Physical Activity and Motor Skill Development During Early Childhood: Investigating the Role of Parent Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined the relationship between parent physical activity (PA) support and children's motor skill development and PA during early childhood and explored the potential moderating effect of child PA and motor skills on these relationships. METHODS: Participants (N = 589, 250 girls, meanage = 4.93 [0.59] y) were part of a larger, longitudinal cohort study. Motor skills were assessed using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition. Moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) was measured using ActiGraph accelerometers. Five items were used to measure parent support frequency (1 = none, 3 = 3-4 times, 5 = daily). Moderation analyses were conducted to examine the moderating effect of MVPA and motor skills on the relationship between parent support and motor skills and MVPA, respectively. RESULTS: Parent support was significantly related to motor skills (B = 14.45, P = .007), and child MVPA significantly moderated this relationship (B = -0.17, P = .021). The relationship between parent support and child MVPA did not reach significance (B = 2.89, P = .051); however, motor skills had a significant moderating effect (B = -0.08, P = .022). CONCLUSIONS: These novel findings suggest parent PA support is related to child motor skills and PA during early childhood, but this relationship is context dependent. Child-level characteristics should be considered in future parent PA support research.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".