This article was downloaded by: [University of Prince Edward Island]

On: 16 November 2014, At: 14:23

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

Development of an Instrument to Assess Cognitive

Processes in Physical Education Classes
a b b
Melinda A. Solmon , Amelia M. Lee & Amelia M. Lee
a
Department of Kinesiology , University of Maryland , USA
b
Department of Kinesiology , Louisiana State University , USA
Published online: 22 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Melinda A. Solmon , Amelia M. Lee & Amelia M. Lee (1997) Development of an Instrument to Assess
Cognitive Processes in Physical Education Classes, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68:2, 152-160, DOI:
10.1080/02701367.1997.10607991

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1997.10607991

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
© 1997 bythe American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
Vol. 68, No.2, pp. 152-160

Development of an Instrument to Assess Cognitive Processes

in Physical Education Classes
Melinda A. Solmon andAmelia M. Lee
Downloaded by [University of Prince Edward Island] at 14:23 16 November 2014

Using the mediating process paradigm (Doyle, 1977) as a framework, the need to develop reliable and valid instruments for
assessing cognitive processesis apparent, and that was the purpose of this study. Participants (N = 819) completed the Cognitive
Processes Questionnaire in Physical Education (CPQPE), as well as three other instruments addressing dispositional goal
orientation, perception of motivational climate, and beliefs about causes ofsuccess in physical education. The fioe-factor
structure that emerged in an exploratory factor analysis produced an acceptablefit with the data in the confirmatory factor
analysis. The subscales of the CPQPE were related to a task-involved goal perspective and the belief that success is attributed to
motivation and effort. The results indicate the CPQPE is a valid and reliable instrument that can provide valuable information
about the teaching and learning process.

Key words: cognitive mediation, cognition, physical edu- In recognizing the link between what teachers do
cation and what students learn cannot be explained by a unidi-
rectional two-step model, investigators have employed a

A ttem p ts to understand or define effective teaching

were initiated within a performance-based model
or a process-product paradigm. Direct relationships be-
tween teacher behavior (process variables) and student
achievement (product variables) were examined. In gen-
eral, this research used trained observers and low
inference coding instruments to quantify types and fre-
quencies of teacher behaviors which were then corre-
lated with student outcomes. Although this line of
inquiry generated a large number of studies and pro-
vided valuable information about what occurs in
classes, it has been criticized on a variety of bases. Most
notably, the conclusions drawn were not consistent
(Doyle, 1977), and this simplistic two-dimensional model
lacks the complexity necessary to explain the mechanism
for effective teaching (Marx & Winne, 1987). Research-
ers in educational settings now acknowledge that under-
standing the multifaceted process of teaching and
learning requires an approach more complex than sim-
ply examining variables related to teacher behavior and
student achievement.
Submitted: December 19, 1995
Accepted: July 22, 1996
Melinda A. Solman is with the Department of Kinesiology at the
University of Maryland. Amelia M. Lee is with the Department of
Kinesiology at Louisiana State University.
mediating process paradigm (Doyle, 1977) to increase
knowledge about how students learn from teaching. This
research is grounded in the belief that learning from
teaching can best be understood by viewing the activi-
ties and involvement of learners during classes as medi-
ating variables. This extension, suggested by Doyle
(1977), reflected a change in perspective of the teach-
ing and learning process from one that examines teacher
behaviors to one that studies what students do to learn.
Equipped with a clear understanding of how student
process variables impact learning, we might then be able
to frame meaningful questions and derive worthwhile
solutions about instructional conditions that are most ef-
fective. Doyle (1977), while acknowledging the contribu-
tion of initial studies incorporating a mediational
paradigm, criticized this work for its reliance on overt
measures of mediation, such as time-utilization and task-
completion rates. He advocated emphasizing the inter-
nal cognitive processes operating when students are
actively engaged with content rather than relying totally
on overt behaviors. In this context, cognitive processes
are defined as student thoughts or cognitions that im-
pact learning, including their beliefs, perceptions, expec-
tations, levels of attention, motivation, and use of
strategies (Wittrock, 1986).
The move toward studying covert cognitive variables
recommended by Doyle (1977) requires the assessment
of mental processes that cannot be detected by observa-

