Impact of an outdoor loose parts play intervention on Nova Scotian preschoolers’ physical literacy: a mixed-methods randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Physical activity participation among preschoolers in childcare settings are low, and interventions to increase physical activity levels have produced mixed results. The Physical Literacy in the Early Years (PLEY) project implemented a six-month childcare-based outdoor loose parts play intervention in childcare centres in Nova Scotia, Canada. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the PLEY project on the development of domains of physical literacy (physical activity, physical competence, confidence and motivation, knowledge and understanding) in preschoolers attending childcare centres using mixed-methods. Methods Preschoolers (3–5 years) were recruited from 19 childcare centres in Nova Scotia and centres were randomized (parallel design) to the outdoor loose parts play intervention group (n = 11) or control (n = 8) group for 6 months. Participants, early childhood educators, and assessors were not blinded to group assignment. Quantitative and qualitative measures were used to comprehensively assess the impact of the PLEY project on all domains of physical literacy. At 3- and 6-months, early childhood educators participated in focus groups to assess how the intervention supported the development of 4 physical literacy domains: physical activity, physical competence, confidence and motivation, and knowledge and understanding. Physical activity and physical competence were also assessed with accelerometry and the Test of Gross Motor Development-3, respectively. Results Two hundred and nine preschoolers participated in the study (intervention group: n = 115; control group: n = 94). Accelerometer data showed that while baseline physical activity was similar between groups, children in the intervention group had higher physical activity at 3- (F(1,187) = 8.30, p = 0.004) and 6-months (F(1,187) = 9.90, p = 0.002) post-intervention. There was no intervention effect on physical competence scores. Thematic analysis of focus group data revealed that outdoor loose parts play contributed to development in all 4 physical literacy domains, including increased movement repertoires, social development, and enjoyment of physical activity. No adverse events or side effects of the intervention were reported. Conclusions Participation in the PLEY project was associated with increased development of various domains of physical literacy and perceived physical literacy among preschoolers, and outdoor loose parts play may be encouraged as an effective strategy to increase physical literacy in early learning settings. Trial registration Biomed Central (ISRCTN14058106), 20/10/2017.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".