Published on in Vol 9, No 10 (2020): October

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/19943, first published .
Intervention to Improve Preschool Children’s Fundamental Motor Skills: Protocol for a Parent-Focused, Mobile App–Based Comparative Effectiveness Trial

Intervention to Improve Preschool Children’s Fundamental Motor Skills: Protocol for a Parent-Focused, Mobile App–Based Comparative Effectiveness Trial

Intervention to Improve Preschool Children’s Fundamental Motor Skills: Protocol for a Parent-Focused, Mobile App–Based Comparative Effectiveness Trial

Original Paper

1Institute of Public and Preventive Health, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, United States

2Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, United States

Corresponding Author:

E Kipling Webster, PhD

Institute of Public and Preventive Health

Augusta University

1120 15th Street

CJ 2312

Augusta, GA, 30912

United States

Phone: 1 706 721 8305

Email: ewebster@augusta.edu


Background: Preschool age is an important time to master fundamental motor skills (FMS) through structured physical activity, yet many young children lag behind in motor skill development.

Objective: The Promoting Lifelong Activity in Youth (PLAY) study is a pilot comparative effectiveness trial to test the acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of a mobile app delivered to parents to promote FMS development in their preschool children (aged 3-5 years).

Methods: We conducted a 2-arm, parallel-design, randomized comparative effectiveness trial in 72 parent-child dyads from the southeastern United States. Experts in motor development and developmental psychology developed an app designed to deliver a 12-week program to parents of preschoolers using 1 of 2 curricula: an FMS program (intervention) that involved peer modeling, parent engagement, and structured skills-based activities and an unstructured physical activity (comparator) curriculum that provided suggestions for child-led physical activity (ie, free play). Primary outcomes are feasibility and acceptability of the app and child’s FMS measured at end of intervention (week 12). Exploratory outcomes are child’s objective physical activity, perceived movement competence, and parent report of self-regulation at the end of treatment (week 12) and sustained outcomes at follow-up (week 24).

Results: This project was funded in September 2018, with institutional review board approval in August 2018. Data collection took place from May 2019 through February 2020. To date, the project team has completed data collection on 69 preschool-age children, and results are expected to be published by 2021.

Conclusions: The PLAY study examines the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of a mobile app, parent-led curricula to promote FMS proficiency for preschool children. If found to be effective, the app has the potential for wide-scale dissemination to parents of preschoolers and to provide a model for the utilization of mobile apps to promote young children’s motor skill development.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03901300; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03901300

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/19943

JMIR Res Protoc 2020;9(10):e19943

doi:10.2196/19943

Keywords



Background

Physical activity (PA) is vital to early childhood physical and mental development [1]. Yet a third of children aged 3-5 years do not engage in the recommended 3 hours of daily PA [2]. Structured PA promotes the development of fundamental motor skills (FMS) like running, jumping, or throwing a ball. These skills are basic, goal-directed movement patterns that provide a foundation for children to be physically active and competent movers [3] and enable a child to build the confidence and ability to be physically active [3,4]. These skills are not innately acquired and instead must be modelled and practiced for mastery. Evidence has shown that children must establish a minimal level of FMS proficiency to continue being physically active as they age [4-8].

FMS and PA behaviors have a dynamic and reciprocal relationship [4,7]. Children with higher levels of FMS are more physically active both during childhood [9-11] and into adolescence [12-15] compared to those with lower levels of FMS competency. Research has indicated that the preschool years are an opportune time for children to learn and reinforce these skills [16]. With inadequate FMS competency, a child is less likely to engage in PA based on a lack of prerequisite skills and abilities that are foundational to FMS [4-8], whereas a child with adequate FMS competency tends to be more physically active [17]. Moreover, FMS promote self-regulatory abilities including managing emotions, focusing attention, and inhibiting behavior [18]. Behavioral self-regulation is important for academic readiness [19] and regulating health behaviors that may also contribute to obesity [20]. Therefore, interventions for preschool children should focus on developing FMS competence.

As children and their parents spend a significant amount of time viewing screens [21], it may be opportune to leverage screen-time as a tool to increase preschool children’s PA. Specifically, PA interventions delivered over digital devices, such as mobile apps, can provide encouragement in real-world settings for children to be physically active. The use of mobile-based interventions (eg, on a smartphone or tablet) has been recognized as a promising avenue to substantially affect levels of PA, especially in high-income countries such as the United States [22]. However, few mobile-based interventions have been developed that specifically focus on increasing PA in children [23,24], while several weight management apps include PA as a secondary component [25,26].

Comparable mobile health (mHealth) programs that focus on increasing PA in preschoolers are promising: A 6-month mobile app intervention delivered to parents of preschoolers improved children’s PA, particularly among those with higher fat mass [27]. A 7-week intervention that involved cognitive behavioral skills training over text messaging to parents of preschoolers observed improved PA in the target child, but this intervention also included face-to-face visits with a counselor [28]. Only one of these studies delivered the intervention exclusively to parents, and the PA results were not reported [29]. In a slightly older age group (6-10 years of age), a mobile-based PA promotion program (P-Mobile) was delivered to parents and resulted in increased objectively measured steps/day [30]. The present intervention, the Promoting Lifelong Activity in Youth (PLAY) study, is focused on modeling FMS as a way to increase preschool-aged children’s FMS, PA levels, perceived motor competence, and academic readiness.

