ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY Adapted Physical Education Assessment and the Dynamic Systems Theory: Constraint Led Assessment from Theory to Practice _______________________ A Dissertation Presented to The College of Graduate and Professional Studies Department of Special Education Slippery Rock University Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania ______________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education _______________________ by Amy Talbert, MS, MAT Graduation: May 2025 © Amy Talbert, 2025 Keywords: Adapted Physical Education, Assessment, Dynamic Systems Theory, Constrain ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY ii ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY ABSTRACT The public education system serves all students, educating many diverse types of learners with varying abilities in all grades, which includes effective assessment and monitoring processes to determine individual needs and support. With this study, the researcher aimed to examine adapted physical education (APE) teacher assessment practices in relation to the dynamic systems theory (DST) and determine the level of crossover from DST to DST practice in the APE assessment process, specifically focusing on students with visual impairments, autism spectrum disorder, and significant support needs. The purpose of this study was to examine APE teacher assessment practices through the lens of dynamic systems theory (DST), with particular attention to how intentionally teachers assess each of the three constraints—individual, task, and environment—and the extent to which they apply the DST theoretical framework in practice when assessing three student populations commonly served on APE caseloads: students with visual impairments (VI), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and significant support needs (SSN). A mixed-methods approach was employed, utilizing a survey to gather both quantitative and qualitative data from APE teachers across the United States. Key findings indicated while APE teachers recognized the importance of addressing all three constraints, there was a notable gap in the application of DST as a guiding framework in their assessment practices. Recommendations for enhancing APE assessment processes included increased professional development focused on the integration of DST principles. The implications of this study suggested a more comprehensive understanding of the DST can lead to improved assessment tool selection practices, improved confidence in the assessment tools, and a deeper understanding of how APE iii ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY practitioners approach the assessment process. This research highlights opportunities for growth among the APE community, which ultimately leads to positive social change by enhancing the educational experiences of students with disabilities. iv ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY DEDICATION To my husband, Randy—your endless patience, unwavering love, and quiet strength have been my tether to keep me grounded and focused. Through every long night, every moment of doubt, and every tear shed in frustration, you stood beside me. You carried the weight when I needed rest, cheered me on when I needed courage, and reminded me of my worth when I forgot. This journey would not have been possible without your steady spirit and boundless heart. In my heart, this is your victory, too, and your name is also on this diploma. I am endlessly grateful for your love and belief in me. You’re my favorite and I love you the most. To my loving boys, Miles and Harrison—your passion, energy, kindness, laughter, and boundless love gave me purpose and kept my heart full through even the most difficult days. Thank you for believing in me, encouraging me, and cheering me on every step of the way. I know you are just as excited for this accomplishment as I am, and I love that you are proud of me. This is for you. To my incredible cohort sisters, Angela, Cassie, and Jessica—I couldn’t have asked for better companions on this journey. Your constant encouragement, supportive late-night texts, keep going attitude, and shared struggles turned a solitary process into a shared triumph. Thank you for not giving up on me and dragging me across the finish line. This dissertation is a labor of love, shaped by the hearts, minds, and hands of each of you. I am incredibly thankful for each of you. To my dissertation committee—Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey, Dr. Jessica Hall-Wirth, Dr. Amanda Young, and Dr. Melissa Bittner—thank you for your thoughtful mentorship, steady support, and for challenging me to grow into the scholar I hoped to become. Thank you for your v ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY guidance, wisdom, and encouragement every step of the way. This work is a reflection of all of you, and I am deeply grateful. A special thank you to my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey— your guidance, encouragement, and belief in my work have been invaluable. I am deeply grateful for your leadership and care. Thank you for believing in me. I am the little engine that could—and I did. I never stopped, no matter how steep the climb, and now I’ve crossed the finish line. vi ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation represents not only my own work, but the collective support, encouragement, and inspiration I’ve received from so many incredible people along the way. First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey, whose guidance, insight, and steady encouragement made this journey possible. Thank you for challenging me to think deeply, write thoughtfully, and persist with integrity. I am profoundly grateful for your mentorship and belief in me. To my committee members — Dr. Jessica Hall-Wirth, Dr. Amanda Young, and Dr. Melissa Bittner — thank you for your time, thoughtful feedback, and for helping me grow as a scholar and practitioner. Your perspectives enriched this work and pushed me to be better at every stage. To my cohort sisters — Angela, Cassie, and Jessica — thank you for being my lifeline through this process. Your support, humor, and constant presence helped me weather every high and low. I am beyond lucky to have walked this road with you. To my husband, Randy — thank you for being my rock, my safe place, and my cheerleader. Your unwavering love and support have meant more than words can say. And to Miles and Harrison, my sweet boys, thank you for being my light, my laughter, and my greatest motivation. I am also grateful to the faculty, staff, and peers who contributed to my growth throughout this program. Your guidance and encouragement have left a lasting impact. Finally, to everyone who reminded me, in one way or another, that I could — thank you. I never walked this road alone. vii ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iii DEDICATION................................................................................................................................v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... xiv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1 Federal Law and Physical Education ...................................................................................1 Adapted Physical Education ................................................................................................2 APE Assessment Process .....................................................................................................4 APE Assessment Tools and Sources....................................................................................5 Comprehensive Assessment Data ........................................................................................8 The Dynamic Systems Theory .............................................................................................9 Example Learner Profiles and Comprehensive APE Assessment Data.............................12 Purpose...............................................................................................................................14 Research Questions ............................................................................................................14 Rationale ............................................................................................................................15 Significance of Study .........................................................................................................17 Definitions of Terms and Acronyms..................................................................................18 Delimitations ......................................................................................................................22 Limitations .........................................................................................................................22 Assumptions.......................................................................................................................22 Summary ............................................................................................................................22 viii ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................24 Purpose...............................................................................................................................24 History of Special Education and Adapted Physical Education ........................................25 Adapted Physical Education ..............................................................................................26 APE Teacher Job Responsibilities .....................................................................................27 APE Service Delivery ........................................................................................................28 Assessment: General ..........................................................................................................28 Assessment in Education ...................................................................................................29 Assessment Process in APE ...............................................................................................30 Determining Need for APE Services .................................................................................31 APE Assessment Tools ......................................................................................................33 Assessment Data ................................................................................................................36 Individual Education Program ...........................................................................................38 Dynamic Systems Theory ..................................................................................................39 Example Learner Profiles and APE Assessment Data .......................................................41 Federal Law .......................................................................................................................44 National Standards for APE ...............................................................................................45 Standard 2: Motor Behavior...................................................................................45 Standard 4: Measurement and Evaluation .............................................................46 Standard 6: Unique Attributes of Learners ............................................................46 Standard 8: Assessment .........................................................................................47 Texas Education Agency ...................................................................................................47 Summary ............................................................................................................................48 ix ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY CHAPTER 3: METHODS ..........................................................................................................49 Purpose...............................................................................................................................49 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................50 Research Design.................................................................................................................53 Survey ................................................................................................................................54 Participants.........................................................................................................................54 Measures ............................................................................................................................55 Procedures for Survey Data Collecting..............................................................................56 Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................57 Survey Data Analysis.........................................................................................................58 Methodological Triangulation ...........................................................................................58 Summary ............................................................................................................................59 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ............................................................................................................60 Participant Demographic Information ...............................................................................62 Findings..............................................................................................................................69 Part I: Self-Reported Comprehension of the DST and How it Relates to APE Assessment.............................................................................................................69 Chi-Square Test .........................................................................................75 Part II: Self-Reported Assessment Practices in Relation to the DST With VI ......77 Chi-Square Test .........................................................................................81 Part III: Self-Reported Assessment Practices in Relation to the DST With ASD...............................................................................................................82 Chi-Square Test .........................................................................................85 x ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY Part IV: Self-Reported Assessment Practices in Relation to the DST With SSN ...............................................................................................................86 Chi-Square Test .........................................................................................90 Part V: Self-Reported Assessment Practices in Relation to the DST Without VI, ASD, and SSN .................................................................................................91 Results ................................................................................................................................95 Summary ............................................................................................................................96 CHAPTER V: Conclusions .........................................................................................................97 Summary of the Study .......................................................................................................97 Research Questions ................................................................................................98 Summary of Findings.........................................................................................................98 RQ ..........................................................................................................................99 Subquestion 1 .......................................................................................................100 Subquestion 2 .......................................................................................................102 Subquestion 3 .......................................................................................................104 Supporting Data: Students Without VI, ASD, or SSN ........................................106 Implications......................................................................................................................107 Limitations of the Study...................................................................................................112 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................113 Recommendations for Further Research ..........................................................................115 Summary ..........................................................................................................................115 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................117 APPENDIX A: IRB Approval Letter ..........................................................................................127 xi ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY APPENDIX B: Survey.................................................................................................................128 APPENDIX C: Texas Region 10 APE Listserv Permission Letter .............................................143 APPENDIX D: California Long Beach APE Listserv Permission Letter ...................................144 APPENDIX E: Informational Letter and Consent to Research ...................................................145 APPENDIX F: Invitation to Participate .......................................................................................149 xii ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. APE Assessment Tools ......................................................................................................34 2. Participant State .................................................................................................................63 3. Participant Gender .............................................................................................................64 4. Participant Years of Experience.........................................................................................65 5. Participant Years of Service...............................................................................................66 6. Participant Education .........................................................................................................66 7. Percentage of Participants With CAPE Certification ........................................................67 8. Graduate Level Assessment Course...................................................................................68 9. Professional Development Hours Related to Assessment .................................................69 xiii ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. Newell’s Model of Constraints ..........................................................................................10 2. Newell’s Constraint Model and Catching ..........................................................................11 3. Newell’s Model of Constraints as it Pertains to Children With ASD................................43 4. Newell’s Model of DST .....................................................................................................51 5. Participant District/Charter ................................................................................................64 6. Participants With CAPE Certification ...............................................................................67 7. Graduate Level APE Assessment Course ..........................................................................68 8. Participants Familiar With DST.........................................................................................70 9. Participants That Use the DST in Assessment Practices ...................................................70 10. Understand the Concept of the Individual Constraint........................................................72 11. Important to Consider Components of Individual Constraint and Assessment .................72 12. Important to Consider Components of Individual Constraint and Goal Writing...............72 13. Understand the Concept of the Task Constraint ................................................................73 14. Important to Consider Components of Task Constraint and Assessment..........................73 15. Important to Consider Components of Task Constraint and Goal Writing .......................74 16. Understand the Concept of the Environmental Constraint ................................................74 17. Important to Consider Components of Environmental Constraint and Assessment..........75 18. Important to Consider Components of Individual Constraint and Goal Writing...............75 19. Assessment Graduate Course and Uses DST to Guide Assessment ..................................76 20. CAPE Certified and Uses DST to Guide Assessment .......................................................77 21. Intentionally Address All Three Constraints With VI .......................................................79 xiv ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY 22. Intentionally Address Individual Constraint With VI ........................................................79 23. Intentionally Address Task Constraint With VI ................................................................79 24. Intentionally Address Environmental Constraint With VI ................................................79 25. Confident in Formal Tools for VI ......................................................................................80 26. Confident in Informal Tools for VI ...................................................................................80 27. Intentionally Address All Three Constraints With ASD ...................................................83 28. Intentionally Address Individual Constraints With ASD ..................................................83 29. Intentionally Address Task Constraints With ASD ...........................................................84 30. Intentionally Address Environmental Constraints C ASD ................................................84 31. Confident in Formal Tools for ASD ..................................................................................85 32. Confident in Informal Tools for ASD................................................................................85 33. Intentionally Address All Three Constraints With SSN ....................................................88 34. Intentionally Address Individual Constraints With SSN ...................................................88 35. Intentionally Address Task Constraints With SSN ............................................................88 36. Intentionally Address Environmental Constraints With SSN ............................................88 37. Confident in Formal Tools for SSN ...................................................................................89 38. Confident in Informal Tools for SSN ................................................................................89 39. Intentionally Address All Three Constraints for Students Without VI, ASD, or SSN ......92 40. Intentionally Address Individual Constraints for Students Without VI, ASD, or SSN .....92 41. Intentionally Address Task Constraints for Students Without VI, ASD, or SSN..............93 42. Intentionally Address Environmental Constraints for Students Without VI, ASD, or SSN ................................................................................................................................93 43. Confident in Formal Tools for Students Without VI, ASD, or SSN .................................94 xv ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY 44. Confident in Informal Tools for Students without VI, ASD, or SSN ................................94 xvi Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The public education system serves all students, educating many diverse types of learners with varying abilities in all grades. To best serve learners in the schools, there are assessment and monitoring processes in place that determine a student’s level of ability, need, and support, from the highest performing learner to the lowest performing learner (Shannon & Bylsma, 2007). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990) ensures a free and appropriate public education for students with disabilities who attend public schools through special education, which is defined as specially designed instruction that addresses the unique needs of students with disabilities (Texas Education Agency, 2023). Within the special education system, all members of the special education team utilize assessments to determine present levels of performance and needs for support. The focus of the current dissertation was one specific special education team member, the adapted physical education (APE) teacher and the APE assessment process. Specifically, the APE assessment process was analyzed through the lens of the dynamic systems theory (DST). APE teachers, the APE assessment process, and the DST are covered in depth later in this chapter and in Chapter 2. Federal Law and Physical Education The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provided civil rights to people with disabilities and in 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 to ensure students with disabilities received an appropriate public education (Yell et al., 2021). Yell et al.(2021) explain further that the law specifically mandated students with disabilities be given access to physical education (PE). In 1990, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 was changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990), which continued to require public schools to provide a free and appropriate public education to eligible Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 2 students with disabilities. IDEA (1990) also continued to define PE and supported providing PE and PE related services to eligible students, hence APE services. IDEA states, (b) Individual special education terms defined. The terms in this definition are defined as follows: (2) Physical education means— (i) The development of— (A) Physical and motor fitness; (B) Fundamental motor skills and patterns; and (C) Skills in aquatics, dance, and individual and group games and sports (including intramural and lifetime sports); and (ii) Includes special physical education, adapted physical education, movement education, and motor development. (Code of Federal Regulations, 2025, §300.39[b][2]) In other words, IDEA requires that PE be available to all students who receive special education services (Yell et al., 2021). Adapted Physical Education APE is the special education service that addresses the identified PE needs and services outlined in IDEA (Code of Federal Regulations, 2025). APE works to identify school-aged students who exhibit needs related to motor literacy and physical education who qualify for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA; National Consortium for Physical Education for Individuals with Disabilities [NCPEID], 2023). Students who qualify for APE present with unique needs that prevent mastery of PE standards which then require a specially-designed program to meet individual needs (Winnick, 2017). Winnick (2017) define APE as “an individualized program including physical Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 3 and motor fitness, fundamental motor skills and patterns, skills in aquatics and dance, and individual and group games and sports designed to meet the unique needs of individuals” (p. 4). A more holistic and comprehensive definition of APE was created by Auxter et al. in their 2009 textbook that reads, Adapted Physical Education (APE) is the art and science of developing and implementing a carefully designed Physical Education instructional program for an individual with a disability, based on a comprehensive assessment, to give the individual the skills necessary for a lifetime of rich leisure, recreation, and sport experiences to enhance physical fitness and wellness. (p. 3) This definition is a big picture approach as it includes the verbiage “comprehensive assessment” and “lifetime” which highlight assessing the whole child and creating APE programming for life beyond the school walls and years. APE teachers are part of the special education team in a school district and participate in the Full Individual Evaluation and Individualized Education Program (IEP) processes for students who have been referred to and qualify for APE services (Silliman-French & Buswell, 2017; Winnick, 2017). APE job responsibilities can include managing a caseload of students, traveling between campuses, completing initial and tri-annual evaluations, interpreting assessment data, creating assessment reports, drafting measurable goals, attending IEP meetings, serving the students who qualify for APE services, supporting PE teachers, collaborating with teachers and paraprofessionals, adapting activities, prepare general PE students for inclusion, advocacy, and supporting programs such as adapted sport and school based Special Olympics (Akuffo & Hodge, 2007; Silliman-French & Buswell, 2017; Winnick, 2017). Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 4 APE Assessment Process IDEA (2017) §300.304 Evaluation procedures states that a learner is assessed in all areas related to a suspected disability, including motor abilities, which apply to PE and directs APE teachers to follow IDEA evaluation mandates. This mandate applies to the APE assessment process as APE assessments are used to determine physical education needs of students referred for an APE evaluation. IDEIA (2004) mandates that a variety of assessment tools and strategies must be used to gather relevant, functional, developmental, and academic data, meaning not one single assessment can be used to determine an educational program. Technically sound assessment tools are to be used to collect data on cognitive, behavioral factors, and also physical/developmental factors. IDEA (2017) §300.304 also states the assessment process is completed by a trained professional who is knowledgeable in assessment and the assessment tools are used in accordance with instructions provided by the test creator. To comply with the IDEIA (2004) mandate to use a variety of tools and sources to assess a student, the APE teacher creates a plan that identifies which tools/sources will be used to ensure the most comprehensive data is collected during the assessment. Some common tools/sources to use in an APE evaluation are review of current and past records/data, observation in the classroom and PE setting, teacher (classroom and PE) interview, parent interview, formal assessment tools, and informal assessment tools (Auxter et al., 2001; Felix & Tymeson, 2017; Silliman-French & Buswell, 2017). Each type of tool and source will be addressed further in this chapter as well as in Chapter 2. This APE assessment plan then directs and guides the assessment process of collecting and organizing data. Once the data is collected, an assessment report and suggested goals are drafted for special education consideration. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 5 APE Assessment Tools and Sources There are a variety of APE assessment tools and sources to choose from when creating an APE assessment plan. According to Auxter et al. (2001), a specially designed PE program for a learner who qualifies for APE is based on a comprehensive assessment process. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary (2024), comprehensive can be defined as “covering completely, broadly, and inclusive” (para. 1). Each type of tool plays a specific and important role in the APE assessment process, helping to curate functional and appropriate data while collecting data needed for eligibility and APE programming (Auxter et al., 2001). Auxter et al. (2001) explain “Assessment information used for developing a student’s IEP and for selecting appropriate activities can be gathered from a variety of sources, including parental reports, informal test procedures, and formal testing” (p. 34). Since all APE programming and goals are driven by data, it is important that the selected assessment tools and sources collect the most comprehensive data for baseline information (Felix & Tymeson, 2017). When creating an assessment plan and selecting tools and sources, covering all the necessary areas that affect motor performance and participation in PE related classes should be considered. APE assessment tools are organized into two main categories: a) formal tools and b) informal tools (Bittner & Young, 2021). This and the next paragraph will focus on formal APE assessment tools. According to Bittner and Young (2021), one main purpose of using a formal tool is to establish eligibility for APE services, meaning establish a clear need for APE intervention based on assessment results. Since formal APE assessment tools are standardized and normative referenced using individuals without disabilities of the same age and gender for comparison, an approximate level of motor ability can be established and used when making service recommendations (Auxter et al., 2001). Bittner and Young (2021) continue to explain Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 6 that formal tools have strict assessment procedures and protocols outlined for test implementors to follow when administering the test. Examples of required procedures include “testing environment, equipment, administration instructions, data-recording process, and how to interpret the results” (Bittner & Young, 2021, p. 1). Also, the formal tool is only considered formal when used to assess a learner who falls within the parameters of the test, such as age range. Bittner and Young stated that formal APE tools are considered “technically sound” after they have been proven through empirical research to be valid and reliable (p. 1). Validity is achieved when an assessment tool measures what it is intended to measure, and reliability is achieved when the tool measures what it is intended to measure consistently. To be considered an APE formal assessment tool, it must go through a rigorous standardization process. The NCPEID (2023) Position Stand on Assessments in APE outlines the adopted requirements for an APE assessment tool to be considered standardized, which are listed “in the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist” (p. 1). There are six requirements on the COSMIN list: interpretability, peer reviewed, reliability, re-standardization, sampling factors, and validity (NCPEID, 2023, p. 3). The NCPEID Position Stand on Assessments in APE further explains each requirement. The standardized assessment tool must have interpretability where the data can be analyzed to form an accurate explanation using quantitative data with statistical significance. The tool must go through a peer (APE professionals) review process where the review results are published in a peer-reviewed journal. Test-retest, interrater, and intrarater reliability must be established. The assessment tool must be re-standardized when 20 years have passed, there is an identified change in a skill performance, the normed population has performance change, and/or a skill on the test is no longer deemed necessary to be included on the test. The empirical research to establish Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 7 standardization must use a large sample size of a diverse population. Content validity, criterion validity, and construct validity must be established. The most widely used formal APE assessment tools are the Test of Gross Motor Development-3 and the Brigance Inventory of Early Development (Bittner et al., 2021). Any means of collecting assessment data through non-standardized methods falls into the informal APE tool/source category. Informal tools do not provide quantitative data such as gross motor quotient or age equivalencies that can be definitively used to determine APE eligibility, but they do provide qualitative data that help support and expand standardized test data (Bittner and Young, 2021). Bittner and Young (2021) continue by stating, “however, if standardized assessment is not appropriate and the IEP team determined there is a more functional and appropriate assessment then that assessment can be used with team support” (p. 1). This is often the case for students unable to engage in the standardized test items due to cognitive, physical, or behavior barriers. Informal tools can be criterion referenced, which are designed to provide information about individual mastery of specific skills and/or content referenced which are designed to measure components that make up a task (Auxter et al., 2001). The most widely used informal tools are the Curriculum, Assessment, Resources, Evaluation; Adapted Physical Education Assessment Scale (APEAS); Competency Testing for Adapted Physical Education (CTAPE); and the Kounas Assessment of Limited Mobility (Bittner et al, 2021). Other examples of informal tools are the Region 10 Assessment for Wheelchair Users, the Region 10 Assessment for Students with Visual Impairments, the Region 10 PE Participation Inventory, and the Region 10 Lifetime Leisure Supplement (Region 10 Education Service Center, 2025). Observations, teacher interview, and parent interview are also great sources for informal qualitative assessment data. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 8 The APE assessment tools that are selected, combined with informal observations and interviews, serve as the plan of action for the APE assessment process. According to Auxter et al. (2001), APE tools should be selected based on the function of the assessment and type of data needed to support the needs of the learner being assessed. Formal APE tools have specific intended purposes to collect quantitative data, and informal tools tend to present with a wider view and collect qualitative data to help to support the findings from using a formal tool (Auxter et al., 2001). When used together with observations and interviews, comprehensive data can be collected on the student performance, which then lays a rich foundation of information to build a productive and functional APE program. According to Bittner et al. (2021), who surveyed APE teachers about why they choose specific APE assessment tools, APE practitioners first select tools largely based on validity and reliability, and second to assess specific needs of diverse students. Comprehensive Assessment Data Beyond the motor data that comes from standardized and non-standardized assessment instruments, there are other areas that affect learner success and increase engagement and learning. Examples of these areas are individual motivators, reward systems, teacher support, appropriate prompting types and levels, and equipment used, which support measurable goal writing and programming. This information can be included in the conditions when writing goals, which describe how the action of the goal should be accessed (Auxter et al., 2001; TEA, 2023; Winnick, 2017). IDEA (2017) §300.304 requires multiple assessments be used during the evaluation process to help increase the comprehensiveness of assessment data (Bittner & Young, 2021). As all APE programming is based on assessment data, by addressing the whole child and painting an adequate picture with assessment data, the evaluator is setting up the APE program Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 9 for success as this will give the APE service providers the most functional information to develop an APE program. The Dynamic Systems Theory The primary theoretical framework used for this study was the DST. The DST has evolved over time, with the basis of the theory being drawn from the chaos theory which was credited to Henri Poincare in the 1890s (Murzi, n.d.). Authors Kugler et al. (1982) discuss the many applications of dynamic systems in the areas of math, science, and biology. Specifically, they name Rashevsky as a scientist whose contributing insight focused on biology and behavior being primarily dynamic function and not static. Rashevsky worked towards gaining insight into the “corresponding organizational constraints that manifest in a behaving system” (Kugler et al., 1982, p. 55). Kugler et al. continue to explain Prigogine’s 1976 principle of order through fluctuation as the idea that instability leads to higher order of qualitative complexity, and when “critical scale changes are realized, the system is suddenly driven to a new stable regime which corresponds to a new state of qualitative complexity” (p. 58). In other words, instabilities in the system create the change needed to achieve stable states, and the systems self-organize and selfmaintain to create stable order. There can be instabilities in three areas referred to as “constraints.” When there are interactions between the three constraints, new behaviors or new movements occur to achieve and maintain system stability (Kugler et al., 1982). According to Colombo-Dougovito (2017), spontaneous behavior change that emerges from the interaction of the three constraints, is self-organizing, where the body scans the constraints and finds the most stable state, or attractor state, which is the most preferred pattern at the time. Newell (1986) reported that the emergence of behavior was allowed by the constraints, where behavior was referring to movement. He created Newell’s constraint model of the DST Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 10 constraints to provide a visual representation of the three areas referred to as constraints interacting together and the spontaneous behavior that results from those interactions and changes in constraints (see Figure 1). Figure 1 Newell’s Model of Constraints Note. From “The Motor Development of Volleyball,” by S. Doig, 2017, para. 2. Teach Volleyball. (https://www.teachvolleyball.org/motor-development). Copyright 2017 by S. Doig. Fair Use. The three constraints are individual, environmental, and task (Newell, 1986). The individual constraint is structural and functional where structural is body related and functional is cognitive, motivational, and attention related. Specifics of the individual constraint include personality, body structure, motivators, aversions, level of cognition, and life experiences. The task constraint is equipment choice, rules, instructional delivery, and the motor skills related to the skill expectations. The environmental constraint is any influence outside of the student such Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 11 as temperature, lighting, noise, other people, social pressures, and teacher support. Potential distractions, barriers, prompting levels, and space specifics are also part of the environmental constraint. Figure 2 shows Newell’s (1986) model applied to the skill of catching where specific examples are listed under each constraint. Figure 2 Newell’s Constraint Model and Catching Note. From Understanding Motor Development: Infants, Children, Adolescents, Adults, by D. L. Gallahue, J. C. Ozmun, and J. D. Goodway, 2012, p. 332. Copyright 2012 by McGraw-Hill. Fair Use. One benefit of viewing motor development through the DST is the holistic approach it provides, placing equal importance on each of the constraints. According to the DST, all three constraints are needed in order for behavior to change. DST is widely used by practitioners and Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 12 provides a pathway for practitioners to access motivators and barriers that are unique to each student. According to Davids et al. (2005), It is argued that, since movement skills emerge from the interactions of key constraints in learning situations, physical educators could adopt a pedagogical approach that takes into account of the dynamic and nonlinear interactions that occurs in teaching and learning interventions. (p. 18) Since this theory is so important in the world of motor behavior and development, it should be equally important and considered in the field of motor development assessment. Given how all of the constraints in the DST affect student engagement and motor change, a conclusion can be drawn that giving consideration to all three constraints during an APE assessment may positively affect student engagement in APE assessment practices. Due to the expectation that formal assessment tests cannot deviate from testing protocol or be modified in any way, considering constraints could be included in the informal parts of the assessment process. Example Learner Profiles and Comprehensive APE Assessment Data Of the wide range of students that are on APE caseloads, many APE teachers serve students that are more difficult to assess which includes interpreting data and developing productive programming (Block et al., 2006). The nuances of the differing abilities and learning levels of these students create this difficulty. As an added challenge, several of the most commonly used formal and informal assessment tools were not created for students with such a wide range of differing motor and learning abilities. Of the many student profiles that are difficult to assess with formal APE assessment tools, three examples are students with visual impairments (VI), students on the autism spectrum (ASD), and students with significant support needs (SSN). Students with SSN can include severe and profound intellectual disabilities, severe Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 13 and profound physical disabilities, multiple disabilities, sensorimotor level, and pre-operational level learners. Of all the different student profiles that APE teachers evaluate and serve, some of the students that can pose the most challenges when assessing are those that exhibit the least amount of engagement in the assessment (Block et al., 2006). There are a variety of reasons for low engagement behavior, some of which are differing support level needs, inability to initiate purposeful movement, information processing challenges, motivational challenges, fear, student having a challenging day, and environmental challenges. According to Block et al. (2006), all of these situations have the potential to affect the quality of assessment data procured during the APE assessment process. When viewing engagement through the lens of the DST, some behaviors may be explained through the identification of constraints that are being addressed and also identifying the constraints that are being overlooked. The constraints on learners include “the morphology, emotions, cognitions, intentions, and developmental status of learners as well as social and cultural factors, all of which share strong interwoven relations with the environment and learning tasks” (Davids et al., 2005, p. 18). Motor development has been linked with other aspects such as the function and development of cognitive, social, and emotional domains (Sigmundsson et al., 2017). Since literature supports the benefit of addressing all three DST constraint areas when teaching motor development, it can be concluded that there will be implications of overlooking one or more of the constraints during the assessment process. Each student population is uniquely affected by these implications. Students with visual impairments rely heavily on their environment to function (Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 2009). Students with autism can sometimes present with Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 14 participation and engagement challenges related to motivation and sensory processing differences, which can present in the individual and environmental constraints (Case et al., 2019). Students with SSN can present with limited initiation of movement, low engagement in the assessment process, be difficult to motivate, and can present with behaviors that are difficult to interpret (Sato & Haegele, 2017), making the APE assessment process potentially challenging. Purpose Given that the literature already supports the use of the DST in the teaching profession and knowing that all APE programming and goals come from the APE assessment process, the purpose of this study was to examine APE teacher assessment practices through the lens of dynamic systems theory (DST), with particular attention to how intentionally teachers assess each of the three constraints—individual, task, and environment—and the extent to which they apply the DST theoretical framework in practice when assessing three student populations commonly served on APE caseloads: students with visual impairments (VI), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and significant support needs (SSN). Each population presents with unique needs, motivators, and barriers, which drives the need for individualized assessment and program practices. The three student populations referenced in this study are: students with visual impairments, students with autism, and students with significant support needs. Research Questions RQ: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, in general, do Adapted PE teachers self-report to address all three of the dynamic systems theory constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for all students? Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 15 Subquestion 1: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with visual impairments? Subquestion 2: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with autism? Subquestion 3: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with significant support needs? The Institutional Review Board (IRB) application was completed, and the mixed-methods research investigation was approved by the Slippery Rock University IRB on February 10, 2025. Participants were found through one listserv and social media posts. Qualtrics was utilized to house and evaluate the survey data. During the study’s first phase, a survey was drafted and used to collect quantitative and qualitative data. After the survey was closed, the data was analyzed through Qualtrics. Rationale Physical educators and adapted physical educators are federally mandated to address the PE needs of all students and provide equal opportunity for PE as best as possible. This mandate highly affects the assessment process of APE as it is the starting and mid points of APE programs that procure the data needed to create and continue to modify individualized programs to meet the needs of the students receiving APE services. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 16 The NCPEID (2020) utilizes the textbook Adapted Physical Education National Standards to establish a framework for APE job expectations nationwide, where several of the standards specifically relate to assessment practices and the DST. Standard 2: Motor Behavior states APE teachers are to “understand the dynamic systems theory” (p. 12), directly naming the DST as a backbone of motor development theory. Based on previous knowledge that all APE programming is based on assessment data, considering and addressing the three DST constraints would enhance the assessment data needed for APE programming. Standard 4: Measurement and Evaluation calls APE teachers to “evaluate the quality of available standardized instruments. … Recognize the necessity to construct instruments and/or modify procedures to measure the current level of motor performance of individuals” (p. 51). This standard also states APE teachers should be able to “recognize when the use of standardized instruments is inappropriate … and to modify standard test instructions for individuals with disabilities” (p. 52). According to this standard, it is the responsibility of the APE teacher to adjust the testing process to cover all of the domains necessary to create a complete and comprehensive picture of the student being tested. Standard 6: Unique Attributes of Learners calls for APE teachers to “understand unique psychomotor considerations” and how each group’s unique attributes impact physical and motor skills (p. 76). This standard is relevant to this study as it supports the need to evaluate all aspects of the learner, including the individual and the environmental DST constraints, not just the task constraint. Standard 8: Assessment visits all of the legal and administrative aspects of the APE assessment process. One subtopic specifically related to this study states APE teachers are expected to “acquire knowledge of a theoretical framework with which to make comprehensive assessment decisions” (p. 137). This statement supports the idea of viewing the student needs Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 17 and assessment process through the lens of the DST, specifically addressing all three constraints of the DST to give a comprehensive viewpoint of the students being tested. The Texas Education Agency (2023) outlines the four critical components of a measurable annual goal, which are timeframe, conditions, behavior, and mastery criterion. Of these four components, conditions relate to the DST individual and environmental constraints, where the behavior component relates to the task constraint. When a behavior/task is chosen for a goal, conditions the student uses to gain access to the goal are also determined (Texas Education Agency, 2023). All data to support goal writing is collected during the assessment process, and conditions are a critical component of a measurable goal, so therefore data on conditions should also be a part of the assessment process and included in the assessment report and summary statements. The DST would provide a functional framework to collect data for all components of goal writing, including conditions, which would meet Texas Education Agency criteria requirements of a measurable goal. Significance of Study Assessing students utilizing the most comprehensive process and appropriate tools thoroughly identifies student strengths and areas of need, impacts the potential programming and offerings, and ultimately impacts student quality of life in the long run. As a result, the students receiving APE services have a better opportunity to develop lifelong skills that enhance their quality of life beyond the school walls. Increased quality of life for the student adds to increased quality of life for their families, as well. When students have more skills for lifetime activities, the families have more opportunities to engage in community-based opportunities, expanding their social circles, and increasing their supportive communities. All of these lifelong benefits of APE begin with a comprehensive assessment process that yields quality assessment data. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 18 The current study is significant as it aims to highlight a potential area of need in the APE assessment process. The most commonly used assessment tools assess motor skills, tasks, and motor behaviors. A few offer guidance on making notes about the temperature and distractions present in the evaluation setting, which falls under the environmental constraint of the DST. Therefore, if viewing an assessment instrument through the lens of the DST, only the task constraint is consistently formally addressed. According to the literature, conditions are a critical component of goal writing, which provides access to mastering IEP goals. Examples of conditions are social components, teacher/para support, preferred equipment, and motivators/rewards. During the assessment process, the DST would provide a framework to collect baseline data for all critical components of a measurable goal. Oftentimes, individual motivators/barriers and environmental conditions data are collected qualitatively through interview and observations, if the APE teacher is aware of the need to collect data on the conditions. In order for an APE assessor to collect the conditional/qualitative data, they first need an awareness of the importance of this data and then to understand how to collect it. Since the most commonly used assessment tools mainly focus on the task constraint, APE teachers are left to create their own systems to support capturing all of the data needed to fully understand the student operations and functionally program and draft goals. Therefore, it is likely that assessment practices are inconsistent among APE teachers. Definitions of Terms And Acronyms Adapted Physical Education: Adapted Physical Education (APE) is the art and science of developing and implementing a carefully designed Physical Education instructional program for an individual with a Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 19 disability, based on a comprehensive assessment, to give the individual the skills necessary for a lifetime of rich leisure, recreation, and sport experiences to enhance physical fitness and wellness. (Auxter et al., 2001, p. 3) Adapted PE Standardized/Formal Assessment Tools: These tools are valid, reliable, peer reviewed, and have been standardized through empirical research. They have been normed based on a large sample of non-disabled same age students with diverse attributes and are required to be re-standardized every 20 years. These tests only measure the parameters established by the test creator, but if used outside of the parameters, it will be considered an informal tool (NCPEID, 2023). Adapted PE Informal Assessment Tools: Any tool used to collect data that does not meet the criteria for standardization is considered an informal tool. These can be criterion referenced instruments, observation checklists, authentic assessments, or structured interviews (NCPEID, 2023). Admission, Review, Dismissal (ARD): An ARD meeting is a meeting of a group of people (parents, diagnosticians, teachers, support staff, and service providers in a local education agency) who come together to share expertise about a student (needs, desires, abilities, and expectations) and to determine whether the student is eligible for special education services as well as develops the IEP if eligible. An ARD meeting is also known as an IEP meeting (Navigate Life Texas, 2025). Assessment: Assessment is an ongoing process aimed at understanding and improving student learning. It involves making our expectations explicit and public; setting appropriate criteria and high standards for learning quality; systematically gathering, analyzing, and Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 20 interpreting evidence to determine how well performance matches those expectations and standards; and using the resulting information to document, explain, and improve performance. (Angelo, 1995, p. 6) Individual Education Program: “Written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in a meeting in accordance with §§300.320 through 300.324” (Code of Federal Regulations, 2025b, §300.320). The IEP must include: 1) statement of child’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance 2) statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, a description of benchmarks or short-term objectives (for students who take alternate assessments) 3) description of how goal progress will be measured and when progress reports will be provided 4) statement of special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided and modifications for supports for staff to follow 5) an explanation of participation with non-disabled peers 6) individual appropriate accommodations necessary, alternate assessments if needed and statement of why it is appropriate 7) projected date of the start of services and modifications, anticipated frequency, location, and duration of services and modifications. (§300.320) Motor Development: Motor development refers to the development of movement abilities, developmental changes in movements, as well as the factors underlying those changes. “The continuous, age related process of change in movement as well as the interaction Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 21 constraints (or factors) in the individual, environment, and task that drive these changes” (Haywood & Getchell, 2009, p. 5). Students with Visual Impairments (VI): “Exceptional Student Education Eligibility and Assessments for Students with Visual Impairments. (1) Definitions. (a) Visual impairment including blindness means any impairment in vision regardless of significance or severity that, even with correction, adversely affects the student’s educational performance” (Florida Administrative Code, 2024, Rule 6A-6.03014). Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): The National Autism Association (n.d.) defines ASD as a bio-neurological developmental disability that generally appears before the age of 3. Autism impacts the normal development of the brain in the areas of social interaction, communication skills, and cognitive function. Individuals with autism typically have difficulties in verbal and non-verbal communication, social interactions, and leisure or play activities. (para. 1) Students with Significant Support Needs (SSN): Students with significant support needs are highly diverse learners with extensive needs in the areas of cognition and/or learning, communication, movement, and social/emotional abilities. The individual may also have concurrent health, sensory, physical, and/or behavioral disabilities. … Students with significant support needs require substantial adaptations (modifications and accommodations) and/or ongoing supports in order to access grade-level curriculum” (Colorado Department of Education, 2025, para. 1). Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 22 In the current study, SSN refers to school-age students in special education programs within schools. Delimitations Convenience sampling was used where the survey population was participants who chose to complete the survey. Teachers who completed the survey have differing educational backgrounds which may have affected their perceived experiences with their assessment practices. The study was conducted in February and March of 2025, which may have limited the number of teachers available to complete the survey due to end of grading period obligations and Spring Break scheduling conflicts. Limitations APE teachers were asked to self-report their experiences, which allowed for differing levels of self-perceptions of experiences. APE teachers with different levels of experience have different perceptions and definitions of “comprehensive data” during assessment procedures. APE teachers have different levels of background training and therefore bring different levels of understanding of the DST to the study. Assumptions The APE practitioners who completed the survey answered the questions to the best of their ability and with honest self-reflection. The sample group accurately represents the wider population of APE teachers. The research methods used were appropriate for the research question. Summary With the current study, the researcher aimed to examine APE teacher assessment practices in relation to the DST and determine the level of crossover from DST to DST practice Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 23 in the APE assessment process. The research design is mixed methods and the theoretical framework that guided this study is the DST. Chapter 2 is a review of literature related to APE assessment, APE assessment protocols, and the DST. Chapter 3 details the methodology used to guide the research of this study. Chapter 4 reveals the study data and the analysis outcomes. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings, applications, and implications of this study. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 24 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Purpose One job responsibility of APE teachers is to conduct comprehensive annual and triannual assessments for students with disabilities. The assessment data is used to create APE programs, which includes drafting measurable goals to address the deficits highlighted in the assessment data (Silliman-French & Buswell, 2017). The DST is used by kinesiology and motor professionals to understand motor behavior and help to address motor needs in the physical education environment (Davids et al., 2005). Davids et al. (2005) argued that PE teachers could benefit from adopting a pedagogical approach that includes the DST constraint model to help guide student motor development. The DST provides a framework that, when used for the APE assessment process, would guide the assessor to collect data to address all components of a measurable goal, including the elements of a condition. According to the DST, motor development is influenced by three constraints: individual, environmental, and task. Therefore, constraint led assessments would in theory provide the information needed to draft data driven goals and objectives for APE programming, which specifically includes elements of the conditions of a measurable goal. Given that the literature already supports the use of the DST in the teaching profession and knowing that all APE programming and goals come from the APE assessment process, the purpose of this study was to examine APE teacher assessment practices through the lens of dynamic systems theory (DST), with particular attention to how intentionally teachers assess each of the three constraints—individual, task, and environment—and the extent to which they apply the DST theoretical framework in practice when assessing three student populations commonly served on APE caseloads: students with visual impairments (VI), autism spectrum Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 25 disorder (ASD), and significant support needs (SSN).. The three student populations referenced in this study are: students with visual impairments, students with autism, and students with significant support needs. History of Special Education and Adapted Physical Education The Special Education system, although well established, has only been operating for the last 50 years (Yell et al., 2021). For nearly 200 years, students with disabilities in the United States had very little rights. Parents formed advocacy groups as far back as the 1930s and in the 1950s, the work of these family groups helped pass laws that provided training for teachers who worked with students who were deaf or hard of hearing as well as students with intellectual disabilities (Smith & Allman, 2010). The 1970s was a pivotal decade for individuals with disabilities, starting with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which provided civil rights to those with disabilities. In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 to ensure students with disabilities received an appropriate public education. Yell et al. (2021) explained that in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, funding was provided to states that were following the law for the purposes of making special education and related services accessible to students with eligibility for special education services. Yell et al. further revealed the law mandated students with disabilities be given access to physical education, which directly applied to APE. In 1990, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 was changed to IDEA (1990) and continued to define PE and support providing PE and PE related services to eligible students. IDEA states Physical education services, specially designed if necessary, must be made available to every child with a disability receiving free appropriate public education. … If specially designed physical education is prescribed in a child’s individual education program, the Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 26 public agency responsible for the education of that child shall provide the services directly or make arrangements for those services to be provided through other public or private programs” (Code of Federal Regulations, 2025c, §300.108). In other words, IDEA requires that PE be available to all students who receive special education services (Yell & McNamara, 2021). Adapted Physical Education APE is a special education service for school aged students who exhibit needs related to motor literacy and physical education who qualify for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, more commonly referred to as IDEIA (NCPEID, 2023). More specifically, APE is designed for students who are unable to participate in general physical education and qualify for APE services where an individualized plan is created to meet their motor needs (Public Schools of North Carolina, n.d.). APE is responsible for meeting the unique needs of students in the least restrictive environment (Columna et al., 2010). The NCPEID (2025) has adopted the definition of APE as “specially designed instruction in physical education that has been adapted or modified so that it is as appropriate for the person with a disability as it is for a person without a disability” (para. 1). A more holistic and comprehensive definition of APE was created by Auxter et al. (2001) in their textbook that reads, Adapted Physical Education (APE) is the art and science of developing and implementing a carefully designed Physical Education instructional program for an individual with a disability, based on a comprehensive assessment, to give the individual the skills necessary for a lifetime of rich leisure, recreation, and sport experiences to enhance physical fitness and wellness. (p. 3) Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 27 This definition is a big picture approach as it includes the verbiage “comprehensive assessment” and “lifetime” which highlight assessing the whole child and creating APE programming for life beyond the school walls. APE Teacher Job Responsibilities Qualifications that define a “highly-qualified” APE teacher vary from state to state. Commonly, the majority of APE teachers are certified teachers, holding a certification in Special Education, Physical Education, or both. Some states offer and require a certification for APE, whereas others just require a teaching certificate. Many APE teachers are also nationally certified and hold a Certified Adapted Physical Education (CAPE) certification. There are many masters’ level APE related degrees, higher education certificates, and APE specific endorsements offered (state specific) that help elevate the qualifications of APE teachers. APE educators who complete APE assessments need to be highly qualified and have the necessary skills and knowledge to be able to administer APE assessments, interpret results, and make recommendations for APE services. Even though the path to become an APE teacher and the background experiences of APE teachers vary, the job responsibilities of APE teachers are relatively consistent. APE teachers are asked to evaluate students, write assessment reports, develop APE programs, develop IEP measurable goals and objectives, attend ARD/IEP meetings, plan units and lessons, provide instruction, organize and manage caseloads, ensure safety, support PE teachers, collaborate with other professionals, and communicate with families (Akuffo & Hodge, 2007). Other job responsibilities are to provide each student with opportunities to develop physical fitness and fundamental motor skills (Newell, 2020) within students’ capabilities, serve as a resource guide Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 28 to campus administrators, PE teachers, paraprofessionals, and bridge community connections for lifetime leisure opportunities (Silliman-French & Buswell, 2017). APE Service Delivery APE is a direct instructional service, not a related service (IDEIA, 2004). APE teachers can provide direct services, consultative services, collaborative services, or a combination of any of the three. The APE teacher makes recommendations to the IEP/ARD committee and together they determine the need and the amount of time an eligible student will receive (Silliman-French & Buswell, 2017). Assessment: General The act of assessing is a continuous process targeting understanding and aims to improve outcomes. The process begins with focusing on criteria and then gathering, analyzing, and interpreting data. The data can be used in a variety of ways including establishing a baseline, checking progress, comparing to other programs to explore new options, or to validate a strategy. Assessments provide fundamental and significant sources of information about individuals and groups. “Assessment is a broader term than test, commonly referring to a process that integrates test information with information from other sources (e.g., information from other tests, inventories, and interviews; or the individual’s social, educational, employment, health, or psychological history)” (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014, p. 2). Establishing conditions that support optimum performance create the highest quality of assessment data. These conditions include the three constraints of the DST: individual, task, and environmental constraints. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 29 Assessment in Education One important part of the educational system that helps to ensure student success is the assessment process. Educational testing has three major purposes: (a) to make inferences that inform teaching and learning at the individual or curricular level; (b) to make inferences about outcomes for individual students and groups of students; and (c) to inform decisions about students, such as certifying students’ acquisition of particular knowledge and skills for promotion, placement in special instructional programs, or graduation. (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014, p. 184) The assessment process begins with focusing on appropriate criteria and high standards for learning. Then, gathering, analyzing, and interpreting data and comparing performance to those high expectations and standards. Lastly, documenting data and explaining the change, if any, in performance (Angelo, 1995). According to the American Educational Research Association (2014), “Educational and psychological testing and assessment are among the most important contributions of cognitive and behavioral sciences to our society, providing fundamental and significant sources of information about individuals and groups” (p. 1). The proper use of well-constructed tests “can result in better decisions about individuals and programs than would result without their use and can also provide a route to broader and more equitable access to education and employment” (p. 1). It is important to consider fairness when testing, which can be defined as considering “careful consideration of conditions that affect students’ opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities” (p. 186). Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 30 Assessment Process in APE In the field of APE, assessments are a complex process utilized to inform decisions about students, specifically, placement in the PE setting, to determine eligibility for APE services, and to develop APE programs and measurable goals (Horvat et al., 2019; SHAPE America, 2018). The assessment process from start to finish is systematic with several steps to gather comprehensive data. The APE assessment process can begin with an evaluation request from the IEP/ARD Committee, a referral for screening/observation from a PE teacher or therapist, or the APE teacher can make the request based on observations (Silliman-French & Buswell, 2017). After parent permission to evaluate has been obtained, the evaluator can begin to review existing data (from previous evaluations and service notes) and choose assessment instruments based on the unique characteristics of the student. Instrument selection is based on the student age, developmental level, norm or criteria referenced needs, behavior of interest, and community opportunities (Auxter et al., 2001; Felix & Tymeson, 2017). Factors for consideration are student diagnosis, cognitive and motor ability, presentation of mobility, level of engagement, behaviors impacting access to PE, sports and recreation interests, and level of support needed. According to IDEIA (2004) §300.304, a learner is assessed in any area related to a suspected disability, which includes gross motor abilities. This mandate applies to the APE assessment process as APE assessments are used to determine physical education needs of students referred for an APE evaluation. IDEIA states the areas that APE teachers evaluate are “fundamental motor skills and patterns” (Code of Federal Regulations, 2025a, §300.39 (b)(2)(B)) and “skills in aquatics, dance, individual games, group games, and/or sports” (§300.39 (b)(2)(C)). Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 31 Also, according to IDEIA (2004) assessment mandate, APE teachers are required to utilize multiple assessment tools to collect data during the evaluation process (Bittner & Young, 2021) and the evaluation procedures is “administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel; and are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments” (Code of Federal Regulations, 2025d, §300.304 (c)(1)(iv–v)). Multiple tools are chosen to both establish eligibility and curate the most appropriate data that will paint a whole picture of student abilities, interests, and motivations. According to the NCPEID (2023), some of these evaluation requirements include: • scores of psychometrically investigated assessments that are non-discriminatory, • assessments used for the purpose for which scores are valid and reliable, • use of multiple assessments, • administered following all standardized procedures in accordance with the instructions provided by the instrument’s producer. (p. 1) There are several APE assessments to choose from or use together depending on the needs of the students (Bittner et al., 2021; Bittner & Young, 2021). Specific APE assessment tools will be covered in depth later in this chapter. Determining Need for Adapted Physical Education Services Determining the need for and particulars of APE services is a process that includes establishing a need for the service by the IEP team, gaining consent to test, completing an APE evaluation to determine eligibility and program needs, and developing appropriate plans and goals if eligible for APE services (Public Schools of North Carolina, n.d.). SHAPE America (2018) explains that a student is considered eligible for APE services if their comprehensive evaluation score is 1.5 standard deviations below the mean on a norm-referenced assessment Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 32 tool. Norm-referenced refers to standardized tests that compare scores against the performance of a statistically selected group of people who are the same age as the learner being tested (Great Schools Partnership, 2015). On a criterion referenced test, the student should score at least 2 years below their same-age peers (SHAPE America, 2018). Criterion referenced refers to an assessment test that measures performance against a fixed set of predetermined criteria or learning standards, which can be in the form of written descriptions or skill stems that students at a certain age are expected to know (Glossary of Education Reform, 2014). Each tool has a specific way to calculate and interpret results, making it important for APE teachers to take the time to learn the nuances of the different instruments. Due to varying practices of selecting the APE assessment instruments, interpretation of data, and making APE service recommendations, “students who receive adapted physical education services in one state might not qualify for those services in another state” (SHAPE America, 2018, p. 2). Not only can the eligibility vary, so can the service recommendation such as goals, minutes, placement, and mastery criteria. Neighboring districts within state lines often have differing practices to accommodate different scheduling challenges, qualifications and number of teachers, and different modes of delivering the services (SHAPE America, 2018). After the assessment data is collected, the results are interpreted, and an evaluation report is drafted which explains the data, results, and recommendations for services. Using the assessment data as baseline data, measurable goals are drafted and presented at the IEP/ARD meeting for consideration. IEP meeting and ARD meeting are interchangeable terms that refer to the same meeting. The IEP/ARD meeting is a meeting of a group of people (parents, diagnosticians, teachers, support staff, and service providers in a local education agency) who come together to share expertise about a student (needs, desires, abilities, and expectations) and to determine Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 33 whether the student is eligible for special education services as well as develops the IEP if eligible. (Navigate Life Texas, 2024). APE Assessment Tools There are two types of APE assessment tools, formal and informal tools (Bittner & Young, 2021). Formal APE tools are standardized and proven valid and reliable through extensive measures. Formal tools are used to determine eligibility for APE services. NCPEID (2023) released a statement outlining the criteria needed to be considered a formal standardized tool, which includes undergoing the rigorous process of standardization, interpretability, peer reviewed, reliability, re-standardization every 20 years, sampling factors, and validity. Each formal tool has been created to assess a specific age range of students and addresses a carefully selected skill set. Examples of formal tools are the Test of Gross Motor Development 3 and the Brigance Inventory of Early Development (Bittner et al., 2021). Informal tools are not standardized and do not provide specific data such as gross motor quotient and age equivalencies, but they do provide qualitative data that help support and expand standardized test data (Bittner & Young, 2021). Therefore, without these pieces of data, informal tools cannot be used to determine eligibility for APE services or placement needs (Bittner et al., 2021). There is a plethora of informal tools available for a wide range of student ability levels, which includes teacher interview, parent interview, observations, and specifically created authentic tools which aim to measure data on a specific skill (Silliman-French & Buswell, 2017). Informal tools are extremely useful as they offer a wide scope of information for a specific type of learner profile and add valuable data that helps to paint an adequate picture of the whole student being assessed. The most widely used informal tools are the Curriculum, Assessment, Resources, Evaluation; Adapted Physical Education Assessment Scale (APEAS); Competency Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 34 Testing for Adapted Physical Education (CTAPE); and the Kounas Assessment of Limited Mobility (Bittner et al., 2021). Other examples of informal tools are the Region 10 Assessment for Wheelchair Users, the Region 10 Assessment for Students with Visual Impairments, the Region 10 PE Participation Inventory, and the Region 10 Lifetime Leisure Supplement (Region 10 Education Service Center, 2025). Table 1 presents the most commonly used APE assessment tools curated by Bittner and Young (2021) with the addition of informal tools created by the APE team at the Texas Region 10 Education Service Center. This list is not exhaustive, and authentic assessments can also be created as needed to fit special needs as they arise (Silliman-French & Buswell, 2017). Table 1 APE Assessment Tools Formal tools Non-standardized tools with content validity Other informal tools Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development (Brigance, 1978) APEAS: Adapted Physical Education Assessment Scale (Seaman, Martinich, & Fox, 2007) Region 10 Low Motor (Region 10 ESC, 2025) Brockport Physical Fitness Test (Winnick & Short, 2014) AMSAT: Apache Motor Skill Assessment Test (Apache, 2014) Region 10 Motor Evaluation for Wheelchair Users (Region 10 ESC, 2025) BOT-3: Bruinicks Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005) CTAPE: Competency Test of Adapted PE (Louisiana Department of Education, 2015) Region 10 Evaluation for Visually Impaired (Region 10 ESC, 2025) FitnessGram (Cooper Institute for Aerobic Fitness, 1982) LaMAP: Louisiana Motor Assessment for Preschoolers (Louisiana Department of Education, 2015) Region 10 Lifetime Leisure Supplement (Region 10 ESC, 2025) PDMS-2 Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (Folio & Fewell, 2000) CARE-R: Curriculum, assessment, resources, evaluation (National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance, n.d.) Region 10 PEPI: Physical education participation inventory (Region 10 ESC, 2025) Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory Formal tools TGMD 3: Test of Gross Motor Development (Ulrich, 2019) Non-standardized tools with content validity 35 Other informal tools KALMS: Kounas assessment of limited mobility students revised (Kounas, 1999) Structured interviews HELP: Hawaii early learning profile (Parks, 2004) Observation checklists Oregon project (Brown, 1978) Authentic assessments PAPI-ISAPI: Physical activity profile of independence for individuals with severe and profound impairments (Weiner & Labagh, 2014) Project MOBILITEE (Rudolph & Arnold, 1981) Special Olympics FUNdamentals Special Olympics assessment (Kavanagh et al., 2023) Test of secondary basic sport skills (Vetter, 2021) The Southern California ordinal scales of development: Gross motor abilities (Ashurst et al., 1985) Sensory processing assessment of responses (Ulrich, 2010) Camp abilities Brockport sports assessment (State University of New York at Brockport, 1996) Since standardized tools can only be used in the way they are intended without any modifications to the test, any data needed outside of the formal tools will need to be collected with informal tools and processes. All programming and goals are driven by data, so it is important that the selected assessment instruments collect the most comprehensive data for baseline information (Silliman & Buswell, 2017). Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 36 Assessment Data According to the SHAPE America’s (2018) position statement, the purpose of APE evaluation is to address eligibility for APE services, draft goals based on assessment data, and address appropriate placement for students in physical education. Other important jobs of APE assessments are to establish the baseline level of motor performance, development of the IEP, develop student specific instruction, predict future success, and when used as a tri-annual or exit assessment, measure achievement (Auxter et al., 2001; Silliman-French & Buswell, 2017). Beyond the hard motor data, there are other areas that affect the comprehensiveness of the assessment data as well as affect learner success while in an APE program. These areas affect student motor behavior and when addressed appropriately can increase engagement and learning. Examples of these areas are individual motivators, reward systems, teacher support, appropriate prompting types and levels, and equipment used (Auxter et al., 2001; Winnick, 2017). The IDEIA §300.304 assessment mandate requires multiple assessments be used during the evaluation process (Bittner & Young, 2021). This mandate forces evaluators to reach beyond the standardized tools and look for valuable data in multiple places. According to Bittner and Young (2021), For any initial, triennial, or exit assessment, formal (standardized) assessment AND informal (non-standardized) assessment must be used. It is inappropriate and unacceptable to base any eligibility decision upon the results of a single assessment instrument; tests alone will not give a comprehensive picture of how a student performs or what they can or cannot do (present level of performance). Only by systematically collecting data through a variety of approaches (e.g., standardized and information testing, observations, interviews, rubrics) and from a variety of sources (e.g., parents, Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 37 teachers, and related service personnel) can an adequate picture be obtained of the student’s strengths and needs. (p. 2) As all APE programming is based on assessment data, by addressing the whole child and painting an adequate picture with assessment data, the evaluator is setting up the APE program for success as this will give the APE service providers the most functional information to develop an APE program. Determining what data to collect and what tools to choose to collect data can be challenging. This challenge begins with choosing from many protocol options and trying to determine which one will yield the best and most functional data. Many of the tools only pertain to certain ages and/or address certain content skill areas, leaving other areas unaddressed that are also a critical part of PE curriculum, which limits the usefulness of the tools (Bittner et al., 2021). The lack of literature defining high quality and comprehensive APE assessment data coupled with inconsistent APE assessment practices can hinder access to appropriate student programming and learning opportunities. SHAPE America’s (2018) position statement expresses students who receive adapted physical education services in one state might not qualify for those services in another state. Even more distressing, students who receive such services in one school district might not receive them in a neighboring district because of different eligibility criteria, different qualifications of teachers, or different modes of delivering the services. (p. 2) This literature supports the need for more clearly defined parameters around APE assessment practices, the process to collect high quality and comprehensive data, and consistent APE programming across the nation. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 38 Individual Education Program After the assessment data is collected, the results are interpreted, and an evaluation report is drafted which explains the data, results, and recommendations for services. Using the assessment data as baseline data, measurable goals are drafted and presented at the IEP/ARD meeting for consideration. IEP meeting and ARD meeting are interchangeable terms that refer to the same meeting. The IEP/ARD meeting is a meeting of a group of people (parents, diagnosticians, teachers, support staff, and service providers in a local education agency) who come together to share expertise about a student (needs, desires, abilities, and expectations) and to determine whether the student is eligible for special education services as well as develops the IEP if eligible (Navigate Life Texas, 2025). The IEP/ARD meeting develops the IEP. The IEP is a series of written statements for students with disabilities that outline the present level of academic achievement and functional performance and recommended measurable annual goals and benchmarks (IDEA, 2017). Other aspects to an IEP are description of data collection and timelines, how progress is reported, statement of special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, modifications, accommodations, start date of services, anticipated frequency, location, and duration of services. One component of a measurable goal is the condition, which defines parameters determined to help the student gain access to the goal. The condition can be equipment, prompting, or environment related (Auxter et al, 2001; Texas Education Agency and Texas SPED Support, 2025). Therefore, to be included in the goal, it can be assumed that collecting data to support the condition should be included in the APE assessment process. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 39 Dynamic Systems Theory The primary theoretical framework used for this study was the DST. The DST has evolved over time with its roots being established in the chaos theory, credited to Henri Poincare with his Dynamical Systems paper in 1890 (Murzi, n.d.). In 1982, authors Kugler et al. introduced the DST, Newell (1986) created Newell’s model of the DST constraints in 1985, and Thelen (1989) applied the theory to motor development in 1989. Thelen (1989) proposed that development was “driven by the interaction of multiple subsystems…and that development is a non-linear process” (p. 946). The DST supports the notion that movement does not develop in a continuous manner or at a steady rate but rather is affected by any small change in one of the subsystems, which results in a new motor behavior (Goldfield, 1993). The DST suggests that behavior spontaneously occurs as a result of interactions of the three constraints of the DST: Individual, Environment, and Task (Colombo-Dougovito, 2017; Colombo-Dougovito & Block, 2016; Holt et al., 2010; Nima et al., 2020). In his 1986 article, Newell reported that the emergence of behavior was allowed by constraints, where behavior was referring to movement. According to the DST, the apparent spontaneous behavior change that emerges from the interaction of the three constraints is self-organizing, where the body scans the constraints and finds the most stable state, or attractor state, which is the most preferred pattern at the time (Colombo-Dougovito, 2017). The individual constraints (originally known as organismic) are considered to be structural and functional. The term, structural refers to limits that do not change in short periods of time such as weight and height, and functional refers to limits that can change quickly and are unique to the individual such as motivation and attention (Colombo-Dougovito, 2017; Davids et Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 40 al., 2005). The environmental constraints are anything outside of the individual such as space, temperature, time, other people, and physical barriers (Colombo-Dougovito, 2017; ColomboDougovito & Block, 2016; Holt et al., 2010; Nima et al., 2020). The social aspects of the environmental constraints extend to the attitudes and support levels of nearby people, which in educational thought would apply to parents, teachers, paraprofessionals, the level of support and prompting given by teachers and support staff, and also peer influences such as modeling (Hutzler, 2007). The task constraints refer to anything related to the action, such as directions, movement, and the equipment used in the task (Colombo-Dougovito, 2017; Colombo-Dougovito & Block, 2016; Holt et al., 2010; Nima et al., 2020). In the DST, the term constraint is a neutral term referring to “the influence on behavior to encourage the production, and over time, development of that behavior,” where motor movement is the behavior in this case (Colombo-Dougovito, 2017, p. 142). Colombo-Dougovito (2017) continues to explain that “the emergent behavior is based on the coordination of the various degrees of freedom. By accounting for influences from the constraints within the individual, the environment, and the task itself, the body is able to coordinate movement” (p. 142). Manipulating one constraint can cause a “spontaneous reorganization of the other constraints to produce a new behavior” which is great news for educators as this strategy can be used as a teaching intervention to encourage new motor behaviors and skills (p. 153). See Newell’s (1986) DST model in Figure 1 in Chapter 1. Also refer to Figure 2 in Chapter 1 which shows Newell’s (1986) model applied to the skill of catching where specific examples are listed under each constraint. There are many examples in the literature that support DST framed approaches to teaching skills, oftentimes called “constraint led” teaching approaches, where a focus on the Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 41 individual and/or environmental constraints lead to skill improvement. Colombo-Dougovito and Block (2016) discuss constraint led strategies in teaching object-control skills to students with ASD and explain that movement patterns are emergent and “are subject to variability within the environment, task, and person, and therefore are able to be shaped by the manipulation of constraints” (p. 34). Sigmundsson et al. (2017) state the interplay between the individual, task, and the environmental constraints will lead to changes in motor development, specifically how one develops and learns new movements. Davids et al. (2005) argue, Such a model (DST) views mind, body, and the environment as continuously constraining each other and, from this perspective, motor learning is a process of acquiring movement patterns which satisfy the key constraints on each individual. … It is argued that, since movement skills emerge from the interactions of key constraints in learning situations, physical educators could adopt a pedagogical approach that takes into account the dynamic and nonlinear interactions that occur in teaching and learning interventions. (p. 18) Example Learner Profiles and APE Assessment Data According to the Florida Administrative Code (2024), “Visual impairment (VI) including blindness means any impairment in vision regardless of significance or severity that, even with correction, adversely affects the student’s educational performance” (Rule 6A-6.03014 (1)(a)). Many students on an APE caseload have some level of VI ranging from high level athletes to students with severe and profound disabilities. The term VI applies to partial and full blindness, which includes physical ocular blindness and neurological disorders. Some physical activity barriers to success for students with VI are the need for sighted guides to help with boundaries and safety, specific equipment needs to accommodate for the sensory differences, and negative Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 42 perceptions of abilities (Stuart et al., 2006). Students with visual impairments rely heavily on their environment, their experiences, and their perception of abilities when functioning in the PE setting. They require different instructional strategies and different prompting levels to comprehend instructions and to learn tasks. When assessing students with visual impairments, the individual constraints and the environmental constraints heavily affect the assessment data. The National Autism Association (n.d.) defines ASD as a neurological development disability that can impact the areas of the brain that control cognitive function, communication, and social skills. The impact of ASD can affect verbal and non-verbal skills, sensory processing and integration, and play-based activities. As ASD varies from person to person, so does the effects it has on students in the PE environment. Some other displays of ASD in the PE setting are low engagement with equipment or activities, low motivation, short attention span, anxiety to chaos, adverse to equipment, adverse to peer interactions/contact, parallel play alone preferred, and intense reactions to sensory related stimulus such as sounds, light, smells, or tactile feeling of objects (National Autism Association, n.d.). Students with severe autism can present with motivational and engagement challenges related to preferences and sensory processing differences, which can present in the individual and environmental constraints of the DST. Figure 3 is a model of Newell’s (1986) constraints applied to children with ASD. The examples listed under the constraints are specific to ASD but could be presented when working with a wide range of students. Considering the specific examples that can affect the level of assessment engagement for students with ASD can open up opportunities to collect more comprehensive assessment data. Students with significant support needs (SSN) are “highly diverse learners with extensive needs in the areas of cognition and/or learning, communication, movement, and social/emotional Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 43 abilities. They may also have concurrent health, sensory, physical, and/or behavior disabilities” (Colorado Department of Education, 2024). Due to limited ability to communicate through body expressions and language, measuring the level of engagement for students with SSN is challenging (Kendall et al., 2022). Students with SSN often require substantial modifications and support to access curriculum, including PE curriculum. Figure 3 Newell’s Model of Constraints as it Pertains to Children With ASD Note. From “Using Constraints to Design Developmentally Appropriate Movement Activities for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders,” by M. Pope, T. Liu, C. M. Breslin, and N. Getchell, 2012, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 83(2), p. 36. Copyright 2025 by Taylor & Francis Group. Fair Use. Support can be provided in a variety of ways including cognitive, physical, medical, and personal care. These students are typically in the active learning, activities of daily living, or Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 44 severe profound self-contained special education classrooms. Students with SSN can present with limited initiation of movement, low engagement in the assessment process, be difficult to motivate, and can present with behaviors that are difficult to interpret which can make the APE assessment process challenging. Students with SSN can include severe and profound intellectual disabilities, severe and profound physical disabilities, multiple disabilities, sensorimotor level, and pre-operational level learners. Sensorimotor level learners may present as drowsy, fussy, agitated, people avoidant, self-regulatory for extended periods of time, unable to stay engaged, and task avoidant (Smith & Chambers, 2023). Many of these behavior presentations fall into the individual and environmental constraints of the DST. Many students with SSN spend their days in wheelchairs, are fully dependent on teachers for transfers and transitions around the classroom and the campus, have complex medical and feeding needs, have limited functional communication, and have many safety restrictions in the area of physical education. Students with SSN can also be ambulatory but may lack independence in traveling and use of manipulatives. Commonly, students with SSN operate on a very low cognitive level, which may contribute to the challenges of completing functional assessments and creating productive programming. When completing assessments for students with SSN, addressing student motivators and teacher support level, which includes prompting levels, can improve the comprehensiveness of assessment data procured, which opens up more opportunities for higher quality APE programming. Federal Law Federal law requires physical education for all students and defines physical education as: physical and motor skills, fundamental motor skills and patterns (throwing, catching, walking, running), and skills in aquatics, dance, and individual and group games and sports, including Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 45 intramural and lifetime sports (Code of Federal Regulations, 2025a). IDEA (2017) states that a variety of assessment tools and strategies must be used to gather relevant and functional data, and that the assessment needs to be done by a professional who is trained and knowledgeable in the area of assessment. Therefore, physical educators and adapted physical educators are federally mandated to address the physical education needs of all students and provide equal opportunity for PE as best as possible. This mandate highly affects the assessment process of APE as it is the starting and mid points of APE programs that procure the data needed to create and continue to modify individualized programs to meet the needs of the students receiving APE services. National Standards for APE NCPEID (2020) utilizes the textbook Adapted Physical Education National Standards to establish a framework for APE job expectations nationwide. The book is broken down into 15 standards, each covering specific topics that APE teachers manage on the job. Several of the standards specifically relate to assessment practices and the DST. Standard 2: Motor Behavior Standard 2 states APE teachers are to “understand the dynamic systems theory, the diversity and influence of performance and learning constraints. … Apply knowledge of dynamic systems theory to program planning and implementation. … Develop individual program plans that diminish and/or accommodate for the effects of rate limiters” (NCPEID, 2020, p. 12). This is important as it calls for APE programming to be created with the DTS constraints as a framework. Based on previous knowledge that all APE programming is based on assessment data; therefore, DST constraints should be considered during the assessment process to establish foundational data for APE programming. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 46 Standard 4: Measurement and Evaluation Standard 4 includes a section that calls APE teachers to Evaluate the quality of available standardized instruments. … Recognize potential limitations and problems related to the use of standardized instruments and procedures. … Recognize the necessity to construct instruments and/or modify procedures to measure the current level of motor performance of individuals. (NCPEID, 2020, p. 51) Standard 4 relates to the current study and APE teachers are called to think critically about the assessment process and keep the student in mind when selecting tools to use, making sure to choose the most appropriate tools that best fit the student profile being tested. This standard also states APE teachers should be able to “recognize when the use of standardized instruments is inappropriate … and to modify standard test instructions for individuals with disabilities” (p. 52). Using critical thinking skills and viewing the assessment process through the lens of the DST, areas are highlighted that are typically not covered on the most commonly used standardized assessment instruments, such as the individual and environmental constraint components. According to Standard 4, it is the responsibility of the APE teacher to adjust the testing process to cover all of the domains necessary to create a complete and comprehensive picture of the student being tested. Standard 6: Unique Attributes of Learners Standard 6 focuses on different learner groups and outlines expectations specific to each group (NCPEID, 2020). Specifically, this standard calls for APE teachers to “understand unique psychomotor considerations” (p. 76), understand “fitness considerations ... cognitive considerations” (p. 77), understand “affective and social skill considerations … health and medical issues … communication considerations” (p. 78), and how each group’s unique Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 47 attributes impact physical and motor skills (p. 126). Standard 6 is relevant to the current study as it supports the need to evaluate all aspects of the learner, including the individual and the environmental DST constraints, not just the task constraint. Standard 8: Assessment Standard 8 visits all of the legal and administration aspects of the APE assessment process (NCPEID, 2020). Understanding the student needs, the instruments available, how and why to select instruments, the service delivery models, establishing eligibility, recommending service plans, reporting the data, and working with other team members are all covered in this standard. One subtopic specifically related to the current study states APE teachers are expected to “acquire knowledge of a theoretical framework with which to make comprehensive assessment decisions” (p. 137), which supports the idea of viewing the student needs and assessment process through the lens of the DST, specifically addressing all three constraints of the DST to give a comprehensive viewpoint of the students being tested. Texas Education Agency The Texas Education Agency provides many avenues of support for special education professionals. One document available is a question-and-answer document covering the topic of IEP measurable goals (Texas Education Agency and Texas SPED Support, 2025). Section 1.2 outlines the four critical components of a measurable annual goal, which are timeframe, conditions, behavior, and mastery criterion. Of these four components, the condition relates to the DST individual and environmental constraints, where the behavior relates to the task constraint. When a behavior/task is chosen for a goal, conditions in which the student uses to gain access to the goal are also determined. According to Texas Education Agency and Texas SPED Support (2025), “conditions specify how progress toward the goal occurs. Conditions Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 48 describe the specific resources that must be present for a student to reach the goal and should outline or explain what facilitates learning for the student” (p. 7). All data to support goal writing is collected during the assessment process, and conditions are a critical component of a measurable goal, so therefore data on conditions should also be a part of the assessment process and included in the assessment report and summary statements. The DST would provide a functional framework to collect data for all components goal writing, including conditions, which would meet TEA criteria requirements of a measurable goal. Summary Current research suggests the DST plays an important role in motor development. APE teachers are responsible for developing programs that include measurable goals for students who are eligible for and receive APE services. Measurable goals contain conditions which provide access to mastering the task. Since all APE goals are based on APE assessment data, addressing all three constraints of the DST during the assessment process may bring added value to the assessment data, provide data to support goal conditions, and show a wider viewpoint of student abilities and capabilities. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 49 CHAPTER 3: METHODS Purpose “Purpose is the controlling force of research. Decisions about design, measurement, analysis, and reporting all flow from purpose” (Patton, 2015, p. 248). Having a specific and clear purpose in the current study helped to illuminate a part of the APE teacher self-reported assessment practices. As stated in Chapter 1, completing APE assessments is an integral part of the APE job where data is collected to be used to create programs for students who qualify for and receive APE services. There are many protocols available and many different processes that APE teachers utilize to complete APE evaluations. NCPEID (2023) states a standardized protocol is to be used to establish eligibility as well as multiple sources of information and tools to collect the data needed to develop meaningful APE programs. Each protocol measures a set of skills that is unique to that protocol and many times different from other protocols, explaining why NCPEID recommends using more than one protocol to collect the needed information to create a meaningful program. According to this theory, behavior change occurs when all three constraints are addressed and considered. For this case, the behavior change is motor behavior where motor learning occurs. Since learning occurs when all three constraints are addressed, assessing all three constraints during the evaluation process may highlight conditions that would support and encourage optimum motor learning and therefore would be valuable to include in an APE evaluation report to be used for APE programming. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine APE teacher assessment practices through the lens of dynamic systems theory (DST), with particular attention to how intentionally teachers assess each of the three constraints— individual, task, and environment—and the extent to which they apply the DST theoretical Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 50 framework in practice when assessing three student populations commonly served on APE caseloads: students with visual impairments (VI), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and significant support needs (SSN). The methods and processes used for the current study are described in further detail in the following sections: (a) Theoretical Framework, (b) Research Design, (c) Participants, (d) Procedures for Data Collecting, (e) Ethical Considerations, (f) Survey Data Analysis, and (g) Triangulation. Theoretical Framework There are three theories that provide the theoretical framework for this study: The dynamic system theory (DST), the reality testing inquiry, and the correspondence theory. The DTS was used to support the survey questions aimed to highlight APE teacher assessment practices related to the DST. DST has evolved over time with its roots being established in the chaos theory, credited to Henri Poincare with his dynamical systems paper in 1890 (Murzi, n.d.). In 1982, authors Kugler et al. introduced the DST, Newell (1986) created Newell’s model of the DST constraints in 1985, and Thelen applied the theory to motor development in 1989. The DTS suggests that behavior spontaneously occurs as a result of interactions of the three constraints of the DST: individual, environment, and task (Colombo-Dougovito, 2017; Thelen, 2005), where in this case, behavior is referring to motor movement. DST suggests behavior changes spontaneously and organizes itself through the interaction of three constraints. The body evaluates these constraints to adopt the most stable and preferred pattern, known as the attractor state, at any given moment (Colombo-Dougovito, 2016). The individual constraints are considered to be structural—limits that do not change quickly and functional—quickly changing (Colombo-Dougovito, 2017; Thelen, 2005). Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 51 Environmental constraints are anything outside of the individual such as space, temperature, time, other people, and physical barriers (Colombo-Dougovito, 2017). The social aspects of the environmental constraints extend to the attitudes and support levels of nearby people, which in educational thought would apply to parents, teachers, paraprofessionals, the level of support and prompting given by teachers and support staff, and also peer influences such as modeling (Hutzler, 2007). The task constraints refer to anything related to the action, execution of a specific skill, such as directions, movement, number of steps involved, and the equipment used in the task (Colombo-Dougovito, 2017; Colombo-Dougovito & Block, 2016; Holt et al., 2010; Nima et al., 2020). Manipulating one constraint can cause a “spontaneous reorganization of the other constraints to produce a new behavior,” which is great news for educators as this strategy can be used as a teaching intervention to encourage new motor behaviors and skills (ColomboDougovito, 2017, p. 153.) Figure 4 shows Newell’s model of DST. Figure 4 Newell’s Model of Dynamic Systems Theory Note. From “The Role of Dynamic Systems Theory in Motor Development Research: How Does Theory Inform Practice and What Are the Potential Implications for Autism Spectrum Disorder?,” by A. M. Colombo-Dougovito, 2017, International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 16(2), p. 142. Copyright 2016 by De Gruyter. Fair Use. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 52 According to the DST of motor development, all three constraints are needed in order for behavior to change. Since this theory is so important to the world of motor behavior and development, it should be equally important in the world of motor development assessment. Given how all of the constraints in the DST affect student engagement and motor change, a conclusion can be drawn that considers all three constraints during an APE assessment may positively affect student engagement in APE assessment practices. Two other theories used for the current study were the reality testing inquiry and the correspondence theory where information was gathered through a survey objectively in an attempt to correspond the findings with the perceived reality of a generalized population of APE teachers across the United States. Correspondence theory suggests “a statement is true if it describes reality accurately” (Patton, 2015, p. 105). Therefore, with the current study, the researcher sought to illuminate a reality/truth among APE teachers across the United States regarding assessment practices. According to post positivism theory, which includes realityoriented inquiry, all evaluation methods are imperfect, so “multiple methods, both quantitative and qualitative, are needed to generate and test theory,” which improves understanding of the investigated topic (p. 106). Therefore, a mixed-methods approach was chosen for the current study. Studies have been done examining the most widely used APE assessment tools and the popularity of each (Bittner et al., 2021). APE teachers, largely in California, were surveyed by Bittner et al. (2021) about assessment practices and professional development opportunities for motor assessment practices and revealed that generally speaking, school districts are not encouraging or financially supporting APE teachers to attend training and conferences to better their assessment skills. Even though studies have been done examining which assessment tools Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 53 APE teachers choose and why, as well as using the DST to guide teaching strategies, there is a gap in the research examining if APE teachers apply the DST to their assessment practices. Research Design A mixed-methods descriptive analysis data collection research design was used for the current study. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected on the survey which was created to address the research questions. RQ: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, in general, do Adapted PE teachers self-report to address all three of the dynamic systems theory constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for all students? Subquestion 1: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with visual impairments? Subquestion 2: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with autism? Subquestion 3: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with significant support needs? The IRB application was completed, and the mixed-methods research investigation was approved by the Slippery Rock University IRB on February 10, 2025. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 54 Survey The research question and three subquestions were addressed through an APE teacher survey. The survey created for the current study contained 50 questions, with both open- and closed-ended questions. The survey addressed the research questions by examining teacher selfreported levels of integration of all three of the DST constraints when completing APE evaluations, specifically with student populations: visual impairment, autism, and significant support needs. Expert validation is a critical step in the survey validation process and allows experts in the field being studied to use their knowledge and expertise to analyze each component of the study (Gehlbach & Brinkworth, 2011). To help establish validity, 10 experienced APE professionals, both higher education and practitioners, were asked to review the survey before it was distributed to participants. An email was sent to the expert reviewers with a list of questions to answer that addressed if the survey measured what it was intended to measure. Each APE expert asked clarifying questions and shared thoughts and ideas on ways to make the survey clearer and more user friendly for participants. After discussions and reviewing the suggestions, the survey format was altered to streamline the process, and more definitions were added to add clarity and better understanding of the concepts presented in the survey. Participants Expert reviewers who were selected to establish survey validity were APE teachers and APE higher education professionals, chosen based on education level and experience level. After validity was established, survey participants were recruited for the study survey using listservs and social media. APE teachers who complete APE assessments as a part of their job responsibilities from across the United States were invited to participate in the survey. Selecting Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 55 a sample from across the nation provided the opportunity to collect information from a variety of states, perspectives, and experience levels. The Texas Region 10 Education Service Center listserv was utilized to reach potential participants. Three social media posts on APE pages inviting participants to join the study were also utilized. Snowballing was used to help spread the reach through different communities and to recruit participants, as well. This sample is considered both purposive and convenient. The sample is purposive as the researcher is well connected in the Texas Region 10 educational area and is familiar with the experience level and practices of many teachers in the area. The sample is also convenient as it relied on the time, interest, and effort availability of the participants who received the email invitation and social media invitations to participate. Permission to use the listserv was obtained before distributing the survey via the Texas Region 10 Education Service Center as well as the social media page owners. Since the listserv was utilized, district permissions were not necessary. Qualtrics was utilized to manage the survey and the collected data. No identifying information (name or contact information) was collected on the survey. Measures Data was collected using an original survey consisting of 50 questions. Since the survey was custom created for the current study, validity was established through expert review. The survey was uploaded into an electronic database using Qualtrics, which was selected based on its ease of use for both the researcher and the participants as well as the statistical analyses it provides. The survey included Likert-scale response questions as well as open-ended questions. Likert-scale options were: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. The 5 open-ended questions allowed the participants to expand on their assessment practices and give more context to their answers. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 56 The Texas Region 10 APE team distributed the link to the survey through their listservs to potential participants. The survey was also posted on three different national social media APE groups. Participants completed the survey anonymously and at their leisure. The total time to complete the survey was approximately 25–30 minutes, depending on the time taken to complete the open-ended questions. The only requirements to participate were to be actively serving as an APE teacher or APE professional in some capacity and have completed APE assessments as a part of the job duties. Procedures for Survey Data Collecting 1. An original survey was created consisting of 50 questions where five of the questions were open ended to allow for deeper understanding of participant answers. 2. An expert review was completed by asking five higher education APE professionals and five APE practitioners to review the survey and offer feedback and suggestions. 3. Permission to utilize the Texas Region 10 Education Service Center APE teacher listserv was obtained. 4. Slippery Rock University IRB application was completed, submitted, and approved on February 10, 2025. 5. Texas Region 10 Education Service Center Adapted PE team distributed the survey invitation and link to the qualified APE professionals on their listserv. 6. An invitation to participate in the survey was posted on three APE social media Facebook pages. 7. Once a participant received the survey link through email, consent was needed to continue participating in the survey. The participants could exit and quit the survey at any time. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 57 8. If the participant answered “No” to Question 3, which asks “Do you currently administer Adapted PE assessments (initials and/or tri-annuals) as part of your job responsibilities?” then the survey will end, and the participant will not be able to complete the rest of the survey questions. 9. Participant recruitment lasted for 3 weeks, and the survey remained open during that time. 10. Follow-up posts were made on social media on Day 5 and Day 10. 11. Snowballing was used and participants who received the email invitation and the social media invitation were asked to share the invitation to participate with other APE professional colleagues. 12. All of the survey data was stored on the Qualtrics database, and all participants remained anonymous. 13. After the survey was closed, all of the data was analyzed using the statistical tools offered through Qualtrics as well as SPSS. The survey consisted of 50 questions. There were 10 questions that collected demographic information. The next 35 questions had Likert scale response choices that measured quantitative data and the last five questions were open-ended questions that collected qualitative data. Descriptive statistical analysis was used for the 35 quantitative questions and the responses to the open-ended questions were used to provide additional context to the quantitative results. Ethical Considerations Slippery Rock University IRB reviewed and approved the current study and examined any possible harm to human subjects. The targeted participants work for school districts and one concern was if the districts would have any conflict with honest answers on the survey. To avoid Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 58 this concern, the survey was sent through email where the participants could complete it at anytime and anywhere. All participants completed the survey anonymously and the survey did not collect any identifying information, to alleviate any concern of district upset. All of the data was stored using the Qualtrics database. Survey Data Analysis The survey used Likert-based scales for answer options for the majority of the questions and also offered five open-ended questions. The Likert-based scales were used to determine how strongly the participants agreed or disagreed with the statements embedded into the questions. In this study, APE teachers were asked to read the statement embedded in the questions and choose which answer best describes their experience related to the statement. The multiple-choice Likert-scale options were: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. Descriptive and frequency analyses were used to examine responses from participants. Proportion of valid responses were reported for most items. Questions with multiple options/responses were reported as frequency counts. No inferential statistics were conducted, thus a priori alpha level was not relevant. All analyses used the SPSS. Responses to open-ended questions were used to provide additional context to quantitative results. Methodological Triangulation To gain a richer understanding about APE teacher assessment practices, a survey was conducted with both a Likert-scale and open-ended questions to collect data. Themes established in the open-ended questions were supported by current literature. Using diverse types of data collection processes help to establish validity for the findings in the current study. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 59 Summary In summary, the methods chapter outlined the purpose, research questions, theoretical framework, and the survey framework for this study. The purpose of this study was to examine APE teacher assessment practices through the lens of dynamic systems theory (DST), with particular attention to how intentionally teachers assess each of the three constraints—individual, task, and environment—and the extent to which they apply the DST theoretical framework in practice when assessing three student populations commonly served on APE caseloads: students with visual impairments (VI), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and significant support needs (SSN). APE teacher data was collected through the use of an original survey where both quantitative and qualitative data was collected using Likert-scale response options and openended questions. The quantitative data was analyzed to determine frequencies and most common answers. The open-ended questions were analyzed using a coding system where themes emerged. Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the results of the current study. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 60 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS Assessments are an integral part of the APE job and drive the process of developing goals and individualized programming. The purpose of this study was to examine APE teacher assessment practices through the lens of dynamic systems theory (DST), with particular attention to how intentionally teachers assess each of the three constraints—individual, task, and environment—and the extent to which they apply the DST theoretical framework in practice when assessing three student populations commonly served on APE caseloads: students with visual impairments (VI), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and significant support needs (SSN). The three student populations referenced in the current study are: (a) students with visual impairments, (b) students with autism, and (c) students with significant support needs. Viewing the assessment process through the lens of the DST may help to highlight differing practitioner assessment practices and potential assessment related opportunities for the development of supplemental information. Aligning with the purpose of this study, the results were divided into five parts: (a) Part I: self-reported comprehension of the DST and how it relates to APE assessment, (b) Part II: selfreported assessment practices in relation to the DST with all students, (c) Part III: self-reported assessment practices in relation to the DST with students with visual impairments, (d) Part IV: self-reported assessment practices in relation to the DST with students with autism spectrum disorder, (e) Part V: self-reported assessment practices in relation to the DST with students with significant support needs. In this chapter, the results and findings of each area are presented. Interpretations and discussions of this data will be discussed in Chapter 5. With the current study, the researcher aimed to address the overarching research question and the subquestions which address the specific student populations named in the study. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory RQ: 61 Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, in general, do Adapted PE teachers self-report to address all three of the dynamic systems theory constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for all students? Subquestion 1: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with visual impairments? Subquestion 2: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with autism? Subquestion 3: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with significant support needs? Survey participants were recruited through a Texas APE listserv as well as national APE Facebook groups. The survey remained open for 3 weeks and 37 responses were recorded in that time. Of the 37 respondents, 31 of them answered that they are currently serving as an APE professional and also currently administering APE assessments as part of their job responsibilities which qualified them to continue with the survey, and 22 finished the survey completely, where some questions received more responses than others (between 22 and 31 responses). Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 62 Descriptive and frequency analyses were used to examine responses from participants. A proportion of valid responses were reported for most items. Questions with multiple options/responses were reported as frequency counts. No inferential statistics were conducted, thus a priori alpha level was not relevant. All analyses used SPSS. Responses to open-ended questions were used to provide additional context to quantitative results. Participant Demographic Information This sample is considered both purposive and convenient. The sample is purposive as the researcher is well connected in the Texas Region 10 educational area and is familiar with the experience level and practices of many teachers in the area. The sample is also convenient as it relied on the time, interest, and effort availability of the participants who received the email invitation and social media invitations to participate. The survey contained specific demographic questions that were focused on the participant’s district location (state and type of district/charter), gender, degrees completed, certifications, years of experience, and professional development hours. The two inclusion criteria were: (a) eligible participants must be currently working as an APE teacher/specialist/consultant and (b) eligible participants currently complete APE assessments as part of their job description. Two of the demographic questions served as the inclusion criteria questions and participants were asked to leave the survey if they answered “No” to either question. Of the 37 participants, 31 answered “Yes” to both questions and the remaining six skipped those questions with no answer and then left the survey. The first question asked for the state currently teaching in. Results indicated that out of 31 respondents, 18 were from Texas, seven were from California, two were from Louisiana, and one each was from Kansas, Minnesota, Virgina, and Wisconsin as shown in Table 2. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 63 Table 2 Participant State Participant state No. % California 7 22.60 Kansas 1 3.20 Louisiana 2 6.50 Minnesota 1 3.20 Texas 18 58.10 Virginia 1 3.20 Wisconsin 1 3.20 Questions 2 and 3 were the qualifier questions and asked if the participant is currently serving as an APE professional and currently administering APE assessments as part of their job responsibilities. Of the 37 participants, 31 answered “Yes” to both questions and the remaining six skipped those questions with no answer. The rest of the demographic questions were placed at the end of survey in an attempt to mitigate attrition. The survey asked for a description of the district/charter presently teaching in in terms of rural, suburban, or urban areas. The results showed 32.3% of the participants work in a suburban school system, 29% of the participants work in an urban school system, and 6.5% of the participants work in a rural school system as shown in Figure 5. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 64 Figure 5 Participant District/Charter 2 9 10 Urban Suburban Rural Gender and number of years of experience were asked on the survey. The results showed that of the 21 participants who answered this question, 19 were female and two were male (see Table 3). Of the 21 participants who answered the years of service question, 33% had 0–5 years, 19% had 6–10 years, 14% had 11–15 years, 14% had 16–20 years, and 19% had 21+ years of service (see Tables 4 and 5). Table 3 Participant Gender Gender No. % 2 6.50 Female 19 61.30 Missing data 10 32.30 Male Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 65 Table 4 Participant Years of Experience Teaching APE No. of years Missing data No. 10 2 3 4 1 5 3 7 2 9 1 10 1 11 1 14 2 17 1 18 1 19 1 22 1 25 1 28 1 38 1 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 66 Table 5 Participant Years of Service Years of service No. % 0–5 7 33 6–10 4 19 11–15 3 14 16–20 3 14 21+ 4 19 The survey asked for the highest degree completed and if the respondents have completed the CAPE national certification. The survey results showed that 18 of the 21 participants have completed a master’s degree and three of the 21 have completed a doctorate degree as shown in Table 6. The results showed that of the 21 participants who completed the survey, 48% have completed the CAPE national certification and 52% have not (see Table 7 and Figure 6). Table 6 Participant Education Highest degree completed No. % Master’s 18 58.10 Doctorate 3 9.70 Missing Data 10 32.30 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 67 Table 7 Percentage of Participants With CAPE Certification Completed CAPE No. % Yes 10 32.30 No 11 35.50 Missing Data 10 32.30 Figure 6 Participants With CAPE Certification 6 15 Yes No The last two demographic questions ask if the participants have completed a graduate level APE assessment course and how many professional development hours have been completed in the last 5 years that focused on APE assessment. Of the 21 answers, 71% have completed a graduate level assessment course and 29% have not as shown in Table 8 and Figure 7. When asked about the number of professional development hours completed that focused on assessment, only one participant answered no, where the other 20 have completed from 4 to Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 68 200+ hours of assessment related to professional development, and 57% of the 21 participants completed 5 to 8 hours as shown in Table 9. Table 8 Graduate Level Assessment Course Completed grad level assessment course No. % Yes 15 48.40 No 6 19.40 Missing Data 10 32.30 Figure 7 Graduate Level APE Assessment Course 6 15 Yes No Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 69 Table 9 Professional Development Hours Related to Assessment Completed in the last 5 years focused on the topic of APE assessment No. % 10 32.30 0 1 3.20 4 2 6.50 5 3 9.70 6 5 12.90 8 4 12.90 10 1 3.20 15 1 3.20 20 1 3.20 30 1 3.20 32 1 3.20 150 1 3.20 200+ 1 3.20 Missing Data Findings Part I: Self-Reported Comprehension of the DST and How it Relates to APE Assessment The purpose of Part I of this study was to examine APE teacher self-reported level comprehension of the DST and the related components of each constraint in relation to APE assessment as well as ask if the participants if they currently use the DST as a guide when Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 70 completing APE assessments. All questions in Part I utilized the multiple-choice Likert-scale options: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither agree nor Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree. Not all participants completed every question. Skipped questions are noted as missing data on the tables and figures. The survey consisted of questions asking about the level of familiarity with the DST and if Newell’s (1986) constraints were being used as a framework to guide APE assessment practices. The results showed that 50% answered that they were familiar with the DST and how it applies to motor development, and 54% reported that they currently do not use Newell’s constraint model as a framework to guide APE assessment practices as shown in Figures 8 and 9. Figure 8 Participants Familiar With DST Figure 9 Participants That Use the DST in Assessment Practices Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 71 Figure 9 begins to address the study Research Question, which states: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, in general, do Adapted PE teachers self-report to address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for all students? When asked in this context and naming the assessment framework as the DST, 54% of the participants answered with a negative response to this question, meaning they currently do not use the DST as a framework to guide APE assessments. Subsequent questions further broke down the DST into Newell’s (1986) three constraints and phrased questions to reflect both the constraints by name and the components of the constraints, generally, and applied to the three student subgroups: students with VI, students with ASD, and students with SSN. The survey continued to ask the participants to report on their understanding of each of Newell’s (1986) constraints of the DST as well as asked their opinion on the level of importance of the components of the constraints as they apply to completing APE assessments and using assessment data to develop APE goals. The constraints are individual, task, and environmental. The following paragraphs cover the survey results for each constraint. The results of the individual constraint focused questions showed 68% of the participants understand the concept of the individual constraint and how it applies to motor development by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 61% strongly agreed (see Figure 10). Components of the individual constraint include the learner’s personality, body structure, motivation, cognition, and life experiences. When asked if it is important to address the components of the individual constraint when completing an APE assessment, 91% of the participants strongly and somewhat agreed, where 71% strongly agreed (see Figure 11). When asked if it is important to consider the components of the individual constraint when developing Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 72 APE goals, 89% of the participants strongly and somewhat agreed, whereas 75% strongly agreed (see Figure 12). Figure 10 Understand the Concept of the Individual Constraint Figure 11 Important to Consider Components of Individual Constraint and Assessment Figure 12 Important to Consider Components of Individual Constraint and Goal Writing Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 73 The results of the task constraint focused questions showed 75% of the participants understand the concept of the task constraint and how it applies to motor development by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 21% strongly agreed as shown in Figure 13. Components of the task constraint include task goals, specific rules, equipment choice, instructional delivery, and skill expectations. When asked if it is important to address the components of the task constraint when completing an APE assessment, 100% of the participants strongly and somewhat agreed, whereas 75% strongly agreed (see Figure 14). When asked if it is important to consider the components of the task constraint when developing APE goals, 100% of the participants strongly and somewhat agreed, where 79% strongly agreed (see Figure 15). Figure 13 Understand the Concept of the Task Constraint Figure 14 Important to Consider Components of Task Constraint and Assessment Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 74 Figure 15 Important to Consider Components of Task Constraint and Goal Writing The results of the environmental constraint focused questions showed that 78% of the participants understand the concept of the environmental constraint and how it applies to motor development by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 32% strongly agreed (see Figure 16). Components of the environmental constraint include potential distractions/barriers (people, sounds, lighting, temperature), prompting levels, teacher support, space, and social features (historical, cultural, and society values, beliefs, and customs). When asked if it is important to address the components of the environmental constraint when completing an APE assessment, 91% of the participants strongly and somewhat agreed, whereas 71% strongly agreed (see Figure 17). When asked if it is important to consider the components of the environmental constraint when developing APE goals, 86% of the participants strongly and somewhat agreed, whereas 68% strongly agreed (see Figure 18). Figure 16 Understand the Concept of the Environmental Constraint Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 75 Figure 17 Important to Consider Components of Environmental Constraint and Assessment Figure 18 Important to Consider Components of Individual Constraint and Goal Writing Chi-Square Test A chi-square test was conducted to explore whether there is an association between APE teachers completing a graduate APE assessment course and their use of the DST to guide their assessment practices. The chi-square test produced a χ² value of 4.912 with 4 degrees of freedom, resulting in a p-value of 0.296. Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis, suggesting there is no significant association between taking a graduate assessment course and using the DST to guide assessment practices. Even though there is no statistical significance in this relationship, it is worth noting that only the participants that have completed a graduate level APE assessment course answered positively (strongly agree and somewhat agree) that they use the DST as a guide when completing APE assessments (see Figure 19). Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 76 Figure 19 Assessment Graduate Course and Uses DST to Guide Assessment A chi-square test was conducted to explore whether there is an association between APE teachers completing the CAPE National certification and their use of the DST to guide their assessment practices. The chi-square test produced a χ² value of 5.097 with 4 degrees of freedom, resulting in a p-value of 0.277. Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis, suggesting that there is no significant association between teachers completing the CAPE National certification and using the DST to guide assessment practices. Even though there is no statistical significance in this relationship, it is worth noting that only the participants that have completed the CAPE National certification answered strongly agree that they use the DST as a guide when completing APE assessments (see Figure 20). Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 77 Figure 20 CAPE Certified and Uses DST to Guide Assessment Part II: Self-Reported Assessment Practices in Relation to the DST With VI The purpose of Part II of this study was to examine APE teacher self-reported assessment practices in relation to Newell’s (1986) constraints of the DST when completing assessments for students with VI, which addresses the Research Subquestion 1. Subquestion 1: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with visual impairments? Part II utilized multiple-choice Likert-scale options: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither agree nor Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree as well as one open-ended question. Not all participants completed every question. Skipped questions are noted as missing data on the tables and figures. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 78 The survey asked the participants to report if they intentionally address all three constraints of the DST when completing assessment for students with VI as well as asked APE teachers to specifically report on their assessment practices for students with VI in relation to each constraint of the DST. The constraints are individual, task, and environmental. The survey also asked if the participants feel confident that the available standardized/formal and nonstandardized/informal tools can address all three constraints of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with VI. The results of the DST and VI focused questions showed 81% of the participants intentionally address all three constraints of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with VI by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 50% strongly agreed (see Figure 21). When asked if the participants intentionally address the individual constraint of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with VI, 92% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 48% strongly agreed (see Figure 22). When asked if the participants intentionally address the task constraint of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with VI, 84% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 60% strongly agreed (see Figure 23). When asked if the participants intentionally address the environmental constraint of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with VI, 96% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 50% strongly agreed (see Figure 24). Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory Figure 21 Intentionally Address All Three Constraints With VI Figure 22 Intentionally Address Individual Constraint With VI Figure 23 Intentionally Address Task Constraint With VI Figure 24 Intentionally Address Environmental Constraint With VI 79 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 80 When asked if participants were confident that the available standardized/formal APE assessment tools adequately address all three constraints of the DST when assessing students with VI, 37% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where only 4% strongly agreed. Conversely, 46% disagreed and did not feel confident in the tools to address the three constraints when assessing students with VI (see Figure 25). When asked if participants were confident that the available non-standardized/informal APE assessment tools adequately address all three constraints of the DST when assessing students with VI, 71% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where only 29% strongly agreed. Conversely, 21% disagreed and did not feel confident in the tools to address the three constraints when assessing students with VI (see Figure 26). Figure 25 Confident in Formal Tools for VI Figure 26 Confident in Informal Tools for VI Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 81 The survey included one open-ended question asking for the participants to share what formal and/or informal assessment tools they believe yield appropriate and comprehensive APE assessment data for students with VI. Most of the participants shared the names of two or more tools and several stated assessments need several tools where each tool plays a specific role in the assessment process. The survey results showed 45% of the participants prefer to use the Region 10 Evaluation for Visually Impaired (Region 10 Education Service Center, 2025) as one of the tools in the APE assessment process for students with VI. With 14%, the TGMD 3: Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD 3; Ulrich, 2019) and Camp Abilities Brockport Sports Assessment (State University of New York at Brockport, 1996) were next, followed by the Brockport Physical Fitness Test (Winnick & Short, 2014) with 9%. Chi-Square Test A chi-square test was conducted to explore whether there is an association between the number of APE assessment related professional development hours completed and participant confidence in the available informal assessment tools to address all three constraints of the DST while completing assessments for learners with VI. The chi-square test produced a χ² value of 53.505 with 48 degrees of freedom, resulting in a p-value of 0.271. Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis, suggesting that there is no significant association between number of APE assessments related professional development hours completed and participant confidence in the available informal assessment tools to address all three constraints of the DST while completing assessments for learners with VI. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 82 Part III: Self-Reported Assessment Practices in Relation to the DST With ASD The purpose of Part III of this study was to examine APE teacher self-reported assessment practices in relation to Newell’s (1986) constraints of the DST when completing assessments for students with ASD, which addresses the Research Subquestion 2. Subquestion 2: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with autism? Part III utilized multiple-choice Likert-scale options: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Agree, and Strongly Agree as well as one open-ended question. Not all participants completed every question. Skipped questions are noted as missing data on the tables and figures. The survey asked the participants to report if they intentionally address all three constraints of the DST when completing assessment for students with ASD. The survey questions also asked APE teachers to specifically report on their assessment practices for students with ASD in relation to each constraint of the DST. The constraints are individual, task, and environmental. The survey also asked if the participants feel confident that the available standardized/formal and non-standardized/informal tools can address all three constraints of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with ASD. The results of the DST and ASD focused questions showed 81% of the participants intentionally address all three constraints of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with ASD by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 58% strongly agreed (see Figure 27). When asked if the participants intentionally address the individual constraint of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with ASD, 92% agreed by Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 83 answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 48% strongly agreed (see Figure 28). When asked if the participants intentionally address the task constraint of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with ASD, 79% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 50% strongly agreed (see Figure 29). When asked if the participants intentionally address the environmental constraint of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with ASD, 96% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 42% strongly agreed (see Figure 30). Figure 27 Intentionally Address All Three Constraints With ASD Figure 28 Intentionally Address Individual Constraints With ASD Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 84 Figure 29 Intentionally Address Task Constraints With ASD Figure 30 Intentionally Address Environmental Constraints With ASD When asked if participants were confident that the available standardized/formal APE assessment tools adequately address all three constraints of the DST when assessing students with ASD, 50% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where only 8% strongly agreed. Conversely, 42% disagreed and did not feel confident in the tools to address the three constraints when assessing students with ASD (see Figure 31). When asked if participants were confident that the available non-standardized/informal APE assessment tools adequately address all three constraints of the DST when assessing students with ASD, 62% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where only 29% strongly agreed. Conversely, 16% disagreed and did not feel confident in the tools to address the three constraints when assessing students with ASD (see Figure 32). Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 85 Chi Square Test A chi-square test was conducted to explore whether there is an association between the number of APE assessment related professional development hours completed and participant confidence in the available informal assessment tools to address all three constraints of the DST while completing assessments for learners with ASD. The chi-square test produced a χ² value of 60.807 with 48 degrees of freedom, resulting in a p-value of 0.102. Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis, suggesting that there is no significant association between number of APE assessment related professional development hours completed and participant confidence in the available informal assessment tools to address all three constraints of the DST while completing assessments for learners with ASD. Figure 31 Confident in Formal Tools for ASD Figure 32 Confident in Informal Tools for ASD Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 86 The survey included one open-ended question asking for the participants to share what formal and/or informal assessment tools they believe yield appropriate and comprehensive APE assessment data for students with ASD. Most of the participants shared the names of two or more tools and several stated that assessments need several tools where each tool plays a specific role in the assessment process. The survey results showed that 50% of the participants prefer to use the TGMD 3 (Ulrich, 2019) as one of the tools in the APE assessment process for students with ASD. With 41%, the CTAPE and LaMAP (Louisiana Department of Education, 2015) is next, followed by the Region 10 Low Motor (Region 10 Education Service Center, 2025) with 23%. The APEAS: Adapted Physical Education Assessment Scale (Seaman et al., 2007) and Brockport Physical Fitness Test (Winnick & Short, 2014) both were 18%, and the Region 10 PEPI: Physical Education Participation Inventory (Region 10 Education Service Center, 2025) was 14%. Part IV: Self-Reported Assessment Practices in Relation to the DST With SSN The purpose of Part IV of the current study was to examine APE teacher self-reported assessment practices in relation to Newell’s (1986) constraints of the DST when completing assessments for students with SSN, which addresses the Research Subquestion 3. Subquestion 3: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with significant support needs? Part IV utilized multiple-choice Likert-scale options: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Agree, and Strongly Agree as well as one open-ended question. Not all participants completed every question. Skipped questions are noted as missing data on the tables and figures. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 87 The survey asked the participants to report if they intentionally address all three constraints of the DST when completing assessment for students with SSN. The survey questions also asked APE teachers to specifically report on their assessment practices for students with SSN in relation to each constraint of the DST. The constraints are individual, task, and environmental. The survey also asked if the participants feel confident that the available standardized/formal and non-standardized/informal tools can address all three constraints of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with SSN. The results of the DST and SSN focused questions showed 77% of the participants intentionally address all three constraints of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with SSN by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 46% strongly agreed (see Figure 33). When asked if the participants intentionally address the individual constraint of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with SSN, 88% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 48% strongly agreed (see Figure 34). When asked if the participants intentionally address the task constraint of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with SSN, 79% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 50% strongly agreed (see Figure 35). When asked if the participants intentionally address the environmental constraint of the DST when completing APE assessments for students with SSN, 92% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 38% strongly agreed (see Figure 36). Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory Figure 33 Intentionally Address All Three Constraints With SSN Figure 34 Intentionally Address Individual Constraints With SSN Figure 35 Intentionally Address Task Constraints With SSN Figure 36 Intentionally Address Environmental Constraints With SSN 88 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 89 When asked if participants were confident that the available standardized/formal APE assessment tools adequately address all three constraints of the DST when assessing students with SSN, 41% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where only 8% strongly agreed. Conversely, 42% disagreed and did not feel confident in the tools to address the three constraints when assessing students with SSN (see Figure 37). When asked if participants were confident that the available non-standardized/informal APE assessment tools adequately address all three constraints of the DST when assessing students with SSN, 67% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where only 29% strongly agreed. Conversely, 16% disagreed and did not feel confident in the tools to address the three constraints when assessing students with SSN (see Figure 38). Figure 37 Confident in Formal Tools for SSN Figure 38 Confident in Informal Tools for SSN Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 90 Chi Square Test A chi-square test was conducted to explore whether there is an association between the number of APE assessments related professional development hours completed and participant confidence in the available informal assessment tools to address all three constraints of the DST while completing assessments for learners with SSN. The chi-square test produced a χ² value of 60.579 with 48 degrees of freedom, resulting in a p-value of 0.105. Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis, suggesting that there is no significant association between number of APE assessments related professional development hours completed and participant confidence in the available informal assessment tools to address all three constraints of the DST while completing assessments for learners with SSN. The survey included one open ended question asking for the participants to share what formal and/or informal assessment tools they believe yield appropriate and comprehensive APE assessment data for students with SSN. Most of the participants shared the names of two or more tools and several stated that assessments need several tools where each tool plays a specific role in the assessment process. The survey results showed 23% of the participants prefer to use the Project MOBILITEE (Rudolph & Arnold, 1981) as one of the tools in the APE assessment process for students with ASD. With 18%, CTAPE and LaMAP (Louisiana Department of Education, 2015), Region 10 Low Motor (Region 10 Education Service Center, 2025), Special Olympics FUNdamentals Special Olympics Assessment (Kavanagh et al., 2023), TGMD 3 (Ulrich, 2019), and the PAPI-ISAPI (Weiner & Labagh, 2014) were next, followed by observations with 14%. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 91 Part V: Self-Reported Assessment Practices in Relation to the DST Without VI, ASD, and SSN The purpose of Part V of the current study was to examine APE teacher self-reported assessment practices in relation to Newell’s (1986) constraints of the DST when completing assessments for students without VI, ASD, and SSN. Part V utilized multiple-choice Likert-scale options: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Agree, and Strongly Agree as well as one open-ended question. Not all participants completed every question. Skipped questions are noted as missing data on the tables and figures. The survey asked the participants to report if they intentionally address all three constraints of the DST when completing assessment for students without VI, ASD, and SSN. The survey questions also asked APE teachers to specifically report on their assessment practices for students without VI, ASD, and SSN in relation to each constraint of the DST. The constraints are individual, task, and environmental. The survey also asked if the participants feel confident that the available standardized/formal and non-standardized/informal tools can address all three constraints of the DST when completing APE assessments for students without VI, ASD, or SSN. The results of the DST and students without VI, ASD, or SSN focused questions showed 80% of the participants intentionally address all three constraints of the DST when completing APE assessments for students without VI, ASD, or SSN by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 38% strongly agreed (see Figure 39). When asked if the participants intentionally address the individual constraint of the DST when completing APE assessments for students without VI, ASD, or SSN, 84% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 48% strongly agreed (see Figure 40). When asked if the participants intentionally Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 92 address the task constraint of the DST when completing APE assessments for students without VI, ASD, or SSN, 75% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 42% strongly agreed (see Figure 41). When asked if the participants intentionally address the environmental constraint of the DST when completing APE assessments for students without VI, ASD, and SSN, 92% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where 25% strongly agreed (see Figure 42). Figure 39 Intentionally Address All Three Constraints for Students Without VI, ASD, or SSN Figure 40 Intentionally Address Individual Constraints for Students Without VI, ASD, or SSN Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 93 Figure 41 Intentionally Address Task Constraints for Students Without VI, ASD, or SSN Figure 42 Intentionally Address Environmental Constraints for Students Without VI, ASD, or SSN When asked if participants were confident that the available standardized/formal APE assessment tools adequately address all three constraints of the DST when assessing students without VI, ASD, or SSN, 41% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where only 8% strongly agreed. Conversely, 37% disagreed and did not feel confident in the tools to address the three constraints when assessing students without VI, ASD, or SSN (see Figure 43). When asked if participants were confident that the available non-standardized/informal APE assessment tools adequately address all three constraints of the DST when assessing students without VI, ASD, or SSN, 58% agreed by answering strongly agree and somewhat agree, where only 29% strongly agreed. Conversely, 12% disagreed and did not feel confident in the tools to address the three constraints when assessing students without VI, ASD, or SSN (see Figure 44). Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 94 Figure 43 Confident in Formal Tools for Students Without VI, ASD, or SSN Figure 44 Confident in Informal Tools for Students Without VI, ASD, or SSN The survey included one open-ended question asking for the participants to share what formal and/or informal assessment tools they believe yield appropriate and comprehensive APE assessment data for students without VI, ASD, or SSN. Most of the participants shared the names of two or more tools and several stated assessments need several tools where each tool plays a specific role in the assessment process. The survey results showed 41% of the participants prefer to use the TGMD 3 (Ulrich, 2019) as one of the tools in the APE assessment process for students without VI, ASD, or SSN. With 36%, the CTAPE and LaMAP (Louisiana Department of Education, 2015) is next, followed by the Region 10 PE PI (Region 10 Education Service Center, 2025), and Project MOBILITEE (Rudolph & Arnold, 1981) with 14%. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 95 Results The research question for this study aimed to examine APE teacher assessment practices, specifically in relation to the DST being used as a guide to frame the assessment process. Survey results showed, in general, 54% of respondents currently do not use the DST and Newell’s (1986) constraint model as a framework to guide APE assessment practices. Even though the survey responses show only 25% of the respondents currently use DST as a guide for assessments, the responses also show that over 70% of respondents consider the information important to address and include when completing APE assessments. The three subquestions aimed to examine APE assessment practices in relation to the DST when completing assessments for students with VI, ASD, and SSN. Regarding assessing students with VI, respondents largely reported (81%) that they intentionally address all three DST constraints during the assessment process. Regarding assessing students with ASD, respondents largely reported (81%) they intentionally address all three DST constraints during the assessment process. Regarding assessing students with SSN, respondents largely reported (77%) they intentionally address all three DST constraints during the assessment process. Regarding assessing students without VI, ASD, or SSN, respondents largely reported (80%) they intentionally address all three DST constraints during the assessment process. While the majority of the participants agreed that it is important to consider each of the three DST constraints while completing APE assessments, a smaller percentage felt confident that the available assessment tools can address the components in the three constraints. For students with VI, only 37% agreed formal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints while 71% agreed informal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints. For students with ASD, only 50% agreed formal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints while Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 96 62% agreed informal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints. For students with SSN, only 41% agreed formal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints while 67% agreed informal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints. Summary The data gained from this study is unique to the field of APE and may be considered insightful when looking at assessment through a different lens. While other studies have researched the APE practitioner thoughts of user friendliness of assessment tools, the current study offers a practitioner viewpoint of assessment tool appropriateness for three specific learner disability groups. This data along with viewing the APE assessment process through the lens of the DST helps to fill a gap in the APE literature. Interpretation of the survey data and conclusions will be covered in Chapter 5. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 97 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine APE teacher assessment practices through the lens of dynamic systems theory (DST), with particular attention to how intentionally teachers assess each of the three constraints—individual, task, and environment—and the extent to which they apply the DST theoretical framework in practice when assessing three student populations commonly served on APE caseloads: students with visual impairments (VI), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and significant support needs (SSN). The three student populations referenced in this study are (a) students with VI, (b) students with ASD, (c) and students with SSN. A 50-question survey was developed with 10 demographic questions, 35 multiple choice questions, and five open-ended questions. The multiple-choice questions used a Likert-scale response system consisting of Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Agree, and Strongly Agree. Qualtrics was utilized to house and evaluate the survey data. Descriptive and frequency analyses were used to examine responses from participants. Proportion of valid responses were reported for most items. Questions with multiple options/responses were reported as frequency counts. A chi-square test was conducted to explore relationships between participant education and professional development experience and the use of the DST to guide their assessment practices as well as confidence in assessment tools to address the DST constraints. No inferential statistics were conducted, thus a priori alpha level was not relevant. All analyses used SPSS. Responses to open-ended questions were used to provide additional context to quantitative results. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 98 Research Questions With the current study, the researcher addressed the following research question and subquestions. RQ: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, in general, do Adapted PE teachers self-report to address all three of the dynamic systems theory constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for all students? Subquestion 1: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with visual impairments? Subquestion 2: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with autism? Subquestion 3: Given the assessment tools and processes commonly used, do APE teachers address all three of the DST constraints (individual, task, and environment) when completing APE assessments for students with significant support needs? Summary of Findings With the overarching research question for this study, the investigator aimed to examine APE teacher assessment practices, specifically in relation to the DST being used as a guide to frame the assessment process. There were 37 total responses collected, where 31 qualified to Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 99 complete the survey and 22 completed the survey to the end. Not all participants answered every question, making the response numbers vary per question. RQ Regarding the research question, survey results showed, in general, 54% of respondents currently do not use the DST and Newell’s (1986) constraint model as a framework to guide APE assessment practices. Even though the survey responses show only 25% of the respondents currently use DST as a guide for assessments, the responses also show that over 70% of respondents consider the components of each of the DST constraints important to address and include when completing APE assessments. Respondents largely claimed to understand the concept of the individual, task, and environmental constraints and agreed with the importance of including the components of each of the constraints while completing assessments as well as developing APE goals and programs. This inconsistency could be interpreted as respondents agreeing that these aspects are important to consider, but not by a formally named process such as using the DST as a framework for assessment procedures. Another contributing factor to this inconsistency in data may be inconsistent comprehension of the wording of the questions as they pertained to the DST and the components of the constraints. Before asking questions about the DST, the survey provided information and graphics of the DST as well and definitions of each of the constraints: individual, task, and environmental. Depending on the level of understanding of the information and graphics or time taken to read the information about the DST, participant comprehension of the question asking if the DST was used to guide the assessment process may have been interpreted differently from respondent to respondent. The subsequent survey questions that followed broke down the DST into the three constraints and asked the importance of including the components of each constraint when completing APE assessments. When Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 100 phrased in this way, 70% of respondents answered positively that these components were important to consider when completing assessments and writing APE programs and goals. The different language used in these questions align with common APE phrasing and terminology and therefore may have a more consistent comprehension of the questions asked among the participant sample, giving more consistent answers. Subquestion 1 The three subquestions aimed to examine APE assessment practices in relation to the DST when completing assessments for students with VI, ASD, and SSN. Definitions of each group were provided in the survey as part of the introduction. The results regarding assessing students with VI were consistent for each constraint. Regarding assessing students with VI, respondents largely reported (81%) they intentionally address all three DST constraints during the assessment process, and the percentage was even higher when specifically asked if each constraint is addressed during the assessment process. When completing an APE assessment for students with VI, 92% of participants intentionally address the individual constraint, 84% intentionally address the task constraint, and 96% intentionally address the environmental constraint. The survey focused three questions on commonly used APE assessment tools, confidence in the tools to address all three DST constraints, and an open-ended question asked participants to share which commonly used APE assessment tools (formal and informal) yield appropriate and comprehensive assessment data for students with VI. While the majority of the participants agreed that it is important to consider each of the three DST constraints while completing APE assessments, a smaller percentage felt confident that the available assessment tools can address the components in the three constraints. For students with VI, only 37% agreed formal Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 101 assessment tools will address all three DST constraints while 71% agreed informal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints. Since formal tools do not inherently cover all of the variants of VI, informal tools have been created to support the assessment process and offer other ways to collect the necessary data. The open-ended survey question regarding APE formal and informal assessment tools for students with VI offered a deeper understanding of why APE practitioners prefer specific tools over others. Most of the participants shared the names of two or more tools and several stated VI assessments need several tools where each tool plays a specific role in the assessment process. The survey results showed 45% of the participants prefer to use the Region 10 Evaluation for Visually Impaired (Region 10 Education Service Center, 2025) as one of the tools in the APE assessment process for students with VI. With 14%, the TGMD 3 (Ulrich, 2019) and Camp Abilities Brockport Sports Assessment (State University of New York at Brockport, 1996) were next, followed by the Brockport Physical Fitness Test (Winnick & Short, 2014) with 9%. One respondent stated, “it depends on VI students’ cognitive level and visual impairment,” while another shared they prefer tools where “the items on the test are more individualized and target more specific areas of need, including students with visual impairments.” Several respondents preferred the Texas Region 10 Evaluation for Visually Impaired (Region 10 Education Service Center, 2025), and one stated specifically that this tool “addresses students with visual impairments and includes use of sound emitting equipment.” In reference to the DST, one respondent shared “the Region 10 Evaluation for Visually Impaired and Camp Abilities Brockport Sports Assessment tools adhere to the dynamic systems theory by allowing accommodations for the visual impairment which increase my assessment data collection.” Since students with VI can have a wide range of cognition and physical abilities, the tools to choose Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 102 from are just as varied. The data supports that the participants who answered this question have a rich knowledge base of formal and informal tools and how to use several together to collect comprehensive assessment data for students with VI. Given all the participants have advanced degrees and many have completed many hours of assessment related professional development, the answers given are thorough, thoughtful, and meaningful. Subquestion 2 The results regarding assessing students with ASD were consistent for each constraint. Regarding assessing students with ASD, respondents largely reported (81%) they intentionally address all three DST constraints during the assessment process, and the percentage was consistent when specifically asked if each constraint is addressed during the assessment process. When completing an APE assessment for students with ASD, 92% of participants intentionally address the individual constraint, 79% intentionally address the task constraint, and 96% intentionally address the environmental constraint. The survey focused three questions on commonly used APE assessment tools, confidence in the tools to address all three DST constraints, and an open-ended question asked participants to share which commonly used APE assessment tools (formal and informal) yield appropriate and comprehensive assessment data for students with ASD. For students with ASD, only 50% agreed formal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints while 62% agreed that informal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints. Since formal tools do not inherently cover all of the variants of ASD, informal tools can be used to support the assessment process and offer other ways to collect the necessary data. The open-ended survey question regarding APE formal and informal assessment tools for students with ASD offered a deeper understanding of why APE practitioners prefer specific tools Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 103 over others for this student group. Most of the participants shared the names of two or more tools and several stated ASD assessments need several tools where each tool plays a specific role in the assessment process. The survey results showed 50% of the participants prefer to use the TGMD 3 (Ulrich, 2019) as one of the tools in the APE assessment process for students with ASD. With 41%, the CTAPE and LaMAP (Louisiana Department of Education, 2015) is next, followed by the Region 10 Low Motor (Region 10 Education Service Center, 2025) with 23%. The APEAS (Seaman et al., 2007) and Brockport Physical Fitness Test (Winnick & Short, 2014) both were 18%, and the Region 10 PEPI: Physical Education Participation Inventory (Region 10 Education Service Center, 2025) was 14%. One respondent answered, “It depends solely on the specific student. Where are they on the spectrum? How old are they? Any other determining factors? Behaviors? So many assessments can be used with a student on the Spectrum.” Another respondent shared the preferred tools are TGMD-3, LaMAP, Region10 Low Motor Evaluation, Region 10 Physical Education Participation Inventory (PEPI), Observational Checklists, and structured interviews and went on to state, “Using all of these together provide a more complete picture of the students’ skill and performance abilities rather than their challenges with following the verbal directions of the assessment tools.” A third respondent answered, Of the currently available APE assessment tools, I believe APEAS II, Project MOBILITEE, and TGMD-3 provide the most comprehensive data for learners with autism. APEAS II is particularly useful as it takes into account the learner’s gender, skill set, age, and disability, offering detailed insights into their specific needs and abilities. Project MOBILITEE helps address any gaps in APEAS II by focusing on social and motor abilities, which are important for learners with autism who may have unique challenges in these areas. TGMD-3 is effective for assessing gross motor skills, which are Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 104 often areas of difficulty for children with autism, and it provides structured data on physical development. Together, these tools offer a well-rounded approach, ensuring that the learner’s developmental needs are thoroughly understood and addressed. Since students with ASD can have a wide range of cognition and physical abilities, the tools to choose from are just as varied. The data supports that the participants who answered this question have a rich knowledge base of formal and informal tools and how to use several together to collect comprehensive assessment data for students with ASD. Given all the participants have advanced degrees and many have completed many hours of assessment related professional development, the answers given are thorough, thoughtful, and meaningful. Subquestion 3 The results regarding assessing students with SSN were consistent for each constraint. Regarding assessing students with SSN, respondents largely reported (77%) that they intentionally address all three DST constraints during the assessment process, and the percentage was consistent when specifically asked if each constraint is addressed during the assessment process. Even though the percentages are lower for students with SSN, they are still largely positive. When completing an APE assessment for students with SSN, 88% of participants intentionally address the individual constraint, 79% intentionally address the task constraint, and 92% intentionally address the environmental constraint. The survey focused three questions on commonly used APE assessment tools, confidence in the tools to address all three DST constraints, and an open-ended question asked participants to share which commonly used APE assessment tools (formal and informal) yield appropriate and comprehensive assessment data for students with SSN. For students with SSN, only 41% agreed that formal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints while 67% agreed that Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 105 informal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints. The open-ended survey question regarding APE formal and informal assessment tools for students with SSN offered a deeper understanding of why APE practitioners prefer specific tools over others for this student group. Most of the participants shared the names of two or more tools and several stated that assessments need several tools where each tool plays a specific role in the assessment process. The survey results showed 23% of the participants prefer to use the Project MOBILITEE (Rudolph & Arnold, 1981) as one of the tools in the APE assessment process for students with SSN. With 18%, the CTAPE and LaMAP (Louisiana Department of Education, 2015), Region 10 low motor (Region 10 Education Service Center, 2025), Special Olympics FUNdamentals Special Olympics assessment (Kavanagh et al., 2023), TGMD-3 (Ulrich, 2019), and the PAPIISAPI (Weiner & Labagh, 2014) were next, followed by observations with 14%. Overall, the positive percentage for informal assessments was lower than VI and ASD, which could be interpreted as the respondents do not feel there are as many appropriate informal tools to choose from that are specific to students with SSN. This could also be interpreted as there is a lack of information available for students with SSN. One respondent related their answer to the DST and answered, Southern California ordinal scales of development, observational checklists, and authentic assessment: These assessment tools adhere to the dynamic systems theory by allowing accommodations and provide the opportunity to set up the environment in a way that is student-centered (rather than assessment driven) which increase my assessment data collection. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 106 Another respondent shared, I will use the primary assessments Project MOBILITEE, R10 Low Motor, and the MATP Functional Assessment, with the possibility to reference APEAS II as needed. Project MOBILITEE will focus on areas that APEAS II may not cover, particularly in terms of social and motor abilities. The R10 Low Motor assessment will specifically evaluate motor skills, which are essential for learners with significant, severe profound disabilities. Additionally, the MATP Functional Assessment will assess functional skills, providing insights into the learner’s daily living and mobility needs. This comprehensive approach ensures a well-rounded understanding of the learner’s abilities. If necessary, the assessments can be broken into smaller, more manageable sessions to better accommodate the learner’s pace and needs. Since students with SSN can have a wide range of cognition and physical abilities, the tools to choose from are just as varied. The data support that the participants who answered this question have a rich knowledge base of formal and informal tools and how to use several together to collect comprehensive assessment data for students with SSN. Given all the participants have advanced degrees and many have completed many hours of assessment related professional development, the answers given are thorough, thoughtful, and meaningful. Supporting Data: Students Without VI, ASD, or SSN The results regarding assessing students without VI, ASD, or SSN were consistent for each constraint. Regarding assessing students without VI, ASD, or SSN, respondents largely reported (80%) they intentionally address all three DST constraints during the assessment process, and the percentage was consistent when specifically asked if each constraint is addressed during the assessment process. This data can be interpreted to highlight that this Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 107 sample of participating APE teachers exhibit thoughtful, thorough, meaningful, and comprehensive assessment practices. Implications The findings of the current study suggest several implications for APE assessment practices. The first implication is APE practitioners are not largely familiar with the concept of the DST and how it applies to motor learning and the APE assessment process. When the survey asked if the participants were familiar with the concept of the DST and how it relates to motor development, only half agreed. When asked if they use Newell’s (1986) constraint model as a framework to guide APE assessment practices, only 25% reported they currently use the DST as a guide. If APE practitioners had more opportunities to gain a better understanding of the DST and constraints, viewing the assessment process through the lens of the DST may highlight areas to be assessed that are not consistently mentioned in commonly used assessment tools, which could then increase the effectiveness of the assessment process. Conversely, when the survey questions focused on the concepts of the individual, task, and environmental constraints, going into more detail of the concepts and how they relate to the student groups and APE assessment, the respondents largely and consistently believed in the importance of including the components of each of the constraints while completing assessments as well as developing APE goals and programs. This inconsistency in data could be interpreted as respondents agreeing that these aspects are important to consider, but not familiar enough with the DST, the constraints, and the associated terminology to understand how each is connected and related to the concepts. In other words, the data suggests the DST and associated constraints are not concepts that are commonly referenced among APE practitioners and therefore, the associated terminology used when describing these concepts may not be consistently understood. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 108 This conclusion highlights the need for more targeted professional development opportunities that specifically address theoretical frameworks in APE assessment and how they can be used to enhance the APE assessment process. The next implication is the data consistently shows that APE practitioners strive for excellence in the APE assessment process. The majority of participants reported that they believe it is important to consider the components of each of the DST constraints—individual, task, and environmental—when completing APE assessments. The participants also reported that they intentionally address each constraint of the DST during the APE assessment process for all students. When the participants were asked to reflect on their evaluation practices for students with VI, ASD, SSN, and students without VI, ASD, or SSN, again, they consistently and overwhelmingly agreed that it is important to address the components of all three DST constraints for each student group and they also reported that they intentionally address each constraint in the APE assessment process for each student group. The majority of the participants also reported they felt it is important to consider the components of each of the DST constraints when developing APE goals for each student group. Clearly, APE practitioners are passionate about the assessment process and care about quality assessment data and quality APE goals and programing. Another conclusion is that APE practitioners rely on informal assessment tools to address all three constraints of the DST, specifically the individual and environmental constraints. Formal tools are designed to assess task specific abilities which typically cover the task constraint but addressing the components of the individual and environmental constraints is limited. Expanding the informal tool options to better cover the DST constraints would give APE teachers more tools to use for unique student groups, specifically in the individual and Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 109 environmental constraint areas. While the majority of the participants agreed that it is important to consider each of the three DST constraints while completing APE assessments, a smaller percentage felt confident that the available assessment tools can address the components in the three constraints for all students. For students with VI, only 37% agreed that formal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints while 71% agreed that informal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints. This data supports the common APE thought that students with visual impairments often present with different environmental needs and by nature of the disability, students with VI have differing levels of comprehension of requested (spoken) tasks, which require unique assessment tools to capture the most comprehensive data. Another variant when assessing students with VI is the severity of the vision loss or visual processing disorder, which also affects which tools to select. APE teachers may have varied experiences with students with VI, affecting their perception of the assessment process with this group of learners. Most of the participants shared the names of two or more tools and several stated VI assessments need several tools where each tool plays a specific role in the assessment process. One respondent stated, “It depends on VI students’ cognitive level and visual impairment,” while another shared they prefer tools where “the items on the test are more individualized and target more specific areas of need, including students with visual impairments.” Since students with VI can have a wide range of cognition and physical abilities, the tools to choose from are just as varied. The data supports the conclusion that formal tools do not inherently cover all of the variants of VI and informal tools have been created to support the assessment process and offer other ways to collect the necessary data for students with VI. For students with ASD, only 50% agreed formal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints while 62% agreed that informal assessment tools will address all three DST Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 110 constraints. This data supports the common APE thought that students with ASD often present with different environmental barriers and needs and by nature of the disability, students with ASD have differing levels of comprehension of requested tasks, which requires unique assessment tools to capture the most comprehensive data. Other variants when assessing students with ASD are receptive language, and ability to communicate, prompting needs, and engagement level which can all affect which tools to select. APE teachers may have varied experiences with students with ASD, affecting their perception of the assessment process with this group of learners. Most of the participants shared the names of two or more tools and several stated that ASD assessments need several tools where each tool plays a specific role in the assessment process. One respondent answered, “It depends solely on the specific student. Where are they on the spectrum? How old are they? Any other determining factors? Behaviors? So many assessments can be used with a student on the Spectrum.” Another respondent shared several preferred tools and stated, “Together, these tools offer a well-rounded approach, ensuring the learner’s developmental needs are thoroughly understood and addressed.” Since students with ASD can have a wide range of cognition and physical abilities, the tools to choose from are just as varied. The data supports the conclusion that formal tools do not inherently cover all of the variants of ASD and informal tools have been utilized to support the assessment process and offer other ways to collect the necessary data for students with ASD. For students with SSN, only 41% agreed formal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints while 67% agreed informal assessment tools will address all three DST constraints. This data supports the common APE thought that students with SSN often present with different individual and environmental barriers and have specific needs which can be very intensive in time and labor. Students with SSN have differing levels of comprehension of Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 111 requested tasks as well as levels of motor ability, which requires unique assessment tools to capture the most comprehensive data. Other variants when assessing students with SSN are receptive language, ability to communicate, prompting needs, and engagement level which can all affect which tools to select. APE teachers may have varied experiences with students with SSN, affecting their perception of the assessment process with this group of learners. Most of the participants shared the names of two or more tools and several stated that assessments need several tools where each tool plays a specific role in the assessment process. Overall, the positive percentage for informal assessments was lower than VI and ASD, which could be interpreted as the respondents do not feel there are as many appropriate informal tools to choose from that are specific to students with SSN. This could also be interpreted as there is a lack of information available for students with SSN. Since students with SSN can have a wide range of cognition and physical abilities, the tools to choose from are just as varied. The data supports the conclusion that formal tools do not inherently cover all of the variants of ASD and informal tools have been utilized to support the assessment process and offer other ways to collect the necessary data for students with SSN. As previously stated, all survey participants shared that they select at least two assessment tools to use when assessing students of all abilities, and most shared they select more than two. This data supports the NCPEID’s (2023) recommendation to use more than one assessment tool when completing APE assessments to ensure comprehensive and appropriate data is collected. This supports the conclusion that APE practitioners are putting forth the effort to complete quality assessments and care greatly about creating quality APE programming. The last and potentially most impactful implication is that the APE assessment tool selection process is inconsistent among practitioners. When interpreting the data from the open- Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 112 ended questions, practitioners each shared their preferred tools to use with VI, ASD, SSN, and students without VI, ASD, or SSN. The responses varied and no two answers were identical. There were common tools named for each disability group, but even then, each respondent named a different set of tools they prefer to use. This could be due to familiarity of preferred tools, ease of use and interpreting data, access to trainings to raise awareness about different tools, or experience level with each student disability group. Practitioner understanding of the disability groups and their nuances also affects tool selection. Using a theory such as the DST to frame the APE assessment process could guide a more informed assessment tool selection process whereas different tools could be selected to cover the components of each constraint of the theory, making the assessment process more efficient for the practitioner. Also, using the DST to guide the tool selection process could increase confidence in the practitioner’s ability to select appropriate tools for each student disability group. There are many APE assessment tools to choose from for different types of students and the process of selecting the most appropriate tool set can be overwhelming and time consuming. APE practitioners could benefit from an APE assessment tool decision tree to help guide this part of the assessment process. Limitations of the Study The sample size for this study was 31 participants, but not all participants answered every question, bringing the sample size down to 21 for some of the questions, which is considered a small sample size. Every qualified participant that answered the survey question about participant highest completed degree has completed a graduate degree where 18 have a master’s degree and three have a doctorate degree. This educational background data was unexpected and coupled with the small sample size, shows the sample collected in this survey is not representative of the APE teacher population across the nation. Therefore, the results cannot be Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 113 generalized across all APE practitioners. Many APE teachers do pursue a higher degree, but since it is not a requirement in many of the states, many do not pursue higher degrees. Each participant potentially has different background experience and knowledge relating to special education and APE. APE teacher caseloads can vary as well as the type of disabilities on their caseloads making each APE teacher’s professional experience and working knowledge with different disabilities unique, which can create a challenge when comparing participant answers. Semantics play a role in the comprehension and understanding of word choice used in the survey. Specifically, the DST was a new concept for some participants (data from Survey Question 4) and depending on the time taken to read the introductory DST information and study the graphics provided in the survey, some may have had a better understanding of the verbiage used in the survey questions, which may have caused inconsistencies in the data. Conclusions The survey data shows that the sample of APE teacher participants are highly educated and highly qualified to conduct APE assessments. Even though 54% of the participants reported they do not use the DST as a guide for APE assessments, when the DST constraint components were presented in separate survey questions and with different verbiage, the participants answered that they do currently intentionally address each constraint—Individual, Task, Environmental—during the APE assessment process for all students (VI, ASD, SSN, and students without VI, ASD, SSN). The survey participants believe it is important to consider and address the components of the DST individual constraint for students with VI, ASD, and SSN, which are personality, body structure, motivation, cognition, and life experiences. The survey participants believe it is important to consider and address the components of the DST task constraint for students with VI, ASD, and SSN, which are task goals, specific rules, equipment Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 114 choice, instructional delivery, and skill expectations. The survey participants believe it is important to consider and address the components of the DST environmental constraint for students with VI, ASD, and SSN, which are potential distractions/barriers (people, sounds, lighting, temperature), prompting levels, teacher support, space, and social features (historical, cultural, and societal values, beliefs, and customs). Survey results showed low confidence in formal/standardized tools to consistently address the components of all three DST constraints, 37% for students with VI, 50% for students with ASD, and 41% for students with SSN. Survey results showed moderate confidence in informal/non-standardized tools to consistently address the components of all three DST constraints, 71% for students with VI, 62% for students with ASD, and 67% for students with SSN. The open-ended questions offered deeper understanding about the assessment tool selection process for students with VI, ASD, and SSN. These results support the NCPEID’s (2023) recommendation to use more than one assessment tool when completing APE assessments. Since standardized/formal tools can only be administered as the test author directs, there is little to no wiggle room to modify the test to fit the individual needs of each learner. Therefore, informal tools can be used to capture a more individualized picture of the students’ skills and abilities, which cover many components of the DST constraints: individual, task, and environmental. Informal tools are also used to collect qualitative information which help to build the information needed to create meaningful APE programs and goals. Using a combination of both formal and informal assessment tools to adequately address the components of each DST constraint (individuals, task, and environment), the DST can be used as a guide for structuring the APE assessment process. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 115 Recommendations for Further Research For future research, it would be valuable to repeat the current study to include participants who have a non-PE background and without graduate degrees across the nation to see if the results would align with the current study. It would also be valuable to research APE practitioner experience, understanding, and professional perspective of the terminology used in the current study: DST, individual constraint, task constraint, environmental constraint, students with VI, students with ASD, students with SSN, APE programming, APE goals, and assessment data, which may help to further explain the inconsistencies in the current survey data and may also help to validate the need for new training on any terminology used in the current study that may be uncommon in the field of APE. This would also help when comparing data from different states and in different types of educational agencies to understand if all APE practitioners have similar assessment experiences. Another valuable future research study would create a pretest and posttest with participants learning about the DST and using the DST as an assessment guide for a number of assessments and then collecting opinions on this process to see if it was helpful in collecting more comprehensives assessment data for different student disability groups. Summary In summary, with the current study, the researcher explored APE practitioner assessment practices and examined the level of understanding of the DST along with the level of usage of the DST to help guide the APE assessment process. A 50-question survey was used to gather participant insight into the APE assessment process. Results of the current study show a high level of education and thoughtful assessment practices. A high percentile of the participants placed a high level of importance on addressing each of the three DST constraints—Individual, Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 116 Task, and Environmental—for students with VI, ASD, and SSN. In the open-ended questions, participants shared personal practices to help address each constraint area during an APE assessment. These findings underscore the importance of integrating theoretical foundation into APE teacher training programs to enhance assessment practices. Overall, the current study contributes to a deeper understanding of how APE practitioners approach the assessment process and highlights opportunities for growth among the APE community. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 117 References Akuffo, P. B., & Hodge, S. R. (2007). Roles and responsibilities of adapted physical education teachers in an urban school district. Education and Urban Society, 40(2), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124507304132 American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (Eds.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association. https://www.testingstandards.net/uploads/7/6/6/4/76643089/standards_2014edition.pdf Angelo, T. A. (1995). Classroom assessment for critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2201_1 Apache, R.R. G. (2014). AMSAT: Apache motor skill assessment test. https://www.adaptedpe.com/ Ashurst, F., Sen, W. E., Borah, W., & Green, W. (1985). Southern California ordinal scales of development: Developmental scale of gross motor abilities. Foreworks Publication. Auxter, D., Pyfer, J., & Huettig, C. (2001). Principles and methods of adapted physical education and recreation. McGraw-Hill. Bittner, M., Foster, E., & Lavay, B. (2021). Assessment practices in adapted physical education. Palaestra, 35(2), 49–54. https://www.js.sagamorepub.com/index.php/palaestra/article/view/11178 Bittner, M., & Young, A. (2021) Assessments in adapted physical education. The Advocate. https://www.ncpeid.org/assets/Fall21/The%20Advocate-Assessment%20.pdf Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 118 Block, M., Hornbaker, J. L., & Klavina, A. (2006). Functional assessment of students with severe disabilities. Palaestra, 22(4), 25–43. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A157193198/HRCA? Brigance, A. H. (1978). Brigance diagnostic inventory of early development. Curriculum Associates. Brown, D. (1978). The Oregon project for visually impaired and blind preschool children (OR project). Jackson County Education Service District. https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/5371042 Bruininks, R. H., & Bruininks, B. D. (2005). Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency BOT2™ (2nd ed.). APA PsycTests. Case, L., Schram, B., & Yun, J. (2019). Motivating children with autism spectrum disorder in gross motor-skill assessments. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 90(4), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2019.1568933 Code of Federal Regulations. (2025a). Title 34: §300.39 Special education. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-A/subjectgroup-ECFR0ec59c730ac278e/section-300.39 Code of Federal Regulations. (2025b). Title 34: §300.320 Definition of individualized education program. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpartD/subject-group-ECFR28b07e67452ed7a Code of Federal Regulations. (2025c). Title 34: §300.108 Physical education. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-B/subjectgroup-ECFRf27988d69cd5d3a/section-300.108 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 119 Code of Federal Regulations. (2025d). Title 34: §300.304 Evaluation procedures. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-D/subjectgroup-ECFRcdd53b28839f370/section-300.304 Colorado Department of Education. (2025). Significant support needs (SSN). https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/ssn Colombo-Dougovito, A. M. (2017). The role of dynamic systems theory in motor development research: How does theory inform practice and what are the potential implications for autism spectrum disorder? International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 16(2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijdhd-2016-0015 Colombo-Dougovito, A. M., & Block, M. (2016). Make task constraints work for you: Teaching object-control skills to students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 87(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2015.1109492 Columna, L., Davis, T., Lieberman, L., & Lytle, R. (2010). Determining the most appropriate physical education placement for students with disabilities. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 81(7), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2010.10598506 Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research. (1982). FITNESSGRAM® test administration manual. Author. Davids, K., Chow, J. Y., & Shuttleworth, R. (2005). A constraints-based framework for nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, 38(1), 3–4, 17–29. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/constraints-based-frameworknonlinear-pedagogy/docview/211242949/se-2 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 120 Doig, S. (2017). The motor development of volleyball. Teach Volleyball. https://www.teachvolleyball.org/motor-development Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. 94-142, 20 U.S. Cong. (1975). Felix, M., & Tymeson (2017). Measurement, assessment, and program evaluation. In J. P. Winnick & D. L. Porretta (Eds.), Adapted physical education and sport (6th ed., pp. 59– 78). Human Kinetics. Florida Administrative Code. (2024). Rule 6A-6.03014. Exceptional student education eligibility and assessments for students with visual impairments. https://flrules.org/gateway/ruleNo.asp?id=6A-6.03014 Folio, M. R., & Fewell, R. R. (2000). PDMS-2 Peabody developmental motor scales (2nd ed.). PRO-ED. Gallahue, D. L., Ozmun, J. C., & Goodway, J. D. (2012). Understanding motor development: Infants, children, adolescents, adults (7th ed). McGraw-Hill. Gehlbach, H., & Brinkworth, M. E. (2011). Measure twice, cut down error: A process for enhancing the validity of survey scales. Review of General Psychology, 15(4), 380–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025704 Goldfield, E. C. (1993). Dynamic systems in development: Action systems. In Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (Eds.). A dynamic systems approach to development: Applications (pp. 51– 70). MIT Press. Great Schools Partnership. (2014, April 30). Criterion-referenced test. The Glossary of Education Reform. https://www.edglossary.org/criterion-referenced-test/ Great Schools Partnership. (2015, July 22). Norm-referenced test. The Glossary of Education Reform. https://www.edglossary.org/norm-referenced-test/ Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 121 Haywood, K., & Getchell, N. (2009). Life span motor development (6th ed.). Human Kinetics. Holt, K. G., Wagenaar, R. O., & Saltzman, E. (2010). A dynamic systems: Constraints approach to rehabilitation. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 14(1), 446–463. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552010000600002 Horvat, M., Kelly, L. E., Block, M. E., & Croce, R. V. (2019). Developmental and adapted physical activity assessment (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics. Hutzler, Y. (2007). A systematic ecological model for adapting physical activities: Theoretical foundations and practical examples. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24(4), 287– 304. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.24.4.287 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 110-476, 101 U.S.C. (1990). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2017). Sec. 300.304 Evaluation procedures. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.304 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 108th Cong, P.L. 108-446 (2004). Kavanagh, H., Manninen, M., Meegan, S., & Issartel, J. (2023). Assessing the fundamental movement skills of children with intellectual disabilities in the Special Olympics Young Athletes program. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 41(1), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2022-0201 Kendall, E., Streagle, K., & Helbert, T. (2022). Individualized rating scales of engagement during group exercise activities for children with multiple and severe disabilities: A process description and case series. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 1(1), 151–168. https://www.naset.org/publications/jaasepresearch-based-journal-in-special-education/jaasep-spring/summer-2022/individualized- Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 122 rating-scales-of-engagement-during-group-exercise-activities-for-children-with-multipleand-severe-disabilities-a-process-description-and-case-series Kounas, S. (1999). KALMS (R): Kounas assessment of limited mobility students revised. https://kalmstest.com/test_manual.htm Kugler, P. N., Kelso, J. S., & Turvey, M. T. (1982). On the control and coordination of naturally developing systems. In J. A. S. Kelso & J. E. Clark (Eds.), The development of movement control and coordination (pp. 5–78). Wiley. Lieberman, L. J., & Houston-Wilson, C. (2009). Strategies for inclusion: A handbook for physical educators. Human Kinetics. Louisiana Department of Education. (2015). Determining eligibility for adapted physical education: Assessment protocols. CTAPE, LaMAP, CLAS. https://www.wrightslaw.com/info/ape.la.elig.crit.pdf Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Comprehensive. In Merriam-Webster online dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprehensive Murzi, M. (n.d.). Jules Henri Poincare (1854–1912). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/poincare/ National Autism Association. (n.d.). What is autism? https://nationalautismassociation.org/resources/autism-fact-sheet/ National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance. (n.d.). Home. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/center/national-center-early-childhood-quality-assurance National Consortium for Physical Education for Individuals with Disabilities. (2020). Adapted physical education national standards (3rd ed., L. E. Kelly, Ed.). Human Kinetics. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 123 National Consortium for Physical Education for Individuals with Disabilities. (2023). National Consortium for Physical Education for Individuals with Disabilities position stand on assessments in adapted physical education. https://www.ncpeid.org/assets/docs/NCPEID%20Position%20Stand%20APE%20Assess ment.pdf Navigate Life Texas. (2025). Admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) process. https://www.navigatelifetexas.org/en/education-schools/ard-process#what%20is Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade and H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341–360). Martinus Nijhoff. Newell, K. M. (2020). What are fundamental motor skills and what is fundamental about them? Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 8(2), 280–314. https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2020-0013 Nima, A. A., Cloninger, K. M., Lucchese, F., Sikström, S., & Garcia, D. (2020). Validation of a general subjective well-being factor using classical test theory. PeerJ, 8(1), Article e9193. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9193 Parks, S. (2004). Inside HELP: Administration and reference manual for HELP (the Hawaii early learning profile) birth - 3 years. VORT Corporation. Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Pope, M., Liu, T., Breslin, C. M., & Getchell, N. (2012). Using constraints to design developmentally appropriate movement activities for children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 83(2), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2012.10598726 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 124 Public Schools of North Carolina. (n.d.). Adapted physical activity. https://www.dpi.nc.gov/documents/ec/adapted-pe-101-pdf/download?attachment Region 10 Education Service Center. (2025). Adapted physical education (APE): Evaluations. https://www.region10.org/page/evaluations-adapted-physical-education-ape Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93–112, 87 Stat. 355 (1973). Rudolph, D. A., & Arnold, R. W., Jr. (1981). Project MOBILITEE. Hopewell Special Education Regional Resource Center. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1snZLRcQxEMEIboELwzUqWfjcAGqPoiWJ/view Sato, T., & Haegele, J. A. (2017). Graduate students’ practicum experiences instructing students with severe and profound disabilities in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 23(2), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X16642771 Seaman, J. A., Martinich, C., Cariaga, D., & Fox, C. (2007). APEAS II: A motor performance test for students ages 4.6 to 17 years. American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. Shannon, G. S., & Bylsma, P. (2007). Nine characteristics of high-performing schools: A research-based resource for schools and districts to assist with improving student learning (2nd ed.). Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499819.pdf SHAPE America. (2018). Eligibility criteria for adapted physical education services [Position statement]. Society of Health and Physical Educators. https://www.shapeamerica.org/Common/Uploaded%20files/uploads/pdfs/2018/positionstatements/Eligibility-Criteria-for-Adapted-PE_rebranded_final.pdf Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 125 Sigmundsson, H., Trana, L., Polman, R., & Haga, M. (2017). What is trained develops! Theoretical perspective on skill learning. Sports, 5(2), Article 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports5020038 Silliman-French, L., & Buswell, D. (2017). Adapted physical education manual of best practices: Administrative guidelines and policies (3rd ed.). Texas Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. Smith, C. E., & Allman, T. (2010, June). Meeting the challenges of deaf education teacher preparation: Innovative practices in online learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 523–532. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/smith_0610.pdf Smith, M., & Chambers, S. (2023). Sensing and learning: Guidebook, assessment forms, and routines. American Printing House for the Blind. State University of New York at Brockport. (1996). Camp abilities Brockport sports assessment. https://www.campabilities.org/uploads/4/0/0/0/40006217/sports_assessment.pdf Stuart, M. E, Lieberman, L., & Hand, K. E. (2006). Beliefs about physical activity among children who are visually impaired and their parents. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100(4), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0610000405 Texas Education Agency. (2023). Overview of special education for parents. https://tea.texas.gov/academics/special-student-populations/special-education/overviewof-special-education-for-parents.pdf Texas Education Agency and Texas SPED Support. (2025). Question and answer document: Individualized education program (IEP) measurable annual goals. https://spedsupport.tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/qa-iep-measurable-annualgoals.pdf Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 126 Thelen, E. (1989). The (re)discovery of motor development: Learning new things from an old field. Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 946–949. https://doi.org/10.1037/00121649.25.6.946 Thelen, E. (2005). Dynamic systems theory and the complexity of change. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 15(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/10481881509348831 Ulrich, D. A. (2010). Sensory processing assessment of responses. PRO-ED. Ulrich, D. A. (2019). TGMD-3: Test of gross motor development (3rd ed.). PRO-ED. Vetter, P. F. (2021). Test of secondary basic sports skills digital manual. Human Kinetics. Weiner, B. M., & Labagh, K. N. (2014). PAPI-ISAPI: Physical activity profile of independence for individuals with severe and profound impairments. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BNTczGMqliIX2ttQkVIY3ZwTEU/view?resourcekey=0DLGdmbFPTdkwPhgQnDGWAQ Winnick, J. P. (2017). Introduction to adapted physical education and sport. In J. P. Winnick & D. L. Porretta (Eds.), Adapted physical education and sport (6th ed., pp. 3–22). Human Kinetics. Winnick, J. P., & Short, F. (2014). Brockport physical fitness test manual: A health-related assessment for youngsters with disabilities (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics. Yell, M. L., McNamara, S., & Prince, A. M. T. (2021). Adapted physical education: Meeting the requirements of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Teaching Exceptional Children, 54(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599211038380 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory APPENDIX A: IRB APPROVAL LETTER TO: Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey Special Education FROM: ________________________________ James Preston, D.Ed., Chairperson Institutional Review Board (IRB) DATE: February 10, 2025 RE: Protocol Approved Protocol #: 2025-036-88-A Protocol Title: Adapted Physical Education Assessment and the Dynamic Systems Theory: Constraint Led Assessment from Theory to Practice The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Slippery Rock University has conducted an administrative review of the above-referenced protocol under the “exempt” category. You may begin your project as of February 10, 2025. Your protocol will automatically close on February 9, 2026, unless you request, in writing, to keep it open. Please contact the IRB Office by phone at (724)738-4846 or via e-mail at irb@sru.edu should your protocol change in any way. 127 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory Appendix C: Survey APPENDIX B: SURVEY Amy Talbert, MS, CAPE Slippery Rock University Title of Study: Adapted Physical Education Assessment and the Dynamic Systems Theory: Constraint Led Assessment from Theory to Practice Introduction to Survey The purpose of the study is to examine Adapted Physical Education (APE) teacher assessment practices, specifically when assessing students with visual impairments, autism, and significant support needs. Each of these student populations presents unique needs, motivators, and barriers, which drives the need for individualized assessment and program practices (Kelly, 2020). In Adapted Physical Education (APE), goal writing and programming are rooted in the assessment process, with all measurable goals ideally derived from the assessment process. A key component of an APE goal is the condition of the goal, which outlines the parameters necessary for the student to gain access to and achieve the goal (TEA, 2023). Thus, comprehensive data collection is needed to support all 4 components of a goal, which includes the conditions that allow students to gain access to the goals. This study uses the Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) as a framework to analyze APE assessment practices. DST posits that behavior, including skill development, emerges from the dynamic interaction of three “constraints”: individual, environment, and task. Newell created a constraint model to show how the interactions of the three constraint areas affect the emergence of motor behavior (Haywood, K. & Getchell, N., 2024). Individual constraints include structural aspects (e.g., weight, height) and functional aspects (e.g., cognition, motivation, attention). Environmental constraints encompass factors outside the individual, such as space, temperature, and social support from people like teachers and peers. Task constraints involve elements related to the task itself, such as directions and equipment (Newell, 1986). Since formal assessment tests cannot deviate from testing protocol or be modified in any way, considering all three constraints during an assessment could contribute to the qualitative informal parts of the assessment process. Therefore, this survey aims to examine how APE teachers are currently thinking about and approaching assessment, if they are specifically addressing elements in all three constraints, and how they are collecting qualitative informal assessment data for students with visual impairments, autism, and significant support needs. ACRONYMS 128 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 129 APE: Adapted Physical Education ASD: Autism Spectrum Disorder CAPE: Certified Adapted Physical Educator DST: Dynamic Systems Theory SSN: Significant Support Needs VI: Visual Impairment DEFINITIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS STUDY Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): ● Neurological development disability that can impact the areas of the brain that control cognitive function, communication, and social skills. ● Can affect communication, social interactions, sensory processing and integration, and play-based activities. ● Can manifest as perceived low engagement with equipment or activities, low motivation, short attention span, anxiety to unpredictability and change, hyper or hyposensitivity to textures, parallel play alone preferred, and hyper or hyposensitivity reactions to sensory-related stimuli such as sounds, light, smells, or tactile feeling of objects (National Autism Association, nd). Motor Development: ● The development of movement abilities ● Developmental changes in movements as well as the factors underlying those changes ● “The continuous, age related process of change in movement as well as the interaction constraints (or factors) in the individual, environment, and task that drive these changes.” (Haywood, K., & Getchell, N., 2024) Non-standardized Informal Assessment Tools: ● Any tool used to collect data that does not meet the criteria for standardization ● Criterion referenced ● Observation checklists ● Authentic assessments ● Structured interviews Significant Support Needs (SSN): ● Limited initiation ● Low engagement ● Severe cognitive delays ● Severe and profound disabilities Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory ● ● ● ● 130 Multiple disabilities Complex needs that may include medical and personal care Possible sensorimotor level Possible pre-operational level Standardized Formal Assessment Tools: ● Standardized against students without disabilities ● Only measures the parameter established by the test developer ● Standardized through empirical research ● Valid and Reliable ● Peer reviewed ● Re-standardized every 20 years ● Large sample size with diverse attributes ● Must be used as intended to be able to establish and re-establish APE eligibility ● Can be used outside of parameters, but will be considered informal Visual Impairment (VI): ● Partial blindness ● Full blindness ● Includes physical ocular blindness and neurological disorders. ● Any impairment in vision that, even with correction, adversely affects the student’s educational performance SURVEY: 1. What state do you presently teach in? ___________ 2. Are you currently serving as an APE Professional? Yes No (If not, thank you and please stop taking this survey. Your time is greatly appreciated. 3. Do you currently administer APE assessments (initials and/or tri-annuals) as part of your job responsibilities? Yes No (If not, thank you and please stop taking this survey. Your time is greatly appreciated. The following questions use a Likert scale for answer choices. Choose the option that best describes your experience about the statement embedded in the questions. Refer to Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory Newell’s Constraint Model below when answering questions related to the Dynamic Systems Theory. Dynamic Systems Theory and Newell’s Model of Constraints Individual Constraint: personality, body structure, motivation, cognition, life experiences Task Constraint: Task goals, specific rules, equipment choice, instructional delivery, skill expectations Environmental Constraint: potential distractions/barriers (people, sounds, lighting, temperature), prompting levels, teacher support, space, social features (historical, cultural, and society values, beliefs and customs) Figure adapted from Newell (1984). 4. I am are familiar with the Dynamic Systems Theory and how it applies to motor development: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 5. I currently use Newell’s Constraint Model as a framework to guide my APE assessment practices: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 131 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 132 6. I understand the concept of the Individual Constraint of the Dynamic Systems Theory and how it applies to motor development: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 7. I feel it is important to consider and address a learner’s personality, body structure, motivation, cognition, and life experiences when completing an APE assessment: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 8. I feel it is important to consider a learner’s personality, body structure, motivation, cognition, and life experiences when developing goals within an APE program: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 9. I understand the concept of the Task Constraint of the Dynamic Systems Theory and how it applies to motor development: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 10. I feel it is important to consider and address task goals, specific rules, equipment choice, instructional delivery, and skill expectations when completing APE assessment (informal): Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 133 Agree Strongly Agree 11. I feel it is important to consider equipment choice, instructional delivery, and skill expectations when developing goals within an APE program: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 12. I understand the concept of the Environmental Constraint of the Dynamic Systems Theory and how it applies to motor development: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 13. I feel it is important to consider and address potential distractions/barriers (people, sounds, lighting, temperature), prompting levels, teacher support, space, and social features (historical, cultural, and society values, beliefs and customs) when completing an APE assessment: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 14. I feel it is important to consider potential distractions/barriers (people, sounds, lighting, temperature), prompting levels, teacher support, space, and social features (historical, cultural, and society values, beliefs and customs) when developing goals within an APE program: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 134 When completing the APE assessment process for the learner groups below, I intentionally address ALL THREE CONSTRAINTS (Individual, Task, & Environmental) of the Dynamic Systems Theory: 15. For students with VI: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 16. For students with SSN: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 17. For students with ASD: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 18. All other learners not mentioned in the previous three questions: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree When completing an APE assessment for the learner groups below, I intentionally address the INDIVIDUAL CONSTRAINT of the Dynamic Systems Theory during my evaluation process, which includes the student’s personality, body structure, motivation, cognition, and life experiences: 19. For students with VI: Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 20. For students with SSN: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 21. For students with ASD: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 22. All other learners not mentioned in the previous three questions: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree When completing an APE assessment for the learner groups below, I intentionally address the TASK CONSTRAINT of the Dynamic Systems Theory during my evaluation process, which includes equipment choice, instructional delivery, and skill expectations: 23. For students with VI: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 135 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 24. For students with SSN: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 25. For students with ASD: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 26. All other learners not mentioned in the previous three questions: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree When completing an APE assessment for the learner groups below, I intentionally address the ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT of the Dynamic Systems Theory during your evaluation process, which includes potential distractions/barriers (people, sounds, lighting, temperature), prompting levels, teacher support, and space: 27. For students with VI: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 28. For students with SSN: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree 136 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 137 Strongly Agree 29. For students with ASD: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 30. All other learners not mentioned in the previous three questions: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Given the available STANDARDIZED/FORMAL APE assessment tools to use, I feel confident these instruments will address all three constraints of the Dynamic Systems Theory (Individual, Task, Environmental) when completing APE assessments for the learner groups below: 31. For students with VI: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 32. For students with SSN: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 33. For students with ASD: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 138 Agree Strongly Agree 34. All other learners not mentioned in the previous three questions: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Given the available NON-STANDARDIZED/INFORMAL APE assessment tools to use, I feel confident these tools will address all three constraints of the Dynamic Systems Theory (Individual, Task, Environmental) when completing APE assessments for the learner groups below: 35. For students with VI: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 36. For students with SSN: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 37. For students with ASD: Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 38. All other learners not mentioned in the previous three questions: Strongly disagree Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 139 Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree For the next 5 questions, refer to the APE tools list for reference. The bulk of this list was developed by Bittner and Young (2021) with the addition of some tools created by the APE team at the Texas Region 10 Education Service Center. This list is not exhaustive as there are other options available that you are welcome to use in your answers. APE Assessment Tools Formal Tools Non-Standardized Tools with Content Validity Other Informal Tools Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development (Brigance, A., 1978) APEAS: Adapted Physical Education Assessment Scale (Seaman, C., Martinich, D., & Fox, C., (2007) Region 10 Low Motor (Texas Region 10 Adapted PE, 2002) Brockport Physical Fitness Test (Winnick, J. & Short, F., 2014) AMSAT: Apache Motor Skill Assessment Test (Apache, R., 2006) Region 10 Motor Evaluation for Wheelchair Users (Texas Region 10 Adapted PE, 2002) BOT-3: Bruinicks Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005) CTAPE: Competency Test of Adapted PE (Louisiana Department of Education, 2008) Region 10 Evaluation for Visually Impaired (Texas Region 10 Adapted PE, 2002) FitnessGram (The Cooper Institute for Aerobic Fitness, 1982) LaMAP: Louisiana Motor Assessment for Preschoolers (Louisiana Department of Education, 2008) Region 10 Lifetime Leisure Supplement (Texas Region 10 Adapted PE, 2002) PDMS: Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (Folio, R., & Fewell, R., 1983) CARE-R: Curriculum, Assessment, Resources, Evaluation (National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance (NCECQA), nd) Region 10 PEPI: Physical Education Participation Inventory (Texas Region 10 Adapted PE, 2002) TGMD 3: Test of Gross Motor Development (Ulrich, D., 2019) KALMS: Kounas Assessment of Limited Mobility Students Revised (Kounas, S., 1999) Structured Interviews Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 140 HELP: Hawaii Early Learning Profile (Parks, S., 2004) Observation Checklists Oregon Project (Jackson County Intermediate Education District, 1978) Authentic Assessments PAPI-ISAPI: Physical Activity Profile of Independence for Individuals with Severe and Profound Impairments (Weiner, B., & Labagh, K., 2014) Project MOBILITEE (Rudolph, D., Arnold, R., 1981) Special Olympics FUNdamentals Special Olympics Assessment (previously Motor Activities Training Program) (Kavanagh, H., Manninen, M., Meegan, S., Issartel, J., 2023) Test of Secondary Basic Sport Skills (Vetter, P., 2021) The Southern California Ordinal Scales of Development: Gross Motor Abilities (Ashurst, et al., 1985) Sensory Processing Assessment of Responses (Ulrich, D., 2010) Camp Abilities Brockport Sports Assessment (State University of New York at Brockport, 1996) Of the currently available APE assessment tools (formal and informal), which ones do you believe yield appropriate and comprehensive data for the learner groups below? Please briefly share any thoughts on why you would choose those tools. 39. For students with VI: 40. For students with SSN: Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 41. For students with ASD: 42. All other learners not mentioned in the previous three questions: 43. Which informal tools do you often choose to collect any informal/supplemental/qualitative assessment data? PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: 44. Type of District/Charter you presently teach in: Rural Suburban Urban 45. Gender: Female Male Non-binary/Transgender Prefer to self-describe _________________ Prefer not to say 46. Highest Degree Completed: Associate’s Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate Other 47. Have you completed the Certified Adapted Physical Educator (CAPE) National certification? Yes No 48. Number of years teaching APE: ____ 49. Have you completed a graduate level APE assessment course? Yes 141 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 142 No 50. Approximately how many professional development hours have you completed in the last 5 years focused on the topic of APE assessment? _____ Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey and help further this research topic! Your thoughts and expertise are greatly valued and appreciated! Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory APPENDIX C: TEXAS REGION 10 APE LISTSERV PERMISSION LETTER 143 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 144 APPENDIX D: CALIFORNIA LONG BEACH APE LISTSERV PERMISSION LETTER _____________________________________________________________________________ December 12, 2024 Title of Study: Adapted Physical Education Assessment and the Dynamic Systems Theory: Constraint Led Assessment from Theory to Practice Principal Investigator(s): Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey, Amy Talbert To the Slippery Rock University IRB, As a representative of California State University Long Beach who maintains the Adapted Physical Education Alumni Listserv, I confirm permission is granted for the proposed research: Adapted Physical Education Assessment and the Dynamic Systems Theory to be conducted once IRB approval has been obtained. _____Melissa Bittner__________________ Printed Name of Representative ___________________________________ Signed Name of Representative 12/13/24 ___________________________________ Date Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 145 APPENDIX E: INFORMATIONAL LETTER AND CONSENT TO RESEARCH PARTICIPANT INFORMATIONAL LETTER Adapted Physical Education Assessment and the Dynamic Systems Theory: Constraint Led Assessment from Theory to Practice Ashlea Rineer-Hershey, Ph.D. a.rineer-hershey@sru.edu 724-738-2460 Amy Talbert, MS, CAPE Act1009@sru.edu 972-978-9478 Invitation to be Part of a Research Study You are invited to participate in a research study. In order to participate, you must be currently working as an Adapted Physical Education professional and complete APE assessments as a part of your job responsibilities. Taking part in this research project is voluntary. Important Information about the Research Study • • • • Things you should know: The purpose of the study is to analyze Adapted Physical Education teacher assessment practices, specifically viewed through the lens of the Dynamic Systems Theory. If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete a survey with 50 questions online though Qualtrics within the next two weeks. The survey contains 10 demographic questions, 35 multiple choice questions, and 5 open ended questions. This survey will take approximately 25-30 minutes. Risks or discomforts from this research include the loss of time and effort that it takes to complete the survey. The study may possibly increase awareness and knowledge about the research topic and highlight potential gaps and/or differences in APE teacher assessment practices. Taking part in this research project is voluntary. You do not have to participate, and you can stop at any time. Please take time to read this entire form and ask questions before deciding whether to take part in this research project. What is the Study About and Why are We Doing it? The purpose of the study is to examine Adapted Physical Education (APE) teacher assessment practices, specifically when assessing students with visual impairments, autism, and Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 146 significant support needs. Each of these student populations presents with unique needs, motivators, and barriers, which drives the need for individualized assessment and program practices. This study uses the Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) as a framework to analyze APE assessment practices. According to the DST, motor development is influenced by three areas referred to as “constraints” which are the individual, task, and environmental constraints. The individual constraint is structural and functional where structural is body related and functional is cognitive, motivational, and attention related. Specifics of the individual constraint include personality, body structure, motivators, aversions, level of cognition, and life experiences. The task constraint is equipment choice, rules, instructional delivery, and the motor skills related to the skill expectations. The environmental constraint is any influence outside of the student such as temperature, lighting, noise, other people, social pressures, and teacher support. Potential distractions, barriers, teacher prompting levels, and space specifics are also part of the environmental constraint. Using the DST to frame the survey questions is significant in this study as this theory states that engagement in all three constraints is needed in order for behavior to emerge or change. Since formal assessment tests cannot deviate from testing protocol or be modified in any way, considering constraints during an assessment could contribute to the informal parts of the assessment process. Utilizing constraint led assessments may provide a way for APE teachers to collect more comprehensive information to use when drafting data driven goals and objectives for APE programming. Therefore, this survey is significant because it aims to examine how APE teachers are currently thinking about and approaching assessment, if they are specifically addressing elements in all three constraints, and how they are collecting qualitative informal assessment data for students with visual impairments, autism, and significant support needs. What Will Happen if You Take Part in This Study? If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to follow a link in the invitation or social media post and complete a 50-question survey through Qualtrics. There are 10 demographic questions, 35 multiple choice questions, and 5 open ended questions. The survey will take approximately 25-30 minutes. All survey submissions will be anonymous and no identifying information will be collected. How Could You Benefit From This Study? Although you will not directly benefit from being in this study, others might benefit because the results of the survey may potentially increase awareness and knowledge about common Adapted PE teacher assessment practices as well as highlight possible gaps and/or differences in Adapted PE assessment practices. What Risks Might Result From Being in This Study? We do not believe there are any risks from participating in this research, other than the loss of time and effort it takes to complete the survey. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 147 How Will We Protect Your Information? We plan to publish the results of this study. To protect your privacy, we will not collect any information that could directly identify you. What Will Happen to the Information We Collect About You After the Study is Over? We will not keep your research data to use for future research or other purposes. Your name and other information that can directly identify you will not be collected. What Other Choices do I Have if I Don’t Take Part in this Study? If you choose not to participate, there are no alternatives. Your Participation in this Research is Voluntary It is totally up to you to decide to be in this research study. Participating in this study is voluntary. Even if you decide to be part of the study now, you may change your mind and stop at any time. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Since no identifying information will be collected, there is no consequence if you decide to withdraw before this study is completed. Contact Information for the Study Team and Questions about the Research If you have questions about this research, you may contact Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey through email or phone: a.rineer-hershey@sru.edu; 724.738.2460. Contact Information for Questions about Your Rights as a Research Participant If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or wish to obtain information, ask questions, or discuss any concerns about this study with someone other than the researcher(s), please contact the following: Institutional Review Board Slippery Rock University 104 Maltby, Suite 302 Slippery Rock, PA 16057 Phone: (724)738-4846 Email: irb@sru.edu Your Consent Before agreeing to be part of the research, please be sure that you understand what the study is about. We will give you a copy of this document for your records [or you can print a Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 148 copy of the document for your records]. If you have any questions about the study later, you can contact the study team using the information provided above. I understand what the study is about, and my questions so far have been answered. I agree to take part in this study. I understand that I can withdraw at any time. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by continuing to the survey questions. Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 149 APPENDIX F: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE Subject: Invitation to Participate in Adapted Physical Education Research Study Dear Adapted PE Professional, I hope this message finds you well. My name is Amy Talbert and I am currently pursuing a doctorate degree in Special Education at Slippery Rock University. We are conducting a research study titled Adapted Physical Education Assessment and the Dynamic Systems Theory: Constraint Led Assessment from Theory to Practice. This study is aimed at examining Adapted Physical Education (APE) teacher assessment practices, specifically focusing on students with visual impairments, autism, and significant support needs. Who Can Participate? If you are currently working as an Adapted Physical Education professional and conduct APE assessments as part of your job, we invite you to participate in this study. What Does Participation Involve? You will be asked to complete a 50-question survey online via Qualtrics. The survey includes: • 10 demographic questions • 35 multiple-choice questions • 5 open-ended questions The survey will take approximately 25-30 minutes, and all responses will be completely anonymous. Why Participate? Your participation will contribute to advancing our understanding of APE teacher assessment practices through the lens of the Dynamic Systems Theory. While there is no direct benefit to you, the findings may increase awareness of APE practices and identify areas for improvement. How to Participate? To participate, please click on the following link to access the survey: https://sru.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cBiOcGqdOQdhZrM The survey will remain open for the next two weeks. For any questions or more information, feel free to contact: • Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey: a.rineer-hershey@sru.edu | 724-738-2460 • Amy Talbert, MS, CAPE: act1009@sru.edu | 972-978-9478 Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 150 Thank you for considering this opportunity to contribute to our research. Your insights and expertise are invaluable to us. Best regards, Amy Talbert, MS, CAPE Doctoral Candidate Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania ______________________________________________________________________________ Social Media Post: 📢 Calling All Adapted Physical Education Professionals! Are you an APE professional who conducts assessments as part of your job? We need your expertise! We’re conducting a research study titled: "Adapted Physical Education Assessment and the Dynamic Systems Theory: Constraint Led Assessment from Theory to Practice" 🔍 What’s the study about? This study examines how APE teachers assess students with visual impairments, autism, and significant support needs, viewed through the lens of the Dynamic Systems Theory. 📝 What’s involved? • A 50-question online survey (10 demographic, 35 multiple choice, and 5 open-ended questions) • Takes just 25-30 minutes of your time • Responses are completely anonymous Adapted Physical Education and the Dynamic Systems Theory 151 ✨ Why participate? Your input will help us better understand APE assessment practices, identify differences in practitioner assessment approaches, and highlight potential areas of need in serving diverse student populations. 📅 Deadline: Complete the survey within the next two weeks! 📩 How to participate? Click here to take the survey: https://sru.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cBiOcGqdOQdhZrM For questions or more information, contact: • Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey: a.rineer-hershey@sru.edu • Amy Talbert, MS, CAPE: act1009@sru.edu Thank you for sharing your APE experience and helping us complete this research project! 💡 #AdaptedPhysicalEducation #APE #DynamicSystemsTheory #SpecialEducation