Examining the Effectiveness of a Pilot Physical Literacy–Based Intervention Targeting First-Year University Students: The PLUS Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transition into university is often considered the first major life transition and is associated with significant declines in physical activity (PA). It remains, however, unclear how to best prevent or attenuate these declines. The concept of physical literacy (PL) and the enhancement of PL may hold some promise, as it is considered foundational for lifelong PA engagement. Specifically, it targets the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding to maintain PA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a pilot PL-based intervention. First-year university students ( N = 65, M age = 17.85 ± 0.51; n = 46 females) were enrolled in a quasi-experimental study. Participants in the intervention condition ( n = 26) entered a 12-week program intentionally designed to facilitate novel movement skills through aerial, water, and land-based activities, within a fun and engaging group-based environment. Participants in the control condition completed baseline and follow-up assessments only. All participants completed baseline and follow-up assessments of movement competence, motivation, knowledge, and confidence. Results found a significant time by condition interaction, F(1, 58) 4.92, p = .03, [Formula: see text] = 0.08 in PL, suggesting the intervention was effective in enhancing overall PL. There were also significant time by condition interactions for motivation, F(1, 59) 5.19, p = .03, [Formula: see text] = 0.08, and knowledge and understanding, F(1, 59) 6.90, p = .01, [Formula: see text] = 0.11 when examining PL subdomains. Overall, results from our pilot PL-based intervention show promise as a modality to help first-year university students maintain active lifestyles, but future trials with larger samples are required.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".