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.
Results
During the standard, CG and you will IG did not show one tall differences (p > 0.05) regarding gender, chronological decades, pounds, level, Body mass index and you will disgusting engine character, as revealed in the Desk 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.
Desk step 3 displays that exact items of locomotor and you can object control event don’t rise in brand new control class following the fresh several months, when you’re an incredibly tall raise is found in all the items from inside the IG in response in order to PEP.
Most of the pre-literacy event somewhat enhanced for the IG following the input period, while in CG just the amount of problems toward naming off stuff notably decreased (get a hold of Dining table 4). However, brand new analyses off obtain score and you can ANCOVA don’t tell you one high impression in the input between CG and you will IG.
Dialogue
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 obtain ratings otherwise ANCOVA has been mostly debated in past times regarding the analysis out of pre-test/post-try patterns. Due to the fact ANCOVA is acceptable only for randomized regulated examples and you can can prejudice leads to low-similar organizations otherwise observational habits, the study from acquire results provides for compatible, objective evaluating for some browse activities (Ragosa, 1995). About absence of randomization, when baseline differences when considering teams exist, change-get activities produce reduced biased estimates (Allison, 1990). Based on QGMD ratings ideal from the manual’s tips, we discovered that IG increased this new gross system abilities away from mediocre so you’re able to significantly more than average compared with CG, and therefore did not reveal one associated transform. On top of that, the company of 1 course in lots of sub-phase (social-heat up, main, cool-down-viewpoints stage) is actually the right answer to improve kid’s contribution.