Desarrollo y validación de una encuesta sobre Judo inclusivo

Gaston Descamps, Alain Massart, Terry Rizzo, Viktorija Pečnikar Oblak y Maria João Campos

Este estudio desarrolló y perfeccionó la encuesta de Actitudes de los Profesores de Judo hacia la Inclusión de Participantes con Trastornos del Desarrollo Intelectual (J-TAID), abordando la necesidad de evaluar actitudes, normas subjetivas, control conductual percibido e intención con respecto a la inclusión, y fundamentada en la Teoría del Comportamiento Planificado. La encuesta, traducida al inglés, portugués, francés y esloveno, se administró a 163 participantes con el fin de evaluar su confiabilidad y validez utilizando alfa de Cronbach, Análisis de Componentes Principales (PCA), Análisis Factorial Confirmatorio (CFA) y Análisis Factorial Exploratorio (EFA). La consistencia interna con respecto a las actitudes, normas subjetivas y constructos conductuales percibidos varió de 0,79 a 0,80, con una confiabilidad test-retest mejorando, demostrando una estabilidad temporal de moderada a fuerte (α = 0,679–0,813). El PCA y el CFA identificaron una estructura sólida de tres factores que explica el 74% de la varianza, con un buen ajuste del modelo (RMSEA = 0,048, CFI = 0,978). Las correlaciones de Pearson respaldaron los constructos de TPB. El J-TAID refinado demuestra validez y confiabilidad para su propósito previsto, aunque los resultados aún son preliminares y las limitaciones que se observaron sugieren la necesidad de una mayor validación.

Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha score for each of the constructs.

Table 2. Rotated Factor Matrix.

Table 3. Factor loadings and error variances.

Table 4. Variance explained by factors.

