Familiarity of Adapted Physical Activity Among Undergraduate Students: Personal Connection Matters

Abstract

The field of adapted physical activity (APA) and other areas often associated with APA focused on physical activity for people with disabilities, such as adapted physical education (APE) and disability sports (DS), is often marginalized and misunderstood. Little attention has been given to subsets of the general population’s familiarity of this field and related areas. The purpose of this study was to examine college students’ awareness of APA terminology and related organizations. Undergraduate students from 2 U.S. universities (n = 995) completed a survey on their familiarity of APA terminology (APE, DS, and therapeutic recreation [TR]) and related organizations (Paralympics [PL], and Special Olympics [SO]). Students were most familiar with SO, DS, and PL. Familiarity with these terms and organizations, except for TR, were positively associated with being comfortable with people with disabilities (p < .01). Students who reported having a close connection to a person with a disability were significantly more familiar with DS and SO (p = .001). Students with personal connections to people with disabilities appeared to be more aware of APA-related professions and associations. As future leaders, college students can influence the direction of future public policies and resources; thus, because these findings suggests that college students lack the basic familiarity with many APA-related areas, this insinuates that these areas may suffer from a lack of support policies and resources needed to flourish. Further research is needed to fully understand the relationships college students have with people with disabilities and how these may have more awareness of APA-related professions and associations.

Keywords

contact theory public awareness adapted physical education disability sports

Adapted physical activity (APA) is a cross-disciplinary field of study that encompasses knowledge and literature dedicated to improving physical activity opportunities for people with disabilities¹ (Hutzler & Sherrill, 2007; Reid, 2003). APA-focused interventions and programs have often been attributed a large array of benefits for people with disabilities, such as lower levels of obesity, increased motor skills, and higher levels of socialization (e.g., Dillon et al., 2017; Martin, 2013; Obrusnikova & Miccinello, 2012; Pan & McNamara, 2022). Although the field of APA, along with related fields and disciplines centered around providing quality physical activity opportunities to people with disabilities such as therapeutic recreation (TR), disability sport (DS), and adapted physical education (APE), have been explicitly discussed within the existing literature for at least half a century, these areas are often marginalized and misunderstood (Hutzler & Sherrill, 2007; Reid, 2003). In 1990, Broadhead suggested “it is probable that the phrase APA is neither widely nor uniformly understood” (p. 3) with many scholars often confused as to whether to use the term precisely or interchangeably among commonly discussed disciplines that fall within the “umbrella” term that is APA. Reid (2003) later analyzed several APA and APE definitions from several countries, finding a range of conflicting definitions. Leading Reid to conclude the field of APA should be viewed as a field that promotes and implements “adaptations that could facilitate physical activity across a wide range of individual differences” (p. 22).

Similarly, Hutzler and Sherrill (2007) surveyed 10 board members of the International Federation of Adapted Physical Activity on their definition of APA, discovering a range of responses, especially between those residing in separate continents. Respondents from North America and Australia broadly defined APA as:

the body of knowledge that enables the creation of active living opportunities; a set of attitudes and behaviors that leads to the participation of people with a disability in sport the body of knowledge that enables the creation of active living opportunities; a set of attitudes and behaviors that leads to the participation of people with a disability in sport and physical activity; and apart from the practice of adaptation, APA is a profession, a scholarly discipline, a service delivery system, and sometimes a program. (p. 8)

Hence, there appears to be a degree of consensus among scholars on the definition of APA (Broadhead, 1990; DePauw, 2020; Hutzler & Sherrill, 2007; Peers et al., 2014; Reid, 2003), as well as associated terms such as APE. However, the notion that those associated with the field of APA at times have differing views of these terms, leads one to question the ability of those more removed from the field of APA to fully understand and become familiarized with these terms and fields.

Confusion around these terms may be especially problematic as the related areas which are considered by some to be sub-disciplines under the “umbrella” term of APA, often overlap with one another in practice (Winnick & Porretta, 2017). Each APA-related term also has an array of terms used interchangeably by either scholars or other agencies (e.g., Broadhead, 1990; DePauw, 2020; Hutzler & Sherrill, 2007; Winnick & Porretta, 2017). For instance, the terms “therapeutic recreation” and “recreational therapy” were often used interchangeably to refer to TR; however, they have very different connotations, with TR focusing on leisure as the primary outcome and recreational therapy focusing on using recreation to improve one’s health (Genoe et al., 2021). Additionally, school districts have been found to often use a myriad of terms to label APE within school settings, often using words like “adaptive physical education” or “modified physical education” in its’ place which may cause confusion when students with individualized education programs (IEPs) transfer to other districts and states (McNamara & Dillon, 2020), as well as these terms directly conflict with how many scholars define and label APE (e.g., Broadhead, 1990; DePauw, 2020; Hutzler & Sherrill, 2007).

