Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The relationship between high density living and fitness performance of elementary school age children MacKenzie, G. Robin 1976

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1976_A7_5 M24.pdf [ 5.31MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0077327.json
JSON-LD: 1.0077327+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0077327.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0077327+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0077327+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0077327+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0077327 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0077327.txt
Citation
1.0077327.ris

Full Text

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH DENSITY LIVING AND FITNESS PERFORMANCE OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN by G. Robin MacKenzie B.P.E., University of Calgary, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF• THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION in the School of Physical Education and Recreation We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March 1976 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree l y ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fu r ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thes is for s cho la r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representat ives. It i s understood that copying or pub l i ca t i on of th i s thes i s for f i nanc i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permission. Department of Physical Education and Recreation The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 D a t e A p r i l 23, 1976 i i ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s study was to compare the motor performance and physical f i t n e s s of children l i v i n g i n a high density area to that of children l i v i n g i n a low density area. It was hypothesized that c h i l d r e n from the Vancouver West End score lower than children from Vancouver and children from Canada on the Canadian Association of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (CAHPER) Fitness Performance Test; that children from apartment f l o o r s four to twenty score lower than childre n l i v i n g below the fourth f l o o r on the CAHPER Fitness Performance t e s t and the Crawford and V i r g i n t e s t s ; and that there i s no difference between the motor performance scores of the children from the West End and the motor performance scores of the childre n from North York. The elementary school population of the Vancouver West End d i s t r i c t was selected to be tested on motor perfor- mance and physical f i t n e s s test items. The CAHPER Fitness Performance Test and a battery of tests previously used by Crawford and V i r g i n i n North York Ontario were used i n the t e s t i n g . The scores recorded were then compared to the Vancouver CAHPER norms, the Canadian CAHPER norms and the test scores recorded by Crawford and V i r g i n i n t h e i r North York study. The findings indicated that West End elementary school age children score lower than Vancouver elementary school age childre n on the CAHPER Fitness Performance t e s t ; i i i that the c h i l d r e n l i v i n g i n the West End f a l l behind t h e i r peers i n Vancouver i n l e g power and speed between the ages of seven and twelve; that the g i r l s from the West End do not develop i n t h e i r a g i l i t y and cardiovascular endurance at a normal rate; that there was no difference between the scores of the c h i l d r e n l i v i n g on f l o o r s one to three and the scores achieved by children l i v i n g on f l o o r s four to twenty; that no difference was found i n the motor performance scores of children l i v i n g i n the West End and the scores of the children from North York; that the Fitness Performance scores improve as a c h i l d grows older at l e a s t to the age of twelve; and that males score higher than females on the CAHPER Fitness Perfor- mance t e s t at the same age l e v e l . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . v i LIST OF FIGURES V i i Chapter I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the problem 2 Sub problems 2 D e f i n i t i o n s 2 Delimitations 4 Assumptions and l i m i t a t i o n s 4 Hypothesis 4 Significance of the Study 4 II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6 Quality of L i f e 10 Values of Play 13 III METHODS AND PROCEDURES 19 The Sample .f. 19 West End 19 Vancouver . . . . . 20 Canada 2 0 North York 2 0 Testing Procedures • 21 CAHPER Fitness Performance Test 21 v Chapter Page R e l i a b i l i t i e s . . 22 Crawford and V i r g i n Test Items 23 R e l i a b i l i t i e s 24 The Design c 24 The S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis 25 IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 28 Results . . . . . . . . . 28 Hypothesis I 45 Hypothesis 2 48 Hypothesis 3 . . . . . 48 Hypothesis 4 48 Discussion 48 V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 54 Summary 54 Conclusions 55 Suggestions 55 REFERENCES 57 APPENDICES 6 1 v i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Vancouver West End Population Density by area 12 2. The One Minute Speed Sit-Up 29 3. The Standing Broad Jump 29 4. The Shuttle Run 30 5. The Flexed Arm Hang 30 6. The 50 Yard Run 31 7. The 300 Yard Run 31 8. Crawford and V i r g i n Table of Means Grade 1 43 9. Crawford and V i r g i n Table of Means Grade 5 . . . . . 43 10. M u l t i v a r i a t e and Univariate F-ratios fo r a l l Comparisons 44 11. Crawford and V i r g i n Tests by Floor Level Grade 1 46 12. Crawford and V i r g i n Tests by Floor Level Grade 5 . . . 46 13. CAHPER Fitness Performance Test by Floor Level Age 7 47 14. CAHPER Fitness Performance Test by Floor Level Age 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 v i i LIST OF FIGURES Figure ~ Page 1. Combined Male and Female S i t Ups . . . . . . 32 2. Combined Male and Female Broad Jump . . . . 32 3. S i t Ups - Female 33 4. S i t Ups - Male 33 5. Broad - -'Female 34 6. Broad - Male - 34 7. Combined Male and Female Shuttle Run . . . . 35 8. Combined Male and Female Flexed Arm Hang . . 35 9.. Shuttle Run - Female 36 10. Shuttle Run - Male 36 11. Flexed Arm Hang - Female 37 12. Flexed Arm Hang - Male 37 13. Combined Vancouver, West End and Canada Shuttle Run 38 14. Combined Vancouver, West End and Canada Flexed Arm Hang 38 15. Combined Male and Female - 50 Yard Run . . . 39 16. Combined Male and Female - 300 Yard Run . . 3 9 17. 50 Yard Run - Female 40 18. 50 Yard Run - Male 40 19. 300 Yard Run - Female 41 20. 300 Yard Run - Male 41 21. Combined Vancouver, West End and Canada 50 Yard Run 42 22. Combined Vancouver; West End and Canada 300 Yard Run 42 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e t o express my thanks to Dr. Whittle who provided the spark which i n i t i a t e d the work on t h i s subject. I would l i k e to thank the members of my committee whose patience and wise counselling helped me i n the task. I must also thank my fellow s t a f f at the downtown YMCA who helped i n the t e s t i n g . One member of my committee, Dr. Cora Paton/ who through very unfortunate personal circumstances was unable to attend my f i n a l o r a l , I would l i k e to thank f o r k i n d l i n g an int e r e s t i n the physical development of young children. I must mention Dr. Bob Schutz and express a f e e l i n g of deep gratitude for h i s concientious work with myself and a l l other graduate students. I believe the strength t h i s man contributes to the University of B r i t i s h Columbia School of Physical Education and Recreation graduate program i s tremen- dous. He has c e r t a i n l y affected my l i f e i n a very p o s i t i v e manner. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e t o thank my wife Bev whose support and understanding was t e r r i f i c . CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM Introduction In recent years many families have been moving into multiple unit dwellings which are being constructed near or within easy access to t h e i r places of work. The c i t y of Vancouver i s no exception; 96.8 percent of the residences of the Vancouver West End are multiple family dwellings. This increase i n the population density of the West End has heavily taxed the few parks and playgrounds within the area. There- fore, many children raised i n t h i s section of the c i t y have d i f f i c u l t y f i n d i n g an adequate play environment. I t has been stated that parents who l i v e i n apartments are often hesitant about permitting t h e i r children to go out and play unaccompanied (Darke and Darke, 1970). The distance the family l i v e s above the ground i s a factor i n t h i s as are the methods used to get to the ground. Apartment buildings with more than three stories are equipped with elevators and therefore the use of the s t a i r s by the residents i s l i m i t e d . In a recent study, Crawford and V i r g i n (1971) found i n the C i t y of North York that children from high r i s e apartments showed less development than t h e i r peers from single family dwellings, on several fundamental motor tasks. If c h i l d r e n are forced to l i v e a more r e s t r i c t e d l i f e 1 2 i n terms of play experiences and overcrowded environments i n h i b i t play (Holme and Massie, 1970), one could assume that the motor performance and general f i t n e s s l e v e l s of the children would be retarded. This study, then, w i l l deal with the present f i t n e s s and motor performance leve l s of Vancouver's West End Elemen- tary school c h i l d r e n . Statement of the problem The purpose of t h i s study was to compare the motor performance and physical f i t n e s s of children l i v i n g i n a high density area to that of children l i v i n g i n a low density area. Sub problems 1. To compare the CAHPER Fitness Performance t e s t scores achieved by chi l d r e n from the West End with the Vancouver norms for the CAHPER Fitness Performance t e s t . 2. To compare the CAHPER Fitness Performance test scores achieved by children from the West End with the Canadian norms f o r the CAHPER Fitness Performance t e s t . 3. To compare the Fitness and motor performance scores of children l i v i n g below the fourth f l o o r to the scores of children l i v i n g on and above the fourth f l o o r . 4. To compare the motor performance scores from the West End with the scores from North York. Defin i t i o n s West End - that area i n the c i t y of Vancouver bounded by Burrard Street, Robson Street, and Stanley Park CAHPER - The Canadian Association of Health, Physical Educa- t i o n and Recreation. CAHPER Fitness Performance Test - a s i x item t e s t designed to measure physical and motor f i t n e s s . Motor Performance - i s a r e l a t i v e l y short term aspect of movement behavior marked by movement oriented toward the execution of an i d e n t i f i a b l e task. I t i s goal-centered purposeful, measurable, observable movement behavior of r e l a t i v e l y short duration. Crawford and V i r g i n Test Items - stork stand, a g i l i t y run, b a l l throw, jump and clap, alternate wall toss, and toe touch. North York - a municipality north of Toronto. High r i s e b u i l d i n g - a b u i l d i n g which i s over three f l o o r s i n height and contains an elevator. YMCA - Young Men's Ch r i s t i a n Association. Single Family Dwelling - a b u i l d i n g where only one family l i v e s under one roof. Multiple Family Dwelling - a b u i l d i n g where more than one family l i v e s under one roof. Mult i p l e Unit Dwellings - a b u i l d i n g containing more than one l i v i n g unit under one roof. High Density Area - a r e s i d e n t i a l area where more than 100 persons l i v e on one acre. Low Density Area - a r e s i d e n t i a l area where fewer than 50 persons l i v e on one acre. 4 Delimitations The sample w i l l consist of the students of Lord Roberts Elementary School and School Annex i n the C i t y of Vancouver. Assumptions and l i m i t a t i o n s The test items of Crawford and V i r g i n (1971) w i l l be assumed to be r e l i a b l e . I t i s assumed that the t o t a l population of children i n the West End l i v e i n multiple family dwellings. Hypothesis 1* Children from the West End score lower than children from Vancouver on the CAHPER Fitness Performance t e s t . 2. Children from the West End score lower than children from Canada' on the CAHPER Fitness Performance t e s t . 3. Children from apartment f l o o r s four to twenty score lower than children l i v i n g below the fourth f l o o r on the CAHPER Fitness Performance test.and the Crawford and V i r g i n t e s t s . 