This article was downloaded by: [141.212.109.

170]
On: 21 November 2014, At: 10:38
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

Self-Efficacy Theory and the Theory of Planned

Behavior: Teaching Physically Active Physical Education
Classes
a b
Jeffrey J. Martin & Pamela Hodges Kulinna
a
Division of Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Studies , Wayne State University , USA
b
Department of Physical Education , Arizona State University , USA
Published online: 25 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Jeffrey J. Martin & Pamela Hodges Kulinna (2004) Self-Efficacy Theory and the Theory of Planned
Behavior: Teaching Physically Active Physical Education Classes, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75:3, 288-297,
DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2004.10609161

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2004.10609161

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Pedagogy

Aeseerch Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

©2004 by the American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
Vol. 75, No.3, pp. 288-297

Self-Efficacy Theory and the Theory of Planned Behavior:

Teaching Physically Active Physical Education Classes
Jeffrey J. Martin and Pamela Hodges Kulinna

The purposeofour investigationwas toexaminedeterminants of teachers' intentions to teach physically activephysicaleducation

classes (i.e., spend at least50% ofclass time with thestudents engaged in moderate to vigorous physicalactivity). Basedon the
Downloaded by [141.212.109.170] at 10:38 21 November 2014

theory ofplanned behavior, a modelwasexaminedhypothesizing that teachers' intentionswere determined l7y subjective norm,
attitude, and perceived behavioral control. Groundedin self-efficacy theory, it was hypothesized that program goal importance
and hierarchical and barrier self-efficacy would alsopredict intention. Usinga series ofhierarchical regression analyses, the
theory ofplanned behaviorwas supported l7y accountingfor 59% of thevariancein intention due to attitude, perceived behav-
ioralcontrol; and subjective norm. Self-efficacy theory based variables received minimal support.

Key words: children, fitness, health, psychology
R esearch e rs in public health, epidemiology, and
physical education have consistently demonstrated
the importance ofphysicalactivity in promoting fitness and
health (Almond & Harris, 1998; Caspersen, 1989;
Dishman & Buckworth, 1996; Kujala, Kaprio, Sarna, &
Koskenvuo, 1998; Ross & Gilbert, 1985; Salliset al., 1997).
For example, physicallyactive people have a reduced risk
of heart disease,live longer, have better quality lives, and
are less likely to be depressed (Sallis & Owen, 1999).
Most adults, however, are inactive or irregularly ac-
tive (D. S. Department of Health and Human Services
[DSDHHS], 1996). Children and adolescents' physical
activity habits are also poor. Many children and adoles-
cents are physically inactive and become even less ac-
tive as they age (Ross & Gilbert, 1985, DSDHHS, 1996).
Submitted: July 16, 2002
Accepted: December 6, 2003
Jeffrey J. Martin is with the Division of Kinesiology, Health, and
SportStudies at Wayne State University. Pamela Hodges
Kulinna is with the Department of Physical Education at Arizona
State University.
For instance, virtually 50% of all young people do not
participate regularly in vigorous activity, and only 41 %
of fifth- to twelfth-grade students obtain enough vigor-
ous activity to derive cardiovascular benefits (Ross &
Gilbert, 1985, DSDHHS).
Researchers examining relationships among physi-
cal activity, youth fitness, and health have suggested that
school physical education may be the only institutional
setting providing an opportunity for most children to be
consistently physically active (Sallis et al., 1997). For in-
stance, most states have physical education programs re-
quiring student participation (National Association for
Sport and Physical Education, 1997), and most children
and youth attend school (DSDHHS, 1996), although
regulations vary according to state (Siedentop, 2001).
Representatives ofleading professional health and
physical activity organizations have issued numerous
position statements emphasizing the importance of pro-
viding physical activity in school physical education. The
Council on PhysicalEducation for Children stated, "Regu-
lar physical education programs (preferably daily) should
provide a significant amount of the time in activityneces-
sary to meet the guidelines in this report" (Corbin &
Pangrazi, 1998, p. 14). The Healthy People 2010 objectives
for school physical education indicate that students
should spend 50% of their class time being physically

