Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2011, 8(Suppl 1), S32-S39
© 2011 Human Kinetics, Inc.
“Just Let Me Play!”—Understanding Constraints That Limit
Adolescent Sport Participation
Jonathan M. Casper, Jason N. Bocarro, Michael A. Kanters, and Myron F. Floyd
Background: Organized sport is viewed as a viable medium for promoting more physical activity among
youth. However, participation in youth sport declines significantly among both boys and girls during their
middle school years. This study examined middle school students’ perceived constraints to sport participation.
Methods: Middle school students from 4 schools (6th–8th grade, N = 2465) completed a web based survey
(97.3% response rate). Descriptive analysis, t tests, and ANOVA were used to assess extent of perceived
constraints and differences among demographic and sport participation level subgroups. Results: The most
salient constraint perceived by respondents was time, while knowledge was perceived as the lowest among the
overall sample. Significant (P < .01) differences in perceived constraints were found among all comparisons
groups. Girls, Latinos, lower SES students, and students who did not play sports reported more constraints
than respective comparisons groups. Discussion: The sociodemographic characteristics of middle school
students appear to be a significant factor in their perception of constraints to sport participation. Identifying
constraints associated with sport participation can enable policy-makers and administrators to be more deliberate in channeling resources.
Keywords: barriers, youth, middle schools
Most children and adolescents do not get recommended levels of daily physical activity,1 particularly
girls2 and members of ethnic populations.3 Adolescence
marks a period of significant decline in physical activity.
Similarly, participation in sport declines significantly
among both boys and girls during their middle school
years. Because physical inactivity is a risk factor for
obesity and related chronic diseases in childhood and
later life, considerable research attention now focuses on
evidence-based strategies to create policies and environments that encourage activity.
Organized sport is viewed as a viable medium for
promoting more physical activity among youth. Sport
participation increases LTPA among children and adolescents.4,5 This includes populations at risk for lower levels
of PA such as rural children6 and adolescent females.7 In
addition, studies indicate that children involved in sport
spend less time in sedentary behaviors like watching television and playing video games than nonparticipants.4,8
Youth sport participation may also yield long term benefits such as adult LTPA participation,9–13 lower adult
BMI,14 and positive attitudes toward sport participation
and fitness.15
Given the immediate and long-term benefits of physical activity through youth sport, identifying constraints
The authors are with the Dept of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management and faculty fellows of IPARC, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
S32
that limit participation is an important research need.
Understanding these constraints could help explain the
large decline in youth sport participation and overall
LTPA among both boys and girls during middle school
years.16,17 This study focused on perceived constraints
to sport participation among middle school students.
Constraints research is a subfield within leisure studies
that investigates factors perceived by individuals that limit
leisure preferences and/or inhibit participation.18 Insights
from constraints research can inform practitioners and
policy makers in their efforts to intervene against inactive leisure patterns and create environments supportive
of active leisure patterns. Current theory posits that
constraints operate hierarchically on 3 levels: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural.19 Intrapersonal constraints refer to psychological states and attributes such
as perceived skill, abilities, and attitudes. Interpersonal
constraints arise from interactions with peers, friends and
family and potential coparticipants. Structural constraints
are externally imposed barriers that intervene between
preference and participation such as unavailability of
resources required to participate (eg, money, time, problems with facilities, and social/geographical isolation).
Current theory also holds that individuals can negotiate
perceived constraints using various coping strategies and/
or available resources.20
One of the most comprehensive reviews of published
studies on children’s physical activity showed that perceived barriers are the most consistent negative psychological correlate of physical activity among children.21
Constraints to Adolescent Sport Participation S33
Some of the primary barriers reported in the few studies
examining middle school children’s PA youth include:
lack of time,22,23 being too tired,24 being unmotivated,22,25
lack of facilities and equipment,22 and a perceived lack
of skill or confidence.26 Furthermore, environmental
barriers related to safety, proximity, cost, and facilities
were more evident among middle school children living
in low socioeconomic status (SES) areas.26 However,
quantitative studies on barriers to PA among middle
school students are lacking.24 In addition, the majority of
studies examining physical activity barriers were focused
on girls22 resulting in a lack of comparative analyses
involving both boys and girls.24
To date, little research has examined sport and
physical activity participation among adolescents in
middle school grades.27,28 This oversight is particularly
troubling since sport drop out and increased levels of
physical inactivity are prevalent among adolescents.29,30
Although studies of PA among children have examined
barriers, we found no studies that focused on how perceived constraints differ across gender, grade level, ethnicity/race and SES among middle school aged students.
