背景:教师被认为是学校提供体育活动计划和政策的“关键代理人”。我们研究的目的是开发和评估一种工具来评估教师的能力,机会,以及提供基于学校的体育活动干预措施的动机。
方法:能力的开发和评估,机会,在学校量表(COM-PASS)中提供体育活动的动机涉及三个阶段。在第一阶段,我们邀请学术专家参加Delphi研究,提供建议,并就基于能力的问卷项目达成共识,机会,和动机行为(COM-B)模型。每个项目都根据与COM-B模型内容匹配的程度进行排名,使用5分制,范围从\'1=差匹配\'到\'5=优秀匹配\'。在第二阶段,我们使用“大声思考”方法采访了中小学教师,以评估他们对项目的理解。在第3阶段,教师(n=196)完成了COM-PASS,以使用验证性因子分析(CFA)评估结构效度。
结果:来自14个国家的38位学术专家完成了三轮Delphi研究。在第一轮中,项目的平均评级得分为4.04,第二轮为4.51,第三轮为4.78.最终的工具包括14个项目,这与COM-B模型的六个结构有关:物理能力,心理能力,物理机会,社会机会,反思动机,自动激励。在第二阶段,十名老师通过20分钟的采访分享了他们对COM-PASS的解释,这导致了微小的变化。在第3阶段,三因素模型的CFA(即,能力,机会,和动机)显示出与数据的充分拟合(χ2=122.6,p<.001,CFI=.945,TLI=.924,RMSEA=.066)。三个子量表得分的内部一致性是可以接受的(即,能力:α=.75,机会:α=.75,动机:α=.81)。
结论:COM-PASS是评估教师能力的有效和可靠的工具,机会,以及在学校提供体育活动干预的动机。需要进一步研究COM-PASS的其他心理测量特性。
BACKGROUND: Teachers are recognized as \'key agents\' for the delivery of physical activity programs and policies in schools. The aim of our study was to develop and evaluate a tool to assess teachers\' capability, opportunity, and motivation to deliver school-based physical activity interventions.
METHODS: The development and evaluation of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation to deliver Physical Activity in School Scale (COM-PASS) involved three phases. In Phase 1, we invited academic experts to participate in a Delphi study to rate, provide recommendations, and achieve consensus on questionnaire items that were based on the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behavior (COM-B) model. Each item was ranked on the degree to which it matched the content of the COM-B model, using a 5-point scale ranging from \'1 = Poor match\' to \'5 = Excellent match\'. In Phase 2, we interviewed primary and secondary school teachers using a \'think-aloud\' approach to assess their understanding of the items. In Phase 3, teachers (n = 196) completed the COM-PASS to assess structural validity using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
RESULTS: Thirty-eight academic experts from 14 countries completed three rounds of the Delphi study. In the first round, items had an average rating score of 4.04, in the second round 4.51, and in the third (final) round 4.78. The final tool included 14 items, which related to the six constructs of the COM-B model: physical capability, psychological capability, physical opportunity, social opportunity, reflective motivation, and automatic motivation. In Phase 2, ten teachers shared their interpretation of COM-PASS via a 20-min interview, which resulted in minor changes. In Phase 3, CFA of the 3-factor model (i.e., capability, opportunity, and motivation) revealed an adequate fit to the data (χ2 = 122.6, p < .001, CFI = .945, TLI = .924, RMSEA = .066). The internal consistencies of the three subscale scores were acceptable (i.e., capability: α = .75, opportunity: α = .75, motivation: α = .81).
CONCLUSIONS: COM-PASS is a valid and reliable tool for assessing teachers\' capability, opportunity, and motivation to deliver physical activity interventions in schools. Further studies examining additional psychometric properties of the COM-PASS are warranted.