4. There i s no difference between the motor performance scores of the chi l d r e n from the West End and the motor per- formance scores of the children from North York. Significance of the Study The study could have some important implications for the need of better recreation f a c i l i t i e s i n the immediate area of multiple family dwellings and perhaps bring out some severe disadvantages of having f a m i l i e s l i v e i n such buildings. The developers of these complexes might be interested i n what e f f e c t t h e i r structures are having on the children raised within t h e i r walls. The schools i n these areas may have to i n i t i a t e s p e c i a l programs to compensate f o r the influence of the environment. I t i s possible that the Federal Government would be interested i n the findings and require c e r t a i n adequate play areas f o r every "X" number of f a m i l i e s . Also, parents l i v i n g i n such complexes may be very interested i n the implications attached to l i v i n g i n multiple unit dwellings. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE In the past ten years the housing trends i n North American c i t i e s are fo r c i n g f a m i l i e s to seek l i v i n g accommo- dation i n multiple unit forms of accommodation (Katz, R.D., 1963). I t has been predicted that i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia i n the near future most new home construction w i l l be of the multiple unit nature due to the pressing f i n a n c i a l and e c o l o g i c a l situations. With t h i s increased premium on open space or available land within urban areas the question arises regarding the e f f e c t t h i s style of l i f e w i l l have on the i n d i v i d u a l s l i v i n g i n such environments. Much concern i s being expressed recently on the housing of fa m i l i e s with young children i n high f l a t s i n r e l a t i o n to lack of s o c i a l contacts, health, future well-being and s t r a i n on family l i f e . I t i s i n the area of motor and physical development t h i s review s h a l l concern i t s e l f . "The empirical evidence i s quite sparse . . . most of the comment i s pure speculation and there i s an urgent need for ca r e f u l research into the e f f e c t s of high buildings, e x p e c i a l l y i f these are going to form the basis of future housing p o l i c y i n inner areas of c i t i e s " . (Darke, J . and Darke R., 1970, p. 7). C i t i e s generally have not kept up i n providing parks 6 and playgrounds and other open spaces to compensate for the absence of usable open space for the children l i v i n g i n multiple unit dwellings b u i l t on small l o t s . "Generally i n the development of such projects (high r i s e ) , no consideration has been given to schooling, play- grounds, shopping centers, and other community services associated with family accommodation." (Canadian Housing Design Council, 1964, p. 4). This means that "both the children and t h e i r parents are underprivileged when the children do not have d i r e c t and immediate access to the ground, playgrounds of adequate size and basic equipment, and some sheltered play space within a t t r a c t i v e range . . . the high r i s e b u i l d i n g does have i t s merits, but not f o r active children" (Dodge, 1958, p. 16). The advantages and disadvantages of highri s e l i v i n g as summed up by Townsend (1970, p. 7)~; Kamenka (1947, p. 113) and Dodge (1958, p. 18) are as follows: Advantages Disadvantages better views no access to open space privacy i s o l a t i o n l e s s noise children's safety 1. balconies ( r a i l s fresh a i r . too low) 2. l i f t s organized c h i l d welfare 3. staircases favors group a c t i v i t i e s lack of recreation space f i n e l i g h t i n g and a d i f f i c u l t y of f e e l i n g of space supervision I t can be seen that there are both advantages and 8 disadvantages to l i v i n g i n high r i s e accommodations. Some writings even state that small f a m i l i e s with children under the age of two do not need the same access to the out-of-doors as older f a m i l i e s and apartments are superior f o r them (Dodge, 1958, p. 18). This may well be the case but how many apart- ments w i l l accept families? In a Metropolitan Toronto study, Toronto, Ontario (1961) i t was reported that 75 percent of the buildings would rent to f a m i l i e s with children. Also 25 percent of a l l apart- ment households are occupied by f a m i l i e s with childr e n and the percent of apartments occupied by families with childr e n increases s t e a d i l y with the distance from the c i t y center. The mean number of children per 100 suites i s 33 with 47 percent being pre-school age, 40 percent being elementary school age and 13 percent being of secondary school age (Metro Toronto Plan Board Apartment Survey, 1961). In Vancouver a survey of the West End D i s t r i c t (1971) indicated that there were 2,050 children between the ages of 0 and 14 years out of a population of 37,728. This represents 5.4 percent of the West End population compared to 27.2 per- cent of the Canadian population ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1974) occupied by 0-14 year olds. The place of residence f o r the majority of these children was apartment blocks as 96.8 percent of a l l residences are apartments. Only 2 percent of a l l l i v i n g units are single detached homes occupied by several f a m i l i e s . However the West End Housing Agency indicates that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t decrease i n the numbers of avai l a b l e suites for parents with children and presently (October 1975) they are aware of only two to three buildings which w i l l rent to parents with children. A spot check on the numbers of suites a v a i l a b l e revealed eight out of 80 (10 percent) w i l l accept childr e n but with r e s t r i c t i o n s on age and number. . New planning r e s t r i c t i o n s have been passed by Vancou- ver C i t y Council and future development w i l l be much more acceptable for families planning to l i v e i n the West End. However with these new r e s t r i c t i o n s , contractors tend to prefer not to b u i l d residences but opt to b u i l d o f f i c e buildings i n the c i t y center. This has led to a s i g n i f i - cant decrease i n the number of children of elementary school age. One elementary school on the border of the West End was closed i n 1971 sending a l l children to Lord Roberts Elementary School and Annex and i f the trend continues, f a m i l i e s with elementary school age children may be completely forced out of the West End. Presently the length of residence i n each unit i s of short duration: residence less than one year 40.4 percent residence one to two years 23.4 percent - residence three to f i v e years 14.5 percent residence six to ten years 13.0 percent - residence over ten years 8.7 percent However, i n t e r area moves reveal a truer idea of how long people l i v e i n the area: 10 no i n t e r area move i n f i v e years 57.4 percent one i n t e r area move i n f i v e years 18.5 percent two to three i n t e r area moves i n f i v e years 15.0 percent four or more i n t e r area moves i n f i v e years 9.1 percent These figures indicate several things: 1. Most people prefer to stay i n the West End and move within the area to a more preferred suite or unit. 2. There i s a good number of moves taking place within the community. 3. While the population i s mobile i t i s more s t a t i c than i t f i r s t appears. Quality of L i f e The q u a l i t y of l i f e i n a high r i s e complex i s d i r e c t l y affected by density, b u i l d i n g type, and size. As a rule, as density increases, i n d i v i d u a l privacy decreases. However, Katz (1963) states that buildings can be used as buffers against heavy t r a f f i c and therefore provide safe and quiet play areas within court yards. He also mentions the need for adequate l i g h t and fresh a i r for a l l units. This i s something we see being emphasized more and more i n structures these days. The number of individuals per acre i s an accepted guide for density and while there are not s t r i c t standards, figures from 25 persons per acre to 400 persons per acre are 'quoted i n the l i t e r a t u r e ; for example, a town 1.25 miles i n radius at 35 persons per acre would house 60,000 people; a town 0.94 miles i n radius at 160 persons per acre 11 could accommodate the same 60,000 people. Le Corbusier (Jensen, 1966, p. 12) long ago accepted 300 persons per acre net i n the r e s i d e n t i a l areas. Presently many North American c i t i e s have set between 200 and 300 persons per acre as t h e i r maximum desirable density (Milwaukee, Toronto, New York, Philadelphia, Winnipeg, Seattle, Sacramento and Vancouver). The Vancouver West End has a density number of 149 (1973) per acre and plans i n the future indicate t h i s f i g u r e should not change s i g n i f i c a n t l y . (Table I ) . I t i s mentioned by Brechenridge and Lee (1966) that the basic p r i n c i p l e s of healthy housing can be put under a) meeting psychological and p h y s i o l o g i c a l i n d i v i d u a l needs, b) protection against contagion, c) protection against accidents. "Meeting ph y s i o l o g i c a l needs involves temperature regulation, v e n t i l a t i o n , l i g h t protection against excessive noise, and provision of adequate space for exercise and for c h i l d r e n s 1 play" (Brechenridge and Lee, 1966, p. 173). Most of these can be achieved i f proper planning precedes the b u i l d i n g development, however, i t was found from medical observations that children l i v i n g i n f l a t s had twice the incidence of r e s p i r a t o r y i n f e c t i o n s as children l i v i n g i n houses (Hird, 1966; Darke, J . and Darke, R., 1970, p. 11). Hird also observed a small but steady increase i n rate of r e s p i r a t o r y i n f e c t i o n incidence " . . . with increasing height above the ground" (Darke, J . and Darke, R., 1970, p. 11). This supported Hird's hypothesis of people's need of access to the open a i r . Further evidence by Hird revealed lower 12 Table 1 v. Vancouver West End Population Density by Area Neighbourhood Areas' 1973 Popu- l a t i o n Net Residential Acres 1973 Density. Proposed Maximum Density 1988 Stanley Park 8, 700 50 174/acre 200/acre Coal Harbour 2, 300 32 71/acre 100/acre King George 3, 300 23 143/acre 150/acre Lord Roberts 6, 050 45 134/acre 150/acre Alexandra Park 5, 050 26 194/acre 200/acre New Crystal Pool 7, 250 49 148/acre 175/acre Nelson Park , 2,550 15 170/acre 150/acre Robson International 5, 450 34 160/acre 200/acre Total 40,650 274 x = 149/acre x = 166/acre (West End Planning Team, Aug. 1973) physical a c t i v i t y among f l a t dwellers (Darke, J . and Darke, R., 1970, p. 11). It i s stated i n many studies that much of what i s good or bad about l i v i n g i n apartments depends s p e c i f i c a l l y on the people i n residence. The s o c i a l i z i n g agent may be the structural design or the length of time of residence but more often than not the s o c i a l norms of an apartment are influenced by one or two i n d i v i d u a l s or f a m i l i e s . They tend to set the norms and can perform a valuable leadership r o l e i n stimulating s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and physical a c t i v i t y among the other residents. However, "The important thing i s to recognise that the b e n e f i c i a l s o c i a l e f f e c t s of good housing conditions can be l a r g e l y cancelled out i f there i s nowhere children f i n d i t enjoyable to play" (Minister of Housing and Local Government, 1959, p. 44). Values of Play Lawrence Rarick stated "There are few informed persons today who question the value of physical a c t i v i t y and play i n the l i f e of the c h i l d and adolescent" (Rarick, 1961, p. 4). These values he l i s t s as: 1. s a t i s f a c t i o n of the urge f o r a c t i v i t y 2. stimulant to physical growth 3. promotion of organic vigor 4. development of a repertoire of neuro-muscular s k i l l s 5. broadening one 1s concept of s e l f 6. provision of a medium for s o c i a l i z a t i o n . 