ADAPTED PHYSICALACTIVITY QUARTERLY, 1998,15,370-380

D 1998 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

Attitudes and Grading Practices of

Secondary Physical Educators in
Regular Education Settings

Kim A. Duchane Ron French

Manchester College Texas Woman's University

Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) reasoned action theoretical model was used to
examine physical education teachers' attitudes toward grading students with
disabilities. Participants were 82 male and 100 female teachers who taught
physical education in grade 6-8, representing 119 schools. The Physical Edu-
cators' Attitude Toward Teaching Individuals with Disabilities (PEATID-III)
survey and a grading practices questionnaire were administered.A three-way
ANOVA indicated no significant differencesin grading practices between gen-
ders and between teachers with positive and negative attitudes. However, com-
parison of grading practices for students with (M= 122.83) and without dis-
abilities (M= 133.49) revealed significant differences, F(1, 154) = 21.31, p <
.001. It was concluded that criteria for grading students with disabilities are
significantly different from those for nondisabled classmates. Neither attitude
nor gender made a significant difference in grading practices.

Many professionals believe that students with disabilities should be included

in all school curricula,including regular physical education, in neighborhood schools
(Block, 1994; Stainback & Stainback, 1990). The trend toward applying this in-
clusive philosophy has introduced a broad range of issues, including whether the
same criteria should be used to determine final class grades for students with and
without disabilities (Auxter, Pyfer, & Huettig, 1997).
Many current methods of assessing and grading students in physical educa-
tion were formulated before special education students were being integrated into
regular classes. Traditional grading practices may actually discriminate against
students with disabilities, putting them at a disadvantage by holding them to unre-
alistic achievement standards or performance levels of peers without disabilities
(Carpenter, Grantham, & Hardister, 1983).
Public Law 101-476,Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct (Federal Reg-
ister, 1992), as amended by Public Law 105-17, emphasizes that, to the maximum

Kim A. Duchane is with the Department of Health and Physical Education at Manches-
ter College, 604 E. College Ave., Box PERC, North Manchester, IN 46962. Ron French is
with the Department of Kinesiology at Texas Woman's University, Box 425647, TWU Sta-
tion, Denton, TX 76204.
 Grading Practices 371

extent possible, students with disabilities must be educated with their nondisabled
peers. This provision heightens demands on teachers to engage learners responsibly
with appropriate support (i.e., personnel and adapted equipment) to meet the needs of
ali students in regular education settings (Jansma & French, 1994; Murata & Little,
1995;Sherrill, 1998). Becausepositive attitudestoward heterogeneousgroups oflearn-
ers in regular classes form the foundationfor effectiveteaching, researchershave been
particularly interested in teachers' opinions about the success of educational place-
ment options (Baker & Gottlieb, 1980; Tripp & Sherrill, 1991). These attitudes can
strengthen or weaken student achievement and behavior. Favorable teacher attitudes
are a potent variable in effective teaching and are critical for successfully including
students with disabilitiesin physical education (Jarvis & French, 1990;R h & Vispoel,
1991). In the present study, we hypothesized that teachers who had positive attitudes
Downloaded by New York University on 09/16/16, Volume 15, Article Number 4

toward including students with disabilities in regular physical education would use
different grading practices than teachers with negative attitudes.
Although teacher attitudes toward students with disabilities (Block & Rizzo,
1995; Jarvis & French, 1990; Kowalski & Rizzo, 1996)have received much atten-
tion, a review of the literature reveals the need to investigate physical education
teachers' attitudes toward assessing and grading students with disabilities in regu-
lar education classes. Current methods of determining grades for this population
should also be examined from a theoretical standpoint (Tripp & Sherrill, 1991).
The theory of reasoned action, proposed in the 1970s by Fishbein and Ajzen
(19753, was applied in this study to describe secondary physical educators' attitudes
about teaching in regular education settings. This social psychology theory implies
that most behaviors are performed for areason and specifiesthat two factors influence
a person's attitude:personal and social beliefs. These two belief systems are proposed
as combined determinants of a person's intention to act or, more formally, the subjec-
tive probability that a person will perform a specified behavior.
The personal factor of the reasoned action theory facilitates understanding
an individual's attitude toward a specific action (i.e., teaching, assessing, and grad-
ing students with disabilities). The theory also suggests that volitional behavior is
influenced by a person's perception of pressures from various social groups (Ajzen
& Fishbein, 1980).
We also examined the effect of a teacher's gender on grading practices. We
hypothesized that women teachers who instruct students with disabilities in regu-
lar physical education would use different grading practices than male instruc-
tors. Literature on the relationship between gender and attitudes is inconsistent.
Aloia, Knutson, Minner, and Von Seggern (1980) found that, compared to men,
women have more favorable attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities.
Other studies (Hodge & Jansma, in press; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright,
1987) revealed no significant gender differences. Applying Fishbein and Ajzen's
(1975) theoretical model, the purpose of the present study was to examine the
effect of attitude, gender, and student type (i.e., with and without disabilities) on
grading in regular physical education settings.