Public perception and familiarity toward specific fields (e.g., public health) are key to the successes and failures of the national policies and initiatives that support and provide resources to enable these fields to flourish (Blauwet & Iezzoni, 2014; McConkey et al., 2020; Scior, 2011). McConkey and colleagues (2021) suggested that within democratic societies, such as the United States, large changes may stem from alterations in public perceptions, rather than from action of the government. Although there are extensive studies documenting health disparities and a lack of access to accessible physical activities among people with disabilities (Haegele et al., 2018; Jung et al., 2018; Martin, 2013), without strong and positive public opinion surrounding APA initiatives and fields, and other related areas, these inequalities are likely to continue uninterrupted. Given the power that large cohorts of the population can provide to social movements and national policies, it is imperative research is conducted on the subsets of general population’s familiarity with and understanding of disability concepts, including APA-related terminology and associations, is therefore warranted.

Population-level awareness and perception of issues, paired with social movements, can affect the passage of public policy. This was notably seen within the field of special education in the United States the 1960s and 1970s (Spaulding, & Pratt, 2015). The Paralympics (PL) and Special Olympics (SO), which are APA-related organizations that provide DS competition and participation to people with disabilities across the globe, have been linked to an increased awareness of health disparities that exist among people with disabilities and related policies at local, regional, and national levels (Blauwet & Iezzoni, 2014; McConkey et al., 2020; Misener et al., 2013). For example, Misener and colleagues (2013) conducted a thematic content analysis of the literature surrounding the PL and identified positive impacts on disability awareness and attitudes in locations where the PL occurred. McConkey and colleagues (2021) found that people who were engaged in SO or reported higher personal connections with people with intellectual disabilities believe that those with intellectual disabilities should have more rights. Although scholars have concluded that these organizations have a wide-reach and are able to positively influence awareness and attitudes toward people with disabilities (Blauwet & Iezzoni, 2014; McConkey et al., 2020; Misener et al., 2013), as well as have major implications to address public policies and resources (McConkey et al., 2021), it has also been suggested that these organizations and initiatives may still fall short, or worst, perpetuate a deficit model toward viewing disability (Counsell & Agran, 2013; McConkey et al., 2020). McConkey and colleagues (2020) highlighted that in a sample of approximately 36,000 adults, one in seven were found to have been involved with SO; however, most of those that volunteered with SO were unable to differentiate SO from the PL and Olympics. These findings coupled with the prevalence of continued health disparities for this population demonstrate that more widespread public awareness initiatives are still needed. It may be that concerted efforts are needed to increase familiarity of the field of APA and related disciplines and organizations (e.g., APE, DS, TR, SO, PL) within specific groups of the public to enact more concrete and specific initiatives to promote increased awareness toward the importance of physical activity, the lack of accessible physical activity, and health disparities for people with disabilities.

College universities may be an ideal venue for these initiatives to take place, as they can embed APA-related information into college courses or promote APA-related activities and organizations on campus for students to engage. College students are often used as a target sample for examining public understanding of disability and attitudes toward people with disabilities (Bogart et al., 2018). Because college students can be viewed as future leaders, and approximately 32% of adults in the United States hold a college degree (McElrath & Martin, 2021), it is important to understand this subsection of the general populations’ awareness around key issues. Furthermore, many college students may eventually have careers across an array of sectors (e.g., health, education) where they will be working with people with disabilities in various capacities. Considering people with disabilities are one of the largest minority groups, as approximately 15% of the global population identifies as having a disability (World Health Organization, 2011), the likelihood of working with this group, directly or indirectly, in any field is high. This highlights the importance of college students’ ability to understand important disability concepts, including those related to APA, and advocate for people with disabilities to take advantage of services and organizations that may benefit their health.

Previous research suggests that college students who report prior contact with people with disabilities (Bogart et al., 2020; Seo & Chen, 2009) or who identify as having a disability themselves (Rowland & Bell, 2012) hold more favorable attitudes toward people with disabilities than those with no or less contact. Moreover, researchers suggest that increased familiarity, closeness, and contact with people with disabilities is associated with lower levels of stigma, reduced anxiety, increased knowledge, and more favorable attitudes toward this group (Pelleboer-Gunnink et al., 2021; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). These reports center attention on the influence that personal connection to disability may have on an individual’s understanding and attitudes toward disability. Therefore, examining college student’s familiarity with disability concepts, such as APA terminology, as well as exploring the influence that a personal connection to disability may have on their familiarity, may be important first steps in understanding public perception and expanding the reach of the APA field. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine undergraduate college students’ familiarity with APA terms, and to examine whether personal connections to disability were associated with increased familiarity. More specifically, the following research questions were developed to guide our investigation:

What are the differences between the familiarity of APA terminology and related organizations among college students?