14 Elizabeth Hurlock (1964) states that play: 1. helps the c h i l d develop as a person 2. promotes muscular development 3. i s an outlet for energy 4. i s an education t o o l i n motor development 5. i s a s o c i a l i z a t i o n experience. Play f o r children i s important and very c r u c i a l i n t h e i r t o t a l development. However we i n c i t y centers are presently asking ourselves where can our children play? A goal to work towards i s "The provision of play spaces must be one of the f i r s t c a l l s on the a v a i l a b l e space around dwellings i n multi-story developments which do not have gardens of t h e i r own, though i t i s usually impractical for major playgrounds, such as are provided i n public parks, to be included on a high density estate" (Ministry of Housing and Local Government, 1958, p. 44). This i s d e f i n i t e l y a goal to work towards as a study conducted i n London, England by J . Maisels mentions " . . . seventy of the sample (200) made d i r e c t or i n d i r e c t reference to the d i f f i c u l t i e s of children's play i n f l a t s and f i f t y - e i g h t percent of the sample thought that t h e i r present environment was detrimental to mother and c h i l d " (Darke, J . and Darke, R., 1970, pp 8-9) by r e s t r i c t i n g t h e i r play experience and a v a i l a b i l i t y to open areas. Also, of the population of children under four years, only 5 percent were allowed downstairs alone but i t was found lower f l o o r mothers allowed t h e i r children to go downstairs alone more often. It i s very i n t e r e s t i n g to note that 15 "a quarter of the comments were that children could not play downstairs alone" (/Darke, J . and Darke, R., 1970, p. 8). Thus the small children went out only when accompanied by mother and played r a r e l y with other children. Upon checking previous dayJ a c t i v i t i e s i t was found that few children had been out to play, one i n eight had not l e f t the f l a t and most of those who had gone out had done so for a short time and had done so with mother when she went shopping. Generally i t was found that seven years was the age when mothers allowed children to play outside unsupervised. However i t has been stated that i t i s the f a c i l i t i e s available and the i n d i v i d u a l mother involved which determines whether the c h i l d goes out to play no matter what f l o o r he or she l i v e s on ( f i r s t or f i f t i e t h ) . This study and others indicate that the c h i l d w i l l get adequate s o c i a l i z a t i o n despite the d e f i c i e n c i e s of the housing environment i f the mother's concept of her r o l e i s such that she often takes her c h i l d outside to play. Some comments on the play opportunities f o r children l i v i n g i n multiple unit housing:- "Play i s a constant happening, a constant creation i n the mind or i n p r a c t i c e . The smaller the c h i l d , the more narrow the c i r c l e i n which i t moves but even older children spend most of t h e i r playing time within a radius of r a r e l y more than 300 meters from home. Remember that when planning f o r playgrounds that playgrounds must be within easy reach (Bengtsson, 1970, p. 24). "Young children, under eight or so, l i v i n g i n high density areas, run two major r i s k s : loneliness and the p e r i l s of motor t r a f f i c (Lady All e n of Hurtwood, 1968, p. 12). "Small children soon become b i g children" (Bengtsson, 1970, p. 47). -16 "The greatest respect i s accorded what i s most boring (Cocteau i n Lady A l l e n of Hurtwood, 1968, p. 15). "Tensions destroy play and overcrowding, congested environments are l i k e l y to produce tensions. Such environ- ments are continuously f o r c i n g children, into situations, both inside and outside the home, which i n h i b i t play. An environment which provides more opportunity f o r play must be a better environment (Holme, and Massie, 1970, p. 68). "Children who tend to be nervous and high strung i n e v i t a b l y have less control over t h e i r movements than those who are more relaxed (Hurlock, 1964, p. 201). Motor S k i l l Development The development of motor s k i l l s i n children follow a f a i r l y predictable sequence at f a i r l y predictable times i f the c h i l d has opportunity to experiment and discover i n i t s environment. The United Nations Declaration P r i n c i p l e #7: "The c h i l d s h a l l have f u l l opportunity f o r play and recreation which should be directed to the same purpose as education" (Bengtsson, 1970, p. 89). Mike E l l i s , Ex-director of the University of I l l i n o i s Children's Research Center Motor Performance and Play Research Laboratory at the Urbana-Champaign campus stated i n a recent newspaper a r t i c l e that he believes the studies show that the e a r l y play environment i s of c r u c i a l importance f o r children. He believes challenging play surroundings appear to be a necessity for the best possible development of youngsters. Rarick (1961, p. 4) and Hurlock (1964) support E l l i s i n t h e i r writings on the values of play and Clarke and Clarke (1963, p. 115) write that "The elements that contribute to neuromuscular s k i l l are p r i n c i p a l l y strength, power, speed a g i l i t y , accuracy, form, rhythm, and balance." P a r t i c i p a t i o n 17 i n physical a c t i v i t y i s necessary to develop the above elements and only with practice can the sequence of the components which make up the motor s k i l l be learned. Clarke and Clarke (1963) further write that children who do not have the physical f i t n e s s to learn the s k i l l s through required prolonged practice are unable r e a d i l y to learn and are i n " d i f f i c u l t y i n day to day personal adjustments with others and i n developing active s o c i a l habits and attitudes" (p. 105). However, extra practice before a c h i l d ' s nervous system i s developed w i l l not permit him to walk, s i t , t a l k or acquire other s k i l l s before the neural development takes place. "On the other hand delay i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of s k i l l s may be caused by depriving the c h i l d of opportunities to practice them when s u f f i c i e n t maturation has occurred" (Illengworth i n Lady Allen, 1960, p. 12). It i s between the ages of two to six that a l l of the general locomotor patterns are perfected and a number of hand- eye coordination actions are learned (Espenshade and Eckert, 1967). For example: Walking - age four adult style walk Running - age f o u r - f i v e stop, start, turn Jumping - age two and one half, two feet to take o f f age three - standing broad jump Throwing - age four - 20 percent throw well age f i v e - 74 percent throw well age six - 84 percent throw well Catching - age four - 29 percent catch well 18 age f i v e - 56 percent catch well age six - 63 percent catch well (Espenshade and Eckert, 1967). It i s c r i t i c a l that children have acquired a basic repertoire of motor a b i l i t i e s before the sixth year as during the years s i x to twelve, slow developmental change occurs but times of rapid learning take place (Goodenough, 1945). Body proportions also remain r e l a t i v e l y stable between ages six to twelve so the c h i l d can concentrate on perfecting motor s k i l l s during these years when these s k i l l s play a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n h i s acceptance with h i s peers. Research shows that most of l i f e ' s important motor s k i l l development i s refined i n the elementary school years and i t i s therefore c r i t i c a l to provide children of t h i s age with adequate environments for these s k i l l s to be f u l l y developed. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES The Sample West End A single sampling of an elementary school population was conducted i n Lord Roberts School and Annex i n the Vancou- ver West End D i s t r i c t . Lord Roberts School and Annex are the only elementary schools i n the West End and therefore contain the t o t a l population of elementary school age children. The West End D i s t r i c t i s a densely populated area with 96.8 percent of the residences being apartments. It offered an excellent population of students to survey since the investigator was interested i n the re l a t i o n s h i p between l i v i n g i n a high density area and the f i t n e s s and performance scores achieved by the students l i v i n g there. The data was c o l l e c t e d during the school's physical education class time i n the f a l l and winter of 1972 by the investigator and two Associate Physical Directors of the Vancouver Downtown YMCA. The equipment used f o r the t e s t i n g was supplied by the YMCA and the University of B r i t i s h Columbia School of Physical Education and Recreation. The population of Lord Roberts School and Annex numbered 600 and 477 students from grades two to seven were tested on the fi t n e s s performance t e s t . There were 99 children from grade 19 20 one and 68 children from grade f i v e who completed the Craw- ford and V i r g i n t e s t battery. The age range of the chi l d r e n tested was s i x to twelve. Vancouver The Vancouver sample consisted of CAHPER Fitness Performance Test r e s u l t s of 480 elementary school students randomly chosen from a set of approximately 10,000 r e s u l t s . There were 40 r e s u l t s randomly taken f o r each age l e v e l and sex using a mathematical random table (Selby, 1967). The 10,000 r e s u l t s belonged to the YMCA school t e s t i n g program which i s a yearly service the YMCA of f e r s to each Vancouver elementary school. The r e s u l t s sampled had been completed the previous spring. There was no previous data i n Vancouver on the Crawford and V i r g i n t e s t items. Canada The Canadian data was gained from the CAHPER Fitness Performance Test Manual. This manual was written i n 1965- 1966 and represented a random sample of f i t n e s s and perform- ance te s t scores of Canadian children between the ages of 7 to 17 years. There were approximately 500 boys and 500 g i r l s tested i n each age group and the norms were established on t h i s base. This investigator used the 50th percentile score as the mean score for comparison purposes (CAHPER, 1966). North York Motor performance scores were available from Crawford and V i r g i n (1971) on elementary school age children grades one 21 to f i v e . I t was f e l t that t e s t r e s u l t s gained from the West End population would be of interest because of the high density nature of the West End. Also the North York data was the only study the investigator could f i n d of a si m i l a r nature. I t was for t h i s reason that the te s t s were repeated on the elementary school childr e n of the West End. Testing Procedures CAHPER Fitness Performance Test (1966) The CAHPER Fitness Performance Test was chosen because of the Dominion wide norm data which was r e a d i l y available for comparative purposes and the fac t that the test items are te s t s of f i t n e s s performance. In fact the CAHPER Fitness Performance Test has been used f o r f i v e years by the Canadian Department of Health and Welfare as part of a National awards program to provide f i t n e s s data and to motivate Canadian children to develop and maintain good l i f e t i m e f i t n e s s habits. This program has been wide spread and has proven a r e a l benefit to physical f i t n e s s programs i n Canada. Therefore the test items were f a m i l i a r to the students of Lord Roberts School because of the c i t y wide YMCA t e s t i n g program i n i t i a t e d i n 1971. However, preceding each te s t item with each class, a complete description of the tes t and a demonstration of each test item was given. The following test items were administered i n the gymnasiums the one minute speed sit-ups, the standing broad jump, the shuttle run, and the flexed arm hang. The 50 yard run and the 300 yard run were administered i n the school yard. 22 The test administration took three gym periods per c l a s s ; one for the one minute speed sit-ups, the broad jump and the shuttle run; one f o r the flexed arm hang, the 50 yard run and the 300 yard run, and one to test those missing a previous period due to absence. In the one minute speed sit-ups the partner and the part i c i p a n t both counted the number of sit-ups completed by the p a r t i c i p a n t and the tester observed rates and methods of execution making comments when necessary. A l l other procedures as per the CAHPER Fitness Performance Test Manual were followed (see Appendix A f o r det a i l e d i n s t r u c t i o n s and equipment). R e l i a b i l i t i e s The r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s of the CAHPER Fitness Performance Test are: sit-ups 0.861, standing broad jump 0.899, shuttle run 0.776f 50 yard dash 0.792 (Field, 1964). Klesius (1968) found r e l i a b i l i t y values of 0.57 f o r speed sit-ups, 0.68 f o r the shuttle run, 0.94 f o r the standing broad jump, and 0.86 for the 50 yard dash. Both Klesius and F i e l d stated that the tests are more r e l i a b l e i f the correct number of t r i a l s are used. Crawford and Mason (1974) report r e l i a b i l i t i e s of 0.86 for the speed sit-ups, 0.83 for the standing broad jump, 0.71 f o r the flexed arm hang, 0.68 f o r the 50 yard run, and 0.42 for the 300 yard run. However when two runners are on p a r a l l e l 300 yard run courses they report that the r e l i a b i l i t y increases to 0.82. Crawford and V i r g i n Test Items The Crawford and V i r g i n test items (Appendix B) are as follows: Grade One Test Item The A g i l i t y Run Throwing Stork Stand Jump and Clap' Grade Five A g i l i t y Run Alternate Wall Toss Soccer B a l l Throw Toe Touch Measurement Speed, a g i l i t y , judgement of distance. Hand-eye coordination, a b i l i t y to throw into a given area. S t a t i c balance. Hand foot coordination, timing. Speed, a g i l i t y , judgement of distance. Hand eye coordination, a b i l i t y to use both hands to catch. Accuracy, arm strength, hand- eye coordination A g i l i t y , f l