A Meeds Assessment Instrument for Local School District Use in Adapted Physical Education

Claudine Sherrill and Nancy Megginson Texas Woman's University

The purpose was to develop and field test a comprehensive needs assessment instrument for use in determining and prioritizing local school district adapted physical education needs. The resulting Survey of Adapted Physical Education Needs (SAPEN) was comprised of 50 items, encompassing five areas: (a) significance of physical education, (b) assessment, placement, and individualized educational programming, (c) instruction and programming, (d) personnel, and (e) other. Items were to be rated on two, 6-point Likert-type scales, relating respectively to the extent to which each adapted physical education condition now exists and shouldexist in one's school district. Procedures established by Schipper and Wilson (1975) were followed in determining needs and subsequently designating them as first (most urgent), second, and third priorities to be acted upon by school district personnel. Content validity of SAPEN was established by five nationally known adapted physical education experts. Test-retest and internal reliability coefficients were determined by the Spearman Rank Correlation and Alpha Coefficient techniques respectively. Data analysis and cooperative planning follow-up proce- dures were field tested in a selected school district with SAPENs returned by 37 administrators, 48 physical educators, 55 special educators, and 12 parents.

Among the researchable topics of immediate importance required by Public Law (PL) 94-142 is the development of a protocol for determining adapted physical education goals which most merit attention at the state as well as local school district level. PL 94-142 requires instruction in physical education for all handicapped children and youth (U.S. Department of Health, Education, &Welfare, 1977, p. 42480). Thelaw further specifies that each state shall develop a n annual program plan which indicates the number of handicapped children needing special education and related services, the number receiving such services, the number remaining unserved, and a specific plan for meeting the needs of unserved students (U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare, 1977, p. 42481). To assist with implementation of this aspect of P L 94-142, special education administrators at the local school district level report data to the state education agency.

The intent of PL 94-142 is being carried out in most states in relation t o special education in general, but little attention has been accorded physical education. A partial explanation for this is the lack of knowledge of most local school district special educators (as well as administrators and regular physical educators) in relation to the nature and scope of adapted physical education and methods of assessing quality of

Request reprints from Claudine Sherrill, Department of Physical Education, Texas Woman's University, Denton, Texas 76204.

ADAPTED PHYSICAL ACTIVITY QUARTERLY, 1984. 1, 147-157 147

148 Sherrill and Megginson

service delivery in relation to goals (Bird & Gansneder, 1979; Cowden, 1980; Kelly & Lindsay, 1980). Bird and Gansneder reported that 70% of 362 physical educators who returned a mailed questionnaire had little or no understanding of handicapping conditions. Cowden, in a study of 25 local school district administrators, obtained a low mean of 1.76 on a 4-point scale. This indicated little knowledge of existing adapted physical education services in their schools and/or school districts. Kelly and Lindsay noted that both physical education practitioners (n=1368) and graduating seniors (n=462) performed below a knowledge level of 72% on a 52-item test concerning adapted physical education.

Regular physical educators, with special training, may develop the knowledge, attitudes, and skills to teach handicapped students in the mainstream setting and to implement specialized training for an occasional youngster with severe motor problems. It is doubtful, however, that regular physical educators can amass the knowledge and experience required to plan, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive adapted physical education program for an entire school district. Nor are special education personnel qualified in this area. The knowledge and experience deficits of existing school district personnel have constituted much of the rationale for the evolution of the adapted physical education specialist.

PL 94-142 requires that each state education agency must develop and implement a comprehensive system of personnel development to assure that the needs of its handicapped students are being met (U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare, 1977, p. 42486). To comply with this requirement each state agency must determine annually the number of physical educators employed specifically to work with handicapped students, the number still needed, and a plan for decreasing the discrepancy between existing and needed personnel. No guidelines have been agreed upon to assist state education agency administrators in this decision making. Some states are clearly not in compliance as indicated by the numbers of physical education coordinators reported state by state in the annual report to Congress by the U.S. Department of Education, whereas other states appear to be making significant progress (U.S. Department of Education, 1982).

The authors believe that a minimum guideline for state education agencies is to appoint at least one fulltime adapted physical education specialist for every school district, cooperative, or parish with 500 or more handicapped students. This guideline is extremely conservative in that it is based upon the concept that only 10% of the handicapped students in a community require specially designed adapted physical education. For quality senrice delivery more specialists are needed. School districts with less than 500 handicapped students should employ parttime adapted physical education specialists or consultants.

