project 6cards.pyimport randomclass Card( object ).docx

project 6/cards.py
import random
class Card( object ):
""" Model a playing card. """
# Rank is an integer (1-13), where aces are 1 and kings are
13.
# Suit is an integer (1-4), where clubs are 1 and spades are 4.
# Value is an integer (1-10), where aces are 1 and face cards
are 10.
# List to map integer rank to printable character (index 0
used for no rank)
rank_list = ['x','A','2','3','4','5','6','7','8','9','10','J','Q','K']
# List to map integer suit to printable character (index 0 used
for no suit)

# The commented-out list prints symbols rather than
characters. You may use either.
suit_list = ['x','c','d','h','s']
#suit_list = ['x',u'u2660',u'u2665',u'u2666',u'u2663']
def __init__( self, rank=0, suit=0 ):
""" Initialize card to specified rank (1-13) and suit (1-4).
"""
self.__rank = 0
self.__suit = 0
# Verify that rank and suit are integers and that they are
within
# range (1-13 and 1-4), then update instance variables if
valid.
if type(rank) == int and type(suit) == int:
if rank in range(1,14) and suit in range(1,5):
self.__rank = rank
self.__suit = suit
def rank( self ):

""" Return card's rank (1-13). """
return self.__rank
def value( self ):
""" Return card's value (1 for aces, 2-9, 10 for face cards).
"""
# Use ternary expression to determine value.
return self.__rank if self.__rank < 10 else 10
def suit( self ):
""" Return card's suit (1-4). """
return self.__suit
def __eq__( self, other ):
""" Return True if ranks are equal. """
return self.__rank == other.__rank
def __ne__( self, other ):
""" Return True if ranks are not equal. """

return self.__rank != other.__rank
def __le__( self, other ):
""" Return True if rank of self <= rank of other. """
return self.rank() <= other.rank()
def __lt__( self, other ):
""" Return True if rank of self < rank of other. """
return self.rank() < other.rank()
def __ge__( self, other ):
""" Return True if rank of self >= rank of other. """
return self.rank() >= other.rank()
def __gt__( self, other ):
""" Return True if rank of self > rank of other. """
return self.rank() > other.rank()

def __str__( self ):
""" Convert card into a string (usually for printing). """
# Use rank to index into rank_list; use suit to index into
suit_list.
return "{}{}".format( (self.rank_list)[self.__rank],
(self.suit_list)[self.__suit] )
def __repr__( self ):
""" Convert card into a string for use in the shell. """
return self.__str__()
class Deck( object ):
""" Model a deck of 52 playing cards. """
# Implement the deck as a list of cards. The last card in the
list is
# defined to be at the top of the deck.
def __init__( self ):

""" Initialize deck (Ace of clubs on bottom, King of
spades on top). """
self.__deck = [Card(r,s) for s in range(1,5) for r in
range(1,14)]
def shuffle( self ):
""" Shuffle deck using shuffle method in random module.
"""
random.shuffle(self.__deck)
def deal( self ):
""" Return top card from deck (return None if deck
empty). """
# Use ternary expression to guard against empty deck.
return self.__deck.pop() if len(self.__deck) else None
def is_empty( self ):
""" Return true if deck is empty. """
return len(self.__deck) == 0

def __len__( self ):
""" Return number of cards remaining in deck. """
return len(self.__deck)
def __str__( self ):
""" Return string representing deck (usually for printing).
"""
return ", ".join([str(card) for card in self.__deck])
def __repr__( self ):
""" Return string representing deck (for use in shell). """
return self.__str__()
def display( self, cols=13 ):
""" Column-oriented display of deck. """
for index, card in enumerate(self.__deck):
if index%cols == 0:
print()
print("{:3s} ".format(str(card)), end="" )

print()
print()
project 6/cardsDemo.py
import cards
''' The basic process is this:
1) You create a Deck instance, which is filled (automatically)
with 52 Card instances
2) You can deal those cards out of the deck into hands, each
hand a list of cards
3) You then manipulate cards as you add/remove them from a
hand
'''
my_deck = cards.Deck()
print("======messy print a deck=====")
print(my_deck)
print("======pretty print a deck=====")
my_deck.pretty_print()
my_deck.shuffle()
print("======shuffled deck=====")
my_deck.pretty_print()
a_card = my_deck.deal()
print("Dealt card is:",a_card)
print('How many cards left:',my_deck.cards_count())
print("Is the deck empty?",my_deck.is_empty())

# deal some hands and print
hand1_list=[]
hand2_list=[]
for i in range(5):
hand1_list.append(my_deck.deal())
print("nHand 1:", hand1_list)
print("Hand 2:", hand2_list)
print()
# take the last card dealt out of each hand
last_card_hand1 = hand1_list.pop()
print("Hand1 threw down",last_card_hand1, ", Hand2 threw
down", last_card_hand2)
print("Hands are now:",hand1_list, hand2_list)
# check the compares
if last_card_hand1.equal_rank(last_card_hand2):
print(last_card_hand1, last_card_hand2, "of equal rank")
elif last_card_hand1.get_rank() > last_card_hand2.get_rank():
print(last_card_hand1, "of higher rank
than",last_card_hand2)
else:
if last_card_hand1.equal_value(last_card_hand2):
print(last_card_hand1, last_card_hand2, "of equal value")
elif last_card_hand1.get_value() > last_card_hand2.get_value():
print(last_card_hand1, "of higher value
else:

if last_card_hand1.equal_suit(last_card_hand2):
print(last_card_hand1,'of equal suit with',last_card_hand2)
else:
print(last_card_hand1,'of different suit
than',last_card_hand2)
# a foundation, a list of lists. 4 columns in this example
foundation_list = [[],[],[],[]]
column = 0
while not my_deck.is_empty():
foundation_list[column].append(my_deck.deal())
column += 1
if column % 4 == 0:
column = 0
for i in range(4):
print("foundation",i,foundation_list[i])
project 6/cardsDemo_updated.py
import cards
''' The basic process is this:
1) You create a Deck instance, which is filled (automatically)
with 52 Card instances
2) You can deal those cards out of the deck into hands, each
hand a list of cards
3) You then manipulate cards as you add/remove them from a
hand
'''
my_deck = cards.Deck()
print("======messy print a deck=====")
print(my_deck)
print("======pretty print a deck=====")

my_deck.display()
my_deck.shuffle()
print("======shuffled deck=====")
my_deck.display()
a_card = my_deck.deal()
print("Dealt card is:",a_card)
print('How many cards left:',len(my_deck))
print("Is the deck empty?",my_deck.is_empty())
# deal some hands and print
hand1_list=[]
hand2_list=[]
for i in range(5):
print("nHand 1:", hand1_list)
print("Hand 2:", hand2_list)
print()
# take the last card dealt out of each hand
print("Hand1 threw down",last_card_hand1, ", Hand2 threw
down", last_card_hand2)
print("Hands are now:",hand1_list, hand2_list)
# check the compares
if last_card_hand1 == last_card_hand2:
print(last_card_hand1, last_card_hand2, "of equal rank")
elif last_card_hand1 > last_card_hand2:

else:
if last_card_hand1.value() == last_card_hand2.value():
print(last_card_hand1, last_card_hand2, "of equal value")
elif last_card_hand1.value() > last_card_hand2.value():
else:
if last_card_hand1.suit() == last_card_hand2.suit():
print(last_card_hand1,'of equal suit with',last_card_hand2)
else:
print(last_card_hand1,'of different suit
than',last_card_hand2)
# a foundation, a list of lists. 4 columns in this example
foundation_list = [[],[],[],[]]
column = 0
while not my_deck.is_empty():
foundation_list[column].append(my_deck.deal())
column += 1
if column % 4 == 0:
column = 0
for i in range(4):
print("foundation",i,foundation_list[i])
project 6/project06.pdf

CSE 231 Summer 2016
Programming Project #6
Assignment Overview
This assignment focuses on the design, implementation and
testing of a Python program which uses
classes to solve the problem described below. Note: you are
using a class we provide; you are not
designing a class.
It is worth 95 points (9.5% of course grade) and must be
completed no later than 11:59 PM on
Monday, June 27.
Assignment Deliverable
The deliverable for this assignment is the following file:
proj06.py – the source code for your Python program
Be sure to use the specified file name and to submit it for
grading via the handin system before
the project deadline.
Assignment Background
The goal of this project is to gain practice with use of classes
and creating functions. You will design
and implement a Python program which plays simplified Texas
Hold’em Poker.
The program should deal two cards to two players (one card to

each player, then a second card to each
player), and then five community cards which players share to
make their hands. A poker hand is the
best five cards from the community cards plus the player’s
cards (i.e., best 5 out of 7 cards total). The
goal of this assignment is to find the category of each player’s
hand and determine the winner.
The rules of this game are relatively simple and you can find
information about the game and about the
poker hands in the links below. Keep in mind that you will only
find the category of the hands and all
nine cards can be dealt at once (a real poker game deals cards in
stages to allow for betting, but we
aren’t betting).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_holdem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_hands
The categories in order from lowest to highest are: High card, 1
pair, 2 pair, 3 of a kind, straight, flush,
full house, 4 of a kind, straight flush.
You will not find a player’s hand’s value, but just the category
of the hand.
It is a tie if both players have hands in the same category. That
is, if both of them have straights, it is
considered a tie no matter who has the higher straight.
Our game is simplified in two ways:

