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.
At the standard, CG and you will IG didn’t let you know people tall variations (p > 0.05) with respect to gender, chronological years, weight, peak, Body mass index and you can disgusting motor profile, because shown in 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 3 displays that one bits of locomotor and target control experience didn’t increase in new handle classification adopting the fresh period, whenever you are a highly extreme boost is actually seen in every item during the IG in reaction to help you PEP.
Every pre-literacy event rather increased from inside the IG pursuing the intervention period, while in CG just the amount of problems toward naming out of items somewhat decreased (see Table cuatro). Continue reading “Setting and you can simple deviations (SD) have been determined to explain the take to characteristics”