<scp>PLAYshop</scp> Randomized Controlled Trial: Efficacy and Implementation of a Virtually Delivered Parent‐Focused Physical Literacy Intervention for Early Childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose Examine the efficacy of a virtually delivered, parent‐focused physical literacy (PL) intervention for early childhood called PLAYshop and examine the level of and factors that influenced implementation. Methods A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 122 preschool‐aged children (3–5 years) and their parents from western Canada. PLAYshop included a virtual workshop, educational and material resources, and follow‐up support via an app with four booster lessons (1, 3, 5, 7 weeks post‐workshop). Primary and secondary efficacy outcomes were measured at baseline and 2‐month follow‐up. Tertiary efficacy outcomes were also measured post‐workshop (intervention group)/1‐week post baseline questionnaire (control group). Tertiary implementation outcomes were measured via parental questionnaire and explored via parent and workshop leader interviews. Repeated measures Analysis of Covariance/Analysis of Variance and Generalized Estimating Equations were conducted. Results Intervention efficacy was not observed for children's PL (fundamental movement skills, motivation, enjoyment, confidence; primary outcome) or physical activity (PA; secondary outcome). Increases in other secondary and tertiary outcomes were observed in the intervention group, compared to the control group, including parent–child co‐participation in PA (partial η 2 = 0.062), parental PA modeling (partial η 2 = 0.049) as well as parental capability (partial η 2 = 0.039), opportunity (partial η 2 = 0.089), and motivation (partial η 2 = 0.026–0.045) to support children's PL development. High usefulness (87%) and satisfaction (96%) were reported by parents. Several themes were identified supporting the implementation of the intervention. Booster lesson completion was low (17%–30%). Conclusion Efficacy was observed for some parent but not child outcomes. Implementation was highly feasible at the delivery level but parent engagement in boosters had challenges. Trail Registration: NCT05255250 (Version 1: February 24, 2022; Version 3: December 7, 2022)
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".