ChildSAMPLE-PENCT03551366
Influence of Different Physical Education Pedagogical Approaches on the Health and Development of 5-6 Year Old Children
A study testing Linear and Nonlinear in people with Child and Child Development, run by Liverpool John Moores University at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
The Skill Acquisition Methods underpinning Pedagogy for LEarning in Physical Education (SAMPLE-PE) project aims to investigate the influence of different pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning in physical education (PE) on 5-6 year old children's health and development. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 5 to 6 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Child, Child Development, Health Behavior
- What is being tested?
- Linear and Nonlinear
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 361 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 4 Jan 2018to 13 Aug 2019
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 5 to 6 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Children aged 5-6 years attending Liverpool primary schools.
Who cannot join
- From the details given in participant's Child Medical Form, any child diagnosed with health or co-ordination issues that could affect motor competency will be excluded from analyses.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United Kingdom1 site
Liverpool John Moores University
Liverpool, Merseyside, L178xe
About this study
Official title: Efficacy of Skill Acquisition Methods Underpinning Pedagogy for LEarning in Physical Education (SAMPLE-PE) in Children Aged 5-6 Years
The Skill Acquisition Methods underpinning Pedagogy for LEarning in Physical Education (SAMPLE-PE) project aims to investigate the influence of different pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning in physical education (PE) on 5-6 year old children's health and development. Schools from deprived areas are invited to take part in the project and will be randomly assigned to either: (1) linear pedagogy PE curriculum programme, (2) nonlinear pedagogy PE curriculum programme or (3) carry on as normal. The linear and nonlinear pedagogy PE programmes will be underpinned by different and contrasting theories of skill acquisition and are delivered by trained coaches over 15 weeks. Children will be measured to assess their physical, psychological, cognitive, and emotional health and development, and their physical activity levels at the start of the study, immediately after the 15 week PE programme, and again after 12 months. It is expected that children taking part in the linear and nonlinear PE programmes will demonstrate greater physical development than children attending schools that carry on as normal. Furthermore, it is also anticipated that children taking part in the nonlinear PE programme will show greater gains in psychological, cognitive and emotional outcomes than the linear and usual practice programmes.
- Conditions
- Child, Child Development, Health Behavior, Physical Activity
- Being tested
- Linear, Nonlinear
- Keywords
- Physical Activity, Physical Education, Children, Pedagogy, Motor Competence, Perceived Motor Competence, Self-perception, Cognition, Fundamental Movement Skills
- Medical subject headings
- Health Behavior, Motor Activity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
LinearBehavioural
The linear pedagogy arms consists of three, five-week phases of lesson delivery, commencing around two weeks after baseline assessments. The first phase focuses on dance, the second on gymnastics and the final phase on ball sports. Each phase has its own schemes of work which includes five lessons objectives, each taught over a two lesson period. The lesson objectives aligned to the aims of English national curriculum. Lessons are delivered twice a week by trained coaches, with each lesson lasting 60 minutes in total, with 45 minutes of on task teaching time. Linear curriculum lessons will be focused on the functioning of the body and children learning movement patterns. These lessons will be far more prescriptive and have clearly stated outcomes/goals for each lesson, with a typical lesson structure following the structure of warm up, isolated practice of technique or skill, simulated game and warm down.