How does college students’ personal connection to disability affect the relationship to familiarity of APA terminology and related organizations?

Method

Participants and Procedures

We used a random sampling technique to select undergraduate students from two public universities within the Midwest region of the United States. We invited 5,000 undergraduate students (2,500 randomly selected from each university) to participate in the study. Participants were given two weeks to complete the survey, and aside from the initial invitation, three follow-up emails were administered. A total of 1,026 undergraduate students (20.5% response rate) completed the survey; however, 31 were excluded from the study due to incomplete responses. All questionnaires were answered online via Qualtrics. Institutional review boards at both universities approved the study, with participant consent attained prior to data collection.

Instrument

The survey employed in the present study captured undergraduate students’ familiarity toward APA and health for people with disabilities. The survey was developed using relevant literature related to the public’s awareness of health and APA (Nicholaos et al., 2006; Scior, 2011). After developing an initial set of survey items guided by the research questions and relevant literature, we sent the survey to an expert in survey development and public health, who provided feedback related to content relevancy and question structure. After receiving critical feedback, we reexamined and revised the survey questions. Next, the lead investigator conducted “think-alouds” with four undergraduate students, where the lead investigator went through each item in the survey and asked the participants how and why they would answer these items in a particular way. The concurrent “think-alouds” were administered in a one-on-one setting via Zoom. The “think-aloud” survey development method allows researchers to test the validity of survey items and identify areas that are difficult to understand for a specific population (Hagen et al., 2008). A concurrent “think-aloud” protocol was utilized, which entailed asking each participant to verbalize their thoughts while answering each question. After receiving feedback from the “think-alouds,” we reexamined and revised the survey questions. We discussed all changes and consulted with the survey development and public health expert, until 100% agreement was achieved.

The portion of the survey used for this study was divided into three main parts: familiarity with APA-related terms, relationships, and comfortability with people with disabilities, and demographic items. Six questions were used to measure participants’ familiarity of six terms and organizations connected to the field of APA, including APA, APE, DS, TR, PL, and SO. The relevant literature, along with the “Adapted Physical Education and Sport” textbook (Winnick & Porretta, 2017), which has been found to be one of the most prominent APA college textbooks (McNamara et al., 2022) were used to identify the terms and organizations used within this survey. Participants were asked to rank their familiarity with each term and organization on a five-point scale (1 = not familiar at all, 2 = slightly familiar, 3 = moderately familiar, 4 = very familiar, 5 = extremely familiar). Two demographic questions were used to determine the participants’ relationship to disability. One question asked if the participant identified as having a disability. The second question asked if the participant had a close friend or family member with a disability. Both questions had dichotomous yes/no responses. Four questions were used to measure participants’ comfort level with people with disabilities. Individual questions asked about comfort around and potential friendship with people with physical and intellectual disabilities. Definitions of both physical disabilities and intellectual disabilities using terminology from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) were provided to the participants prior to completing this section of the survey. Participants were asked to respond on a five-point scale (1 = not comfortable, 5 = very comfortable). A comfort scale score was developed with the mean of the four questions (α = .842). Additional demographic questions in the survey included gender, age, college year, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. For analyses, gender was coded into categories for male, female, and other (i.e., transgender, non-binary, other self-described, or preference not to self-identify).

Statistical Analysis

We used IBM SPSS statistics software 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) for all statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics included frequency with proportion for dichotomous and categorical data and mean with standard deviation for continuous data. First, associations between familiarity within the six terms were examined with Pearson bivariate correlations. Additional associations between each term and factors including participant gender, age, identified with a disability, identified with a family member and/or close friend with a disability, and comfort with persons with disabilities were also examined with Pearson correlation. Second, differences in familiarity with terminology was examined between participants with and without a disability and participants with and without a family member and/or close friend with disability with independent samples t-tests and Hedges’ g effect size. When needed, Welch’s t-test was used to account for inequality of variance between groups. Finally, familiarity with each term was further examined with linear regression. Independent variables included gender, age, identified with a disability, identified with having a family member and/or close friend with a disability, and comfort with persons with disabilities. Parsed models, including independent variables with significant bivariate correlations, were used for each dependent variable. To account for the large sample size, statistical significance was interpreted based on an alpha of .01. Effect sizes were interpreted as small (.20), medium (0.50), and large (0.80; Cohen, 1988).

