Impact of an outdoor loose parts play intervention on Nova Scotian preschoolers’ physical literacy: a mixed-methods randomized controlled trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Physical activity participation among preschoolers in childcare settings are low, and interventions to increase physical activity levels have produced mixed results. The Physical Literacy in the Early Years (PLEY) project implemented a six-month childcare-based outdoor loose parts play intervention in childcare centres in Nova Scotia, Canada. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the PLEY project on the development of domains of physical literacy (physical activity, physical competence, confidence and motivation, knowledge and understanding) in preschoolers attending childcare centres using mixed-methods. METHODS: Preschoolers (3-5 years) were recruited from 19 childcare centres in Nova Scotia and centres were randomized (parallel design) to the outdoor loose parts play intervention group (n = 11) or control (n = 8) group for 6 months. Participants, early childhood educators, and assessors were not blinded to group assignment. Quantitative and qualitative measures were used to comprehensively assess the impact of the PLEY project on all domains of physical literacy. At 3- and 6-months, early childhood educators participated in focus groups to assess how the intervention supported the development of 4 physical literacy domains: physical activity, physical competence, confidence and motivation, and knowledge and understanding. Physical activity and physical competence were also assessed with accelerometry and the Test of Gross Motor Development-3, respectively. RESULTS: Two hundred and nine preschoolers participated in the study (intervention group: n = 115; control group: n = 94). Accelerometer data showed that while baseline physical activity was similar between groups, children in the intervention group had higher physical activity at 3- (F(1,187) = 8.30, p = 0.004) and 6-months (F(1,187) = 9.90, p = 0.002) post-intervention. There was no intervention effect on physical competence scores. Thematic analysis of focus group data revealed that outdoor loose parts play contributed to development in all 4 physical literacy domains, including increased movement repertoires, social development, and enjoyment of physical activity. No adverse events or side effects of the intervention were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the PLEY project was associated with increased development of various domains of physical literacy and perceived physical literacy among preschoolers, and outdoor loose parts play may be encouraged as an effective strategy to increase physical literacy in early learning settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Biomed Central (ISRCTN14058106), 20/10/2017.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».