Individual and contextual predictors of retention in Special Olympics for youth with intellectual disability: who stays involved?

Abstract

Background Despite the recognised benefits of sport, participation is often reported to be low for youth with intellectual disability (ID). The current study was the first to longitudinally examine sport retention in this population, a critical aspect of ensuring participation. Methods Study participants were parents/caregivers of athletes with ID involved in community Special Olympics (SO), 11–22 years of age (N = 345). Participants completed an online survey in 2012 that included caregiver demographic and athlete intrapersonal, interpersonal and broader contextual variables. Retention rates for 2019 were determined using the SO provincial registration lists. Results Of the 345 survey participants, 81.7% remained active athletes in 2019. Caregiver demographic and athlete intrapersonal factors were largely unrelated to retention. In contrast, retention was associated with the frequency and number of sports athletes participated in, the perceived psychosocial gains of SO involvement and the environmental supports that were available to facilitate participation; frequency of sport participation was the strongest predictor of remaining a registered athlete. Conclusions This study has implications for future initiatives aimed at increasing sport retention in a population that struggles to be engaged in sport. Efforts should focus on the athlete experience and sport‐specific factors. Coaches and caregivers can foster positive experiences and play an important role in continued sport participation.

Unravelling the link between physical activity and peer social connectedness in young people with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review of quantitative studies

“…In a 21-month longitudinal study, there was no change in the social connectedness of young females with ID participating in unified or segregated sports (Ninot & Maiano 2007). However, in the other longitudinal study, SO athletes who remained in SO sports had significantly greater psychosocial gains, were rated to have more positive friendships with others in SO and were more involved in non-sport SO activities in comparison with SO athletes who quit sports (Weiss et al 2020).…”

“…Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. (Ryan et al 2018;Weiss et al 2020;Arbour-Nicitopoulos et al 2022), two in Turkey (Baran et al 2009;Özer et al 2012) and one in each of the following countries: India (Ghosh & Datta 2012), France (Ninot & Maiano 2007), England (Robertson et al 2018) and Australia (Shields et al 2020). There were four quasi-experimental studies (Castagno 2001;Baran et al 2009;Temple & Stanish 2011;Stanish & Temple 2012b), three longitudinal (Ninot & Maiano 2007;Robertson et al 2018;Weiss et al 2020), two cross-sectional (Ryan et al 2018;Arbour-Nicitopoulos et al 2022), one randomised controlled trial (Özer et al 2012), one non-randomised controlled trial (Siperstein et al 2019), one retrospective study (Ghosh & Datta 2012) and one protocol study for a cluster randomised controlled trial (Shields et al 2020).…”

“…Two studies examined social connectedness in the context of gym-based exercise programmes (Temple & Stanish 2011;Stanish & Temple 2012a), one study asked young people with ID about participation in all exercise, physical activity and sport activities (Robertson et al 2018) et al 2018). The six remaining studies did not report the ID level (Özer et al 2012;Ryan et al 2018;Siperstein et al 2019;Shields et al 2020;Weiss et al 2020;Arbour-Nicitopoulos et al 2022). One study specifically explored differences between SO athletes with ID and ASD and athletes with ID alone (Ryan et al 2018).…”

“…A total of 18 measurement tools were used across all the social connectedness constructs. Fourteen methods were questionnaires, and others were observations by trained observers (Stanish & Temple 2012b) or single questions (Temple & Stanish 2011;Siperstein et al 2019;Weiss et al 2020).…”

Facilitators and Barriers to Physical Activity Involvement as Described by Autistic Youth with Mild Intellectual Disability

“…Conversely, there are several facilitators to physical activity. In a study of Special Olympics athletes with intellectual disabilities aged 11 to 22 years old, Weiss et al ( 2020 ) identified that athlete retention in sport programs was related to the degree of parental support such as providing transportation and encouragement to their child. The frequency of participation in sport also predicted retention, which may be a factor influencing the positive relationships formed by athletes, a sense of belongingness, and positive experiences in the program by athletes.…”