Method
Participants
Participants were 82 male and 100 female teachers who taught regular physical edu-
cation classes. A complete mailing list of all secondary schools in a Midwestern state
 372 Duchane and French

(N = 288) was obtained from the school directory provided by the State Depart-
ment of Education. Schools (N = 195) were selected based on the following crite-
ria: grade levels (i.e., 6-8), geographic location within the various regions served
by the Special Education Cooperatives, and the physical education instruction for
students with disabilities that was available in a regular education setting. Each
principal selected two of the school's physical education teachers (one male, one
female) to participate. Physical education teachers from 61% of the junior high
schools that were contacted participated in this statewide study.

Instrumentation
Downloaded by New York University on 09/16/16, Volume 15, Article Number 4

Two instruments were administered, but they were packaged as one divided into
three parts: assessment and grading practices, beliefs about teaching students with
disabilities, and demographic information. Participants were asked to self-report
their grading practices by providing the percentage of a student's grade derived
from 13 possible criteria: attendance, attitude, behavior, dressing, effort, fitness
tests, improvement, participation, showering, skill observations, skill tests, written
assignments, and written tests. Physical education teachers were also asked to in-
dicate the type of grading criteria they believed was most effective for their stu-
dents with disabilities.
A mean score for grading practices was calculated for each student type-
one for students with disabilities and one for those without. Scores were deter-
mined by multiplying the percentage for each criterion by the weight for each
grading practice. Weight was based on the assumptions that effective teachers base
grades on achieving objectives and that the major objectives of physical education
should be physical fitness, skillful movement, and cognitive understanding that
can be measured by tests and assignments (Auxter et al., 1997; Baumgartner &
Jackson, 1995; Safrit & Wood, 1995; Siedentop, 1991). Good grading practices
from textbooks, such as fitness tests, skill observations, skill tests, written assign-
ments, and written tests, were assigned a weight of 2. Less acceptable grading
practices, based on administrative details (attendance, dressing, and showering)
and affective factors (attitude, behavior, effort, and participation), were assigned a
weight of I. Higher scores (maximum = 200) indicated that grades were being
matched with achieving physical fitness, skillful movement, and cognitive under-
standing objectives as measured by tests and assignments.
Measurement specialistswith expertise in physical education evaluation veri-
fied content validity of the grading practices questionnaire. Each specialist reviewed
the draft version and noted any changes to accurately determine physical educa-
tion teachers' grading practices. Comments were used to modify the rough draft
and subsequently produce the final version of the instrument.
Test-retest reliability was established for the grading practices questionnaire
on 20 physical education teachers, who received the survey on two occasions sepa-
rated by l day. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the two administra-
tions was .95.
The Physical Educators' Attitude Toward Teaching Individuals with Dis-
abilities (PEATID-III),the third revision of the PEATH survey (Rizzo, 1984,1988),
provided items to determine teacher attitude. Six items expressed positive beliefs,
and six indicated negative ones. The PEATID-111 purportedly measures physical
education teachers' attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities in regular
 Grading Practices 373