1. We only compare categories to determine the winner, not the
value of the hands. For example,
in a real poker game the winner of hands with exactly one pair
would be determined by which
pair had the highest card rank. That is, a pair of 10s wins over
a pair of 3s. In our game, two
hands with exactly one pair is considered a tie with no
consideration given to the card ranks.
2. The Card class ranks an Ace as the lowest card in a suit;
whereas traditional poker ranks an Ace
as highest. For simplicity, we will keep Aces as the lowest
ranked card because we are only
comparing categories not values. In particular, the cards 10h,
Jh, Qh, Kh, Ah are not considered
to make a straight in our game (they would under normal poker
rules).
Assignment Specifications
1. Your program will use the Card and Deck classes found in
the file named cards.py. You may
not modify the contents of that file: we will test your project
using our copy of cards.py. We
have included a cardsDemo.py program to illustrate how to use
the Card and Deck classes.
2. Your program will be subdivided into meaningful functions.
Use a function for each category

(except that “high-card” doesn’t need a function). See hints
below.
3. Your program will display each player’s dealt cards, the
community cards, and announce the
winner of the hand. Also, your program will display the
winning combination (or either of the
winning combinations, if a tie) as well as the category of the
winning hand (see sample output
below). For example, if the winning combination is “four-of-a-
kind”, those four cards will be
displayed; the fifth card in the hand will not be displayed. The
display will be appropriately
labeled and formatted.
4. After each run, the program will prompt the user if they want
to see another hand: “do you want
to continue: y or n”. The program should continue if user enters
“y” or “Y”; otherwise, the
program should halt. Also, if there are fewer than 9 cards left
in the deck, the program should
halt. Do not shuffle between hands; only shuffle at the
beginning of the program.
5. Using dictionaries in this assignment is very useful as you
can find how many cards have the
same suit, or how many of them have the same rank. Most of
my functions used a dictionary
that had rank as the key, so I created a separate function to
build such a dictionary from a hand.

Hints
1. There are 9 categories of hands. For each category (except
high-card), I wrote a function that
would take as an argument a list of 7 cards and return either a
sub-list of cards that satisfied that
category or an empty list. That design let me use the functions
in Boolean expressions since an
empty list evaluates to False whereas a non-empty list evaluates
to True. Returning a list of
cards also allowed me to use functions within functions, e.g., a
straight flush must be a flush.
Returning a list of cards also made testing easier because I
could see not only that the function
had found a combination of that type, but I also could easily
check that it was correct. By the
way, the function to find a straight was the hardest function to
write.
2. Finding a winner is simple: start with the highest category
and work your way down the
categories in a cascade of “if” and “elif” statements. The result
is a long, but repetitive structure.
(You do not need to check all possible combinations of hands
because you are only trying to find
the highest category that a hand fits.)
3. Think strategically for testing. Custom build a set of hands
for testing by creating particular

cards, e.g. H1 = [5c, 2c, 5h, 4s, 3d, 2h, 5d] can be used to test
for a full house (I had to create
each card first, e.g. c1 = cards.Card(5,1) to create the 5c card in
H1. It took many lines
to create the testing hands, but once built they proved useful.)
Test each category function
separately using the custom hands you created for testing. For
example,
result = full_house(H1) should yield a result [5c, 5h, 5d, 2c,
2h].
4. I found dictionaries useful within functions. Sometimes
using the rank as key worked best; other
times using the suit as key was best.
5. In order for sort() and sorted() to work on any data type the
less-than operation must be defined.
That operation is not defined in the Cards class so neither sort()
nor sorted() work on Cards. (We
tried to make the Cards class as generic as possible to work
with a wide variety of card games,
and the ordering of cards considering both rank and suit varies
across card games.)
Sample Output
(Note that this output uses the default suit_list from cards.py:
suit_list = ['x','c','d','h','s'] )
----------------------------------------
Let's play poker!
Community cards: [9d, 3d, 6s, 2s, 2d]

Player 1: [4h, 5c]
Player 2: [9c, 5h]
Player 1 wins with a straight: [2s, 3d, 4h, 5c, 6s]
Do you wish to play another hand?(Y or N) y
----------------------------------------
Let's play poker!
Community cards: [Ks, 6d, Kc, 5s, 9h]
Player 1: [4c, 10s]
Player 2: [7s, Qc]
TIE with one pair: [Ks, Kc]
----------------------------------------
Let's play poker!
Community cards: [Jc, 8h, Jd, Js, 3c]
Player 1: [3h, 4d]
Player 2: [As, 7c]
Player 1 wins with a full house: [Jc, Jd, Js, 3h, 3c]
----------------------------------------
Let's play poker!
Community cards: [Qs, 4s, 8d, 2h, Qd]
Player 1: [7d, 6c]
Player 2: [2c, 8s]

Player 2 wins with two pairs: [8s, 8d, 2c, 2h]
----------------------------------------
Let's play poker!
Community cards: [10h, 7h, 10d, Kh, Ah]
Player 1: [9s, Ad]
Player 2: [Ac, 3s]
TIE with two pairs: [10h, 10d, Ad, Ah]
Deck has too few cards so game is done.
lable at ScienceDirect
Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 490e499
Contents lists avai
Psychology of Sport and Exercise
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport
Benefits and challenges associated with sport participation by
children
and parents from low-income families
Nicholas L. Holt*, Bethan C. Kingsley, Lisa N. Tink, Jay
Scherer
Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H9, Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 14 June 2010
Received in revised form

23 March 2011
Accepted 17 May 2011
Available online 2 June 2011
Keywords:
Sport psychology and leisure
Developmental benefits
Barriers
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], nicholas.h
1469-0292/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.05.007
a b s t r a c t
Objectives: The first purpose of this study was to examine low-
income parents’ and their children’s
perceptions of the benefits associated with participation in
youth sport. The second purpose was to examine
parents’ perceptions of the challenges associated with providing
their children sporting opportunities.
Design: Interpretive Description qualitative approach (Thorne,
2008).
Methods: Thirty-five individual interviews were conducted with
parents and children from 17 low-
income families. Data were transcribed and subjected to
interpretive description analytic techniques.
Results: Analysis produced three main findings: (1) Parents and
children reported that sport participation
was associated with a range of personal and social
developmental benefits; (2) Parents reported that
several remaining barriers and constraints restricted the extent
to which their children could engage in
sport and gain sustained developmental benefits; and, (3)
Parents offered several possible solutions to
the problem of engaging their children in sport.

Conclusions: Findings demonstrate the value and importance of
providing sport to children from low-
income families, but highlight that increased efforts are needed
to overcome remaining barriers and
sustain long-term participation and benefits.
� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The popular view that ‘sport builds character’ has been widely
criticized (e.g., Fullinwinder, 2006). Indeed, sport participation
has
been associated with negative issues such as adults modeling
inappropriate behaviors (Hansen, Larson, & Dworkin, 2003),
the
misuse of alcohol (O’Brien, Blackie, & Hunter, 2005; Wechsler,
Davenport, Dowdall, Grossman, & Zanakos, 1997), engagement
in
delinquent behaviors (Begg, Langley, Moffit, & Marshall,
1996), and
use of illegal drugs (Peretti-Watel et al., 2003). However, sport
participation has been correlated with numerous positive devel-
opmental indicators, including improved self-esteem, emotional
regulation, problem-solving, goal attainment, social skills, and
academic performance (e.g., Barber, Eccles, & Stone, 2001;
Eccles,
Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003; Marsh & Kleitman, 2003;
Richman &
Shaffer, 2000). Although, researchers generally agree that when
sport is delivered in appropriate ways it can promote healthy
development (Holt, 2008), there is a need for more evidence
about
the developmental benefits of sport participation, especially for
youth from low-income families.
Sport participation can also increase levels of physical activity
among children and adolescents. This is important because the
[email protected] (N.L. Holt).

All rights reserved.
majority of youth from developed countries are physically
inactive
(Janssen et al., 2005). In Canada (the country in which the
current
study was conducted), a recent nationally representative study
of
6e19 year-olds demonstrated that only 9% of boys and 4% of
girls
accumulated the recommended 60 min of moderate-to-vigorous
physical activity on at least 6 days a week (Colley et al., 2011).
However, children and adolescents who participate in sport
accu-
mulate more steps-per-day and are more likely to meet the
physical
activity guidelines than non-participants (Active Healthy Kids
Canada, 2009).
Unfortunately, evidence shows that sport participation has
declined. For example, data from national surveys have shown
that
sport participation declined from 77% to 59% among Canadian
youth aged 15e18 years and from 57% to 51% for children aged
5e14
years between 1992 and 2005 (Ifedi, 2008). Sport participation
was
most prevalent among children from high-income households
(68%) and lowest among children from lower income
households,
at 44% (Clarke, 2008). Predictably, these studies found
financial
barriers were a major factor that restricted sport participation
among children from the low-income families. Furthermore,
chil-
dren and adolescents from low-income neighborhoods have

restricted access to sport/leisure facilities (Gordon-Larsen,
McMurray, & Popkin, 2000) and perceived safety concerns limit
their access to neighborhood play areas (Carver, Timperio, &
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14690292
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.05.007
1 In Canada there are several agencies that provide funding for
children’s sport
registration costs. These organizations include KidSport,
Canadian Tire Jumpstart,
True Sport Foundation, Everybody Gets to Play, and the Wayne
Gretzky Foundation.
N.L. Holt et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011)
490e499 491
Crawford, 2008; Holt, Cunningham, et al., 2009). A study of
160
Canadian youth aged 12e18 years from high and low Socio
Economic Status (SES) families showed that for low-SES youth
there was a need for additional planned and adult-supervised
activities (which could included sport programs) to increase
physical activity levels (Humbert et al., 2006). Humbert et al.
also
recommended that the accessibility of physical activity/sport
programs must be improved in low-SES areas. Hence, it is
impor-
tant to find ways to promote physical activity and, more
specifically
for the current study, sport participation among children from