152 RaES: June 1997


tion and, therefore not easily measured. Investigators
must rely to a large degree on measures of self-report,
and problems associated with accepting self-reports as
primary data sources are well documented (Bainbridge,
1979; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). However, it is evident that
when self-report data are carefully collected using appro-
priate guidelines, they can provide valid, reliable, and
valuable information for researchers and practitioners
(Ericsson & Simon, 1980; Howard, 1981; Lee & Solmon,
1992; Locke &Jensen, 1974)
Despite the challenge associated with measurement,
several researchers have undertaken the study of stu-
dents' cognitive processes and the relationship of these
processes to student outcomes (Peterson, 1988; Wittrock,
Downloaded by [University of Prince Edward Island] at 14:23 16 November 2014
1986). Using questionnaires and stimulated recall inter-
views as indicants of students' thoughts, Peterson and her
colleagues (Peterson & Swing, 1982; Peterson, Swing,
Stark, & Waas, 1984) concluded that students' reports of
their thoughts were more accurate predictors ofstudent
achievement than observer estimates of time on task. In
physical education classes, both stimulated recall inter-
views (Lee, Landin & Carter, 1992) and questionnaires
(Solmon & Lee, 1996) have been employed as measures
of student cognition, and the results of these studies in-
dicate that students are aware of their cognitive processes
and able to report them with sufficient detail to yield
valuable information about how they learn from teach-
ing. It has been established that cognitive variables, such
as students' reports of their attention, use of strategies,
and motivational levels, impact measures of student en-
gagement, student effort, and achievement in physical
education classes (Solmon & Boone, 1993; Solmon &
Lee, 1996). The measurement of cognitive variables in
these studies has produced informative data about how
students mediate instruction in physical education set-
tings, and the results in this line of research are encour-
aging. However, more consistent and reliable assessment
ofvariables related to student cognition is needed for use
in physical education classes.
Goal perspective theory (Nicholls, 1984, 1989) has
been used as a framework for studying cognitive engage-
ment, and investigations using this construct have sup-
ported the notion that student reports of their
cognitions are related to the achievement goal orienta-
tion they adopt. Considerable research supports the
notion of student goals as antecedents of motivated be-
havior and effective approaches to learning. These goals
serve to activate patterns of cognition related to how
students attend to, interpret, and respond to learning
activities. Two contrasting sets of goals, "task" and "ego"
have been identified (Nicholls, 1984, 1989). Students
adopting task-involved goals define success in self-refer-
enced terms. They are more likely to focus on learning
through effort, show an intrinsic interest in learning
activities, and use effective learning strategies (Ames &
Archer, 1988). On the other hand, students adopting
ROES: June 1997
Solmon andLee
ego-involved goals reference their success relative to the
performance of others and consequently are more likely
to focus on their ability and performing better than
other students in the class. They tend to display lower
levels of persistence and effort during learning and of-
ten choose tasks to avoid challenge (Solmon, 1996).
Dispositional and situational factors have been used
to assess goal perspective. Measures of dispositional goal
orientation (Duda, 1992) assess individual differences
or tendencies to be task- or ego-involved. Although it is
acknowledged that individuals vary in individual dispo-
sitions for developing task- or ego-involved states, situ-
ational factors have the potential to enhance or
constrain those goal states (Ames, 1992). Perceptions of
motivational climate have been used to study how situ-
ational factors impact goal perspective and subsequent
motivational patterns (Ames & Archer, 1988; Seifriz,
Duda, & Chi, 1992). The evidence is clear, from both
dispositional and situational measures, that a task ori-
entation, more than an ego orientation, is positively re-
lated to the use of active cognitive engagement strategies
in both academic classrooms (Ames & Archer, 1988) and
physical education (Solmon & Boone, 1993). Task ori-
entation is also associated with the belief that success and
effort covary (Ames & Archer, 1988), while individuals
adopting an ego-involved perspective are more likely to
attribute success to ability (Duda & Nicholls, 1992).
The investigation of cognitive processes impacting
learning has the potential to contribute significantly to
the knowledge base about teaching and learning. How-
ever, the reliable assessment of cognitive processes re-
mains an issue in this line of research. Measures used in
previous research have been developed for specific stud-
ies, and although reliability coefficients are reported,
there has been no attempt to standardize an instrument
for use across multiple studies. The purpose of this study
was to develop an instrument that assesses the cognitive
processes of students in physical education classes that
will provide investigators with a reliable tool for measur-
ing cognitive variables that impact achievement.
Method
Participants
Participants in this study were 819 students (417 boys,
412 girls) in physical education classes in public elemen-
tary (n =228) and middle schools (n =591) in the south-
eastern United States. The students, enrolled in 32
different classes taught by 19 teachers in 12 schools, were
in grades 4 through 8 and ranged in age from 10-14
years, Mage = 12.4 years, SD = 1.36. The school systems
granted perrnission to conduct the study, and partici-
pants' parents gave informed consent prior to the study.
153
 Solmon andLee
Instrument Development
Items for the Cognitive Processes Questionnaire in
Physical Education (CPQPE) were derived through a
series of steps. A pool of 60 potential items was gener-
ated from several sources. Items were drawn from ques-
tionnaires used in previous studies as well as open-ended
student responses in stimulated recall interviews (Lee et
al., 1992; Peterson et al., 1984; Solmon & Boone, 1993;
Solmon & Lee, 1996). Additional items were adapted
from the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory
(Weinstein, Palmer, & Shulte, 1987). The pool of poten-
tial questions was screened using a computer software
program to ensure the wording used in the items was at
Downloaded by [University of Prince Edward Island] at 14:23 16 November 2014
an appropriate reading level for the participants. Items
were modified when necessary to be appropriate for the
third grade reading level. Statements were counterbal-
anced so that some were positively weighted and others
negatively weighted. This was done for three reasons: (a)
to reduce the likelihood of producing socially desirable
responses, (b) to encourage participants to read each
statement carefully, and (c) to facilitate comprehension
of the meanings of the items.
We piloted potential questionnaire items with se-
lected elementary and middle school students using sev-
eral steps. First, we read items aloud to small groups of
students, asking whether or not they understood the
items and what they thought the statements meant. At
this stage, we also experimented with potential response
scales. We considered using several types of five-point
Likert scales that had been used previously, such as hav-
ing students indicate their level of agreement with state-
ments (from strongly disagree to strongly agree), and the
frequency with which they engaged in a behavior or ac-
tion (from usually to almost never). Based on input from
students in these informal conversations, combined with
consideration of the phrasing in the statements, we de-
cided the most appropriate format for our instrument
was to ask students to indicate how well the statements
described themselves by selecting one of the following
responses: "very much like me," "like me," "sorta like
me," "a little like me," or "not like me at all."
Next, we grouped together items we thought ad-
dressed similar or related areas or concerns and divided
items into two smaller pools according to the direction
in which they were weighted. The items were randomly
ordered for inclusion on the scale, with two stipulations.
No more than three consecutive items would be
weighted in the same direction or come from the same
group of items hypothesized to focus on the same area
or concern. During the piloting phase, items were elimi-
nated from the pool to decrease repetition and elimi-
nate questions that generated confusion. This process
resulted in a 33-item scale used in this study. After the
questionnaire had been printed using computer soft-
ware that permitted responses to be scanned for analy-
154
sis, the form was administered to a small group of stu-
dents. Standardized instructions were given, and stu-
dents completed thequestionnaire. They were then
interviewed informally in small groups concerning any
items they had difficulty with as well as their impressions
of the instrument. Based on these interactions, no ad-
ditional modifications were deemed necessary.
Procedure
The instrument was administered to the participants
during their regularly scheduled physical education
classes by one of the primary investigators or a gradu-
ate student who had been trained to do so. At the be-
ginning of the session, we explained to students we were
trying to learn how to help people become better physi-
cal education teachers and that we appreciated their
help very much. We stressed there were no right or
wrong answers, but that it was very important they be
honest. Participants were assured that no one else would
see their answers. We emphasized the importance of
reading each statement carefully before marking in any
of the columns and to think about how well each state-
ment described them in their physical education classes.
Prior to each administration, we reviewed the response
scale with students to ensure that the meanings were
clear to them, and instructed them to ask questions
about any item they did not understand.
Three additional questionnaires were administered
to participants to provide data concerning the validity
of the CPQPE. The response format for these instru-
ments was a five-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly
Disagree to Strongly Agree. Internal consistency on in-
dividual subscales of these questionnaires on the data
collected for this study was assessed using alpha coeffi-
cients (Cronbach, 1951). Student goal orientation in
physical education was assessed using the 13 items from
the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport (TEOSQ; Duda,
1992) modified for use in physical education classes. The
stem for this instrument was "I feel most successful in
physical education class when ... "The reliability esti-
mates for the Task and Ego subscales were .81 and .83,
respectively.
Students' perceptions of the motivational climate of
their classes were assessed by the second questionnaire.
Drawing again from instrumentation used in sport set-
tings, the 25 items included on this scale were adapted
from the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Ques-
tionnaire (PMCSQ; Seifriz, Duda, & Chi, 1992) for use
in physical education classes. "In my physical education
class ... "was the stem for the 25 items on this ques-
tionnaire. Fourteen items comprised the subscale reflect-
ing the perception of a performance or ego-involved
climate (a = .79), while the remaining 11 items related
to the perception of a mastery or task-involved climate
(a = .77)
RDES: June 1997

