Educación artística para el desarrollo humano

3.6.1 Activity Limitation Test Battery

An observation protocol (Appendix H) was used to collect data. The activity limitation test battery was administered to the participants and the performance measures of the six tasks were recorded on the observation protocol. The activity limitation battery of tests was developed by a multi-professional panel of experts based on theory and a review of relevant empirical studies for data collection (Beckman & Tweedy, 2009). A detailed description of the activity limitation test battery in presented in Appendix G. The battery comprises of a criterion activity (running) and five supplementary activity limitation tests. The criterion activity was a 30 metres maximal effort sprint with a 30 metre run that was not part of the measurement. This was a performance measurement of top speed in running. A 30 metre acceleration phase was selected to provide participants with sufficient distance to reach their top speed, while reducing the possibility that fatigue could influence results (Beckman & Tweedy, 2009). In a 100 metre sprint, peak velocity is reached between 50 and 60 m (Mero et al., 1992; NSCA. & Jeffreys, 2013). Time taken to perform the 30m sprint was taken using a digital hand stopwatch DG 122-1D with an accuracy of 0.01s.

The five supplementary activity limitation tests were indicators of impairment and included standing broad jump (SBJ), which assessed lower limb muscular strength. There is confirmation that horizontal jumps are predictive of running performance and that horizontal jumps are better predictors of sprint performance than the more commonly used vertical jumps (Holm et al., 2008; Robbins & Young, 2012; Hudgins, Triplett & McBride, 2013). The four bounds for distance (4B) was used to assess a combination of the athletes‟ muscle power and range of movement (Nesser et al, 1996;

by coordination, a 10 metre speed skip (SS) was performed. It is commonly used in training but does not have much established link to running performance (Dintiman, Ward & Tellez, 2003; Beckman & Tweedy, 2009).

Running in place (RIP) was performed to assess running-specific coordination. It involved rapid, cyclical alternating movements of the lower limbs in a weight-bearing position. The final test was performing split jumps (SJ). It also assessed jumping- specific coordination which involved rapid, cyclical alternating movements of the lower limbs in a weight-bearing position as well. These two tests would reflect impairment in coordination, balance and agility and to some extend range of motion and coordination. Although drills such as the running in place and split jumps are commonly used in training with the aim of improving stride rate, Beckman and Tweedy (2009) established a weak relationship to running performance. A digital video camera (Sony DCR-SR21) was used for recording these two tests so that slow motion replay could be done to get accurate timing of tests. Kinovea video analysis software (version 0.8.15) was used to slow down playback speed in this study.

3.6.2 Contextual Factors Questionnaire

A Contextual Factors Questionnaire (Appendix J) was developed to survey important personal and environmental factors that may influence performance and participation in sports activities other than their impairment. Personal factors selected for this study included demographic characteristics, anthropometry, motivational factors as well as the athletes sport training experiences. Environmental factors included the availability and accessibility sport facilities, and the social environment of the athletes. The instrument was prepared by the researcher and was a compilation of previously validated items obtained from various self-report questionnaires. Some of these factors

should be considered when determining activity limitation in disability sport (Tweedy, 2009). Though not so much details are considered during the Paralympic Athletics Classification process, this study sought to evaluate some contextual factors that affect athletes during their sports participation. The questionnaire was self-administered to all participants and it included 9 personal and socio-demographic items, 10 sport training history items, 14 items related to the sport training environment, 28 items on motivation to participate in sport and 11 items on the challenges experienced during sport participation.

Questions related to the athletes‟ personal information, training behaviour and sports

training environment were adopted from Training History and Sport Activity Limitation Inventory (TSAL) (IPC Swimming, 2011) and the principles from the Training and Performance Questionnaire (Hopkins, 1998). This included information on age, gender, basic anthropometry (height and weight) and training experiences and practices over the last 12 months. Aspects related to coaching and medical personnel; availability, quality and access of facilities were also asked to assess the environmental factors.

A Sports Motivation Scale (SMS-11) initially developed by Pelletier et al. (1995) was included in the Contextual Factors Questionnaire to assess personal factors attributing the psychological makeup of athletes. The SMS was developed to measure an athlete's motivation toward sport participation and has often been employed with a variety of athletes (recreational to elite), age groups (adolescent to senior) and cultures (Tenenbaum, Eklund & Kamata, 2011). The scale has also been used on athletes with disabilities (Kolaysi, 2012). It is made up of a 7-factor structure which measures three main scales assessing amotivation; external motivation (external, introjected and identified regulation) and intrinsic motivation (to know, to experience stimulation, and

to accomplish) (Pelletier, Rocchi, Vallerand, Deci & Ryan, 2013). The items represent the perceived reasons for engaging in sporting activity, thus reflecting the different types of motivation of the participants (Pelletier et al., 1995).

Since activity limitation and participation restriction is contributed by barriers to participation in sport activities (WHO, 2001), questions related to challenges the athletes come across were included in the Contextual Factors Questionnaire. The 11 closed-ended items were derived from related literature and an open-ended question which had been asked during pretesting of the instrument about what challenges the athletes face while they compete and participate in sporting activities. This was done to ensure that the data was in the format needed for analysis. The scales in the study were adapted and modified to a 5-point Likert scale. The athletes completed the questionnaire in the presence of the researcher or research assistants.

3.6.3 Basic Anthropometric Measurements

Participant‟s standing height was measured to the nearest 0.1 centimetre using a

Leicester Marsden, Model SMSSE-0260 Portable Stadiometre. These measurements were necessary because some of the tests in the Activity Limitation Test battery could have an association with them and could be used to explain the outcome. This instrument was placed on a hard and level floor next to a wall to ensure the athlete was aligned vertically and in the appropriate manner. It uses an attached sliding head board which is lowered on tip of the head. Height was measured with the participant‟s weight evenly distributed over both feet after a deep inhalation and the reading was obtained from the indicator scale. The athletes faced directly ahead without shoes on their feet. The feet were positioned together and arms by the sides. Heels, gluteus maximus and upper back had to be in contact with the stadiometre when the measurement was made. The participants‟ body weight was measured to the nearest

0.1kilograms using a LifeSource ProFIT Precision, Model UC-321 Digital Weight Scale. The participants were asked to stand bare feet in the middle of the weighing scale with minimal movements in an upright position and with hands by their side. Athletes were requested to remove excess clothing.