NonlinearBehavioural
The non-linear pedagogy arm consists of three, five-week phases of lesson delivery, commencing around two weeks after baseline assessments. The first phase focuses on dance, the second on gymnastics and the final phase on ball sports. Each phase has its own schemes of work which includes five lessons objectives, each taught over a two lesson period. The lesson objectives align to the aims of English national curriculum. Lessons are delivered twice a week by trained coaches, with each lesson lasting 60 minutes in total, with 45 minutes of on task teaching time. The nonlinear curriculum lessons will look to make sure that children are both engaged and empowered throughout the learning process. In adherence to representative learning design, we will look to contextualise lessons and guide learning through the use of books/stories, lived experiences and the sharing of ideas.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control | No intervention | Subjects in this group will continue with their usual PE curriculum for 15 weeks. |
| Linear | Experimental | Subjects in this group will receive a linear PE curriculum for 15 weeks. Linear Pedagogy is underpinned by neuro-computation approach to motor learning such as information processing theory and prescribes that an ideal movement pattern exists for each task and that the teacher's role is to help learners recreate that pattern. Furthermore, theorists have suggested that learning is a gradual, linear process. This linear pedagogy is supported by a teaching and learning approach that includes both prescriptive and repetitive actions, utilising technical demonstrations that provide learners with a 'visual template or criterion model' for the desired skill . As a consequence, a PE pedagogy has developed whereby the teacher's role is to make all the decisions, and the learner's role is to follow their instructions on cue - a teacher-led approach to PE. Receives: Behavioral: Linear |
| Nonlinear | Experimental | Subjects in this group will receive a nonlinear PE curriculum for 15 weeks. Nonlinear pedagogy is grounded in Ecological Dynamics theory. Ecological dynamics regards learners as complex adaptive systems which afford opportunities for action from their environment and generate movement solutions to satisfy the combination of personal, environmental and task constraints imposed upon them. According to nonlinear pedagogy, the teacher's role is to design learning experiences that create behavioural symmetry between learning and the performance environment. The teacher is a facilitator and manipulates constraints to channel the learner's physical development, while learners are left free to experiment and select the movement solutions that best answer their individual needs. This child-focused, less prescriptive approach may enhance a child's intrinsic motivation by offering freedom to choose, and an emphasis on exploration and problem solving. Receives: Behavioral: Nonlinear |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change from baseline motor competence level (Locomotor and Object-Control Skills) at 5 and 12 months
Fundamental motor skill competency in locomotor and object control skills will be assessed using the Test of Gross Motor Development-3 (TGMD-3: Ulrich, 2013; Webster and Ulrich, 2017).
Measured: Baseline (month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Change from baseline stability skill level at 5 and 12 months
Fundamental motor skill competency in stability category skills will be assessed using the Test of Stability skills (Rudd et al., 2015).
Measured: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Change from baseline motor creativity level at 5 and 12 months
Motor creativity will be assessed using the Divergent Movement Ability Assessment (Cleland and Gallahue, 1993)
Measured: Baseline (month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Secondary outcomes (10)
Change from Baseline Physical Activity at 5 and 12 Months
Physical Activity will be assessed by wrist-worn accelerometers (ActiGraph GT9X+) on their non-dominant wrist continuously for seven days. Parents are asked to keep a diary on when the monitor was has been worn.
Measured: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Change from Baseline Perceived Physical Competence at 5 and 12 Months
Perceived Physical competence will be assessed using the corresponding subscale within The Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children (Harter \& Pike, 1984). The Physical Competence subscale includes items 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, and 23 from the Pictorial Scale. Each item is scored on a 4-point scale, where 4 represents the highest degree of perceived competence. The subscale score is computed by adding values of child responses and ranges from 6 to 24.
Measured: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Change from Baseline Perceived Movement Skill Competence at 5 and 12 Months
Perceived Skill Competence will be assessed by the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence for Young Children (Barnett et al., 2015).
The Scale consists of twelve items with two subscales of six items each representing "Locomotor Skill Perceived Competence" and "Object-Control Skill Perceived Competence", respectively. Each item is scored on a 4-point scale, where 4 represents the highest degree of perceived competence. Subscale scores are computed by adding values of child responses and range from 6 to 24 (higher values indicate higher perceived competence).
All 12 items are summed to generate the Perceived Movement Skill Competence scale score, which ranges from 12 to 48 (higher values indicate higher perceived competence).
Measured: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Change from Baseline Motivation at 5 months
Self Determined Motivation in children will be assessed by a write, draw, show and tell, method, adapted from Noonan et al. (2017).
Measured: Baseline (Month 0) and after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline)
Change from Baseline Executive Functions at 5 and 12 Months
Executive functions will be assessed by three activities from the National Institute for Health toolbox (Weintraub et al., 2013; Zelazo \& Bauer, 2013)
Measured: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Change from Baseline Self-Regulation at 5 and 12 Months (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire)
Self-Regulation will be assessed by the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997; Stone et al., 2010), as completed by the child's class teacher.
The Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire consists of 25 items within 5 subscales (emotional, conduct, hyperactivity, peer and prosocial).
