In this review we examine the evidence regarding self-determination theory within the school physical education context. We applied a multilevel structural equation modeling approach to meta-analyze data from a systematic review that identified 265 relevant studies. In line with theory, autonomous motivation was positively correlated with adaptive outcomes and negatively correlated with maladaptive outcomes. Introjected regulation was modestly correlated with both adaptive and maladaptive outcomes. External regulation and amotivation both showed negative relationships with adaptive outcomes, and positive relationship with maladaptive outcomes. Also supporting SDT, autonomy, competence, and relatedness satisfactions were strongly correlated with autonomous student motivation, and less strongly, but still positively, correlated with introjected regulation. Weak negative correlations were found between autonomy, competence, and relatedness and external regulation. Amotivation had moderate negative correlations with needs satisfaction. Findings further revealed that teachers more greatly impact classroom experiences of autonomy and competence, whereas relatedness in physical education is associated with both peer and teacher influences. Educational Impact and Implications StatementWe found that the different types of motivation identified in SDT differentially predict student outcomes in predicted ways, and that these motivations are systematically associated with instructor supports for students' basic psychological needs. Although teachers can support all three students' psychological needs, teachers appear to have greater influence on students' autonomy and competence, whereas peers seem to have more impact on students' relatedness. These results have implications for the design of teacher and peer focused interventions.

Background: The physical and psychosocial benefits of physical activity for typically developing youth are well established; however, its impact on youth with intellectual disabilities is not as well understood. The aims of this review and meta-analysis were to synthesize the literature and quantify the effects of physical activity on the physical and psychosocial health of youth with intellectual disabilities. Method: Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were grouped by their focus on physical health and/or psychosocial health outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed using 3-level, random effects and mixed effects models. Results: One hundred nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Physical activity had a large effect on physical health (g = 0.773, P < .001) and a moderately large effect (g = 0.682, P < .001) on psychosocial health. Participant age, intellectual disability level, other developmental disabilities, outcome type, and intervention type moderated the effects of physical activity on physical health, whereas study design, risk of bias, other developmental disabilities, outcome type, and intervention type were moderators on psychosocial health. Conclusions: Physical activity has positive effects on the physical and psychosocial health of youth with intellectual disabilities. Although resistance training shows the most physical benefits, teaching movement and sports skills appear to benefit their physical and psychosocial health.

Background: Both high-intensity interval training and moderate-intensity continuous training demonstrate beneficial physiological outcomes for active and insufficiently active populations. However, it remains unclear whether compliance to exercise in supervised settings translates to long-term adherence to physical activity in realworld, unstructured environments. To our knowledge, no comprehensive review is available on compliance and/or adherence rates to either modes of exercise for insufficiently active individuals. Furthermore, it is unclear which training modality insufficiently active individuals comply and/or adhere more readily to. Based on these gaps, the following two questions will be addressed: (1) What are compliance and adherence rates to high-intensity interval training for insufficiently active adults aged 18-65 years and (2) How do compliance and adherence rates differ between high-intensity interval training and moderate-intensity continuous training? Methods: Both observational and experimental studies that report on compliance and/or adherence rates to highintensity interval training will be included. Relevant studies will be retrieved from Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Web of Science using a pre-specified search strategy. Pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria will be used by two independent researchers to determine eligible studies. Of those meeting the inclusion criteria, data extraction and narrative synthesis will be completed, and where applicable, random-effects meta-analyses will be computed to compare compliance and adherence rates between high-intensity interval training and moderate-intensity continuous training. Meta-regressions and sensitivity analyses will be used to further explore factors that could influence aggregate effect sizes. Risk of bias will be assessed using established tools by the Cochrane association, and quality assessment of the cumulative evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach.(Continued on next page)

No abstract