Results

Table 1 provides an overview of the participants’ demographic characteristics. A total of 995 undergraduate students fully completed the survey and were included in analyses. The mean age of the participants was 20.41 years old (SD = 3.32). Participants were distributed equally across the two universities (53.3% and 46.7%) and across year in college (19.0%–27.9% per year). Most participants were female (60.5%), White (88.6%), non-Hispanic (94.9%), and did not identify with a disability (94.7%).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents.

Demographics	N	%
Gender
Male	376	37.8
Female	602	60.5
Other^a	17	1.7
Race
White	882	88.6
Black or African American	29	2.9
Asian	49	4.9
Other	3	.3
Prefer not to self-identify	32	3.2
Hispanic or Latino
Yes	51	5.1
No	944	94.9
College year
Freshmen	243	24.4
Sophomore	189	19.0
Junior	278	27.9
Senior	260	26.1
Other	25	2.5
Identifies with a disability
Yes	53	5.3
No	942	94.7
Family member or close friend with disability
Yes	435	43.7
No	560	56.3

Note. N = 995. Descriptive statistics include frequency, proportion, and mean (standard deviation).

Other includes transgender, non-binary, other self-described, or preference not to self-identify.

Undergraduate students reported a range of connections with people with disabilities. A little less than half of the sample (43.7%) reported having a family member or close friend with a disability. Furthermore, students predominately reported being comfortable around people with both physical (M = 4.32, SD = 0.76) and intellectual (M = 4.02, SD = 0.93) disabilities, respectively. Students also reported being comfortable having a close personal friend with physical (M = 4.42, SD = 0.81) or intellectual (M = 4.01, SD = 1.04) disabilities, respectively. Taken together, the sample had an average comfort scale score of 4.19 ± 0.73 on the five-point scale.

Undergraduate student familiarity of the six terms ranged across the full five-point scale. Two Average rankings ranged from largest to smallest included: SO (M = 3.16, SD = 1.07), DS (M = 3 2.79, SD = .97), PL (M = 2.76, SD = 1.11), APA (M = 2.15, SD = 1.06), APE (M = 2.01, SD = 4 .99), and TR (M = 1.81, SD = .90). Pearson correlations indicated that familiarity was significantly associated across all terms (p < .01), except for APA and PL (p = .05). Independent t-tests were used to compare familiarity with terminology between groups based on disability status and having a family member and/or friend with a disability. Examinations based on disability status were underpowered due to the unbalanced sample sizes and are not presented here. Table 2 provides the results comparing participants with and without a personal connection to disability. Many respondents identified having a family member and/or close friend with a disability (n = 435, 43.7%). Students with family/friends with a disability reported significantly greater familiarity with the terms APA, APE, DS, and SO (p < .01), but not for PL and TR (p ≥ .05). Hedges’ g effect sizes for terms with significant differences ranged from .20 to .30, indicating small differences in familiarity between groups.

Table 2.

Group Differences in Familiarity With Terms Based on Personal Connections to Disability.

	Identifies having a family member and/or close friend with a disability
	Yes (n = 435)		No (n = 560)
	M	SD	M	SD	p	G
APA	2.27	1.11	2.06	1.01	.003** ^a	.20
APE	2.12	1.05	1.92	0.93	.002** ^a	.20
DS	2.95	1.03	2.67	0.91	<.001**	.29
TR	1.87	0.95	1.76	0.85	.050*	.12
PL	2.83	1.17	2.71	1.08	.075	.11
SO	3.34	1.11	3.02	1.02	<.001** ^a	.30

Note. Results of independent t-tests include mean, standard deviation, p-value, and Hedges’ g effect size.

APA = adapted physical activity; APE = adapted physical education; DS = disability sport; TR = therapeutic recreation; PL = Paralympics; SO = Special Olympics.

Welch’s t-test

p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01, bolded.

To further examine personal factors related to familiarity with each term, associations were examined with bivariate correlation and linear regression. Bivariate correlations are presented in Table 3. Of note, higher comfort levels were independently associated with familiarity of all terms (p < .01), expect for TR (p = .011). Students that identified as having a family member and/or close friend with a disability also reported higher familiarity on most terms (p < .01), expect for TR (p = .055) and PL (p = .07).

Table 3.

Associations Between Familiarity With Terms and Personal Factors.