In 1980, a total of 9,271 physical education coordinators were reported to Congress as employed and 2,146 and 1,683 were indicated as needed in 1981 and 1982 respectively (U.S. Department of Education, 1982, pp. 160-169). Research is needed to determine the job functions of such specialists and to assess the extent to whichthey are meeting local school district needs.

Planning at the local school district level is essential to achieving the goals of PL 94-142 in relation to physical education for handicapped children and youth. The U. S. Department of Education (1982) states in this regard: "School district planning provides the overall philosophy, the allocation of personnel and space, the assignment of students, and the inservice training required" (p. 37). Whereas considerable research has been reported on inservice training (Cowden, 1980; Dunn & Harris, 1979; Jansma

JEEDS ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT 149

Schultz, 1982; Knowles, 1981; Tymeson, 1981), it appears that little or no study has :en made of adapted physical education goals at the local level, placement criteria for le assignment of students (Broadhead, 1982), caseloads of adapted physical educators jeilbuth, 19831, and other matters related to administration. Scholarly inquiry is eeded to determine the characteristics of good local school district adapted physical ducation programs and to develop instruments for assessing the extent to which a lrogram is meeting local needs.

PL 94-142 requires state education agencies to monitor the quality of special ducation service delivered to handicapped children and youth. In many states this monitoring process includes some aspects of adapted physical education (Kennedy Foundation, 1979). Only 10-18% of these states, however, report that such monitoring has resulted in needs assessment data concerning physical education for the handi- capped. In summarizing the findings of a telephone survey to all State Special Education Directors regarding the physical education requirements of PL 94-142, it was concluded that "the results of the survey paint a bleak picture of what is taking place in the schools in regards to physical education" (Kennedy Foundation, 1979, p. 1).

One approach to ameliorating problems pertaining to compliance with PL 94- 142 in relation to adapted physical education is the development of a comprehensive instrument for assessing needs at the local school district level. Use of such an instrument can supply data required of state education agencies as well as heighten awareness of school district personnel and parents concerning personnel and service delivery needs. Needs assessment data can also serve as the basis of inservice education.

The purpose of this study was to develop and field test a needs assessment instrument for use in determining and prioritizinglocal school district adapted physical education needs. In accordance with federal guidelines which mandate that state as well as local assessment of needs reflect cooperative planning (Project on Cooperative Manpower Planning in Special Education, 1981; U. S. Department of Education, 1982), the instrument was conceptualized as one which might be used by several target groups: adapted physical education specialists, regular physical educators, special educators, administrators, and parents. Ideally the instrument would be administered in conjunction with other data collection techniques and facilitate cooperative, interdisciplinary decision making (Megginson, 1982). In this study needs assessment was defined as follows:

A technique for identifying thosegoals which most merit accomplishment in a given situation. A needs assessment is accomplished by performing adiscrepancy analysis between the current and desired status with respect to an existing goal (Educational Systems Associates, 1974, p. I).

The technique, as defined herein, had been used in the construction of needs assessment instruments for use at the state level (Chasey, 1979; Schipper & Wilson, 1975) and for use with administrators at the local level (Cowden, 1980). The present investigators sought to parallel, refine, and extend the works of these researchers.

Methodology

A review of literature concerning needs assessment instruments and methodologies was conducted. Borich (1974, 1980), Educational Systems Associates (1974), and the

150 Sherrill and Meggins

Project on Cooperative Manpower Planning (PCMP) in Special Education (191 served as the major primary sources followed in this study. Authorities associated wi Educational Systems Associates included Apple (1974), Borich (1974), and Suchmi (1967). Contributors to the PCMP included university professors of adapted physic education and special education who were actively involved at the national level needs assessment of the handicapped.

The needs assessment instruments of Chasey (1979), Cowden (1980), an Schipper and Wilson (1975) were selected to provide an initial pool of items whic~ might be used and/or adapted for inclusion in the Survey of Adapted Physica Education Needs (SAPEN). A documentary analysis of the content of each of thesc instruments was conducted, similar items were grouped together, and appropriatc items were selected for the initial draft of the SAPEN.

Needs assessment methodology is best explained by presenting an example of the final form of the Survey of Adapted Physical Education Needs (SAPEN) developed in this study. Figure 1 illustrates the two, 6-point scales used in the rating of many items relating to characteristics of local school district adapted physical education programs.

