Does the Animal Fun program improve motor performance in children aged 4–6 years?
Animal Fun 计划是否能改善 4-6 岁儿童的运动表现?
Highlights 突出
► The Animal Fun program significantly improved motor performance. ► Boys’ motor skills improved in the transition from pre-school to year 1 of school. ► Motor performance improved regardless of initial motor proficiency.
► Animal Fun 计划显著提高了电机性能。► 男孩的运动技能在从学前班到学校一年级的过渡中得到提高。► 无论初始电机熟练程度如何,电机性能都会得到改善。
► Animal Fun 计划显著提高了电机性能。► 男孩的运动技能在从学前班到学校一年级的过渡中得到提高。► 无论初始电机熟练程度如何,电机性能都会得到改善。
PsycINFO classification PsycINFO 分类
2330
Keywords 关键字
Motor performance
Pre-school children
Movement intervention
运动表现
学龄前儿童
运动干预
1. Introduction 1. 引言
Research has demonstrated that if children feel confident about their motor ability they engage more often in physical activities such as dancing and sports compared with those children who lack confidence in this area (Hay et al., 2004, Mandich et al., 2003). This suggests that targeting motor skills development may be a suitable approach to increasing physical activity participation in children, known to be important for the prevention of obesity and cardiovascular disease (Biddle, Gorely, & Stensel, 2004).
研究表明,与对舞蹈和运动缺乏信心的孩子相比,如果孩子对自己的运动能力有信心,他们会更频繁地参与体育活动,例如舞蹈和运动(Hay et al., 2004, Mandich et al., 2003)。这表明,针对运动技能发展可能是增加儿童体育活动参与度的合适方法,这对于预防肥胖和心血管疾病非常重要(Biddle, Gorely, & Stensel, 2004)。
研究表明,与对舞蹈和运动缺乏信心的孩子相比,如果孩子对自己的运动能力有信心,他们会更频繁地参与体育活动,例如舞蹈和运动(Hay et al., 2004, Mandich et al., 2003)。这表明,针对运动技能发展可能是增加儿童体育活动参与度的合适方法,这对于预防肥胖和心血管疾病非常重要(Biddle, Gorely, & Stensel, 2004)。
Interventions have targeted physical activity participation in an effort to improve health outcomes (Marcus et al., 2006). Increased participation in physical activities in turn results in practice which is essential for motor skill development. It also leads to social skill development by providing opportunities to interact with other children in a play situation. Schoemaker and Kalverboer (1994) established a link between motor coordination difficulties and social and affective problems in children as young as 6 years. Piek, Bradbury, Elsley, and Tate (2008) found that kindergarten children’s level of motor coordination was negatively related to anxious/depressed behavior as reported by the mother, which is consistent with the finding for older children (Pearsall-Jones et al., 2011, Rigoli et al., 2012). This is a serious concern as these children were only between 4 and 5 years of age. Furthermore, Bart, Hajami, and Bar-Haim (2007) found a relationship between motor ability in five year old children at kindergarten, and scholastic, social and emotional development a year later in their first year of school. It appears that targeting motor skill development prior to children commencing school may have many beneficial consequences for children.
干预措施针对体育活动参与,以改善健康结果(Marcus 等人,2006 年)。增加对体育活动的参与反过来会导致练习,这对运动技能的发展至关重要。它还通过提供在游戏环境中与其他孩子互动的机会来促进社交技能的发展。Schoemaker 和 Kalverboer (1994) 建立了 6 岁儿童的运动协调困难与社交和情感问题之间的联系。Piek、Bradbury、Elsley 和 Tate (2008) 发现,幼儿园儿童的运动协调水平与母亲报告的焦虑/抑郁行为呈负相关,这与年龄较大的儿童的发现一致(Pearsall-Jones 等人,2011 年,Rigoli 等人,2012 年)。这是一个严重的问题,因为这些孩子只有 4 到 5 岁。此外,Bart、Hajami 和 Bar-Haim (2007) 发现幼儿园 5 岁儿童的运动能力与一年后上学第一年的学业、社交和情感发展之间存在关系。看来,在儿童开始上学之前针对运动技能发展可能会对儿童产生许多有益的影响。
干预措施针对体育活动参与,以改善健康结果(Marcus 等人,2006 年)。增加对体育活动的参与反过来会导致练习,这对运动技能的发展至关重要。它还通过提供在游戏环境中与其他孩子互动的机会来促进社交技能的发展。Schoemaker 和 Kalverboer (1994) 建立了 6 岁儿童的运动协调困难与社交和情感问题之间的联系。Piek、Bradbury、Elsley 和 Tate (2008) 发现,幼儿园儿童的运动协调水平与母亲报告的焦虑/抑郁行为呈负相关,这与年龄较大的儿童的发现一致(Pearsall-Jones 等人,2011 年,Rigoli 等人,2012 年)。这是一个严重的问题,因为这些孩子只有 4 到 5 岁。此外,Bart、Hajami 和 Bar-Haim (2007) 发现幼儿园 5 岁儿童的运动能力与一年后上学第一年的学业、社交和情感发展之间存在关系。看来,在儿童开始上学之前针对运动技能发展可能会对儿童产生许多有益的影响。
Few physical activity programs have targeted the pre-school age despite the evidence to suggest that the transition from pre-school/kindergarten to the first year of formal schooling is a critical period in terms of development (Entwisle and Alexander, 1998, La Paro et al., 2000). Targeting fundamental movement skills (FMS), the FMS program (Hands & Martin, 2003) includes pre-school age children and targets body management, locomotor skills and object control. However, this program does not have any published reviews of its efficacy. It is based on a task-specific approach (Revie & Larkin, 1993) which argues that “repeated exposure to a given task, under the right constraints (task and environmental)” (Wilson, 2005, p. 816) will result in stable patterns of movement emerging, provided the child is ready in terms of maturational and biomechanical development. This approach is based on dynamical system theory (Thelen, 1995), which has been applied extensively in the investigation of motor coordination.
尽管有证据表明,从学前班/幼儿园过渡到正规学校教育的第一年是发展的关键时期,但很少有针对学龄前儿童的体育活动计划(Entwisle 和 Alexander,1998 年,La Paro 等人,2000 年)。针对基本运动技能(FMS,程序(Hands&Martin,2003)包括学龄前儿童,并针对身体管理、运动技能和物体控制。但是,该程序没有任何关于其疗效的已发表评论。它基于一种特定任务的方法(Revie & Larkin,1993)认为“反复接触给定的任务,在正确的约束下(任务和环境(Wilson,2005,第816页)将导致稳定的运动模式出现,前提是孩子在成熟和生物力学发展方面已经准备好了。这种方法基于动力系统理论 (Thelen, 1995),该理论已广泛应用于运动协调的研究。
尽管有证据表明,从学前班/幼儿园过渡到正规学校教育的第一年是发展的关键时期,但很少有针对学龄前儿童的体育活动计划(Entwisle 和 Alexander,1998 年,La Paro 等人,2000 年)。针对基本运动技能(FMS,程序(Hands&Martin,2003)包括学龄前儿童,并针对身体管理、运动技能和物体控制。但是,该程序没有任何关于其疗效的已发表评论。它基于一种特定任务的方法(Revie & Larkin,1993)认为“反复接触给定的任务,在正确的约束下(任务和环境(Wilson,2005,第816页)将导致稳定的运动模式出现,前提是孩子在成熟和生物力学发展方面已经准备好了。这种方法基于动力系统理论 (Thelen, 1995),该理论已广泛应用于运动协调的研究。
The Animal Fun program (Piek et al., 2010) was designed by a multidisciplinary team of researchers and health practitioners to promote both motor coordination and social skills in young children aged 4–6 years by imitating the movements of animals in a fun, inclusive setting. The program uses a task-specific approach based on dynamical systems theory (Thelen, 1995) and is administered by pre-school/kindergarten teachers following comprehensive training. Animal Fun is an inclusive, universal program involving all children within the class. This reduces any stigma that may result from particular children being chosen for a ‘special’ program. The program promotes both gross and fine motor skills training together with social/emotional development. This program is based on several key principles in relation to motor skill development. First, children need to feel competent and confident in their ability to perform particular activities (Sugden & Chambers, 2003). Next, although appropriate technique is important and forms part of the program, more importantly, children must enjoy what they are doing so they will continue to practice and improve their skills (Chambers & Sugden, 2006). What they are doing must also be meaningful. Young children love to imitate, and by imitating animals with which the children are familiar they attach meaning to the tasks as well as having fun and enjoyment (Piek et al., 2010).
