Year One: The Presidential Youth Fitness Program Degree of Implementation

Thursday, March 19, 2015
Exhibit Hall Poster Area 2 (Convention Center)
Hannah G. Calvert1, Jeanne M. Barcelona1, Jessica Duncan Cance1, Seraphine Pitt-Barnes2, Jane Wargo3 and Darla M. Castelli1, (1)The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, (2)Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, (3)Presidential Youth Fitness Program, Dunkirk, MD
Background/Purpose: The Presidential Youth Fitness Program (PYFP) aims to improve student health through the promotion of fitness.  A cornerstone of the PYFP is the inclusion of ongoing professional development (PD) for teachers as a means for enhancing fitness education in a quality physical education (PE) program.   PD opportunities for the sample were delivered online and encompassed five main content areas: fundamentals of the PYFP, fitness assessment, fitness education, active living, and communication.  The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of professional development on teacher perceived levels of PYFP implementation.

Method: Two hundred and seventy two PYFP participants completed the PYFP Index prior to engaging in online professional development courses.  The 20-item PYFP Index was developed based on items from the 2012 School Health Index developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as targeted goals of the PYFP.  The survey was administered at baseline and at year-end to assess teacher perceived changes in the degree of implementation of the program.   

Analysis/Results:  Response options ranged from 0=not in place to 3=fully in place. A confirmatory factor analysis conducted in MPlus with a subset of the baseline participants (N=272) found that a six-factor solution was a good fit (CFI=.96, TLI=.95, RMSEA=.05, SRMR=.04). The six factors were interpreted as: 1) availability of adequate facilities and opportunities, 2) school and community engagement, 3) use of evidence-based teaching strategies, 4) nutrition tracking, 5) use of awards as incentives, and 6) professional development and curriculum strategies. T-tests in SAS 9.3 were used to determine changes in the overall PYFP Index score as well as in each of the six factors across year one of the PYFP. Preliminary results (from 105 teachers who have completed both assessments) show that teachers’ perceptions of the degree to which the activities and strategies were being implemented currently at their school declined, both overall and across every component (all p<.05).

Conclusions: Surprisingly, teacher self-reported degree of implementation significantly declined after participation in PD that included online courses, the provision of teaching resources, and webinars. While it is unclear why there was a decline in degree of implementation, gaining a better understanding of how teacher knowledge of appropriate practices may have contributed is relevant. Continued data collection that includes teacher interviews and site visits, should provide an opportunity to elucidate these findings.