low-
income families.
Clearly there are numerous unresolved issues pertaining to
sport participation among children from low-income families.
Although researchers have created instructional sport-based
programs designed to promote physical activity (e.g., Walker,
Caine-Bush, & Wait, 2009) and foster life skills (e.g., Hellison,
Martinek, & Walsh, 2008) among low-income youth, there is an
important distinction to be made between specific instructional
programs (usually delivered free-of-charge to a select group of
youth during- or after-school) versus ‘everyday’ mainstream
sport
programs (e.g., school teams, youth leagues) that cater to a
range of
youth and assess registration/participation fees (Holt, 2008).
There
remains a knowledge gap when it comes to understanding the
benefits and challenges experienced by families who receive
funding for children to participate in such everyday/mainstream
sport programs. This knowledge gap is likely due to a
fundamental
obstacle researchers face; namely gaining access to families in
the
lowest-income brackets who actually have children involved in
sport. It is difficult to engage these lowest-income families
because
of the obvious reason that financial barriers constrain their chil-
dren’s sport participation in the first place.
The current study
Organized sport participation in Canada is complex due to the
vast geographical size of the country and differences in sport
delivery among the 13 provinces/territories. Nonetheless, it
could

be argued that government funding primarily supports elite
sport.
Over the last three (winter) Olympic quadrennials Sport Canada
invested over $235 million (Cnd) to facilitate elite performance
and
success (http://www.canada2010.gc.ca/mmedia/kits/fch-9-eng.
cfm). Furthermore, in conjunction with the 2010 Vancouver
Olympic Games, the federal government invested almost $19
million (Cnd) in the “Own the Podium” program with the vision
of
making Canada a world leader in the area of high performance
sport (http://www.ownthepodium 2010.com). However, there is
a lack of federal investment in the subsidization of sport for
low-
income youth.
Each province/territory has the autonomy to provide and
support sport participation in different ways. Some provincial
governments (e.g., Nova Scotia) provide more direct youth sport
funding than others (e.g., Alberta). In Alberta (the province in
which the current study was conducted), federal and provincial
government subsidization of youth programs is negligible. This
is
reflected by the costs associated with various types of sport
programs. For example, athletes (or more specifically, their
parents) are often required to pay registration fees even for
school
sport programs. High schools in Edmonton, Alberta (the city in
which this study was conducted) assess fees in the range of
$400e$450 per season for a ‘major’ sports (football, basketball,
volleyball), $150e$200 for sports like handball and soccer, and
$50
for ‘minor’ sports such as badminton, cross-country, and
rowing.
These fees cover out of town travel, team fees for competitions,
team meals, and clothing. Although some schools charge lower

amounts (and try to facilitate participation for low-income
children), normally parents are required to pay fees for school
sport participation.
Although school sport remains important, club sport is the main
vehicle through which Canadian children participate (Kremarik,
2000). In Edmonton, average club sport registration fees for
a single season (excluding equipment costs, tournament fees, or
travel) funded by the non-profit agency we partnered with to
recruit participants were as follows: indoor [winter] soccer
($200),
outdoor [summer] soccer ($85), hockey ($500), baseball ($180),
and
track and field ($300). At a national level, research has shown
that
two-parent Canadian households spent an average of $579 on
sport
registration fees and equipment in 2005 (Clarke, 2008). In
addition
to these fee/equipment expenses, families may have also spent
additional money on facility rentals, transportation to sports
events, and tournament entry fees that were not accounted for in
the 2005 survey. It is not uncommon for children to play with
both
a school and club sport team simultaneously. This system
clearly
places a large financial burden on parents being able to pay
sport
fees. In light of such costs, it is not surprising that sport
participa-
tion is lowest among children from lower income households
(Clarke, 2008).
As a result of the that financial barriers primarily restrict sport
participation for children from low-income Canadian families
(Clarke, 2008; Ifedi, 2008; Kremarik, 2000), and the lack of

government sponsorship, a number of non-profit organizations
have been created to provide direct funding to facilitate their
sport
participation.1 But, to the best of our knowledge, no studies
have
specifically examined issues associated with sport participation
among families who have received such funding. We accessed
these ‘hard-to-reach’ families by partnering with one non-profit
organization. This organization provides funding to families in
the lowest-income bracket to enable their children to participate
in
sport. Therefore, an exploratory study was conducted. The first
purpose of this study was to examine low-income parents’ and
their children’s perceptions of the benefits associated with
partic-
ipation in youth sport. The second purpose was to examine
parents’
perceptions of the challenges associated with providing their
children sporting opportunities. We wanted to establish how
personal and contextual factors combined to influence sport
participation and any potential developmental and health
benefits
children could gain.
Conceptual context
Given the novel and exploratory aspects of this study we were
neither testing nor guided by one specific theory. Rather, our
conceptual context was underpinned by principles from select
developmental theories. We broadly approached the study from
developmental theories based on the ecological systems
perspec-
tive (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).
One
aspect of the ecological systems perspective involves examining
personal interactions with features of the social environment
(known as ecological systems). People interact with several

different levels of human ecological systems, ranging from
more
proximal microsystems to more distal macrosystems.
Microsystems,
the most proximal human ecological system, are considered to
be
the patterned activities, roles, and interpersonal relations a
person
experiences in a setting. Behaviors in microsystems are
influenced
by more distal levels of human ecology, such as macrosystems
of
public policy, governments, and economic systems. Various
types
http://www.canada2010.gc.ca/mmedia/kits/fch-9-eng.cfm
http://www.canada2010.gc.ca/mmedia/kits/fch-9-eng.cfm
http://www.ownthepodium
http://2010.com
2 The definition of sport used was based on the Canadian
Government’s defini-
tion of sport, which is: “Sport is a regulated form of physical
activity organized as
a contest between two or more participants for the purpose of
determining
a winner by fair and ethical means. Such contest may be in the
form of a game,
match, race, or other form of competitive event”
(http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/sc/
pgm/cfrs/sfafelig10-eng.cfm).
490e499492
of ecological approaches have been successfully used to

examine
aspects of physical activity participation among low-income
youth
(e.g., Casey, Eime, Payne, & Harvey, 2009; Holt, Cunningham,
et al.,
2009). Similarly, Strachan, Côté, and Deakin (2009) used an
ecological approach to examine developmental assets associated
with youth sport involvement. They found three particular
assets
(positive identity, empowerment, and support) were important
to
focus on in youth sport programs to decrease burnout symptoms
and enhance children’s enjoyment. Hence, ecological models
may
be useful for studying PA and youth sport participation. For the
current study, we were interested in identifying proximal issues
(e.g., relating to the benefits of sport for low-income children)
and
distal issues (e.g., relating to broader funding and policy
contexts),
which represent advances beyond previous research.
Ecological systems theory also underpins conceptualizations of
Positive Youth Development (PYD). PYD does not refer to a
singular
theory but rather a range of approaches that share the
assumption
children are ‘resources to be developed’ rather than ‘problems
to be
solved’ (Roth, Brooks-Gunn, Murrary, & Foster, 1998). PYD is
therefore a strength-based approach, and proponents view all
young people as having the potential for positive developmental
change (Eccles & Gootman, 2002).
Most conceptualizations of PYD are historically grounded in an
ecological systems perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Lerner,

2002). For example, developmental systems theory emphasizes
the idea that systemic dynamics of individual-context relations
provide the bases of behavior and developmental change
(Lerner,
2002). One important idea is the concept of relative plasticity,
which is the potential for systematic change across the lifespan.
More specifically, the concept of relative plasticity “legitimates
a proactive search in adolescence for the characteristics of
youth
and their contexts that, together, can influence the design of
poli-
cies and programs promoting positive development” (Lerner &
Castellino, 2002, p. 124). The potential for change lies in
relations
that exist among multiple levels or contexts that range from the
individual psychological level to proximal social relationships
(i.e.,
families, peers) to sociocultural levels (including
macroinstitutions
such as policy, governmental, and economic systems). Hence,
the
target of developmental analysis should be on the ways in which
different components of a system are in relation and how they
may
influence individuals. Applying this concept to sport, it may be
possible to identify factors at different ecological levels or
contexts
(i.e., family, community, policy) that can be aligned to promote
positive development for children from low-income families.
There are several specific theories of under the umbrella of
PYD,
including the interpersonal domains of learning experiences
(Larson, Hansen, & Moneta, 2006), the ‘5Cs’ measurement
model
(Lerner et al., 2005), and the developmental assets framework

(Leffert et al.,1998). In designing the current study, we were
open to
the possibility that some of these theoretical approaches to PYD
may have been useful for guiding elements of the analysis.
However, we did not select a particular approach a priori.
Rather,
due to the novel and exploratory aspects of the study, we
‘followed
the data’ and used theory selectively to help advance
interpretive
analysis (Sandelowski, 1993; Thorne, 2008). Therefore, the
study
was generally approached from an ecological developmental
systems perspective (Lerner, 2002) rather than a specific
concep-
tualization or way to measure PYD.
Method
Interpretive Description Methodology
We used Interpretive Description (ID) methodology, which is
a qualitative approach for generating grounded knowledge in
applied research settings (Thorne, 2008). Interpretation is
informed
philosophically by ontological perspectives of multiple realities
and
epistemologically that knowledge is socially constructed by the
person who experiences events. Thus, ID research focuses on
understanding experience and accounting for social forces that
may
have shaped the experience. ID is particularly useful for studies
that
seek to examine patterned relationships between personal and
contextual issues and was therefore an appropriate
methodological

selection for this study.
Sampling and recruitment
Purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants for this
study. Sampling criteria were established a priori and used to
identify those individuals who would be able to provide the best
information in response to the research purposes. For the
current
study the main sampling criteria were that families must be of
lowest SES bracket and had received funding to pay sport regis-
tration fees for a child in the past 12 months.2 Low SES was
based
on Federal Low Income Cut-Offs (LICOs) for before-tax
earnings by
family size and population of area of residence (Statistics
Canada,
2009). LICOs are Statistics Canada’s most established and
widely
recognized approach to estimating low income. LICO is an
income
threshold below which a family will likely devote 20% or more
of
its income on the necessities of food, shelter, and clothing than
the
average family. In 2007/08, the before-tax LICO in the city of
Edmonton for a family of two adults and two children was a
total
household income of $27,601. For purposes of comparison, the
city-wide mean family income for 2006 was $72,800 (City of
Edmonton, nd).
Families were recruited with the assistance of a non-profit
charitable organization that provides funding to pay sport regis-
tration fees for children from low-income families. Eligible
families
receive funding (paid directly to sport organizations) to