Furthermore, given the potential of sport to positively
impact children’s PA level, an examination of constraints
to sport participation is warranted. The purpose of the
current study was to examine the perceived constraints
to sport participation among middle school students. The
following research questions were addressed: (1) What
are the most (and least) important reported constraints
overall? (2) What is the relationship between perceived
constraints and prior sport participation? (3) How do
perceived constraints differ across sociodemographic
groups (gender, grade, ethnicity, SES)?
Methods
Participants
The data collection procedures were approved by the
Institutional Review Board at the researchers’ university
and the County school board’s Evaluation and Research
Department. Data were obtained through an online
survey administered at 4 public middle schools (grades
6–8) in a southeastern United States city. The survey was
administered in early September about 2 weeks into the
traditional school year. Each school provided a computer
room where surveys were preloaded on computers. A
total of 2465 (response rate = 97.3%I) students completed
the survey. The sample was 50% female, 33% 6th grade,
32% 7th grade, 35% 8th grade, 52% Caucasian, 36%
African American, 11% Latino, and 32% received free
or reduced-price lunch. Seven percent of the sample indicated they had never played sports, 10% played sport only
in school, 15% participated in a combination of school
and community sport, and the majority of the students
(68%) played sport exclusively in the community. Sixtyeight percent of the respondents indicated that they would
like to play sports more often. Sample sizes of the groups
are reported in Table 2.
Measures
Constraints to sport participation were assessed with 3
theoretical constraint categories derived from previous
research.19,20 Specifically, our measure was constructed
based on previous leisure research focused on recreational sport31,32 and wording was modified for youth
sports to reflect sport participation rather than general
leisure activities. The 25-item scale represented 7 constructs which are subsets of the 3 theoretical constraint
dimensions: intrapersonal (interest, knowledge, and psychological), interpersonal (social support/partners), and
structural constraints (accessibility, facility cleanliness,
and time) (Table 1). Respondents were asked if each of
the constraint items stopped them from playing more
sports. Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert-type
scale indicating level of agreement (1 = not at all; 2 =
not really; 3 = sometimes; 4 = most of the time; 5 = all
the time). Past constraints research has found acceptable
reliability and validity of the constructs relating to sport
participation31,32 and in other leisure settings.33,34
Demographic measures included age (years), gender,
grade level, race, and self-reported free or reduced-price
lunch (socioeconomic status (SES) indicator). Sport participation categories were created based on respondents’
responses to the following 3 past participation items: (1)
playing sport previously (“have you ever played sports
before?”), (2) if they played school sponsored sport and
what school sport programming was offered (varsity or
intramural), and (3) if/where they played sport outside
of school (we termed this community sport). Based on
those responses, 6 participation categories were created:
(1) nonsport, (2) intramural sports, (3) varsity sports, (4)
intramural and community sport, (5) varsity and community sport, and (6) community sport.