The third questionnaire addressed students' beliefs
or attributions concerning the causes of success in physi-
cal education classes. The 20 items on this scale were
adapted for use in physical education classes from scales
used by Duda and Nicholls (1992). The stem for this in-
strument was "People succeed in physical education class
when ...." Eight items focused on motivation and ef-
fort as the cause for success in physical education classes,
and the reliability estimate for this subscale was .84. Seven
items identified ability as a cause of success, producing a
subscale with an alpha coefficient of .65. The remaining
five items attributed success in physical education classes
to deception, such as cheating. The alpha coefficient for
this subscale was .68.
Downloaded by [University of Prince Edward Island] at 14:23 16 November 2014
Data Analysis
Exploratory Factor Analysis. Prior to analyzing re-
sponses on the instrument, scores on the reversal items
were transformed so that a score of 5 was indicative of
the most positive response, and a score of 1 indicated
the least positive response for all items. The total sample
of 819 participants was randomly spilt to produce two
subsamples, one for an exploratory factor analysis (EFA;
n = 409), and the other for a confirmatory factor analy-
sis (CFA; n = 410). An iterative principal components
analysis was used for the EFA. This data reduction tech-
nique was used to delineate constructs or underlying fac-
tors of cognitive processes assessed by this instrument.
The number of factors that constitute a solution for the
EFA is determined based on several criteria. Consider-
ations include the number of eigenvalues that exceed
1, the percentage ofvariance accounted for by the num-
ber of factors, inspection of the scree plot to determine
when the eigenvalues begin to level off, and the cohe-
siveness of the items within factors identified.
After the number of factors had been established,
a varimax rotation was used to simplify interpretation
of the factors. This rotation was selected because of its
tendency to produce a factor pattern in which a small
number ofvariables load high on one factor and low on
the others (Stevens, 1986). The varimax rotation is a
rigid rotation that does not allow factors in a solution
to be correlated. Because of the possibility that the
subscales of the CPQPE could be related, an oblique
rotation, direct olimin, that allows factors to be corre-
lated, was also conducted. The same factor pattern was
produced by both of the rotations, with all variables load-
ing on the same factors with similar loadings, indicat-
ing the solution was stable. Factor loadings for each of
the items on the instrument are generated for the num-
ber offactors extracted, and these reflect the magnitude
or weighting of the item on each factor. Loadings of .40
are considered to be significant (Stevens, 1986).
ConJirmatoryFactor Analysis. To conduct the CFA, the
PRELIS program was used on the second subsample to
RDES: June 1997
Solmon andLee
produce an external matrix file as the data source for
LISREL 7 (SPSS). Maximum likelihood method of esti-
mation was used. The hypothesized model generated by
the EFAwas imposed on the second subsample by speci-
fying the parameters of the model so that the loadings
of the items for a particular factor were free to vary, while
the loadings on all other factors were fixed to zero.
Factor Scores. Factor scores, taking into account the
weighting of each item that loads on a factor, were cal-
culated for the five subscales. The product of the factor
loading and the score of each item loading on a factor
were summed to calculate to factor scores (Stevens,
1986). Reliability between the items within each factor
or subscale was assessed using alpha coefficients
(Cronbach,1951).
Correlational Analyses and Group Differences. To pro-
vide information 'concerning utility of the instrument
with elementary and middle school populations, data
relative to descriptive statistics and group differences
are presented. Pearson product correlation coeffi-
cients were used to investigate relationships between
the subscales of the CPQPE with the measures of goal
perspective, causes of success, and perception of mo-
tivational climate. Differences among groups of stu-
dents based on school level and teacher were analyzed
using multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs)
with each subscale of the CPQPE as a dependent vari-
able. Significant effects were followed up using analy-
ses of variance.
Results
Exploratory FactorAnalysis
Five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 emerged
from the principal components factor analysis of the 33
items on the CPQPE. The items and their factor load-
ings from the varimax rotation are presented in Table 1.
The five factors accounted for 48.3% of the total variance.
This percentage is comparable to the variance accounted
for in other EFAs conducted in physical education set-
tings (Papaioannou, 1994).
Items loading on the first factor centered on self-
regulated learning behaviors, reflecting a willingness to
learn new activities, exert effort during practice, and
persist when difficulty is encountered. The focus of the
items loading on the second factor is a sense of confi-
dence or efficacy with regard to the activities in physi-
cal education. It is important to note that six of the
seven items loading on this factor are reversal items,
on which a response of "not like me at all" was trans-
formed from a 1 to a 5 for analysis. Although the man-
ner in which these items are stated reflects a lack of
efficacy, a high score on this subscale would be indica-
155
 Solmon andLee

