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