Developing additional competition classes for athletes with intellectual impairments: Conceptual approach and efficacy of an ICF derived measure

Figures & data

Table 1. Details of the expert panel

Job title	Experience	Gender
Carer representative	Mother of a Virtus (INAS) athlete	Female
Virtus (INAS) Athlete representative	Registered with Virtus since 2011.	Female
Commissioning Manager – Intellectual Disabilities	Service provider for people with II and supporter of II athletes.	Male
PhD student	Working in health and II and coach in the Special Olympics.	Male
Lead researcher	Working in II and sport.	Female
Researcher	Working in II and sport.	Female
Member of Virtus (INAS)	Coach of athletes with II	Male
Member of Virtus (INAS)	Working in II and sport	Female
Researcher in sport, health and II	Researcher and coach with athletes with II	Male
Psychiatrist	Working in eligibility for athletes with II	Female
Consultant Clinical Psychologist	Specialist in II	Male

Table 2. Characteristics of participating athletes

		Athlete group (N = 102)
		Virtus (n = 44)	Regional (n = 26)	DS (n = 32)
Gender	Female (%)	16 (36.4)	13 (50.0)	10 (31.3)
	Male (%)	28 (63.6)	13 (50.0)	22 (68.7)
Nationalities	American (%)	3 (6.8)	0	0
	Australian (%)	16 (36.4)	2 (7.7)	1 (3.1)
	Belgian (%)	2 (4.5)	0	0
	British (%)	14 (31.8)	17 (65.4)	25 (78.1)
	British/Caribbean (%)	1 (2.3)	0	0
	British/Indian (%)	0	1 (3.9)	0
	British mixed (%)	0	0	2 (6.3)
	Chinese (%)	3 (6.8)	6 (23.1)	0
	Czech (%)	1 (2.3)	0	0
	French (%)	3 (6.8)	0	4 (12.5)
	German (%)	1 (2.3)	0	0
Ethnicity	Aboriginal/White Australian	2 (4.6)	0	0
	Black British (%)	0	1 (3.9)	0
	Black British/Caribbean (%)	1 (2.3)	2 (7.7)	0
	British/Indian (%)	1 (2.3)	1 (3.9)	0
	Chinese (%)	4 (9.1)	6 (23.1)	0
	White Australian (%)	12 (27.3)	2 (7.7)	1 (3.1)
	White British (%)	13 (29.5)	12 (46.2)	24 (75.0)
	White European (%)	7 (15.9)	0	5 (15.6)
	White Irish (%)	0	1 (3.9)	0
	White Other (%)	4 (9.1)	0	1 (3.1)
	Mixed (%)	0	1 (3.9)	1 (3.1)
Competing sport	Athletics (%)	8 (18.2)	6 (23.1)	0
	Basketball (%)	11 (25.0)	3 (11.5)	0
	Boccia (%)	0	1 (3.9)	1 (3.1)
	Cricket (%)	7 (15.9)	4 (15.4)	0
	Cycling (%)	1 (2.3)	0	0
	Equestrian (%)	0	2 (7.7)	0
	Football (%)	0	0	1 (3.1)
	Netball (%)	0	2 (7.7)	1 (3.1)
	Power lifting (%)	0	1 (3.9)	0
	Swimming (%)	4 (9.1)	4 (15.4)	27 (84.4)
	Table tennis (%)	4 (9.1)	3 (11.5)	0
	Tennis (%)	9 (20.5)	0	0
	Ten pin bowling (%)	0	0	2 (6.3)

Figure 1. ICF scores across the three groups

Table 3. Comparisons between the three groups of athletes on the ICF-based questionnaire total score, using an independent samples Kruskal-Wallis test, and the effect size (r) of post-hoc comparisons

Group	n	M (SD)	H(2)	r
Virtus	44	6.09 (7.75)
Regional	26	8.58 (7.57)
DS	32	11.72 (7.49)
Total	102	8.49 (7.92)	14.49**
Virtus v Regional				−.20
Virtus v DS				−.44**
Regional v DS				−.23

*p < .05 **p < .01

Table 4. One-way ANOVA comparisons between the three groups of athletes on IQ

Group	n	M (SD)	F(2, 68)	r
Virtus	44	62.27 (7.85)
Regional	22	63.68 (8.41)
DS	29	52.76 (7.73)
Total	95	59.70 (9.14)	16.13a	.26

ap < .001 r = effect size of post hoc comparisons

Table 5. Multinomial logistic regression predicting group membership, with Virtus as the reference group

		95% CI for Odds Ratio
	b (SE)	Lower	Odds Ratio	Upper
Regional vs. Virtus
Intercept	−2.51 (2.18)
Total ICF score	0.04 (0.04)	0.97	1.04	1.12
IQ score	0.02 (0.03)	0.96	1.03	1.10
DS vs. Virtus
Intercept	6.94 (2.20)**
Total ICF score	0.09 (0.04)*	1.01	1.09	1.18
IQ score	−0.14 (0.04)**	0.81	0.87	0.94

Amount of variation in the dependent variable explained by the model: R² = .30 (Cox & Snell), .34 (Nagelkerke).

Model X2 (4) = 34.16, p < .001.

*p < .05 **p < .01