Trial Review

Did you know?

The ANZCTR now automatically displays published trial results and simplifies the addition of trial documents such as unpublished protocols and statistical analysis plans.

These enhancements will offer a more comprehensive view of trials, regardless of whether their results are positive, negative, or inconclusive.

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
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
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
Secondary ID [1] 312127 0
None
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Trial acronym
Linked study record

Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
physical inactivity 330010 0
gross motor skills 330011 0
cognitive skill development 330012 0
fine motor skills 333915 0
Condition category
Condition code
Public Health 326917 326917 0 0
Health promotion/education

Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
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)
Intervention code [1] 326101 0
Behaviour
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.
Control group
Active

Outcomes
Primary outcome [1] 338199 0
Physical activity levels in early childhood education settings. Children's physical activity levels were objectively assessed using accelerometers.
Timepoint [1] 338199 0
Baseline and follow-up at 6 months post-baseline
Secondary outcome [1] 434949 0
Children’s physical activity was assessed using ActiGraph GT3X accelerometers (ActiGraph Corporation; Pensacola, USA).
Timepoint [1] 434949 0
Baseline and follow-up at 6 months post-baseline
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.
Timepoint [2] 434950 0
Baseline and follow-up at 6 months post-baseline
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
Timepoint [3] 434951 0
Baseline and follow-up at 6 months post-baseline
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.
Timepoint [4] 434952 0
Baseline and follow-up at 6 months post-baseline
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
Timepoint [5] 434953 0
Baseline and follow-up at 6 months post-baseline
Secondary outcome [6] 435541 0
Quality of the movement environment in early childhood education settings
Timepoint [6] 435541 0
Baseline and follow-up at 6 months post baseline

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.
Minimum age
3 Years
Maximum age
5 Years
Sex
Both males and females
Can healthy volunteers participate?
Yes
Key exclusion criteria
Children with a diagnosed condition that could affect their behaviour or mobility were excluded from the study.

Study design
Purpose of the study
Educational / counselling / training
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
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.
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Computerised random number generator.
Masking / blinding
Open (masking not used)
Who is / are masked / blinded?



Intervention assignment
Parallel
Other design features
Phase
Not Applicable
Type of endpoint/s
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.

Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Actual
15/01/2018
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Actual
1/03/2018
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Actual
30/03/2018
Sample size
Target
150
Accrual to date
Final
157
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
NSW

Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1] 316480 0
University
Name [1] 316480 0
University of Wollongong
Country [1] 316480 0
Australia
Primary sponsor type
University
Name
University of Wollongong
Address
Country
Australia
Secondary sponsor category [1] 318655 0
None
Name [1] 318655 0
Address [1] 318655 0
Country [1] 318655 0

Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Ethics committee name [1] 313004 0
The University of Wollongong Human Ethics Research Committee
Ethics committee address [1] 313004 0
(02) 4221 3773 (Monday-Wednesday)(02) 4221 5504 (Wednesday-Friday)
Ethics committee country [1] 313004 0
Australia
Date submitted for ethics approval [1] 313004 0
05/06/2017
Approval date [1] 313004 0
21/11/2017
Ethics approval number [1] 313004 0
(Human Ethics Project: 2017/238

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.
Trial website
Trial related presentations / publications
Public notes

Contacts
Principal investigator
Name 126654 0
A/Prof Rachel Jones
Address 126654 0
School of Education, University of Wollongong, Northfield Ave Wollongong, NSW, 2522 Australia
Country 126654 0
Australia
Phone 126654 0
+61 2 42215797
Fax 126654 0
Email 126654 0
[email protected]
Contact person for public queries
Name 126655 0
Rachel Jones
Address 126655 0
School of Education, University of Wollongong, Northfield Ave Wollongong, NSW, 2522 Australia
Country 126655 0
Australia
Phone 126655 0
+61 2 42215797
Fax 126655 0
Email 126655 0
[email protected]
Contact person for scientific queries
Name 126656 0
Rachel Jones
Address 126656 0
School of Education, University of Wollongong, Northfield Ave Wollongong, NSW, 2522 Australia
Country 126656 0
Australia
Phone 126656 0
+61 2 42215797
Fax 126656 0
Email 126656 0
[email protected]

Data sharing statement
Will individual participant data (IPD) for this trial be available (including data dictionaries)?
No
No/undecided IPD sharing reason/comment


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.