tive of a high level of confidence or efficacy rather than
a low one. The focus of the items on the third factor is
concentration or paying attention during instruction and
practice. Four of the six items on this scale are also re-
versal items, and the scoring has been adjusted so that
high scores correspond to high levels of attention. The
fourth factor consists of items that reflect a tendency to
avoid working in physical education class. These are all
reversal items, and low scores (rather than higher ones)
indicate an unwillingness to engage in class activities.
Items loading on the fifth factor center on the use of
strategies to learn skills in physical education class.

Table 1.Principal components factor analysis ofthe cognitive processes questionnaire (CPQPE)

Items Factors

2 3 4 5
Downloaded by [University of Prince Edward Island] at 14:23 16 November 2014

Self-regulation
I findthat new games and skills arefun once you give them atry .70 .02 .09 .05 .04
I liketo learnnew and differentgames and skills .69 .16 .06 .24 .08
I feel like I can dowell if I try hard .66 .17 .01 .33 .07
When I practice a skill, I try to figure out .62 .14 .13 .02 .26
If I am not good in practice, I keep trying hard what I am doing wrong .62 .18 .08 .14 .08
I try to remember the important thingsthe teachersays about a skill
when 1am practicing .61 .09 .36 .02 .08
When I am practicing skillsin PE class, I try to get better each time .60 .00 .35 .11 .07
I work hard during practiceinPE class .60 .07 .28 .24 .21
If I don'tunderstand how or whatto do,I ask the teacherfor help .53 -.03 .23 .03 .17
When 1make mistakes during practice, I sayto myself "I cando better" .52 .23 .00 .10 .33

