Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial registered on ANZCTR
Registration number
ACTRN12624000694516
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
13/05/2024
Date registered
31/05/2024
Date last updated
31/05/2024
Date data sharing statement initially provided
31/05/2024
Type of registration
Retrospectively registered
Titles & IDs
Public title
Evaluation of the MOVERS professional development program
Query!
Scientific title
A pilot randomised controlled trial to evaluate the potential efficacy of the MOVERS professional development program for children aged 3 to 5 years
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
312127
0
None
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
physical inactivity
330010
0
Query!
gross motor skills
330011
0
Query!
cognitive skill development
330012
0
Query!
fine motor skills
333915
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Public Health
326917
326917
0
0
Query!
Health promotion/education
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
The intervention was a six-month professional development program for early childhood educators. The professional development included theory, practice and pedagogical reflective thinking components and was delivered in two phases. Phase 1 was a one-day (7 hours) face-to-face professional development session (April 2018) and Phase 2 comprised 4 half-day professional development sessions (3.5 hours each, May – October 2018) and mentoring sessions.
The one-day professional development (Phase 1) focused on the importance of quality in early childhood settings and available tools to assess quality in early childhood education settings. Specifically, the professional development focused on the quality of the movement environment which is inclusive of resources and equipment, fine and gross motor skill, conversations and interactions (between children, educators and families), movement vocabulary and risk-taking behaviours. A key component of the one-day professional development was discussion pertaining to the Movement Environment Rating Scale (the MOVERS scale). The MOVERS scale is a tool that is used to assess the quality of the movement environment in early childhood education settings. It includes 11 items and 4 subscales. Quality is assessed through day long observations, where the quality of the movement environment is rated on a 7-point scale, with 1 indicating minimal quality and 7 indicating excellent quality. During the observations, indicators in each Item are marked as present or absent. An overall score of quality for each Item is then derived and summed to produce subscale scores and a total score. Educators were provided with opportunities to engage in the content of the MOVERS scale, practice using the MOVERS scale, through a sorting card game and ask questions about the MOVERS scale. Item 2 of the MOVERS scale was also discussed during the one-day professional development session. Item focuses on resources and equipment and how they are used in early childhood settings. Educators were encouraged to participate in hands on activities (such as: “design a learning experience which uses all of the following resources - balloons, number cards, pool noodles, ice cream containers etc.”) and then engage with the indicators of Item 2. Current research was presented and several examples of what high quality (in relation to Item 2) looks like in early childhood settings were discussed. Examples were provided using photo and videos. Educators were then encouraged to reflect on their pedagogy and practice pertaining to the Item 2 and consider how it could be modified based on their new knowledge about quality in this area. Reflective questions such as “How could the resources be changed or modified in your setting” were asked.
Phase 2 involved half day sessions and mentoring sessions. During these sessions educators were asked to reflect on their pedagogy and practice since the last session and discuss any challenges and barriers that they may have experienced. Group discussions were facilitated to enable professional conversations between educators and an opportunity to trouble shoot particular scenarios from their settings. Following this, another Item from the MOVERS scale was introduced and discussed. Similar teaching strategies as used for Item 2 were used to discuss the other items. Items 5, 8, 9, and 10 were the focus items for the four half day sessions. The mentoring sessions were completed via phone or email and were dispersed between the half-day PD sessions. These acted as support mechanisms for educators as they made changes within their centres.
All professional development sessions were facilitated by two researchers who had experience in early childhood research. Retention of educators participating in the professional development sessions were collected through attendance records. Educators were provided with the powerpoint slides used in each professional development session. These slides were study specific and hence are not readily available. Additionally at the end of each professional development session, educators were encouraged to complete a short questionnaire which asked questions about the session (i.e., what they found helpful, key components of the session, what could have been detailed further etc)
Query!
Intervention code [1]
326101
0
Behaviour
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
The wait-list control group continued their usual practice during the intervention stage and, with due regard to ethics, was offered to participate in the PD after the follow-up measurements.
Query!
Control group
Active
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
338199
0
Physical activity levels in early childhood education settings. Children's physical activity levels were objectively assessed using accelerometers.
Query!
Assessment method [1]
338199
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
338199
0
Baseline and follow-up at 6 months post-baseline
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
434949
0
Children’s physical activity was assessed using ActiGraph GT3X accelerometers (ActiGraph Corporation; Pensacola, USA).
Query!
Assessment method [1]
434949
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
434949
0
Baseline and follow-up at 6 months post-baseline
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
434950
0
Children’s gross motor skills were assessed using the Test of Gross Motor Development, 2nd edition (TGMD-2). Ulrich, D. A. (2000). Test of gross motor development examiner’s manual. In Test of gross motor development examiner’s manual (2nd ed.). Pro-Ed.
Query!
Assessment method [2]
434950
0
Query!
Timepoint [2]
434950
0
Baseline and follow-up at 6 months post-baseline
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
434951
0
Children’s fine motor skills were assessed using the Ages & Stages Questionnaire 3rd edition (ASQ-3). Squires, J., Twombly, E., Bricker, D., & Potter, L. (2009). ASQ-3 user’s guide (3rd ed.). Paul H. Brookes Pub
Query!