a maximum of $250 per child per season. LICO is a measure
used by
this organization for the provision of funding; therefore, all
families
funded would meet our sampling criteria as being from the
lowest
SES bracket. A part-time employee from the non-profit
organiza-
tion mailed recruitment letters to 200 families who had received
funding in the previous 12 months. Interested participants con-
tacted the research team via telephone or e-mail and a
convenient
time and location for interviewing was arranged. Participation
was
voluntary and not a condition of funding. Research Ethics Board
approval was obtained. Parents provided written informed
consent
for themselves and their children. Children provided oral assent.
Participants received a $40 gift certificate (one per family) for
a grocery store of their choice.
Participants
Data were collected from 35 parents and children representing
a total of 17 families (the response rate was 8.5%). The sample
comprised 17 parents (15 mothers, 2 fathers; M age ¼ 44.5
years,
SD ¼ 7.9) and 18 children (7 females, 11 males, M age ¼ 12.5
years,
SD ¼ 2.5). Participants’ regions of origin were Canada (n ¼
10),
Eastern Europe (n ¼ 3), Asia (n ¼ 2), Africa (n ¼ 1), and the
Middle
East, (n ¼ 1). Of the families who originated from Canada,
three self-
http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/sc/pgm/cfrs/sfafelig10-eng.cfm

http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/sc/pgm/cfrs/sfafelig10-eng.cfm
490e499 493
reported being Métis. As per the sampling criteria, all families
were
low-income based on LICOs.
Data collection
Data were collected via a total of 35 individual interviews con-
ducted by two trained researchers. Interviews were completed in
separate rooms in the participants’ homes or at the university.
One
researcher interviewed the parent while the second researcher
interviewed the child. A semi-structured interview approach was
used e that is, questions were based around an interview guide
but
the researchers were careful to follow the participant’s lead. For
example, following a warm-up period and some rapport building
questions, parents were asked questions about their children’s
sport participation in general (e.g., How long has your son or
daughter been playing [chosen sport]? Are there any other
sports
that he/she plays? What are your personal experiences of your
son/
daughter’s involvement in sport? What is it you like best about
your son/daughter’s involvement in sport?), obstacles and chal-
lenges to sport participation (e.g., Have there been any times
when
your son/daughter wanted to play sport and wasn’t able to?
[Probe
for examples]. Is there anything you feel has prevented his/her
development as an athlete? If possible, what would you change
so

he/she could play more sport?) and, benefits associated with
sport
(e.g., Can you give me any examples of personal or social skills
you
think your son/daughter may have learned in sport? What is it
about playing sport that you think has helped him/her to learn
these skills?). At the end of the interview we also asked some
questions about the parents’ views about the process of
obtaining
funding from the non-profit organization that assisted us with
the
recruitment. The children’s interview guide focused on their
sport
experiences and benefits they associated with sport rather than
barriers their families faced.
Data analysis
Interviews were transcribed (within approximately one week of
the interview) by a professional transcribing service and
checked
with the original recordings to ensure accuracy. Prior to the
formal
coding of the transcripts the researchers discussed their initial
thoughts about findings by debriefing following interviews.
More
formal coding commenced as soon as transcripts were received
and
there was interaction between data collection and analysis. Data
provided by parents were analyzed first because they provided
the
more detailed accounts upon which to create the coding schema.
Initially two researchers read through the transcripts from the
first
five parents and used content analysis to identify specific
themes.

Essentially this step was the deconstruction of all data obtained
and
it produced a long list of all themes. A rule of inclusion was
written
for each theme, which is a description of the meaning of the
theme
and the data contained therein. The same procedures were then
applied to the parents’ and children’s transcripts independently.
All
remaining transcripts were coded and the initial themes were
broadly organized in terms of benefits (18 themes initially),
opportunities (5 themes initially), and barriers (9 themes
initially).
While data from parents and children were coded into the
benefits
themes, only parents’ data pertained to the themes of barriers
and
opportunities. This was because the barriers and opportunities
represented more abstract ideas that were likely beyond the
chil-
dren’s comprehension. As such, children’s data only extended to
the more ‘concrete’ benefits they associated with sport
participation.
The next analytic step involved a more ‘interpretive turn’
(Thorne, 2008) in which the researchers consider what pieces of
data might mean, both individually and in relation to each other.
This involved establishing patterns and relationships within and
between data. To achieve this, the themes from the ‘long list’
initially generated were aggregated into more meaningful cate-
gories. Comments from parents and children reflecting develop-
mental benefits were compared and combined, and redundant or
overlapping themes were collapsed and the initial coding
scheme
was reduced. Thorne suggested that techniques from other meth-
odologies can be used here. We used constant comparison,

memos,
and diagramming from grounded theory to advance our interpre-
tive thinking. We also followed Thorne’s advice and asked
“What
ideas are starting to take shape such that I think they will have
a place in my final analysis if it is to do justice to my research
question?” (p.160). This enabled us to look beyond content
analysis
and move into the realms of interpretation. At this point a
decision
was made to categorize all themes related to benefits of sport
participation into a larger category (which included quotes from
parents and children). Then, treating parents’ data in isolation,
remaining themes were grouped into categories of barriers/
constraints and possible solutions.
Thorne (2008) suggested that it is possible to use theory to
advance interpretive analysis, but advised researchers to avoid
moving too quickly to the imposition of a theoretical framework
to
help organize or guide interpretation. Following this advice, and
given the broad conceptual context underpinning the study, we
selectively applied theory to advance our interpretation of the
data.
There was no single theory that could be used without unduly
‘forcing’ various constructs on the data. For example, some of
the
benefits associated with sport participation linked with theories
of
PYD (i.e., Larson et al., 2006) whereas broader
barriers/constraints
and possible solutions are not accounted for in any theories of
PYD
but were consistent with ecological and developmental systems
theories (i.e., Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Lerner, 2002). Hence, we
used

the PYD concept of personal and interpersonal domains of
learning
experiences (Larson et al.) to help organize the developmental
benefits associated with sport. In terms of barriers/constraints
and
possible solutions, we sought to examine within these concepts
in
terms of connections between family level and broader
contextual
(i.e., macrosystem) issues (i.e., Bronfenbrenner; Lerner).
Hence, we
used theory broadly to help guide and refine certain aspects of
the
analysis, rather than rigidly imposing a theory onto the data
(Sandelowski, 1993; Thorne, 2008).
Methodological rigor
Methodological rigor was addressed using several techniques.
We primarily focused on using self-corrective techniques during
the process of the study (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, &
Spiers,
2002). Two researchers worked together closely during the anal-
ysis. Data analysis commenced as soon as initial interviews
were
transcribed and there was interaction between data collection
and
analysis throughout. The initial coding schema was created
based
on both researchers’ coding of the transcripts from the first five
families, and the researchers engaged in an on-going dialog
during
the remaining analysis. Early engagement in data analysis
helped
establish that an adequate level of data saturation had been
obtained. That is, when data had been collected and analyzed

from
12 families we felt we were reaching an acceptable level of
satu-
ration as the core categories were becoming well established
and
few new ideas were arising. However, we continued to collect
data
from an additional 5 families because they contacted us to
partic-
ipate in the study and we did not want to refuse participation.
These data further saturated the findings.
The study allowed for a level of corroboration between parents’
and children’s perspectives for the developmental benefits
theme
only. Data relating to broader (macro) issues were not
corroborated
490e499494
by data provided by parents and children, mainly because
children
are unable to discuss such broad/abstract ideas. To help us
further
understand more about the broader issues discussed by parents
(which reflected macro-level issues), results were presented at
two
board meetings of the non-profit organization (a local Annual
General Meeting [AGM] and a provincial AGM) because board
members, we assumed, would be familiar with some of these
macro-level issues. Board members were presented with an oral
summary of the findings and asked to provide their opinions and
feedback about the researchers’ interpretations. Their comments
helped to clarify some aspects of the analysis, especially around

the
remaining barriers and constraints (i.e., more macro-level
issues).
Many comments related to ways in which the non-profit organi-
zation could facilitate sport participation more effectively.
These
claims were in response to data pertaining to the need for better
awareness of funding programs. Although we met with some
resistance from board members (e.g., some suggested that their
program advertising had improved since we conducted the
study),
we retained these issues in the final results in order to remain
faithful to the perspectives of the participants, especially the
parents. The way we dealt with such feedback reflects the
guide-
lines provided by Morse et al. (2002) in terms of avoiding an
over-
reliance on post-hoc verification techniques.
Results
The combined data from parents and children demonstrated
some clear associations between sport involvement and children
gaining a range of social and personal developmental benefits
(Table 1). Our analysis showed that some barriers and
constraints to
sport participation remained. We also found that parents offered
some possible solutions to the problem of maintaining their
chil-
dren’s sport participation, which included actions taken by them
as
well as a desire for greater availability of and accessibility to
funding resources (Table 2). Our interpretations of the data are
summarized in Fig. 1, which shows the identified patterns
between
the findings. Our main conceptual claim (cf. Thorne, 2008) is

