Parental satisfaction with inclusion in physical education

Figures & data

Table 1. Fit indices of the confirmatory factor analyses.

	χ^2 (df)	p	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA [90% CI]
Satisfaction with social inclusion	13.79 (20)	0.85	1.00	0.04	0.00 [0.00,0.05]
Satisfaction with pedagogical inclusion	22.34 (14)	0.07	0.95	0.06	0.09 [0.00,0.16]
Attitudes towards inclusion i PE	12.26 (9)	0.20	0.99	0.04	0.07 [0.00,0.16]
PE-related information	1.98 (2)	0.37	1.00	0.03	0.00 [0.00,0.23]
PE-related co-determination	2.27 (2)	0.32	1.00	0.04	0.04 [0.00,0.24]

Table 2. Range, mean and SD of parent and child characteristics.

	Percentage	Range	Mean	SD
Intrapersonal child variables:
Sex (female)	42%
Degree of disability (low)	53%
Type of disability
Physical (reference)	67%
Developmental	14%
Other	19%
Intrapersonal parental variables
Sex (Female)	71%
Education (High school or lower)	29%
Attitudes towards inclusion		2.33: 5.00	4.76	0.48
Interpersonal variables:
PE-related information		1:5	2.85	1.00
PE-related co-determination		1:4.75	2.56	0.78
Context variables:
School Grade (primary)	40%
Physical inclusion		1:5	4.40	1.07

Notes: Percentage is shown for binary variables. Range, mean and standard deviation (SD) are shown for continuous variables.

Table 3. Quantiles, range, and means and standard deviation of outcome variables, n = 72.

	0.10	0.25	0.50	0.75	0.90	Range	Mean	SD
Satisfaction with social inclusion	2.54	3.75	4.13	4.63	4.96	1.50:5	4.00	0.84
Satisfaction with pedagogical inclusion	2.61	3.29	3.86	4.43	4.96	1.20:5	3.80	0.83

Figure 1. (a–c) Boxplots of median and standard deviations of type of disability on the inclusion outcomes. (d–f) Boxplots of median and standard deviations of degree of disability on the inclusion outcomes.

Table 4. Pearson correlation between the continuous variables.

	1	2	3	4	5
1. Social inclusion
2. Pedagogical inclusion	0.814*
3. Physical inclusion	0.325*	0.390*
4. Attitudes	0.424*	0.278*	0.108
5. PE-related information	0.538*	0.643*	0.129	–0.015
6. PE-related co-determination	0.416*	0.412*	0.030	0.199	0.456*

Pearson correlation. *P < 0.05.

Figure 2. (a-c) Effects of (a) attitudes towards inclusion, (b) PE-related information, and (c) type of disability (Others) on social inclusion. Quantile and OLS regression coefficients. QR: Points and whole line: filled points = significant effects, open points = not significant. OLS: whole line: black when significant, otherwise grey.

Table 5. Final model of social inclusion. OLS and QR.

	OLS	Quantiles
		0.10	0.25	0.5	0.75	0.90
Intercept	–1.34	–3.75*	–1.30	–0.93	–0.06	–0.47
Attitudes	0.75*	1.13*	0.63	0.72*	0.52*	0.54*
PE-related information	0.46*	0.48*	0.47*	0.41*	0.33*	0.23*
Developmental disability^#	–0.28	–0.98	–0.30	–0.25	0.10	–0.02
Other type of disability^#	–0.46*	–0.67*	–0.97*	–0.41	–0.48	–0.34
Physical inclusion	0.14*	0.13	0.21	0.12	0.21	0.21

Bootstrapped coefficient estimates.

*P ≤ 0.05. OLS: R² = 0.58. Adjusted R² = 0.55.

^#Physical disability as reference.

Table 6. Final model of pedagogical inclusion. OLS and QR.

	OLS	Quantiles
		0.10	0.25	0.5	0.75	0.90
Intercept	–2.37*	–2.79	–2.73	–3.25	–0.88	–1.49
Attitudes	0.50*	0.73*	0.54*	0.67*	0.26	0.38
PE-related information	0.50*	0.57*	0.53*	0.52*	0.51*	0.44*
Degree of disability (low)	1.74*	0.49	1.38	1.22	1.49	2.71*
Physical inclusion	0.52*	0.18	0.48	0.56*	0.51*	0.61*
PHY*DEGREE	–0.40*	–0.09	–0.32	–0.32	–0.35	–0.55

Bootstrapped coefficient estimates. *P ≤ 0.05. OLS: R² = 0.62, Adjusted R² = 0.58. PHY = physical inclusion. DEGREE = degree of disability.

Figure 3 (a). Effect of the interaction between physical inclusion and degree of disability in the OLS model. Dotted line = low degree of disability, whole line = high degree of disability. (b-c) Effects of (b) attitudes towards inclusion, and (c) PE-related information on pedagogical inclusion. Quantile and OLS regression coefficients. QR: Points and whole line: filled points = significant effects, open points = not significant. OLS: whole line: black when significant, otherwise grey.