Confidence-efficacy
It is hard for meto correctthe things the teachersays I as doing wrong .02 .69 .20 .03 .10
During PE class I give up when the skill is hard .31 .62 .25 .28 -.09
When I cannot do a skill in PE, it is because it is too hard .10 .60 -.06 .11 .02
When the teachertells me what I am doing wrong I donot understand it, .07 .56 .24 .08 -.08
When I cando a new skill in PE, I think it is because I am lucky .14 .52 .11 .26 -.20
I feel bad when myskillsarenot as good asmyclassmates -.12 .48 .04 .29 .03
When I listen and watch the teacherexplain a skill, I think "Oh, I can dothat" .22 .43 .16 .22 -.15

Attention-concentration
When the teacheris talking, I find myself thinking about otherthings .11 .27 .68 .16 .13
During class, I talk to myfriends when I should bepracticing .10 .24 .65 .19 .14
I listen closely when the teacherexplains a skill during the PE lesson .43 .00 .60 .02 .15
I miss important thingsthe PE teachersays because I am not paying attention .24 .38 .58 .12 -.09
When I practice, I try to think onlyabout the skill I am working on .41 -.04 .47 .03 .09
I onlytry hard when the teacheris looking at me .29 .27 .46 .24 -.17

Willingness to engage
I would ratherstayin the classroom than goto PE class .20 .19 .14 .64 .06
I feel like I can't dowell no matter how hard I try .25 .35 -.02 .54 .01
In PE class I try to stayin the backofthe line sothat
I won't have to take as many turns .29 .30 .24 .54 -.16
I onlyliketo do games and activities that I am good at .07 .26 .32 .48 .15
I avoid practicing anyway I can .24 .27 .35 .40 -.15

Strategies
I try to go overthe right way to perform the skill I learn in PE in mymind at home .05 -.07 .32 .15 .64
When I am practicing a skill,I try to think how it is like something I already know .24 -.10 -.15 .00 .61
I talkto myself during practiceto helpme do better .17 .04 -.02 -.23 .57
When the teacher explains a skill,I practicethe skill in mymind .37 -.04 .18 .05 .53
1try to practiceskills I learn in PE class at home .22 . -.30 .28 .35 .49

Percent of variance 26.9 10.0 4.6 3.7 3.0

Eigenvalue 8.9 3.3 1.5 1.2 1.0

156 ROES: June 1997


To obtain estimates of internal consistency for each
subscale of the CPQPE, alpha coefficients were calcu-
lated. In the order the subscales are presented, they are
.87, .75, .79, .72, and .66.
Confirmatory FactorAnalysis
The indexes of fit from the CFA are presented in
Table 2. Multiple indicators were used to assess how well
the hypothesized model fit the second sample. The chi
square statistic has been used in the past, with a signifi-
cant value indicating the hypothesized model is differ-
ent from, or does not fit, the data. However, it is now
recognized that the sensitivity of the chi square statistic
Downloaded by [University of Prince Edward Island] at 14:23 16 November 2014
to sample size and violations of model assumptions (spe-
cifically linearity, multinormality, and additivity), have
rendered its use inappropriate (Byrne, 1989). Overly
stringent adherence to the chi square statistic can pro-
duce over fitting of the model, or fitting the model to
trivial characteristics of the data.
Alternatives to the chi square statistic used in this
x
study include the 2 j df ratio, the goodness of fit index
(GFI), the adjusted goodness of fit (AGFI, adjusted for
degrees of freedom), the total coefficient of determina-
tion (TCD) , and the root mean square residual (RMSR).
x
A universally accepted value for the 2 j dfratio has not
been established, but the lower the ratio the better the
model fit. Proposed acceptable values range from less
than 2 to less than 5 (Byrne, 1989). Values for the GFI,
AGFI, and the TCD indexes range from zero to 1, with
values closer to one indicating a better model fit. Val-
ues for the RMSR also range from zero to 1, but for this
indicator, lower values indicate a better fit. Values of less
than .05 are considered to be indicative of a good fit
(Byrne, 1989), but values between .05 and .10 are gen-
erally considered to be in the acceptable range. It is im-
portant to note that the assessment of the model fit is a
subjective process in which all indicators are considered,
rather than accepting or rejecting the hypothesized
model on the basis ofa single assessment. The results of
the CFA indicate that imposing the hypothesized model
on the second sample produced an acceptable fit.
Correlational Analyses
Correlation coefficients indicating the strength and
direction of relationships between the CPQPE
subscales and the other instruments are shown in
Table 3. Because of the large number of participants,
coefficien ts of ±.12 are significant at the p < .001 level.
Relationships of this magnitude are obviously oflimited
practical significance, indicating that one variable ac-
counts for approximately 1.5% of the variance of the
other measure. For this reason, the relationships are
evaluated based on their relative strength rather than
levels of statistical significance.
ROES: June 1997
Solmon andLee
Interrelationships Between CPQPE Subs cales. Generally,
moderate correlations characterize the relationships
among the subscales of the CPQPE. The self-regulation
subscale and the attention-concentration subscales ex-
hibited moderate, positive correlation coefficients with
each other as well as the three remaining subscales. A
moderately strong relationship between confidence-ef-
ficacy and willingness to engage was also evident. The
use of strategies was unrelated to expressions of efficacy
and confidence and only minimally related to willing-
ness to engage during practice. The pattern of relation-
ships evident among the CPQPE factors suggests the
subscales assess distinct but related factors that stu-
dents express about their experiences in physical edu-
cation classes.
Goal Orientation. The five subscales of the CPQPE
positively related to students' tendency to express a dis-
positional task orientation. The strongest relationship
was evident between the self-regulation subscale, while
the least substantial association was with confidence-ef-
ficacy. The relationships between the five subscales and
an ego-involved goal perspective were all in the nega-
tive direction, but these relationships were of smaller
magnitude than the positive relationships to task-involve-
ment. The coefficients between ego-involvement and
confidence-efficacy and willingness to engage failed to
reach statistical significance at the p < .001 level, and
while the remaining coefficients are statistically signifi-
cant, the relationships reflected are small.
Perception ofMotivational Climate. The pattern of re-
lationships between the perception of the motivational
climate with the subscales produced an interesting par-
allel to the pattern of relationships with dispositional
goal perspective. Positive associations between the per-
ception of a mastery climate and all subscales were evi-
dent, as with a task-involved goal perspective. However,
the coefficients suggest that dispositional goal perspec-
tive has a stronger association with self-regulation and
use of strategies, while a mastery climate has a stronger
association with confidence-efficacy.
The perception of a performance-oriented climate
was negatively related to self-regulation, confidence-ef-
ficacy, attention-concentration, and willingness to en-
gage, but unrelated to the use ofstrategies. Though these
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis indexes of fit
Chi-square 1075.33*
Degrees of freedom ratio 485
Chi-square-degrees of freedom 2.22
Goodness-of-fit index .86
Adjusted goodness-of-fit index .84
Root mean square residual .06
Total coefficient of determination .99
* p « .001.
157
 Solman andLee