Results
Item wording, variable means, standard deviations, and
internal reliabilities of the constraint constructs used
are shown in Table 1. Individual items were averaged to
create a construct total. Internal consistency of the constructs was within acceptable limits with alphas ranging
from .69 to .78.35,36 Multivariate tests of means found that
ratings of the constraints constructs were significantly
different (Hotelling T2 = 891.57; F[6, 2540] = 148.31;
P > F = 0.000). Univariate tests of means found 15 of
the 21 construct pairs to be significantly different (P <
.001). Descriptive analysis of the construct means for
the adolescent sample found that time constraints were
rated highest while partners and facility issues were the
next highest reported constraints. Accessibility was the
fourth highest constraint followed by psychological constraints. Interest in sports and knowledge were the lowest
constraint constructs across the entire sample.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t tests were used
to examine sociodemographic group differences among
each of the constructs that comprised the constraints
measure. Tukey post hoc tests were used to determine
S34 Casper et al
Table 1 Items, Descriptive Statistics, and Internal Reliability of the Constraint Variable Constructs
Construct
Accessibility
There are no sports near my home
Mean (SD)
1.62 (.83)
Cronbach’s α
0.70
1.59 (.91)
0.69
1.65 (.70)
0.69
1.56 (.85)
0.78
1.68 (.82)
0.69
1.61 (.70)
0.74
1.99 (.72)
0.71
I do not have transportation to get to sport opportunities
I cannot afford the money to play sports
Interest
I am not interested in playing sports
I played sports in the past and did not like them
I do not like the sport activities offered
Facilities
The sport facilities are poor quality
The sport facilities are not good enough
The sport facilities are crowded
Knowledge
I do not know where to participate
I do not have anyone to teach me sports
I do not know where I can learn sports
Partners
My friends do not like to play sports
I do not have anybody to play sports with
It is difficult to find others to play sports with
Psychological
Sports make me feel tired
I do not feel confident enough to play sports
I am afraid of getting hurt in sports
I am not fit enough to play sports
I am not skilled enough to play sports
Time
I am too busy with my school work
I am too busy with family
I am too busy with friends
I do not want to interrupt my daily schedule
The times to play sports do not fit in with my life
which constraint constructs differed within individual
groups. A Bonferroni correction was applied to control
for groupwise error. Table 2 includes the mean scores and
significance testing results of the constraint constructs for
each of the comparison groups. There were significant (P
< .01) differences between all sociodemographic groups.
Grade
Gender
Ethnicity
Girls rated accessibility (t = 3.03, P = .002, Cohen’s d
= .12), knowledge (t = 3.46. P = .001, Cohen’s d = .14),
partners (t = 3.53, P < .001, Cohen’s d = .14), and psychological (t = 5.00, P < .001, Cohen’s d = .14) constraints
higher than boys. No differences were found for facilities,
interest, and time constraints.
Latinos generally had higher perceived constraints than
Caucasian or African American participants. Latinos
reported significantly higher accessibility (F = 20.12, P
< .001, Cohen’s d = .54 Caucasian, .17 African American), knowledge (F = 13.11, P < .001, Cohen’s d = .58
for Caucasian, .32 African American), and partners
Only 1 difference was found in a grade-by-grade comparison of perceived constraints. Seventh grade students
reported significantly lower facility constraints than 6th
and 8th grade students (F = 4.95, P = .007, Cohen’s d = .20).
S35
1163
1169
776
749
846
1103
747
237
1591
739
157
130
118
188
154
1607
Females
Males
Grade
6th graders
7th graders
8th graders
Race
Caucasian
African American
Latino
Family SES
No free/reduced lunch
Free reduced lunch
Prior sport participation
a, b, c
2.22b
1.94b
2.02b
1.52a
1.27a
1.55a
1.50a
1.86b
1.45a
1.74a
1.90b
1.64
1.59
1.62
1.67b
1.56a
M
1.01
0.97
0.85
0.81
0.48
0.78
0.76
0.90
0.69
0.91
0.95
0.83
0.82
0.81
0.78
0.84
SD
1.80c
1.90c
1.83c
1.65b
1.42a
1.63b
1.61a
1.74b
1.57a
1.68
1.84b
1.67b
1.59a
1.69b
1.67
1.64
M
0.76
0.88
0.67
0.71
0.54
0.68
0.68
0.73
0.65
0.75
0.70
0.70
0.67
0.71
0.71
0.69
SD
Facilities
Denote groups that were significantly different (P < .01) from each other.