动物乐趣计划(Piek 等人,2010 年)由研究人员和健康从业者组成的多学科团队设计,旨在通过在有趣、包容的环境中模仿动物的运动来促进 4-6 岁幼儿的运动协调和社交技能。该计划使用基于动力系统理论 (Thelen, 1995) 的特定任务方法,并由学前班/幼儿园教师在接受综合培训后进行管理。Animal Fun 是一个包容性的通用计划,涉及班上的所有孩子。这减少了因特定儿童被选入“特殊”课程而可能导致的任何耻辱感。该计划促进粗大和精细运动技能训练以及社交/情感发展。该计划基于与运动技能发展相关的几个关键原则。首先,孩子们需要对他们进行特定活动的能力感到有能力和自信(Sugden & Chambers, 2003)。接下来,尽管适当的技术很重要并且是该计划的一部分,但更重要的是,孩子们必须享受他们正在做的事情,这样他们才会继续练习并提高他们的技能(Chambers & Sugden, 2006)。他们所做的也必须是有意义的。年幼的孩子喜欢模仿,通过模仿孩子们熟悉的动物,他们赋予任务意义,同时也获得了乐趣和享受(Piek et al., 2010)。
动物乐趣计划(Piek 等人,2010 年)由研究人员和健康从业者组成的多学科团队设计,旨在通过在有趣、包容的环境中模仿动物的运动来促进 4-6 岁幼儿的运动协调和社交技能。该计划使用基于动力系统理论 (Thelen, 1995) 的特定任务方法,并由学前班/幼儿园教师在接受综合培训后进行管理。Animal Fun 是一个包容性的通用计划,涉及班上的所有孩子。这减少了因特定儿童被选入“特殊”课程而可能导致的任何耻辱感。该计划促进粗大和精细运动技能训练以及社交/情感发展。该计划基于与运动技能发展相关的几个关键原则。首先,孩子们需要对他们进行特定活动的能力感到有能力和自信(Sugden & Chambers, 2003)。接下来,尽管适当的技术很重要并且是该计划的一部分,但更重要的是,孩子们必须享受他们正在做的事情,这样他们才会继续练习并提高他们的技能(Chambers & Sugden, 2006)。他们所做的也必须是有意义的。年幼的孩子喜欢模仿,通过模仿孩子们熟悉的动物,他们赋予任务意义,同时也获得了乐趣和享受(Piek et al., 2010)。
In order to evaluate the Animal Fun program (Piek et al., 2010), a randomized cluster controlled trial, registered in the Australian and New Zealand Clinical trials registry (ACTRN1209000869279) was carried out. This program evaluated the motor, social and emotional changes that occurred as a result of the Animal Fun program. In the current paper, the findings for the children’s motor skill development are presented, comparing the scores on motor ability at pre-intervention, around 6 months later following the intervention and then 18 months after the initial testing as a follow-up.
为了评估 Animal Fun 计划(Piek 等人,2010 年),进行了一项在澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册处 (ACTRN1209000869279) 注册的随机整群对照试验。该计划评估了 Animal Fun 计划导致的运动、社交和情感变化。在本文中,介绍了儿童运动技能发展的发现,比较了干预前、干预后约 6 个月和初始测试后 18 个月作为随访的运动能力评分。
为了评估 Animal Fun 计划(Piek 等人,2010 年),进行了一项在澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册处 (ACTRN1209000869279) 注册的随机整群对照试验。该计划评估了 Animal Fun 计划导致的运动、社交和情感变化。在本文中,介绍了儿童运动技能发展的发现,比较了干预前、干预后约 6 个月和初始测试后 18 个月作为随访的运动能力评分。
2. Methods 2. 方法
2.1. Participants 2.1. 参与者
This study included 511 children (257 boys and 254 girls) ranging from 4 years, 10 months to 6 years 2 months of age (M = 5 years 5 months, SD = 3.58 months) at baseline, recruited from 12 schools across metropolitan and regional Western Australia in low socio-economic areas. Full study protocol details are published in Piek et al. (2010). All children enrolled in Pre-Primary classes at the selected schools together with their parents were invited to participate in the study. At the six months post-test, 450 children from the original sample were tested, and a total of 335 children completed all three phases of testing with the follow-up phase in year 1 of school being conducted 18 months after the initial testing (see Fig. 1). There was no significant difference between completers and dropouts in initial Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-version 2 Short Form (BOT-2SF) scores, t(501) = 0.94, p = .348, or Movement Assessment Battery for Children-version 2 (MABC-2) scores, t(489) = 0.10, p = .918. Hence, dropouts were not more severely motor impaired. Also, there was no tendency for dropouts to be of a particular sex, χ2(1) = 0.01, p = .927.
这项研究包括 511 名儿童(257 名男孩和 254 名女孩),基线年龄从 4 岁 10 个月到 6 岁 2 个月不等(M=5 岁 5 个月,SD = 3.58 个月),从西澳大利亚大都市和地区社会经济水平较低的地区的 12 所学校招募。完整的研究方案细节发表在 Piek 等人 (2010) 中。所有在选定学校注册学前班的儿童及其父母都被邀请参加这项研究。在检测后六个月,对原始样本中的 450 名儿童进行了检测,共有 335 名儿童完成了所有三个阶段的检测,学校一年级的随访阶段在初始检测后 18 个月进行(见图 1)。在初始 Bruininks-Oseretsky 运动熟练度测试 2 版简表 (BOT-2SF) 分数中,完成者和退出者之间没有显着差异,t(501)=0.94,p=.348,或儿童运动评估电池 - 第 2 版 (MABC-2) 分数,t(489)=0.10,p=.918。 因此,辍学的运动障碍并不更严重。此外,没有特定性别的辍学趋势,χ2(1)=0.01,p=.927。
这项研究包括 511 名儿童(257 名男孩和 254 名女孩),基线年龄从 4 岁 10 个月到 6 岁 2 个月不等(M=5 岁 5 个月,SD = 3.58 个月),从西澳大利亚大都市和地区社会经济水平较低的地区的 12 所学校招募。完整的研究方案细节发表在 Piek 等人 (2010) 中。所有在选定学校注册学前班的儿童及其父母都被邀请参加这项研究。在检测后六个月,对原始样本中的 450 名儿童进行了检测,共有 335 名儿童完成了所有三个阶段的检测,学校一年级的随访阶段在初始检测后 18 个月进行(见图 1)。在初始 Bruininks-Oseretsky 运动熟练度测试 2 版简表 (BOT-2SF) 分数中,完成者和退出者之间没有显着差异,t(501)=0.94,p=.348,或儿童运动评估电池 - 第 2 版 (MABC-2) 分数,t(489)=0.10,p=.918。 因此,辍学的运动障碍并不更严重。此外,没有特定性别的辍学趋势,χ2(1)=0.01,p=.927。
2.2. Materials and measures
2.2. 材料和措施
2.2.1. Animal fun program
2.2.1. 动物娱乐节目
By imitating the movements of animals in a fun, non-competitive way, the Animal Fun program (Piek et al., 2010) aims to develop motor and social skills, and increase children’s confidence in their physical abilities. It is an inclusive program which can be used by the entire class regardless of individual levels of competence. Activities are grouped into nine modules (see Table 1) and into difficulty levels within the modules giving teachers the freedom to (1) graduate children’s learning; (2) group children according to their physical activity level and (3) challenge more advanced children with more difficult movements.