e x i b i l i t y The investigator used these t e s t items on the West End children because i t was the only previous t e s t battery used i n t e s t i n g c h i l d r e n from a high density area. The Crawford and V i r g i n test items were not f a m i l i a r to the students of Lord Roberts Elementary School and Annex and i n s t r u c t i o n s were given to each participant before the te s t was administered. The t e s t i n g was conducted i n the 24 gymnasium with two t e s t items being administered i n each gym period. I t was necessary to take three periods to complete the t e s t i n g : one f o r the a g i l i t y run and stork stand (grade 1) or the a g i l i t y run and alternate wall toss (grade 5), one f o r the b a l l throw and jump and clap (grade 1) or one for the soccer b a l l throw and toe touch (grade 5) and one period to tes t those who missed a previous t e s t i n g period. The i n v e s t i - gator used students as b a l l chasers when b a l l s strayed from the p a r t i c i p a n t . R e l i a b i l i t i e s I t was d i f f i c u l t to accept that the Crawford and V i r g i n test items were v a l i d tests of speed, a g i l i t y , judge- ment of distance, hand-eye coordination, s t a t i c balance, hand- foot coordination, timing, a b i l i t y to use both hands, accuracy, arm strength, and f l e x i b i l i t y . The investigator was not f a m i l i a r with t h i s t e s t battery and could f i n d no supporting evidence i n the Crawford and V i r g i n report regarding back- ground information on the t e s t items. The r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the t e s t items were also d i f f i - c u l t to f i n d as they were not written up i n Crawford and Virg i n ' s study. However the investigator found a r e l i a b i l i t y of 0.87 f o r the stork stand reported by Johnson and Nelson (1969). However, the tes t battery was used as i t was the only previous study of a similar nature. The Design The design was a 6 x 2 x 3 randomized groups design with 10 dependent variables per subject. Independent Variables: 1. Age 6 l e v e l s : 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 years. The age recorded was that of the f i r s t day of the t e s t . 2. Sex: 2 l e v e l s - male and female. 3. L i v i n g Area: 3 le v e l s - West End, Vancouver, and Canada. Dependent Variables: CAHPER Fitness Performance Test Scores 1. Sit-ups 2. Standing Broad Jump 3. Shuttle Run 4. Flexed Arm Hang 5. 50 Yard Dash 6. 300 Yard Run Crawford and V i r g i n Test Scores Grade 1 7. A g i l i t y Run 7. 8. Throwing 8. 9. Stork Stand 9. 10. Jump and Clap 10. Grade 5 A g i l i t y Run Alternate Wall Toss Soccer B a l l Throw Toe Touch The S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis The data f o r grades two to seven on the Fitness Performance Test items was c o l l e c t e d on the CAHPER Fitness Performance Test score cards (Appendix C) and the Motor A b i l i t y t e s t score cards (Appendix D) were used i n c o l l e c t i n g 26 the data f o r grade 1 and grade 5 on the Crawford and V i r g i n t e s t items. The t e s t scores, age and sex were then entered on Fortran coding sheets and then punched onto the computer cards. The data submitted for analysis were the means, standard deviations, and sample sizes of each of the 36 conditions (6 age l e v e l s by 2 sex l e v e l s by 3 area l e v e l s ) . The data f o r the Canadian sample were based on the CAHPER norms with sample size of 50 subjects per c e l l . Although the actual sample size was much larger than t h i s (approximately 500), i t was necessary to maintain r e l a t i v e l y equal sample sizes across a l l c e l l s f o r the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. The net e f f e c t of t h i s reduced sample size was to make the t e s t s l i g h t l y more conservative. Data Analysis The CAHPER data was analyzed by a 6 x 2 x 3 m u l t i - variate analysis of variance through the use of computer program FINN (1968). This provided m u l t i v a r i a t e F-ratios f o r t e s t i n g the s i g n i f i c a n c e between mean vectors f o r hypotheses 1 and 2, as well as univariate and step-down F's f o r each dependent variable f o r each hypothesis. An orthogonal breakdown of the area main e f f e c t provided two independent t e s t s : 1. West Area versus Vancouver area 2. the average of West End and Vancouver versus Canada. As i t i s not possible to test hypothesis 2 independently of 27 hypothesis 1, these two orthogonal contrasts provided evidence for supporting or r e j e c t i n g these hypotheses. The analyses also provided the following comparisons for further data explanation: 1. sex differences 2. age differences 3. sex by area i n t e r a c t i o n 4. age by area i n t e r a c t i o n - to test i f the change i n performance over age ( i . e . motor development) was the same for West End as for Vancouver. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Results The s i x item CAHPER test (1966) was administered to 477 students and the four item Crawford and V i r g i n battery (1971) was administered to 167 students of the Lord Roberts Elementary School and Annex. The age range of the subjects tested was from 7 to 12 years on the CAHPER Fitness Performance Test and age 6 years and 10 years on the Crawford and V i r g i n Test Battery. The t e s t i n g was successful with some data being c o l l e c t e d on every student attending the school. Several CAHPER score cards had only one or two pieces of information on them and were eliminated from the analysis. The boys CAHPER score cards were analysed with only 14 percent having one or two missing scores. The g i r l s CAHPER score cards were analysed with 10 percent having missing data on one or two te s t items. (Refer to Appendix G for CAHPER tes t c e l l f r e - quencies. The Crawford and V i r g i n score sheets were very complete with only one card missing two scores i n the grade one sample and seven cards missing one score i n the grade f i v e sample. The r e s u l t s calculated from the data are there- fore considered to be representative of the sample population tested. Refer to Appendix E f o r the CAHPER Fitness Performance Test raw scores and to Appendix F for the Crawford and V i r g i n t e s t battery raw scores. 28 Tables of means are presented for the CAHPER Fitness Performance scores by test item, l i v i n g area, age and sex. (Tables 2 to 7 ). These tables i l l u s t r a t e the r e s u l t s achieved by elementary school age children on the CAHPER Fitness Performance Test. Table 2 The One Minute Speed Sit-Up Canadian West End Vancouver Group Age Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female X X 7 20 17 22.5 19.8 25.1 28.3 22.5 21.7 8 24 19 21.8 19.2 30.8 28.6 23.9 22.4 9 26 20 29.2 26.0 36.5 31.0 30.6 25.1 10 27 22 32.4 28.1 34.2 35.0 31.2 28.4 11 29 25 33.7 29.5 44.4 35.0 35.7 29.8 12 30 22 34.3 25.3 45.1 40.6 36.5 29.3 X 26 21 28.9 24.6 36.0 33.0 30.0 26.1 Table 3 The Standing Broad Jump Canadian West End Vancouver Group Age Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female X X 7 3.75 3.50 3.40 2.97 3.80 4.02 3.65 3.50 8 3.92 3.83 3.56 3.20 4.37 4.08 3.95 3.70 9 4.33 4.00 4.06 3.61 4.90 4.68 4.43 4.10 10 4.50 4.25 4.20 3.97 4.86 4.98 4.52 4.40 11 4.83 4.58 4.28 4.20 5.57 5.15 4.89 4.64 12 5.00 4.66 4.64 4.06 5.99 5.80 5.21 4.84 X 4.39 4.14 4.02 3.67 4.92 4.79 4.44 4. 20 30 Table 4 The Shuttle Run Canadian West End Vancouver Group Age Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female X X 7 14.0 14.7 8 13.3 14.0 9 12.7 13.5 10 12.6 13.0 11 12.2 12.8 12 12.0 12.8 X 12.8 13.5 13.87 15.00 13.48 13.42 14.39 13.12 12.32 13.76 12.39 12.37 13.49 12.58 12.54 12.86 11.92 12.51 12.52 11.45 12.84 13.67 12.49 13.74 13.78 14.48 13.47 13.28 13.95 13.00 12.47 13.42 12.28 12.52 12.92 12.65 12.22 12.77 12.36 11.98 12.56 12.92 12.70 13.35 Table 5 The Flexed Arm Hang Canadian West End Vancouver Group Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female X X 7 18 11 17.12 11.35 23.57 18.46 19.56 13.60 8 23 13 17.92 14.44 28.85 20.90 23.26 16.11 9 27 14 30.04 17.60 38.16 25.65 31.73 19.08 10 27 17 32.67 23.43 28.87 21.30 29.51 20.58 11 31 16 35.46 25.21 37.47 22.35 34.64 21,19 12 ~ 35 14 39.21 27.31 42.19 29.92 38.80 23.74 X 27 14 28.74 19.89 33.19 23.10 29.58 19.05 31 Table 6 The 50 Yard Run Canadian West End Vancouver Group Age Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female X X 7 10.0 10.5 9.88 10.49 9.67 10.47 9.85 10.49 8 9.5 9.9 9.57 9.89 9.52 9.96 9.53 9.92 9 9.1 9.5 9.17 9.71 8.92 9.34 9.06 9.52 10 8.8 9.0 8.93 9.42 8.72 8.95 8.82 9.12 11 8.4 8.7 8.77 9.00 7.82 8.78 8.33 8.83 12 8.3 8.5 8.76 8.95 7.91 8.11 8.32 8.52 X 9.0 9.4 9.18 9.58 8.76 9.27 8.99 9.40 Table 7 The 300 Yard Run Canadian West End Vancouver Group Age Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female X X 7 84 85 84.79 88.18 75.78 71.45 81.52 81.54 . 8 78 80 79.70 84.53 72.82 71.38 76.84 78.64 9 75 • 77 78.59 81.84 65.86 70.37 73.15 76.40 10 72 75 74.68 77.55 68.42 69.47 71.70 74.00 11 70 72 71.97 75.60 61.99 67.51 67.99 71.70 12 67 71 72.45 75.57 61.89 64.16 67.11 70.24 X 74 77 77.03 80.55 67.79 69.06 73.05 75.40 Corresponding figures to the above tables follow. Tables of means are presented f o r the Crawford and V i r g i n t e s t battery items by grade, l i v i n g area, test item and sex (Tables 8 & 9 ). These tables i l l u s t r a t e the r e s u l t s achieved by North York and West End children on the Crawford and V i r g i n t e s t battery. 32 Figure 1 Combined Male and Female S i t Ups Figure 2 Combined Male and Female Broad Jump age 33 Figure 3 S i t Ups - Female 45 1 Vancouver - -- _ West End 40 - 35 * age Figure 4 S i t Ups - Male 15 -I , , - i 1 1 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 age Figure 5 Broad Jump - Female Vancouver - - - West End Canada i i 1 1 1 « 7 8 9 10 11 12 age Figure 6 Broad Jump - Male Vancouver - - - West End Canada - r - 8 — i — 10 — i — 12 13 11 age Figure 7 Combined Male and Female Shuttle Run 14.5 - 14.0 - 13.5 - 13.0 - 12.5 12.0 A 11.5 Vancouver West End - Canada --- 8 10 11 12 age Figure 8 Combined Male and Female Flexed Arm Hang 40 1 10 -I 1 : J : 1 r 7 8 9 10 11 12 age Figure 9 Shuttle Run -Female Vancouver West End - Canada -•• age Figure 10 Shuttle Run - Male Vancouver West End - Canada — age 37 Figure 11 Flexed Arm Hang - Female Figure 13 Combined Vancouver, West End and Canada Shuttle Run 14.5 4 14.0 13.5 13.0 12.5 -j 12.0 -j 11.5 Male - Female \ 8 9 10 11 12 age Figure 14 Combined Vancouver, West End and Canada Flexed Arm Hang | i i i i r 7 8 9 10 11 12 age Figure 15 Combined Male and Female 50 Yard Run 11.0 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 age Figure 16 Combined Male and Female 300 Yard Run 40 Figure 17 50 Yard Run - Female Figure 18 50 Yard Run - Male 41 Figure 20 300 Yard Run - Male age Figure 21 Combined Vancouver, West End and Canada 50 Yard Run 8.0 - 7.5 » 1 1 ' 1 «• 7 8 9 10 11 12 age Figure 22 Combined Vancouver, West End and Canada 300 Yard Run Table 8 Crawford and V i r g i n Table of Means Grade 1 West End North York North York Single Family High Rise Male Female Male Female Male Female A g i l i t y Run 9, .84 9. .69 8. .6 9. .0 9. .2 9. .3 Throwing 5. ,20 4. .09 7. .5 5. .7 7. .7 5. .4 Stork Stand 12. .15 10. .80 11. .0 11-.9 • 6. .8 9. .5 Jump and Clap 11. ,51 15. ,58 14. .4 17. .6 15. .7 21. .3 Table 9 Crawford and V i r g i n Table of Means Grade 5 West Male End Female North Single Male York Family Female North High Male York Rise Female A g i l i t y Run 7.48 7.99 9.0 9.5 9.25 9.75 Alternate Wall Toss 8. 