physical education classes. Each statement had an embedded blank, such as "Stu-
dents with should be taught with nondisabled students in my regular physical
education class whenever possible," and "Students with should not be taught
in my regular physical education class with nondisabled students because they will
require too much of my time." Under each statement, three conditions-emotional
disturbance, mild mental retardation, and severe mental retardation-were presented,
along with a 5-point Likert scale. Respondents were instructed to mentally insert the
appropriate disability label in the blank when responding to each test item.
Scores varied from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement) on the six
items with positive beliefs. Scoring was reversed for the other six. Attitudinal mean
scores were based on the sum of item scores divided by the number of items so that
they could be interpreted with reference to the original 5-point Likert scale. For ex-
Downloaded by New York University on 09/16/16, Volume 15, Article Number 4

ample, the score for a participant's responses to attitudinal statements totaled 169.
This score was divided by 36 (i.e., total number of statements), thus providing a mean
score of 4.69. Higher scores (3-5) indicated a positive, more favorable response to the
attitudinal statements. Overall mean values.rather than those for individual items.
were used in statistical analysis. This procedure followed the protocol recommended
by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). In reasoned action theory, the sum total of a person's
beliefs is used to approximate attitude toward teaching students with disabilities-a
holistic rather than individual assessment profile.
Original PEATID validity was established by a panel of six nationally prorni-
nent researchers with expertise in educational programs for teaching students with
disabilities (Rizzo, 1984). The panel concluded that the survey had sufficient face
validity because it adequately sampled teachers' attitudes toward teaching students
with disabilities in regular physical education classes. Subsequent research estab-
lished construct validity via factor analysis (Rizzo, 1988). PEATID-11 was revised
in the early 1990s to reflect nomenclature consistent with current U.S. law and
professional practice (Rizzo, 1995). PEATID-I11 was identical to PEATID-II ex-
cept for terminology.
Original PEATID reliability was reported by Rizzo (1984) as an alpha coef-
ficient of .97, which revealed very small error variance due to fatigue, fluctuating
attention, familiarity with the items, and practice.
Part II of the PEATID-I11 requests demographic information about gender,
age, years of teaching experience, present position, highest degree earned, extra-
curricular responsibilities,professional memberships, specialized training, experi-
ence teaching students with disabilities, and perceived competence for teaching
these individuals.

Procedure
Research packages were developed to collect data from physical education teach-
ers who taught at the junior high school level. Research packages contained intro-
ductory letters explaining the purpose and importanceof the study, letters of support
from the State Department of Education, a return postcard for principals to indi-
cate willingness to participate in the study, procedures for completing the instru-
ments along with two copies of each, and two self-addressed stamped envelopes
for returning questionnaires.
Research packages were distributed by mail to principals of 195junior high
schools. Each principal selected two teachers (one male, one female) from the
 374 Duchane and French

school who taught physical education classes that included students with disabili-
ties. K principals elected to have their physical education teachers participate in
the study, they wrote the selected respondents' names and school address on the
postcard and returned this to the primary researcher.
The selected teachers were then asked to complete and return questionnaires.
Approximately 3 weeks after the initial distribution, a follow-up reminder post-
card was mailed to participants and school principals. Responses were collected
for an additional 3-week period, after which data collection ceased. The return rate
was 61%, with 119 schools represented.

Design and Analysis

Downloaded by New York University on 09/16/16, Volume 15, Article Number 4

A computerized database listing the variables for each item was developed, with a
code for each response option. Once instruments were received, responses were
entered in the database. A research colleague validated the entries, correcting en-
try errors and reexamining responses that necessitated coder judgment. Initial agree-
ment was reached on over 99% of responses.
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-PC, 1988) computer
program was used. Scores were checked for univariate outliers and skewness prob-
lems. After we establishedthat data met normalcy assumptions,a three-way analysis
of variance was applied. Grading practices constituted the dependent variable and
student type, teacher attitude, and gender the independent ones.