通过以有趣、非竞争的方式模仿动物的动作,Animal Fun 计划(Piek et al., 2010)旨在发展运动和社交技能,并增加儿童对自己身体能力的信心。这是一个包容性的课程,无论个人能力水平如何,整个班级都可以使用。活动分为九个模块(见表 1)和模块内的难度级别,让教师可以自由地 (1) 研究生孩子的学习;(2) 根据儿童的身体活动水平对儿童进行分组,以及 (3) 以更困难的动作挑战更高级的儿童。
通过以有趣、非竞争的方式模仿动物的动作,Animal Fun 计划(Piek et al., 2010)旨在发展运动和社交技能,并增加儿童对自己身体能力的信心。这是一个包容性的课程,无论个人能力水平如何,整个班级都可以使用。活动分为九个模块(见表 1)和模块内的难度级别,让教师可以自由地 (1) 研究生孩子的学习;(2) 根据儿童的身体活动水平对儿童进行分组,以及 (3) 以更困难的动作挑战更高级的儿童。
Number 数 | Name 名字 | Description 描述 |
---|---|---|
1 | Body Management 1: Trunk and Lower Limb 身体管理 1:躯干和下肢 | Static Balance, Dynamic Balance, Climbing 静态平衡、动态平衡、攀岩 |
2 | Locomotion 运动 | Walking, Jumping, Hopping, Skipping 走、跳、跳、跳 |
3 | Object Control 1 对象控制 1 | Throwing, Catching, Kicking 投掷、接球、踢球 |
4 | Body Sequencing 身体排序 | Trunk and lower Limbs 躯干和下肢 |
5 | Body Management 2: Trunk and Upper Limb 身体管理 2:躯干和上肢 | Trunk and girdle stability: strengthen shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand muscles 躯干和腰带稳定性:加强肩部、肘部、手腕和手部肌肉 |
6 | Fine Motor Planning 精细运动规划 | Sequencing of fine motor activities 精细运动活动的排序 |
7 | Object Control 2 – Manual skills 对象控制 2 – 手动技能 | Pre-scissor/Scissor Skills, manipulation of tools; in-hand manipulation Pre-scissor/Scissor Skills,工具操作;手部操作 |
8 | Hand Skills 手部技能 | Functional use of pencils, scissors, keyboards and mouse 铅笔、剪刀、键盘和鼠标的功能使用 |
9 | Social/Emotional 社交/情感 | Laughter, Identifying and Labelling Feelings, Breathing, Relaxation 大笑、识别和标记感受、呼吸、放松 |
Teachers participated in a one-day training course prior to embedding the program into their normal curriculum for 30 min a day, four days a week for a minimum of 10 weeks. Dosage sheets were provided for teachers to record the times and number of activities included each day, and all teachers elected to continue the program for the entire period prior to the post-testing. Teachers were encouraged to increase the difficulty level of the activities according to the level of competence of their class and to creatively embed Animal Fun Activities (Piek et al., 2010) into other curriculum areas of learning.
教师在将该计划嵌入正常课程之前参加了为期一天的培训课程,每周 4 天,每天 30 分钟,至少 10 周。为教师提供了剂量表,以记录每天包括的活动的时间和数量,并且所有教师都选择在后测试之前的整个期间继续该计划。鼓励教师根据班级的能力水平增加活动的难度,并创造性地将动物趣味活动(Piek et al., 2010)嵌入到其他课程学习领域中。
教师在将该计划嵌入正常课程之前参加了为期一天的培训课程,每周 4 天,每天 30 分钟,至少 10 周。为教师提供了剂量表,以记录每天包括的活动的时间和数量,并且所有教师都选择在后测试之前的整个期间继续该计划。鼓励教师根据班级的能力水平增加活动的难度,并创造性地将动物趣味活动(Piek et al., 2010)嵌入到其他课程学习领域中。
2.2.2. Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-version 2 Short Form (BOT-2SF)
2.2.2. Bruininks-Oseretsky 运动熟练度测试 - 第 2 版简表 (BOT-2SF)
Motor performance was measured using the BOT-2SF (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005). The long version, described as the most widely used test of motor proficiency (Bruininks & Bruininks, 2005) contains 53 items, whereas the short form has 14 items. As the long form takes at least 40–60 min to administer, the short form was chosen for this study, given the young age of the children. The long form has excellent test–retest and inter-rater reliability (Slater, Hillier, & Civetta, 2010). Although few studies have examined the psychometric properties of the short form, Bruininks and Bruininks (2005) reported the inter-rater reliability to be greater than .90, test–retest reliability greater than .80, and internal consistency as generally acceptable (>.80), although at ages 4 and 8 years correlations ranged from .60 to .92. According to Dietz, Kartin, and Kopp (2007), the short form is generally a reliable and valid measure of general motor ability.
电机性能是使用BOT-2SF测量的(Bruininks & Bruininks,2005)。长版本被描述为最广泛使用的运动熟练度测试(Bruininks & Bruininks,2005年)包含53个项目,而简短版本则包含14个项目。由于长格式至少需要 40-60 分钟来给药,因此考虑到儿童的年龄小,本研究选择了短格式。长格式具有出色的重测和评分者间可靠性(Slater, Hillier, & Civetta, 2010)。尽管很少有研究检查短格式的心理测量特性,但 Bruininks 和 Bruininks (2005) 报告说评分者间信度大于 .90,重测信度大于 .80,内部一致性是普遍可接受的 (>.80),尽管在 4 岁和 8 岁时的相关性范围从 .60 到 .92。根据 Dietz、Kartin 和 Kopp (2007) 的说法,简称通常是衡量一般运动能力的可靠且有效的指标。
电机性能是使用BOT-2SF测量的(Bruininks & Bruininks,2005)。长版本被描述为最广泛使用的运动熟练度测试(Bruininks & Bruininks,2005年)包含53个项目,而简短版本则包含14个项目。由于长格式至少需要 40-60 分钟来给药,因此考虑到儿童的年龄小,本研究选择了短格式。长格式具有出色的重测和评分者间可靠性(Slater, Hillier, & Civetta, 2010)。尽管很少有研究检查短格式的心理测量特性,但 Bruininks 和 Bruininks (2005) 报告说评分者间信度大于 .90,重测信度大于 .80,内部一致性是普遍可接受的 (>.80),尽管在 4 岁和 8 岁时的相关性范围从 .60 到 .92。根据 Dietz、Kartin 和 Kopp (2007) 的说法,简称通常是衡量一般运动能力的可靠且有效的指标。
2.2.3. Movement Assessment Battery for Children-version 2 (MABC-2)
2.2.3. 儿童运动评估电池 2 版 (MABC-2)
The MABC-2 (Henderson, Sugden, & Barnett, 2007) was used to group children according to their level of motor proficiency (i.e., no problems, at risk, and definite motor problems) as defined by the MABC-2 manual. This test has been described as one of the most often used assessments by health professionals to identify motor impairment (e.g., Geuze, Jongmans, Schoemaker, & Smits-Engelsman, 2001). It includes 8 items which produce three component standard scores (manual dexterity, aiming and catching, and balance) in addition to a total standard score. The tests are divided into three separate age bands of 3–6, 7–10 and 11–16 years, the first of which was used in the current study. Given the testing time is generally between 20 and 40 min, it is suitable for young children. Test–retest reliability was reported by the test authors to be between .86 and .91 for a sample of 20 3-year old children, and a recent study (Smits-Engelsman, Niemeijer, & van Waelvelde, 2011) also reported reasonable reliability for the MABC-2 in a small study of 50 children aged 3 years.