288 ROES: September 2004


active (USDHHS, 2(00). The National Center for Chronic
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion stated that a
substantial portion of children's weekly physical activity
should be obtained from physical education classes
(USDHHS, 1996). Furthermore, they suggested that
physical education teachers should be trained specifi-
cally to provide children with moderate to vigorous physi-
cal activity during class time. Finally, it has been noted
that a comprehensive approach to increasing youth
physical activity should have school physical education
as a primary component (Sallis et aI., 1992).
Investigators have supported the importance of
school-based physical education programs in promoting
physical activity and health. Sallis and colleagues (1997)
reported that a health-based physical education curricu-
lum, implemented by physical education specialists and
trained classroom teachers, successfully increased
Downloaded by [141.212.109.170] at 10:38 21 November 2014
children's physical activity levels. In a review of 19 stud-
ies, Almond and Harris (1998) also found that the eight
intervention-based studies were successful in increas-
ing physical activity levels in physical education classes.
Clearly, school physical education provides an ex-
cellent opportunity for children to be active and develop
health benefits, despite barriers, such as a lack offacili-
ties (Martin & Kulinna, 2003; McKenzie, et al. 1995) that
limit physical activity. Teachers are obviously a major
determinant ofwhether children and youth in physical
education classes engage in high levels of physical ac-
tivity. Teachers' intentions to teach physically active
classes are critical, because intentions are major behav-
ioral determinants (Ajzen & Madden, 1986).
The current study uses social cognitive theory to
investigate teachers' intentions to teach physically ac-
tiveclasses.The social cognitive theory ofhuman behavior
stipulates that people have the ability to self-regulate,
adopt goals, use anticipatory forethought, and reflect on
their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Bandura, 1997).
As an overarching meta-theory, it provides a broad frame-
work for self-efficacy theory (SET; Bandura, 1997) and
the theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991).
According to the TPB, teachers with strong intentions
to teach physically active classes are more likely to do so,
compared to teachers with weaker intentions (Godin &
Shephard, 1986; Wurtele & Maddux, 1987). Intentions,
according to the TPB, are influenced by the social set-
ting (i.e., subjective norm) and individual's attitudes.
Teachers with positive attitudes toward teaching classes
with high physical activity levels and a supportive social
environment (e.g., school administrators) are likely to
have strong intentions to teach classes with high levels
of student participation in physical activity. Finally, be-
cause not all behaviors are under people's volition, per-
ceived behavioral control is also an important element
of the TPB (Ajzen, 1991). Teachers with a strong sense
of control over what and how they teach will develop stron-
ROES: September 2004
Martin and Kulinns
ger intentions, compared to teachers who perceive they
have little control over their lessons or the curriculum.
Self-efficacytheory (Bandura, 1997) also provides a
theoretical base for this study. It highlights the importance
ofself-efficacy and outcome value or importance (Maddux,
1995). Self-efficacy, in particular, is thought to be the pri-
mary determinant ofhuman behavior. According to SET,
teachers who feel efficacious about providing students
with high physical activity levels in their classes with sup-
portive program goals, such as promoting physical activ-
ity, fitness, and health, will be more likelyto do so,compared
to teachers who are less efficacious and do not viewphysi-
cal activity, fitness, and health program goals as impor-
tant. Physical activity leading to fitness development has
been shown to be the most important outcome goal for
physical education teachers, although several other
outcome goals were important to teachers (i.e., self-ac-
tualization, motor skill development and social devel-
opment; Kulinna & Silverman, 2000).
Although self-efficacy (SE) and perceived behav-
ioral control (PBC) are sometimes considered similar
(Ajzen, 1991), their definitions are not identical (Ajzen,
1991; Bandura, 1997), and it is common to assess them
separately (Coumeya, 1995; McAuley & Mihalko, 1998).
In our study, PBC was defined as how much control
teachers have over teaching classes with high levels of
student physical activity participation. In contrast, con-
sistent with Bandura (1997), SE refers to how capable
teachers feel in their ability to teach lessons that include
large amounts (i.e., at least 50% of class time) of physi-
cal activity. Thus, in the current study, PBC and SE are
conceptually distinct.
A variety of research in human movement settings
has supported the TPB (Dzewaltowski, 1989; Gatch &
Kendzierski, 1990; Godin, 1994; Kimiecik, 1992;
Schifter & Ajzen, 1985; Yordy & Lent, 1993). Gatch and
Kendzierski (1990), for instance, indicated that subjec-
tive norm, attitude, and PBC contributed to predicting
female undergraduate students' intentions to partici-
pate in aerobics. Godin (1994) reviewed 12 exercise-
based studies and reported that intention accounted for
30% of the variance in exercise behavior.
Hausenblas, Carron, and Mack (1997) also supported
the TPB with a meta-analysis of 31 exercise-based studies.
Finally,research in nonsport and exercise settings has also
supported the important role that subjective norm and
attitude play in predicting intention. For instance, in a
meta-analysis of 87 studies, Sheppard, Hartwick, and
Warshaw (1988) found the average correlation between
attitude/subjective norm and intention was .66.
,SE research is also prolific, and numerous meta-
analyses have acknowledged the vital role that SE cogni-
tions play in human behavior (Holden, Moncher, Schinke,
& Barker, 1990; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Stajkovic &
Luthans, 1998). Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) examined
289
 Martin and KuJinna
114studies in their meta-analysis and found SE was a strong
predictor ofwork-related performance. Based on a meta-
analysis of 68 studies, Multon et al. (1991) found a sig-
nificant effect size between student SE and academic
performance over a 12-year period. Holden et al. (1990)
conducted a meta-analysis of 25 studies on the SE of
children and adolescents. Similarly, Ross (1994) re-
ported on 87 investigations of teacher efficacy through
a meta-analysis. These investigations all supported the
beneficial influence of SE on human functioning.
Research in education has also supported the criti-
cal role of efficacy cognitions, although it has been criti-
cized for its methodological and conceptual shortcomings
(Bandura, 1997; Henson, 2001; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001;Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). For instance,
Ross's (1994) meta-analytic study found that most of the
87 studies examined viewed efficacy as a generalized
Downloaded by [141.212.109.170] at 10:38 21 November 2014
expectancy, in contrast to the domain and task specific-
ity conceptualization of SE (Bandura, 1997). Many re-
searchers also inadequately assessed SE by using
one-item scales and failing to achieve correspondence
between the SE measure and the behavior of interest
(Bandura, 1997). Regardless, evidence suggests that
teacher SE is positively related to perceptions of paren-
tal (e.g., home tutoring) involvement (Hoover-Dempsey,
Bassler, & Brissie, 1987), administrative attention and
support (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Chester & Beaudin,
1996), colleague collaboration (Chester & Beaudin, 1996;
Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993), and a rigorous academic climate
(Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). There is still a need, however,
for continued research examining teacher efficacy with
sound measures based on the theoretical underpinnings
ofSE theory as outlined by Bandura (1997). The research
efforts in this study mirror current SE research trends in
general education (Henson, 2001; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Researchers examining variables
from the TPB and SET demonstrated that this approach
is fruitful. Yordy and Lent's (1993) research, for in-
stance, found that intention and SE were important
predictors of exercise status. DuCharme and Brawley
(1995) reported that efficacy cognitions predicted in-
tentions for exercise behavior. Combining key constructs
from the TPB and SET is viewed as an excellent method
to determine the relative importance ofvarious psycho-
logical variables (Dzewaltowski, 1989; Dzewaltowski,
Noble, & Shaw, 1990; Hausenblas et aI., 1997). In brief,
examining the TPB and SET has empirical and theo-
retical support as well as the ability to parsimoniously
explain physical education teachers' intentions to teach
classes with high levels ofstudent participation in physi-
cal activity.
Understanding the determinants ofteachers' inten-
tions to teach classes in which students engage in high
physical activitylevels is an important step in understand-
ing children's physical activity participation. Unfortu-
290
nately, little is known about physical education teach-
ers' intentions or, importantly, the determinants of those
intentions. In fact, although many researchers have in-
vestigated teacher SE, the TPB has received little atten-
tion in education research. Thus, there is a need to test
the TPB in educational settings. In one of the few stud-
ies in this area, Martin, Kulinna, Eklund, and Reed
(2001) examined 187 predominately Caucasian physi-
cal educators. They found support for the theory of rea-
son action (Ajzen & Madden, 1986), that is, attitude and
social influences affecting teachers' intentions, as they
accounted for 55% of the variance in teachers' inten-
tions to provide physically active classes. They found
little support, however, for SE theory (Bandura, 1997).
To address the lack of research in this area, we designed
the current study.
In summary, the primary purpose of this study was to
examine the ability of the TPB and SET to predict teach-
ers' perceived behavioral intention to teach physically
active physical education lessons. Another purpose was
to extend the work of Martin et al. (2001) by examining
the TPB along with two forms of SE and program goal
importance. A traditional hierarchical form ofSE was in-
vestigated as well as a more recent conceptualization of
SE, labeled barrier self-efficacy (McAuley & Mihalko,
1998). Barrier self-efficacyreflects teachers' beliefs about
their ability to overcome various barriers that could pre-
vent them from teaching highly active physical educa-
tion lessons. Finally, because Martin et al. (2001)
examined a relatively small (i.e., N = 187) and homog-
enous (i.e., 97% Caucasian) sample of teachers, this
study extends their research efforts with a larger (i.e., N
= 342) and more ethnically diverse (i.e., Caucasian, Af-
rican American) sample of teachers. Repeating studies
with different samples in a particular area has been sug-
gested as an important way to improve research in physi-
cal education pedagogy (Rink, 2000).
Method
Recruitment
Participant recruitment began at the district level.
The curriculum coordinators for 49 school districts were
contacted to request participation by the physical edu-
cation specialists in our study. Thirty-six districts (73%)
agreed to participate. Three methods of teacher recruit-
ment were used. First, for five of the districts, the re-
search team attended an inservice workshop for physical
education teachers, and interested teachers completed
the research materials during the workshop. Second, in
15 districts, the curriculum coordinator (or another
administrator) sent research packets to the teachers.
ROES: September 2004