Referencias bibliográficas

1. Descamps, G.; Campos, M.J.; Rizzo, T.; Pečnikar Oblak, V.; Massart, A.G. Benefits of judo practice for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic literature review. Sports 2024, 12, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Nanou, A.; Giatrakou, A.; Maistrellis, A. Learning How to Fall, to Stand Up and Demand; Grafima Publications: Thessaloniki, Greece, 2020. [Google Scholar]
3. Tomey, K.L. Effects of a Modified Judo Program on Psychosocial Factors in Typically Developing and Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Mixed-Methods Study. Master’s Thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
4. Lavisse, D. Chapitre 8: Les Effets de l’Apprentissage du Judo. In tégration d’Enfants Atteints de Troubles Envahissants du Développement. In Pratiques Sportives et Handicaps: Ensemble Sportons Nous Bien; Gaillard, J., Ed.; Chronique Sociale: Lyon, France, 2006. [Google Scholar]
5. Cadot, Y. Kanō Jigorō et L’élaboration du jūdō− Le Choix de la Faiblesse et ses Conséquences. Ph.D. Thesis, INALCO, Paris, France, December 2006. [Google Scholar]
6. UNESCO. SDG4-Education 2030, Incheon Declaration (ID) and Framework for Action: For the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4, Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Promote Lifelong Learning Opportunities for All; ED-2016/WS/28; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
7. Sit, C.; Aubert, S.; Carty, C.; Silva, D.A.S.; López-Gil, J.F.; Asunta, P.; Palad, Y.; Guisihan, R.; Lee, J.; Nicitopoulos, K.P.A.; et al. Promoting physical activity among children and adolescents with disabilities: The translation of policy to practice internationally. J. Phys. Act. Health 2022, 19, 758–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Braksiek, M.; Gröben, B.; Rischke, A.; Heim, C. Teachers’ Attitude Toward Inclusive Physical Education and Factors That Influence It. Ger. J. Exerc. Sport Res. 2019, 49, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Combs, S.; Elliott, S.; Whipple, K. Elementary physical education teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special needs: A qualitative investigation. Int. J. Spec. Educ. 2010, 25, 114–125. [Google Scholar]
10. Morley, D.; Bailey, R.; Tan, J.; Cooke, B. Inclusive Physical Education: Teachers’ Views of Including Pupils with Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities in Physical Education. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2005, 11, 84–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Obrusníková, I.; Block, M. Historical Context and Definition of Inclusion. In Routledge Handbook of Adapted Physical Education; Haegele, J.A., Hodge, S.R., Shapiro, D.R., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 65–80. [Google Scholar]
12. Yu, S.; Wang, T.; Zhong, T.; Qian, Y.; Qi, J. Barriers and Facilitators of Physical Activity Participation among Children and Adolescents with Intellectual Disabilities: A Scoping Review. Healthcare 2022, 10, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Jacinto, M.; Vitorino, A.S.; Palmeira, D.; Antunes, R.; Matos, R.; Ferreira, J.P.; Bento, T. Perceived Barriers of Physical Activity Participation in Individuals with Intellectual Disability—A Systematic Review. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Sakalidis, K.E.; Fadeeva, A.; Hettinga, F.J.; Ling, F.C.M. The Role of the Social Environment in Inclusive Sports Participation—Identifying Similarities and Challenges in Athletes with and without Intellectual Disabilities through Coaches’ Eyes: A Qualitative Inquiry. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0280379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Descamps, G.; Massart, A.; Rizzo, T.; Oblak, V.P.; Campos, M.J. Behavioral beliefs and attitudes of judo teachers regarding inclusion of participants with intellectual developmental disorders: Insights from qualitative interviews. Retos Nuevas Tend. Educ. Física Deporte Recreación 2024, 59, 1103–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Bertills, K.; Granlund, M.; Augustine, L. Inclusive Teaching Skills and Student Engagement in Physical Education. In Frontiers in Education; Frontiers Media SA: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 4, p. 74. [Google Scholar]
17. Farrugia, A.; Soundy, A. Teaching Inclusive Physical Activity and Sports to Students with Intellectual Disability: Perception and Experiences of PE Teachers and Learning Support Educators. In The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Disability; Bennett, G., Goodall, E., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Lautenbach, F.; Heyder, A. Changing Attitudes to Inclusion in Preservice Teacher Education: A Systematic Review. Educ. Res. 2019, 61, 231–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Robinson, G. Perceptions and Attitudes of General and Special Education Teachers Toward Collaborative Teaching. Ph.D. Dissertation, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
20. Rekaa, H.; Hanisch, H.; Ytterhus, B. Inclusion in Physical Education: Teacher Attitudes and Student Experiences. A Systematic Review. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Educ. 2019, 66, 36–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Tarantino, G.; Makopoulou, K.; Neville, R.D. Inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities in Physical Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Teachers’ Attitudes. Educ. Res. Rev. 2022, 36, 100456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Wang, L.; Qi, J.; Wang, L. Beliefs of Chinese Physical Educators on Teaching Students with Disabilities in General Physical Education Classes. Adapt. Phys. Act. Q. 2015, 32, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Ajzen, I. Constructing a Theory of Planned Behavior Questionnaire; University of Massachusetts: Amherst, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
25. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychol. Health 2011, 26, 1113–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Kandemir, A.; Budd, R. Using Vignettes to Explore Reality and Values with Young People. Forum Qual. Sozialforschung 2018, 19, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Barter, C.; Renold, E. The Use of Vignettes in Qualitative Research. Soc. Res. Update 1999, 25, 1–6. Available online: https://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU25.html (accessed on 15 January 2023).