Results
Most physical education teachers (88%) reported assessing student performance.
The most common reasons given for this were reporting student progress (79%)
and assigning grades (77%). However, respondents' grading criteria indicated that
physical fitness, skillful movement, and cognitive understanding objectives were
not consistently applied when determining grades for students with disabilities.
Table 1 reveals that fitness tests received ranks of 12 and 11, respectively, in fre-
quency of use for students with and without disabilities. Skill observation were
assigned a 10 for both groups. Skill tests received 7 and 4.5, respectively, for stu-
dents with and without disabilities. Written assignments were assigned 11 and 12,
respectively, for students with and without disabilities. Written tests received 6
and 3, respectively, for students with and without disabilities. Improvement, which
could apply to any objective, received a 9 for both groups. Clearly, teachers used
textbook criteria as good grading practices less than other criteria. However, teachers
used three of these criteria (fitness, skill, and written tests) more often for students
without disabilities than for nondisabled peers.
With two exceptions (written tests and skill tests for students without dis-
abilities), the most common criteria for both groups were participation, dressing,
effort, attitude, and behavior. Effort ranked third in frequency of use for students
with disabilities and sixth for students without. Percentages of use for all other
criteria were less than 50%.Administrative details and affective factors were ap-
plied to both groups more often than recommended educational objectives com-
monly associated with physical education (Auxter et al., 1997; Baumgartner &
Jackson, 1995; Safrit & Wood, 1995; Siedentop, 1991).
 GradEng Practices 375

TabIe I Criteria Used to Grade Students in Regular PhysieaI Education

Criteria by student typea Rank

Attendance
D
ND
Attitude
D
ND
Behavior
Downloaded by New York University on 09/16/16, Volume 15, Article Number 4

D
ND
Dressing
D
ND
Effort
D
ND
Fitness tests
D
ND
Improvement
D
ND
Participation
D
ND
Showering
D
ND
Skill observations
D
ND
Skill tests
D
ND
Written assignments
D
ND
Written tests
D
ND

Note. D = with disabilities; ND = without disabilities

"More than one response possible.
 376 Duchane and French

Objective measures (i.e., written and skill tests) were used more often when
grading nondisabled students (62%,58%) than those with disabilities (45%,44%).
Although grading practices for both groups were similar, differences were statisti-
cally significant between groups, F ( l , 154) = 21.31, p < .001 (see Table 2). Mean
scores for grading practices were 133.49 for nondisabled students and 122.83 for
those with disabilities. Standard deviations were 22.19 and 27.01. Effect size for
this difference was .49.
Grading practices of physical education teachers with positive attitudes (M
= 122.66, SD = 23.77) toward teaching students with disabilities and of instructors
with negative, less favorable attitudes (M = 123.01, SD = 29.37) were not signifi-
cantly different (see Table 2). Although grading practices did not vary with overall
teacher attitude, results indicated that physical education teachers' attitudes to-
Downloaded by New York University on 09/16/16, Volume 15, Article Number 4

ward students with mild mental retardation (M = 3.09, SD = 0.73) were more
favorable than those toward students with emotional disturbances (M = 2.75, SD =
0.81) or severe mental retardation (M = 2.25, SD = 0.75).
Male and female physical education teachers were not significantly differ-
ent on grading practices or attitudes. Males had a mean score of 107.60 (SD =
47.96) for grading practices; mean score for females was 119.36 (SD = 33.66).
Males had a mean score of 2.69 (SD = 0.62) for attitudes; mean score for females
was 2.70 (SD = 0.66).
Additional analyses were performed to identify any interaction effects of
independent variables in determining the practices for grading students with dis-
abilities. Each interaction analysis comparing teacher attitude, gender, and student
type on grading practices in regular physical education resulted in no significant
differences (see Table 2).

Discussion
The null hypothesis was that attitude, gender, and student type did not affect grad-
ing in regular physical education settings. This hypothesis was accepted for atti-

Table 2 Three-WayANOVA Summary Table for Grading Practices by Teacher

Attitude, Gender, and Student Type

Source df SS MS F P

Attitude 1
Gender 1
Student type 1
Attitude by gender 1
Attitude by student type 1
Gender by student type 1
Attitude by gender by 1
student type
Error 154

*Denotes significance (p i.01).

