Validating a Questionnaire to Assess Secondary Physical Education Teachers’ Perception of Implementing Body Expression

Silvia Garcías

Alfredo Joven

Antoni Planas

Eloísa Lorente-Catalán

Abstract

Despite the acknowledged benefits of Corporal Expression, it remains a significantly under-taught subject among Physical Education teachers in Spain. Various reasons are cited for this, including ambiguous objectives and methodologies, entrenched stereotypes regarding expressive motor skills, particularly feminine associations, and inadequate training. This study aims to assess the current state of Corporal Expression teaching in Catalonia’s secondary education.

To achieve this objective, a questionnaire evaluating teachers’ perceptions regarding the implementation of Corporal Expression was adapted from an existing instrument used in the Andalusian community. Rigorous validation processes were conducted, including an expert panel assessment utilizing the Delphi method, quantitative and qualitative evaluations validating its logic, criteria, content, and construct. Additionally, a pilot test (n = 40) in a distinct population, a Test-Retest assessment (n = 20) to ensure stability, and an exploratory factor analysis involving 418 teachers (42.8 % female) were conducted to validate its internal consistency and reliability.

The study’s findings indicate a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient of .827, demonstrating a strong level of suitability, along with Bartlett’s test of sphericity and Chi-square values affirming the continuity of factor analysis. Consequently, the Physical Education Teachers’ Opinion Questionnaire designed for assessing Body Expression in Secondary Education was validated successfully. This validated questionnaire can serve as a robust tool for evaluating and understanding teachers’ perspectives on implementing Corporal Expression in secondary education settings in Catalonia. 

Introduction

Body Expression, often referred to as Corporal Expression (CE), encompasses Creative Movement and Dance within educational curricula across primary, secondary, and high school levels. However, studies reveal a significant discrepancy in the teaching of CE, with a reported range of only 9 % to 27 % of teachers addressing all CE contents (Conesa-Ros & Angosto, 2017). Notably, the majority of teachers, over 70 %, seem to omit CE from their instructional focus (Conesa-Ros & Angosto, 2017). Concerningly, even prospective Physical Activity and Sport Sciences students, in teacher training programs, express more confidence in teaching sports than in delivering CE content (Cañadas et al., 2019).

Despite recognizing the importance of CE experiences, educators express several limitations hindering its comprehensive teaching. These include shortcomings in teaching guides (Lorente-Catalán et al., 2013), structural deficiencies in the selection and approach of CE content outlined in educational regulations (Cuéllar & Pestano, 2013; Gil, 2016), complexity in CE methodology (Montávez, 2012), and inadequate initial and continuing teacher training (Conesa-Ros & Angosto, 2017; Gil-Ares & Armada-Crespo, 2023; Rojo-Ramos et al., 2023; Sánchez-Sánchez & López-Pérez, 2019). Moreover, prejudices regarding expressive motor skills, gender stereotyping, and a negative perception among male teachers further limit CE instruction (Calvo et al., 2011).

While existing literature highlights gender disparities and prejudices influencing CE instruction (García et al., 2015; Lafuente & Hortigüela, 2021; Robles et al., 2013), contradictory findings, such as those in studies by Rodríguez-Fernández et al. (2019), indicate no significant gender-based differences. Nonetheless, CE remains prioritized in initial training for primary school teachers (Cañadas et al., 2019).

This study aims to validate a questionnaire, aligning with previous research methodologies utilized by Montávez (2012), Archilla (2013), Villard (2014), Gil (2016), and Armada (2017), which employed surveys to investigate CE. Similar to the approaches of Banyeres (2015) and Espinel (2017), who utilized questionnaires in social science research, this study seeks to validate a questionnaire as a tool for acquiring essential insights into secondary Physical Education (PE) teachers’ perceptions concerning CE implementation in Catalonia, as well as knowing if they use Body Percussion (BP) to teach this content. This validation process intends to enable an accurate description of the reality experienced by this specific population, shedding light on the current status of CE instruction in secondary schools within Catalonia.

