Understanding Parent Support for Physical Activity and Motor Skill Development during Early Childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity (PA) during early childhood is associated with physical, cognitive and mental health benefits and is predictive of PA across the lifespan. The development of fundamental movement skills (FMS) in the early years provides the foundation for lifelong PA participation. In the early years, parents are among the most influential to a child’s development and help shape their learning and behaviours. A better understanding of how parents support children’s PA and FMS is necessary to help address the declining rates of PA and FMS among young children. This doctoral research program consisted of three independent and complimentary studies. Study 1 was a feasibility study that examined parents’ (n=20) usage and perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of an online parent-mediated physical literacy intervention for preschool-aged children. The findings from this study suggested that while online approaches may be a feasible way to engage parents of young children, further investigation into the theoretical determinants of parent PA and FMS support was warranted. Study 2 and 3 focused on gaining an in-depth understanding of the role of parents for supporting PA and FMS in early childhood. In Study 2, moderation analyses were used to examine the relationship between parent support, child PA and motor skills among 589 children aged four to five years old. Parent support had a significant, positive relationship with motor skills among children who engaged in relatively low levels of PA (B=5.96, p=0.004). Similarly, parent support had a positive relationship with child PA among children with relatively low (B=2.49, p=0.066) and moderate (B=0.90, p=0.372) motor skills. Study 3 sought to examine the antecedents to parent PA and FMS support using a mixed-methods study design. Positioned within the multi-process action control framework, a cross-sectional design was used to survey 124 parents of children aged three to four years on reflective (e.g., attitudes), regulatory (e.g., planning) and reflexive (e.g., habit) processes related to PA and FMS support. Follow-up semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of 20 parents to gain a more nuanced understanding of parent PA and FMS support behaviours. Survey findings demonstrated that parents’ intentions and support behaviours for child PA and FMS were associated with a combination of reflective, regulatory and reflexive processes. Interview findings highlighted the ways by which parents viewed support for PA and FMS differently and the unique barriers and facilitators to PA and FMS support. The collective findings from this doctoral research program provide evidence that parent support influences child PA and FMS in the early years. Importantly, this program of research provides the practical and theoretical foundations that can be used to inform future development and testing of parent PA and FMS support interventions to increase PA and FMS in 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 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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".