	1	2	3	4	5
APA	.030	.066*	.076*	.096**	.118**
APE	.029	.041	.062	.099**	.120**
DS	−.014	−.089**	.050	.141**	.158**
TR	.032	.070*	.076*	.061	.080*
PL	−.112**	−.056	.030	.058	.089**
SO	.064*	−.012	.039	.150**	.197**

Note. Results include Pearson correlation (r).

= gender; 2 = age; 3 = respondent identifies as having a disability; 4 = respondent identified as having a family member and/or close friend with a disability; 5 = comfort with persons with disabilities; APA = adapted physical activity; APE = adapted physical education; DS = disability sport; TR = therapeutic recreation; PL = Paralympics; SO = Special Olympics.

p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01, bolded.

Significant correlations for each term (p < .01) were used to develop parsed linear regression models, presented in Table 4. A linear regression model for TR could not be developed due to the lack of significant correlations. After controlling for multiple correlates, personal factors continued to be associated with familiarity for multiple terms. Higher levels of reported comfort with people with disabilities were positively associated with familiarity for the following terms: APA (p = .003), APE (p = .002), DS (p < .001), PL (p = .001), and SO (p < 7 .001). Respondents that identified as having a family member and/or close friend with a disability also reported higher familiarity with both DS (p = .001) and SO (p = .001).

Table 4.

Linear Regression of Associations Between Each Term and Relevant Personal Factors.

	Adapted physical activity				Adapted physical education				Disability sport
	b	SE	B	p	B	SE	B	p	B	SE	B	P
Constant	1.50	0.20		<.001**	1.38	0.18		<.001**	2.52	0.25		<.001**
1	—				—				—
2	—				—				−0.03	0.01	−0.09	.002**
3	—				—				—
4	0.15	0.07	0.07	.028*	0.15	0.07	0.07	.024*	0.21	0.06	0.11	.001**
5	0.14	0.05	0.10	.003**	0.13	0.04	0.10	.002**	0.18	0.04	0.13	<.001**
	Paralympics				Special Olympics
	b	SE	B	p	B	SE	B	p
Constant	2.52	0.22		<.001**	2.04	0.19		<.001**
1	−0.28^a	0.07	−0.13	<.001**	—
2	—				—
3	—				—
4	—				0.23	0.07	0.11	.001**
5	0.17	0.05	0.11	.001**	0.25	0.05	0.17	<.001**

Note. Linear regression results of parsed models based on significant bivariate correlations (Table 3) include unstandardized b coefficient, standard error, standardized beta coefficient, and p value.

= gender, 2 = age, 3 = respondent identifies as having a disability, 4 = respondent identified as having a family member and/or close friend with a disability, 5 = comfort with persons with disabilities.

Effect of gender on familiarity with the Paralympics compared to female, males: b = .32, SE = .07, Β = .14, p < .001; other: b = .18, SE = .27, Β = .02, p = .517.

p ≤ .05. ** p ≤ .01, bolded.

Discussion

We investigated college undergraduate students’ familiarity with terminology related to APA and related fields, as well as how personal connections and comfort with people with disabilities affect familiarity. Although a range of familiarity was observed across terminology, all these areas require additional public awareness efforts directed toward college students. For example, SO received the highest mean familiarity score, indicating that on average the sample was only “moderately familiar” with the organization. Overall, DS, PL, and SO were the highest ranked terms/associations. Meaning these areas and associations may receive more public support compared to those ranked lower. With this greater level of public support, these areas and associations may benefit from more positive and plentiful legislation and resources (Reimer et al., 2014). This may be due to the promotion of PL and SO, which are organizations that provide DS, at an international level through various media sources and systematic efforts from these organizations to promote their image along with positive attitudes toward people with disabilities (Blauwet & Iezzoni, 2014; McConkey et al., 2020; Misener et al., 2013). Growing the familiarity of these areas with the public, and subsets of the public (e.g., college students), is imperative as it has often been showed through various forms that awareness around issues and people creates more positive attitudes and perceptions toward specific issues (e.g., Lampe et al., 2010; McConkey et al., 2021). Because familiarity frequently breeds respect, systematic public awareness efforts on and off university campuses should be made to promote all these fields, disciplines, and organizations.