Finally, the remaining districts provided a list of teach-
ers and their school contact information, and we sent
the packets directly to the teachers with a letter of sup-
port from the district. Six hundred ninety packets were
distributed, and 342 were returned, for a 50% return
rate. The research packets included an informed con-
sent form, demographic sheet, and the 86-item instru-
ment. Teachers returned packets to the second author,
and all provided informed consent.
Participants
Three hundred forty-two physical education teach-
ers from a midwestern state participated in the current
study. Participants ranged in age from 23 to 62 years (M
= 43.3 years, SD= 9.9). There was adequate representa-
tion from both genders, with 41.1 % female and 58.9%
Downloaded by [141.212.109.170] at 10:38 21 November 2014
male participants. Ethnic background was mostly re-
ported as Caucasian (70.2%) followed by African Ameri-
can (23.3%) and Hispanic American (5.2%); 1.3% was
unreported. Educational degree level varied as follows:
bachelor (36.5%), specialist (6.7%), master (56.2%)
and doctorate (.6%).
Teachers had between 1 and 40 years of teaching
experience (M= 16.5 years, SD= 10.8), and almost half
of our sample (i.e., 47.7%) taught physical education
classes daily. The remaining teachers taught physical
education either 1 (21.8%), 2 (23.1 %), or 3 (7.4%) days
a week. Many teachers (28.9%) taught classes ranging
in length from 51 to 55 min, whereas another signifi-
cant group of educators (26.2%) taught classes lasting
46-50 min. Another 30% were split fairly evenly (i.e.,
10%) over 26-30-,36-40-, or 41-45-min classes. The
remaining teachers taught either short (e.g., < 20 min)
or long (i.e., > 60 min) classes. Teaching level for our
sample was split across the elementary (41.7%) junior
high/middle school (23.1 %), and high school (27.5%)
levels. The remaining 7.7% taught at two different lev-
els (e.g., elementary and middle school). Teachers av-
eraged 32 students per class ofwhich they reported 50%
of their students' ethnic backgrounds were Caucasian,
44% African American, 3% Hispanic American, and 2%
Asian American (1% unreported).
Instrument
The questionnaire used in this investigation asked
participants to report their gender, age, ethnicity, edu-
cationallevel, and years of teaching. They also reported
the grade level, length, and number of physical educa-
tion classes taught per week. Participants estimated the
average number of students per class and their ethnic
background. All questionnaire instructions defined
"large amounts of physical activity"as at least 50% ofclass
time. The criterion of 50% of class time was used to
ROES: September 2004
Martin and KuJinna
match the Healthy People 201 oobjectives for school physi-
cal education programs, which stipulate that students
should spend 50% of class time being physically active
(USDHHS, 2000). All questionnaires assessing psycho-
logical constructs were based on guidelines provided
by Bandura (1997) and Ajzen and Madden (1986) and
have been used previously in similar research (Kulinna
& Silverman, 2000; Martin etal., 2001) to examine physi-
cal education teachers' perceptions and produce reli-
able and valid scores in similar populations.
BehavioralIntention (BI). Participants responded to
five items on a 7-point Likert-type scale with anchors of
"definitely will not/definitely will" for the question, "I
will try to teach lessons that provide large amounts of
physical activity,"and anchors of"definitely do not/defi-
nitely do" for the questions, "I intend to teach..." and "I
plan to teach.... " The anchors of "definitely false/defi-
nitely true" were used for the questions, "I am deter-
mined to teach..." and "I have decided to teach.... "
Attitude (Arr). Teachers responded to the question,
"Providing large amounts ofphysical activity (i.e., at least
50% of class time) during my lessons is.... " Participants
then responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale, with an-
chors listing opposing affective adjectives as recom-
mended by Ajzen and Madden (1986). The pairs of
adjectives used were: bad/good, unpleasant/pleasant,
harmful/beneficial, useless/useful, unenjoyable/enjoy-
able, unhealthy/healthy, and not important/important.
Control(CON). Participants were asked three ques-
tions with the following three stems: "How much con-
trol do you have over whether you include..." (absolutely
no control/complete control); "It is mostly up to me
whether I include..." (strongly disagree/strongly agree) ;
"If! want to, I can have ..." (strongly disagree/strongly
agree). Each stem was completed with the following
phrase"... large amounts of physical activity (i.e., at least
50% of class time) in my lessons."
Subjective Norm(SN). Subjective norm was determined
by examining respondents' perceptions of important
social groups (i.e., administrators, fellow teachers, par-
ents, and students) beliefs, and their motivation to com-
ply with those beliefs. Based on the four groups noted
above (derived from previous research studies, see
Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Hoover-Dempsey, et al., 1987;
Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993), an eight-item scale was created
consisting offour pairs of questions. An example of one
pair, with appropriate anchors following, stated, "The
parents at my school believe that it is important that I
include large amounts of physical activity (i.e., at least
50% of class time) in my lessons"(strongly disagree/
strongly agree}, and, "How motivated are you to comply
with the beliefofyour students' parents that you should
include large amounts of physical activity (i.e., at least
50% ofclass time) in your lessons?" (not at all motivated/
extremely motivated). Three subsequent pairs of ques-
291
 Martin and Kulinna

