Parent Support for Physical Activity and Motor Skills During Early Childhood: A Mixed-Methods Application of the Multi-process Action Control Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Promoting physical activity (PA) and fundamental movement skills (FMS) in early childhood is necessary to address the high rates of inactivity in children. Parent support is a determinant of PA in children, however, parental intentions to support are not always translated into behavior resulting in an intention-behavior gap. PURPOSE: Positioned within the multi-process action control (M-PAC) framework, this study used an explanatory concurrent mixed-methods design to explore parents' intentions and support of PA and FMS during early childhood. METHODS: Parents (N=124) of children aged 3-4 years completed an online survey consisting of items assessing reflective (e.g., attitudes), regulatory (e.g., planning), and reflexive (e.g., habit) processes of M-PAC and intentions and support for child PA and FMS. A subset of parents (n=20) completed a semi-structured online interview guided by the M-PAC framework. RESULTS: Significantly more parents intended to support PA (71%) compared with FMS (44%; p<0.001) and successfully translated intentions into action for PA (57%) compared with FMS (27%; p<0.001). Discriminant function analysis showed parent behavior profiles for PA and FMS support were associated with a combination of reflective, regulatory, and reflexive processes, however, these differed based on support behavior. Qualitative findings highlighted parents' differential views on PA and FMS support and contextualized the psychological processes associated with each. CONCLUSIONS: Parent PA support interventions during early childhood should include strategies for supporting FMS. Interventions should prioritize fostering a combination of reflective, regulatory, and reflexive behaviors to translate intentions to support PA and FMS into behavior among parents of young children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".