There are five items on each subscale with each item scored 0, 1 or 2. Scores therefore range from 0-10 for each subscale, with 10 indicating higher levels of difficulties (emotional, conduct, hyperactivity, peer subscales) or strengths (prosocial subscale) and 0 indicating lower levels.
A total difficulties score is also generated by summing scores from all the scales except the prosocial scale, with scores ranging from 0 (low) to 40 (high).
Measured: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Change from Baseline Self-Regulation at 5 and 12 Months (Response to Challenge Scale)
Self-Regulation will be assessed by the Response to Challenge Scale (RCS: Lakes, 2012; 2013)
The RCS is an observer-rated measure of children's responses to a physical challenge and includes 16 bipolar adjectives (e.g., Vulnerable-Invincible) rated on 7-point scales (scored 1-7).
There are three subscales assessed: "Cognitive" (6 items, scoring range from 6 to 42), "Affective" (7 items, scoring range from 7 to 49) and "Physical/Motor" (3 items, scoring range from 3 to 21). Negatively worded items are reversed prior to aggregation, so that possible scores on all subscales ranged from 1 to 7, with higher scores indicating greater self-regulation.
Measured: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Body Mass Index
Stature (to the nearest 0.1cm) and mass (to the nearest 0.1kg) will be assessed to calculate and report BMI in kg/m^2
Measured: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Maturation
Stature, mass, and sitting height will be combined to determine maturation status using an age and sex specific maturity offset calculation (Mirwald et al., 2002).
Measured: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Waist girth
Waist girth (nearest 0.1cm) will be assessed as marker of central adiposity
Measured: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted11 Jun 2018
- Study start4 Jan 2018
- Primary completion30 Mar 2019
- Study completion13 Aug 2019
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (19)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for ChildStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Schools are randomly assigned to either a control (usual practice), linear PE pedagogy or nonlinear PE pedagogy arm. Both linear and nonlinear arms will receive 15 weeks of physical education lessons from trained coaches, whereas the control group will carry on with PE lessons as usual.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 361 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Liverpool John Moores University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Universität Münster, University of Strathclyde, University of Otago, Victoria University, Newcastle University, University of Rome Foro Italico
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, James Rudd, Liverpool John Moores University
- Investigators
- James Rudd, PhD, Principal investigator, Liverpool John Moores
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03551366
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- LiverpoolJMU
- Acronym
- SAMPLE-PE
- Status last verified
- Aug 2019
- First submitted
- 10 May 2018
- Last updated
- 14 Aug 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Lee MC, Chow JY, Komar J, Tan CW, Button C. Nonlinear pedagogy: an effective approach to cater for individual differences in learning a sports skill. PLoS One. 2014 Aug 20;9(8):e104744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104744. eCollection 2014.
PubMed 25140822Tompsett C, Sanders R, Taylor C, Cobley S. Pedagogical Approaches to and Effects of Fundamental Movement Skill Interventions on Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2017 Sep;47(9):1795-1819. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0697-z.
PubMed 28213755Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, Shuttleworth R, Renshaw I, Araujo D. Nonlinear pedagogy: a constraints-led framework for understanding emergence of game play and movement skills. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci. 2006 Jan;10(1):71-103.
PubMed 16393504Rudd JR, Barnett LM, Butson ML, Farrow D, Berry J, Polman RC. Fundamental Movement Skills Are More than Run, Throw and Catch: The Role of Stability Skills. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 15;10(10):e0140224. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140224. eCollection 2015.
PubMed 26468644Ulrich DA, The test of gross motor development-3 (TGMD-3): Administration, scoring, and international norms. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi 24(2): 27-33, 2013.
Cleland FE, Gallahue DL. Young children's divergent movement ability. Percept Mot Skills. 1993 Oct;77(2):535-44. doi: 10.2466/pms.1993.77.2.535.
PubMed 8247678Barnett LM, Ridgers ND, Zask A, Salmon J. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport. 2015 Jan;18(1):98-102. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004. Epub 2014 Jan 2.
PubMed 24485803Barnett LM, Robinson LE, Webster EK, Ridgers ND. Reliability of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence in 2 Diverse Samples of Young Children. J Phys Act Health. 2015 Aug;12(8):1045-51. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2014-0141. Epub 2014 Sep 22.