that
continuing barriers and constraints limit the extent to which
devel-
opmental benefits of sport participation will be consistently
realized
and have long-term effects on children’s development.
Developmental benefits
Several developmental benefits (the only category in which data
were corroborated by children and parents) were associated with
children’s participation in youth sport. These findings were
orga-
nized in terms of personal and social benefits (Please see Table
1 for
quotations from parents and children). Social benefits parents
and
children reported were relationships with coaches, making new
friends, and teamwork/social skills. Personal benefits reported
by
parents and children were emotional control, exploration, confi-
dence, discipline, academic performance, weight management,
and
‘keeping busy.’ In the interests of being concise, we present the
main developmental benefits in Table 1, which includes
exemplar
quotes from parents and children.
Beyond the findings reported in Table 1, an important point to
emphasize is that several of the benefits reported by parents and
children appeared to ‘transfer’ from sport to other areas of the
children’s lives. Parent # 10 (P10) summed up the general view
parents reported:
[Sport] is important, it can change lives. It should be part of our
life because it’s a lifestyle is totally different in 21st century

than
before. They [children] don’t do so many [other things like]
gardening or planting [activities] to keep body going in
spending energy. It is very important to play sport. For
health. to be part of that team, to learn to be part of
community. to learn how to become better. And [at the]
same time it helps him [son] also to improve his schooling score
[i.e., grades]. I think [his] marks for his subjects in the school
[are
better] because [of sport]. I think the brain works better and
clearer when they do any kind of exercise. [And] I cannot
imagine him going on to party and smoking and drinking and
using drugs. I believe that children who play sports, they are
not involved in gangs and drugs, alcohol and other stuff.
Similarly, her son (Child 10) reported a range of benefits he
experienced through playing sport:
There’s making new friends. The whole thing of making new
friends, meeting new people. And I think, it’s a great way to
help
kids mature almost, to deal with the emotions and deal with
people around them ’cause these situations that they’re put in, I
think it would really help them develop. And of course there’s
that other skill of interaction that everyone needs. And of
course
I think it’s fun. That’s the main reason that I play volleyball.
And I
think also that it’s a good stress relief and if you’re like busy
with
school and other things, I think it’s a great way, sports help like
get more, like I almost feel like I work more efficiently if I play
sports even though it takes a part of my time. Almost like
doing my homework more efficiently if I have less time almost
to manage my time. And if you’re physically active it almost
helps your brain to be more clear.

As reflected by these quotes and the more detailed information
provided in Table 1, we found several personal and social
benefits
associated with sport participation and parents and children
made
fairly direct connections between sport and these benefits.
Barriers and constraints
As explained in the method section, the category of barriers and
constraints is entirely based on issues parents reported. Despite
receiving funding, parents faced additional barriers that
restricted
the extent to which they could support their children’s
participa-
tion in sport. Many parents reported some of the familiar time
management and scheduling demands that are often associated
with
having children involved in sports. But the parents in this study
also
had to deal with some unique circumstances, primarily related
to
their financial situation, which made supporting their children’s
sport participation even more difficult. P2 explained that:
Well we looked at doing rock climbing out here [at the univer-
sity]. [But] it’s a little bit trickier here because they have an
indoor facility here but given that I [cannot drive due to medical
reasons] and my wife’s in school so she’s not really there to
drive
us, getting out there and back on the bus would shoot three
hours. Right? . Like here it’s a good 40 minutes one way, then
an hour lesson and then 40 minutes back.
Several parents in this study worked multiple jobs that made it
difficult to facilitate their children’s sport participation. P8

reported
that:
That’s why we were very, very busy so we just didn’t have any
time. It’s ongoing project, one after another and there is no
spare time at all. So, our son has to adjust to our schedules
unfortunately because we can’t change it and I can’t help it. I
have three jobs at the same time because we have to pay our
bills and I have to support my family here.
As the final sentence of the previous quote suggested, parents
continued to face significant financial barriers that limited their
Table 1
Summary of developmental benefits associated with provision
of sport opportunities.
Theme Exemplar quotes from parents Exemplar quotes from
children
Social
Relationships with
coaches
P2: He loved his first instructor. He just loved her ’cause she
gave him the
attention he needed, she didn’t treat him negatively. You know,
you could
tell at times it’s a little frustrating to have to go over something
again and
again. But uh she did really well so he talked about her.
C4: Well [name of coach] was favourite leader. ’Cause she was
really nice and she thought that I was really good at gymnastics

because I’m always tucking in my toes.
Making new friends P8: For us specifically because we are
immigrants, we didn’t have any
relationships here before we came. We didn’t have any family
here before
we came. So, we were practically by ourselves. Any contacts
were really
useful for us. And when he went to sport he learned so many
kids and I think
it helped him just to be, just to help him to integrate in the
community. And,
you know, it wasn’t so easy when you don’t speak the language,
when you
don’t know um anything about the city or culture.
C16: Before football I had never like had different friends of
different races. And in football everybody’s just, yeah your
Jamaican kids, Somalian kids, people from Singapore, some
Italians. So it really helps you learn how to be, how to deal, like
not deal, but how to have friends, diverse friends. The
friendships you make in sport are probably the most important
because you carry those with you for the rest of your life.
Teamwork and
social skills
P9: . That’s one reason why my husband wants her to play
volleyball.
Because he says, that my daughter, for a long time she has been
the only
child in my family. So she doesn’t know so much about how to,
the social
skills, yeah. And she’ll play, and my husband says piano is an
individual
thing. But sports you have to know how to play with others. It’s

a teamwork,
so. I think she learn a lot about social skills when she plays
volleyball.
C5: Well, I think like it just, you sort of get used to like talking
on
the field, like you sort of talk to everybody, [and about] social
lives off the field. So, you can talk to people in class and, and
outside of school and stuff.. You could learn um I guess just
how to be a teammate and how to play fair, how to
communicate and learn different things of like different skills
and stuff and use ’em maybe in your future if there is an
opportunity to go in like a different academy, a higher team or
something like that.
Personal
Emotional control P6: And actually when you play sport I see it
helped him a lot like we went
through hard times and it kept him calm. Maybe you know it
took he took
his anger out there. You know um it was like a therapy for him
as well. That’s
what I really found. And even with my daughter I see the same.
She’s, they
make, it makes them more calm more patient. They could count
to 10 before
they actually go there and do something else.
C10: Things like um temper management and um, like
controlling my emotions. And such as, since I’ve played more
and more volleyball I’ve realized on the court I was able to,
like,
sometimes control my emotions, just not get mad. I learned to
be a lot more positive than I used to be. For example, if you
mess

up on a point I learnt how to get over it. And like sometimes my
attitude towards things have changed and I think I’ve become
a lot more positive person.
Exploration P1: I think it helps her to know herself a little
better. Like she, through the
gymnastic, although she only done for eight, 10 weeks, she likes
to do that
kind of stuff and she will try different things herself. Which is
scary
sometimes. But she wanted to do a cartwheel so she continued
trying at
home.
C7: Uh I’d say that uh that when um, I don’t know, I guess it’s
when you just uh play sports it just your, your mind really starts
like working and, and it makes you, I don’t know uh what’s the
word, mmm, it just makes you think more I guess.
Confidence P3: For sure, for sure, like that’s why I say what’s
significant for me is the
confidence of just being like trusting that I can step out and I
can do this and
even if I fall that’s fine, I can try again and just having that like
over, and
over, and over like for 3 years built into their brain. that counts
for a lot.
C10: I think a really big part of sport is I learned how to be
confident and that helps a lot, especially in school and like
public places. If I need to give a speech I know how to like
calm
myself down before I present. I can be confident and if I
interact
with other people, not only on sports teams but with new
people, different friends, I know how to interact with them

better. And like generally in school or family things if I’m
really
down I can get myself together a little bit faster. I think it’s
given
me those benefits.
Discipline P13: Yeah. But, um and, and they’re learning. Like
they’re learning discipline
and how that, certain ways that they have to do things, which I
think it’s, it’s
a benefit for me at home because, I mean, they don’t, they don’t
just use
what they learn in soccer, they use it otherwise, you know, like
at home..
Like lately [my son] has been telling his brother, you know,
“this is how you
need to deal with [a situation].. If [name of guardian] says this
is right we
have to do it that way.” So, at first it kind of blew me away like
where’s he
getting it from but then I realized it is from soccer. It’s, it’s
almost like they’re
totally different kids when they played.
C7: It’s made me responsible in some ways and made me like
stronger ’cause uh when, when I knew like all the, when, before
I didn’t know all these sports I don’t know, I was just like, I
was
just, I would just like sit at home, do nothing and be lazy. But
now I’m like, yeah I have responsibilities and stuff.
Academic
performance
P7: Yeah I see that. I see that. Yeah I see that yeah how
responsive they are I

mean and even their academic performance in, in, in class you
know, yeah
there’s a remarkable improvement you know, yeah.
C5: Yeah. Well, maybe because if say in school, you have
a project and it’s in a group of four maybe then you all have to
work together to get it finished in time. But if one person just
does it all they might not get finished or it’s just maybe really
bad or, yeah.
Weight
management
P6: Just how everything’s connected that’s it. You know like
soccer, sports,
healthy living you know makes you a better person. You’re, you
know if
you’re healthy it build, builds your self-esteem better too. So I
said you know
because I see kids at school they’re a bit chubby and they’re too
shy to go
into sports.
C16: Without sports I would probably be like 200 pounds,
sitting on the couch doing nothing. Well I think everyone
should be healthy. Like they should do at least something to
keep themselves physical. Doesn’t need to be sport, they can do
whatever it is that they need to do. ’Cause once you start to get
into the habit of just sitting on the couch, doing nothing, eating
chips, getting bigger and bigger every day, you’re not as happy
with yourself. And you can say you’re happy with yourself but
you’re not.
Keeping busy P5: When I see some kids her age and what
they’re doing and, and then I
look at her and see what she’s not doing. Do you know what I