MABC-2 (Henderson, Sugden, & Barnett, 2007) 用于根据MABC-2手册定义的运动熟练程度(即没有问题、有风险和明确的运动问题)对儿童进行分组。这项测试被描述为健康专业人员最常用的评估之一,用于识别运动障碍(例如,Geuze, Jongmans, Schoemaker, & Smits-Engelsman, 2001)。它包括 8 个项目,除了总标准分数外,还产生三个组成部分的标准分数(手部灵活性、瞄准和接球以及平衡)。这些测试分为 3-6 岁、7-10 岁和 11-16 岁的三个独立年龄段,其中第一个年龄段用于当前研究。由于测试时间一般在 20 到 40 分钟之间,因此适合幼儿。测试作者报告说,对于20名3岁儿童的样本,重测信度在.86到.91之间,最近的一项研究(Smits-Engelsman, Niemeijer, & van Waelvelde, 2011)也报告了MABC-2在一项针对50名3岁儿童的小型研究中具有合理的可靠性。
MABC-2 (Henderson, Sugden, & Barnett, 2007) 用于根据MABC-2手册定义的运动熟练程度(即没有问题、有风险和明确的运动问题)对儿童进行分组。这项测试被描述为健康专业人员最常用的评估之一,用于识别运动障碍(例如,Geuze, Jongmans, Schoemaker, & Smits-Engelsman, 2001)。它包括 8 个项目,除了总标准分数外,还产生三个组成部分的标准分数(手部灵活性、瞄准和接球以及平衡)。这些测试分为 3-6 岁、7-10 岁和 11-16 岁的三个独立年龄段,其中第一个年龄段用于当前研究。由于测试时间一般在 20 到 40 分钟之间,因此适合幼儿。测试作者报告说,对于20名3岁儿童的样本,重测信度在.86到.91之间,最近的一项研究(Smits-Engelsman, Niemeijer, & van Waelvelde, 2011)也报告了MABC-2在一项针对50名3岁儿童的小型研究中具有合理的可靠性。
2.3. Procedure 2.3. 操作步骤
This study abided by the ethical guidelines set out by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and was granted ethics approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of Curtin University.
这项研究遵守了澳大利亚国家健康与医学研究委员会制定的伦理准则,并获得了科廷大学人类研究伦理委员会的伦理批准。
这项研究遵守了澳大利亚国家健康与医学研究委员会制定的伦理准则,并获得了科廷大学人类研究伦理委员会的伦理批准。
A list of government schools was used to identify those with more than 50 students aged 4 and 5 years in their pre-primary classes and located in areas of low socio-economic status (SES). From this, a total of 24 schools were identified that could be paired and matched as closely as possible for geographical location, SES and enrolled student numbers. Of these 12 pairs, six agreed to participate. Schools from each pair were randomly assigned to either the intervention or control condition using a coin toss. Apart from the three testing sessions, schools assigned to the control condition followed their normal curriculum, and were offered the Animal Fun program (Piek et al., 2010) and teacher training at the conclusion of the assessment.
使用了一份公立学校名单来确定那些学前班有 50 名以上 4 岁和 5 岁学生并且位于社会经济地位 (SES) 低地区的学校。从中,总共确定了 24 所学校,这些学校可以根据地理位置、SES 和注册学生人数进行尽可能紧密的配对和匹配。在这 12 对学生中,有 6 对同意参加。每对学校使用抛硬币随机分配到干预或控制条件。除了三次测试外,分配到控制条件的学校遵循他们的正常课程,并在评估结束时接受了 Animal Fun 计划(Piek et al., 2010)和教师培训。
使用了一份公立学校名单来确定那些学前班有 50 名以上 4 岁和 5 岁学生并且位于社会经济地位 (SES) 低地区的学校。从中,总共确定了 24 所学校,这些学校可以根据地理位置、SES 和注册学生人数进行尽可能紧密的配对和匹配。在这 12 对学生中,有 6 对同意参加。每对学校使用抛硬币随机分配到干预或控制条件。除了三次测试外,分配到控制条件的学校遵循他们的正常课程,并在评估结束时接受了 Animal Fun 计划(Piek et al., 2010)和教师培训。
Following approval from the school principal, parents were invited to participate in the study. They were provided with a detailed written description of the purpose and procedures of the project together with information about possible risks and benefits of participation. Written consent was obtained from both parents and children.
在得到校长的批准后,家长被邀请参加这项研究。他们获得了有关项目目的和程序的详细书面描述,以及有关参与可能的风险和收益的信息。已获得父母和孩子的书面同意。
在得到校长的批准后,家长被邀请参加这项研究。他们获得了有关项目目的和程序的详细书面描述,以及有关参与可能的风险和收益的信息。已获得父母和孩子的书面同意。
Teachers from the intervention schools were provided with intensive training prior to implementing the Animal Fun Program (Piek et al., 2010) by attending a full day workshop. This was followed by a number of class visits by the researchers to observe the Animal Fun activities in progress and to provide support to teachers as required. Teachers were asked to complete a weekly dosage report to indicate which modules/activities they had completed within class and to monitor progress across the modules.
在实施动物乐趣计划之前,干预学校的教师通过参加全天研讨会接受了强化培训(Piek et al., 2010)。随后,研究人员进行了多次课堂访问,以观察正在进行的 Animal Fun 活动,并根据需要为教师提供支持。教师被要求完成每周剂量报告,以表明他们在课堂上完成了哪些模块/活动,并监控各个模块的进度。
在实施动物乐趣计划之前,干预学校的教师通过参加全天研讨会接受了强化培训(Piek et al., 2010)。随后,研究人员进行了多次课堂访问,以观察正在进行的 Animal Fun 活动,并根据需要为教师提供支持。教师被要求完成每周剂量报告,以表明他们在课堂上完成了哪些模块/活动,并监控各个模块的进度。
2.4. Data analysis 2.4. 数据分析
Data were analyzed with multi-level mixed effects linear regression (MLM) (Bryk and Raudenbush, 1987, Dimitrov and Rumrill, 2003, Hofman et al., 2007, Holden et al., 2008) as implemented through SPSS’s (version 19) Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) procedure. GLMM tested for intervention effects within the context of a hierarchical design in which time (3 levels) was nested within children, children (N = 511) were nested within teachers (29 levels), and teachers were nested within schools (12 levels). The initial model treated time (pre, post, follow-up), condition (intervention versus control), motor problems (definite, at risk, none), and sex (male, female) as fixed effects; and children, teacher, and school as random effects. The analysis examined all 2-way interactions and two 3-way interactions. The 4-way interaction would be difficult to interpret in terms of pre-existing theory and was therefore omitted from the analysis. In order to make the model robust to violations of sphericity, the covariance matrix was changed from the default of compound symmetry to autoregressive.