PubMed 25243542Noonan RJ, Fairclough SJ, Knowles ZR, Boddy LM. One Size Does Not Fit All: Contextualising Family Physical Activity Using a Write, Draw, Show and Tell Approach. Children (Basel). 2017 Jul 14;4(7):59. doi: 10.3390/children4070059.
PubMed 28708114Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000 Jan;55(1):68-78. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68.
PubMed 11392867Harter S, Pike R. The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young children. Child Dev. 1984 Dec;55(6):1969-82.
PubMed 6525886Weintraub S, Dikmen SS, Heaton RK, Tulsky DS, Zelazo PD, Bauer PJ, Carlozzi NE, Slotkin J, Blitz D, Wallner-Allen K, Fox NA, Beaumont JL, Mungas D, Nowinski CJ, Richler J, Deocampo JA, Anderson JE, Manly JJ, Borosh B, Havlik R, Conway K, Edwards E, Freund L, King JW, Moy C, Witt E, Gershon RC. Cognition assessment using the NIH Toolbox. Neurology. 2013 Mar 12;80(11 Suppl 3):S54-64. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182872ded.
PubMed 23479546Fox NA. Commentary on Zelazo and Bauer (editors), National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): validation for children between 3 and 15 years. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2013 Aug;78(4):150-5. doi: 10.1111/mono.12044. No abstract available.
PubMed 23952209Goodman R. Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001 Nov;40(11):1337-45. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015.
PubMed 11699809Stone LL, Otten R, Engels RC, Vermulst AA, Janssens JM. Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher versions of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire for 4- to 12-year-olds: a review. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2010 Sep;13(3):254-74. doi: 10.1007/s10567-010-0071-2.
PubMed 20589428
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Aug 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Efficacy of Skill Acquisition Methods Underpinning Pedagogy for LEarning in Physical Education (SAMPLE-PE) in Children Aged 5-6 Years
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03551366
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SAMPLE-PE / LiverpoolJMU
- Conditions
- Child, Child Development, Health Behavior, Physical Activity
- Keywords
- Physical Activity, Physical Education, Children, Pedagogy, Motor Competence, Perceived Motor Competence, Self-perception, Cognition
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 361 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Liverpool John Moores UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Universität Münster, University of Strathclyde, University of Otago, Victoria University, Newcastle University, University of Rome Foro Italico
- Study start
- 4 Jan 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Mar 2019 (actual)
- Study completion
- 13 Aug 2019 (actual)
- First posted
- 11 Jun 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The Skill Acquisition Methods underpinning Pedagogy for LEarning in Physical Education (SAMPLE-PE) project aims to investigate the influence of different pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning in physical education (PE) on 5-6 year old children's health and development. Schools from deprived areas are invited to take part in the project and will be randomly assigned to either: (1) linear pedagogy PE curriculum programme, (2) nonlinear pedagogy PE curriculum programme or (3) carry on as normal. The linear and nonlinear pedagogy PE programmes will be underpinned by different and contrasting theories of skill acquisition and are delivered by trained coaches over 15 weeks. Children will be measured to assess their physical, psychological, cognitive, and emotional health and development, and their physical activity levels at the start of the study, immediately after the 15 week PE programme, and again after 12 months. It is expected that children taking part in the linear and nonlinear PE programmes will demonstrate greater physical development than children attending schools that carry on as normal. Furthermore, it is also anticipated that children taking part in the nonlinear PE programme will show greater gains in psychological, cognitive and emotional outcomes than the linear and usual practice programmes.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Schools are randomly assigned to either a control (usual practice), linear PE pedagogy or nonlinear PE pedagogy arm. Both linear and nonlinear arms will receive 15 weeks of physical education lessons from trained coaches, whereas the control group will carry on with PE lessons as usual.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control | No intervention | –Subjects in this group will continue with their usual PE curriculum for 15 weeks. |
| Linear | Experimental | Behavioral: LinearSubjects in this group will receive a linear PE curriculum for 15 weeks. Linear Pedagogy is underpinned by neuro-computation approach to motor learning such as information processing theory and prescribes that an ideal movement pattern exists for each task and that the teacher's role is to help learners recreate that pattern. Furthermore, theorists have suggested that learning is a gradual, linear process. This linear pedagogy is supported by a teaching and learning approach that includes both prescriptive and repetitive actions, utilising technical demonstrations that provide learners with a 'visual template or criterion model' for the desired skill . As a consequence, a PE pedagogy has developed whereby the teacher's role is to make all the decisions, and the learner's role is to follow their instructions on cue - a teacher-led approach to PE. |
