Grant Proposal

Governing Procedure and Experimental Outline We recognize that the link between physical activity and psychological wellbeing in children adolescents is not a new concept and has been studied thoroughly for many years (Ryan 2008, Raustorp et al. 2005, Kirkaldy et al. 2002, Boyd and Hrycaiko 1997). However, most if not all of these studies are limited in the sense that they have a very narrow temporal ordemographical focus. This study seeks to avoid these limitations by monitoring the self-esteem and physical activity levels of an ethnically and economically diverse group of children during all major stages of development (from six to eighteen years of age). In doing this we will add a critical piece of literature to the overall body of knowledge about the effects of physical activity on psychological well-being. Sample Selection Ages The initial sample population for this experiment will be young children living in the United States, not including those living in US territories. It is our intent to select children no younger than six years and no older than seven years of age. Six years of age, the lower bound of our age requirement, is that at which at least some children have acquired basic reading skills and will be able to independently complete the written assessments given to them as a part of this experiment (National Institue of Child Health 2000). The upper age limit of seven years will be observed to ensure general developmental uniformity in the sample population and to guarantee that this study encompasses all stages of childhood. It should also be noted that we intentionally selected this particular age group because it includes the average ages at which compulsory education is mandated by the vast majority

of states (U.S. Department of Education 2008). Entry into a school environment marks one of the key stages of a child’s development (Sameroff and Haith 1996). Selection For the purposes of this study, we divided the United States into the nine primary geographical divisions designated by the US census bureau. These nine divisions are contained within the four primary regions of the US: the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West (United States Census Bureau 2009). Within each division, the state that best matched the ethnic distribution of the entire division was selected as one of those from which children would be drawn (see table 1). Finally, we examined the 2007 economic statistics of individual counties within each target state and grouped the counties according to the percentage of individuals below the poverty line, defined as an annual income of $10,210 in 2007 by the Department of Health and Human Services (National Archives and Records 2007). Each county was categorized as “low”, “middle”, or “high” according to their reported poverty statistics, with “low” indicating a low, “middle” indicating an average, and “high” indicating a highpoverty level relative to the average poverty level of the state as a whole. One county in each economic category was randomly selected from each state, giving a total of three counties per state. Children from these counties will be selected to participate in this study. This selection process will produce a sample population that is both ethnically and economically representative of the entire country. The majority of children ages six to seven are entering their first year of primary school, where they will spend, on average, more than six hours of each day (U.S. Department of Education 2006). Therefore, rather than intentionally selecting specific children, we will recruit children on a voluntary basis from public primary

schools within the chosen counties. The ultimate goal of the recruitment will be to obtain a total sample size between 750 and 1000 children to maintain the statistical significance of this study over the twelve to thirteen year period that it will be conducted. However, if there is an overwhelmingly positive response to our study, we will accommodate as many as we have resources for while maintaining the economic and ethnic diversity of the study.

New England Rhode Island Mid-Atlantic New Jersey East North Central Ohio West North Central Minnesota South Atlantic Delaware East South Central Tennessee West South Central Texas Mountain Colorado Pacific