No sports
Intramural only
Varsity only
Intramural and community
Varsity and community
Community only
N
Subgroup
Gender
Accessibility
2.05c
1.87c
1.82c
1.52b
1.26a
1.53b
1.57
1.62
1.54
1.57
1.71
1.59
1.59
1.57
1.63
1.54
M
1.13
1.03
0.96
0.87
0.63
0.87
0.9
0.93
0.85
0.96
0.93
0.9
0.93
0.88
0.93
0.89
SD
Interest
2.13b
1.87b
2.00b
1.47a
1.20a
1.49a
1.46a
1.76b
1.41a
1.60a
1.91b
1.57
1.55
1.56
1.61b
1.50a
M
1.11
1.09
0.99
0.79
0.46
0.78
0.75
0.98
0.69
0.91
1.00
0.86
0.85
0.83
0.88
0.80
SD
Knowledge
2.10c
2.03c
2.01c
1.55b
1.33a
1.63b
1.63a
1.76b
1.62a
1.65a
1.90b
1.72
1.66
1.65
1.73b
1.61a
M
1.04
0.92
0.89
0.76
0.53
0.78
0.79
0.87
0.76
0.83
0.88
0.83
0.82
0.80
0.84
0.78
SD
Partners
2.13b
1.89b
1.85b
1.42a
1.37a
1.57a
1.57a
1.70b
1.55a
1.62
1.77b
1.65
1.58
1.60
1.69b
1.54a
M
0.92
0.82
0.68
0.6
0.52
0.65
0.68
0.72
0.63
0.74
0.73
0.82
0.69
0.66
0.71
0.66
SD
Psychological
2.12b
2.23b
2.08
1.93a
1.86a
1.96a
1.96
2.01
1.98
1.92
2.08
1.98
1.94
2.02
2.06b
1.91a
M
Time
Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Statistical Differences for Each Constraint Construct According to Socio-Demographic
Constructs
0.84
0.80
0.66
0.80
0.66
0.70
0.71
0.75
0.69
0.75
0.69
0.68
0.71
0.76
0.73
0.71
SD
S36 Casper et al
(F = 6.15, P < .001, Cohen’s d = .30 Caucasian, .29
African American) constraints compared with Caucasian
and African Americans who did not significantly differ in
these constructs. Latinos were also found to view facility
(F = 8.04, P < .001, Cohen’s d = .40) and psychological
(F = 6.80, P < .001, Cohen’s d = .32) constraints higher
than Caucasian students. No significant differences based
on ethnicity were found for interest or time constraints.
SES
Respondents from more affluent families (no free or
reduced lunch) generally reported lower constraints than
respondents from low-income households. Significant
differences were found for accessibility (t = 10.03, P
< .001, Cohen’s d = .40), facilities (t = 4.12, P < .001,
Cohen’s d = .16), knowledge (t = 7.89, P < .001, Cohen’s
d = .31), partners (t = 3.51, P < .001, Cohen’s d = .14)
and psychological (t = 3.84, P = .001, Cohen’s d = .15)
constructs. No differences were found for interest or time.
Sport Participation
A comparison between nonsport participants and those
who previously participated in sport showed that nonsport
participants reported significantly higher constraints (P
< .008) for all constructs. Post hoc analysis of the 6 participation categories revealed several noteworthy trends.
First, there was significant variation in the importance
of constraints for each prior sport participation category
(F values ranging between 6.13–24.75; all p-values
<.001, Cohen’s d between .23–1.20). Second, in all
cases, respondents who participated in either community
sport or a combination of community and school sport
reported significantly lower constraints compared with
nonsport, intramural-only, and varsity-only participants.
In addition, respondents who participated in both varsity
and community sport reported significantly lower constraints than all other respondents for facilities, interest,
and psychological constraints. Finally, there were no
significant differences between nonsport respondents and
school sport-only respondents. Therefore, participation in
community sport appears to be a significant influence on
perceptions of constraints across all constructs.
Discussion
Organized sport can facilitate physical activity among
children and adolescents. Our findings indicate that
there are significant differences in constraints to sport
participation among subgroups of middle school students.
Specifically, the sociodemographic characteristics of
middle school students appear to be a significant factor
in their perception of constraints to sport participation.
These differences have implications for sport programming, policies related to youth sport and physical activity,
and sport in the context of community.
