ behavior. Further studies can use “total time of physical activity
104 Jeong, Kim, and Lee
participation” or “frequency of physical activity participation” as a result of parental support. In addition, more informative statements such as “I am helping my child to perform the physical activity,” “I look for other children to perform physical activity with my child,” and “I am counting and rewarding the physical activity performed by my child” can be used to measure parental-support behavior. Despite these limitations, to the best of our knowledge, this was the first study to develop a questionnaire using the TPB model to examine parental support for physical activity participation of their CWD and to investigate whether parental beliefs and intentions predict their support for physical activity participation of their CWD. The results demonstrated reliability and validity evidence of the PBISPAP. Behavioral and normative beliefs predicted parents’ intention to support their CWD to participate in physical activity programs. In addition, parents’ intention was a good predictor of parents’ behavior for supporting physical activity participation of their CWD. Using more objective and/or informative measures of parental support behavior, further studies should examine the ability of the TPB model to explain parental beliefs and intentions to support physical activity participation of their CWD, and to predict parents’ behavior in supporting physical activity participation of their CWD also in other countries.
References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Ajzen, I. (2004). Construction of a standard questionnaire for the theory of planned behavior. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~ajzen Amireault, S., Godin, G., Vohl, M.C., & Pérusse, L. (2008). Moderators of the intentionbehaviour and perceived behavioural control-behavior relationships for leisure-time physical activity. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5:7, 1–11. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-7 An, J., & Goodwin, D.L. (2007). Physical education for students with spina bifida: Mothers’ perspectives. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24(1), 38–58. PubMed Chung, J-W., Kwon, H-J., Kim, Y-S., & Yang, H-N. (2011). Study on physical activity level of children with intellectual disability [in Korean]. Korean Journal of Adapted Physical Activity and Exercise, 19(1), 116–123. Conatser, P., Block, M.E., & Gansneder, B. (2002). Aquatic instructors’ beliefs toward inclusion: The theory of planned behavior. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 172–187. Edwards, H., Walsh, A., Courtney, M., Monaghan, S., Wilson, J., & Young, J. (2007). Promoting evidence-based childhood fever management through a peer education programme based on the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(10), 1966–1979. PubMed doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.01767.x Francis, J., Eccles, M., Johnston, M., Walker, A., Grimshaw, J., Foy, R., . . . Bonetti, D. (2004). Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behavior: A manual for health services researchers. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Høie, M., Moan, I.S., Rise, J., & Larsen, E. (2012). Using an extended version of the theory of planned behaviour to predict smoking cessation in two age groups. Addiction Research and Theory, 20(1), 42–54. doi:10.3109/16066359.2011.557165 Jeong, M., & Block, M.E. (2011). Physical education teachers’ beliefs and intentions toward teaching students with disabilities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 239–246. PubMed doi:10.1080/02701367.2011.10599751
Parents’ Beliefs and Intentions 105
Kim, H.K. (2007). Perceptions of special education teachers, parents, and students with disabilities on after school programs for students with disabilities [in Korean]. The Journal of Special Children’s Education, 9(2), 93–114. Kukminibo. (2003, September 17). OECD high heavy burden for education in South Korea based on OECD indicators [in Korean]. Law, M., Petrenchik, T., King, G., & Hurley, P. (2007). Perceived environmental barriers to recreational, community, and school participation for children and youth with physical disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88(12), 1636–1642. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.07.035 Martin, J.J., Oliver, K., & McCaughtry, N. (2007). The theory of planned behavior: Predicting physical activity in Mexican American children. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29(2), 225–238. PubMed Moola, F., Faulkner, G.E., Kirsh, J.A., & Kilburn, J. (2008). Physical activity and sport participation in youth with congenital heart disease: Perceptions of children and parents. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 25(1), 49–70. PubMed Moran, T.E., & Block, M.E. (2010). Barriers to participation in youth sports. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 6(3), 5. Retrieved from http://journals.cec.sped.org/tecplus/ vol6/iss3/art5 Plotnikoff, R.C., Lippke, S., Courneya, K., Birkett, N., Sigal, R. (2010). Physical activity and diabetes: An application of the theory of planned behaviour to explain physical activity for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in an adult population sample. Psychology & Health, 25(1), 7–23. PubMed doi:10.1080/08870440802160984 Rhodes, R.E., Fiala, B., & Nasuti, G. (2012). Action control of exercise behavior: Evaluation of social cognition, cross-behavioral regulation, and automaticity. Behavioral Medicine (Washington, D.C.), 38(4), 121–128. PubMed Rimmer, J.H., & Braddock, D. (2002). Health promotion for people with physical, cognitive, and sensory disabilities: An emerging national priority. American Journal of Health Promotion, 16, 220–224. PubMed doi:10.4278/0890-1171-16.4.220 Roh, H-K. (2002). The practical realities of inclusive physical education and cognition of physical education teachers toward inclusive physical education in Korea [in Korean]. Journal of Korean Adapted Physical Activity & Exercise, 10(2), 13–26. Roh, H-K., & Oh, K-J. (2003). Parents’ perceptions of children with disabilities who participated in adapted physical activity programs [in Korean]. Korean Journal of Adapted Physical Activity and Exercise, 11(1), 1–14. Seth, M.J. (2002). Education fever: Society, politics, and the pursuit of schooling in South Korea. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. South Korea Ministry of Health and Welfare. (2007). 2007 guideline for healthy living practices [in Korean]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Health and Welfare. Steele, C.A., Kalnins, I.V., Rossen, B.E., Biggar, D.W., Bortolussi, J.A., & Jutai, J.W. (2004). Age-related health risk behaviors of adolescents with physical disabilities. Sozial- und Praventivmedizin, 49(2), 132–141. PubMed doi:10.1007/s00038-004-3056-4 Stuart, M.E., Lieberman, L., & Hand, K.E. (2006). Beliefs about physical activity among children who are visually impaired and their parents. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100(4), 223–234. Underwood, P.R. (2012). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction of English grammar under national curriculum reforms: A theory of planned behaviour perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 911–925. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.04.004 U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2010). Student with disabilities: More information and guidance could improve opportunities in physical education and athletics. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/310/305770.pdf
Copyright of Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
