Method (continue) Acknowledgements References Caillois, R. (1961). Man, play, and games. New York, NY: Free Press. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2008). Make a difference at your school. Retrieved on Jan 11, 2011, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009). Obesity prevalence among low- income, preschool-aged children-United States, Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 58(28), Retrieved on Feb 13, 2011, Hancox, R. J. & Poulton, R. (2006). Watching television is associated with childhood obesity: But is it clinically important? International Journal of Obesity, 30, Development and Validation of a Physical Activity Games Playability Scale (PAGPS) Eng Wah, Teo¹ ² & Weimo, Zhu² (FACSM) ¹ University of Malaya, Malaysia; ² University of Champaign, Urbana- Champaign, IL Results Introduction Children’s interest and participation rates in daily physical education (PE) declines with age (CDC, 2008). In contrast, engagement time on sedentary activities e.g., watching television and computer gaming is on the rise (CDC, 2009; Hancox & Poulton, 2006). In line with goal to reduce childhood obesity and promotion of active lifestyle; the reintroduction of fun physical activity (PA) games could hold the key to achieving this goal. Caillois (1961) suggested that PA games could lead to better health, fun, enjoyment, relaxation and a chance to develop skills. Even though children’s PA games (e.g., playground games, street games, party games, or traditional games) have long been incorporated into PE classes and other recreational settings, little work has focused on how to select fun and interesting PA games. Purpose 1.Define major elements and factors of PA games; 2.Develop the Physical Activity Game Playability Scale (PAGPS) based upon the heuristics evaluation playability approach; 3.Evaluate and validate the proposed PAGPS on existing PA games in MalaysiaMethod Four groups of samples namely PA panel experts (n=5), PE teachers (n=200), school children (n=60), and raters (n=10) plus 10 PA children games were used to develop and later validate the PAGPS scale. Informed consent were collected and ethics approval was obtained from the ethics boards of University of Illinois (UIUC) and further approval was also garner from the Prime Minister Department of Malaysia. Discussion & Conclusions Internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) from , correlation between reduced version and original version is 0.98, inter-rater reliability ranges from.71 to.91, P-coefficient ranges from.15 to 1.00 and K-co-efficient ranges from to Good content validity, internal structure reliability, interater reliability showed a valid and reliable tool for rating PA games. Data collected will be useful to evaluate and understand traditional and PA games still commonly played during recess or playtime. The future plan for this study is to develop a website for PAGPS so that data can be collected online. The PAGPS website will stored useful information e.g., skills, level of difficulty of each game and made available to PE teachers and school administrators. The creation of PAGPS website will hopefully assist PE teachers in choosing fun and interesting PA games in accordance to one’s weekly or monthly PA skills adoption and in the process foster a more active lifestyle among school children. Procedure: 1. PAGPS Development Stage Five panel experts were recruited to draft and develop the content of PAGPS. Ten component were identified with a total of 116 questions. Two hundred PE teachers answered all 116 questions online via SurveyGizmo and provided feedback on the suitability of each item. Data Analyses PCA analysis was used to reduced the items to 10 subscales (Table 1). Item Reduction method i.e., RASCH analysis was used to reduce the items to 4 versions. 51-item, 36-item, 28-item, and 20-item versions (Table 2). Correlation between 4 different version of PAGPS (i.e., 51, 36, 28, & 21-item) were computed. Descriptive statistics (μ ± SD) of PE teachers ± 6.75 years and teaching experience 8.30 ± 5.63 years. 2. PAGPS Validation Stage Sixty children played 10 games, namely One-Leg, Kali-Tui, Blind man’s Bluff, Eagle and Hen, Hopscotch, Simon Says, Duck Duck Goose, Hide-and-Seek, Monkey in the Middle, and Mr. Wolf. Their “playing experience” were video recorded. Ten raters were recruited from the earlier 200 PE teachers rated the videos. Data Analyses Descriptive statistics of raters (μ ± SD) were computed ± 8.07 years and rating experience 4.2 ± 5.07 years. Interater reliability evidence were collected from the 10 raters who each rated all the videos (Table 3). Discriminant evidence (P and K coefficient) were collected. Participants Table 1: Summary of PCA analysis Table 2: Summary of RASCH analysis Table 3: Inter-rater reliability