使用多级混合效应线性回归 (MLM) (Bryk 和 Raudenbush,1987 年,Dimitrov 和 Rumrill,2003 年,Hofman 等人,2007 年,Holden 等人,2008 年)进行分析,通过 SPSS(第 19 版)广义线性混合模型 (GLMM) 程序实施。GLMM 在分层设计的背景下测试了干预效果,其中时间(3 个级别)嵌套在儿童内,儿童 (N=511) 嵌套在教师(29 个级别)内,教师嵌套在学校内(12 个级别)。初始模型将时间(前、后、随访)、条件(干预与控制)、运动问题(确定的、有风险的、无的)和性别(男性、女性)视为固定效应;以及 children, teacher 和 school 作为随机效应。该分析检查了所有 2 因子交互作用和两个 3 因子交互作用。4 方交互作用很难用预先存在的理论来解释,因此在分析中被省略了。为了使模型对违反球形度的行为具有鲁棒性,协方差矩阵从默认的复合对称性更改为自回归。
使用多级混合效应线性回归 (MLM) (Bryk 和 Raudenbush,1987 年,Dimitrov 和 Rumrill,2003 年,Hofman 等人,2007 年,Holden 等人,2008 年)进行分析,通过 SPSS(第 19 版)广义线性混合模型 (GLMM) 程序实施。GLMM 在分层设计的背景下测试了干预效果,其中时间(3 个级别)嵌套在儿童内,儿童 (N=511) 嵌套在教师(29 个级别)内,教师嵌套在学校内(12 个级别)。初始模型将时间(前、后、随访)、条件(干预与控制)、运动问题(确定的、有风险的、无的)和性别(男性、女性)视为固定效应;以及 children, teacher 和 school 作为随机效应。该分析检查了所有 2 因子交互作用和两个 3 因子交互作用。4 方交互作用很难用预先存在的理论来解释,因此在分析中被省略了。为了使模型对违反球形度的行为具有鲁棒性,协方差矩阵从默认的复合对称性更改为自回归。
3. Results 3. 结果
3.1. Descriptives 3.1. 描述
Table 2 gives the means and standard deviations for the standard scores on the BOT-2SF for the two conditions over the three assessment times. Scores for boys and girls are provided separately as well as the total standard scores.
表 2 给出了三个评估时间内两种情况的 BOT-2SF 标准分数的平均值和标准差。男生和女生的分数以及标准总分分别提供。
表 2 给出了三个评估时间内两种情况的 BOT-2SF 标准分数的平均值和标准差。男生和女生的分数以及标准总分分别提供。
Condition 条件 | Time 时间 | Boys 男孩 | Girls 女孩 | Total 总 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Intervention 介入 | 1 | 51.94 (8.75) | 51.22 (9.46) | 51.57 (9.11) |
2 | 54.90 (8.75) | 52.60 (8.98) | 53.73 (8.93) | |
3 | 58.18 (9.53) | 54.35 (10.46) | 56.22 (10.18) | |
Control 控制 | 1 | 53.85 (8.97) | 55.06 (8.55) | 54.43 (8.77) |
2 | 53.78 (8.45) | 55.40 (8.51) | 54.55 (8.50) | |
3 | 57.09 (9.25) | 58.21 (8.95) | 57.62 (9.09) |
3.2. MLM analysis 3.2. 传销分析
Source 源 | Numerator dfa 分子 dfa | F-value F 值 | p-value p 值 |
---|---|---|---|
Condition 条件 | 1 | 0.06 | .814 |
Time 时间 | 2 | 0.88 | .414 |
Motor Problems (MP) 电机问题 (MP) | 2 | 29.42 | .000 |
Sex 性 | 1 | 0.32 | .574 |
Condition × Time 条件×时间 | 2 | 3.35 | .035 |
Condition × MP 条件×MP | 2 | 0.30 | .740 |
Condition × Sex 条件×性别 | 1 | 5.21 | .023 |
Time × Sex 时间×性 | 2 | 3.84 | .022 |
Time × MP 时间×MP | 4 | 1.37 | .244 |
Sex × MP 性别×MP | 2 | 0.04 | .966 |
Condition × Time × MP 条件×时间×MP | 4 | 1.51 | .198 |
Condition × Time × Sex 条件×时间×性别 | 2 | 1.21 | .300 |
- a
- Note: The denominator df is 1219 for all values.
注意:所有值的分母 df 均为 1219。
3.2.1. Intervention effects
3.2.1. 干预效果
The significant Condition × Time interaction, F(2, 1219) = 3.35, p = .035, indicates an intervention effect. This effect is illustrated in Fig. 2. LSD post hoc comparisons were conducted to locate the source of the interaction. The pre-post comparisons and the post-follow-up comparisons were not significant for the control group (p = .291, p = .692) or the intervention group (p = .077, p = .080). The pre-follow-up comparison for the control group was also non-significant (p = .435); however, the pre-follow-up comparison for the intervention group was significant (p = .001).
显著的条件×时间交互作用 F(2,1219)=3.35,p=.035 表示干预效果。这种效应如图 2 所示。进行 LSD 事后比较以定位相互作用的来源。对照组 (p=.291, p=.692) 或干预组 (p=.077, p=.080) 的前后比较和随访后比较不显著。对照组的随访前比较也不显著 (p=.435);然而,干预组的随访前比较是显著的 (p=.001)。
显著的条件×时间交互作用 F(2,1219)=3.35,p=.035 表示干预效果。这种效应如图 2 所示。进行 LSD 事后比较以定位相互作用的来源。对照组 (p=.291, p=.692) 或干预组 (p=.077, p=.080) 的前后比较和随访后比较不显著。对照组的随访前比较也不显著 (p=.435);然而,干预组的随访前比较是显著的 (p=.001)。
However, the non-overlapping confidence intervals at pre-test indicate that the intervention group had significantly poorer baseline motor skills than the control group. The 3-way interactions were non-significant indicating that the Condition × Time interaction (i.e., the intervention effect) was not moderated by motor problems or sex.
然而,前测时不重叠的置信区间表明,干预组的基线运动技能明显差于对照组。3 向交互不显著,表明条件×时间交互(即干预效果)不受运动问题或性别的调节。
然而,前测时不重叠的置信区间表明,干预组的基线运动技能明显差于对照组。3 向交互不显著,表明条件×时间交互(即干预效果)不受运动问题或性别的调节。
3.2.2. Motor problems 3.2.2. 电机问题
There was a significant main effect for motor problems, F(2, 1219 = 29.415, p < .001). This result is predicted, as it indicates that children with more severe motor problems (as assessed by the MABC cut-offs) have lower BOT-2SF standard scores. The motor problems effect was not involved in any interactions. It can therefore be generalized across condition, sex and time.
运动问题有显着的主效应,F(2,1219=29.415,p<.001)。这个结果是可以预测的,因为它表明具有更严重运动问题的儿童(根据 MABC 临界值评估)的 BOT-2SF 标准分数较低。运动问题效应不参与任何交互。因此,它可以跨条件、性别和时间进行推广。
运动问题有显着的主效应,F(2,1219=29.415,p<.001)。这个结果是可以预测的,因为它表明具有更严重运动问题的儿童(根据 MABC 临界值评估)的 BOT-2SF 标准分数较低。运动问题效应不参与任何交互。因此,它可以跨条件、性别和时间进行推广。
3.2.3. Sex effects 3.2.3. 性影响
There was a significant Time × Sex interaction, F(2, 1219) = 3.84, p = .022, shown in Fig. 3. This suggests that the rate of improvement in motor skills across time is greater for the boys. According to the LSD post hoc tests, the pre-post comparisons and the post-follow-up comparisons were not significant for girls (p = .735, p = .612) or boys (p = .981, p = .085), respectively. The pre-follow-up comparison for the girls was also non-significant (p = .833); however, the pre-follow-up comparison for the boys was significant (p = .047). The time × sex interaction did not interact with Motor Problems or condition, and can therefore be generalized across these factors.
存在显着的时间×性相互作用,F(2,1219)=3.84,p=.022,如图 3 所示。这表明男孩的运动技能随着时间的推移而提高的速度更大。根据 LSD 事后测试,女孩 (p=.735, p=.612) 或男孩 (p=.981, p=.085) 的前后比较和随访后比较分别不显著。女孩的随访前比较也不显著 (p=.833);然而,男孩的随访前比较是显着的 (p=.047)。时间×性互动与运动问题或状况没有相互作用,因此可以推广到这些因素中。
存在显着的时间×性相互作用,F(2,1219)=3.84,p=.022,如图 3 所示。这表明男孩的运动技能随着时间的推移而提高的速度更大。根据 LSD 事后测试,女孩 (p=.735, p=.612) 或男孩 (p=.981, p=.085) 的前后比较和随访后比较分别不显著。女孩的随访前比较也不显著 (p=.833);然而,男孩的随访前比较是显着的 (p=.047)。时间×性互动与运动问题或状况没有相互作用,因此可以推广到这些因素中。
There was also a significant Condition × Sex interaction, F(1, 1219) = 5.205, p = .023, as indicated in Fig. 4. LSD post hoc comparisons indicated that boys had better motor skills than girls in the intervention condition (p = .042), but there was no significant difference between boys and girls in the control condition (p = .620). The Condition × Sex interaction did not interact with motor problems or time. The lack of a 3-way Condition × Sex × Time interaction means that the Condition × Sex effect is stable across time and is therefore unlikely to have confounded the intervention effect.
还有一个重要的条件×性互动,F(1,1219)=5.205,p=.023,如图 4 所示。 LSD 事后比较表明,在干预条件下,男孩的运动技能优于女孩 (p=.042),但在对照条件下,男孩和女孩之间没有显着差异 (p=.620)。Condition×性互动与运动问题或时间没有相互作用。缺乏 3 向 Condition××Time 交互意味着 Condition×效应在时间上是稳定的,因此不太可能混淆干预效应。
还有一个重要的条件×性互动,F(1,1219)=5.205,p=.023,如图 4 所示。 LSD 事后比较表明,在干预条件下,男孩的运动技能优于女孩 (p=.042),但在对照条件下,男孩和女孩之间没有显着差异 (p=.620)。Condition×性互动与运动问题或时间没有相互作用。缺乏 3 向 Condition××Time 交互意味着 Condition×效应在时间上是稳定的,因此不太可能混淆干预效应。
4. Discussion 4. 讨论
Given the relationship between physical activity participation and motor performance (Hay et al., 2004, Mandich et al., 2003), intervention programs that improve children’s motor skills are essential to ensure that they have the best opportunity to increase their physical activity participation. The early years are an important time to develop appropriate skills, and as the transition from pre-primary/pre-school or kindergarten to the first year of formal schooling has been identified as a crucial time in a child’s development (Entwisle and Alexander, 1998, La Paro et al., 2000), the preschool year seems an appropriate time to provide interventions to improve children’s motor skills. The current study investigated one such intervention, the Animal Fun program (Piek et al., 2010), and found a significant improvement in children’s motor skills when assessed 18 months after the initial pre-test. This improvement was not found for the children in the control condition. This movement skills program was administered four days a week for 30 min each day, and was designed to be fun for the children.
鉴于体育活动参与与运动表现之间的关系(Hay 等人,2004 年,Mandich 等人,2003 年),提高儿童运动技能的干预计划对于确保他们有最佳机会增加体育活动参与至关重要。早期是发展适当技能的重要时期,由于从学前班/学前班或幼儿园过渡到正规学校教育的第一年已被确定为儿童发展的关键时期(Entwisle 和 Alexander,1998 年,La Paro 等人,2000 年),学龄前似乎是提供干预措施以提高儿童运动技能的适当时机。目前的研究调查了其中一种干预措施,即动物乐趣计划(Piek et al., 2010),并在初始预测试后 18 个月进行评估时发现儿童的运动技能有显着改善。在对照条件下的儿童没有发现这种改善。这个运动技能计划每周进行四天,每天 30 分钟,旨在为孩子们带来乐趣。
鉴于体育活动参与与运动表现之间的关系(Hay 等人,2004 年,Mandich 等人,2003 年),提高儿童运动技能的干预计划对于确保他们有最佳机会增加体育活动参与至关重要。早期是发展适当技能的重要时期,由于从学前班/学前班或幼儿园过渡到正规学校教育的第一年已被确定为儿童发展的关键时期(Entwisle 和 Alexander,1998 年,La Paro 等人,2000 年),学龄前似乎是提供干预措施以提高儿童运动技能的适当时机。目前的研究调查了其中一种干预措施,即动物乐趣计划(Piek et al., 2010),并在初始预测试后 18 个月进行评估时发现儿童的运动技能有显着改善。在对照条件下的儿童没有发现这种改善。这个运动技能计划每周进行四天,每天 30 分钟,旨在为孩子们带来乐趣。
It is now well established that boys and girls differ in their motor ability, even in the early ages (e.g., Anastasi, 1981, Capute et al., 1985, Pedersen et al., 2003, Piek et al., 2002, Thomas and French, 1985, van Waelvelde et al., 2003). Overall, boys have been found to perform better on motor skills such as running, jumping and catching, whereas girls have better fine motor skills (Thomas & French, 1985). Although it has been suggested that such differences may result from sociological factors such as gender stereotyping (Thomas & French), there is also neurological evidence identifying differences between boys and girls in brain structure in relation to motor related tracts (De Bellis et al., 2001, Liu et al., 2011). In the current study, the BOT-2SF was used to assess changes in motor performance. This is one of the few motor tests that uses sex specific norms for all ages of the test, and as standard scores were used in the current study, should control for any sex differences. As the Condition × Time × Sex interaction was not significant, the intervention did not impact differently on boys and girls. Furthermore, when looking at the whole sample (intervention and control conditions), girls did not significantly increase their motor performance over time. However, the boys’ motor performance was significantly better in Year 1 at the follow-up testing compared with the pre-test scores. These results suggest that boys, but not girls, improve their motor proficiency during the transition stage to year 1. Although physical differences such as body proportions, body mass and fat mass between boys and girls have been investigated (Williams, Wood, & De Ste Croix, 2011), there has been very little research investigating differences in motor development in boys and girls, particularly for subtests of motor performance such as locomotion and manual control. Williams et al. suggest that the age of 6 years is where physical characteristics such as body, muscle and fat mass start to differentiate between boys and girls, and it is possible that this may be a factor contributing to differences in rates of motor development for boys and girls. This is an area in need of further research. It is also possible that this sex difference is a result of different levels of motor performance in Australian boys and girls, given that the BOT-2 is based on norms from children in the USA (and hence the need for Australian norms).