Validity of the Instrument

The Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests and Manuals Committee of the American Psychological Association recognizes three types of instrument validity: content, criterion-related, and construct (Kerlinger, 1973). Because the proposed instrument was thought to be the first of its kind, content validity was the focus of attention in this study. Thus it was important to establish "the representativeness or sampling adequacy of the content-the substance, the matter, the topics-of a measuring instrument" (Kerlinger, 1973, p. 458).

The first procedure in developing the instrument was identifying "the content or universe of content of the property being measured" (Kerlinger, 1973, p. 459). The property was delimited to local school district adapted physical education service for handicapped children and youth. The content was subsequently designated as comprising five areas of information: (a) significance of physical education, (b) assessment, placement, and individualized educational programming (IEP), (c) instruction and programming, (d) personnel, and (e) other.

The second procedure entailed abstracting items, in accordance with preestab- lished criteria, from the needs assessment instruments of Chasey (1979), Cowden (1980), and Schipper and Wilson (1975) and organizing the items under the content categories. Additionally new items were written and categorized under their appropriate categories. Although each item was designed to represent a characteristic of a good adapted physical education program, documentation in support of the characteristics was recorded from all adapted physical education textbooks published between 1975 and 1981 and from other published and unpublished materials.

After the content of each item was documented as4'relevant to the property being measured" to the satisfaction of the investigators, a panel of experts was convened to work independently and then as a group on the content validity of the instrument. This panel was comprised of five professors from across the nation who were actively involved in adapted physical education personnel preparation and needs assessment.

The panel members first independently analyzed and subsequently concurred with the selection of content categories and with the placement of items in their respective categories. Next each individual item was considered, accepted in its present form, rejected, or revised until 50 items were agreed upon by a 4 to 1 or 5 to 0 vote.

SURVEY OF ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION NEEDS (SAPEN) Y 2 rn rn

OWE YOUR OPINION Please circle in the left hand column the number which you feel best repre- GIVE YOUR OPINION E! NOW EXIST sents the services that now exist in your school district. Circle in the right SHOULD EXIST $

, hand column the number which best represents your opinion about what , ?I cn h ! - should exist. IT IS CRITICAL THAT YOU CIRCLE A NUMBER FOR EACH * - - G: 2 a, a x *% 8:% g -, , 2P I $ ir 68: ITEM IN EACH COLUMN. Once you arecompleted,doublechecktoseeityou % a 3 = bg rn

5.9. g g 5 have responded to every item using both columns. O ~ O E a G s L r n . : m a ~ a m~="0.90.!4 z 4 ~ 4 ~ F a Z n ~ G q 6 ~ a m G 5 a m n ~ o q o - c r , l n c r & c u r c r , & - 4 & N T z

!!?

5-

4 1 . A curriculum manual describing physical education instruction/sewices 6 5 4 3 2 1 for the handicapped is available.

2, Elementary school handicapped students receive 150 minutes of physical 6 5 4 3 2 1 education instruction each week. * 3. Administrative personnel understand that adapted physical education sew- 6 5 4 3 2 1 ices are separate and different from those provided by a physical, occupa- tional, or recreational therapist.

4. Regular physical education classes with handicapped students in them 6 5 4 3 2 1 have a student-staff ratio of 30 to 1 or less.

5 . Evaluative criteria are available to guide administrators in monitoring the 6 5 4 3 2 1 quality of adapted physical education programs.

6. Administrators are utilizing current funding alternatives for hiring adapted 6 5 4 3 2 1 physical education specialist.

-L

FIGURE 1. First Parl of SAPEN Instrument. 2

152 Sherrill and Megginso

The resulting final form of the SAPEN consisted of 50 items with 9 items each i the categories of (a) significance of physical education, (b) assessment, placement, an* IEP, (c) personnel, and (d) other, and there were 14 items in the category of instructiol and programming. The order in which the items appeared on the final form wa randomized.

Reliability of the Instrument

The reliability of the SAPEN was checked, using a test-retest procedure, in a pilot study. The SAPEN instrument was administered twice within one week to 12 male and 22 female public school personnel from Denton, Texas, a community with 1,172 handicapped students and one full-time adapted physical education specialist who serves the whole district. The Spearman Rank Correlation technique yielded r values ranging from .46 to .97 for the now exists scale and .62 to .96 for the shouldexist scale.