White

Black

American Indian and Alaska Native

Asian

Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander

88.4 % 88.7 % 77.9 % 76.3 % 83.6 % 84.9 % 89%

6.4%

0.4%

3.6%

0.1%

Origin 7.7%

6.3%

0.6%

2.8%

0.1%

11.2%

14.9 % 14.5 % 12.2 % 12%

0.4%

5.6%

0.1%

12.6%

0.3%

7.5%

0.1%

15.9%

0.4%

2.5%

Z

6.9%

0.2%

1.6%

Z

2.5%

6.2%

1.2%

2.1%

0.1%

4.5%

89.3 % 73.4 % 74.5 % 77%

4.5%

1.2%

3.5%

0.1%

4%

22.1 % 20.9 % 20.5 % 16.9 % 14.3 % 12%

0.5%

2.8%

0.1%

10.9%

0.4%

2.8%

0.1%

6.5%

0.4%

1.1%

Z

2.8%

0.3%

1.3%

0.1%

3.5%

1.5%

2.9%

0.1%

26.4%

0.7%

3.4%

0.1%

36%

3.6%

3.3%

2.6%

0.3%

22.9%

4.2%

1.2%

2.7%

0.1%

19.9%

5.8%

1.4%

11.6 %

0.6%

29.5%

80.4 % 79.8 % 82.6 % 88.4 % 89.9 % 77.5 %

Of Hispanic/Latino

California

76.8 6.7% 1.2% 12.4 0.4% 36.2% % % Table 1. Shows the ethnic composition in each of the nine divisions designated by the U.S. census bureau in 2007. The states listed beneath the division names (in bold) belong to that division and most closely model the ethnic trends seen in the divisions as a whole. These are the states that we drew from in this study. The symbol “Z” indicates that the percent composition was less than 0.05%. All data was provided by the United States census bureau.

Permissions As of the creation of this document we have obtained all of the necessary permissions from the ethics committees of each chosen state to conduct this research and have received tentative commitments from school representatives of twenty seven different primary schools to cooperate with us. They in turn have notified all parents of six and seven year old students at their institutions about the intent and purpose of this study. In addition, parental consent forms have also been distributed so that we can obtain an estimate for our sample population. Judging Self-Esteem Written Assessments Children Ages 6 to 10 For this study, we will be judging the self-esteem of young children using the Children’s Inventory of Self-Esteem (CISE) scale and the Self-Esteem Index (SEI) scale (Anon 2001, Brown and Alexander 1991). The former scale is an assessment designed for the child’s teacher that seeks to reveal his or her perception of the child’s personality and behavior, both of which are inherently linked to the child’s self-esteem. The latter scale, the Self-Esteem Index, will beused to complement the findings of the CISE and will be completed by the child independently of others. This measure quantifies self-esteem by examining the child’s perception of familial acceptance, academic competence, peer popularity, and personal security (Brooke 1996).

We will follow the practice of Maxwell and Chmielewski in administering the 80 item Self-EsteemIndex scale. This includes having a representative of our research team sit with the children during the assessment to answer any questions that the children may have about the meaning of any item. If requested, the researcher will read each item of the SEI aloud to the child. The children will be told that there are “no correct answers” to the assessment and that none of their responses will be judged or graded. The results of both the CISE and the SEI scale for each child will then be compiled and examined at a later time by our research team. During these first five years of this study we feel that it would be most efficient to conduct all written assessments within a quiet classroom environment. Although a home environment would likely be more comfortable for children and reduce test anxiety (if any), it would be extremely difficult to provide the necessary support required for them to complete the assessment (Weber 1983). After five years we expect that children will gradually disperse into potentially different middle and then high schools, at which time this method is no longer practical. Written Assessments Ages 11 to 18 Here we assume that all adolescents are proficient in their ability to read and understand the material presented in the written assessments. The self-esteem of adolescents in this age range will be judged entirely by the Self-Esteem Index scale and the assessment will be completed independently by each child. It will be mailed to the child’s address in a prepaid envelope that the child (or the parent of the child) can use to return the completed assessment form at any time without any cost to his/her family. Face to Face Psychological Assessments

We realize that written assessments may not be able to capture a complete picture of individual’s self-esteem. As a result, we will randomly select two children from each primary school in our original sample to undergo personal evaluations by one of the lead researchers in this study. For consistency, the evaluation will be guided by the items included in the Self-Esteem Index scale but the children will be allowed to explain their views and opinions more thoroughly. These psychiatric evaluations, like the written assessments, will be conducted annually and ideally will involve the same children each time. Evaluations for each child will be reviewed and analyzed for important trends after the first five years of the study and then every two years thereafter. In this case, the frequency of evaluation review increases after the first five years so that we will be able to more closely monitor the children as they make the critical transition from childhood to adolescence. Physical Activity Levels In order to accurately gauge the physical activity levels of the children in our sample, we propose two different measurement techniques. The first technique will rely on self-reported physical activity (a questionnaire), while the second will involve the use of accelerometers to measure physical activity directly. Questionnaire During the first eight years of this study, we will make use of the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children (PAQ-C) (Kowlaski, Crocker, Faulkner 1997). This assessment was designed for children ages eight to fourteen and studies patterns of moderate to vigorous physical activity undertaken by the child during the seven days prior to the assessment (Janz et al. 2008). Because our initial sample could potentially include children as young as six years old, it would be in our best interest to administer the PAQ-C within a classroom setting for the first two