Personal Connection With Disability

Having a close personal connection to an individual with a disability and feeling comfortable around people with disabilities were both predictors of higher ratings of familiarity for all terms examined, excluding TR. Based on the current study, the reason for the lack of significance between TR and personal connections to disability is unknown, but may be related to the sample’s overall low familiarity ranking of TR. Additionally, this low ranking may be confounded by continual debates around the terminology (i.e., TR, recreation therapy) to best define their profession (Genoe et al., 2021). Further research may provide additional understanding regarding why familiarity with TR was lower compared to the other APA terms as well as how it compares among those with and without personal connections to disability. Having a close personal connection with people with disabilities significantly influencing one’s familiarity of disability related information aligns with the literature (e.g., Scior, 2011; Werner, 2015). For example, McConkey and colleagues (2020) identified that having volunteered with SO, playing sports, and having personal connection with an individual with an intellectual disability were key factors in their likelihood to having increased awareness of SO. The findings that personal connection to people with disabilities and feeling comfortable around people with disabilities may play a key factor in one’s familiarity of APA terms could be further explained through the lens of the Contact Theory (Allport, 1954), a theory frequently referenced within the APA literature (Case et al., 2021). Specifically, Contact Theory suggests that increased contact between members of different groups (e.g., people with and without disabilities) may lead to more favorable attitudes toward one another, particularly among the group(s) in power (Dunn, 2015). Moreover, with increased favorable attitudes, intergroup contact may lead to more openness and enhanced understanding about those in the outgroup. Importantly, research in this area also supports that contact grounded in optimal contact conditions—equal rank, common goals, no intergroup competition, and supported by authority—can be more effective and may lead to further benefits, such as leading members of the advantaged group to act as allies to the disadvantaged group (Pettigrew et al., 2011). Therefore, it is also possible that participants in this study with personal connections to disability have had positive, optimal contact experiences with people with disabilities that influenced additional awareness of disability. As such, it is possible that participants with a personal connection to people with disabilities may have more or prior contact with people with disabilities, and, in turn, have more favorable attitudes (McKay, 2018). Thus, those with personal connections to disability may have more opportunities to learn and become familiar with topics, such as APA, that are unique to this population. Although Contact Theory may provide some rationale as to why personal connection was a predictor for familiarity of APA and related terms, the underlying mechanism for these relationships is unknown at this time and cannot be drawn from this study. Future researchers should consider additional contact variables, including contact type, quality, frequency and intensity, when examining the influence that personal connection to disability has on college students’ familiarity of APA-related terms an association.

Contact Theory may also lend itself to developing awareness initiatives among specific groups, as it has been noted as an important tool to build the foundation of awareness and education interventions to improve attitudes toward people with disabilities (McKay, 2018). Hence, to make college students more aware of APA and related areas, attempts to increase their contact with people with disabilities may be useful. This could be through increased attempts for the universities to house disability organizations, including APA-related organizations, that incentivize college students to volunteer. In addition, APA concepts could be integrated into general course work, such as lifetime fitness courses that are often offered to all college students. Although there have been several studies on the impact PL and SO has on the public’s views and awareness of the intersection of disability and health (McConkey et al., 2020; Misener et al., 2013), the findings from the current study reinforces the paucity of literature related to intersection between knowledge dissemination and APA among college students.

Disseminating knowledge is a crucial component that can provide specific strategies and insights needed to effectively educate those within and outside a specific field or discipline (Kingston, 2012; Ordoñez, & Serrat, 2017). If the field of APA and related areas are deprived of support from college students who represent future professionals and leaders, these areas are likely to struggle to provide the meaningful benefits to people with disabilities through physical activity that is intended and rightly deserved. International, national, and regional APA-related organizations should consider developing and implementing systematic initiatives to educate college students about the field of APA and related areas to provide awareness around these areas that fuels future legislation initiatives to provide the necessary funding and resources for these areas to thrive. In addition, research examining how to better market and educate specific populations about the merits of APA and its related disciplines using knowledge dissemination methodologies and theories is essential to growing awareness and positively influencing public opinion.

Limitations

The limitations of this investigation should be acknowledged. Although this study used a random sampling of undergraduate students from two universities, a randomized stratified sampling technique would have been more suitable. This study was quite homogeneous with regards to race (88.6% White) and gender (60.5% female). Using a randomized stratified sampling technique based on demographic characteristics such as race and gender would have allowed to ensure that specific characteristics and groups were represented within the sample and better reflect the characteristics of the population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In addition, the two universities sampled for this study were both from the same Midwest state, which limits the representativeness of the findings to the national population. To make better generalizations representative of college students and the public, future researchers should also seek to broaden their samples to larger and more diverse regions, as well as other subsets of the general population (e.g., age or occupation based). Furthermore, this study had a relatively low response rate (20.5%) which may result in data biased by those who were willing to complete the survey, and potentially impacting the overall findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Future researchers should consider additional means to gain a larger representation of college students.

