Development of a Questionnaire Assessing School Physical Activity Environment

This study was designed to develop the Questionnaire Assessing School Physical Activity Environment (Q--SPACE) based on student perceptions. Twenty-eight items rated on 4-point Likert scales were administered to 244 middle school students in 9 schools. Exploratory factor analysis was used to evaluate the underlying structure of the items and 2 factors were extracted: physical environment (PE) and social environment (SE). Twelve and 8 items loaded saliently on PE (e.g., gym classes available) and SE (e.g., teacher encouragement), respectively. Factor scales had alpha coefficients of .86 (PE) and .81 (SE). One-week test–retest reliabilities for the factor scales of PE and SE were .78 and .72, respectively. Differences in PE scale scores across schools and PE and SE scale scores across student school physical activity behavior (e.g., participation on school teams) provided some evidence of scale construct validity. Overall, Q–SPACE demonstrates acceptable reliability for capturing middle school students' perceptions of school physical activity environment. The factorial validity needs to be assessed with confirmatory factor analysis and invariance testing procedures.     

The how and why of academic collaboration: disciplinary differences and policy implications

This paper examines how and why academics in different parts of the academy collaborate. In this paper we argue that: (1) There is a useful analytical distinction to be made between collaboration (fluid and expressive) and Collaboration (concrete and instrumental); (2) These two are not mutually exclusive and their use varies between disciplines; and (3) This distinction is an informative one for policy making that aims to encourage collaboration. Two interview based studies were used to explore the differences in collaborative practices across disciplines. The first was small and confined to a single university (n = 36) and the second was a larger study conducted in three countries (n = 274). Cross tabulations and analysis of open ended questions demonstrated many differences across the humanities, sciences and social sciences in collaboration. The C/collaboration distinction proves useful in understanding different disciplinary approaches to research, and in pointing to implications for research policy and funding. Attempts to increase collaborative research through Collaboration only, may well have deleterious effects on both collaboration and Collaboration. Research policy and funding should bear these differences in mind when seeking to stimulate collaborative research, so as to gain better outcomes across a range of disciplines.