4.6 Article

Effects of a kindergarten-based, family-involved intervention on motor performance ability in 3-to 6-year-old children: the ToyBox-study

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 377-384

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1166390

关键词

BMI: body mass index; SES: socio-economic status; JSS: jumping from side to side; SLJ: standing long jump; SD: standard deviation; GEE: generalised estimating equation

资金

  1. European Commission [245200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study targeted to examine the effect of the ToyBox-intervention, a kindergarten-based, family-involved intervention, aiming to improve preschooler's energy-related behaviours (e.g., physical activity) on motor performance ability. Physical activity sessions, classroom activities, environmental changes and tools for parents were the components of the 1-year intervention. The intervention and control were cluster-randomised, and children's anthropometry and two motor test items (jumping from side to side, JSS and standing long jump, SLJ) were assessed. A total of 1293 (4.6 +/- 0.69 years; 52% boys) from 45 kindergartens in Germany were included (intervention, n = 863; control, n = 430). The effect was assessed using generalised estimating equation. The intervention group showed a better improvement in JSS (Estimate 2.19 jumps, P = 0.01) and tended to improve better in SLJ (Estimate 2.73 cm, P = 0.08). The intervention was more effective in boys with respect to SLJ (P of interaction effect = 0.01). Children aged <4.5 years did not show a significant benefit while older children improved (JSS, Estimate 3.38 jumps, P = 0.004; SLJ, Estimate 4.18 cm, P = 0.04). Children with low socio-economic status improved in JSS (Estimate 5.98 jumps, P = 0.0001). The ToyBox-intervention offers an effective strategy to improve specific components of motor performance ability in early childhood. Future programmes should consider additional strategies specifically targeting girls and younger aged children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据