| Nonlinear | Experimental | Behavioral: NonlinearSubjects in this group will receive a nonlinear PE curriculum for 15 weeks. Nonlinear pedagogy is grounded in Ecological Dynamics theory. Ecological dynamics regards learners as complex adaptive systems which afford opportunities for action from their environment and generate movement solutions to satisfy the combination of personal, environmental and task constraints imposed upon them. According to nonlinear pedagogy, the teacher's role is to design learning experiences that create behavioural symmetry between learning and the performance environment. The teacher is a facilitator and manipulates constraints to channel the learner's physical development, while learners are left free to experiment and select the movement solutions that best answer their individual needs. This child-focused, less prescriptive approach may enhance a child's intrinsic motivation by offering freedom to choose, and an emphasis on exploration and problem solving. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 5 to 6 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Children aged 5-6 years attending Liverpool primary schools.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- From the details given in participant's Child Medical Form, any child diagnosed with health or co-ordination issues that could affect motor competency will be excluded from analyses.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| LinearThe linear pedagogy arms consists of three, five-week phases of lesson delivery, commencing around two weeks after baseline assessments. The first phase focuses on dance, the second on gymnastics and the final phase on ball sports. Each phase has its own schemes of work which includes five lessons objectives, each taught over a two lesson period. The lesson objectives aligned to the aims of English national curriculum. Lessons are delivered twice a week by trained coaches, with each lesson lasting 60 minutes in total, with 45 minutes of on task teaching time. Linear curriculum lessons will be focused on the functioning of the body and children learning movement patterns. These lessons will be far more prescriptive and have clearly stated outcomes/goals for each lesson, with a typical lesson structure following the structure of warm up, isolated practice of technique or skill, simulated game and warm down. | Behavioural | Linear |
| NonlinearThe non-linear pedagogy arm consists of three, five-week phases of lesson delivery, commencing around two weeks after baseline assessments. The first phase focuses on dance, the second on gymnastics and the final phase on ball sports. Each phase has its own schemes of work which includes five lessons objectives, each taught over a two lesson period. The lesson objectives align to the aims of English national curriculum. Lessons are delivered twice a week by trained coaches, with each lesson lasting 60 minutes in total, with 45 minutes of on task teaching time. The nonlinear curriculum lessons will look to make sure that children are both engaged and empowered throughout the learning process. In adherence to representative learning design, we will look to contextualise lessons and guide learning through the use of books/stories, lived experiences and the sharing of ideas. | Behavioural | Nonlinear |
Primary outcome
Change from baseline motor competence level (Locomotor and Object-Control Skills) at 5 and 12 months
Time frame: Baseline (month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Fundamental motor skill competency in locomotor and object control skills will be assessed using the Test of Gross Motor Development-3 (TGMD-3: Ulrich, 2013; Webster and Ulrich, 2017).
Change from baseline stability skill level at 5 and 12 months
Time frame: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Fundamental motor skill competency in stability category skills will be assessed using the Test of Stability skills (Rudd et al., 2015).
Change from baseline motor creativity level at 5 and 12 months
Time frame: Baseline (month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Motor creativity will be assessed using the Divergent Movement Ability Assessment (Cleland and Gallahue, 1993)
10 secondary outcomes
Change from Baseline Physical Activity at 5 and 12 Months
Time frame: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Change from Baseline Perceived Physical Competence at 5 and 12 Months
Time frame: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Change from Baseline Perceived Movement Skill Competence at 5 and 12 Months
Time frame: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Change from Baseline Motivation at 5 months
Time frame: Baseline (Month 0) and after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline)
Change from Baseline Executive Functions at 5 and 12 Months
Time frame: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Change from Baseline Self-Regulation at 5 and 12 Months (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire)
Time frame: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Change from Baseline Self-Regulation at 5 and 12 Months (Response to Challenge Scale)
Time frame: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Body Mass Index
Time frame: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Maturation
Time frame: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Waist girth
Time frame: Baseline (Month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Aug 2019.