Consistent with other constraint studies, time was
viewed as the most salient barrier to sport participation.
Time, as a constraint to participation, has multiple
meanings, and varies across cultures and by individuals.37 While 2 individuals may have equal time commitments, one may view time constraints as more pressing
than another. Previous research has found time to be
an important constraint across age groups and activity
types.31,33,38,39 A majority of respondents had previously
played sports indicating that most students had at least
partially negotiated time constraints. Furthermore, nonsport participants reported the highest time constraints
suggesting that the decision to participate in sport may
reflect an inability to negotiate time constraints.
The availability of partners was the second highest
constraint. Sport is often a social experience40 involving coparticipants. Peer influence among adolescents is
particularly important41 and can either hinder or promote
participation in different leisure activities. The third
highest constraint to sport participation was the quality
or crowdedness of available facilities. Physical activity,
especially for children and adolescents, has been positively associated with accessible and convenient facilities.42,43 Therefore the accessibility, construction, and
maintenance of facilities serve as important factors to
reducing constraints. Knowledge was rated as the weakest
constraint and may have been influenced by the nature of
the community environment in which the participating
schools are located. The community is predominantly
urban and sport opportunities are widely promoted and
available to middle school children (in school, after
school, and within the community).
An unanticipated and potentially policy relevant
finding from this study was that children who played a
combination of school and community sport reported
the lowest perceived constraints to participation in sport.
While nonparticipants reported the highest constraints
overall, significant differences were only found between
those not playing sports or only school sport with those
playing community sport or school and community sport
at the same time. Having access to a combination of
community-based sport (including places for informal
sport participation) and school sport was also associated
with higher levels of participation. This suggests that
opportunities for community sport participation, whether
through informal play or organized sport leagues may
minimize barriers for adolescent sport participation.
Community sport opportunities may also contribute
to lower perceived constraints among adolescents. For
example, unlike the traditional model of school sports,
community based organized sports tend to offer a wider
range of skill levels, more organized opportunities or
places to play, and more opportunities for practice and
skill development.
Our results also show that with the exception of
interest and facility quality, girls rated constraints significantly higher than boys. The schools that participated
in this study had equal participation in sports (equivalent
percentages of male and female participants) and there
were no major differences in the numbers of boys who
played sport outside of school than girls. Therefore, while
Constraints to Adolescent Sport Participation S37
opportunities may be equal, the girls in this study viewed
constraints as more of a limiting factor toward continued
participation. This may be partially explained by the
notion that girls are perceived to have more restrictions
due to household tasks and family responsibility,44 lower
confidence and self-esteem in physical activity/sport
activities45,46 and less social approval.47
We also found that the lower SES group perceived
higher constraints for all constructs except time and interest. Raymore, Godbey, and Crawford found that lower
SES high school-aged adolescents experienced interpersonal constraints (partners) more than upper SES groups,
but found no differences for intrapersonal or structural
constraints.39 While there has been little research comparing SES and constraints, the results of this study suggest
that structural constraints such as accessibility in the
form of transportation support for either community
or school based sports could have a significant impact
on sport participation (ie, late buses, or coordinated car
pooling). Furthermore, children from lower SES backgrounds are more likely to live in neighborhoods where
there are either a lack of facilities or facilities that are of
substandard quality.48 Higher intrapersonal constraints
such as psychological barriers may be due to a lower
self-competence resulting from less or poor coaching,
poorer quality programming or fewer opportunities to
be involved in programs that explore different sports or
develop sport ability.49–51
Similar to SES, race/ethnic comparisons resulted in
differences for all constructs except interest and time.
While there was little differentiation between Caucasian
and African American respondents, Latino middle school
students’ constraint perceptions were significantly higher.