 Grading Practices 377

tude and gender but rejected for student type. One of the major pedagogical issues
for physical education teachers who teach students with and without disabilities in
the same classroomis deciding which criteriato use for determining student grades.
Measurement textbook authors have suggested that physical fitness, skillful move-
ment, and cognitive understanding are fundamental objectives of physical educa-
tion (Baumgartner & Jackson, 1995; Safrit & Wood, 1995). These objectives are
similar to those identified in most physical education texts (Pangrazi & Darst,
1997; Schmottlach & McManama, 1997; Siedentop, 1991).
Based on our results, we conclude that the educational objectives recom-
mended by physical education experts are not the basis for grading students with
disabilities in regular physical education. These findings are consistent with those
of previous researchers (Maguire, 1995; Wilson, 1988), who reported that sec-
Downloaded by New York University on 09/16/16, Volume 15, Article Number 4

ondary physical education teachers use different standards for nondisabled stu-
dents by emphasizing physical fitness, skillful movement, and cognitive
understanding more often than for students with disabilities. Although participa-
tion and dressing were used most often for both student types, objective-based
skill tests and written tests were used more often for students without disabilities
when determiningend-of-semester grades in regular physical education (Maguire,
1995; Wilson. 1988).
The reasoned action theoretical model specifies that personal and social fac-
tors influence a person's attitude. The personal factor facilitates understanding a
physical education teacher's attitude toward teaching, assessing, and grading stu-
dents with disabilities. Approximately 68% of teachers in this study reported the
extracurricular responsibility of coaching at least one athletic team as part of their
daily schedules. If physical education teachers perceive their primary responsibil-
ity as coaching rather than teaching, then assessment and grading student perfor-
mance may be considered "just one more thing to do," and these instructors may
individually choose to minimize the effort devoted to these tasks.
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) also suggested that volitional behavior is influ-
enced by a person's perception of pressures from various social groups. The social
factor is relevant to this study. Public laws mandate that students with disabilities
must be educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent possible. This, in
turn, forces physical education teachers to teach these students; they do not have a
choice. This may influence attitude. For this reason, Ajzen (1985, 1991) revised
the reasoned action theory, thus producing the planned behavior theory. This new
hypothesis, which includes a measure of perceived behavioral control, might have
been a better theory to guide the present study.
Pressure from physical education colleagues, administrators, and parents can
influence whether a teacher applies appropriate grading criteria as recommended
by measurement specialists. Pressure to assign higher grades to special education
students may additionally affect attitude. Teachers might choose the path of least
resistance and thus compromise the intended course of action.
The grading dilemma is further compounded by the lack of administrative
guidelines for determining student grades. Almost half the physical education teach-
ers in this study reported that they were not required to follow departmental or
school guidelines, thus allowing these teachers to select personal grading criteria.
Guidelines for grading students with disabilities should be based on the individu-
alized educationalprogram (IEP) and each student's personalized educational objec-
 378 Duchane and French

tives. Physical fitness and motor skill development may not be the greatest as-
sessed needs for some students (Jansma & French, 1994; Shemll, 1998). The fo-
cus may be on affedtive or cognitive domains required to achieve integration.
Most physical education teachers (68%) in this study could be classified as
having a neutral or negative attitude (i.e., attitude scores of I2.99). However, attitude
did not significantly affect grading practice. All teachers reported the use of par-
ticipation, dressing, and effort as main criteria in determining summative grades
for students with disabilities, with written, fitness, and skill tests and skill observa-
tions used less.
Grading practices were also studied in relationship to teacher gender differ-
ences. According to Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) reasoned action theory, varied
behavior may be due to gender differences in attitude or to variances in the percep-
Downloaded by New York University on 09/16/16, Volume 15, Article Number 4

tions of influence from-social groups. Results of the current study indicated no

significant differences between male and female physical education teachers in
relation to methods for grading students in regular education settings.
This finding was also evidenced in other studies (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991;
Rizzo & Wright, 1987). However, gender differences have been reported by other
researchers. Morrow (1978) found that, compared to male instructors, female teach-
ers possess more favorable attitudes toward assessment and grading techniques.
~ l o i et
a al. (1980) reported that female physical education teachers, compared to
males, were more positive toward students with disabilities. In addition, females
generally had higher expectations of their students with disabilities than did males.
Within the limitations of this study, we can conclude that regular physical
education teachers use significantly different criteria to grade students with and
without disabilities. Furthermore, gender and attitude toward students with dis-
abilities do not significantly affect grading practices. Future research should focus
on why teachers grade as they do and whether the same criteria are appropriate for
students with and without disabilities.