years of this study. Representatives of our research team will be directly available to answer any questions that the children may have regarding the content of the assessment during this time period. In this way we hope to make the PAQ-C accessible to all children in this study. After the first two years the PAQ-C will be mailed to the child’s household during the school year and returned by mail in a prepaid envelope. For the remaining years of this study we will use a modified form of the PAQ-C designed for adolescents and high-school age individuals known as the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents (PAQ-A) (Kowlaski, Crocker, Kowlaski 1997). It is nearly identical to the PAQ-C but includes only those questions appropriate for the age group (Janz et al. 2008). The PAQ-A will be mailed directly to the child’s address and completed at his or her leisure. Accelerometer A relatively small subset (n=200) of our initial population will be randomly selected to participate in a direct quantification of physical activity using an accelerometer. For this study we have chosen to use the RT3 accelerometer (Stayhealthy Inc.) because of its ability to correctly identify different levels of physical activity (light, moderate, vigorous) in laboratory and in free-living conditions as well as accurately measure periods of inactivity (Hussey et al. 2009, Sun et al. 2008). Furthermore, the device is generally unobtrusive and can be worn during most activities. The accelerometers will be used every four years, beginning with the first year,in order to capture a clear picture of the physical activity levels of children at once during elementary, middle, and high school. They will be distributed locally to selected children and their parents after watching a brief presentation concerning

safety and the proper use of the device. Children will be instructed to wear the accelerometer at all times except in situations where the device is under considerable risk for damage (high-contact activities). At the end of a seven day period following the distribution of the RT3 the devices will be collected and the data uploaded into a computer database for further analysis. The combined data from the accelerometers and the questionnaires will allow us to gain a much more comprehensive view of childhood physical activity than we could obtain from either method alone. Compensation One of the greatest concerns for this study given its extensive longitudinal nature is attrition. Therefore, we feel that it would be appropriate to award small cash prizes to the parents of the children after each confirmed instance of participation in this study. A larger sum will be given to those participating in accelerometer studies and face to face psychological assessments due to the greater involvement required by both activities. See the proposed budget for further details. Tentative Procedural Timeline Years 1-2 Frequency Annual

Time of Year Fall

Annual

Spring

Once (Year 1)

Spring

Annual

Fall

Procedure Administer SEI and CISE in classrooms. Perform face-to-face psychological evaluations. Evaluate physical activity using accelerometers. Administer PAQ-C in classrooms.

Years 3-5 Frequency

Time of Year

Procedure

Annual

Fall

Annual

Spring

Once (Year 4)

Spring

Annual

Fall

Frequency Annual Annual

Time of Year Fall Spring

Once (Year 8)

Spring

Annual

Fall

Administer SEI and CISE in classrooms. Perform face-to-face psychological evaluations. Evaluate physical activity using accelerometers. Mail PAQ-C to participants.

Years 6-8 Procedure Mail SEI to participants. Perform face-to-face psychological evaluations. Evaluate physical activity using accelerometers. Mail PAQ-C to participants.

Years 9-12 Frequency Annual Annual

Time of Year Fall Spring

Once (Year 12)

Spring

Annual

Fall

Procedure Mail SEI to participants. Perform face-to-face psychological evaluations. Evaluate physical activity using accelerometers. Mail PAQ-A to participants.

Budget Justification The total estimated cost for the successful completion of this study is $2,199,754, a fraction of which will be provided by Stanford University. This figure includes all personnel salaries, equipment costs, travel expenses, participant compensation totals, and publication costs that will be incurred over the duration of the study. It is extremely important to recognize that the total cost listed above will finance this project for the twelve years that it is scheduled to proceed, producing a modest average yearly cost of $183,313. The salaries of various personnel involved in this research account for the greatest percent of the overall total. Within this category, the salaries of the principal researchers are easily the largest, especially on a per person basis. Here we made a reasonable assumption that each of the principal researchers willdedicate approximately four months of each year gathering and analyzing data. During each of these months they will receive $10,000, a reasonable price for the skills and abilities of these individuals, generating the twelve year total seen in the budget below. The cost to enlist research representatives will be significantly lower because their services will be required for much shorter periods of time (during assessment administration, for instance) and require less skill. Like the research representatives, the accelerometer technicians willalso spend relatively little time performing services for this study. However, their work clearly requires a great deal of skill and as a result they will be paid significantly more per person than the research representatives.