tions replaced "parents" with teachers, administrators,
and students. Participants responded on a 7-point
Likert-type scale.
Hierarchical Self-Efficacy (HSE). The HSE scale is a
seven-item measure specifically designed to assess teach-
ers' efficacy for teaching physically active physical edu-
cation classes. Participants were asked to rate, "How
confident are you in your ability to teach lessons that
provide physical activity for 20% of the class time?" on a
0-100% scale. Six similar questions substituted the num-
bers 30, 40, 50, 50, 70, and 80% for 20%. Thus, strength of
SE was assessedfor seven levelsof increasing difficulty. The
final strength of SE score, ranging from 0 to 100, was ob-
tained by adding each strength (0-100) score and divid-
ing by the number of levels (i.e., questions). Our
measure ofSE reflects a microanalytical hierarchical task
approach to assessing behavioral SE (see Bandura, 1997;
Downloaded by [141.212.109.170] at 10:38 21 November 2014
viding large amounts of activity time ....leading to the
development of physical fitness in students."
Data Analysis
The internal consistencies of the scores produced
by the instruments were first examined using Cron-
bach's alpha (1951). Descriptive statistics were calcu-
lated for the scales by summing items on each scale and
dividing the sum by the number of items on the scale.
This procedure checked the consistency of the values
with the Likert-type scale scoring procedures used in
each scale and enhanced interpretability. Finally,corre-
lational and regression analyses were performed.
Results

Maddux, 1995; McAuley & Mihalko, 1998).