28 4.03 10.2 9.6 8.00 9.30 Soccer B a l l Throw 4.24 4.31 4.2 2.5 4.00 2.00 Toe Touch 3.00 2.53 * * * * '* Missing Data 44 Table 10 Multivar i a t e and Univariate F Ratios for a l l Comparisons Comparisons West End vs Vancouver West End & West End vs West End vs Vancouver Vancouver x Vancouver x vs Canada age l i n e a r sex Mu l t i v a r i a t e F P Situps F Broad Jump F P Shuttle Run F P Flexed Arm Hang F P 50 Yard Run F P 300 Yard Run F P 105.6 < 0.0001 91.2 0.0001 236.1 0.0001 37.5 0.0001 10.3 0.0014 23.9 0.0001 385.1 0.0001 42.9 • 0.0001 133.8 0.0001 1.3 0.2377 26.2 0.0001 0.35 0.5548 8.9 0.0030 91.8 0.0001 10.1 < 0.0001 5.8 0.016 11.2 0.0009 0.04 0.8406 3.8 0.0509 15.9 0.0001 1.3 0.2471 3.5 0.0019 0.65 0.4209 3.4 0.0664 6.6 0.0101 0.06 0.8118 0.6 0.4331 5.0 0.0262 45 Hypothesis I states that c h i l d r e n from the West End score lower than children from Vancouver on the CAHPER Fitness Performance t e s t . As seen on table 10 for items of the CAHPER Fitness Performance Test there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between West End and Vancouver CAHPER Fitness Performance test scores (P< 0.01 which i s shown gra p h i c a l l y i n figures 1, 2, 9, 10, 17, 18). To further examine the nature of the d i f f e r - ences comparisons three and four of table 10 were examined. Comparison three which looks at the l i n e a r change over age reveals that for a l l variables except the broad jump and 50 yard dash the l i n e a r trend over age i s the same for the West End child r e n as i t i s for the Vancouver children. In the broad jump the difference between the West End and the Vancouver seven year olds was 0.72 feet whereas the difference between the West End and the Vancouver twelve year olds was over twice that at 1.55 feet (table 3, figure 2). In the 50 yard dash the difference between the West End and the Vancouver seven year olds was 0.12 of a second whereas the difference between the West End and the Vancouver .twelve year olds was 0.85 of a second (table 6, figure 17). Comparison four, West End Vancouver times sex i n t e r - action, shows that the difference between West End and Van- couver c h i l d r e n was constant for males and females on a l l variables except the shuttle run and the 300 yard run. In the shuttle run the difference between the West End and the Vancouver males was 0.4 of a second i n comparison to the difference between the West End and the Vancouver females 46 Table 11 Crawford and V i r g i n Tests by Floor Level Grade 1 Floors 0 - 3 Floors 4 - 2 0 Male Female Male Female A g i l i t y Run X N 9.4 16 9.9 11 10.1 32 9.7 21 Throwing X N 5.2 13 2.9 10 5.0 31 4.7 21 Stork Stand X N 10.8 16 9.8 11 12.2 32 9.8 19 Jump & Clap X N 14.1 16 13.7 11 10.1 32 17.7 19 Table 12 Crawford and V i r g i n Tests by Floor Level Grade 5 Floors 0 - 3 Floors 4 - 2 0 Male Female Male Female A g i l i t y Run X N 7.5 15 7.5 17 7.4 10 7.7 15 Alternate Wall Toss X N 6.9 15 3.3 12 11.9 10 4.9 13 Soccer B a l l Throw X N 4.0 15 3.9 17 5.6 10 4.6 15 Toe Touch X N 4.7 10 2.3 16 4.5 10 2.5 15 47 Table 13 CAHPER Fitness Performance Test by Floor Level Age 7 Floors 0 - 3 Floors 4 - 2 0 Male Female Male Female S i t Ups X 18 22 23. 16 N 12 11 19 21 Shuttle Run X 13.5 14.9 14.1 14.9 N 11 11 18 18 50 Yard Run X 9.8 10.4 9.9 10.6 N 8 9 17 17 300 Yard Run X 83.3 88.4 87.2 93.5 N 8 8 15 18 Table 14 CAHPER Fitness Performance Test by Floor Level Age 10 Floors 0 - 3 Floors 4 - 2 0 Male Female Male Female S i t Ups X 39 27 33 27 N 10 17 10 11 Shuttle Run X 12.3 13.8 12.3 13.7 N 10 17 10 14 50 Yard Run X 9.0 9.3 8.9 9.5 N 10 15 10 13 300 Yard Run X 72.2 82.6 74.5. 83.9 N 10 14 10 12 48 0.8 of a second (table 4, figures 11, 12). On the 300 yard run the difference between the West End and the Vancouver males was 9.2 seconds and the difference between the West End and the Vancouver females was 11.5 seconds. Hypothesis 2 states that the children from the West End score lower than the children from Canada on the CAHPER Fitness Performance Test. This i s not evident from the data av a i l a b l e . There i s a trend towards lower scores by West End children but the difference i s not great as seen i n tables 2 to 7 and figures 1, 2, 9, 10, 17 and 18. Hypothesis 3 states that the chi l d r e n from apartment f l o o r s four to twenty score lower than the children l i v i n g below the fourth f l o o r on the CAHPER Fitness Performance Test. This i s not apparent from the data as there were very few differences between the scores achieved by children l i v i n g below the fourth f l o o r and the scores achieved by chi l d r e n l i v i n g on and above the fourth f l o o r on both the CAHPER Fitness Performance t e s t and the Crawford and V i r g i n t e s t s (tables 11, 12, 13, 14). Hypothesis 4 states that there i s no difference . between the motor performance scores of the children from the West End and the motor performance scores of the children from North York. This i s evident as can be seen i n tables 8 and 9. Discussion The c h i l d r e n l i v i n g i n the West End scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on the CAHPER tes t than the children from Vancouver (table 10). This supports hypothesis I which states the scores of the children from the West End are lower than the Vancouver scores on the CAHPER Fitness Performance t e s t . There are many contributing factors which would d i r e c t l y influence the scores on the CAHPER Fitness Performance te s t such as socio-economic background, opportunity f o r p a r t i c i - pation, attitudes held by parents towards physical a c t i v i t y , practice of the test items, and the play environment. I t i s contended i n t h i s study that i t i s pr i m a r i l y the opportunity f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n and the play environment which was been the major contributors influencing the lower scores by West End elementary school age children on the CAHPER Fitness Performance t e s t . The children l i v i n g i n the West End have access to only one park within the West End besides the barren elemen- tar y school playground. This f a c t reveals that chil d r e n i n the West End wishing to play out of the way of t r a f f i c and with suitable play space must go to Nelson Park or one of the two school grounds. It can be.seen that f o r a population of 1100 children the play f a c i l i t i e s are t o t a l l y inadequate. Stanley Park surrounds two sides of the West End and o f f e r s space, safety and adequate play f a c i l i t i e s . However, access to Stanley Park i s d i f f i c u l t f o r young ch i l d r e n because of the t r a f f i c and the Park i s f e l t an unsafe environment f o r older children because of the other i n d i v i d u a l s of questionable character and morals. The Park i s only minutes from downtown Vancouver; a port c i t y not without i t s undesirable 50 elements. Therefore children l i v i n g i n the West End r e a l l y have only one park and two school grounds within safe distance from t h e i r residence. Considering the elementary school population i s approximately 700, the f a c i l i t i e s appear t o t a l l y inadequate. Comparison three, table 10, revealed that the l i n e a r change over age was the same f o r West End and Vancouver c h i l - dren for a l l variables except the broad jump and the 50 yard dash. The f i n d i n g that the West End children did not improve at the same rate as the Vancouver children i n the broad jump which i s a measure of leg muscle power indicates that as the c h i l d r e n of the West End aged t h e i r performance decreased r e l a t i v e to the Vancouver ch i l d r e n . The broad jump t e s t r e s u l t s alone would indicate that as children l i v i n g i n the West End age the development of t h e i r l e g power i s retarded r e l a t i v e to the other test items where the l i n e a r r e l a t i o n - ship was held. However the 50 yard dash scores also follow a s i m i l a r trend. The 50 yard dash difference between the seven year olds was 0.12 of a second whereas the difference between the twelve year olds was 0.85 of a second (table 6, figure 17). The 50 yard dash i s a t e s t of leg muscle power and speed. This would indicate that children i n the West End f a l l behind i n leg power and speed between the ages of seven and twelve. Taking into consideration the children from the West End, the l i v i n g environment and a l l i t s influences, the type of f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n the West End, and programs the children are involved i n , the investigator f e e l s the lower 51 scores i n the leg power and speed items are due to the lack of opportunity to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a c t i v i t i e s which develop these aspects of f i t n e s s . Comparison four, table 10, which looks at West End - Vancouver by sex i n t e r a c t i o n showed that the difference between the West End and Vancouver children was constant for boys and g i r l s on a l l variables except the shuttle run and the 300 yard run. This difference shows that the g i r l s i n the West End did not develop i n t h e i r a g i l i t y and cardiovas- cular endurance to the same degree as the boys from the West End r e l a t i v e to the Vancouver boys and g i r l s . The reasons for the g i r l s being retarded i n t h e i r development on the a g i l i t y and 300 yard run t e s t items are d i f f i c u l t to deter- mine. I t i s f e l t by the investigator that a g i l i t y and cardio- vascular endurance are more spe c i a l i z e d aspects of f i t n e s s and can be improved by p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a c t i v i t i e s which lend themselves to the development of these f i t n e s s q u a l i t i e s more than p r a c t i c e of power, speed, abdominal strength, and arm strength. This i s not to say that practice of a c t i v i t i e s to improve the l a t t e r f i t n e s s q u a l i t i e s w i l l have no e f f e c t but rather that a g i l i t y and cardiovascular endurance a c t i v i t i e s require more p a r t i c i p a t i o n to improve ones performance. The g i r l s of the West End, i t would appear, spend less time par- t i c i p a t i n g i n a c t i v i t i e s which develop a g i l i t y and cardio- vascular endurance than the g i r l s of Vancouver whereas the boys show no s i g n i f i c a n t change i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n habits. It i s not possible to determine why whis i s so from t h i s study 52 except to suggest that boys are involved i n more out of doors a c t i v i t y where a g i l i t y and cardiovascular endurance are required. The c h i l d r e n l i v i n g i n the West End scored the same as the Canadian normative data on the CAHPER Fitness Performance t e s t . This i s an i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g which means that the average c h i l d l i v i n g i n the West End i s as f i t as the average Canadian c h i l d . Several explanations the investigator can make to support t h i s f i n d i n g are as follows. One, to indicate that even though the children l i v e i n a r e s t r i c t e d environment the fa c t that they can play at summer a c t i v i t i e s a l l year round i n Vancouver has enabled them to score on a par with the Canadian norms. Further, the children from the West End had had some exposure to the test items previous to the r e s u l t s being c o l l e c t e d whereas the Canadian data came from the childrens f i r s t exposure to the t e s t items. Also the Canadian data i s six years older than the West End data and should be expected to be lower. It was f e l t by t h i s investigator that c h i l d r e n l i v i n g higher up i n a b u i l d i n g would score lower on f i t n e s s and motor s k i l l a c t i v i t i e s than children l i v i n g closer to the ground. There would be several reasons f o r t h i s . Apartments with more than three stories must provide an elevator and therefore i n these buildings the c h i l d r e n would tend to use the elevator rather than walk up to t h e i r suites e s p e c i a l l y i f they l i v e d above the t h i r d f l o o r . Lower buildings tend to have only three s t o r i e s and provide no elevators which would mean the children would use the s t a i r s because of necessity and derive a high l e v e l of a c t i v i t y from the use of the s t a i r s . 53 Also the proximity to the ground should be an asset i n getting the children out to play. This was not the case as there was no difference shown between f l o o r l e v e l s 0 to 3 and 4 to 20 on the CAHPER Fitness Performance t e s t and the Crawford and V i r g i n test items. On the Crawford and V i r g i n t e s t items there was l i t t l e evidence of difference between the West End scores and North York scores. This was anticipated because of the similar housing the children were drawn from. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . Summary This study looked at the f i t n e s s and motor performance of children l i v i n g i n a high density area and compared t h e i r t e s t scores to test scores recorded on children of the same age l i v i n g i n a low density area. This was done to i n v e s t i - gate the influences of high density l i v i n g on elementary school aged children's f i t n e s s and motor performance. The elementary school population of the Vancouver West End d i s t r i c t was selected to be tested on motor per- formance and physical f i t n e s s t e s t items. The CAHPER Fitness Performance Test and a battery of te s t s previously used by Crawford and V i r g i n i n North York Ontario were used i n the te s t i n g . The scores recorded were then compared to the Vancouver CAHPER norms, the Canadian CAHPER norms and the te s t scores recorded by Crawford and V i r g i n i n t h e i r North York study. The r e s u l t s indicated that West End children score lower than Vancouver children and there are d e f i n i t e disadvantages to l i v i n g i n the Vancouver West End D i s t r i c t ; the play space for children i s li m i t e d and the scores recorded on several t e s t items are s i g n i f i c a n t l y below the Vancouver norms. 54 Conclusions The conclusions which can be formed from the findings of t h i s study are: 1. West End Elementary school age children score lower than Vancouver elementary school age children on the CAHPER Fitness Performance t e s t . This agrees with Hird's f i n d i n g of lower physical a c t i v i t y by f l a t dwellers (Hird, 1966, Darke and Darke, 1970). 