mean? Like
hanging out at the malls or the streets or even getting into bad
stuff, she,
she’s not. And, and actually, none of my kids are ’cause they all
play soccer,
we keep them involved and so we, we know sort of where they
are and what
they’re doing. And, and they’re too busy with, between soccer
and school to
be out getting in trouble.
C7: Yeah [because of sport] now I have, I have like, more of the
big responsibility in life and not just, not just coming everyday
from school, sitting home and being idle and stuff.
490e499 495
Table 2
Summary of categories and themes reported by parents only.
Categories Themes
Barriers and constraints Time management and scheduling
Financial barriers
Maintaining children’s participation
as they improved in sport
Possible solutions Parents ‘help themselves’
Awareness of available funding
Additional funding resources
490e499496

children’s sport participation. In part, this was related to the
fact
that they only received $250 funding per child per year which
did
not cover all the costs of sport programs. P5 explained that
“when
you have children like [name of daughter] who want to
participate
in summer and winter, $250 doesn’t cover it. Like the indoor
[soccer] season is about double the price of the outdoor season.”
In
the winter, soccer is played indoors (due to the weather) and the
fee
in this case was $230 per child because parents are required to
help
cover the cost of expensive indoor field rentals. During the
summer
soccer, is played outdoors and field rental is much cheaper and
therefore registration fees are less expensive. In this instance,
funding was clearly insufficient to cover all the costs and
parents
were required to fund the shortfall themselves. Highlighting the
on-going financial constraints, P7 reported that:
We are a family of six so.we are facing financial constraints and
there was the time we wanted to register [two children] in the
community [soccer], the total amount was about $300 for both
of them, our budgets couldn’t sustain that at that time.
In P7’s case her children’s sport participation was curtailed
because the family could not provide additional funds to supple-
ment the funding it received. Similarly, P11 reported that:
Yeah. And each time she [daughter] does it, there’s a cost.
Running club is the same. What’s the cost for running? They
run

around the block! Well but you know it’s for the party or for
this
and it’s $5 for every race or is it even more. And I drive her
there
[another cost]. I don’t think that [the organizers] realize how
sometimes those costs actually prevent my kids from joining
running club. Like we’re not even talking hockey [an expensive
sport]. Running club! There shouldn’t be a cost for that. She’s
got
her own runners [running shoes]. I drive her to the things and
yet there’s always that cost. I tried to kind of ask [about
reducing
the cost] but you know it’s a little bit embarrassing. You don’t
want your child to be labeled necessarily as the one that can’t
afford it.
Another related financial barrier for parents involved main-
taining their children’s participation as they improved in sport.
For
example, P3 said “as they progress it will get more expensive
and
Fig. 1. Model of factors associated with sport participation by
members of low-income
families.
like already now like I have to contribute some [more money]..
But as they progress in, in their training then it will get more
expensive.” Similarly, P6 reported that:
When [name of children] grow older the price changes some-
times. And the fees get more costly. And we went through
a separation, me and my husband, and then you know some-
times it gets difficult. But I don’t want [my son] to know [my
financial circumstances]. I would work extra hard for him to
pay
for his sports.

Hence, several barriers and constraints limited the extent to
which children could continuously engage in sport. As children
improve, costs of sport rise, but supplementary assistance/subsi-
dization does not. Such barriers and constraints likely restrict
the
long-term developmental benefits children could gain from their
involvement in sport.
Possible solutions
Findings revealed several types of solutions to the problem of
parents providing their children with sporting opportunities.
One
fundamental idea was that parents attempted to find ways to
‘help
themselves’ within their financial constraints to provide
sporting
opportunities fortheirchildren. Forexample, the idea of
compromise
was reflected by many parents, and often it involved making
sacri-
fices in one area of family life to support sport. P4 said “I just
might
have to compromisesome of my things [expenses] in orderto
make it
possible for my children to do some things, some other things.”
Families would also find alternatives to providing financial
support.
P12 explained that to help pay for sport costs “you have to
volunteer,
you know, that you work a bingo night. or you sell tickets, you
know, they have Grey Cuptickets [afundraiserbasedon the
Canadian
Football League’s national championship game] uh, pool tickets
uh,
different things they have, or at the Christmas party.” Similarly,
P5

said:
We make up a point of trying to keep them involved. [One
sport program] is with the school, but it’s something that we
have to pay for. But my husband volunteers at the school so
through him volunteering they just put his hours towards
paying for the program for [daughter]. So, so that’s actually
worked out well for us too otherwise yeah, she wouldn’t be in
that [school sport program].. We just sort of made arrange-
ments with the principal to, to um if [my husband] volunteered
then they would pay for her monthly fee.
However, parents could only ‘help themselves’ to a certain
degree because of their constraining financial situations.
Accord-
ingly, we also found parents expressed a desire for better
awareness
of available funding for sport. One issue that restricted access
was
many parents were unsure of what additional funding resources
were available to them. P1 said, “But then, I don’t know, I
really
hope there’s other places which might [provide funding] but I, I
haven’t looked into it yet.” In fact, we found that families who
participated in this study had obtained funding from the non-
profit
organization because either they were well-informed (e.g., in
one
case the mother was a part-time social worker and understood
the
‘system’ and the available resources) or because they received
assistance from a teacher or coach (e.g., P7 explained that a
teacher
realized his child needed additional funding and told us that
“his
teacher gave him an application form [to apply for funding from

the
non profit organization] for me to complete”). Still, while some
parents were knowledgeable or received assistance to find
funding,
the issue of not knowing or understanding the availability of
resources was most salient for newcomers to the city/country.
490e499 497
Therefore, a potential solution for improving access to
resources
was to improve the visibility of programs to help parents under-
stand the various programs to which they could apply. One way
to
improve the visibility of programs was through advertising. P2
suggested that:
We need more funding. To make that more possible, we need
some more advertising out there. The programs exist. the
programs are out there, nobody knows about it. You know,
[name of non-profit organization] existed for how many years?
And I found out about it a year ago and we could have used it
many years before. You know? And it’s not just the [name of
non-profit organization] program, it’s [also] all the government
programs, a lot of them seem to hide. Um that’s one of the
drawbacks of the system is it doesn’t do a very good job of
advertising itself. At times it gets better but for the most part, it
doesn’t seem to promote itself very well.
In addition to increasing knowledge and awareness of existing
funding programs parents also needed additional funding
resources
to support their children’s sport participation. This appeared to
be

particularly salient in the poorer areas of the city where most
participants resided. P1 said:
I think this is probably outside of the scope [of your question]
but maybe there’s more different types of activity available for
the kids. And also through different funding then that will be
great. And also through the city, me and my friends always talk
about how certain programs that’s offered by the city is only in
certain areas. And like on the north side we tried to look for
those kind of programs and it’s not available. It’s always more
downtown, central or south. So that’s another thing.
In summary, potential solutions to the problem of supporting
children’s sport participation were parents helping themselves,
increasing knowledge and awareness of funding programs, and
the
need for additional funding opportunities. These findings show
that
while parents were taking personal responsibility for engaging
their children in sport, additional funding was clearly needed to
help sustain sport participation and increase the likelihood of
children gaining sustained developmental benefits from sport
participation.
Discussion
The first purpose of this study was to examine low-income
parents’ and their children’s perceptions of the benefits associ-
ated with participation in youth sport. Developmental benefits
associated with sport participation by parents and children were
reported. We broadly classified these into social and personal
benefits (see Table 1), which were consistent with certain
conceptualizations of PYD (e.g., Larson et al., 2006). Findings
at the
social level (i.e., relationships with coaches, making new
friends,
and teamwork/social skills) add to a growing body of evidence

in
the sport psychology literature that indicate the potential for
social
skills to be acquired through participation in sport. For
example,
findings from a study of an ethnically diverse team of Canadian
high school soccer players showed that life skills associated
with
participation on the team included teamwork and leadership
(Holt,
Tink, Mandigo, & Fox, 2008). More specifically, teamwork and
leadership were the only skills that these high school student-
athletes learned through sport that they thought transferred to
other areas of their lives. This finding has been replicated in
a retrospective study of youth sport participation among
Canadian
university students (Holt, Tamminen, Tink, & Black, 2009), and
in
US studies comparing benefits of sport participation to other
leisure
activities (e.g., Hansen et al., 2003). It may be that learning to
interact with teammates to pursue common goals necessitates
social interaction. That is, individuals must learn to work
together
to achieve team and personal goals. It is also possible that these
social skills were particularly important for the low-income
youth
we studied who may not have otherwise had many opportunities
to
interact with others outside of their ‘most proximal’ social
sphere
(i.e., family members, schoolmates).
Larson et al. (2006) compared youth participation in sports with
other organized activities (i.e., arts, academic, community,
service,

and faith programs). Students in sport reported significantly
higher
rates of initiative, emotional regulation, and teamwork
experiences
compared to students involved in the other activities. The
reported
benefits of sport are consistent with the current findings. We
also
found improved academic performance was a benefit associated
with sport participation. This is consistent with previous
research
(Marsh & Kleitman, 2003) that found sport participation in
grade 12
predicted a range of post-secondary outcomes for youth (e.g.,
improved school grades, homework, educational and
occupational
aspirations, university applications, subsequent college
enrollment,
and eventual educational attainment). The current findings add
to
the literature because, to the best of our knowledge, previous
studies examining the potential benefits of sport participation
have
not sampled those lowest-income families that require financial
assistance to fund their children’s involvement in sport. Sport
participation may be particularly important to these families’
lives
because children gained personal and social benefits from
activities
they likely would not otherwise experience.
These findings clearly show the potential benefits of sport for
children from low-income families and highlight the need to
support their sport participation. This is a powerful finding due
to
the increased health-risks faced by children from low-income