The social desirability bias (Paulhus, 1984), which asserts that participants often report more socially desirable answers, may have influenced some participants to mark higher degrees of familiarity and feeling comfortable around individuals with disabilities to be looked upon more favorably. We should also acknowledge that this study did not examine important contextual information needed to understand what types of contact with persons with disabilities influenced college students’ familiarity with APA-related terms and organizations. Future research should seek to examine how college students become familiar with these terms and organizations, and how personal connections with persons with disabilities impacts different levels of familiarity.

Conclusion

It is important to understand college students’ familiarity of APA-related terms and organizations, as this population represents future professionals and leaders that will be able to advocate for the resources and legislation needed for these fields to flourish. In addition, given that disability is one of the largest minority groups in the world, many college students will likely be in professions where they will be working with people with disabilities. Thus, it is important that they have familiarity with APA-related services and organizations that may benefit people with disabilities and their quality of life and health. The low levels of familiarity APA terms and associations from the present study support the notion that the field of APA and closely related areas by in large has not communicated effectively with those not directly involved with these fields and disciplines. This lack of awareness may be further complicated by scholars within the field of APA continuously debating how to define this area (Broadhead, 1990; DePauw, 2020; Hutzler & Sherrill, 2007; Peers et al., 2014; Reid, 2003). In addition, this study also illuminates the apparent lack of research conducted between the intersection of the field of APA and knowledge dissemination. Concerted public awareness initiatives that utilize knowledge dissemination evidence-based practices should be made with college students to promote all these fields, disciplines, and organizations. For this to occur, a wide breadth of research is needed that seeks to understand how college students, and other key subsets of the general population, are familiar with APA and related areas.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Scott McNamara

E. Andrew Pitchford

Notes

References

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Blauwet

C. A.

Iezzoni

L. I.

(2014). From the Paralympics to public health: Increasing physical activity through legislative and policy initiatives. PM&R, 6(8), S4–S10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.05.014

Bogart

K. R.

Bonnett

A. K.

Logan

S. W.

Kallem

(2020). Intervening on disability attitudes through disability models and contact in psychology education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 8(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000194

Bogart

K. R.

Logan

S. W.

Hospodar

Woekel

(2018). Disability models and attitudes among college students with and without disabilities. Stigma and Health, 4(3), 260–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000142

Broadhead

G. D.

(1990). Adapted physical activity—Terminology and concepts. In Doll-Tepper

Dahms

Doll

von Selzam

(Eds.), Adapted physical activity (pp. 3–9). Springer.

Case

Schram

Jung

Leung

Yun

(2021). A meta-analysis of the effect of adapted physical activity service-learning programs on college student attitudes toward people with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 43(21), 2990–3002. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.1727575

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum.

Counsell

Agran

(2013). Understanding the Special Olympics debate from lifeworld and system perspectives: Moving beyond the liberal egalitarian view toward empowered recreational living. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(4), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207312450751

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

(2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.

10.

Degener

(2016). A human rights model of disability. In Blanck

Flynn

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability law and human rights (pp. 47–66). Routledge.

11.

DePauw

K. P.

(2020). Historical viewpoint on adapted physical education. In Haegele

Hodge

Shapiro

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of adapted physical education (pp. 7–24). Routledge.

12.

Dillon

S. R.

Adams

Goudy

Bittner

McNamara

(2017). Evaluating exercise as evidence-based practice for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Public Health, 4, 290. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00290

13.

Dunn

(2015). The social psychology of disability. Oxford University Press.

14.

Genoe

M. R.

Cripps

Park

Nelson

Ostryzniuk

Boser

(2021). Meanings of therapeutic recreation: Professionals’ perspectives. Leisure, 45(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2021.1872411

15.

Haegele

J. A.

Healy

Zhu

(2018). Physical activity and obesity among nine-year-old children with and without chronic health problems, illness, or disabilities in Ireland. Disability and Health Journal, 11(1), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2017.08.002

16.

Hagen

N. A.

Stiles

Nekolaichuk

Biondo

Carlson

L. E.

Fisher

Fainsinger

(2008). The Alberta Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool for cancer patients: A validation study using a Delphi process and patient think-aloud interviews. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 35(2), 136–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.03.016

17.

Hutzler

Sherrill

(2007). Defining adapted physical activity: International perspectives. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.24.1.1

18.

Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

19.

Jung

Leung

Schram

B. M.

Yun

(2018). Meta-analysis of physical activity levels in youth with and without disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 35(4), 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2017-0123

20.

