Table II.

Implementation of TAAG PE by teachers, years 1 and 2, spring semester only

	Intervention schools	Intervention schools	Control schools
	Year 1	Year 2	Year 2
Dosea	n = 69	n = 68
Use of teacher’s guidebook	2.7 ± 0.2	2.7 ± 0.2	N/A
Use of task cards	3.1 ± 0.1	3.0 ± 0.1
Use of activity box	3.1 ± 0.1	3.1 ± 0.1
Acceptabilityb
Teachers’ reaction to TAAG	4.1 ± 0.2	4.3 ± 0.2	N/A
Teachers’ perception of student reaction to TAAG	3.5 ± 0.1	3.7 ± 0.1
Amount of change teacher made based on TAAG	3.4 ± 0.2	3.7 ± 0.2c
Teachers’ perception of ease of making change	3.6 ± 0.1	3.9 ± 0.1
Teachers’ perception of TAAG’s benefits for students	4.0 ± 0.1	4.1 ± 0.1
Fidelityd	n = 148–162	n = 146–162	n = 95–108
Students were encouraged for out-of-PE-class physical activity (percent of classes)	18.4 ± 22.0	28.4 ± 29.8e	14.8 ± 21.3
Teacher used strategies to minimize management time (percent of classes)	76.4 ± 32.0	84.6 ± 16.2ef	65.7 ± 33.1
Students were provided with choices (percent of classes)	58.5 ± 34.3	48.8 ± 27.3	55.6 ± 34.8
Students were encouraged for in-class physical activity (percent of classes)	85.4 ± 18.2	93.2 ± 12.7e	88.9 ± 17.1
Student:equipment ratio was appropriate for activity (percent of classes)	70.0 ± 28.3	66.4 ± 22.8	57.2 ± 39.4
Group sizes were appropriate for activity (percent of classes)	66.5 ± 28.3	70.8 ± 20.5	64.3 ± 33.0
Girls appeared to enjoy PE (percent of classes)	86.5 ± 24.2	95.7 ± 9.4c	85.2 ± 25.5

^aData reported by PE teachers. Scale 1–4: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes and 4 = always.

^bData reported by PE teachers. Likert 1–5 scale: 1 = unfavorable/difficult and 5 = favorable/easy.

^cSignificantly different from year 1 (P < 0.05).

^dData assessed by observation. Implementation variable was observed ‘some’, ‘most’ or ‘all’ of class. Intervention goal = observation of 50% for item 1, 80% for all other items.

^eSignificantly different from year 1 (P < 0.01).

^fSignificantly different from control schools (P < 0.05).