2. The childre n l i v i n g i n the West End f a l l behind t h e i r peers i n Vancouver i n leg power and speed between the ages of seven and twelve. 3. The g i r l s from the West End do not develop i n t h e i r a g i l i t y and cardiovascular endurance at a normal rate. 4. There was no. difference between the scores of the children l i v i n g on f l o o r s 1-3 and the scores achieved by children l i v i n g on f l o o r s 4-20. 5. The CAHPER Fitness Performance scores improve as a c h i l d grows older at least to the age of twelve. 6. Males score higher than females on the CAHPER Fitness Performance te s t at the same age l e v e l . Suggestions The investigator would l i k e to recommend further inquiry into t h i s f i e l d of study. This further inquiry should be of a more pure research nature with smaller groups of c h i l d r e n . It i s quite evident that the West End childre n are .lacking i n f i t n e s s performance when compared to t h e i r peers i n greater Vancouver and inquiry should t r y to focus i n on the cause. It i s recommended that several other c i t i e s with s i m i l a r housing conditions be included i n such studies. Secondly, programs should be developed to improve the present state of f i t n e s s of these children through the addition of a) a physical education s p e c i a l i s t and b) increased quantity of true physical education time i n the gym for children i n grades one on up. Th i r d l y and f i n a l l y the investigator would recommend to the City of Vancouver that they move forward with t h e i r new concepts and plans to make the West End a more l i v a b l e environment. REFERENCES Adler, Sol. The Health and Education of the Economically Deprived C h i l d . Warren H. Green Inc., St. Louis, 1968. A l l e n (Lady) of Hurtwood. Planning f o r Play. Thames and Hudson, London, 1968. Astrand, Per-Olof. "The Child i n Sport and Physical A c t i v i t y , Physiology". (A paper). Department of Physiology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1974. Bailey, D.A. "Exercise, Fitness and Physical Education f o r the Growing Ch i l d - A Concern". Presented to the National Conference on the C h i l d i n Sport and Physical A c t i v i t y , Kingston, May 13-18, 1973. Bengtsson, Arvid. Environment Planning f o r Childrens' Play. Cosby Lockwood and Son Ltd., London, England, 1970. Breckenridge, Marian E. and Vincent, E. Lee. C h i l d Development. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1966. Burton, Thomas L. Recreation Research and Planning. George A l l e n and Unwin Ltd., London, England, 1970. CAHPER. The CAHPER Fitness Performance Test Manual fo r Boys and G i r l s 7 to 17 Years of Age. 333 River Road, Vanier City, Ontario, 1966. Canadian Housing Design Council, Housing i n C i t i e s . National Pri n t e r s Ltd., Ottawa, 1964. Chapin, F. Stuart J r . Urban Land Use Planning, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1957. Clarke, H. Harrison. Application of Measurement to Health and Physical Education. Prentice H a l l , Toronto, 1967. Clarke, H.H. and Clarke, D.H. Developmental and Adaptive Physical Education. Prentice H a l l , Englewood C l i f f s , N.J., 1963. Crawford, G. Lyn, and Mason, Geoffrey P. " R e l i a b i l i t y of the CAHPER Fitness Performance Test With Junior Secondary School Boys". CAHPER Journal, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 12- 17, Jan. - Feb., 1974. 57 58 Crawford, P a t r i c i a and Virgin, Albert E. The Ef f e c t s of High Rise L i v i n g on School Behavior. Department of Educa- t i o n a l Research Services, North York, 1971. Darke, J . and Darke, R. "Health and Environment - High F l a t s " University Working Paper #10. Centre f o r Environmental Studies, London, England, 1970. Dodge (F.W.) Corporation. Apartments and Dormitories 1958. Dotson, Charles O. and Kirkendall, Don R. S t a t i s t i c s f or Physical Education, Health and Recreation. Harper and Row, New York, 1974. Espenshade, Anna S. and Eckert, Helen M. Motor Development. Charles E. M e r r i l l Books Inc., Columbus Ohio, 1967. Ferguson, George A. S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis In Psychology and Education. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Toronto, 1971 Fi e l d , Arthur E.J. "The R e l i a b i l i t y Analysis of the American Association f o r Health Physical Education and Recreation Youth Fitness Items" Unpublished Masters Thesis, U.B.C., 1964. Finn, J.D. Multivariance, Univariate and Multiva r i a t e Analysis of Variance, Covariance, and Regression: a fort r a n IV program Version 4. State University of New York, Buffalo, June 1968. Fleishman, Edwin A. The Dimensions of Physical Fitness. Department of In d u s t r i a l Administration and Department of Psychology, Yale University, Conn. August, 1962. Gooch, R.B. "Selection and Layout of Land for Playing F i e l d s and Playgrounds", National Playing F i e l d s Association. Goodenough, F.L. Developmental Psychology: an Introduction to the Study of Human Behavior. N.Y. Appleton Century, 1945. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . A Report on L i v a b i l i t y . Planning Department, Vancouver, November, 1972. Guedes, Ryan. "West End lacks play f a c i l i t i e s " West Ender December 20, 1974. Guggenheimer, E l i n o r C. Planning for Parks and Recreation Needs i n Urban Areas. Twayne Publishers Inc., 1969. Ha l l , R.H. U.B.C. SIMCORT, U.B.C. Computer Center, 1973. 59 Haveghurst, R.J. Developmental Tasks and Education. Longmans Green, N.Y., 1950. Holme, Anthea and Massie, Peter. Children's Play: A Study of Needs and Opportunities. Michael Joseph Ltd., London England, 1970. Hotson, Norman. "Open Space" A p o l i c y outline for the West End. Don Vaughan and Associates Ltd., Vancouver, 1973. Hurlock, Elizabeth B. Child Development. McGraw-Hill Book Co., 4th Ed., N.Y., 1964. Jensen, Rolf. High Density Living, Fredrick A. Praeger Inc. N.Y., 1966. Johnson, Barry. L. P r a c t i c a l Measurements i n Physical Education, Burgess, Minneapolis, 1969. Kamenka, H. F l a t s . Crosby, Lockwood and Son, Ltd., 1947. Katz, Robert D. "Intensity of Development and L i v a b i l i t y of Multi-Family Housing Projects" Technical Study TS 7.14 Sup. of Documents, U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington, January 1963. Klesius, S.E. R e l i a b i l i t y of the AAHPER youth f i t n e s s t e s t items and r e l a t i v e e f f i c i e n c y of the performance measures. Research Quarterly 39: 809-811, 1968. Kraus, Hans; Raab, Wilhelm and White, Paul D. Hypokinetic Disease. Charles C. Thomas, S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s . MacKenzie, Jack. "The Vanwes Experiment i n Education" A paper Regina Board of Education. Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board, Apartment Survey, C i t y Planning Dept., 1961. M i n i s t r y of Housing and Local Government, "Flats and Houses" Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1958. Pendakur, V. Setty. "High Rise Living" Transport Development Agency, M i n i s t r y of Transport, Montreal, July, 1972. Rarick, -G. Lawrence. Motor Development During Infancy and Childhood. College P r i n t i n g and Typing Co. Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, 1961. 60 Rarick, G. Lawrence. "Concepts of Motor Learning: Implica- tions f o r S k i l l Development i n Children" A paper, University of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley. Seefeldt, Vern. "Concerns of the Physical Educator for Motor Development" Presented at a M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y Con- ference - Perceptual-Motor Development. Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1-3, 1970. Selby, Samuel M. Standard Mathematical Tables. The Chemical Rubber Co, Cleveland, Ohio, 1967. Vancouver S o c i a l Planning Department. West End P o l i c y Guidelines, C i t y of Vancouver, August, 1972. West End Planning Team. "West End Plan" ( f i r s t d r a f t ) , C i t y of Vancouver, August 23, 1973. West End Planning Team. "West End Plan" (second d r a f t ) , C i t y of Vancouver, November 27, 1973. 1 .61 APPENDICES 62 APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAHPER FITNESS-PERFORMANCE TEST The One Minute Speed Sit-Ups Equipment: Gym mat and stop-watch or timer. Sta r t : The subject assumes a back-lying p o s i t i o n on the mat, fingers interlaced behind h i s head. The knees are bent and the feet are held f l a t on the f l o o r by a partner. Performance: The subject s i t s up and touches both elbows to h i s knees. Then he returns to the s t a r t i n g p o s i t i o n . Scoring: The movement sit-up and return i s counted as one execution. The t o t a l score i s the number of complete executions performed i n 60 seconds. Count when the elbows touch the knees. Allow one t r i a l . Controls: The partner kneels straddling the performer's feet. He places h i s hands on the calves of the subject's legs just below the back of the knee to prevent the subject from s l i d i n g and to maintain the s t a r t i n g p o sition of the legs throughout the t e s t . Only the shoulders have to touch the f l o o r . The sit-ups do not need to be performed continu- ously. The Standing Broad Jump Equipment: A 10 foot tumbling mat i s recommended and a cl o t h tape measure. Sta r t : The subject assumes a position with the feet s l i g h t l y apart and the toes behind the take-off l i n e . Performance: The hips, knees and ankles should be bent enough so that the subject can vigorously push with h i s legs, and swing h i s arms to jump as far f o r - ward as possible. Scoring: Measurement i s i n terms of inches to the nearest inch from the take-off l i n e to the heel of the foot nearest the take-off l i n e . 63 Controls: The suggested take-off angle should be between 30 and 45 degrees. Two v a l i d t r i a l s are allowed, the better t r i a l recorded. I f any part of the body touches behind the heels, the jump w i l l be considered i n v a l i d . Two or three practice t r i a l s w i l l be allowed. The Shuttle Run Equipment: Two wooden blocks (2" x 3" x 3") and a stop- watch c a l i b r a t e d to one-tenth of a second. S t a r t : The subject l i e s face down, hands at the side of the chest and the forehead on the s t a r t i n g l i n e . Performance: On the signal, the subject jumps to h i s feet and runs 30 feet to the l i n e . He picks up one block of wood, returns to the s t a r t i n g l i n e , and places the block behind t h i s l i n e . He returns to the i n i t i a l l i n e , picks up the second block of wood, and runs back across the f i n i s h l i n e . Scoring: Measurement i s i n terms of seconds to the nearest tenth of a second from the s t a r t i n g signal u n t i l the subject's chest crosses the f i n i s h l i n e . Controls: The t e s t should be taken i n gym shoes or bare- foot. A 'ready' warning signal i s given p r i o r to the s t a r t i n g s i g n a l . Two t r i a l s with s u f f i c i e n t rest between are allowed and the better t r i a l i s recorded. The Flexed Arm Hang Equipment: A doorway gym bar or horizontal bar placed 6 feet from the f l o o r ; a bench and a timer or stop- watch. St a r t : The subject takes a reverse grasp on the bar (palms towards face). He i s assisted to the position on the bar so that h i s eyes are at the l e v e l of the bar. The arms are f u l l y bent. Performance: The subject holds himself i n t h i s hanging pos i t i o n as long as he i s able. Scoring: The t o t a l period of time that the subject can maintain the exact position i s determined to the nearest second. 64 Controls: The subject must keep the eyes at the l e v e l of the bar. When the subject's head drops below the bar, the tes t i s terminated. One t r i a l i s allowed. The te s t e r counts the seconds out loud. The 50 Yard Run Equipment: A 50 yard straightaway with markers to stakes placed at the star t and the f i n i s h l i n e ; a stop- watch c a l i b r a t e d to one-tenth of a second and a st a r t i n g f l a g . S t a r t : A racing crouch start or a standing p o s i t i o n may be assumed. Performance: On the s t a r t i n g signal 'ready', 'go', the starter drops the f l a g and the runner sprints the 50 yard distance as fast as he can. Scoring: The elapsed time from the s t a r t i n g signal to the passage of the runner's chest across the f i n i s h l i n e i s scored to the nearest tenth of a second. Controls: The tes t i s taken i n gym shoes. Only one runner i s tested at a time on a course, but one tester may time two runners on adjacent courses with a s p l i t timer or two stop-watches. The 300 Yard Run Equipment: A 50 yard straightaway with markers or stakes placed at the start and the f i n i s h l i n e , a stop- watch and a s t a r t i n g f l a g . Start: A racing crouch st a r t or a standing p o s i t i o n may be assumed. Performance: On the s t a r t i n g signal the subject runs straight up and around the stake marker and back over the 50 yard straightaway. The c i r c u i t i s run 3 times to make up the 300 yards. Scoring: The elapsed time from the s t a r t i n g signal to the passage of the runner's chest across the f i n i s h l i n e i s scored to the nearest second. Controls: The tes t i s taken i n gym shoes. Only one runner i s tested at a time on a course, but one tester may time two runners-on adjacent courses with a s p l i t timer or two stop watches. 