Assessment method [3]
434951
0
Query!
Timepoint [3]
434951
0
Baseline and follow-up at 6 months post-baseline
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
434952
0
Children's literacy- specifically receptive vocabulary was assessed using The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 4th edition (PPVT-4). Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.). Pearson Assessments.
Query!
Assessment method [4]
434952
0
Query!
Timepoint [4]
434952
0
Baseline and follow-up at 6 months post-baseline
Query!
Secondary outcome [5]
434953
0
Children's numeracy skills were assessed using The Preschool Early Numeracy Scale. Purpura, D. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2015). Early Numeracy Assessment: The Development of the Preschool Early Numeracy Scales. Early Education and Development, 26(2), 286–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.991084
Query!
Assessment method [5]
434953
0
Query!
Timepoint [5]
434953
0
Baseline and follow-up at 6 months post-baseline
Query!
Secondary outcome [6]
435541
0
Quality of the movement environment in early childhood education settings
Query!
Assessment method [6]
435541
0
Query!
Timepoint [6]
435541
0
Baseline and follow-up at 6 months post baseline
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
Educators were eligible to participate if they were employed part-time or full-time in rooms that catered for 3-5-year-old children. To be eligible for participation, children had to be three to five years old at the start of the intervention. Those with a diagnosed condition that could affect their behaviour or mobility were excluded from the study.
Query!
Minimum age
3
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
5
Years
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
Yes
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
Children with a diagnosed condition that could affect their behaviour or mobility were excluded from the study.
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Educational / counselling / training
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Centres were randomised following baseline measurements to either the intervention or a wait-list control group by a data manager external to the project using a computerised random number generator.
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Computerised random number generator.
Query!
Masking / blinding
Open (masking not used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Parallel
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Not Applicable
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Analyses were performed in SPSS (version 26, IBM Corporation). Linear mixed models were used to analyse the differences between the intervention and control groups in outcomes were calculated for gross motor skill (TGMD-2), physical activity (accelerometers), literacy (PPVT-4) and numeracy (PENS) outcomes. Fine motor skill scores (ASQ-3) results were presented as proportions and Chi-square was calculated. This study was not adequately powered to detect statistically significant differences between groups. As such, standardized effect sizes were appropriated calculated to demonstrate effects and trends and are the focus of the results and discussion. Effect sizes of approximately 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 are generally considered small, medium and large effects, respectively (Cohen, 2013). Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Rev. ed.). Academic Press.
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
15/01/2018
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
1/03/2018
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
30/03/2018
Query!
Sample size
Target
150
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
157
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
NSW
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1]
316480
0
University
Query!
Name [1]
316480
0
University of Wollongong
Query!
Address [1]
316480
0
Query!
Country [1]
316480
0
Australia
Query!
Primary sponsor type
University
Query!
Name
University of Wollongong
Query!
Address
Query!
Country
Australia
Query!
Secondary sponsor category [1]
318655
0
None
Query!
Name [1]
318655
0
Query!
Address [1]
318655
0
Query!
Country [1]
318655
0
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Query!
Ethics committee name [1]
313004
0
The University of Wollongong Human Ethics Research Committee
Query!
Ethics committee address [1]
313004
0
(02) 4221 3773 (Monday-Wednesday)(02) 4221 5504 (Wednesday-Friday)
Query!
Ethics committee country [1]
313004
0
Australia
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [1]
313004
0
05/06/2017
Query!
Approval date [1]
313004
0
21/11/2017
Query!
Ethics approval number [1]
313004
0
(Human Ethics Project: 2017/238
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
The aim of this study was to investigate the potential efficacy of the MOVERS Professional Development Program on children's physical activity, fine and gross motor skills and numeracy and literacy skills and the quality of the movement environment. It was hypothesised that at the end of the 6 month professional development program, that children in the intervention group would have significant increased in physical activity, fine and gross motor skills and numeracy and literacy skills compared to those in the control group. Additionally it was hypothesied that the quality of the movement environment would increase in the intervention group compared to the control group.
Query!
Trial website
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
126654
0
A/Prof Rachel Jones
Query!
Address
126654
0
School of Education, University of Wollongong, Northfield Ave Wollongong, NSW, 2522 Australia
Query!
Country
126654
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
126654
0
+61 2 42215797
Query!
Fax
126654
0
Query!
Email
126654
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
126655
0
Rachel Jones
Query!
Address
126655
0
School of Education, University of Wollongong, Northfield Ave Wollongong, NSW, 2522 Australia
Query!
Country
126655
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
126655
0
+61 2 42215797
Query!
Fax
126655
0
Query!
Email
126655
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Name
126656
0
Rachel Jones
Query!
Address
126656
0
School of Education, University of Wollongong, Northfield Ave Wollongong, NSW, 2522 Australia
Query!
Country
126656
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
126656
0
+61 2 42215797
Query!
Fax
126656
0
Query!
Email
126656
0
[email protected]
Query!
Data sharing statement
Will individual participant data (IPD) for this trial be available (including data dictionaries)?
No
Query!
No/undecided IPD sharing reason/comment
Query!
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
Documents added manually
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Documents added automatically
No additional documents have been identified.
Download to PDF