Methodology

According to Ato et al. (2013), the study design is instrumental. Evidence oriented to the content and evidence regarding the internal structure will be shown by: 1) content validity (construct and quantitative and qualitative assessment by expert judges), 2) reliability (construct and temporal stability) and 3) internal consistency and Exploratory Factor Analysis (also inspired by the classification established  by American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2018).

Participants

The process of designing, applying, and validating the instrument unfolds across three distinct moments:

1) Content validity (construct and quantitative and qualitative assessment by expert judges): This first step encompasses the design and adaptation of the instrument. It involves the selection of an expert panel based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The panel consisted of ten individuals with expertise in higher education subjects or performing arts, all directly related to the research (refer to Table 1). The data collection involved these experts, followed by an analysis of their responses.

Table 1

Selection and exclusion criteria to create the panel of expert judges who will validate the content.

See Table

2) Reliability (construct and temporal stability): This moment of the research entails two pivotal stages. Firstly, the construct analysis through a pilot test involved 40 primary and secondary school teachers in the Balearic Islands. Subsequently, the population for conducting the test-retest and assessing instrument stability comprised 20 secondary stage PE teachers in the same community. Both samples were selected purposively and non-probabilistically, emphasizing convenience, accessibility, and resemblance to the final target population. This choice aimed to prevent potential contamination due to belonging to a different community than the intended final questionnaire administration.

3) Internal consistency and Exploratory Factor Analysis: The final study population encompassed secondary PE teachers in Catalonia during the 2018-2019 academic year, totaling n = 5,629, according to the Department of Education of the Catalan Government. Although not all registered individuals responded, a final sample of n = 418 (56.9 % men, 42.8 % women, and 0.2 % non-binary) completed the questionnaire. The age range varied from 20 to over 60 years, with the majority falling between 40 and 59 years (65.3 %). All provinces of Catalonia were represented, with Barcelona constituting 64.8 % and the remaining provinces contributing approximately 10% each, ensuring a confidence rate of 95 %. Ethical considerations aligned with the Declaration of Helsinki (2017), ensuring participants’ anonymity, informed consent, and ethical treatment throughout the research process, duly approved by the clinical research ethics committee of the Catalan Sports Administration.

Materials and Instruments

Construction of the Instrument

To develop the instrument for this study, initial consideration was given to replicating the questionnaire designed by Villard (2014), specifically tailored for PE teachers at the secondary level in a different autonomous community (Andalusia). However, due to shifts in educational legislation —from a curriculum structured around conceptual, procedural, and attitudinal contents (Organic Law 2/2006) to a competency-based curriculum (LOMCE – Law 8/2013)— a decision was made to create an adapted questionnaire. The modifications also accounted for variations in educational content across different autonomous communities, aligning with the current curriculum in Catalonia (marked by Decree 187/2015) and included an extension to assess the knowledge and implementation of BP in their classes.

Simultaneously, various sources on questionnaire construction were reviewed, comparing different question types (multi-response, Likert scale, scale, dichotomous, and open-ended), presentation methods, and wording. Efforts were made to avoid excessive length in the questionnaire, taking into consideration the characteristics of the target population and respondents’ situations.

The questionnaire aimed to address hypotheses regarding CE and to explore potential limitations and challenges faced by specialized PE teachers at the secondary stage in Catalonia when teaching CE content. It sought to determine if these educators believed their initial training related to CE was insufficient, if they perceived ambiguities in the curriculum’s guidance regarding CE content, and if they employed BP in teaching CE, among other aspects.

Procedure

The present study was evaluated favorably by the clinical research ethics committee of the Catalan Sports Administration (12/2019/CEICEGC) and follows all ethical standards and guidelines in educational research and in the field of sports and exercise sciences, as well as the criteria of the Declaration of Helsinki and the codes of research integrity.