Barrier Self-Efficacy (ESE). The BSE scale is a 20-item
measure specifically designed to assess teachers' efficacy Internal Consistency
for overcoming commonly experienced barriers to teach-
Coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951) for each of the
ing physically active physical education classes. From a
seven multi-item scales shared a high level ofinteritem
previous study, the 20 top barriers that physical education
agreement. The alpha coefficients for BI (.96), CON
teachers faced when trying to teach physically activeclasses
(.93), SN (.87),ATT (.93), HSE (.84), BSE (.92), and PI
(Kulinna, Martin, Zhu, & Reed, 2002) were identified.
(.88) were all considered adequate, because they ex-
Examples of these barriers are a lack of time (e.g., short
ceeded Nunnally's (1978) minimal criteria of .70.
classes),little space (e.g., small gyms), limited institutional
support (e.g., lack offunds) , and minimal student inter-
est (e.g., students not interested in participating). Descriptive Statistics
A Likert-type scale, based on Bandura's (1997) rec- Means, standard deviations, and range ofscores for
ommendations and similar to other SE instruments, was all psychological variables assessed are presented in
then developed. The barrier items were transformed into Table 1. It is apparent from the means and standard
questions addressing teachers' SE for overcoming these deviations of teachers' scores that they had strong be-
barriers to physically activeclasses. Teachers read a header, havioral intentions toward teaching classes that involved
"Howconfident are you that you can provide large amounts large amounts of physical activity for their students.
of physical activity (i.e., at least 50% ofclass time) in your Teachers also indicated they had positive attitudes to-
lessons under the following conditions," followed by the ward teaching active classes and were motivated to com-
20 questions. For example, one question read, "My stu-
dents do not enjoy spending large amounts of class time
being physically active." Each question was placed on a
Likert-type scale anchored by 0% and the phrase "not at
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and ranges for all
all confident" and 100% and the phrase "veryconfident."
variables in the model
Participants then circled numbers ranging from 0 to 100,
in increments oflO. The final strength ofBSE score, rang- Variable M SO Ranges
ing from 0 to 100, was obtained by adding each strength
(0-100) score and dividing by the number oflevels (i.e., BI 6.4 .8 1.0-7.0
20 questions). An 6.4 .7 2.0-7.0
Program Goal Importance (PCI). The PGI scale is a 9- SN 5.7 1.0 1.8-7.0
item measure designed to assess program goal impor- PBC 6.5 .9 1.0-7.0
tance (Kulinna & Silverman, 2000). Teachers rated the HSE 88.0 13.0 40.0-100.0
BSE 66.8 16.6 27.0-100.0
importance ofgoals to promote physical activity and fit- 1.2-5.0
PGI 4.3 .6
ness in physical education on a 5-point Likert-type scale
anchored by 1 (not important) and 5 (extremely impor- Note. BI =intention; An =attitude; SN =subjective norm; PBC =
tant). Two examples ofquestions from this scale are, "To perceived behavioral control; HSE = hierarchical self-efficacy;
develop components of health related fitness," and "Pro- BSE =barrier self-efficacy; PGI =program goal importance.

292 RQES: September 2004

 Martin and Kulinna

ply with important social groups' (e.g., students, parents,
etc.) wishes that they teach large amounts of physical
activity in their classes.
Teachers also reported a strong sense ofcontrol over
the ability to teach physical education classes that in-
cluded high physical activity levels and teach effica-
ciously. Their barrier efficacy scores, however, were
substantially and significantly lower than their hierar-
chical efficacy scores, as confirmed by a t test, t( 1,341) =
21.49, p « .001. Finally, teachers indicated that physical
activity, fitness, and health-based physical education
program goals were important.
Group Differences
We conducted a multivariate analysis ofvariance to
determine if there were differences in the seven psy-
Downloaded by [141.212.109.170] at 10:38 21 November 2014
(e.g., r= .26) involving the SE measures was found. The
strongest correlation (r= .22) between variables repre-
senting the TPB and SET was between BI and HSE.
Hierarchical Regression Analyses
Two hierarchical regression analyses were con-
ducted to evaluate how well variables representing the
TPB and SET predicted perceived BI. First the TPB was
evaluated by entering ATT,SN, and PBC as a block. Next,
SET was evaluated by entering both SE measures and
PGI as a second block.
Our second hierarchical regression analysis con-
trasted the first analysis by entering the SET variables
first as a block and then entering the TPB variables as a
second block (see Table 4). Comparing how well each
block predicted intention when entered first and sec-

chological variables according to gender, ethnicity, or

school location (i.e., urban vs. suburban schools). For
ethnicity, we included only teachers (n = 305) who were
Caucasian or African American because of the small
number of teachers reporting other ethnicities. The Table 2. Correlations among all psychological variables
main effects for gender, F(7, 291) =.185, p=. 99, ethnicity,
F(7, 291) = 1.07, p=. 38, and school location, F(7, 291) = BI An SN PBC HSE BSE
1.05, P=. 40, and all interactions were not significant.
BI
This analysis indicated that men and women, Caucasians
and African Americans, and teachers from urban and
An .70-
SN .60- .60-
suburban schools did not differ in BI, ATT, SN, CON, PBC .52** .39- .37-
HSE, BSE, or PGI. HSE .22- .15- .18** .15**
BSE .20** .17- .17** .15** .26*
PGI .14* .16* .17- .03 .08 .04
Correlations Among Variables in the Model

Correlations among the variables can be found in

Note. BI = intention; An = attitude; SN = subjective norm; PBC
=perceived behavioral control; HSE =hierarchical self-
Table 2. The pattern ofcorrelations indicates strong and efficacy; BSE =barrier self-efficacy; PGI =program goal
meaningful (e.g., r= .52-70) relationships among the importance.
variables from the TPB (i.e., ATT, SN, and PBC). One *p < .05.
statistically significant, but less meaningful, correlation -p< .01.

Table 3. Results of hierarchical regression on the prediction of behavioral intention: Entering the theory of planned behavior first
followed by social cognitive theory

p< B P
Step Variable R2 F df p< !J.fl2 !J.fl2 at entry at entry

An .59 160.06 3,338 .001 .59 .01 .463 .001

SN .225 .001
PBC .252 .001
2 PGI .59 81.40 6,335 .001 .00 .21 .012 .745
HSE .068 .064
BSE .029 .435

Note. An = attitude; SN = subjective norm; PBC = perceived behavioral control; PGI = program goal importance; HSE = hierarchical
self-efficacy; BSE = barrier self-efficacy.

