Does Daily Physical Education Improve Motor Skill Development and Health-Related Physical Fitness in Preschool Children?

Study design: The experimental physical education program presents a structured, dailyphysical activity intervention implemented within the standard curriculum of preschoolinstitutions, aimed at enhancing children's motor and health‐related development. Thestudy aimed to determine the effects of this program, which lasted six months, onpreschoolers' gross motor skills (GMS) and health‐related physical fitness. The studypresents an Interventional study to improve motor abilities, and the main objective isprevention. The study model is parallel with two groups.Participants: The initial sample consisted of 323 preschool children, comprising allpreparatory preschool groups enrolled at the Preschool Institution "Vera Gucunja" inSombor. A randomized, pretest‐posttest experimental design was applied, whereby half ofthe preparatory groups from the urban area were allocated to the Experimental Group (EG),participating in the six‐month innovative physical education program, while the remaininggroups, following the institution's standard curriculum, formed the Control Group (CG).Only healthy children whose parents or guardians were informed about the study andvoluntarily provided written consent were included. Due to illness‐related dropout overthe course of the study, the final sample assessed at follow‐up measurement was reducedto 258 children (EG: n=125, 48.45%; CG: n=133, 51.55%), with a mean age of 6.07±0.42years (EG: 6.05±0.43; CG: 6.10±0.40). The study received approval from the institutionalethics committee at the Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Novi Sad(ethical approval number: 142‐451‐2800/2018‐01/01/2019).Testing proceduresSecondary outcome: Anthropometric measures: Anthropometric data, including body heightand body mass, were collected as part of the health‐related fitness assessment. FollowingMartin's guidelines, body height was measured using a fixed anthropometer (GPMAnthropometer 100; DKSH Switzerland Ltd., Zurich, Switzerland; ± 0.1 cm). Body mass wasmeasured with a digital balance (BC1000, Tanita, Japan; ± 0.1 kg), following theguidelines proposed by the International Biological Program (IBP).Body mass index (BMI)was calculated using the weight/height² (kg/m²) formula based on the measured height andweight values. Both measurements were taken twice, and both trials were recorded.Primary outcome: TGMD‐2 The Test of Gross Motor Development ‐ 2 (TGMD‐2) is astandardized test used to assess fundamental motor skills in children aged 3 to 10. It iswidely regarded as a highly reliable and precise instrument for identifying children wholag behind their peers in motor skill development, evaluating individual progress, andassessing the effectiveness of motor intervention programs. The TGMD‐2 assesses 12fundamental motor skills divided into two subtests. The locomotor subtest consists of sixskills: running, hopping, jumping, galloping, leaping, and sliding. The object controlsubtest includes six skills: striking a stationary ball, stationary dribbling, catching,kicking, throwing overhand, and underhand rolling. Each skill was verbally explained anddemonstrated before testing, and participants were allowed one practice trial. Each skillwas then performed twice, with locomotor skills assessed before object control skills,and each trial scored according to the test's performance criteria (1 point if thecriterion was met, 0 if not). Testing took approximately 10‐20 minutes per child and wasperformed indoors at each child's home kindergarten, with the exception of the shuttlerun test, which, due to space constraints, was carried out at the "Partizan" Sokol Hallover three separate days. Total raw scores for each subtest and for the overall testranged from 0 to 48.Additional outcome: KTK (body coordination test) was used to assess general bodycoordination through four subtests: walking backwards along a beam, hopping on one legover an obstacle, jumping sideways, and platform shifting. Each subtest was performedtwice, with results converted into both raw and age‐ and sex‐standardized (MQ) values.Additional outcome: PREFIT battery (health‐related physical fitness) The PREFIT batterywas used to assess components of health‐related physical fitness, including bodycomposition (height, weight, BMI, waist circumference), muscular strength (handgripstrength, standing long jump), and cardiorespiratory/motor performance (4x10m running,shuttle run test). Testing followed a standardized order and protocol, withage‐appropriate instructions and a narrative framework designed to engage preschool‐agedchildren throughout the assessment.Interventions: The EG participated in a six‐month innovative physical education program,conducted daily (five days per week) during morning hours as part of the institution'sdirected activities, with sessions led by physical education specialists three days perweek and by preschool teachers on the remaining two days. The program incorporatedelements of ball sports (basketball, football, handball), athletics, gymnastics(developmental, corrective, rhythmic), children's yoga, children's aerobics, dance (folkand standard), and demonstrations of martial arts, with session duration adapted to agestandards for directed activities (approximately 30‐40 minutes for the preparatorypreschool group). In contrast, the CG followed the institution's standard curriculum,engaging in structured physical activity two times per week (one day led by a specialist,one day by a teacher), in accordance with the general framework prescribed by theinstitution's annual work plan.Statistical analyses: Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version20.0, IBM Corporation, USA). Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, minimum,maximum, range, skewness, and kurtosis) were calculated for all variables. Normality ofdistribution was assessed using the Kolmogorov‐Smirnov test and the coefficient ofvariation. Differences in motor skills and health‐related fitness between the EG and CGat initial and final measurement were examined using multivariate analysis of variance(MANOVA) and univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). Differences in the effects of therespective programs on motor skills and health‐related fitness between groups wereexamined using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) and univariate analysis ofcovariance (ANCOVA). Where deviations from normal distribution were detected, thenon‐parametric Mann‐Whitney U test was applied. Statistical significance was set atp≤0.05.