MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365452341 · doi:10.3390/children10040720

Piloting the Virtual PLAYshop Program: A Parent-Focused Physical Literacy Intervention for Early Childhood

2023· article· en· W4365452341 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yeongho Hwang, Madison Boyd, Patti‐Jean Naylor, Ryan E. Rhodes, Sam Liu, Ramiah Moldenhauer, Qiang Li, Christopher I. Wright, E. Jean Buckler, Valerie Carson

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)LiteracyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyEarly childhoodMedical educationMedicinePedagogyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The PLAYshop program is a parent-focused physical literacy intervention for early childhood. This single-group mixed-methods pilot study aimed to explore the feasibility of virtually delivering and assessing the PLAYshop program. The virtual PLAYshop program included a virtual workshop, resources/basic equipment, and two booster emails (3-week and 6-week follow-up). Data on 34 preschool-aged children (3–5 years) and their parents from Edmonton and Victoria, Canada, were collected via an online questionnaire, virtual assessment session, and interview at single or multiple time points (baseline, post-workshop, 2-month follow-up). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), paired t-tests, repeated measures ANOVAs, and thematic analyses were conducted. Regarding feasibility, most parents (≥94%) were satisfied/extremely satisfied with the virtual workshop and planned to continue physical literacy activities post-workshop. The virtual assessment protocol for children’s fundamental movement skills (FMS; overhand throw, underhand throw, horizontal jump, hop, one-leg balance) was feasible, with high completion rates (>90%) and reliable scoring (ICC = 0.79–0.99). For positive changes in potential outcomes, a medium effect size was observed for children’s hopping skills (d = 0.54), and large effect sizes were observed for several parental outcomes (partial η2 = 0.20–0.54). The findings support the feasibility and potential positive outcomes of the virtual PLAYshop program. A larger randomized controlled efficacy trial is recommended.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildrenSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207