ROES: September 2004 293

 Martin and Kulinna

ond provides evidence for the usefulness of each theory. Discussion

The results from these two analyses clearly provided
much stronger support for the ability of the TPB to pre-
dict BI compared to the SE measures and PGI. In the
first analysis the TPB variables (i.e., ATT, SN, PBC) pre-
dicted 59% of the variance in BI, while the SE and PGI
variables did not contribute significantly to predicting
perceived BI beyond the TPB variables. Reinforcing this
finding were the results of the second hierarchical re-
gression analysis, whereby SET variables predicted 8%
of the variance in BI, and the TPB constructs accounted
for an additional 51 % of the variance in BI. Based on
these two analyses, substantial support for the viability
of the TPB in predicting behavioral intention was found,
whereas minimal support for SET was observed.
A third and final regression analysis (i.e., stepwise)
was conducted to determine the relative contribution of
the TPB constructs in predicting BI. Table 5 reports these
Downloaded by [141.212.109.170] at 10:38 21 November 2014
The major purpose of this investigation was to test
antecedents ofperceived behavioral intention using vari-
ables representing the TPB and SET. Strong support was
found for the TPB as it accounted for 59% of the variance
in intention. Attitude was the most significant construct,
as it contributed 49% of the variance with a further 10%
accounted for by PBC and SN. SET received little support,
as both SE measures and PGI accounted for minimal to
no variance in behavioral intention. Using a larger and
more ethnically diverse sample of teachers, this study
builds on earlier work (Martin et al., 2001), providing fur-
ther evidence for the important role teachers' attitudes,
social influences, and perceived control play in their in-
tentions to provide students with physically active classes.
Physicaleducation teachers who had positiveattitudes
toward teaching highlyactivephysicaleducation classes were

results and indicates that attitude was stepped in first and
accounted for substantial variance (i.e., 49%). Also mak-
ing statistically significant contributions to the regression
equation were PBC entering second and SN entering
third. They accounted for an additional 7% and 3% ofthe
variance, respectively.The beta weights for all three regres-
sion analyses also substantiate the relative importance of
ATT in predicting BI, compared to SN and PBC.
much more likelyto report strong behavioral intentions to-
ward teaching active classes, compared to teachers with less
favorable attitudes. Additionally, teachers who expressed a
sense of control and perceived that important (e.g.,students)
people in their social environment (i.e., subjective norm)
believed it was important for them to teach active classes
were also likely to indicate strong intentions to teach
those types of classes.

Table 4. Results of hierarchical regression onthe prediction of behavioral intention: entering social cognitive theory first followed by
the theoryof planned behavior

p B P
Step Variable RZ F df p< 6.RZ 6.RZ at entry at entry

HSE .08 10.16 3,338 .001 .08 .01 .169 .002

BSE .150 .006
PGI .118 .025
2 An .59 81.40 6,335 .001 .51 .01 .457 .001
SN .212 .001
PBC .244 .001

Note. HSE =hierarchical self-efficacy; BSE =barrierself-efficacy; PGI =program goal importance; An =attitude, SN =subjective
norm, PBC =perceived behavioral control.

Table 5. Results of stepwise regression onthe prediction of behavioral intention using the theoryof planned behavior

p B p
Step Variable RZ F df p< 6.RZ 6.RZ at entry at entry

1 An .49 319.80 1,340 .001 .49 .01 .696 .001

2 PBC .56 211.81 2,339 .001 .07 .01 .289 .001
3 SN .59 160.06 3,338 .001 .03 .01 .225 .001

Note. An =attitude; PBC =perceived behavioral control; SN =subjective norm.