65 APPENDIX B CRAWFORD AND VIRGIN TEST Grade 1 A g i l i t y Run This t e s t i s set up to t e s t speed, a g i l i t y and judge- ment of distance. Four cone markers are set at the following distances from a s t a r t i n g l i n e : 10', 9%', 7', 6'. Each p u p i l i s given the following i n s t r u c t i o n s : 'Stand behind the s t a r t i n g l i n e and face the markers. Weave around each marker going up and back; cross the f i n i s h l i n e going as fa s t as you can. Make sure that you don't h i t any of the markers. Ready] Go.' The score recorded i s the time i n seconds to the nearest tenth of a second from the signal "Go" u n t i l the pupil crosses the f i n i s h l i n e . I f a pupil h i t s a cone, one second i s added to h i s score; i f a cone i s knocked over, two seconds are added to the score. Each pupil i s permitted two t r i a l s , with the f a s t e s t time taken as h i s score for t h i s t e s t . Throwing This t e s t i s designed to assess hand-eye co-ordination and a b i l i t y to throw into a given area. A l i n e i s drawn p a r a l l e l to the wall at a distance of eight feet. A large hula hoop i s attached to the wall so that i t s lowest point i s four feet from the f l o o r . The following instructions are given to each p u p i l : 'Stand behind the white l i n e and see how many times you can throw the bean bag into the center of the target. You have ten t r i e s . Take your time! 1 The t e s t e r hands the pupil one bean bag at a time. The score recorded i s the number of successful throws out of ten t r i e s . H i t t i n g the rim i s not counted as a 'successful' throw. Stork Stand This i s a t e s t for ' s t a t i c ' balance. Each pupi l i s given the following i n s t r u c t i o n s : 'Leave your r i g h t foot on the ground and place the bottom of your l e f t foot on the inside of the r i g h t knee ( i f the students don't know r i g h t from l e f t , the tester touches the appropriate f o o t ) . Close your eyes and balance i n that position f o r as long as possible. Put your foot down. This time, stand on your l e f t foot and put your r i g h t foot up i n the same position, close your eyes, and balance i n that p o s i t i o n for as long as possible.' (Tester times length of balance). 66 The score recorded i s the length of time i n seconds to the nearest tenth of a second that the student balances, with h i s eyes closed, h i s balancing foot remains i n one place on the f l o o r and h i s raised foot touches the knee. The clock i s started when the student has raised the leg and closed h i s eyes, not on a s p e c i f i c signal given by the te s t e r . Each student i s given two t r i a l s with the r i g h t foot remaining on the f l o o r and two t r i a l s with the l e f t foot remaining on the f l o o r , a l t e r n a t i n g feet each time. The longest balancing time on each foot i s added together to give the f i n a l score f o r the student. A maximum of t h i r t y seconds i s set. for each foot. Jump and Clap This t e s t i s developed to t e s t hand-foot co-ordina- t i o n and timing. The instructions given are: 'Jump, and clap your hands each time your feet h i t the ground (demonstration as w e l l ) . Keep going u n t i l I t e l l you to stop'. The score recorded i s the length of time i n seconds to the nearest tenth of a second that the pupil keeps h i s claps co-ordinated with h i s landings. The clock i s started a f t e r three jumps so that the student has a chance to get orientated. The maximum time allowed i s t h i r t y seconds. Grade 5 A g i l i t y Run This test i s similar to the one described for the Grade 1 pupils, with one exception. In t h i s instance, f i v e as opposed to four cone markers are set up at the following distances from a s t a r t i n g l i n e : 10', 9%', 5^', 4', 1'. The score i s the time i n seconds to the nearest tenth of a second from the signal "Go" u n t i l the pupil crosses the f i n i s h l i n e . As i n Grade 1, each pupi l i s allowed two t r i a l s , with the, faste s t time taken as h i s score f o r the t e s t . Alternate Wall Toss This t e s t i s set up to assess hand-eye co-ordination and the a b i l i t y to use both hands to catch. A l i n e i s marked p a r a l l e l to the wall at a distance of seven feet. A box with four extra b a l l s i s placed to the side of the pupil's r i g h t foot. The d i r e c t i o n s given are: 'Stand behind the white l i n e and face the wall. Throw the b a l l with your r i g h t hand and catch i t with your l e f t hand, without l e t t i n g i t h i t the ground; throw with your l e f t hand, catch with your r i g h t hand. 67 (demonstration) Keep doing t h i s u n t i l I t e l l you to stop. If you lose a b a l l , pick up one from the box to your r i g h t . Ready] Go. 1 The score recorded i s the number of 'successful' catches i n t h i r t y seconds. To be a 'successful' catch, i t must be thrown by the opposite hand to the hand which caught i t , i t must be caught before h i t t i n g the f l o o r , and i t must be caught without the use of the body as a trapping mechanism. Soccer B a l l Throw This t e s t measures the accuracy, arm strength and hand- eye co-ordination of the p u p i l . A l i n e i s drawn p a r a l l e l to the wall and as a distance of f i v e feet from the wall. A rectangle (the borders are marked i n red) i s drawn on the wall f i v e feet from the f l o o r and with sides measuring 9" by 12". The instructions given to each pup i l are: 'Sit down with your legs straight out, and heels on the white l i n e . Make sure you are straight i n front of the target. You have ten t r i e s . Take your time and see how many times you can throw the b a l l over- hand into the center of the target.' A red u n t i l i t y b a l l i s used. The score recorded i s the number of times out of the ten t r i a l s that the student throws the b a l l so i t lands inside the target area. Toe Touch This t e s t i s designed to assess a g i l i t y and f l e x i b i l i t y ' A mat i s required f o r landing. The in s t r u c t i o n s given to each pupi l are: •Jump up and touch your toes keeping your legs s t r a i g h t . (A demonstration i s given as w e l l ) . You have f i v e t r i e s . Take your time. 1 The score recorded i s the number of times that the student completes the action touching both h i s toes and not bending h i s knees to more than 45 degrees. APPENDIX C CAHPER FITNESS PERFORMANCE TEST CARD DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE MINISTERE DE LA SANTE NATIONAIE ET DU BIEN-ETRE SOCIAL CANADA FITNESS AWARD—LE PRIX CANADIEN D'EFFICIENCE PHYSIQUE GOVERNMENT CF CANADA . GOUVERNEMENT DU CANADA TEST RECORD FICHE des RESULT ATS i I I i i i i NAME OF INSTITUTION (Please Print—En letlres moulees) N O M DE L'lNSTITUTION I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ADDRESS (Number 8> street; P.O. Box or R.R. No.) ADRESSE (No et rue; Case postale ou No de R.R.I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (City, Ville) •I I I I I (Zone—Zone postale) (Province) . i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i NAME OF PARTICIPANT—NOM DU PARTICIPANT i 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DATE OF I DATE DE r Day-Jour IRTH •IAISSANCE Mth.-Mois Yr.-Annee SEX—SEXE (VI 1 AGE AS OF TEST DATE ' 1 AGE IE JOUR DU TEST I 1 MALE j 1 FEMALE 1 1 J HOMME I 1 FEMME Ans" CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF YEARS YOU HAVE PARTICIPATED (including this year) ENCERCLEZ IE NUMERO INDIQUANT VOS ANNEES COMME PARTICIPANT, Y COMPRIS CETTE ANNEE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II TESTS—EPREUVES RAV/ SCORE COMPTE BRUT PERCENT POUR- CENTAGE BEST % 'S EXTENDED MEILLEURS % ATTEINTS SPEED SIT-UPS (No.) REDRESSEMENTS ASSIS (Nombre) STANDING BROAD JUMP IFI.-ln.) SAUT EN LONGUEUR (Pi.-Po.) SHUTTLE RUN (Sec.) COURSE—NAVETTE FLEXED ARM HANG (Sec.) SUSPENSION A LA BARRE 50 YARD RUN (Sec.) COURSE DE 50 VERGES 300 YARD RUN (Sec.) 1 COURSE DE 300 VERGES ! i TOTAL OF FOUR BEST, OR ALL SIX PERCENTAGES k TOTAL DES QUATRE MEILLEURS OU DES SIX POURCENTAGES V AVERAGE OF FOUR BEST OR ALL SIX PERCENTAGES MOYENNE DES QUATRE MEILLEURS O U DES SIX POURCENTAGES 0 7 7o CHECK (v'l AWARD EARNED COCHER M LE PRIX GAGNE F A S 3 (9-70) !_J BRONZE SILVER ARGENT 69 APPENDIX D ' MOTOR ABILITY TEST SCORE CARD GRADES 1, 2, AND 3 Name Age Height Weight A g i l i t y Run: T r i a l #1 T r i a l #2 Score Throw: T r i a l s 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10_ Score Stork Stand: T r i a l #1 l e f t right_ #2 l e f t right_ Score Jump and Clap: Time Score MOTOR ABILITY TEST SCORE CARD GRADES 4 AND 5 Name Age Height Weight A g i l i t y Run: T r i a l #1 T r i a l #2 Score Alternate Wall Toss 30 second score Score Soccer b a l l throw T r i a l s 1 , 2__, 3 , 4 , 6_, 7__, 8_, 9_, 1 0 _ Score Toe touch t r i a l s : #1 , #2 , #3 , #4 ,. #5 Score 70 APPENDIX E CAHPER FITNESS PERFORMANCE TEST SCORES GIRLS STANDING SHUTTLE FLEXED 50 300 iGE SIT-UPS BROAD JUMP RUN ARM HANG YARD RUN YARD Rt 6 15 34 16.1 2.1 11.4 93.0 6 0 36 14.8 7.3 6 33 25 17.4 8.8 11.1 96.4 6 20 49 14.1 12.5 9.6 84.1 6 29 34 15.7 5.1 12.1 90.3 6 22 37 14.4 19.2 10.8 93.2 6 03 33 15.5 10.2 11.1 93.1 6 09 36 15.0 1.1 11.8 99.9 7 11 44 14.5 11.0 11.4 88.2 7 14 33 15.3 1.0 7 31 48 14.2 6.3 10.5 88.0 7 20 55 12.5 13.1 7 35 49 13.8 17.8 7 19 48 13.9 7.2 10.2 83.7 7 04 32 15.4 0.0 10.8 93.0 7 12 38 14.3 7.5 11.2 93.8 7 15 44 14.0 8.7 7 10 46 15.0 9.0 11.5 98.2 7 06 26 15.8 10.0 10.5 87.0 7 25 40 14.7 5.6 10.0 78.1 7 0 44 13.9 29.5 9.6 83.2 7 21 43 15.5 7.5 9.6 84.6 7 15 42 13.6 30.5 9.8 82.2 7 30 41 14.8 12.5 7 23 48 13.1 6.2 9.6 79.0 7 .28 51 16.2 15.1 9.3 82.3 7 12 31 16.1 21.5 11.0 99.9 7 15 51 14.5 13.5 10.5 83.5 7 13 40 14.5 18.1 9.6 95.5 7 30 42 14.7 9.7 9.7 75.0 7 49 50 15.2 28.5 7 20 34 14.5 7.8 10.4 91.0 7 05 43 5.5 10.0 86.5 7 30 39 14.5 12.2 10.3 90.0 7 50 49 14.2 26.2 9.0 79.9 7 14 35 14.3 8.9 11.4 96.1 7 13 38 14.3 15.3 10.4 89.2 7 25 49 16.2 11.3 10.0 92.2 7 15 45 14.1 21.3 10.2 91.1 7 20 38 15.3 9.0 11.1 93.0 7 30 43 15.0 9.5 10.0 86.8 7 05 31 17.2 2.3 11.4 92.5 7 18 38 15.1 19.2 9.8 82.1 7 7 31 17.0 1.0 11.8 99.8 71 CAHPER FITNESS PERFORMANCE TEST SCORES, Continued STANDING SHUTTLE FLEXED 50 300 iGE S IT-UPS BROAD JUMP RUN ARM HANG YARD RUN YARD Rl 7 24 34 15.2 1.8 13.2 99.7 7 12 27 13.3 11.6 91.2 7 07 32 16.8 4.2 11.4 97.2 7 20 38 17.0 11.0 7 28 38 17.5 0.0 7 15 47 14.5 5.4 9.9 84.2 7 23 32 8.8 7 19 35 15.5 7.1 10.8 80.1 7 31 43 14.6 2.6 10.5 78.0 7 20 30 16.8 5.8 10.3 86.9 8 16 36 16.8 0.0 8 14 54 14.1 24.0 10.3 92. 3 8 23 45 13.0 29.0 9.5 83.2 8 24 52 14.2 32.0 10.1 90.3 8 31 56 15.4 41.5 9.2 82.3 8 40 47 13.9 8 21 . 43 14.9 4.5 10.5 91.0 8 10 34 15.2 0.0 10.2 82.6 8 19 32 14.0 10.2 8 18 47 14.3 33.4 9.2 - 79.5 8 22 41 16.2 12.1 10.5 90.0 8 06 31 17.4 4.2 11.6 97.5 8 0 37 17.1 4.2 11.7 96.5 8 18 40 14.5 4.1 11.0 99.5 8 25 33 15.8 12.2 8 30 44 13.5 7.3 9.8 80.3 8. 12 44 14.6 3.2 9.5 99.9 8 12 51 12.9 6.6 9.6 85.4 8 27 43 12.4 22.7 9.1 75.3 8 14 53 12.7 12.1 9.4 78.5 8 31 46 12.8 18.2 9.3 78.5 8 10 42 14.8 1.0 9.7 85.3 8 26 47 13.9 25.3 9.4 76.4 8 23 38 15.8 11.1 9.4 83.5 8 20 41 13.6 25.7 10.0 85.6 8 23 46 13.2 14.8 9.5 76.1 8 18 41 15.5 21.2 10.2 81.3 8 01 40 15.1 1.0 9.7 99.9 8 23 50 13.3 22.0 9.5 77.1 8 30 59 12.2 9.2 8.7 73.2 8 16 38 14.7 16.8 10.8 91.5 8 04 24 17.8 7.5 10.2 83.8 8 22 52 13.8 28.5 9.6 82.5 8 23 55 11.9 15.0 9.2 77.5 8 0 37 16.0 2.8 10.8 79.2 8 08 42 14.4 8 17 49 12.8 4.2 8 08 34 16.3 4.2 10.7 98.9 8 18 44 15.8 5.7 10.3 84.5 8 28 42 14.5 8.5 9.5 83.0 72 CAHPER FITNESS PERFORMANCE TEST SCORES, Continued STANDING SHUTTLE FLEXED 50 300 AGE SIT-UPS BROAD JUMP RUN ARM HANG YARD RUN- YARD Rl 8 13 37 13.8 25.2 9.8 75.9 8 17 58 13.1 8.1 8.7 85.5 8 23 39 14.7 6.3 8 30 52 12.7 36.0 9.5 76.5 8 01 38 15.0 1.0 8 17 49 14.5 25.1 9.6 73.5 8 17 53 12.2 9.5 9.2 92.8 8 28 39 15.3 15.4 10.9 80.5 8 24 26 12.8 13.0 9.8 79.1 9 16 33 15.0 12.5 9.4 78.3 9 22 54 14.6 22.3 10.5 9 23 49 13.8 . 11.5 10.4 77.8 9 25 59 12.4 17.0 9.8 75.7 9 04 49 12.5 14.2 9.4 80.4 9 38 23.0 11.0 85.0 9 24 50 12.8 17.0 9.4 86.0 9 25 38 13.8 3.0 10.4 86.2 9 30 50 12.6 15.2 8.6 67.2 9 38 55 11.8 53.0 9 33 36 14.8 1.0 10.0 85.1 9 28 51 13.1 4.0 9.0 76.0 9 21 52 13.1 11.2 9 21 37 15.5 1.0 11.5 99.3 9 28 45 13.1 11.5 9 21 50 12.8 35.0 10.4 85.0 9 13 43 14.5 11.0 9 48 13.2 8.3 9 25 52 14.3 3.0 10.0 77.0 9 25 55 14.0 33.0 10.5 80.0 9 22 43 15.0 7.0 9 27 38 15.2 6.2 11.5 98.5 9 22 44 15.0 53.0 8.9 73.0 9 25 50 13.0 11.0 93.0 9 27 56 12.8 20.0 8.5 78.5 9 26 54 11.9 54.0 78.6 9 30 45 13.4 9.1 8.5 72.9 9 44 52 13.5 13.0 9.8 97.2 9 35 45 13.5 13.0 9 25 14.0 1.0 11.1 ' 82.8 9 25 64 11.7 43.0 8.4 71.5 9 30 49 13.2 5.0 9.5 88.0 9 30 39 15.3 13.0 8.5 77.2 9 18 52 13.3 22.0 9 15 9.8 99.0 9 30 62 12.7 20.0 10.1 77.6 9 30 59 13.0 26.0 8.1 68.8 9 18 40 15.2 3.0 10.9 85.0 73 CAHPER FITNESS PERFORMANCE TEST SCORES, Continued STANDING SHUTTLE FLEXED 50 300 AGE SIT-UPS BROAD JUMP RUN ARM HANG YARD RUN YARD RUN 9 33 9 35 47 13.5 13.0 9.7 80.0 9 35 35 14.7 11.5 10.0 74.6 9 04 35 14.8 7.0 93.0 9 24 9.8 82.0 9 36 63 15.0 58.0 8.6 72.5 9 36 51 15.8 24.0 9 20 44 14.8 7.0 10 18 57 14.0 98.0 9.4 10 41 65 11.6 15.0 9.0 67.4 10 28 52 13.5 12.2 9.0 83.6 10 22 62 13.5 21.5 8.2 83.4 10 52 62 12.5 76.0 8.2 74.1 10 22 40 13.2 14.0 9.1 10 ' 31 9.2 10 20 56 12.3 14.0 9.4 83.4 10 31 53 12.5 11.0 10.0 74.5 10 48 9.0 10 52 13.5 23.0 9.0 77.0 10 44 14.4 7.5 10 30 50 14.7 35.6 10 29 53 .13.9 10.8 8.3 82.0 10 35 8.7 81. 