The alpha correlation coefficient technique was used to estimate the internal reliability of the instrument. The r alpha values for the now exists and should exist scales of the five categories were: (a) significance of physical education-.76 and .90, (b) assessment, placement, and IEP-.73 and .91, (c) instruction and programming-.79 and .93, (d) personnel-.80 and .91, and (e) other-.84 and .93, respectively.

Field Testing of the lnstrument

Criteria established for selection of a school district to be used as the implementation site for field testing SAPEN included (a) a student average daily attendance of 3000+, (b) a handicappd student population integrated into most schools in the district, (c) at least two secondary schools, and (d) four target groups (parents, special educators, administrators, and physical educators) willing to participate in the study. The Irving Independent School District in Texas, which has 2,973 school-aged handicapped children and one adapted physical educator which serves the entire district, met these criteria and was selected as the implementation site.

The purpose of field testing SAPEN was to examine data analysis procedures and cooperative planning strategies for initiating a plan of action for reducing discrepancy between current and desired status of local school district adapted physical education conditions. Color-coded SAPEN instruments were administered by inter- school mail to 238 adults. Of these, 166 (70%) returned their forms and 152 were usable in the data analysis. The sample on which findings were based therefore included 37 administrators, 48 physical educators, 55 special educators, and 12 parents of handicapped students (of these, 60 were male, and 92 were female). Distribution of school personnel by employment level was early childhood-9; elementary-50; junior high-50; and high school-32.

Data analysis procedures established by Schipper and Wilson (1975) for the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) were followed in determining needs and designating them as first priority/most urgent (+), second priority (-I-+), third priority (-I-++), and nonpriority (-). Statistics used in needs analysis procedures are kept simple so that they are easily understood by all target groups who participate in cooperative planning of action strategies to reduce the discrepancies between now exist and should exist school conditions. A grand mean is calculated for each 6-point scale (now exists and should exist) for every target group. For the sample in this study this procedure resulted in grand means of 4.01,3.71,3.52, and 3.64 for the now exists scale and 5.04,4.93,5.16, and 5.51 for the shouldexist scale

\IEEDS ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT 153

administrators, physical educators, special educators, and parents respectively. Next e 50 item means are calculated for each scale for every target group. For this sample, am means ranged from 2.00 (mostly disagree) to 5.44 (mostly agree) on the now exists a le and from 4.11 (slightly agree) to 5.92 (completely agree) on the shouldexist scale.

Several basic assumptions underlie ca.lculation and interpretation of the grand leans and item means in accordance with needs assessment procedures. First, target roups almost always rate current status (now exists) lower than desired status (should :xist). This was true in the present study for both grand means and item means. Second, idministrators, physical educators, special educators, and parents perceive school :onditions (both existing and desired) in different ways. This too was true in the present study for both grand means and item means. Administrators and regular physical educators, for instance, tended to rate now exists items higher and should exist items lower than did special educators and parents. A third basic assumption is that target groups generally have different priorities for change.

The final needs assessment analysis procedure is designed to show the different priorities assigned to each adapted physical education condition by the various groups and to serve as the basis for group discussion whereby differences are resolved and first, second, and third priority needs are established in common for all groups. Need priorities for each target group are determined for every item by comparing item means and grand means in accordance with the following criteria:

1. First Priority Need (f )-Should exist item mean is above its grand mean, and now exists item mean is below its grand mean.

2. Second Priority Need (++)-Should exist item mean is above both its grand mean and now exists item mean.

3. Third Priority Need (+++)--Should exist item mean is below its grand mean but above now exists item mean.

4. Nonpriority Status (-)--Should exist item mean is below now exists item mean.

The basic assumption underlying Schipper and Wilson's prioritizing criteria is that primary attention should be focused on all first priority needs to reduce the perceived discrepancy between current and desired status. The entire process allows for a discrepancy analysis between current and desired status of each specific condition. In field testing SAPEN it was decided that the plan of action for improving adapted physical education service delivery in the Irving School District would be based on SAPEN items deemed first priority concerns by two or more target groups. Table 1 presents the nine SAPEN items that at least two target groups indicated were first priority concerns.

Table I illustrates the manner in which findings from all 50 SAPEN items are presented to representatives of target groups in a formal meeting to cooperatively agree on the plan of action for the school district. Some school districts may have more than nine first priority needs and others less.