294 ROES: September 2004


Although this study extended previous SET re-
search by attempting to predict intentions using two
different types of efficacy, the results of the regression
analyses failed to support the role of either HSE or BSE.
Teachers who were generally efficacious about their abil-
ity to teach large amounts of physical activityor were spe-
cificallyefficacious about overcoming barriers to teaching
physicallyactive classes did not report stronger intentions
to teaching physically active classes compared to less effi-
cacious teachers. Likewise, teachers who viewed physical
activity and fitness as an important program goal or out-
come were no more likely to develop strong intentions to
teach a physicallyactiveprogram than teachers who viewed
such program goals as less important.
Three plausible explanations exist for the minimal
support found for the SET variables. First, and most obvi-
ous, is that efficacycognitions are unimportant influences
on teachers' intentions. The sample of teachers in this
Downloaded by [141.212.109.170] at 10:38 21 November 2014
study was quite experienced and efficacious. Thus, effi-
cacy thoughts may have ceased to be important determi-
nants of what they intend to teach. Second, the 20-item
barrier efficacy scale assessed barriers that covered broad
areas, such as students' attitudes, lack of time and equip-
ment, and lack of administrative support. Although the
20 items were generated with a sample of teachers similar
in demographic characteristics and experience (Kulinna
et al., 2002), it is plausible that some items tapped nonex-
istent barriers. Thus, the ability of items that represented
real barriers to predict intention would have their predic-
tive power diluted by questions assessing irrelevant barri-
ers. Third, outcome goals (i.e., highly valuing physical
activityand fitness) may not influence teachers' intentions
to teach in a particular way. Kulinna, Silverman, and
Keating (2000) reported similar findings in a study of
teachers with high and low physical activity and fitness
belief systems and found no significant differences in
physical activity opportunities provided to students be-
tween groups. A final contributing factor may also reflect
measurement artifact. For instance, both the attitude and
intention scales were formatted and scaled similarly, con-
tributing to common method variance.
As the descriptive results illustrate, most teachers
agreed or strongly agreed that they intended to teach
physically active classes, had favorable attitudes to teach-
ing physically active classes, and believed (and were
motivated by) that significant others (e.g., parents) in
their social environment also wanted them to teach
physically active classes. Teachers also reported moder-
ate efficacy in their ability to overcome barriers to teach-
ing classes requiring students to be active and rated
physical education program goals emphasizing physi-
cal activity, fitness, and health as important. These posi-
tive efficacy and program goal cognitions, however, were
unrelated or contributed little to teachers' decisions
(i.e., intention) to teach active classes.
ROES: September 2004
Martin and Kulinna
The strongest result from our study indicated that
teachers' attitudes were most closely linked to their in-
tentions. Aizen (1991) indicated that people's attitudes
reflect beliefs about the consequences of conducting
the behavior in question and whether those conse-
quences are positive or negative. It is reasonable to ex-
pect that most teachers believe the consequences of
being physically active (e.g., improved fitness) are posi-
tive (e.g., improved health). The heightened awareness
(e.g., media attention) of the poor health status of many
Americans undoubtedly contributes to such a positive
attitude. Specific items on the attitude scale also pro-
vide more detailed information about the types of affec-
tive evaluations forming the basis of teacher's attitudes.
For instance, teachers' determination of the degree to
which physically active physical education classes were
good versus bad, enjoyable versus unenjoyable, or
healthy versus unhealthy reflects the evaluative, affec-
tive, and cognitive nature of their attitudes.
In summary, three significant aspects of the current
investigation warrant highlighting. First, teachers in the
current study reported a positive set of cognitions toward
teaching physically active classes in physical education.
This descriptive finding should provide assurance to
educators who advocate a health-related fitness curricu-
lum with less emphasis on the historical base of many
physical education programs involving team and indi-
vidual sports. Second, the TPB received the most sup-
port in our study, as ATT accounted for 59% of the
variance in intention. PBe and SN also made significant,
albeit small, additional contributions to the amount of
variance accounted for in BI. Finding support for the
TPB has important implications for the field, as it im-
plies that if teachers continue to embrace (i.e., have
positive attitudes) a physically active curriculum they are
likely to have strong intentions to teach active classes.
In turn, if teacher intentions translate into increases in
student activity levels, physical education classes may
contribute to students' fitness and health. Finally,we did
not test the intention-behavior link, and research efforts
examining this critical relationship are encouraged.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organiza-
tionalBehavior and Human Decision Processing, 50, 179-211.
Aizen, I., & Madden, T.]. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed
behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral
control. Joumal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453-
474.
Almond, L., & Harris, J. (1998). Interventions to promote
health-related physical education. In S. Biddle.]. Sallis,
& N. Cavill (Eds.), Youngand active? Youngpeopleand health-
enhancingphysical activity evidence and implications (pp.133-
295
 Martin and Kulinna
149). A report of the Health Education Authority sym-
posium, London, England.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teach-
erssense ofefficacy and student achievement. White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Bandura,A. (1997). Self-efJicacy: The exercise ofcontroL NewYork:
Freeman and Company.
Caspersen, C. j. (1989). Physical activity epidemiology: Con-
cepts, methods, and applications to exercise science.
Exercise and SportSciences Rroieuis, 17, 423-473.
Chester, M. D., & Beaudin, B. Q. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of
newly hired teachers in urban schools. American Educa-
tional Research journal, 33,233-257.
Corbin, C. B., & Pangrazi, R. P. (1998). Physicalactivityfor chil-
dren:A statementof guidelines. Reston, VA: National Asso-
ciation for Sport and Physical Education.
Courneya, K. (1995). Understanding readiness for regular
physical activity in older adults: An application of the
theory of planned behavior. Health Psychology, 14,80-87.
Downloaded by [141.212.109.170] at 10:38 21 November 2014
Cronbach, L. j. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 296-334.
Dishman, R. K., & Buckworth,j. (1996). Increasing physical
activity: A quantitative synthesis. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 28, 706-719.
DuCharme, K. A., & Brawley, L. R. (1995). Predicting inten-
tions and behavior of exercise initiates using two forms
of self-efficacy. Journal of BehavioralMedicine, 18, 479-497.
Dzewaltowski, D. A. (1989). Toward a model of exercise moti-
vation.Journal of Sportand Exercise Psychology, 11,251-269.
Dzewaltowski, D. A., Noble,j. M., & Shaw,j. M. (1990). Physi-
cal activity participation: Social cognitive theory versus
the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 388-405.
Gatch, C. L., & Kendzierski, D. (1990). Predicting exercise
intentions: The theory of planned behavior. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61, 100-102.
Godin, G. (1994). Theories of reasoned action and planned
behavior: usefulness for exercise promotion. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, 26, 1391-1394.
Godin, G., & Shephard, R.j. (1986). Psychosocial factors influ-
encing intentions to exercise ofyoung students from grades
7 to 9. Research QuarterlyforExercise and Sport, 57,41-52.
Hausenblas, H. A., Carron, A. V., Mack, D. E. (1997). Appli-
cation of the theories of reasoned action and planned
behavior to exercise behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Sportand Exercise Psychology, 19, 36-51.
Henson, R. (2001). Teacher self-efJicacy: Substantive implications
and measurement dilemmas. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Educational Research Exchange, College
Station, TIC
Holden, G. w., Moncher, M. S., Schinke, S. P., & Barker, K.
M. (1990). Self-efficacy of children and adolescents: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Reports, 66, 1044-1046.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. v, Bassler, O. C., & Brissie.]. S. (1987).
Parent involvement: Contributions of teacher efficacy,
school socioeconomic status, and other school character-
istics. American EducationalResearch journal; 24,417-435.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers' sense of effi-
cacy and the organizational health ofschools. TheElemen-
tary SchoolJournal, 93,355-372.
296
Kimiecik,j. C. (1992). Predicting vigorous physical activity of
corporate employees: Comparing the theories of rea-
soned action and planned behavior. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 14, 192-206.
Kujala, U. M., Kaprio,j., Sarna, S., & Koskenvuo, M. (1998).
Relationship of leisure-time physical activity and mortal-
ity.Journal oftheAmerican Medical Association, 279, 440-444.
Kulinna, P. H., Martin,j.j., Zhu, w., & Reed, B. (2002). The
development and calibration of an instrument to mea-
sure barriers to physically active physical education
classes. TheJournal of Human Movement, 43,001-016.
Kulinna, P. H., & Silverman, S. (2000). Teachers' attitudes
toward teaching physical activity and fitness. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 80-84.
Kulinna, P. H., Silverman, S., & Keating, X. D. (2000). Rela-
tionship between teachers' belief systems and actions
toward teaching physical activity and fitness. Journal of
Teachingin PhysicalEducation, 19,206-221.
Maddux.]. (1995). Looking for common ground: A comment
on Bandura and Kirsch. Inj. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efJicacy,
adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application
(pp. 377-385). New York: Plenum Press.
Martin,j.j., & Kulinna, P. H. (2003). The development ofa
physical education teachers' self-efficacy instrument.
Journal of Teachingin PhysicalEducation, 22, 219-232.
Martin,j.j., Kulinna, P. H., Eklund, R., & Reed, B. (2001).
Determinants of teachers' intentions to teach physically
active physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in
PhysicalEducation, 20, 129-143.
McAuley, E., & Mihalko, S. L. (1998). Measuring exercise-re-
lated self-efficacy. In j. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport
and exercise psychology measurement (pp, 371-392).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
McKenzie, T. L., Feldman, H., Woods, S. E., Romero, K. A.,
Dahlstrom, V.,Stone, E.j., et aI. (1995). Children's activity
levels and lesson context during third-grade physical edu-
cation. Research QuarterlyfortXercise and Sport, 66, 184-193.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of
self-efficacybeliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic
investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18, 30-38.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (1997).
Shape of the nation report: A surveyof statephysicaleducation
requirements. Reston, VA: Author.
Nunnally,j. C. (1978), Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.
Rink, j. (2000, April). In defense of research. Scholar lecture
presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu-
cational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Ross, J. A. (1994). Beliefs that make a difference: The origins and
impacts of teacher efJicacy. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Educa-
tion, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Ross,j. G., & Gilbert, G. G. (1985). The National Children
and Youth Fitness Study: A summary of findings. Journal
of PhysicalEducation, Recreation, and Dance, 56( 1), 45-50.
Sal1i1i,j. F., McKenzie, T. L., Alcaraz.]. E., Kolody, B., Faucette,
N., & Hovell, M. F. (1997). The effects ofa 2-year physi-
cal education program (SPARK) on physical activity and
fitness in elementary school students. AmericanJournalof
PublicHealth, 87, 1328-1334.
ROES: September 2004