2 10 10 39 17.0 9.5 91.0 10 15 55 13.3 60.0 10.0 74.0 10 31 57 12.8 12.8 8.4 88.0 10 34 55 13.4 35.0 9.1 77.4 10 22 48 14.6 10.1 88.1 10 38 12.8 20.0 9.5 10 21 54 13.5 31.5 7.7 84.2 10 25 53 13.0 1.0 8.8 75.4 10 21 63 13.5 51.0 8.6 82.5 10 30 15.0 10.8 95.5 10 32 51 13.0 17.0 9.0 . 73.0 10 31 39 13.4 6.0 9.8 84.0 10 35 55 12.4 14.0 8.2 78.7 10 49 13.7 9.0 9.9 87.0 10 16 53 18.0 51.0 9.4 79.1 10 20 36 15.3 1.0 12.1 94.0 10 16 54 13.3 22.5 9.7 86.3 10 31 38 15.5 1.0 12.0 99.0 10 34 58 12.8 15.0 8.6 81.0 10 45 61 12.7 34.0 8.6 10 16 57 11.9 8.5 10 50 13.9 28.0 10.5 87.0 10 25 54 12.2 19.0 10.4 83.0 10 39 47 11.6 17.0 74 CAHPER FITNESS PERFORMANCE TEST STANDING SHUTTLE AGE SIT-UPS BROAD JUMP RUN 10 30 48 14.0 10 37 43 14.4 10 26 51 12.2 10 25 57 12.1 10 33 57 12.0 11 29 45 14.0 11 25 55 12.5 11 28 60 12.6 11 29 59 14.0 11 24 56 13.2 11 38 14.4 11 25 58 12.6 11 30 52 14.2 11 18 56 13.2 11 45 59 12.0 11 56 67 11.7 11 17 43 14.5 11 29 58 1.13 11 28 53 14.6 11 35 61 13.2 11 34 56 12.5 11 30 67 12.4 11 44 74 10.6 11 29 73 12.5 11 34 59 11.9 11 46 62 12.2 11 30 13.0 11 23 57 13.7 11 30 54 13.3 11 27 51 12.7 11 45 63 12.4 11 11 39 52 13.8 11 27 31 12.8 11 32 60 12.3 11 19 52 13.8 11 25 49 14.3 11 52 11.9 11 35 52 12.5 11 31 59 12.4 11 15 39 13.4 11 31 12.6 11 17 57 13.0 11 27 59 12.1 11 24 59 12.6 11 30 67 12.0 11 27 66 12.7 SCORES, Continued FLEXED 50 300 ARM HANG YARD RUN YARD RUN 11.5 25.0 10.0 81.9 6.5 12.1 86.0 36.0 8.1 70.0 33.0 18.0 9.2 81.6 30.0 9.1 77.8 19.1 8.6 71.7 12.0 8.6 82.9 11.5 9.1 74.5 2.0 26.5 8.0 76.8 2.0 9.5 89.5 1.0 9.0 87.9 56.0 8.4 70.2 61.0 7.5 67.8 10.6 82.0 20.6 7.6 75.4 20.0 9.1 71.5 21.0 8.5 80.3 27.0 9.7 60.5 13.5 8.4 79.6 62.0 7.2 61.5 39.0 8.4 75.5 39.0 8.9 71.0 14.1 8.1 76.9 20.0 9.1 71.0 23.0 8.6 81.5 60.0 9.4 16.2 8.6 76.2 54.0 9.2 72.4 12.0 51.0 9.0 69.0 12.1 10.2 88.5 55.0 8.7 69.6 9.8 9.0 1.0 10.6 89.6 37.0 9.0 68.0 22.0 9.0 72.0 24.0 9.3 75.9 1.0 11.1 93.0 39.0 8.6 76.2 24.0 8.8 74.5 22.0 8.8 71.5 16.0 9.9 76.2 20.0 9.2 20.0 9.7 70.0 75 CAHPER FITNESS PERFORMANCE TEST SCORES, Continued STANDING SHUTTLE AGE SIT-UPS BROAD JUMP RUN 11 30 54 13.0 11 18 40 12.6 11 25 54 13.7 11 33 58 12.0 12 22 59 12.4 12 22 50 13.5 12 21 40. 13.6 12 37 11.4 12 31 59 11.3 12 07 14.1 12 27 64 13.0 12 22 53 13.4 12 31 57 11.7 12 30 49 12.7 FLEXED 50 300 ARM HANG YARD RUN YARD RUN 26.0 9.3 78.8 16.0 9.1 65.0 23.0 9.0 35.0 9.0 70.0 11.0 8.5 79.3 14.0 10.5 80.1 1.0 10.0 99.8 63.0 8.5 66.0 39.0 7.8 64.5 9.0 10.1 25.0 8.5 71.0 16.0 8.2 53.0 9.1 78.1 26.0 10.1 80.2 / 76 CAHPER FITNESS PERFORMANCE TEST SCORES BOYS STANDING SHUTTLE AGE SIT-UPS BROAD JUMP RUN 6 02 . 26 16.0 6 20 53 18.8 6 0 30 16.0 6 24 47 12.5 7 21 47 13.4 7 12 45 7 19 41 15.3 7 26 55 12.5 7 18 43 14.5 7 10 44 12.8 7 25 49 13.0 7 19 35 15.7 7 36 40 12.5 7 22 51 12.6 •7 • 31 43 13.6 7 13 47 14.3 7 24 54 13.5 7 41 37 12.4 7 25 51 13.5 7 29 41 14.6 7 31 49 14.1 7 36 52 13.2 7 28 49 12.2 7 21 43 15.2 7 31 43 13i9 7 17 42 15.6 7 04 40 13.6 7 0 38 13.6 7 i9 35 16.5 7 21 45 14.1 7 06 40 13.7 7 25 46 14.1 7 19 40 14.2 7 24 41 14.5 7 24 51 13.8 7 42 63 15.1 7 12 58 14.5 7 29 40 15.4 7 25 37 14.8 7 27 41 12.4 7 22 43 12.6 7 32 42 15.0 7 20 60 13.0 7 10 42 7 • 0 55 13.0 7 24 41 14.5 FLEXED 50 300 ARM HANG YARD RUN YARD RUN 14.3 10.8 99.9 9.3 77.5 11.0 9.7 95.0 9.2 10.4 80.5 2.8 9.5 88.7 5.2 9.4 93.3 12.7 9.0 9.2 82.7 41.0 10.0 90.5 54.5 9.3 77.0 5.5 39.8 9.3 74.5 14.0 9.5 79.8 11.5 10.2 96.2 10.5 10.7 83.2 19.0 9.4 82.4 5.2 9.4 78.1 18.0 10.1 96.2 30.0 10.8 92.8 16.5 9.0 73.9 14.8 19.7 9.8 80.3 14.5 10.3 88.0 9.5 9.8 80.1 13.8 10.0 83.9 10.2 11.2 98.5 6.2 9.2 11.2 97.2 10.7 9.7 80.9 8.8 11.0 83.8 4.5 11.3 93.9 54.0 17.1 9.6 78.9 63.0 9.3 89.1 15.8 9.5 81.2 16.5 9.2 80.9 10.6 84.5 26.0 9.5 85.6 2.3 9.8 80.5 7.5 9.8 99.8 9.8 76.9 1.0 11.0 87.4 10.5 9.7 75.8 54.0 77 CAHPER FITNESS PERFORMANCE TEST SCORES, Continued STANDING SHUTTLE FLEXED 50 300 AGE SIT-UPS BROAD JUMP RUN ARM HANG YARD RUN YARD Ru 7 23 47 13.1 18.2 10.0 83.9 7 15 56 14.5 26.5 9.5 76.4 7 14 48 12.8 7.6 8 40 50 12.6 25.0 8.9 78.3 8 27 54 12.6 26.4 9.2 8 17 55 12.8 9.8 77.0 8 40 64 11.6 65.5 9.1 72.0 8 15 48 13.0 12.4 9.0 76.4 8 21 37 15.9 15.3 9.5 82.5 8 40 54 12.3 22.3 10.5 74.0 8 32 44 32.0 8.8 77.2 8 12 46 13.7 19.2 10.3 86.3 8 18 49 12.8 15.8 8 26 51 13.1 11.2 10.4 82.6 8 27 51 12.0 13.8 9.4 85.3 8 04 32 15.8 7.2 11.7 84.7 8 31 41 14.5 14.7 8 44 61 12.5 34.5 8.5 72.0 8 27 53 14.3 3.2 9.8 83.5 8 28 44 13.7 6.0 8 24 43 13.4 19.8 9.0 71.8 8 03 49 14.7 3.8 9.2 90.9 8 9.0 79.8 8 21 ' 42 14.0 12.9 10.3 82.1 8 12 49 14.2 11.6 10.1 82.7 8 10 52 12.7 9.3 74.5 8 04 55 14.2 4.3 10.0 84.8 8 27 42 13.5 6.3 11.8 96.5 8 39 52 12.7 8.4 71.0 8 23 32 11.4 11.8 8.9 72.8 8 20 56 12.5 9.0 73.1 8 33 47 12.8 47.0 9.0 79.5 8 15 57 14.2 49.1 8.7 68.5 8 9.8 .82.5 8 31 53 13.4 9.3 8,8 73.3 8 21 42 14.7 8.9 10.6 88.0 8 11 37 11.6 19.1 8 17 43 13.8 5.1 10.3 85.2 8 23 43 13.0 26.5 9.3 75.6 8 18 51 12.0 30.6 8.9 76.9 8 19 52 12.8 15.0 8 16 54 12.6 9.4 81.1 8 21 38 13.8 9.7 82.3 8 06 38 12.7 14.8 8 32 45 13.5 16.0 .8 04 40 15.8 9.2 8 20 40 16.0 4.0 10.3 81.5 8 18 41 14.5 13.4 9.4 83.2 78 CAHPER FITNESS PERFORMANCE TEST STANDING SHUTTLE AGE SIT-UPS BROAD JUMP RUN 9 29 53 11.9 9 30 62 12.0 9 44 67 11.8 9 57 70 11.5 9 27 41 12.6 9 30 44 14.0 9 20 61 11.2 9 41 66 11.5 9 33 43 13.9 9 24 63 11.6 9 28 55 12.0 9 01 35 14.6 9 31 57 13.7 9 39 57 12.8 9 04 42 .13.3 9 30 64 11.5 9 28 44 12.8 9 24 56 12.2 9 26 32 12.5 9 20 54 12.0 9 20 48 13.2 9 25 53 12.0 9 32 57 14.0 9 38 58 11.7 9 30 48 11.5 9 42 56 10.8 9 23 56 12.5 9 31 52 9 28 65 12.-3 9 47 62 11.7 9 15 51 12.5 9 32 56 11.5 9 35 52 13.1 9 29 58 13.2 9 05 51 12.1 9 41 11.1 9 26 54 12.1 9 30 48 11.1 9 42 51 10 19 57 12.6 10 55 70 12.7 10 14 57 12.2 10 31 59 12.1 10 18 53 13.5 10 27 56 13.0 10 23 52 13.9 10 39 52 12.2 SCORES, Continued FLEXED 50 300 ARM HANG YARD RUN YARD RUN 19.5 8.0 75.0 12.0 8.2 72.8 65.7 8.0 69.4 40.3 79.6 10.4 9.1 72.1 4.5 9.8 92.0 91.5 9.3 37.4 73.6 15.8 9.0 94.1 13.5 9.5 70.0 9.1 9.3 77.0 0 10.8 99.8 15.0 10.4 89.0 17.2 8.7 70.0 5.1 10.2 87.5 29.7 10.4 76.4 21.0 9.3 75.5 7.5 8.7 70.0 2.8 9.5 78.7 27.3 10.1 81.4 9.6 8.5 78.1 7.0 8.8 76.8 9.3 9.6 75.0 34.6 9.3 77.2 14.5 8.7 76.8 62.0 8.1 73.4 45.0 9.5 72.0 42.0 9.0 72.4 68.0 9.5 79.3 22.0 8.5 83.4 18.0 8.3 86.6 57.4 9.5 86.0 62.7 8.3 79.2 92.0 9.2 77.0 17.5 10.0 85.0 9.6 76.0 35.7 8.5 72.1 59.5 9.4 76.0 9.2 8.7 80.2 9.2 9.0 75.6 57.0 9.2 73.5 18.0 10.4 75.0 44.0 9.0 73.0 18.4 10.0 76.6 36.0 9.0 78.8 22.0 8.3 81.4 31.0 9.0 72.5 79 CAHPER FITNESS PERFORMANCE TEST SCORES, Continued STANDING SHUTTLE FLEXED 50 300 AGE SIT-UPS BROAD JUMP RUN ARM HANG YARD RUN YARD Rl 10 48 66 12.0 18.9 8.6 75.0 10 35 66 9.9 16.5 7.6 68.0 10 38 60 12.5 7.7.3 . 9.5 75.2 10 30 46 11.6 48.0 8.1 73.0 10 23 50 12.8 65.1 9.7 77.6 10 55 55 12.2 26.5 10.0 71.4 10 19 31 13.8 3.7 9.2 79.9 10 10 32 1.0 8.7 96.5 10 45 55 12.5 27.0 7.9 73.0 10 23 48 11.9 8.5 8.5 76.4 10 35 9.1 78.2 10 27 65 12.0 20.0 8.8 75.8 10 41 . 58 12.1 29.5 9.0 69.0 10 28 59 12.5 8.0 8.5 80.0 10 44 68 11.0 70.0 8.5 70.0 10 37 61 12.6 48.0 10.0 70.1 10 33 63 12.2 39.0 8.3 73.0 10 30 52 13.6 9.3 9.0 76.4 10 56 60 11.8 73.9 8.1 55.2 10 29 56 12.0 26.0 9.0 71.0 10 27 48 12.9 62.9 11 41 70 12.0 44.8 8.0 65.2 11 38 53 12.3 30.0 7.7 70.7 11 33 46 12.9 14.0 8.3 75.2 11 45 38 12.6 64.3 9.5 73.0 11 11 47 9.0 11 21 54 13.0 13.5 9.0 73.5 11 43 63 11.8 35.5 7.6 68.2 11 35 63 11.9 70.0 9.5 72.0 11 50 73 11.5 60.0 8.8 67.7 11 16 33 13.2 6.0 10.5 88.0 11 30 48 13.5 12.5 9.3 77.0 11 52 60 12.7 80.5 8.0 64.0 11 34 62 12.8 44.0 8.1 64.0 11 41 65 12.1 39.0 8.0 71.8 11 38 54 13.5 81.0 9.0 75.3 11 21 53 13.2 3.5 10.0 78.8 11 30 60 13.3 14.0 9.2 74.3 11 30 40 12.1 13.0 9.0 73.4 11 25 62 12.3 10.0 10.0 72.7 11 46 50 12.6 14.0 8.5 69.2 11 33 61 11.8 20.5 8.0 75.0 11 13.0 8.5 74.5 11 30 58 11.7 41.0 9.0 69.4 11 39 58 13.4 35.0 9.5 71.1 11 30 48 13.1 60.0 8.5 68.8 11 ' 28 61 12.3 42.5 9.0 67.5 80 CAHPER FITNESS PERFORMANCE TEST SCORES, Continued STANDING SHUTTLE AGE SIT-UPS BROAD JUMP RUN 11 38 55 11.8 11 24 59 11.8 11 34 54 12.7 11 35 63 14.0 11 41 55 11.2 12 25 78 12 40 61 11.9 12 32 56 12.8 12 40 64 12 20 56 12 62 78 10.0 12 39 67 13.0 12 30 60 13.2 12 18 58 12.5 12 47 52 13.5 12 42 67 12.4 12 33 57 12.8 12 55 66 12.1 12 33 64 12.4 12 34 63 12.3 12 42 56 11.8 12 22 63 12.5 12 25 65 12 39 64 12.0 12 18 55 12.5 12 23 50- 12.6 12 25 72 12.1 12 36 48 12.7 12 38 49 12 27 48 15.0 12 36 61 11.2 12 30 47 13.4 12 43 66 10.9 12 35 53 12.3 12 36 64 12 30 54 11.9 12 45 53 12.4 12 15 42 15.3 12 50 78 12.6 12 12.8 FLEXED 50 300 ARM HANG YARD RUN YARD RUN 29.0 9.0 67.0 81.8 8.0 74.3 31.0 9.0 72.2 8.5 77.5 29.0 8.0 67.9 55.0 61.0 8.7 70.3 53.0 9.6 67.8 24.0 9.0 68.9 11.0 76.0 7.2 59.0 20.2 9.0 71.2 12.8 11.0 75.3 11.0 9.2 75.0 9.6 80.0 26.0 8.0 62.0 12.1 9.0 77.5 82.5 7.8 62.4 23.0 8.2 77.9 50.0 8.0 68.6 11.8 8.6 70.3 40.5 8.5 70.0 34.1 9.0 72.5 18.0 8.5 71.2 15.8 9.0 72.0 15.8 9.1 84.0 33.2 8.2 66.3 40.1 9.0 77.3 83.0 8.2 73.6 21.0 9.3 75.1 39.9 10.0 79.0 40.9 8.7 70.5 31.8 8.0 70.0 61.0 44.0 8.1 72.2 92.0 8.4 70.0 0.0 10.0 97.0 75.0 8.2 64.2 8.6 75.0 APPENDIX F CRAWFORD AND VIRGIN MOTOR ABILITY TEST RAW SCORES 6 YEAR OLD GIRLS AGILITY RUN THROW STORK STAND JUMP AND CLAP 9.0 4 8.6 30.0 8.8 1 9.0 4.0 9.2 6 14.0 11.0 8.9 7 9.0 21.0 9.2 1 8.0 3.0 9.8 5 9.0 23.0 11.2 4 5.3 6.5 9.8 1 4.9 6.0 9.7 2 7.4 6.0 9.6 4 7.0 1.0 8.6 0 11.0 30.0 9.2 0 8.0 27.0 8.5 3 5.0 30.0 10.8 5 11.0 13.0 9.9 10 .21.0 5.0 9.8 • 0 9.3 21.0 9.8 4 5.3 6.0 10.2 1 12.1 5.5 10.5 4 5.5 1.2 14.8 3 6.5 17.0 10.2 5 8.3 2.0 11.3 4 6.2 4.2 10.7 9 6.7 6.8 9.8 6 6.4 30.0 10.0 3 8.0 18.0 8.9 8 10.0 8.0 9.8 5 5.0 17.0 10.1 0 28.0 12.4 10.2 5 10.0 30.0 9.1 9 13.2 30.0 10.0 3 40.0 11.4 10.2 6 4.0 22.0 10.4 6 5,0 26.0 9.2 4 8.0 13.0 10.0 0 7.5 30.0 9.5 5 11.0 13.0 8.8 4 13.0 19.0 7.5 4 5.0 8.0 8.4 3 9.0 16.0 9.5 4 34.4 30.0 10.2 7 18.5 10.5 9.0 2 13.9 30.0 9.3 9 82 CRAWFORD AND VIRGIN MOTOR ABILITY TEST RAW SCORES, Continued 6 YEAR OLD BOYS AGILITY RUN THROW STORK STAND JUMP AND CLAP 10.9 8 11.4 30.0 7.3 10 46.1 22.7 9.3 8 40.3 9.0 10.0 3 5.0 5.0 13.4 1 3.8 11.0 13.5 6 8.3 13.0 11.8 3 13.8 8.0 9.0 5 11.6 30.0 10.0 10 6.6 7.0 9.8 8 7.1 4.0 10.1 9 8.0 6.0 9.6 5 6.6 1.0 9.3 6 14.2 3.0 9.4 5 5.4 1.9 9.4 8 15.9 12.3 9.8 7 10.1 2.0 11.9 8 4.6 4.0 10.7 10 33.0 30.0 10.9 3 11.1 8.0 10.2 . 8 10.3 25.7 9.3 2 16.9 30.0 10.4 7 8.5 1.8 11.4 5 6.5 15.4 11.8 3 18.5 26.0 8.7 4 21.0 5.0 8.8 2 19.0 20.0 * 7.8 9 16.0 8.5 9.8 0 6.0 14.8 8.0 3 7.0 3.4 9.4 5 32.0 3.0 10.6 4 8.5 2.3 9.2 10 5.9 12.2 9.4 6 4.8 6.3 8.2 9 20.2 5.0 9.2 5 11.1 2.3 9.3 5 17.0 4.3 10.8 3 33.0 4.8 9.1 2 4.5 8.7 9.2 6 6.0 19.7 9.8 3 7.0 14.0 10.0 5 7.0 8.2 9.3 8 7.5 27.0 10.8 2 7.0 13.0 10.8 0 7.0 6.0 8.2 6 7.5 11.0 10.6 0 3.0 16.0 CRAWFORD AND VIRGIN MOTOR ABILITY TEST RAW SCORES, Continued 6 YEAR OLD BOYS, Continued AGILITY RUN THROW 11.2 3 9.3 0 9.0 2 8.5 6 10.5 3 7.4 4 11.6 6 8.1 5 10.8 9 8.6 8 STORK STAND 32.0 6.0 3.0 10.0 4.0 14.0 4.0 6.3 10.4 9.0 JUMP AND CLAP 4.0 19.5 4.0 27.0 6.0 24.0 6.0 2.0 5.9 24.0 84 CRAWFORD AND VIRGIN MOTOR ABILITY TEST RAW SCORES, Continued 10 YEAR OLD GIRLS ALTERNATE AGILITY RUN . WALL TOSS 6.9 5 7.4 7.4 7 7.3 3 7.0 7.8 5 8.5 8 6.0 6 7.1 8.2 7 9.0 2 7.3 7.7 7.5 11 7.8 1 6.7 9.8 2 7.7 0 8.6 8 7.3 0 6.8 3 6.0 1 7.0 6.8 1 7.0 • 0 8.0 4 7.4 15 7.3 9 7.5 2 7.1 .3 8.8 3 8.2 7 7.5 0 7.4 1 7.7 2 8.5 3 7.1 8 8.5 0 6.8 0 SOCCER BALL THROW TOE TOUCH 2 5 .3 5 4 5 1 2 8 5 5 5 3 0 5 4 3 4 4 5 5 3 4 0 3 7 5 6 0 8 2 3 0 5 1 2 0 5 0 6 3 8 1 2 5 8 5 4 4 6 4 6 5 2 0 4 0 2 5 2 0 0 0 0 3 6 4 2 0 6 0 7 0 4 5 7 0 85 CRAWFORD AND VIRGIN MOTOR ABILITY TEST RAW SCORES, Continued 10 YEAR OLD BOYS ALTERNATE SOCCER BALL AGILITY RUN WALL TOSS THROW . TOE TOUCH 7.2 16 6 5 7.5 12 .3 1 7.2 16 5 5 7.5 20 6 5 7.7 14 9 5 8.2 6 6 3 10.0 12 8 0 8.0 2 3 0 8.0 1 1 2 6.6 9 3 5 7.0 12 6 3 8.0 0 2 5 6.8 4 5 3 6.7 9 6 5 7.8 3 5 5 6.3 3 5 4 7.0 8 4 1 6.2 9 4 5 7.2 12 5 5 7.0 15 6 4 7.5 9 6 4 9.0 2 3 2 7.8 8 3 4 6.7 15 6 5 7.7 • 7 1 5 8.2 4 1 1 7.4 0 0 5 6.8 10 8 5 8.0 2 1 3 V. 86 APPENDIX G C e l l Numbers f o r CAHPER Results Male Female West Van- West Van- Age End Couver Canada End Couver Canada 7 40 32 50 . 42 32 50 8 39 34 50 46 32 50 9 38 32 50 40 33 50 10 . 28. 34 50 38 35 50 11 30 34 50 43 35 50 12 32 36 50 12 36 50

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
India 8 0
United States 8 0
Japan 5 0
Ghana 1 0
China 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 9 2
Tokyo 5 0
Ashburn 2 0
Buckeye 2 0
Boardman 2 0
Mountain View 1 0
Los Angeles 1 0
Beijing 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077327/manifest

Comment

Related Items