This could have important ramifications in view of their
general health status. For example, Latino youth have
the highest prevalence of overweight and Type 2 diabetes in the United States.52 Our findings show that Latino
participation in both school and community sport may
be limited by a combination of structural, interpersonal,
and intrapersonal constraints. These findings suggest
that it may be important for school and community sport
organizations to target Latino groups to help reduce constraints to sport participation. While additional research
is needed to specify the exact nature of the constraints
perceived by Latino youth, general strategies might
include providing transportation to facilities or locating
sport facilities closer to their communities. Programs
might focus more on communications tailored for the
Latino culture and Spanish language to inform parents
about sport opportunities and associated benefits. Lastly,
programming could include encouraging friends to signup together and afford more social opportunities to lessen
interpersonal constraints.
Finally, the fact that more than two-thirds of the
students in this study wanted to play sport more often suggests that current barriers may be a major factor restricting initial and/or continued participation in sport. A possible explanation for this finding is that before 1980, the
majority of youth sport programs were publicly-funded
and neighborhood-based, enabling children to participate without extensive parental involvement or financial
resources.53 However, as youth sport programs became
increasingly entrepreneurial and privatized, social
equity became less important in decisions about leisure
resources and services. Thus, participation in youth sports
has become increasingly dependent on school-based programs or limited to those with the ability to pay.54 This
is consistent with our finding that students from affluent
households (ie, no free or reduced lunch) perceived few
constraints to sport participation. For example constructs
such as accessibility, which includes opportunities and
costs, were more significant factors for females, minorities, and low SES students.Overall, this study contributes
new knowledge on children and youth by documenting
some of the primary constraints to sport participation
among middle school students. While previous studies
on middle school students have examined barriers based
upon gender22,24 or SES,26 this is the first large sample
study—to our knowledge—that examined PA barriers/
constraints with multiple sociodemographic constructs
(eg, gender, race/ethnicity, SES, grade level).
Three primary limitations should be acknowledged
when interpreting the results. First, the constraints used in
this study were not exhaustive, so additional constraints
could be explored. Second, while we did ask about prior
sport participation, including activities in and outside of
school, we did not assess nonsport extracurricular activities (eg, clubs, drama, family obligations) which may
relate to the constructs in this study, especially time constraints. Finally, with our sample consisting of students
at middle schools in 1 county in a Southeastern state, the
generalizability of our findings may be limited. Other
researchers are encouraged to explore constraints beyond
those suggested by Crawford and Jackson.20 Future studies should also consider the influence of nonsport leisure
activities that compete for the attention of this age group.
We also encourage other researchers to examine perceptions of constraints in other geographic regions.
However, through identifying specific constraints
associated with sport participation this study may enable
policy-makers and administrators to be more deliberate
in channeling action and resources toward reducing constraints that limit youth sport participation. For example,
developing and expanding partnerships and joint-use
agreements could enhance access to more physical
activity resources creating more opportunities for physical activity through sport and improving accessibility.
In addition, more concerted and coordinated efforts to
market, inform, and reach out to nonsport participants
particularly groups at greater risk for inactivity and obesity (eg, Latinos) merit consideration.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by Active Living Research, The
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
S38 Casper et al
Notes
I. The response rate was calculated by the following formula:
[Total school population – (absent students on day of survey +
students who opted out)] ÷ total school population.
References
1. Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, Masse LC, Tilert T,
McDowell M. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise. 2008;40(1):181–188 1.
2. Trost SG, Pate RR, Dowda M, Ward DS, Felton G,
Saunders R. Psychosocial correlates of physical activity
in white and African-American girls. J Adolesc Health.
2002;31(3):226–233.
3. Gordon-Larsen P. Determinants of adolescent physical activity and inactivity patterns. Pediatrics.
2000;105(6):E83.
4. Katzmarzyk PT, Malina RM. Contribution of organized
sports participation to estimated daily energy expenditure
in youth. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1998;10(4):378–386.
5. Sirard JR, Pfeiffer KA, Pate RR. Motivational factors
associated with sports program participation in middle
school students. J Adolesc Health. 2006;38(6):696–703.
6. Trost SG, Pate RR, Saunders R, Ward DS, Dowda M,
Felton G. A prospective study of the determinants of
physical activity in rural fifth-grade children. Prev Med.
1997;26:257–263.
