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 https://datingranking.net/tr/meetme-inceleme 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.

Overall performance

Within standard, CG and you can IG did not tell you people significant variations (p > 0.05) with respect to gender, chronological years, lbs, peak, Body mass index and you can terrible motor profile, due to the fact revealed from inside 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 3 screens that bits of locomotor and you will object manage knowledge failed to boost in the newest handle class following experimental period, when you’re an extremely high boost is present in all the items for the IG responding in order to PEP. ادامه مطلب