The classical Delphi method was employed to achieve consensus among experts regarding specific problems (Cabero & Infante, 2014). This research involved three rounds as Rodríguez-Rivadulla et al. (2019) and its study, constituting an initial round within itself. This approach aligned with theories by Cabero and Infante (2014) and George and Trujillo (2018), supporting the Delphi method’s efficacy across three or more rounds, except for the modified Delphi EFTE (Estimate, Feedback, Talk, Estimate), which can be conducted in two rounds.

The expert panel quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated: the completeness and clarity of construct definitions, the relevance and appropriateness of construct-defining dimensions, and the relevance, appropriateness, completeness, and sequence of items defining these dimensions. Quantitative analysis involved calculating arithmetic means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD), discarding values below 7 (representing 70 % agreement) and modifying items with values of 7-8 based on qualitative comments. Items rated 9-10 were retained. Excel (16.49) and SPSS (18.0) were used for calculations. The same procedure was applied to evaluate the instrument’s logical order, question count and duration, adequacy of response options, and data collection effectiveness.

Data Analysis

1) Content validity (construct and quantitative and qualitative assessment by expert judges)

Following an examination of the expert panel’s feedback, a questionnaire comprising 46 items across four dimensions was proposed: Dimension 1 (DIM1) focused on socio-demographic data, consisting of 10 items; Dimension 2 (DIM2) gauged self-perceived competencies in teaching CE, comprising 8 items; Dimension 3 (DIM3) explored beliefs about CE with 14 items; and Dimension 4 (DIM4) addressed BP as a CE content with 14 items (refer to Table 2).

Table 2

Final dimensions of the construct based on the experts’ evaluations.

See Table

2) Reliability (construct and temporal stability)

The pilot test underwent validation alongside a readability test, yielding Flesch-Szigriszt index values of 66.89, a word correlation of 22.78, and a Fernández Huerta index of 71.87, indicating relatively easy readability.

The Test-Retest analysis to assess stability employed Google Forms for data collection, with subsequent analysis conducted using Excel (16.49), SPSS (18.0), and the JASP program version 0.10.2. Statistical calculations aimed to ascertain differences or similarities between responses from two distinct questionnaire administrations. Table 3 is a sample of the present descriptive analyses after rank tests and statistical contrasts.

Table 3

Results obtained in the Test-Retest in Dimension 3, which refers to the contents of Body Expression (items 19 to 27).

See Table

3) Internal consistency and Exploratory Factor Analysis 

Dimensional analyses commenced with Dimension 1 socio-demographic data collection, not subject to consistency analysis. For Dimensions 2, 3, and 4, statistical calculations involved validation criteria such as homogeneous means, nonzero standard deviations, item-total correlations exceeding .30, skewness below 2, and kurtosis below 7.

Elimination criteria were applied to refine all Dimensions, resulting in an increase in Cronbach’s Alpha from .675 to .734 upon reducing items from 9 to 4 (Dimension 2 – Table 4).

Table 4

Initial solution of the nonparametric tests in Dimension 2 following criteria for item elimination. 

See Table

In Dimension 3, items 22, 24, 25, 26, and 32 were eliminated due to being open-ended questions. Restructuring and item reduction (from 21 to 8 items) bolstered its internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha from .698 to .703) (Dimension 3 – Table 5).

Table 5

Initial solution of the nonparametric tests in Dimension 3 following criteria for item elimination. 

See Table

Regarding Dimension 4 (Table 6), despite initially retaining all items, recommendations led to the elimination of items 33, 34, 35, 37, and 40, eventually raising the Cronbach’s Alpha to .917

Table 6

Initial solution of nonparametric tests in Dimension 4 following criteria for item elimination.

See Table

Following independent dimensional analyses, the Exploratory Factor Analysis was performed as a final statistical validation procedure.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Table 7 displays the final proposed questionnaire, revealing a cumulative variance explained by 5 factors close to 60 % (58.71 %). Employing the maximum likelihood extraction method and Varimax normalization with Kaiser rotation, convergence was achieved within 4 iterations, mirroring studies by Domínguez-Alonso et al. (2018).

Table 7

Matrix of rotated factors.