Participant compensation follows personnel in total cost but nevertheless is significantly lower. We feel that this category will be our most important budgetary need for this study. The unusual length of this study makes it a prime candidate for excessive and statistically damaging participant dropout rates. Therefore, they will be awarded with small sums of money for each confirmed, verifiable instance of participation in the study. For all surveys, including the SEI and both versions of the PAQ, we decided that ten dollars was a reasonable amount of “reward” money, especiallyconsidering that these surveys will be given on an annual basis. Face-toface psychological evaluations, which will require a greater time commitment from participants than will surveys, will generate a fifty dollar cash reward for each completed evaluation. Using a similar line of logic we decided that accelerometer participants would receive thirty dollars for each seven day period of use. We hope that these measures will help to prevent a loss of participants over time. Comment should alsobe made about the travel expenses listed in the budget. The final total for travel to and within the selected state was generated on the assumption that each primary researcher will visit the state once per year for twelve years. No other personnel, including the research representatives, will require significant transportation due to the fact that these individuals will be recruited locally. Travel to each state was assumed to be by plane and travel within the state was assumed to be by car. Airfares and gasoline prices were based on current (March 2009) values. One final item of budgetary interest not discussed thus far is postage. As mentioned in the experimental design, one of the aims of this study is to minimize the cost of participation in order to encourage participation in the long-term. Therefore we believe it necessary to cover postage costs of surveys both sent by

our research team and returned by participants. To calculate these costs, we assumed a one-way shipment cost of $0.42 (the present base cost of United States Postal Service first-class postage) and a roundtrip total of $0.84. This figure, combined with the approximate number of surveys mailed per year and the duration of this study, was used to calculate the final cost of postage listed in the budget.

Research Budget Personnel Principal Investigator #1 Principal Investigator #2 Principal Investigator #3 Research Representatives (30) Accelerometer Technicians/Data Analysis (2) Undergraduate Research Assistants (24)

Sponsor Portion

Outside Funding

Total Cost

$420,000

$60,000

$480,000

$420,000

$60,000

$480,000

$420,000

$60,000

$480,000

$200,000

$2,500

$202,500

$70,000

$10,000

$80,000

$24,000

-------

$24,000

$59,000

$7,000

$66,000

$200

-------

$200

Equipment RT3 Accelerometers (220) RT3 Docking Station, Software Travel (Includes Estimated Transportation Costs to

and within the State)

California Colorado Delaware Minnesota New Jersey Ohio Rhode Island Tennessee Texas

$10,200 $9,300 $10,400 $14,100 $11,300 $12,500 $13,200 $15,200 $15,000

$400 $276 $148 $444 $256 $280 $552 $568 $480

$10,600 $9,576 $10,548 $14,544 $11,556 $12,780 $13,752 $15,768 $15,480

$140,000

$10,000

$150,000

$32,400

-------

$32,400

$19,500

$4,500

$24,000

$10,250

------

$10,250

$72,000

$3,000

$75,000

$1,998,550

$201,204

$2,199,754

Participant Compensation SEI and PAQ Completion (est. 1250 per year) Face-to-Face Evaluation (est. 54 per year) Accelerometer Participation (est. 200 per year, 4 years) Miscellaneous Postage (1250 envelopes per year) Reviewing, Publishing, Dissemination of Final Report

Total Cost

References Anon (2001). The Children’s Inventory of Self-Esteem. Olathe, KS: Brougham Press. Boyd, K.R. and D.W. Hrycaiko (1997). The effect of a physical activity intervention package on the self-esteemof pre-adolescent and adolescent females. Adolescence, 32(127), 693-708. Brooke, S.L. (1996). Critical analysis of the self-esteem index. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 28(4), 233-238. Brown, L., and J. Alexander (1991). Self-Esteem Index. Austin, TX: PRO-ED Inc. Hussey, J.K., K. Bennett, J.O. Dwyer, S. Langford, C. Bell, and J. Gormley (2009). Validation of the RT3 in themeasurement of physical activity in children. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 12(1), 130-133. Janz, K.F., E.M. Lutuchy, P. Wenthe, and S.M. Steven (2008). Measuring Activity in Children and