coefficients are relatively low, they reflect stronger nega-
tive relationships than those evident with regard to dis-
positional ego-involvement.
Causes ofSuccess. Higher scores on the five subscales
were positively associated with the belief that success in
physical education classes is due to motivation and effort.
Beliefs that success in physical education is caused by
ability or deception were negatively related to self-regu-
lation, confidence-efficacy, attention-concentration, and
willingness to engage, but unrelated to use of strategies.
Group Differences
low-up ANOVAs indicated that there were differences
between classes on all subscales: self-regulation, F(18,
800) = 11.72 (P< .001); confidence-efficacyF(18, 800)
= 4.73 (P< .001); attention-concentrationF(l8, 800) =
11.05 (P< .001); willingness to engage F(18, 800) = 10.92
(P < .001); strategies F(18, 800) = 5.24 (P < .001). The
intent of this analysis was to determine if students in dif-
ferent settings with different teachers responded to the
instrument in a varied fashion. It was beyond the scope
of this study to draw conclusions based on comparisons
between classes, so class means are not reported.

The MANOVA testing for differences between el-

Downloaded by [University of Prince Edward Island] at 14:23 16 November 2014

ementary and middle school students revealed signifi- Discussion

cant differences between those groups, A = .82, F(5, 813)
= 36.42 (P < .001). The follow-up ANOVAs for each of
the five subscales indicated that the elementary students
had higher scores on each component: self-regulation,
F(l, 817) = 115.15 (P < .001); confidence-efficacy F(l,
817) = 29.34 (P < .001); attention-concentration F(l,
817) = 132.13 (P< .001); willingness to engage F(l, 817)
= 95.02 (p<.OOl); strategiesF(l, 817) = 8.86 (p<.002).
A MANOVA was also used to test for differences
among students in different teachers' classes, and dif-
ferences were evident: A = .58, F(90, 4000) p « .001. Fol-
The purpose of this paper was to describe the de-
velopment of an instrument for assessing the cognitive
processes of studen ts in physical education classes, with
the intent of providing investigators with a reliable tool
to measure cognitive variables that mediate achieve-
ment. A five-factor solution emerged from the explor-
atory factor analysis, and the confirmatory factor analysis
indicated that imposing the hypothesized model on a
second sample of data produced an acceptable fit, con-
firming the five-factor structure of the instrument. The

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and Pearson product moment correlation coefficients for CPQPE factor scores and othervariables

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1.Self-regulation 1.00

2. Confidence-efficacy .35 1.00

3.Attention-concentration .64 .45 1.00

4.Willingness to engage .54 .60 .53 1.00

5. Use of strategies .52 -.04 .34 .12 1.00

6.Task orientation .50 .21 .37 .31 .31 1.00

7. Ego orientation -.14 -.05 -.15 -.08 -.13 -.12 1.00

8. Masteryclimate .41 .31 .33 .31 .22 .36 -.12 1.00

9. Performance climate -.23 -.31 -.27 -.28 -.05 -.21 .33 -.50 1.00

10. Success to motivation .45 .30 .36 .31 .22 .40 -.08 .43 -.24 1.00

11. Success to ability -.17 -.26 -.20 -.28 -.02 -.14 .27 -.20 .38 -.14 1.00

12. Success to deception -.35 -.32 -.36 -.33 -.10 -.24 .21 -.33 .44 -.45 .59 1.00

Variable means and 23.08 14.24 12.38 10.17 8.19 27.11 16.18 40.18 41.69 30.73 20.57 12.83
standard deviations (4.94) (3.08) (3.09) (2.22) (2.49) (4.82) (5.31) (6.73) (8.59) (5.81) (4.67) (4.03)
(in parentheses)