families. By aligning macrosystems policies (rather than, for
example, providing a specific program) it may be possible to
create
systems to promote PYD through sport (cf. Holt, 2008; Lerner
&
Castellino, 2002). By creating appropriate systemic conditions/
relations we can capitalize on the concept of relative plasticity
and
promote PYD. Sport systems may be poised to have a powerful
impact on PYD for children from low-income families if there is
adequate provision of funding in the future.
The second purpose of this study was to examine parents’
perceptions of the challenges associated with providing their
children sporting opportunities. Constraints and barriers limited
the extent to which children could have sustained sport partici-
pation and therefore gain long-term developmental benefits.
Although it has been established that financial constraints
restrict
Canadian children’s sport participation (Clarke, 2008; Ifedi,
2008;
Kremarik, 2000), the more unique aspects of the current
findings
relate to sustaining participation after provision of funding.
Sustaining involvement in sport is an important developmental
issue. For example, a recent study by Zarrett et al. (2008)
showed
that children who had more continuous (i.e., sustained)
participa-
tion in sport reported more positive developmental outcomes
than
children with less sustained sport involvement. Hence, ways to
sustain sport involvement are required, especially among
children
from low-income families. In addition to the role of non-profits,
the

onus is on government and sport organizations to provide
subsidies
to sustain participation. Improving provision of sport for low-
income children (who report low rates of physical activity and
poor health outcomes) should be viewed as a long-term
investment
in health. That is, children with sustained sport participation
maintain higher rates of physical activity (e.g., Tammelin,
Näyhä,
Hills, & Järvelin, 2003) and report fewer health problems (e.g.,
Hasselstrøm, Hansen, Froberg, & Andersen, 2002) during adult-
hood. Although difficult to quantify, providing sport to low-
income
490e499498
youth is a health promotion strategy that may help reduce the
financial burden on the health care system in the long term. For
example, one Canadian study predicted families of at-risk
children
who had participated in a subsidized recreation/sport program
would cost $500 less per annum in health and social services
accessed than those who did not receive such programming
(Browne, 2011). For example, children involved in the
recreation/
sport program were 90% less likely to use a social worker or
probationary officer.
One of the possible solutions offered by the findings of this
study involved parents ‘helping themselves’ in terms of volun-
teering to assist with sport in lieu of paying registration fees.
Interestingly, in contrast to declining sport participation, there
have
been noticeable increases in volunteering in sport by Canadians.

The number of amateur coaches increased 1.6% from 1998 to
almost
1.8 million in 2005 (Ifedi, 2008). Similarly, in 2005 over 2
million
Canadians volunteered their time as administrators or helpers,
up
18% from 1998. These are particularly important findings
because
children whose parents are involved in sport (as a participant
themselves or an administrator/coach) are more likely to be
sport
participants (Kremarik, 2000). Encouraging parents of low-
income
children to volunteer in sport organizations may be a way of
facilitation sport participation. That said, parents from these
families may work several jobs and have limited transportation
options that restrict the extent they can engage in these
activities.
Nonetheless, the finding that parents can ‘help themselves’ to
support sport participant by volunteering is an important issue
for
future consideration. For example, sport clubs or schools could
establish formal policies whereby registration fees are waived
for
children whose parents volunteer.
Parents expressed a clear need for the provision of additional
funding opportunities. This is a macro-level policy issue related
to
economic and policy level systems (cf. Bronfenbrenner, 2005;
Lerner, 2002). However, subsidization of youth sport has not
been
adequately addressed at a federal government level because the
majority of funding is directly toward elite sport. The Canadian
federal government does offer a Children’s Fitness Tax Credit
(CFTC), which allows a non-refundable tax credit of up to $500

to
register a child (up to the age of 16 years old for an able-bodied
child) in an organized youth sport program. However, a recent
internet-based panel survey of 2135 Canadians examined the
effectiveness and uptake of the CFTC (Spence, Holt, Dutove, &
Carson, 2010). Results showed parents in the lowest-income
quartile were significantly less aware of and less likely to claim
the
CFTC than other income groups. The authors interpreted this
finding to mean that families without the resources to make the
financial outlay to pay for programs in the first place will not
benefit from a tax credit. Therefore, the CFTC appears to
benefit
wealthier families. The Spence et al. study, combined with the
current findings, highlight the need to provide more direct
funding
to low-income families to promote and sustain children’s
involve-
ment in sporting activities.
From a theoretical perspective the findings support the
continued use of ecological and developmental systems theories
(i.e., Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Lerner, 2002) to examine issues
related
to sport participation for children from low-income families.
Some
of the benefits reported reflect proximal ‘microsystem’
interactions
at individual, family, and social (i.e., teammate, coach)
contexts. But
we also showed how ‘macrosystem’ issues influenced sport
participation. Remaining financial barriers reflect economic
systems, and the need for additional funding reflects policy and
governmental systems. These findings reflect the importance of
understanding the ‘relational unit’ e that is, relationships
between

various contexts must be studied in order to understand ways in
which systems can be organized to optimize youth development
(Lerner & Castellino, 2002). According to these theoretical
perspectives, coordinated strategies across multiple ecological
levels are required to create the systemic conditions that can be
altered to foster PYD (Lerner, 2002).
Hence, by interpreting the findings through an ecological/
developmental systems theoretical lens we were able to identify
factors at different ecological levels or contexts (i.e., family,
community, policy) that can be aligned to promote PYD among
children from low-income families. Furthermore, in accordance
with the goals of ID (Thorne, 2008), the findings have clear
impli-
cations that may inform policy and provision of sport. For
example,
the non-profit organization we partnered with (and other similar
agencies) clearly played an important role in providing sport
opportunities. Such organizations need to consider that $250
may
be insufficient to adequately cover sport costs, particularly as
children progress through increasing levels of competition.
There is
also a need to more clearly communicate with low-income
families
to help make them aware of available funding opportunities.
Finally, there is an urgent need for more direct federal govern-
ment subsidization of sport programs, especially because the
existing CFTC program appears to benefit higher income
families the
most (Spence et al., 2010). One means of government providing
financial support would be to fund non-profits, whereas other
means would be to directly fund parents, or to better subsidize
school sport programs and sport clubs. Parents could be
provided

vouchers to purchase equipment. Fundamentally, these
suggestions
implicate the development of multi-sector partnerships (i.e.,
between all levels of government [in Canada, federal,
provincial/
territorial, and municipal], non-profits, and sport clubs).
Govern-
ment investment in sport may actually save tax dollars in the
long
term (Browne, 2011).
Given the focus on relational/contextual issues, we did not
examine individual differences within and across participants,
which is a feature of developmental systems theories (Lerner &
Castellino, 2002). More specifically, limitations of this study
were
that we only interviewed two fathers (as opposed to 15
mothers).
This was likely because mothers were the primary caregivers
and
responsible for supporting their children’s involvement in sport.
However, previous research has shown differences in the
percep-
tions and attitudes of mothers and fathers to sport participation.
For example, mothers may see themselves as giving more
positive
support and being more actively involved in their children’s
sport
activity than fathers, possibly because mothers feel more
respon-
sible for family life and child care than fathers (Wuerth, Lee, &
Alfermann, 2004). Fathers tend to give more sport specific feed-
back to their children and push them to train harder (Wuerth et
al.).
Therefore, additional analyses of the views of fathers and
potential

differences in the opinions of mothers versus fathers are
needed.
The current study also did not consider child-level gender
differ-
ences, or other psychological/personality factors that may
influence
adaptation and development. These issues require further
analysis.
We were able to sample a particularly hard-to-reach group. The
response rate was low, but there are several reasons that may
explain this. We know, anecdotallyat least, that low-income
families
tend to move house often (and approximately 20 recruitment
letters
were ‘returned to sender’ and others may not have reached the
intended participants but were not returned to sender). Other
reasons for non-participation (we speculate) may include
possible
language barriers, and lack of motivation. Hence, it is possible
that
we recruited the more socially competent parents who were
moti-
vated for some reason to participate (e.g., they wanted to
advocate
for the possible benefits of sport and need for funding). These
factors
should be considered when judging the findings. Nonetheless,
the
study revealed some crucial issues associated with providing
sport
opportunities to children from low-income families. Most

490e499 499
importantly, continuing barriers and constraints limited the
extent
to which developmental benefits will be consistently realized
and
have long-term effects on children’s development.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by grants from the Sport Science
Association of Alberta and Canadian Institutes of Health
Research.
References
Active Healthy Kids Canada. (2009). Canada’s report card on
physical activity for
children and youth. Available from
http://www.activehealthykids.ca/ecms.
ashx/ReportCard2009/AHKC-Longform_WEB_FINAL.pdf.
Barber, B. L., Eccles, J. S., & Stone, M. R. (2001). Whatever
happened to the “jock,” the
“brain,” and the “princess”? Young adult pathways linked to
adolescent activity
involvement and social identity. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 16, 429e455.
doi:10.1177/0743558401165002.
Begg, D. J., Langley, J. D., Moffit, T., & Marshall, S. W.
(1996). Sport and delinquency:
an examination of the deterrence hypothesis in a longitudinal
study. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 30, 335e341.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human:

Bioecological
perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of
developmental processes.
In W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.) (5th ed.). Handbook of
child psychology:
Theoretical models of human development, (pp. 993e1028) New
York: Wiley.
Browne, G. (2011). Making the case for youth recreation
integrated service delivery:
more effective and less expensive. In P. Donnelly (Ed.), Taking
sport seriously:
Social issues in Canadian sport (3rd ed.). (pp. 189e196)
Toronto: Thompson
Educational.
Carver, A., Timperio, A., & Crawford, D. (2008). Playing it
safe: the influence of
neighbourhood safety on children’s physical activity e a review.
Health & Place,
14, 217e227. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.06.004.
Casey, M. M., Eime, R. M., Payne, W. R., & Harvey, J. T.
(2009). Using a socioecological
approach to examine participation in sport and physical activity
among rural
adolescent girls. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 881e893.
doi:10.1177/
1049732309338198.
City of Edmonton. (nd). Labor force. Available from
http://www.edmonton.ca/
business/economic_demographic/demographic_profiles/labour-

force.aspx.
Clarke, W. (2008). Kid’s sports. Canadian social trends.
Component of Statistics
Canada catalogue no. 11-008-X.
Colley, R. C., Garriguet, D., Janssen, I., Craig, C. L., Clarke, J.,
& Tremblay, M. S. (March
2011). Physical activity of Canadian children and youth:
Accelerometer results from
the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health
reports, 22(1).
Statistics Canada. Catalogue no. 82-003-XPE.
Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community
programs to promote youth
development. Washington: National Academy Press.
Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003).
Extracurricular activities and
adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 865e889.
doi:10.1046/
j.0022-4537.2003.00095.x.
Fullinwinder, R. (2006). Sports, youth and character: a critical
survey. CIRCLE
working paper 44. Retrieved 24.11.07, from
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/
WorkingPapers/WP44Fullinwider.pdf.
Gordon-Larsen, P., McMurray, R. G., & Popkin, B. M. (2000).
Determinants of
adolescent physical activity and inactivity patterns. Pediatrics,
105, E83.
doi:10.1542/peds.105.6.e83.

