The purpose of this phenomenological study was to examine the meaning that elite athletes with visual impairments ascribed to their school-based physical education (PE) and sport experiences. A convenience sample of four elite male goalball athletes with visual impairment voluntarily participated in the study. Data were collected through semi-structured telephone interviews and reflective field notes, and an interpretive phenomenological analysis was conducted for theme development. Member checking, peer debriefing, and communicative validity were utilized to ensure trustworthiness. Even though the participants’ experiences varied due to their personal and contextual characteristics, four interrelated themes emerged from the data analysis: (a) PE teachers are central to PE experiences; (b) internalized exclusion; (c) athletic identity struggle; and (d) extracurricular opportunity. These themes are discussed in relation to the existing literature. Implications with regard to the education of PE teachers and the need for school-based PE and sport programming to better serve students with visual impairments are highlighted.

No abstract

No abstract

The ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) is used in the clinic to chart progression and as a primary endpoint measure in clinical trials. In the original description of the scale, evaluations were to be performed by the patient or caregiver, but ratings are commonly performed by health care providers. We determined whether there are differences in scoring based on whether the provider, patient or caregiver performed the evaluation. Overall, all evaluators assessed similar changes in function over time, but significant visit-specific differences were found with higher scores when the patient and provider were the evaluators. We modeled how a change in evaluators at the end of a 9-month trial would influence statistical analysis, if the patient was unable to travel to the study site and the final assessment was performed by telephone. If 25% of the final visit assessments were performed by the patient, in place of the provider, the change in score is less than one point on the ALSFRS-R (-0.7: 95% Confidence Interval -2.1 to 0.3). We conclude that the ALSFRS-R can be successfully used even if evaluators change.

No abstract