现在已经确定的是,男孩和女孩的运动能力不同,即使在早期也是如此(例如,Anastasi, 1981, Capute et al., 1985, Pedersen et al., 2003, Piek et al., 2002, Thomas and French, 1985, van Waelvelde et al., 2003).总体而言,男孩在跑步、跳跃和接球等运动技能上表现更好,而女孩的精细动作技能更好(Thomas & French, 1985)。尽管有人认为这种差异可能是由社会学因素如性别刻板印象(Thomas & French)造成的,但也有神经学证据证明男孩和女孩在与运动相关的大脑结构上存在差异(De Bellis等人,2001年,Liu等人,2011年).在目前的研究中,BOT-2SF 用于评估电机性能的变化。这是为数不多的对所有年龄段的测试使用性别特定规范的运动测试之一,并且由于当前研究中使用了标准分数,因此应控制任何性别差异。由于 Condition×Time× 性互动不显著,因此干预对男孩和女孩的影响没有差异。此外,当观察整个样本 (干预和控制条件) 时,女孩的运动表现随着时间的推移并没有显着提高。然而,与测试前的分数相比,男孩们在后续测试中 1 年级的运动表现明显更好。 这些结果表明,在过渡到 1 年级的阶段,男孩而不是女孩提高了他们的运动熟练度。尽管已经调查了男孩和女孩之间的身体比例、体重和脂肪量等物理差异(Williams, Wood, & De Ste Croix, 2011),但几乎没有研究调查男孩和女孩在运动发展方面的差异,特别是对于运动表现的子测试,如运动和手动控制。Williams 等人认为,6 岁是身体特征(如身体、肌肉和脂肪量)开始区分男孩和女孩的时期,这可能是导致男孩和女孩运动发育速度差异的一个因素。这是一个需要进一步研究的领域。这种性别差异也可能是澳大利亚男孩和女孩运动表现水平不同的结果,因为 BOT-2 是基于美国儿童的规范(因此需要澳大利亚规范)。
现在已经确定的是,男孩和女孩的运动能力不同,即使在早期也是如此(例如,Anastasi, 1981, Capute et al., 1985, Pedersen et al., 2003, Piek et al., 2002, Thomas and French, 1985, van Waelvelde et al., 2003).总体而言,男孩在跑步、跳跃和接球等运动技能上表现更好,而女孩的精细动作技能更好(Thomas & French, 1985)。尽管有人认为这种差异可能是由社会学因素如性别刻板印象(Thomas & French)造成的,但也有神经学证据证明男孩和女孩在与运动相关的大脑结构上存在差异(De Bellis等人,2001年,Liu等人,2011年).在目前的研究中,BOT-2SF 用于评估电机性能的变化。这是为数不多的对所有年龄段的测试使用性别特定规范的运动测试之一,并且由于当前研究中使用了标准分数,因此应控制任何性别差异。由于 Condition×Time× 性互动不显著,因此干预对男孩和女孩的影响没有差异。此外,当观察整个样本 (干预和控制条件) 时,女孩的运动表现随着时间的推移并没有显着提高。然而,与测试前的分数相比,男孩们在后续测试中 1 年级的运动表现明显更好。 这些结果表明,在过渡到 1 年级的阶段,男孩而不是女孩提高了他们的运动熟练度。尽管已经调查了男孩和女孩之间的身体比例、体重和脂肪量等物理差异(Williams, Wood, & De Ste Croix, 2011),但几乎没有研究调查男孩和女孩在运动发展方面的差异,特别是对于运动表现的子测试,如运动和手动控制。Williams 等人认为,6 岁是身体特征(如身体、肌肉和脂肪量)开始区分男孩和女孩的时期,这可能是导致男孩和女孩运动发育速度差异的一个因素。这是一个需要进一步研究的领域。这种性别差异也可能是澳大利亚男孩和女孩运动表现水平不同的结果,因为 BOT-2 是基于美国儿童的规范(因此需要澳大利亚规范)。
Further research is also required to investigate the transfer of the program to other activities, such as play in the playground or at home. Given that this program was designed to be like a game where the children imitate animals, it is possible that children practiced these skills out of classroom time. This would be an additional advantage of a program that focuses on fun rather than basic skill practice, and further research investigating this would be beneficial.
还需要进一步的研究来调查该计划向其他活动的转移,例如在操场或家中玩耍。鉴于该计划的设计就像一个让孩子们模仿动物的游戏,孩子们有可能在课堂时间之外练习这些技能。这将是专注于乐趣而不是基本技能练习的课程的额外优势,进一步调查这将是有益的。
还需要进一步的研究来调查该计划向其他活动的转移,例如在操场或家中玩耍。鉴于该计划的设计就像一个让孩子们模仿动物的游戏,孩子们有可能在课堂时间之外练习这些技能。这将是专注于乐趣而不是基本技能练习的课程的额外优势,进一步调查这将是有益的。
It should be noted that a limitation of the study which needs to be addressed in further research was that children in the intervention condition had poorer motor skills at pre-test than the control group, despite matching the control and intervention schools on key variables such as SES, school size and location. Also, the boys were poorer than the girls overall in the intervention group. However, none of the 3-way interactions were significant, suggesting that the intervention effect was not moderated by other variables such as sex or motor problems, indicating that this is a real effect.
应该注意的是,该研究的一个局限性需要在进一步的研究中解决,即处于干预条件的儿童在测试前的运动技能比对照组差,尽管在 SES、学校规模和位置等关键变量上与对照组相匹配。此外,干预组的男孩总体上比女孩差。然而,没有一个 3 向交互作用是显着的,这表明干预效果不受其他变量(如性或运动问题)的调节,表明这是一个真正的效果。
应该注意的是,该研究的一个局限性需要在进一步的研究中解决,即处于干预条件的儿童在测试前的运动技能比对照组差,尽管在 SES、学校规模和位置等关键变量上与对照组相匹配。此外,干预组的男孩总体上比女孩差。然而,没有一个 3 向交互作用是显着的,这表明干预效果不受其他变量(如性或运动问题)的调节,表明这是一个真正的效果。
5. Conclusions 5. 结论
The Animal Fun program (Piek et al., 2010) was found to significantly improve motor performance. However, given that the motor ability of the intervention group was significantly poorer than the control group at baseline despite being matched for SES, school location and school size, further investigation is needed to determine whether the program would lift performance above that of a control group which has been matched for initial motor ability. Despite this limitation, this randomized controlled trial of the Animal Fun program has provided promising initial findings that a universal movement program focusing on fun and embedded into the usual kindergarten or pre-primary/pre-school curriculum may be a useful approach to improving motor proficiency in children prior to commencing their formal years of schooling.
发现 Animal Fun 计划(Piek 等人,2010 年)可以显着提高运动性能。然而,鉴于干预组的运动能力在基线时明显差于对照组,尽管与 SES、学校位置和学校规模相匹配,则需要进一步调查以确定该计划是否会将表现提升到高于初始运动能力匹配的对照组的表现。尽管存在这一限制,但这项 Animal Fun 计划的随机对照试验提供了有希望的初步发现,即专注于乐趣并嵌入通常的幼儿园或学前班/学前班课程的通用运动计划可能是提高儿童运动熟练度的有用方法开始他们的正式学校教育。
发现 Animal Fun 计划(Piek 等人,2010 年)可以显着提高运动性能。然而,鉴于干预组的运动能力在基线时明显差于对照组,尽管与 SES、学校位置和学校规模相匹配,则需要进一步调查以确定该计划是否会将表现提升到高于初始运动能力匹配的对照组的表现。尽管存在这一限制,但这项 Animal Fun 计划的随机对照试验提供了有希望的初步发现,即专注于乐趣并嵌入通常的幼儿园或学前班/学前班课程的通用运动计划可能是提高儿童运动熟练度的有用方法开始他们的正式学校教育。
Acknowledgments 确认
We would like to acknowledge the children, parents and teachers for their participation in this research. We would also like to thank Daniela Rigoli, Carly Reid, and the many students for their assistance with data collection, and Sean Piek for data entry. This project was funded as part of the Animal Fun Pre-Primary Movement Project by a Healthway Health Promotion Research Project Grant (#18052) through the Western Australian Health Promotion Foundation.
