X hits on this document

35 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

8 / 14

246

Castelli, Hillman, Buck, and Erwin

scores, pr .15, t(257) 2.4, p < .02, β ≥ .15. The second step also exhibited a s i g n i fi c a n t e f f e c t f o r t o t a l fi t n e s s , R 2 . 1 8 , F ( 1 , 2 5 6 ) 5 9 . 4 , p . 0 0 1 , i n d i c a t i n that higher academic achievement scores were associated with greater total fitness, pr .43, t(256) 7.7, p < .001, β ≥ .43. In the case of mathematics achievement, no other variable was found to correlate; thus, this analysis included only the total g fi t n e s s c o m p o s i t e s c o r e . R e s u l t s e x h i b i t e d a s i g n i fi c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p , a d j u s t e d R .20, F(1, 257) = 64.0, p < .001, indicating that total fitness was positively related to mathematics achievement, pr = .45, t(257) = 8.0, p < .001, β = .45. 2 =

Next, a series of two-step hierarchical regressions were performed to determine the relationship between the various Fitnessgram subtests and the three measures of academic achievement (total achievement, reading, mathematics). In the first step, the dependent variables were regressed on variables that correlated with either academic achievement or fitness (i.e., age, sex, school). In the second step, the Fitnessgram subtests were entered into the regression analysis. With regards to total academic achievement, results from the Step 1 analysis did not reveal a significant relation- s h i p , a d j u s t e d R 2 < . 0 2 , F ( 3 , 2 5 5 ) = 2 . 5 , p = . 0 6 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a g e , s e x , a n d s c h o o were unrelated to total academic achievement. The Step 2 regression analysis was l s i g n i fi c a n t , R 2 = . 2 8 , F ( 5 , 2 5 0 ) = 1 9 . 9 , p < . 0 0 1 . T h e r e w a s a s i g n i fi c a n t e f f e c t f BMI, pr = .17, t(250) = 2.8, p < .01, β = .16, and for PACER, pr = .42, t(250) = 7.3, p < .001, β = .43, indicating that greater total academic achievement scores were associated with lower BMI and higher aerobic fitness (see Table 3). o r

The Step 1 regression analysis for reading achievement was not significant, a d j u s t e d R 2 < . 0 2 , F ( 3 , 2 5 5 ) = 2 . 5 , p = . 0 7 , d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t a g e , s e x , a n d s c h o o were unrelated to performance in reading achievement. The Step 2 regression analy- l s i s w a s s i g n i fi c a n t , R 2 = . 2 5 , F ( 5 , 2 5 0 ) = 1 7 . 5 , p < . 0 0 1 . T h e r e w e r e s i g n i fi c a effects for BMI, pr = .17, t(250) = 2.6, p < .01, β = .15, and for PACER, pr = .38, t(250) = 6.6, p < .001, β = .40, indicating that lower BMI and higher aerobic fitness were positively related to reading achievement (see Table 4). n t

SE B

β

Step 1 3.6 5.2 5.4

−.07 .04 .17

Step 2 .17 .63 .28 .19 .96

.43*** −.16** .06 .04 .02

PACER

1.3

BMI Push-ups Curl-ups

−1.8 .28 .14

Sit and reach

.38

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 3 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting General Academic Achievement

Age

−3.7

Sex

3.6

School

14.4

Variable

B

Document info
Document views35
Page views35
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 14:32:01 UTC 2016
Pages14
Paragraphs278
Words6413

Comments