Evaluation of Afterschool Activity Programs’ (ASAP) Effect on Children’s Physical Activity, Physical Health, and Fundamental Movement Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Physical literacy-focused afterschool activity programs (ASAPs) can be an effective strategy to improve children’s health-related parameters. We sought to compare physical activity, body composition, aerobic capacity, and fundamental movement skills between physical literacy-focused ASAP and a standard recreational ASAP. Method A pre–post (6 months) comparison study was conducted in 5- to 12-year-old children in a physical literacy-focused ASAP (physical literacy group, n = 14) and children attending a standard recreational ASAP (comparison group, n = 15). Physical activity guideline adherence was assessed using accelerometry, body composition was analyzed using bioelectrical impedance, aerobic capacity was estimated using the Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run test, and fundamental movement skills were evaluated using the Test of Gross Motor Development–2. Results There were no significant differences between groups at baseline. After 6 months, the physical literacy group exhibited a significant improvement in their total raw score for the Test of Gross Motor Development–2 ( p = .016), which was likely due to improvements in object control skills ( p = .024). The comparison group significantly increased body mass index ( p = .001) and body fat ( p = .009) over time. No significant between-group differences were found; however, there was a trend for improved aerobic capacity in the physical literacy group ( d = 0.58). Conclusions Engagement in the physical literacy-focused ASAP contributed to an attenuated increase in adiposity and an improvement in object control skills.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".