Pogo Stick Programs Provide Physical and Psychological Benefits to Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Novel methods of adding vigorous exercise to physical education classes or after school programs could boost physical and psychological well-being in children. We explored the use of pogo stick classes in two cohorts of 10 - 11 years old children. Both interventions consisted of two, one-hour sessions per week for six weeks. Attendance at these after-school sessions was high (Study 1, 82%; Study 2, 95%). Study 1 tested the efficacy of a pogo class in sports-active children aged 10 - 11 years from a community adjacent to a university. They were tested before and after the intervention for balance using a stabilometer, for leg power using jump height, and for VO2max using the Leger 20 m shuttle run. Means of pre and post intervention measures were compared using paired t-tests. Balance improved (p = 0.001) while VO2max and leg power remained consistent. Study 2 tested the ability of pogo classes to improve self-esteem in girls who did not participate in sports and resided in a low socio-economic urban area. Before and after the intervention they completed the Harter Self-Perception Profile. Self-assessed scores in all six categories of the Harter Profile increased, indicating that the pogo stick intervention elicited improved self-esteem in the children. Results from these two pilot studies using pogo sticks in different cohorts of children indicate that pogo-based programs can provide physical and mental health benefits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".