158 ROES: June 1997


alpha coefficients for each of the factors or subscales
exceed the minimal criteria of r = .60 for measures of
internal consistency. However, in subsequent revisions of
the scale, we will increase the number of items related
to willingness to engage and the use of strategies to in-
crease the reliability of these factors.
The following discussion situates this instrument
within the context of relevant literature. Examining the
relationships between the subscales of the CPQPE and
established measures of goal perspective and beliefs
about success demonstrates how this instrument can
extend our understanding of the cognitive processes stu-
dents employ to mediate instruction in physical educa-
tion classes. We conclude by proposing prospective uses
Downloaded by [University of Prince Edward Island] at 14:23 16 November 2014
of the CPQPE, providing a framework for using the in-
strument to answer meaningful questions about how
teachers can structure learning environments in physi-
cal education classes to maximize cognitive engagement.
The correlation coefficients representing the asso-
ciations among the subscales of the CPQPE indicate the
factors represent distinct but related aspects of students'
experiences in physical education classes. The pattern
of relationships between the strategies subscale and the
other factors merits special consideration, as this was the
only subscale not moderately related to all other
subscales. The relationship between strategies and will-
ingness to engage was weak, although statistically signifi-
cant, and confidence-efficacy was unrelated to the
reported use of strategies. A parallel can be between
these results and those reported by Solmon & Lee (1996).
In their study, low skilled students, rather than more
skilled ones, tended to report using strategies to learn
skills. They suggested that students of higher skill levels
may not need to use strategies, especially if the skill pre-
sents little difficulty, and they pointed out that analyzing
strategy use at a class level may result in erroneous con-
clusions. Data from this study are consistent with that
premise, supporting the notion that the use of strategies
is a mediating variable that must be investigated carefully
in light of contextual or situational factors, entry char-
acteristics, initial ability, and the level of task difficulty.
The relationships between the CPQPE subscales and
measures of goal perspective and beliefs about success
in physical education classes support the notion that this
instrument provides reliable, valid information about
students' cognitive processes in physical education
classes. The subscales relate to measures of goal perspec-
tive logically, but the magnitude of the coefficients and
pattern of relationships suggest that the CPQPE provides
information not encompassed in the other measures.
The relationship between a task-involved goal per-
spective and the subscales of the CPQPE is consistent with
a growing body of educational research that suggests task
orientation facilitates a high level of cognitive engage-
ment. A high level of dispositional task orientation was
associated with behaviors reflecting self-regulated learn-
RQES: June 1997
Solmon andLee
ing, a high level of attention and concentration, a will-
ingness to engage in class activities, and the use of strat-
egies to learn skills. To a lesser degree, task-involvement
was associated with expression of a high level of confi-
dence and efficacy. Similar, but generally weaker, rela-
tionships were evident with the perception of a
mastery-oriented climate. An exception to this pattern
resulted on the confidence-efficacy subscale, where the
relationship between that subscale and the perception
of a mastery climate exceeded that of dispositional task
involvement. This suggests that the motivational environ-
ment structured by the teacher plays a significant role
in reported levels of confidence and efficacy.
Of particular interest is the pattern evident with re-
gard to measures of an ego-involved goal perspective and
the scores on the CPQPE subscales. Although weak nega-
tive relationships were evident between dispositional ego-
involvement and some subscales of the CPQPE, those
negative relationships intensified when individuals per-
ceived a performance-oriented climate. Not only are
these results consistent with previous work, suggesting
that individuals in performance-oriented climates are
likely to focus on ability rather than effort and avoid
challenging tasks (Ames, 1992; Solmon, 1996), they also
suggest that a performance-oriented climate can reduce
engagement in physical education classes for some indi-
viduals and, in this case, seemed to be a stronger influ-
ence than disposi~onal ego involvement.
Differences between school levels and classes suggest
the CPQPE can provide valuable information about vari-
ables that mediate achievement in physical education
classes. Although the intent of this study was to develop
and validate the CPQPE rather than establish differences
between classes, it is encouraging that students in vari-
ous settings responded in varied ways. Students in differ-
ent classes indicated differing levels of self-regulation,
confidence-efficacy, attention-concentration, willingness
to engage, and use of strategies in their physical educa-
tion classes. Although the data collection for this study
did not include class observations to document different
learning environments, the differences evident between
classes suggest that students' levels of cognitive engage-
ment may be related to the learning context. Little re-
search has been conducted to determine how situational
demands might affect the use of learning strategies.
The results of the analyses in this study, taken to-
gether, suggest the motivational climate that teachers
create, and events that occur in classes, can, to some
degree, supersede individual characteristics and dispo-
sitions to encourage effective cognitive engagement in
physical education classes. The role of the teacher in
promoting self-regulatory learning has yet to be system-