Needs assessment protocol should lead to action and subsequent change. The field testing of SAPEN resulted in the following recommendations:

1. Administrators (school superintendents and assistant superintendents, special education and physical education directors, and building principals) should agree to become personally involved in the needs assessment process. They

Sherrifl and Meggin:

TABLE i

SAPEN Items Considered First Priorities By Two or More Groups

Now Should Exists Exist Priorit!

Group M M Status

1. A curriculum manual describing physical ADM 3.91 5.35 + education instruction/services for the PE 3.44 5.33 + handicapped is available. SPED 3.28 5.38 +

PAR 3.33 5.17 +++

42. Sufficient numbers of qualified personnel ADM 3.60 5.26 + to meet the physical education require- PE 3.58 4.86 + ments for PL-142 are available in the SPED 2.75 5.41 + school district. PAR 2.10 5.40 ++S

32. Teachers of handicapped students in ADM 3.91 5.17 + physical education possess the necessary PE 3.56 4.98 + adapted physical education competen- SPED 3.89 5.29 ++ cies and knowledge. PAR 4.30 5.60 ++

30. Special educators and physical educators ADM 3.81 5.17 + work together to develop optimal physi- PE 3.77 5.06 ++ cal education programs for handicapped SPED 3.18 5.24 + students. PAR 3.91 5.82 ++

37. The physical education curriculum for ADM 4.17 5.11 ++ grades K-12 creates positive attitudes PE 4.21 4.98 ++ toward people who"differn from the norm. SPED 3.35 5.24 +

PAR 3.40 6.00 +

20. Persons who teach physical education ADM 3.83 5.06 + are knowledgeable about federal and state PE 3.23 5.19 + legislation/policies/guidelines regarding SPED 3.54 5.33 ++ physical education for handicapped stu- PAR 3.82 5.46 +++ dents.

11. Specially trained physical education per- ADM 3.92 5.05 + sonnel participate in the IEP planning PE 3.58 4.83 +++ process and/or other interdisciplinary SPED 3.41 5.19 + planning sessions concerning the educa- PAR 3.67 5.50 +++ tion of handicapped children.

5. Evaluative criteria are available to guide ADM 3.40 4.83 +++ administrators in monitoring the quality PE 3.31 4.98 + of adapted physical education programs. SPED 3.23 5.18 +

PAR 3.33 5.42 U+

A NEEDS ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT 155

TABLE 1 (cont.)

SAPEN items Considered First Priorities By Two or More Groups

Now Should Exists Exist Priority

Group M M Status

26. Handicapped students are adequately ADM 4.03 4.97 +++ prepared for optimal leisure and lifetime PE 3.32 5.09 + sports through school physical education SPED 2.77 5.00 ftt programs. PAR 3.55 5.64 +

Note: ADM -Administrators (n=37) Grand meansof 4.01 and4.04. for PE -Physical Educators (n=48) Grand meansof 3.71 and4.93. now exists SPED-Special Educators (n=55) Grand meansof 3.52and 5.16. and PAR -Parents (n=12) Grand means of 3.64 and 5.51. should exists

scales respectively.

should complete the SAPEN instrument themselves and encourage other school personnel to do so. In this study the instruments were disseminated through interschool mail with an accompanying letter from the assistant superintendent of instruction.

2. Data should be obtained from at least 75% of each of the school target groups and as many parents as possible. All participants should be assured that their responses will be held in confidence. All participants should be given access to the data analysis findings.

3. All adults from whom needs assessment data are collected should be represented in the follow-up cooperative planning process.

4. A written plan of action should result from SAPEN data analysis and subsequent cooperative planning.

5. Needs assessment data collection and analysis and subsequent development of a written plan of action should require less than 4 weeks so as to maintain optimal interest.

Resulting Action Plan in an Illustrative School District

Following is the written plan of action (Megginson, 1982) developed by the Irving School District to reduce the identified discrepancies between the current and desired condition of its adapted physical education service delivery.

1. Organize and implement a series of inservice training sessions on (a) adapted physical education competencies and knowledge; (b) federal and state legislative mandates affecting physical education of the handicapped; and (c) IEP planninglparticipation responsibilities with emphasis on the use of appropriate placement criteria for the regular physical educators in Inring schools.

2. Establish an incentive program for physical educators and special educators to enroll in a 3-hour, university credit course in adapted physical education.