Sallis.j. F., & Owen, N. (1999). Physical activityand behavioral
medicine. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sallis,j. F., Simons-Morton, B. G., Stone, E.j., Corbin, C. B.,
Epstein, L. H., Faucette, N., et al. (1992). Determinants
of physical activity and interventions in youth. Medicine
& Science in Sports & Exercise, 24, S248-S257.
Schifter, D. E., & Ajzen, I. (1985). Intention, perceived con-
trol, and weight loss: An application of the theory of
planned behavior. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 49,843-851.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick,j., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The
theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past re-
search with recommendations for modifications and
future research. Journalof ConsumerResearch, 15, 325-343.
Siedentop, D. (2001). Introduction to physical education, fitness
and sport (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Pub-
lishingCo.
Stajkovic, A D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-
related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulle-
Downloaded by [141.212.109.170] at 10:38 21 November 2014
tin, 124,240-261.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A E. (2001). Teacher
efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996).
Physical activity and health: A report of the Surgeon General.
Atlanta, GA:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
ROES: September 2004
Martin and Kulinna
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000, No-
vember). Healthy people 2010 (2nd ed., Vols. 1-2). Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Woolfolk, A E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers'
sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of
EducationalPsychology, 82, 81-91.
Wurtele, S. K., & Maddux,j. E. (1987). Relative contributions
of protection motivation theory components in predict-
ing exercise intentions and behavior. HealthPsychology, 6,
453-466.
Yordy, G. A, & Lent, R. W. (1993). Predicting aerobic exer-
cise participation: Social cognitive, reasoned action, and
planned behavior models. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 15,363-374.
Authors' Note
Please address all correspondence concerning this ar-
ticle to Jeffrey Martin, Division of Kinesiology, Health,
and Sport Studies, 266 Matthaei Building, Wayne State
University, Detroit, MI 48202.
E-mail: aa3975@wayne.edu
297