atically explored in physical education, and the develop-
ment of a reliable and valid scale to assess students'
cognitive processes in physical education classes is an im-
portant first step in advancing this research agenda. The
159
 Solmon andLee
CPQPE should not be used as a measure of teacher ef-
fectiveness or as a single measure ofa child's motivational
beliefs. Subsequent studies could, however, use the
CPQPE in combination with observational methods to
investigate the complex nature of relationships among
teachers actions, students' cognitive processes, and stu-
dent learning. Initially, the investigation of correlational
relationships between subscales of the CPQPE and mea-
sures of task structures, student engagement, and student
achievement could lay the foundation for generating
structural equation models from which to infer causal
relationships. The CPQPE could also be used with sys-
tematic observation to investigate relationships between
students' cognitive processes and a variety of teaching
Downloaded by [University of Prince Edward Island] at 14:23 16 November 2014
approaches or strategies. In combination with student
interviews, this instrument could be utilized to study the
antecedents of individual differences in the use of cog-
nitive strategies. By using this instrument to explore the
ways students learn from teaching, we can increase our
understanding of how teachers can make informed de-
cisions in their classes to maximize opportunities for
cognitive engagement that facilitate student learning.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student
motivation. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 84,261-27l.
Ames, C., & Archer,]. (1988). Achievement goals in the class-
room: Students' learning strategies and motivational pro-
cesses. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
Bainbridge, L. (1979). Verbal reports as evidence of the pro-
cess operator's knowledge. International Journal of Man-
Machine Studies, 11,411-436.
Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer ofUSREL: Basic applications and
programmingfor confirmatory factor analytic models. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal struc-
ture oftests. Psychometrika, 16,297-334.
Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effective-
ness. Review ofResearch in Education, 5, 163-198.
Duda,]. L. (1992). Motivation in sport settings: A goal perspec-
tive approach. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.) Motivation in Sport
and Exercise (pp. 57-91). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Duda,]. L., & Nicholls,]. G. (1992). Dimensions of achieve-
ment motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal ofEdu-
cationalPsychology, 84,290-299.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data.
Psychological Review, 87, 215-25l.
Howard, G. S. (1981). On validity. Evaluation Review, 5, 567-576.
Lee, A. M., Landin, D. K., & Carter, ]. A. (1992). Student
thoughts during tennis instruction. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 11, 256-267.
Lee, A. M., & Solmon, M. A. (1992). Cognitive conceptions of
teaching and learning motor skills. Quest, 44, 57-7l.
Locke, L. E, &]ensen, M. K. (1974). Thought sampling: A study
of student attention through self-report. The ResearchQuar-
terly, 45, 263-275.
160
Marx, R. W., & Winne, P. H. (1987). The best tools teachers
have-their students' thinking. In C. C. Berliner & B. V.
Rosenshine (Eds.) Talks to teachers (pp. 267-304). New
York: Random House.
Nicholls, ]. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement
motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on mo-
tivation in education: Vol. 1 Student motivation (pp. 31-56).
New York: Academic Press.
Nicholls,]. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic edu-
cation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we
know: Verbal reports on mental process. Psychological Re-
view, 84,231-259.
Papaioannou, A. (1994). Development of a questionnaire to
measure achievement orientations in physical education.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 11-20.
Peterson, P. L. (1988). Teachers' and students' cognitional
knowledge for classroom teaching and learning. Educa-
tional Researcher, 17( 5), 5-14.
Peterson, P., & Swing, S. (1982). Beyond time on task: Stu-
dents' reports of their thought processes during class-
room instruction. Elementary SchoolJournal, 82,481-49l.
Peterson, P. L., Swing, S. R., Stark, K. D., & Waas, G. A. (1984).
Students' cognitions and time on task during mathemat-
ics instruction. American Educational Research[ournal, 21,
487-515.
Seifriz,].]., Duda,]. L., and Chi, L. (1992). The relationship
of perceived motivational climate to intrinsic motivation
and beliefs about success in basketball. Journal ofSport and
Exercise Psychology, 14, 375-39l.
Solmon, M. A. (1996). Impact of motivational climate on stu-
dents' behaviors and perceptions in a physical education
setting. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 88,731-738.
Solmon, M. A., & Boone.]. (1993). The impact of student goal
orientation in physical education classes. Research Quar-
terlyfor Exercise and Sport, 64,418-424.
Solmon, M. A., & Lee, A. M. (1996). Entry characteristics, prac-
tice variables, and cognition: Student mediation of in-
struction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15,
135-150.
SPSS, Inc. (1993). USREL 7 andPREUS. Chicago: Author.
Stevens,]. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sci-
ences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Weinstein, C. E., Palmer, D. R., & Schulte, A. C. (1987). Learn-
ing and study strategies inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H
Publishing.
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students' thought processes. In M. C.
Wittrock, (Ed.), Handbook on research on teaching (3rd ed.,
pp. 297-314). New York: Macmillan.
Authors' Note
Please address all correspondence concerning this article
to Melinda A. Solmon, Department of Kinesiology, Uni-
versity of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.
E-mail: ms344@umail.umd.edu
ROES: June 1997