Kingston

(2012). Choosing a knowledge dissemination approach. Knowledge and Process Management, 19(3), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1391

21.

Lampe

Coulston

Walter

Malhi

(2010). Familiarity breeds respect: Attitudes of medical students towards psychiatry following a clinical attachment. Australasian Psychiatry, 18(4), 348–353. https://doi.org/10.3109/10398561003739612

22.

Martin

J. J.

(2013). Benefits and barriers to physical activity for individuals with disabilities: A social-relational model of disability perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35(24), 2030–2037. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.802377

23.

McConkey

Slater

Dubois

Shellard

Smith

(2020). Engagement with Special Olympics by the general public in 17 countries world-wide. Sport in Society, 25, 1766–1777. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2020.1830971

24.

McConkey

Slater

Smith

Dubois

Shellard

(2021). Perceptions of the rights and capabilities of people with intellectual disability in the United States. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 34(2), 537–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12819

25.

McElrath

Martin

(2021). Bachelor’s Degree Attainment in the United States: 2005 to 2019. US Census Bureau, ACSBR-009. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/acs/acsbr-009.html

26.

McKay

(2018). The value of contact: Unpacking Allport’s contact theory to support inclusive education. Palaestra, 32(1), 21–25.

27.

McNamara

Dillon

(2020). Finding a home for adapted physical education in individualized education program software. European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 13(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5507/euj.2019.015

28.

McNamara

Wilson

Lieberman

(2022). The syllabus is a living document: An examination of introductory adapted physical education syllabi. The Physical Educator, 79, 117–141. https://doi.org/10.18666/TPE-2022-V79-I210607

29.

Misener

Darcy

Legg

Gilbert

(2013). Beyond Olympic legacy: Understanding Paralympic legacy through a thematic analysis. Journal of Sport Management, 27(4), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.27.4.329

30.

Nicholaos

Joseph

Meropi

Charilaos

(2006). A survey of public awareness, understanding, and attitudes toward epilepsy in Greece. Epilepsia, 47(12), 2154–2164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00891.x

31.

Obrusnikova

Miccinello

D. L.

(2012). Parent perceptions of factors influencing after-school physical activity of children with autism spectrum disorders. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 29(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.29.1.63

32.

Ordoñez

Serrat

(2017). Disseminating knowledge products. In Serrant

(Ed.), Knowledge solutions tools, methods, and approaches to drive organizational performance (pp.871–878). Springer.

33.

Pan

C. C.

McNamara

(2022). The impact of adapted physical education on physical fitness of students with intellectual disabilities: A three-year study. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 69(4), 1257–1272. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1776851

34.

Paulhus

D. L.

(1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598

35.

Peers

Spencer-Cavaliere

Eales

(2014). Say what you mean: Rethinking disability language in Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 31(3), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2013-0091

36.

Pelleboer-Gunnink

H. A.

van Oorsouw

van Weeghel

Embregts

(2021). Familiarity with people with intellectual disabilities, stigma, and the mediating role of emotions among the Dutch general public. Stigma and Health, 6(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000228

37.

Pettigrew

Tropp

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

38.

Pettigrew

Tropp

Wagner

Christ

(2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001

39.

Reid

(2003). Defining adapted physical activity. In Steadward

R. D.

Wheeler

G. D.

Watkinson

E. J.

(Eds.), Adapted physical activity (pp. 11–25). Edmonton.

40.

Reimer

Mase

Mulvaney

Mullendore

Perry-Hill

Prokopy

(2014). The impact of information and familiarity on public attitudes toward the eastern hellbender. Animal Conservation, 17(3), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12085

41.

Rowland

M. P.

Bell

E. C.

(2012). Measuring the attitudes of sighted college students toward blindness. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 2(2), 24. https://doi.org/10.5241/2F2-24

42.

Scior

(2011). Public awareness, attitudes and beliefs regarding intellectual disability: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2164–2182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.07.005

43.

Seo

W. S.

Chen

R. K.

(2009). Attitudes of college students towards people with disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 40(4), 3–8.

44.

Spaulding

L. S.

Pratt

S. M.

(2015). A review and analysis of the history of special education and disability advocacy in the United States. American Educational History Journal, 42(1–2), 91–109.

45.

Werner

(2015). Public stigma and the perception of rights: Differences between intellectual and physical disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.12.030

46.

Winnick

J. P.

Porretta

(2017). Adapted physical education and sport. Human Kinetics.

47.

World Health Organization. (2011). World report on disability. https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-functions-disability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability