12 Myths and Facts about Physical Education for Students with Disabilities

Bittner, Melissa; Silliman-French, Lisa; Lieberman, Lauren J.; Lytle, Rebecca

doi:10.1080/07303084.2019.1679297

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings from a nationally representative sample provide additional evidence that children with identified disabilities are likely to exhibit delays in motor development before entering formal education (e.g., kindergarten, elementary school). These delays in FMS competency are consistent with eligibility for adapted physical education services under IDEA ( 42 , 47 , 48 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…Federal law mandates that special education services be provided to children with disabilities from birth to age 21 ( 42 ). A significant delay in FMS competency for a child with or at-risk for developmental delays is sufficient to receive adapted physical education as part of the child's individualized special education program ( 47 , 48 ). The disparities documented in this national sample suggest that a large proportion of preschool children with disabilities should be eligible for services.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…"Poor" performance can be interpreted from standardized subscale scores ≤ 5 and GMQ scores ≤ 79 (34). These scores are consistent with performance < 25th percentile, a common criteria used for identification of need in special education (47). For this analysis, children were classified dichotomously based on "poor" performance on each subscale and GMQ based on these standardized score cut-points (34).…”

Section: Fms Competencymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Fundamental Motor Skill Delays in Preschool Children With Disabilities: 2012 National Youth Fitness Survey

Pitchford

Leung

Webster

2021

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delays in fundamental motor skill (FMS) competency have been observed in a variety of children with disabilities. However, evidence of FMS delays is largely limited to small, geographically specific, limitedly diverse, and non-representative samples. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between FMS competency and reported disability status among pre-school children, ages 3–5 years, using the 2012 National Youth Fitness Survey (NYFS). In total, 329 preschool children (49% female; 4.00 ± 0.04 years of age) from the 2012 NYFS completed the Test of Gross Motor Development−2, including 43 preschoolers identified with a disability based on parental report (44% female; 4.20 ± 0.16 years). Associations were examined with logistic regression using sampling weights. Poor FMS competency, defined as gross motor quotient scores ≤ 79, was observed in significantly more children with disabilities (29%) than children without disabilities (10%, OR = 3.5, p = 0.04). While not statistically significant, there was a growing disparity in FMS competency at age 5 (41 vs. 11%) compared to age 3 (15 vs. 9%, OR = 1.80, p = 0.30). The results provide additional evidence for poor FMS competency among pre-school children with disabilities. FMS should be an early part of comprehensive assessments for all children suspected of disability or development delay as it is critical to identify and intervene upon FMS delays before discrepancies can widen.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fms Competencymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fundamental Motor Skill Delays in Preschool Children With Disabilities: 2012 National Youth Fitness Survey

Pitchford

Leung

Webster

2021

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, many physical educators are never given their students' IEP document and are unaware of the time and place for when the IEP meetings occur (Chaapel et al, 2012;Samalot and Lieberman, 2017). Additionally, physical educators are often only allowed to view an IEP and provide feedback, rather than being able to write meaningful goals and objectives related to PE (Bittner et al, 2020;Chaapel et al, 2012). The fact that physical educators often are excluded from consequential participation throughout the IEP process prohibits PE experts from being member of the collaborative decision-making IEP process (Bittner et al, 2020;McNamara et al, 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…tasked with participating in a team discussion to determine the delivery of service and the least restrictive environment. It is important that this professional is available to answer questions related to the student's successful participation in PE and in the community (Bittner, et al, 2020). If deemed appropriate based on the data collected, the adapted physical educator or another with similar expertise will develop and monitor the IEP goals specific to PE, as well as the supplemental aids, services, programme modifications, placement and supports.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discussing adapted physical education during IEP meetings: First‐hand parent experiences and a supporting tool

McNamara

Lieberman

Weiner

et al. 2021

Research in Spec Educ Needs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical education (PE) has long been neglected throughout the individualized education programme (IEP) process. Parents often feel unprepared to advocate for PE services within the IEP process. Aim: Thus, the purpose of this study was to outline the development of an advocacy checklist to help parents address PE within the IEP process and to examine parents' experiences discussing PE during IEP meetings. A qualitative descriptive approach was used to drive interviews that were conducted with seven parents of children with visual impairments (VI). Three interrelated themes were constructed using an inductive category development approach: (1) 'It's [PE] basically a check mark, It's, he was there. He didn't go to sleep', (2) 'I'd say it's [PE] one of our most important pieces. . . we believe in as a family' and (3) 'This is a perfect checklist of what they [IEP team] need to be going over'. The current study revealed multiple barriers that intervene with appropriate documentation of PE services during the IEP meeting. As voiced by the parents in this study, the checklist outlined in this study offers a practical and user-friendly PE advocacy checklist to guide all parties on the IEP team towards making informed decisions regarding these services.

show abstract