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, https://datingranking.net/tr/black-singles-inceleme/ 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.
Results
On baseline, CG and you can IG did not tell you one high distinctions (p > 0.05) with respect to sex, chronological age, pounds, top, Body mass index and you will disgusting system reputation, as revealed in the Table 2.
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.
Table step 3 screens that specific bits of locomotor and you can target handle skills did not escalation in brand new handle classification following the fresh several months, whenever you are an extremely high raise is noticed in all the items in the IG as a result so you’re able to PEP.
Every pre-literacy knowledge significantly increased during the IG following intervention period, while in CG precisely the number of mistakes toward naming out-of objects somewhat diminished (select Table cuatro). However, new analyses away from obtain ratings and you will ANCOVA didn’t show one tall perception on input anywhere between CG and you can IG.
Discussion
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 aid of acquire score or ANCOVA might have been mainly debated in earlier times on the study regarding pre-test/post-try activities. Once the ANCOVA is acceptable just for randomized regulated examples and you can is also prejudice contributes to low-equivalent organizations or observational habits, the research out-of acquire ratings offers appropriate, unbiased examination for the majority research habits (Ragosa, 1995). On absence of randomization, whenever standard differences when considering organizations occur, change-score patterns yield faster biased prices (Allison, 1990). Centered on QGMD score advised of the manual’s tips, i found that IG increased brand new disgusting system efficiency out-of mediocre so you’re able to over mediocre compared with CG, and therefore don’t inform you any relevant change. As well, the organization of a single training in several sandwich-levels (social-warm up, main, cool-down-opinions phase) is actually the right solution to increase kid’s contribution.