MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7010565941

Instructional strategies of physical education teachers: development and validation of a self-determination scale

2011· dissertation· en· W7010565941 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Exploratory factor analysisConfirmatory factor analysisReliability (semiconductor)Item analysisPsychometricsTest validityInternal consistencyFactorial analysisPhysical education
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arguably, self-determination is important to the education of students with a disability. This dissertation includes three manuscripts which describe the development and validation of a Self-Determination Scale for Physical Education (SDS-PE). The self-report scale was designed for teachers who instruct students with and without a disability. Wehmeyer's (2001, 2007) functional theory of self-determination was used as a guiding framework. The first study addressed the development and initial validation of the instrument. The research consisted of two phases. In the first phase, evidence based on test-content was evaluated. The process resulted in 50 items depicting instructional strategies related to self-determination. In the second phase, factorial validity and reliability of the scale were assessed. Two hundred sixty participants were included in the analysis. An exploratory factor analysis revealed 11-items representing a three-factor structure: autonomy, self-regulation, and self-realization. In general, internal consistency for the scale and its subscales was acceptable (Nunnally, 1978). Temporal stability was low to moderate. Confirmatory factor analysis provided support for the hypothesized four-factor structure. It was concluded that the psychometric properties of the instrument were sufficient to warrant its further development. Several specific revisions were recommended for subsequent versions of the SDS-PE. The second study provided evidence of factorial validity for the revised version of the SDS-PE. Two-hundred and eighty-four participants were included in the analysis. Exploratory factor analysis produced a four-factor scale representing self-determination: autonomy, psychological empowerment, self-regulation, and self-realization. In general, internal consistency of the scale was acceptable (Nunnally, 1978) and temporal stability of the scale was low to moderate. Confirmatory factor analysis provided further support for the model as hypothesized. The third study investigated the construct validity of the SDS-PE using direct observation. The research aimed to determine the extent to which SDS-PE responses reflected actual teacher behaviours. Fourteen teachers completed the SDS-PE and were subsequently observed and videotaped while instructing three physical education classes. A self-determination score based on their teaching was calculated with the Self-determination Observation Instrument. Comparison of survey and observation scores revealed a significant, but moderate Pearson-Product Moment correlation. Findings suggested the SDS-PE demonstrates a moderate ability to reflect teachers' self-determination practices. While establishing validity is an on-going process (Messick, 1995), it was concluded the SDS-PE demonstrates several psychometric strengths and is a promising instrument for use in teacher education and related research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports→French-language works237,207→