28. NVivo, Version 12; [Computer Software]; QSR International: Burlington, MA, USA. 2018. Available online: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home (accessed on 27 November 2024).
29. Young, J.C.; Rose, D.C.; Mumby, H.S.; Benitez-Capistros, F.; Derrick, C.J.; Finch, T.; Garcia, C.; Home, C.; Marwaha, E.; Morgans, C.; et al. A Methodological Guide to Using and Reporting on Interviews in Conservation Science Research. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2018, 9, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Jamshed, S. Qualitative Research Method-Interviewing and Observation. J. Basic Clin. Pharm. 2014, 5, 87–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Burnard, P. A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse Educ. Today 1991, 11, 461–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Elangovan, N.; Sundaravel, E. Method of preparing a document for survey instrument validation by experts. MethodsX 2021, 8, 101326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Taherdoost, H. Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research. Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag. 2016, 5, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Rizzo, T.L.; Wright, R.G. Physical Educators’ Attitudes Toward Teaching Students with Handicaps. Ment. Retard. 1988, 26, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Block, M.E.; Rizzo, T.L. Attitudes and Attributes of Physical Educators Associated with Teaching Individuals with Severe and Profound Disabilities. J. Assoc. Pers. Sev. Handicap. 1995, 20, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
36. Hassan, Z.A.; Schattner, P.; Mazza, D. Doing a Pilot Study: Why Is It Essential? Malays. Fam. Physician 2006, 1, 70–73. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4453116/ (accessed on 27 November 2024). [PubMed]
37. Lancaster, G.A.; Dodd, S.; Williamson, P.R. Design and Analysis of Pilot Studies: Recommendations for Good Practice. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2004, 10, 307–312. [Google Scholar]
38. Minium, E. Statistical Reasoning in Psychology and Education, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1978; p. 374. [Google Scholar]
39. O’Cathain, A.; Thomas, K.J. “Any Other Comments?” Open Questions on Questionnaires–A Bane or a Bonus to Research? BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2004, 4, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Valdez, D.; Montenegro, M.S.; Crawford, B.L.; Turner, R.C.; Lo, W.J.; Jozkowski, K.N. Translation Frameworks and Questionnaire Design Approaches as a Component of Health Research and Practice: A Discussion and Taxonomy of Popular Translation Frameworks and Questionnaire Design Approaches. Soc. Sci. Med. 2021, 278, 113931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Harkness, J.A.; Van de Vijver, F.J.; Mohler, P.P. Cross-Cultural Survey Methods; Wiley-Interscience: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003; Volume 325. [Google Scholar]
42. Kudláček, M.; Válková, H.; Sherrill, C.; Myers, B.; French, R. An Inclusion Instrument Based on Planned Behavior Theory for Prospective Physical Educators. Adapt. Phys. Act. Q. 2002, 19, 280–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
44. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA 2013, 310, 2191–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Andorno, R. The Oviedo Convention: A European legal framework at the intersection of human rights and health law. J. Int. Biotechnol. Law 2005, 2, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
46. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 2, 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. Braksiek, M. Pre-Service Physical Education Teachers’ Attitude Toward, and Self-Efficacy in, Inclusive Physical Education: Measurement Invariance and Influence Factors. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2022, 109, 103547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49. González, S.T.; López, M.C.N.; Marcos, Y.Q.; Rodríguez-Marín, J. Development and validation of the theory of planned behavior questionnaire in physical activity. Span. J. Psychol. 2012, 15, 801–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Obrusnikova, I.; Dillon, S.R.; Block, M.E. Middle School Students’ Intentions to Play with Peers with Disabilities in Physical Education: Development and Initial Validation. J. Dev. Phys. Disabil. 2011, 23, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51. Oh, H.K.; Rizzo, T.L.; So, H.; Chung, D.H.; Park, S.J.; Lei, Q. Preservice Physical Education Teachers’ Attributes Related to Teaching a Student Labeled ADHD. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2010, 26, 885–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Fournidou, I.; Kudlacek, M.; Evagellinou, C. Attitudes of In-Service Physical Educators toward Teaching Children with Physical Disabilities in General Physical Education Classes in Cyprus. Eur. J. Adapt. Phys. Act. 2011, 4, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Rizzo, T.L.; Vispoel, W.P. Physical Educators’ Attributes and Attitudes Toward Teaching Students with Handicaps. Adapt. Phys. Act. Q. 1991, 8, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54. Kudláček, M. Components of Attitudes Toward Inclusion of Students with Physical Disabilities in Physical Education in the Revised “ATIPDPE-R” Instrument/Scale for Prospective Czech Educators. Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc. Gymnica 2007, 37, 13–18. [Google Scholar]
55. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
56. Folsom-Meek, S.L.; Rizzo, T. Validating the Physical Educators’ Attitude Toward Teaching Individuals with Disabilities III (PEATID III) survey for future professionals. Adapt. Phys. Act. Q. 2002, 19, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Messick, S. Meaning and Values in Test Validation: The Science and Ethics of Assessment. Educ. Res. 1989, 18, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Artículo completo (en inglés) AQUÍ