7. Pfeiffer KA, Dowda M, Dishman RK, et al. Sport participation and physical activity in adolescent females across a
four-year period. J Adolesc Health. 2006;39(4):523–529.
8. Dowda M, Ainsworth BE, Addy CL, Saunders R, Riner
W. Environmental influences, physical activity, and weight
status in 8- to 16-year-olds. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.
2001;155(6):711–717.
9. Green K, Smith A, Roberts K. Young people and lifelong
participation in sport and physical activity: a sociological
perspective on contemporary physical education programmes in England and Wales. Leis Stud. 2005;24:27–43.
10. Kuh DJ, Cooper C. Physical activity at 36 years: patterns
and childhood predictors in a longitudinal study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1992;46(2):114–119.
11. Perkins DF, Jacobs JE, Barber BL, Eccles JS. Childhood
and adolescent sports participation as predictors of participation in sports and physical fitness activities during
young adulthood. Youth Society. 2004;35(4):495–520.
12. Telama R, Yang X, Viikari J, Välimäki I, Wanne O, Raitakari O. Physical activity from childhood to adulthood: A
21-year tracking study. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(3):267–
273.
13. Van Mechelen W, Twisk JWR, Post GB, Snel JAN, Kemper
HCG. Physical activity of young people: the Amsterdam
Longitudinal Growth and Health Study. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2000;32(9):1610–1616.
14. Alfano CM, Klesges RC, Murray DM, Beech BM, McClanahan BS. History of sport participation in relation to
obesity and related health behaviors in women. Prev Med.
2002;34(1):82–89.
15. Taylor WC, Blair SN, Cummings SS, Wun CC, Malina
RM. Childhood and adolescent physical activity patterns and adult physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
1999;31(1):118–123.
16. Casey MM, Eime RM, Payne WR, Harvey JT. Using a
socioecological approach to examine participation in sport
and physical activity among rural adolescent girls. Qual
Health Res. 2009;19(7):881–893.
17. Hedstrom R, Gould D. Research in youth sports: critical
issues status. 2004; http://ed-web3.educ.msu.edu/ysi/
project/CriticalIssuesYouthSports.pdf. Accessed March
23 2007.
18. Jackson EL. Will research on leisure constraints still
be relevant in the twenty-first century? J Leis Res.
2000;32(1):62–68.
19. Crawford DW, Jackson EL, Godbey G. A hierarchical
model of leisure constraints. Leis Sci. 1991;13(4):309–320.
20. Crawford DW, Jackson EL. Leisure constraints theory:
Dimensions, Directions, and Dlimemas. In: Jackson EL,
ed. Constraints to leisure. State College, PA: Venture
Publishing; 2005:153–168.
21. Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC. A review of correlates
of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2000;32(5):963–975.
22. Robbins LB, Talley HC, Wu TY, Wilbur J. Sixth-grade
boys’ perceived benefits of and barriers to physical activity and suggestions for increasing physical activity. J Sch
Nurs. 2010;26(1):65–77.
23. Vu MB, Murrie D, Gonzalez V, Jobe JB. Listening to girls
and boys talk about girls’ physical activity behaviors.
Health Education & Behavior. 2006;33(1):81–96.
24. Robbins LB, Sikorskii A, Hamel LM, Wu TY, Wilbur J.
Gender comparisons of perceived benefits of and barriers to physical activity in middle school youth. Res Nurs
Health. 2009;32(2):163–176.
25. Robbins LB, Pender NJ, Kazanis AS. Barriers to physical
activity perceived by adolescent girls. J Midwifery Womens
Health. 2003;48(3):206–212.
26. Humbert ML, Chad KE, Spink KS, et al. Factors that
influence physical activity participation among high- and
low-ses youth. Qual. Health Res. 2006;16(4):467–483.
27. Hawkins R, Mulkey LM. Athletic investment and academic resilience in a national sample of African American
females and males in the middle grades. Education and
Urban Society. 2005;38(1):62–88.
28. McKenzie TL. Promoting physical activity in youth: focus
on middle school environments. Quest. 2001;53:326–334.