我们要感谢孩子们、家长和老师参与这项研究。我们还要感谢 Daniela Rigoli、Carly Reid 和许多学生在数据收集方面的帮助,以及 Sean Piek 的数据输入。该项目由西澳大利亚健康促进基金会的 Healthway 健康促进研究项目拨款 (#18052) 资助,作为 Animal Fun Pre-Primary Movement 项目的一部分。
我们要感谢孩子们、家长和老师参与这项研究。我们还要感谢 Daniela Rigoli、Carly Reid 和许多学生在数据收集方面的帮助,以及 Sean Piek 的数据输入。该项目由西澳大利亚健康促进基金会的 Healthway 健康促进研究项目拨款 (#18052) 资助,作为 Animal Fun Pre-Primary Movement 项目的一部分。
References
- Anastasi, 1981Sex differences: Historical perspectives and methodological implicationsDevelopmental Review, 1 (1981), pp. 187-206
- Bart et al., 2007Predicting school adjustment from motor abilities in kindergartenInfant and Child Development, 16 (2007), pp. 597-615
- Biddle et al., 2004Health-enhancing physical activity and sedentary behaviour in children & adolescentsJournal of Sport Science, 22 (2004), pp. 679-701
- Bruininks and Bruininks, 2005Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency(2nd ed.), NFER-Nelson, Windsor (2005)
- Bryk and Raudenbush, 1987Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing changePsychological Bulletin, 101 (1987), pp. 147-158
- Capute et al., 1985Normal gross motor development: The influences of race, sex and socio-economic statusDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 27 (1985), pp. 635-643
- Chambers and Sugden, 2006Early years movement skills: Description, diagnosis and interventionWhurr Publishers, West Sussex, England (2006)
- De Bellis et al., 2001Sex differences in brain maturation during childhood and adolescenceCerebral Cortex, 11 (2001), pp. 552-557
- Dietz et al., 2007Review of the Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, second edition (BOT-2)Physical & Occupational Therapy in Paediatrics, 27 (2007), pp. 87-102
- Dimitrov and Rumrill, 2003Pretest–posttest designs and measurement of changeWork, 20 (2003), pp. 159-165
- Entwisle and Alexander, 1998Facilitating the transition to first grade: The nature of transition and research on factors affecting itElementary School Journal, 98 (1998), pp. 351-364
- Geuze et al., 2001Clinical and research diagnostic criteria for Developmental Coordination Disorder: A review and discussionHuman Movement Science, 20 (2001), pp. 7-47
- Hands and Martin, 2003Fundamental movement skills: Children’s perspectivesAustralian Journal of Early Childhood, 28 (2003), pp. 47-52
- Hay et al., 2004Evaluation of a screening instrument for Developmental Coordination DisorderJournal of Adolescent Health, 34 (2004), pp. 308-313
- Henderson et al., 2007Movement assessment battery for children(2nd ed.), Harcourt Assessment, London (2007)
- Hofman et al., 2007Preliminary evidence for cognitive mediation during cognitive-behavioural; Therapy of panic disorderJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75 (2007), pp. 374-379
- Holden et al., 2008Analyzing Change: A Primer on Multilevel Models with Applications to NephrologyAmerican Journal of Nephrology, 28 (2008), pp. 792-801
- La Paro et al., 2000Teachers’ reported transition practices for children transitioning into kindergarten and first gradeExceptional Children, 67 (2000), pp. 7-20
- Liu et al., 2011Gender differences in language and motor-related fibers in a population of healthy preterm neonates at term-equivalent age: A diffusion tensor and probabilistic tractography studyAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology, 32 (2011), pp. 2011-2016
- Mandich et al., 2003Rites of passage: Understanding participation of children with Developmental Coordination DisorderHuman Movement Science, 22 (2003), pp. 583-595
- Marcus et al., 2006Physical activity intervention studies: What we know and what we need to know: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism (Subcommittee on Physical Activity); Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; and the Interdisciplinary Working Group on Quality of Care and Outcome ResearchCirculation, 114 (2006), pp. 2739-2752
- Pearsall-Jones et al., 2011Motor disorder and anxiety and depressive symptomatology: A monozygotic co-twin control approachResearch in Developmental Disabilities, 32 (2011), pp. 1245-1252
- Pedersen et al., 2003Sex differences in lateralisaton of fine manual skills in childrenExperimental Brain Research, 149 (2003), pp. 249-251
- Piek et al., 2008Motor coordination and social–emotional behaviour in preschool aged childrenInternational Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 55 (2008), pp. 143-151
- Piek et al., 2002Limb and gender differences in the development of coordination in early infancyHuman Movement Science, 21 (2002), pp. 621-639
- Piek et al., 2010Rationale, design and methods for a randomised and controlled trial to evaluate “Animal Fun” – A program designed to enhance physical and mental health in young childrenBMC Pediatrics, 10 (2010), p. 78
- Revie and Larkin, 1993Task-specific intervention with children reduces movement problemsAdapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 10 (1993), pp. 29-41
- Rigoli et al., 2012Motor skills and psychosocial correlates in a normal adolescent samplePediatrics, 129 (2012), pp. e892-e900
- Schoemaker and Kalverboer, 1994Social and affective problems of children who are clumsy: How early do they begin?Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 11 (1994), pp. 130-140
- Slater et al., 2010The clinimetric properties of performance-based gross motor tests used for children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: A systematic reviewPediatric Physical Therapy, 22 (2010), pp. 170-179
- Smits-Engelsman et al., 2011Is the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2nd edition a reliable instrument to measure motor performance in 3 year old children?Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32 (2011), pp. 1370-1377
- Sugden and Chambers, 2003Intervention in children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: The role of parents and teachersBritish Journal of Educational Psychology, 73 (2003), pp. 545-561
- Thelen, 1995Motor development: A new synthesisAmerican Psychologist, 50 (1995), pp. 79-95
- Thomas and French, 1985Gender differences across age in motor performance. A meta-analysisPsychological Bulletin, 98 (1985), pp. 260-282
- van Waelvelde et al., 2003Ball catching. Can it be measured?Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 19 (2003), pp. 259-267
- Williams et al., 2011Growth and maturation during childhoodT. Korff, M.D.S. Croix (Eds.), Developmental biomechanics and motor control, Routledge, London (2011), pp. 3-26
- Wilson, 2005Practitioner review: Approaches to assessment and treatment of children with DCD: An evaluative reviewJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (2005), pp. 806-823
Cited by (42)
The efficacy of two activity-based interventions in adolescents with Developmental Coordination Disorder
2017, Research in Developmental DisabilitiesCitation Excerpt :In a study conducted among Australian children, it was revealed that a task-oriented motor programme (the Animal Fun) improved motor ability. Compared to girls, the boys showed superior improvements over time (Piek et al., 2013). Likewise, when two different group-based task-oriented programmes were compared in children with DCD, both approaches were found to improve motor skills (Caçola, Romero, Ibana, & Chuang, 2016).
Interventions to improve fundamental motor skills in pre-school aged children: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2017, Journal of Science and Medicine in SportDeliberate play and preparation jointly benefit motor and cognitive development: Mediated and moderated effects
2016, Frontiers in PsychologyAssociations of motor and cardiovascular performance with academic skills in children
2014, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.