Analysis of gain scores, also called change scores or difference scores, was used to test for the effect of treatment; unpaired Student’s t-tests were used to compare the post- and pre-test difference in scores between the control and intervention groups (Allison, 1990; Ragosa, 1995; Oakes and Feldman, 2001). Since baseline differences between groups existed at pre-test, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was applied as an alternative to analyze the scores. We used the post-test gross motor and pre-literacy scores as the dependent variable, the control/intervention group as independent variable and the pre-test score as covariate. ANCOVA focuses on differences between the groups at post-test while holding constant pre-test differences. In all the analyses, the level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Statistics were performed by using STATA/MP 12.1.
During the baseline, CG and you will IG did not tell you any tall distinctions (p > 0.05) in terms of sex, chronological many years, weight, peak, Body mass index and you can disgusting system profile, while the shown for the Dining table dos.
After the experimental period, CG did not exhibit any significant difference in locomotor, object-control skills or QGMD scores. In contrast, the intervention group showed significant differences (p < 0.001) from baseline to post-test in gross motor skills. As shown in Figures 2, 3, locomotor, object-control skills and QGMD increased by 24.4%, 9.7%, and 10.4%, respectively, in IG. Moreover, the mean difference of QGMD between pre- and post-intervention in IG was significantly higher than that in CG (11.3 vs. 3.2, p = 0.0082). These results confirmed preliminary results previously reported (Battaglia et al., 2018). The same result occurred for the locomotor skills, showing a significant mean difference of 2.5 in IG compared to the 0.7 in CG (p = 0.0050). The analysis of covariance confirmed the positive effect of the intervention in the improvement of children's gross motor skills, starting even from different pre-test scores.
Figure 2. Score of gross motor development quotient in control and intervention group. ??? p < 0.01, compared with pre-test.
Figure 3. Score of locomotor and object control skills after 16 weeks of physical education program. ??? p < 0.01, compared with pre-test.
Desk step three screens that exact pieces of locomotor and you can object control experiences failed to boost in the control class following experimental several months, whenever you are an incredibly extreme improve try noticed in every item inside the IG in reaction so you’re able to PEP.
All the pre-literacy skills rather increased in IG following intervention period, while in CG precisely the number of mistakes with the naming off stuff notably diminished (find Table 4). not, the fresh new analyses of gain score and you may ANCOVA didn’t reveal one tall perception regarding input anywhere between CG and you will IG.
This study investigated the effects of a specific PEP on the outcomes of fundamental motor and pre-literacy skills concerning visual analysis and spatial orientation abilities in a sample of preschool children from Palermo. Gross motor development was expressed as a composite score of a set of fundamental motor skills across the two gross motor skill domains. We observed a positive effect of PEP on gross motor development in the studied population. In particular, IG showed a significant increase in both locomotor (p < 0. These findings are consistent with those of previous studies that investigated the effect of PE on preschoolers' gross motor skills (Derri et al. For instance, Derri et al. Analysis of the covariance and gain scores confirmed the positive effect of our intervention in the rise of children's gross motor skills, even starting from different pre-test scores.
The usage of get results or ANCOVA might have been mostly contended prior to now throughout the investigation away from pre-test/post-try activities. Once the ANCOVA is acceptable simply for randomized regulated products and you can can be prejudice contributes to non-comparable organizations or observational models, the research out-of obtain results provides for suitable, unbiased screening for almost all lookup habits (Ragosa friendfinder platinum, 1995). In the absence of randomization, when standard differences when considering groups can be found, change-score habits yield less biased quotes (Allison, 1990). Considering QGMD results recommended by manual’s rules, i found that IG enhanced the brand new disgusting engine show regarding average to help you more than average compared with CG, and therefore didn’t let you know any associated changes. In addition, the organization of a single lesson a number of sandwich-phases (social-heat up, main, cool-down-viewpoints stage) was a suitable answer to increase child’s participation.