**3. Results**

*3.1. Eigenvalues (EVs), Variance and Correlations between Factor (Type)*  The EVs for each type appeared as 6.19, 3.42, 3.15, and 3.17, respectively. Furthermore, the explanatory variance was derived as 0.20, 0.15, 0.14, and 0.14, respectively. The total variance was 0.63, resulting in 69% explanatory power for all four factors. All factors As a result of the parent's subjectivity in the "0th-period PE class", a total of 4 types were extracted. The eigenvalue, explanatory variance ratio, and correlation results for each type are as follows. Next, four types of parents' perceptions of "0th-period PE class" were presented.

### met the Kaiser–Guttman criterion [36,37]. Table 3 yields the results. *3.1. Eigenvalues (EVs), Variance and Correlations between Factor (Type)*

**Table 3.** Eigenvalue (EVs) and variance between types.  **Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Eigenvalue (EVs)** 6.19 3.42 3.15 3.17 The EVs for each type appeared as 6.19, 3.42, 3.15, and 3.17, respectively. Furthermore, the explanatory variance was derived as 0.20, 0.15, 0.14, and 0.14, respectively. The total variance was 0.63, resulting in 69% explanatory power for all four factors. All factors met the Kaiser–Guttman criterion [36,37]. Table 3 yields the results.


**% of explanatory variance** 0.20 0.15 0.14 0.14 **Total variance** 0.20 0.35 0.49 0.63 **Table 3.** Eigenvalue (EVs) and variance between types.

> types were clearly distinguished [31]. Table 4 demonstrates the correlation between the four factors. Looking more closely, the correlation between Types 1 and 2 was the highest. On the other hand, Types 2 and 4 had the lowest figures. As most of the overall correlation values were derived low, explanatory power and independence for each type were secured, and it can be seen that all types were clearly distinguished [31].

> planatory power and independence for each type were secured, and it can be seen that all

**Table 4.** Correlations between types.


*3.2. Type 1 (Factor 1): Urgent Legal and Institutional Settlement of "0th-Period PE Class": Strengthening Facilities, Programs, Instructors, and Publicity*

The results of statements recognized positively or negatively by participants belonging to Type 1 are shown in Table 5. Each Z-score is also presented in Table 5. In this type, the statements that participants positively agreed with are in the following order: Q24, Q23, Q22, and Q21, with Z-scores of 1.80, 1.61, 1.40, and 1.21, respectively. The participants also had the most negative viewpoints on the Q8 statement, with a Z-score of −2.01.


**Table 5.** Statements with a Z score of ±1.00 or higher for each type and Z score results.

A total of seven participants belonged to Type 1 and showed the largest number of respondents. The P-Sample number and the factor weight were P1 (0.69), P2 (0.74), P8 (0.78), P9 (0.87), P15 (0.88), P17 (0.61), and P18 (0.68). Respondent P15 displayed the highest factor weight, which well represents the point of view of Type 1.