Adolescents Using Self-Report: PAQ-C and PAQ-A. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40(4), 767-772. Kirkcaldy, B.D., R.J. Shephard, and R.G. Siefen (2002). The relationship between physical activity and self-imageand the problem behavior among adolescents. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 37(11), 544-550. Kowlaski, K.C., P.R.E. Crocker, and N.P. Kowlaski (1997). Convergent Validity of the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents. Pediatric Exercise Science, 9(4), 342-352. Kowlaski, K.C., P.R.E. Crocker, and R.A. Faulkner (1997). Validation of the Physical Activity Questionnaire forOlder Children. Pediatric Exercises Science, 9(2), 174-186. Maxwell, L.E., and E.J. Chmielewski (2008). Environmental personalization and elementary school children’sself-esteem. J. of Environmental Psychology, 28(2), 143-153. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register (2007). Annual Update of theHHS Poverty Guidelines. Federal Register, 72(15), 3147-3148. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Raustorp, A., A. Stayble, H. Gudasic, A. Kinnunen, and E. Mattsson (2005). Physical activity and self-perception in school children assessed with the Children and Youth— Physical Self Perception Profile. Scandinavian J. of Medicine & Science in Sports, 15(2), 126-134. Ryan, M.P. (2008). The antidepressant effects of physical activity: mediating selfesteem and

self-efficacymechanisms. Psychology & Health, 23(3), 279-307. Sameroff, A.J., and M.M. Haith (1996). The Five to Seven Year Shift: The Age of Reason and Responsibility. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sun, D.X., G. Schmidt, and S.M. Teo-Koh (2008). Validation of the RT3 Accelerometer for Measuring Physical Activity of Children in Simulated Free-Living Conditions. Pediatric Exercise Science, 20(2), 181-197. United States Census Bureau (2009). 2007 Economic Census: Regions and Divisions. Retrieved Feb. 28, 2009, from http://www.census.gov/econ/census07/www/geography/012144.html. United States Census Bureau (2007). State & County Quickfacts. Retrieved Feb. 28, 2009, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (2008). Digest of Education Statistics, 2007 (NCES Publication No. 2008022). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2006). Characteristics of Schools, Districts, Teachers, Principals, and School Libraries in the United States: 2003-04 Schools and Staffing Survey. (NCES Publication No. 2006313). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Weber, L.J., and Others (1983). Take Home Tests: An Experimental Study. Research in Higher Education, 18(4), 473-483.

Biographical Sketch-Kenneth Earl Professor, Lead Researcher Stanford University Department of Psychology [email protected] Jordan Hall, Building 420 Room 282

Tel: (777) 777-7777 Fax: (111) 111-1111 E-mail:

Stanford, CA 94305 EDUCATION B.A. Psychology – University of California, Davis 1980 Minor in Exercise Biology M.D. – University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1982 Ph.D. Developmental Psychology – University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1987 AFFILIATIONS Psi Chi Fraternity, University of Michigan Chapter, 1981 National Society of Leadership and Success, 1981 Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, 1991-present American Psychological Association, Division 7, 1988-present National Institute of Mental Health, Review Panel 1995-1998 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, 1988-1996 Private Practice, 1990-present Research Grant Reviewer: National Institute of Mental Health, National Science Foundation (2002-2005) Professor of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, 1997-1999 Professor of Psychology, Stanford University, 2000-present Chair, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, 2005-present President, American Psychological Association, 2007 AWARDS Dissertation Award in Developmental Psychology, American Psychological Association, 1988 Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology, American Psychological Association, 1990 Honorary Degree, Cornell University, 2005 Honorary Doctorate, University of Illinois—Urbana-Champaign, 2008 Alumni Achievement Award, University of Michigan—Ann Arbor, 2007 SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

Dickenson, D., K.S. Earl, and Jones, D. (1995). True Wishes: The philosophy and developmental psychology of children’s informed consent. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 2(4), 287-303. Earl, K.S., T. Kishimoto, Y. Shizawa, J. Yasuda, T. Hinobayashi, and T. Minami (2007). Do pointing gestures by infants provoke comments from adults? Infant Behavior & Development, 30(4), 562-567.