See Table

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure demonstrated a coefficient value of .827, considered acceptable and satisfactory (Arias et al., 2020). Bartlett’s test of sphericity provided significant results (p < .001) and an approximate chi-square of 4,476.068, affirming the continuity of the factor analysis. Subsequently, the final questionnaire was validated, comprising 21 items across 5 dimensions.

Results

Based on the results, the questionnaire was restructured. Following sociodemographic data, items related to BP as CE content (New Dimension 1), the significance given to CE (New Dimension 2), CE contents focused on dance (New Dimension 3), perceived competence in teaching CE (New Dimension 4), and Continuing Education (New Dimension 5) were organized, totaling 21 items, leaving the 19 significant from table 7 and 7 questions to identify the sample for the final questionnaire.

The questionnaire underwent validation via the Delphi method by a panel of 10 experts. A pilot test was conducted in a different community (n = 40), and instrument stability was assessed through a Test-Retest (n = 20) with a minimum 7-day interval. Statistical validation criteria for item elimination included means homogeneity, nonzero standard deviations, item-total correlations > .30, skewness < 2, and kurtosis < 7.

Each dimension obtained Cronbach’s Alpha values: DIM1 (.675), DIM2 (.698), and DIM3 (.917). The final questionnaire, administered among PE teachers specialized in compulsory secondary education in Catalonia (n = 418), exhibited a cumulative variance explained by 5 factors of almost 60 % (58.71 %). The instrument demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity indicators.

The validated instrument, titled the Questionnaire of Opinion of Physical Education Teachers in the Teaching-Learning Process of Corporal Expression (QUOPET-CE), consists of 26 items distributed across three parts: Identification of the sample (12 items, of which 7 are sociodemographic and two correspond to factor 5 of Table 7, dimension not differentiated and included to identify the sample), dimension 1 (BP as CE content) with 9 items, and dimension 2 created from the union of the factors 2, 3 and 4 of Table 7 (perceived competence for teaching of CE content in secondary education) with 5 items where 2 were eliminated (D3p23_2 and D3p23_6) as analyses in Table 7 recommend and were maintained with its subsections items D3p20 and D3p23 (see Annex).

Items 11 and 12, corresponding to Factor 5, were suggested as additional identification data. Dimension 1 comprised items from Factor 1, while Factor 2, Factor 3, and Factor 4 items were distributed across other sections.

Discussion

Over time, CE has gained increasing relevance in the educational domain; however, its implementation in teaching curricula remains relatively limited compared to other subjects (Monfort & Iglesias, 2015). Existing literature on teachers’ perceptions and potential limitations in integrating CE into their teaching primarily focuses on primary education contexts (Lafuente & Hortigüela, 2021; Montávez, 2012; Rodríguez-Fernández et al., 2019). In instances where research covers the secondary stage, studies have typically focused on regions other than Catalonia, examining either student or teacher perceptions (Archilla, 2013; Arias et al., 2021; Armada, 2017; Conesa-Ros & Angosto, 2017; Villard, 2014). This study aimed to understand the current status of CE in ESO (Compulsory Secondary Education) in Catalonia specifically from the viewpoint of teachers. Therefore, the first step was to validate a questionnaire tailored to this population.

The methodology followed in the design and validation of questionnaires, as observed in previous studies like Espinel (2017), Banyeres (2015), López and Sanz (2021), and Villard et al. (2013), was reviewed. Villard’s questionnaire was adapted for Catalonia’s population and aligned with the current educational laws of the region. Additionally, a new dimension was introduced in the questionnaire to encompass the burgeoning artistic language of BP within CE in PE (Garcías de Ves, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c; Garcías de Ves et al. 2022). The validation process encompassed content, logic, and criteria, employing the Delphi method with 10 experts in the field. Subsequently, a pilot test and test-retest were conducted to ensure the stability of the questionnaire. The calculated Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient (.827), considered satisfactory and close to very good according to Arias et al. (2020), indicated the questionnaire’s suitability for the study population. Bartlett’s test of sphericity and chi-square values affirmed the continuity of factor analysis, reinforcing the questionnaire’s validation.

The final validated questionnaire comprised 26 items distributed across 2 dimensions. This differs from the Villard (2014) questionnaire, which consisted of a total of 30 items. The refined proposal encompassed a reduced number of questions with a focused emphasis on dance and the incorporation of BP in PE. Moreover, it aimed to investigate teachers’ confidence, motivation, and the perceived importance of CE in their PE classes.

This study lays the foundation for analyzing the responses obtained from the teaching staff, providing insights into the educational landscape surrounding CE in Catalonia’s secondary education, thus contributing to the broader understanding of CE’s role and integration within the educational framework.

Conclusion

Despite the acknowledged benefits and potential of CE, it remains one of the least emphasized subjects among PE teachers in Spain. Several reasons contribute to this phenomenon within this demographic, including ambiguous objectives and methodologies, prevalent prejudices and gender stereotypes associated with expressive motor skills, and insufficient training among other factors.

To address this issue, an existing questionnaire utilized in Andalusia was adapted and subjected to rigorous statistical testing for validation. The process involved the application of the expert panel (Delphi method) for quantitative and qualitative assessments to validate the instrument’s logic, criteria, content, and construct. Additionally, a pilot test was conducted in a distinct population (n = 40), followed by a Test-Retest analysis (n = 20) to ascertain its stability. An exploratory factor analysis was performed across all dimensions with a sample size of 418 teachers, of which 42.8 % were women. The validation process resulted in a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient of .827, indicating proximity to a very good fit. Moreover, Bartlett’s test of sphericity and Chi-square values affirmed the continuity of the factor analysis, thereby validating the Physical Education Teachers’ Opinion Questionnaire for the teaching-learning of Body Expression in Secondary Education.

Consequently, the primary objective of this study, aimed at understanding the current status of CE in Catalonia’s secondary education, commenced with the validation of an instrument designed to gather teachers’ perceptions regarding the implementation of this content.

This study encountered several limitations, notably the challenge of obtaining a sufficiently representative sample size to validate the questionnaire thoroughly. Although having carried out in a specific community, it cannot be extrapolated and generalized to other communities unless some specific items such as the contents of the curriculum are modified (item 24). Moving forward, addressing these limitations will be crucial for ensuring a more comprehensive understanding of the perceptions and challenges faced by PE teachers in incorporating CE within their educational practice.

Acknowledgments

The research received financial support from the National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia (INEFC). Our heartfelt appreciation goes out to all the teachers in Catalonia and the Balearic Islands who took the time to complete the questionnaire and contributed to this study. As well as the Spanish Association of Physical Activity and Body Expression (AFYEC), which collaborated in creating the panel of experts. Their valuable collaboration was instrumental in validating the instrument used in our research.

Annex

Questionnaire of Opinion of Physical Education Teachers in the Teaching-Learning Process of Corporal Expression (QUOPET-CE)

Identification, initial training and teaching experience
0. Which province does the centre you work in belong to?
0.1. Barcelona
0.2. Girona
0.3. Lleida
0.4. Tarragona 

1. Gender
1.1. Male
1.2. Female
1.3. Non-binary

2. Date of birth (day/month/year)

3. Academic qualification
3.1. Degree in Physical Activity and Sport Sciences (before 2009)
3.2. Degree in Physical Education Teaching
3.3. Degree in Physical Activity and Sports Sciences (from 2009)
3.4. Other. Please indicate.

4. In what year did you complete your undergraduate and/or graduate studies?
4.1. Before 1981
4.2. Between 1982 and 1998
4.3. Between 1999 and 2011
4.4. From 2012 onwards

5. Where did you complete your degree in Physical Activity and Sport Sciences?
5.1. INEFC Barcelona
5.2. INEFC Lleida
5.3. University of Vic
5.4. Ramon Llull – Blanquerna
5.5. EUSES – University of Girona 
5.6. EUSES – URV (Campus Terres de l’Ebre)
5.7. TecnoCampus – Pompeu Fabra
5.8. Other. Please indicate.

6. How did you specialize in teaching (multiple answer)?
6.1. Teaching Itinerary
6.2. CAP (Certificate of Pedagogical Aptitude)
6.3. Master’s Degree in Secondary and Bachelor’s Degree Teacher Education
6.4. Other. Please indicate.

7. Current professional situation
7.1. Temporary replacement
7.2. Vacant interim 
7.3. Trainee civil servant
7.4. Provisional civil servant with temporary assignment
7.5. Civil servant with definitive assignment
7.6. Other. Please indicate.

8. Years completed teaching PE at secondary school in a CHARTER SCHOOL
8.1. None
8.2. Between 1 and 3 years
8.3. Between 4 and 6 years
8.4. Between 7 and 9 years
8.5. Between 10 and 14 years
8.6. More than 15 years

9. Years completed teaching PE at secondary school in a PUBLIC SCHOOL
9.1. None
9.2. Between 1 and 3 years
9.3. Between 4 and 6 years
9.4. Between 7 and 9 years
9.5. Between 10 and 14 years
9.6. More than 15 years

10. Years completed working on Corporal Expression (CE) in secondary school PE classes
10.1. None
10.2. Between 1 and 3 years
10.3. Between 4 and 6 years
10.4. Between 7 and 9 years
10.5. Between 10 and 14 years
10.6. More than 15 years

11. How many courses related to CE content have you attended?
11.1. None
11.2. Between 1 and 3 courses
11.3. Between 4 and 6 courses
11.4. More than 6 courses

12. When was the last specialized course in Corporal Expression taken?
12.1. Before starting the degree / bachelor’s degree
12.2. During the degree / bachelor’s degree
12.3. At the end of the degree / bachelor’s degree

DIMENSION 1: Body Percussion (BP) as a content of Corporal Expression (CE).
Express your degree of agreement according to a Likert scale where:
0 represents you do not know and do not answer
1 represents you strongly disagree 
2 represents you somewhat agree
3 represents you agree 
4 represents you strongly agree

Body Percussion (BP) can be a content…
13. …of CE in PE classes.       0                1                2                3                4
14. …for the improvement of coordination.             0                1                2                3                4
15. …for the improvement of body knowledge (body awareness).        0                1                2                3                4
16. …to introduce dance.        0                1                2                3                4
17. …to encourage participation and collaboration in the creation of choreographies by the students.             0                1                2                3                4
18. …to increase positive emotions.       0                1                2                3                4
19. …to improve personal relationships.                  0                1                2                3                4
20. …to promote teamwork.   0                1                2                3                4
21. …to facilitate inclusion.     0                1                2                3                4

DIMENSION 2: Perceived competence to teach CE content in secondary education.
Express your degree of agreement according to a Likert scale where:
0 represents you do not know and do not answer
1 represents you strongly disagree 
2 represents you somewhat agree
3 represents you agree 
4 represents you strongly agree

22. Are the contents of CE fundamental in PE (according to Likert scale).
0                1                2                3                4

23. Is it important to teach the dimension of corporal expression and communication in the following courses? (indicate according to Likert scale).
23.1. In 3rd course  0                1                2                3                4
23.2. In 4th course  0                1                2                3                4

24. The Curriculum (Decree 187/2015), in the dimension of corporal expression and communication proposes, among others, the following contents. From your perspective, are they relevant (indicate according to Likert scale)?
24.1. Dances and popular dances from all over the world, with a special attention to those of Catalonia.        0                1                2                3                4
24.2. Rhythm and movement: partner dancing.     0                1                2                3                4
24.3. New dance trends           0                1                2                3                4

25. Do you feel confident teaching the contents of CE in secondary school during the course? (indicate according to Likert scale).
0                1                2                3                4

26. What do you consider to be your degree of motivation to teach CE contents? (from 0 to 10, with 0 being the minimum and 10 the maximum). 
0                1                2                3                4                5                6                7                8                9                10