References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J.
Beckmann (Eds.), Action-controlfrom cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg:
Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-21 1.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes andpredicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Aloia, G.E, Knutson, R., Minner, S.H., & Von Seggem, M. (1980). Physical education teach-
ers' initial perceptions of handicapped children. Mental Retardation, 18,85-87.
Auxter, D., Pyfer, J., & Huettig, C. (1997). Principles and methods of adapted physical
education and recreation (8th ed). St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book.
Baker, J.L., & Gottlieb, J. (1980). Attitudes of teachers toward mainstreaming retarded
children. In J. Gottlieb (Ed.), Educating mentally retardedpersons in the mainstream
(pp. 3-23). Baltimore: University Park Press.
Baumgartner, T.A., &Jackson, A.S. (1995). Measurementfor evaluation in physical educa-
tion and exercise science (5th ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Block, M.E. (1994). Why all children with disabilities should be included in regular physi-
cal education. Palaestra, 10, 17-23.
 Grading Practices 379

Block, M.E., & Rizzo, T. (1995). Attitudes and attributes of physical educators associated
with teaching individuals with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of the Asso-
ciationfor Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20,80-87.
Carpenter, D., Grantham, L., & Hardister, M. (1983). Grading mainstreamed handicapped
pupils: What are the issues? Journal of Special Education, 17, 183-188.
Federal Register. (1992, September 29). PL 101-476,Individuals With Disabilities Educa-
tion Act.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction
to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hodge, S.R., & Jansma, P. (in press). Effects of contact time and location of practicum
experiences on attitudes of physical education majors. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly.
Downloaded by New York University on 09/16/16, Volume 15, Article Number 4

Jansma, P., & French, R. (1994). Special physical education: Physical activity, sports, and
recreation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jarvis, K.C., & French, R. (1990).Attitudes of physical educators toward the integration of
handicapped students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70,899-902.
Kowalski, E.M., & Rizzo, T.L. (1996). Factors influencing presewice student attitudes to-
ward individuals with disabilities.Adapted PhysicalActivity Quarterly,13,180-196.
Maguire, P.A. (1995). A survey of the grading practices of teachers ofphysical education in
secondary schools. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Morrow, J.R., Jr. (1978). Measurement techniques: Who uses them? Journal of Physical
Education and Recreation, 49,66-67.
Murata, N.M., &Little, J.R. (1995). Acontinuum of support to facilitate inclusion: Hawaiian's
model. Palaestra, 13, 17-22.
Pangrazi, R.P., & Darst, P.W. (1997). Dynamic physical education for secondary school
students (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Rizzo, T.L. (1984). Attitudes of physical educators toward teaching handicapped pupils.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 1,263-274.
Rizzo, T.L. (1988). Validation of the Physical Educators'Attitude Toward Teaching Handi-
capped Students survey. In Abstracts of Research Papers of the Research Consortiu~n
of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (p.
248). Kansas City, MO: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recre-
ation and Dance.
Rizzo, T.L. (1995). Attributes related to teacher attitudes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60,
739-742.
Rizzo, T.L., & Vispoel, W.P. (1991). Physical educators' attributes and attitudes toward
teaching students with handicaps. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8 , 4 1 1 .
Rizzo, T.L., &Wright, R.G. (1987). Secondary school physical educators' attitudes toward
teaching students with handicaps. American Corrective Therapy Journal, 41,52-55.
Safrit, M.J., & Wood, T.M. (1995). Introduction to measurement in physical education and
exercise science (3rd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book.
Schmottlach, N., & McManama, J. (1997). The physical education handbook (9th ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Sherrill, C. (1998). Adapted physical activity, recreation, and sport: Crossdisciplinary and
lifespan (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: WCBMcGraw-Hill.
Siedentop, D. (1991). Developing teaching skills in physical education. Mountain View,
CA: Mayfield.
SPSS-PC base manual. (1988). Chicago: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
 380 Duchane and French

Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (Eds.). (1990). Support networks for inclusive schooling:
Interdependent integrated education. Baltimore: Paul H . Brookes.
Tripp, A,, & Shemll, C. (1991). Attitude theories of relevance to adapted physical educa-
tion. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8, 12-27.
Wilson, B.T. (1988).A survey on grading procedures used with integrated and mainstreamed
students in physical education. Unpublished master's thesis, Texas Woman's Univer-
sity, Denton.
Downloaded by New York University on 09/16/16, Volume 15, Article Number 4