3. Increase awareness of parents of handicapped children regarding adapted

156 Sherrill and Megginsor

physical education services in the Irving schools. This can be accomplishec through presentations by adapted physical education specialists at monthly meetings of parent organizational groups.

4. Conduct inservice training workshop for administrators on federal and state legislation/policies/guidelines concerning physical education of the handi- capped.

5. Locate and utilize adapted physical education curricular materials. 6. Increase awareness of regular physical educators regarding existing adapted

physical education services in the Irving schools. This can be accomplished during orientation at the beginning of the school year.

7. Determine and, if necessary, reduce student-staff ratios in regular physical education classes with handicapped children in them to a 30:l standard.

8. Increase program emphasis, at least at the junior and senior high school level, on leisure and lifetime sports.

9. Develop evaluative criteria for administrators to monitor the quality of adapted physical education programs.

Conclusion

Based upon findings of this study, it was concluded that the SAPEN instrument is both valid and reliable. It is also effective in promoting interaction among various target groups within a school district and in facilitating agreement on a written plan of action to reduce identified discrepancies between current and desired conditions in adapted physical education service delivery.

Note: A copy of SAPEN and permission to use it in other school districts can be obtained by writing either investigator.

References

Apple, M. (1974). Educational Evaluation: Analysis andresponsibility. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Bird, P. & Gansneder, B. (1979). Preparation of physical education teachers as required under

Public Law 94-142. Exceptional Children, 45, 464-466. Borich, G. (1974). Evaluating educational programs and products. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Educational Technology Publications. Borich, G. (1980). A needs assessment model for conductingfollow-up studies. Journal of Teacher

Education. 31, 39-42. Broadhead, G. (1982). A paradigm for physical education for handicapped children in the least

restrictive environment. The Physical Educator, 39, 3-12. Chasey, W. (1979). A trainingprogram in specialphysical education for SEA directors ofphysical

education and special education. Report No. G007603204. Washington, DC: National Consortium on Physical Education and Recreation for the Handicapped.

Cowden, J. (1980). Administrator inservice training for program implementation in adapted and developmental physical education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 2004A. (University Microfilms No. 80-25573)

Dunn, J. & Harris, J. (Eds.) (1979). Physical education for the handicapped: Meeting the need through inservice education. Corvallis, OR. Oregon State University.

Educational Systems Associates, Inc. (1974). Needs assessment procedures manual. Austin, TX: Educational Systems Associates, Inc.

A NEEDS ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT 157

Heilbuth, L. (1983). Psychomotor job functions of Texas public school adapted physical education teachers, occupational therapists, and physical therapists (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman's University, 1983). Dissertation Abstract International, 44, 1723A.

Jansma, P . & Schuitz, B. (1982). Validation and use of a mainstreaming attitude inventory with physical educators. American Corrective Therapy Journal. 36, 150-157.

Kelly, E. J. & Lindsay, C. A. (1980). A comparison of knowledge obsolescence of graduating seniors and practitioners in the field of physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 636-644.

Kennedy Foundation, Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. (1979). Telephone survey of state directors of the physical education provisions of P.L. 94-142. Washington, DC: Author.

Kerlinger, F. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Knowles, C. (1981). Concerns of teachers about implementing individualized instruction in the physical education setting. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 52, 48-57.

Megginson, N. (1982). Adapted physical education needs assessment: A cooperative manpower planning model for the local school district. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman's University) Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 2928A. (University Microfilms No. 83-03 1 14)

Project on Cooperative Manpower Planning in Special Education (198 1). Comprehensivesystem ofpersonneldevelopment: Needs assessment considerations. Columbia, NO: University of Missouri.

Schipper, W. & Wilson, W. (1975). A survey of opinions on the trainingofteachersofexceptional children. Arlington, V A : (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 115 037).

Suchman, E. (1967). Evaluative research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Tymeson, G. (1981). An adapted physical education service delivery system utilizing an

interagency inservice teacher education model. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman's University) Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 4762A. (University Microfilms No. 82-08767)

U.S. Department of Education (1982). To assure the free appropriate public education of all handicapped children: Fourth annual report ro Congress on the implementation ofpublic law 94-124. Washington, DC: Special Education Programs.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare, Office of Education (1977). Education of handicapped children: Implementation of Part B of the Education for the Handicapped Children Act. Federal Register, Part II, August 23.