Protocol for the PLAYshop randomised controlled trial: examining efficacy of a virtually delivered parent-focused physical literacy intervention for early childhood on child-specific and family-specific outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The PLAYshop programme is a novel, brief, theory-based, parent-focused physical literacy intervention in early childhood designed to address the major public health issue of childhood physical inactivity. The primary objective of this study is to examine the efficacy of the virtually delivered PLAYshop programme in increasing preschool-aged children's physical literacy, including fundamental movement skills and motivation and enjoyment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study aims to recruit 130 families with preschool-aged children (3-5 years) from Alberta and British Columbia, Canada who will be randomised to an intervention or control group. The PLAYshop programme is informed by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior (COM-B) model and includes four intervention strategies: (1) educational training via a 60 min virtual synchronous workshop, (2) educational resources via handouts, (3) material resources via a goody bag of basic active play equipment and (4) follow-up support via access to a digital app with an online toolkit and four biweekly booster lessons (1-week, 3-week, 5-week and 7-week follow-up). To assess the primary outcome of physical literacy, five fundamental movement skills (overhand throw, underhand throw, horizontal jump, hop, one leg balance) will be measured virtually at baseline and 2-month follow-up using the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) and the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (MABC-2) tools. Additionally, children's motivation and enjoyment will also be assessed at baseline and 2-month follow-up by: (1) parental-report using items from the Preschool Physical Literacy Assessment (PrePLAy) and (2) self-report using an adapted Five Degrees of Happiness Likert scale for children. The control group will receive the PLAYshop programme after the 2-month follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the University of Alberta (00093764) and University of Victoria (16-444) Research Ethics Boards. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, social and traditional media and a circulated infographic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05255250.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".