Hansen, D. M., Larson, R. W., & Dworkin, J. B. (2003). What
adolescents learn in
organized youth activities: a survey of self-reported
developmental experi-
ences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 25e55.
Hasselstrøm, H., Hansen, S. E., Froberg, K., & Andersen, L. B.
(2002). Physical fitness
and physical activity during adolescence as predictors of
cardiovascular disease
risk in youth adulthood. Danish youth and sports study: an
eight-year follow-
up study. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 23, 27e31.
doi:10.1055/s-
2002-28458.
Hellison, D., Martinek, T., & Walsh, D. (2008). Sport and
responsible leadership
among youth. In N. L. Holt (Ed.), Positive youth development
through sport
(pp. 49e60). London: Routledge.
Holt, N. L. (Ed.). (2008). Positive youth development through
sport. London:
Routledge.
Holt, N. L., Cunningham, C.-T., Sehn, Z. L., Spence, J. C.,
Newton, A. S., & Ball, G. D. C.
(2009). Neighborhood physical activity opportunities for inner
city children and
youth. Health & Place, 15, 1022e1028.
doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.04.002.
Holt, N. L., Tamminen, K. A., Tink, L. N., & Black, D. E.
(2009). An interpretive analysis
of life skills associated with sport participation. Qualitative

Research in Sport and
Exercise, 1(2), 160e175. doi:10.1080/19398440902909017.
Holt, N. L., Tink, L. N., Mandigo, J. L., & Fox, K. R. (2008).
Do youth learn life skills
through their involvement in high school sport? Canadian
Journal of Education,
31(2), 281e304. doi:10.2307/20466702.
Humbert, M. L., Chad, K. E., Spink, K. S., Muhajarine, N.,
Anderson, K. D.,
Bruner, M. W., et al. (2006). Factors that influence physical
activity participation
among high- and low-SES youth. Qualitative Health Research,
16, 476e483.
doi:10.1177/1049732305286051.
Ifedi, F. (2008). Sport participation in Canada, 2005. Culture,
Tourism and the Centre
for Education Statistics. Vol. Catalogue no. 81-595-MIE e no.
060. Statistics
Canada.
Janssen, I., Katzmarzyk, P. T., Boyce, W. F., Vereecken, C.,
Mulvihill, C., Roberts, C.,
et al. (2005). Comparison of overweight and obesity prevalence
in school-aged
youth from 34 countries and their relationships with physical
activity and
dietary patterns. Obesity Reviews, 6, 123e132.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-
789X.2005.00176.x.
Kremarik, F. (2000). A family affair: children’s participation in
sports. Canadian
social trends, autumn. Statistics Canada. Catalogue no. 11-008.

Larson, R., Hansen, D., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles
of developmental
experiences in across types of organized youth activities.
Developmental
Psychology, 42, 849e863. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.849.
Leffert, N., Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Sharma, A. R., Drake,
D. R., & Blyth, D. A. (1998).
Developmental assets: measurement and prediction of risk
behaviors among
adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 2, 209e230.
doi:10.1207/
s1532480xads0204_4.
Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human
development (3rd ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lerner, R. M., & Castellino, D. R. (2002). Contemporary
developmental theory and
adolescence: developmental systems and applied developmental
science.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(6), 122e135.
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C.,
Naudeau, S., Gestsdottir, S.,
et al. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in
community
youth development programs, and community contributions of
fifth grade
adolescents: findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of
positive youth
development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 17e71.
doi:10.1177/
0272431604272461.

Marsh, H. W., & Kleitman, S. (2003). School athletic
participation: mostly gain with
little pain. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25,
205e228.
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J.
(2002). Verification
strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative
research. Inter-
national Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2). Article 2.
Retrieved 0703.10 from
http://www.ualberta.ca/wijqm/.
O’Brien, K. S., Blackie, J. M., & Hunter, J. A. (2005).
Hazardous drinking in elite New
Zealand sportspeople. Alcohol & Alcoholism, 40, 239e241.
doi:10.1093/alcalc/
agh145.
Peretti-Watel, P., Guagliardo, V., Verger, P., Pruvost, J.,
Mignon, P., & Obadia, Y.
(2003). Sporting activity and drug use: alcohol, cigarette and
cannabis use
among elite student athletes. Addiction, 98, 1249e1256.
Richman, E. L., & Shaffer, D. R. (2000). “If you let me play
sports”: how might sport
participation influence the self-esteem of female adolescents.
Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 24, 189e199.
Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murrary, L., & Foster, W. (1998).
Promoting healthy
adolescents: synthesis of youth development program
evaluations. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 8, 423e459.

doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0804_2.
Sandelowski, M. (1993). Theory unmasked: the uses and guises
of theory in qual-
itative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 16, 213e218.
doi:10.1002/
nur.4770160308.
Spence, J. C., Holt, N. L., Dutove, J., & Carson, V. (2010).
Uptake and effectiveness of
children’s fitness tax credit in Canada: the rich get richer. BMC
Public Health, 10,
356. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-356.
Statistics Canada. (2009). Low income cut-offs for 2008 and
low income measures
for 2007. Statistics Canada Catalogue no.75F0002M e no. 002.
Available from
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75f0002m/75f0002m2009002-
eng.pdf.
Strachan, L., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2009). An evaluation of
personal and contextual
factors in competitive youth sport. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 21,
340e355.
Tammelin, T., Näyhä, S., Hills, A. P., & Järvelin, M. (2003).
Adolescent participation in
sports and adult physical activity. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 24,
22e28. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00575-5.
Thorne, S. (2008). Interpretive description. Walnut Creek, CA:
Left Coast Press.
Walker, K., Caine-Bush, N., & Wait, S. (2009). “I like to jump

on my trampoline”: an
analysis of drawings from 8- to 12-year-old children beginning
and weight-
management program. Qualitative Health Research, 19,
907e917. doi:10.1177/
1049732309338404.
Wechsler, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G. W., Grossman, S., &
Zanakos, S. (1997).
Binge drinking, tobacco, and illicit drug use and involvement in
college
athletics: a survey of students at 140 American colleges. Journal
of American
College Health, 45, 195e200.
Wuerth, S., Lee, M. J., & Alfermann, D. (2004). Parental
involvement and athletes’
career in youth sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4,
21e33. doi:10.1016/
S1469-0292(02)00047-X.
Zarrett, N., Lerner, R. M., Carrano, J., Fay, K., Peltz, J. S., &
Li, Y. (2008). Variations in
adolescent involvement in sports and its influence on positive
youth develop-
ment. In N. L. Holt (Ed.), Positive youth development through
sport (pp. 9e23).
London: Routledge.
http://www.activehealthykids.ca/ecms.ashx/ReportCard2009/AH
KC-Longform_WEB_FINAL.pdf
http://www.activehealthykids.ca/ecms.ashx/ReportCard2009/AH
KC-Longform_WEB_FINAL.pdf
http://www.edmonton.ca/business/economic_demographic/demo
graphic_profiles/labour-force.aspx

http://www.edmonton.ca/business/economic_demographic/demo
graphic_profiles/labour-force.aspx
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP44Fullin
wider.pdf
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP44Fullin
wider.pdf
http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Eijqm/
http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Eijqm/
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75f0002m/75f0002m2009002-
eng.pdf Benefits and challenges associated with sport
participation by children and parents from low-income families
The current study Conceptual context Method Interpretive
Description Methodology Sampling and recruitment Participants
Data collection Data analysis Methodological rigor Results
Developmental benefits Barriers and constraints Possible
solutions Discussion Acknowledgments References
lab 11/document1.txt
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on
this
continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated
to the
proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that
nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can
long
endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We
have
come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting
place
for those who here gave their lives that that nation might
live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate - we can not

consecrate - we can not hallow - this ground. The brave men,
living
and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above
our
poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor
long
remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they
did
here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the
unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so
nobly
advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great
task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we
take
increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last
full
measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these
dead
shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall
have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the
people,
by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
lab 11/document2.txt
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for
one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to
which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes
which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That
to secure
these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just
powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any
form of
government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of
the people
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying
its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such
form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that governments long established should
not be changed
for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shown
that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than
to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the
same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to
provide
new guards for their future security. -- Such has been the
patient
sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity
which constrains

project 6cards.pyimport randomclass Card( object ).docx

project 6cards.pyimport randomclass Card( object ).docx

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à project 6cards.pyimport randomclass Card( object ).docx

Similaire à project 6cards.pyimport randomclass Card( object ).docx (8)

Plus de briancrawford30935

Plus de briancrawford30935 (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

project 6cards.pyimport randomclass Card( object ).docx