- Background: PubMed 25140822Lee MC, Chow JY, Komar J, Tan CW, Button C. Nonlinear pedagogy: an effective approach to cater for individual differences in learning a sports skill. PLoS One. 2014 Aug 20;9(8):e104744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104744. eCollection 2014.
- Background: PubMed 28213755Tompsett C, Sanders R, Taylor C, Cobley S. Pedagogical Approaches to and Effects of Fundamental Movement Skill Interventions on Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2017 Sep;47(9):1795-1819. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0697-z.
- Background: PubMed 16393504Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, Shuttleworth R, Renshaw I, Araujo D. Nonlinear pedagogy: a constraints-led framework for understanding emergence of game play and movement skills. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci. 2006 Jan;10(1):71-103.
- Background: PubMed 26468644Rudd JR, Barnett LM, Butson ML, Farrow D, Berry J, Polman RC. Fundamental Movement Skills Are More than Run, Throw and Catch: The Role of Stability Skills. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 15;10(10):e0140224. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140224. eCollection 2015.
- BackgroundUlrich DA, The test of gross motor development-3 (TGMD-3): Administration, scoring, and international norms. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi 24(2): 27-33, 2013.
- Background: PubMed 8247678Cleland FE, Gallahue DL. Young children's divergent movement ability. Percept Mot Skills. 1993 Oct;77(2):535-44. doi: 10.2466/pms.1993.77.2.535.
- Background: PubMed 24485803Barnett LM, Ridgers ND, Zask A, Salmon J. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport. 2015 Jan;18(1):98-102. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.004. Epub 2014 Jan 2.
- Background: PubMed 25243542Barnett LM, Robinson LE, Webster EK, Ridgers ND. Reliability of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence in 2 Diverse Samples of Young Children. J Phys Act Health. 2015 Aug;12(8):1045-51. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2014-0141. Epub 2014 Sep 22.
- Background: PubMed 28708114Noonan RJ, Fairclough SJ, Knowles ZR, Boddy LM. One Size Does Not Fit All: Contextualising Family Physical Activity Using a Write, Draw, Show and Tell Approach. Children (Basel). 2017 Jul 14;4(7):59. doi: 10.3390/children4070059.
- Background: PubMed 11392867Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000 Jan;55(1):68-78. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68.
- Background: PubMed 6525886Harter S, Pike R. The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young children. Child Dev. 1984 Dec;55(6):1969-82.
- Background: PubMed 23479546Weintraub S, Dikmen SS, Heaton RK, Tulsky DS, Zelazo PD, Bauer PJ, Carlozzi NE, Slotkin J, Blitz D, Wallner-Allen K, Fox NA, Beaumont JL, Mungas D, Nowinski CJ, Richler J, Deocampo JA, Anderson JE, Manly JJ, Borosh B, Havlik R, Conway K, Edwards E, Freund L, King JW, Moy C, Witt E, Gershon RC. Cognition assessment using the NIH Toolbox. Neurology. 2013 Mar 12;80(11 Suppl 3):S54-64. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182872ded.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Child
Enrolling by invitationPhase 3
An Open-Label Study to Assess the Long-Term Safety of Solriamfetol in Children and Adolescents With ADHD
ADHD
Not yet recruiting
Feasibility of a Robot-Guided Active Play Intervention for Children With Cerebral Palsy
Cerebral Palsy
RecruitingObservational study
Population Pharmacokinetics of Temocillin in Acute Enterobacterial Pyelonephritis in Children
Pyelonephritis
RecruitingObservational study
A Study in Children and, Adults With Congenital Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (cTTP) Treated With Adzynma
Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (TTP)
RecruitingPhase 1
Cannabidiol (CBD) in Adults With ASD
Autism Spectrum Disorder
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
James Rudd, PhD principal investigator
Liverpool John Moores
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Linear and Nonlinear in people with Child and Child Development, run by Liverpool John Moores University at 1 site in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Aug 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change from baseline motor competence level (Locomotor and Object-Control Skills) at 5 and 12 months (time frame: Baseline (month 0), after the intervention (approximately 5 months post-baseline) and follow-up (approximately 12 month post-baseline)). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03551366, which also lists 19 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Aug 2019.