Outcomes and Feasibility of a 12-Week Physical Literacy Intervention for Children in an Afterschool Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children (N = 90) from eight afterschool programs (n = 4 experimental sites with 47 children; n = 4 control sites with 43 children), along with the program leaders (N = 7) from the experimental sites, participated in a 12-week physical literacy intervention. Children were assessed on their physical literacy (movement competence, affect, confidence, and motivation) pre- and post-intervention using a suite of assessment tools that included the PLAYfun assessment of movement competence and a comprehensive child questionnaire. Experimental participants engaged in a daily physical literacy intervention at their afterschool program; controls engaged in their usual afterschool programming. Experimental group program leaders were assessed on their cognitions pre- and post-training and post-intervention, alongside questions regarding program acceptability and feasibility. Program leaders’ perceived knowledge and self-efficacy to implement the physical literacy program increased (p < 0.05) from pre- to post-training and these effects were maintained at post-intervention. No group differences were observed in the change of children’s motor competence, self-efficacy, or motivation from baseline to post-intervention. However, significant increases in affect were observed among participants in the experimental group (p < 0.05). Program leaders said they would recommend the program to future leaders. However, they reported challenges with implementation due to equipment availability and behavioral challenges. Results suggest a comprehensive physical literacy program during the afterschool period can be feasible to implement and can lead to improvements in the affective domain of children’s physical literacy. Further research on childhood physical literacy interventions is warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".