29. Petlichkoff LM. The drop out dilemma in youth sports.
In: Bar O, ed. The child and adolescent athlete: encyclopedia of sports medicine. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific;
1996:418–430.
30. Troiano RP. Physical inactivity among young people. N
Engl J Med. 2002;347(10):706–707.
31. Alexandris K, Carroll B. An analysis of leisure constraints
based on different recreational sport participation levels:
results from a study in Greece. Leis Sci. 1997;19(1):1–15.
32. Alexandris K, Tsorbatzoudis C, Grouios G. Perceived constraints on recreational sport participation: Investigating
their relationship with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation. J Leis Res. 2002;34(3):233–252.
33. Jun J, Kyle GT, Mowen AJ. Market segmentation using
perceived constraints. Journal Park and Recreation Administration. 2009;27(1):35–55.
34. Wilhelm Stanis SA, Schneider IE, Chavez DJ, Shinew KJ.
Visitor constraints to physical activity in park and recreation areas: differences by race and ethnicity. Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration. 2009;27(3):78–95.
35. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New
York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
Constraints to Adolescent Sport Participation S39
36. Cortina JM. What is a coefficient alpha—an examination
of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78(1):98–
104.
37. Godbey GC. Time as a constraint to leisure. In: Jackson
EL, ed. Constraints to leisure. State College, PA: Venture
Publishing; 2005:185–200.
38. Alexandris K, Carroll B. Demographic differences in
the perception of constraints on recreational sport participation: results from a study in Greece. Leis Stud.
1997;16(2):107–125.
39. Raymore LA, Godbey GC, Crawford DW. Self esteem,
gender, and socioeconomic status: their relation to perceptions of constraint on leisure among adolescents. J Leis
Res. 1994;26(2):99–118.
40. Coakley J. Sport and society: issues and controversies.
Boston, MA: McGraw Hill; 2009.
41. Anderssen N. B. W. Parental and peer influences on leisuretime physical activity in young adolescents. Res Q Exerc
Sport. 1992;63(4):341–348.
42. Hume C, Salmon J, Ball K. Children’s perceptions of
their home and neighborhood environments, and their
association with objectively measured physical activity:
a qualitative and quantitative study. Health Educ. Res.
2005;20(1):1–13.
43. Sallis JF, Conway TL, Prochaska JJ, McKenzie TL,
Marshall SJ, Brown M. The association of school environments with youth physical activity. Am J Public Health.
2001;91(4):618–620.
44. Thompson SM. Mothers taxi: sport and women’s labor.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 1999.
45. Henderson KA, King K. Recreation programming for
adolescent girls: rationale and foundations. Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration. 1998;16(2):1–14.
46. Shaw SM. Gender, leisure, and constraints—towards a
framework for the analysis of women’s leisure. J Leis Res.
1994;26(1):8–22.
47. Shaw SM, Henderson KA. Gender analysis and leisure
constraints: An uneasy alliance. In: Jackson EL, ed. Constraints to leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing;
2005:23–34.
48. Abercrombie LC, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Frank LD, Saelens
BE, Chapman JE. Income and racial disparities in access
to public parks and private recreation facilities. Am J Prev
Med. 2008;34(1):9–15.
49. McCullagh P, Matzkanin KT, Shaw SD, Maldonado M.
Motivation for participation in physical activity. Pediatr
Exerc Sci. 1993;5:224–233.
50. Rodriguez D, Wigfield A, Eccles JS. Changing competence
perceptions, changing values: implications for youth sport.
J Appl Sport Psychol. 2003;15(1):67–81.
51. Wong EH, Bridges LJ. A model of motivational orientation
in the youth sport: some preliminary work. Adolescence.
1995;30(118):437.
52. Woodward-Lopez G, Flores G. Obesity in Latino communities: prevention, principles, and action. Sacramento,
CA: University of California Berkeley; 2006.
53. Coakley J. The good father: parental expectations and
youth sports. Leis Stud. 2006;25:153–163.
54. Scott D. Tic, toc, the game is locked and nobody else can
play! J Leis Res. 2000;32(1):133–137.