Study Aims

The goal of PLAY is to test a developmentally appropriate intervention delivered on a mobile app to parents, with the goal of teaching FMS proficiency to their preschool-aged children (aged 3-5 years). The specific aims are described in the following sections.

Aim 1

The first aim is to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a 12-week FMS intervention delivered through a mobile app to parents and children.

Aim 2

The second aim is to test the hypothesis that a 12-week FMS intervention delivered through a mobile app will improve children’s FMS, compared to the unstructured PA (UPA) app comparator group.

Exploratory Aim 1

The first exploratory aim is to test the hypothesis that a 12-week FMS intervention delivered through a mobile app will improve children’s PA levels, perceived movement competence, and academic readiness (ie, self-regulation skills), compared to the UPA app comparator group.

Exploratory Aim 2

The second exploratory aim is to test the potential mediating or moderating effect of FMS on changes in exploratory outcomes.

Exploratory Aim 3

The third exploratory aim is to test the hypothesis that the effects of the FMS intervention will be sustained through week 24.


Study Design

The PLAY study was designed as an attention-matched randomized controlled trial, with the intervention arm receiving FMS instruction and the comparator arm receiving instruction on UPA. The PLAY study sought to recruit 72 child-parent dyads (children 3 to 5 years of age), with the goal of 36 dyads per arm. Parents were targeted to guide the intervention, as parental support, modeling, and co-participation predict children’s engagement in PA [31-34]. Pennington Biomedical Research Center’s Institutional Review Board approved this study (2018-041).

Sample Size and Power Calculation

The estimated effect size is based on a meta-analysis of FMS interventions (overall effect size d=0.39) [35,36]. A group size of 28 dyads/arm was originally planned to provide 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.33 for change in FMS score at week 12 (α=0.05). The research team enrolled and randomized 72 parent-child dyads to allow for a ~22% drop out by week 12 (based on previous studies by the multi-primary investigators), so that there would be at least 28 dyads/group at the end of the intervention (week 12).

Participants, Eligibility, and Recruitment

Parents of preschool children in a southeastern state of the United States were recruited between May 2019 and August 2019. Parents were recruited using advertisements via local childcare centers, community events, email listserv, and social media. Inclusion criteria for the child were age between 3 and 5 years, physically capable of exercise, and no mobility limitations that would impair PA based on parent report. Child exclusionary criterion was gross motor quotient at “gifted” or “very advanced” based on the Test of Gross Motor Development - 3rd edition (TGMD-3) [37] at baseline screening; the rationale was to avoid ceiling effects in the primary outcome. Inclusion criteria for parents included having a smartphone, willing to download and use the mobile app, having no plans to move during the study period (24 weeks), and having no self-reported mobility limitations that impaired modelling of FMS. Families were compensated US $25 upon completion of the baseline visit, week 12 visit, and week 24 visit, for a total of US $75.

Randomization and Blinding

Dyads were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the FMS or UPA condition after all baseline assessments were complete. The statistician (RB) generated a sex-stratified adaptive randomization taking into account baseline FMS. Investigators were blinded. Data assessors were blinded at each assessment visit. Families discovered which condition they were assigned to following the completion of baseline data collections.

Procedures

After an initial phone screen, eligible preschool children and parents were asked to attend a screening visit. All study visits occurred at a local recreational facility or at the biomedical research center.

Screening Visit

Parents received detailed information about the study and provided written informed consent. Eligibility measures were also completed. Parents completed a weekly availability worksheet to identify available times and opportunities to practice lessons with their children using the mobile app at least 5 days per week. The preschool child performed the TGMD-3. TGMD-3 assessments were scored by a trained coder before the baseline visit to determine eligibility. The child was fitted for a hip-worn accelerometer (ActiGraph GT3X+BT), and parents were asked to have their child wear the accelerometer for 24 hours/day for 7 days while the parent completed a wear-time log. The parent was present when the child was fitted for their accelerometer to assist in appropriate placement while at home; parents were also given informational handouts on how to complete the parental log and when and how to take the monitors off.

Baseline Visit (Week 0)

The baseline visit was scheduled within 2-3 weeks of the screening visit. Parents returned the accelerometer at the baseline visit. If the child did not have adequate accelerometer wear during the time period, the parent was asked to have the child wear the accelerometer for an additional 7 days. Parents completed questionnaires at the baseline visit, which included parent and child demographics and child self-regulation. A trained research assistant measured the child’s height and weight and conducted the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence for Young Children (PMSC) [38,39].

After the collection of baseline data, the trained research assistant revealed randomization from an opaque envelope provided by the statistician. The trained research assistant helped download the PLAY study mobile app onto the parent’s smartphone and selected the FMS version or UPA version based on randomization. The trained research assistant familiarized the parent with the PLAY study mobile app by using the first weekly lesson as an example, showing the videos and explaining the points system.

Follow-Up Visits (Weeks 12 and 24)

The parent and child returned for 2 follow-up visits at 12 weeks (end of intervention) and 24 weeks (follow-up) after baseline. The parent was mailed the accelerometer and wear-time log 2 weeks ahead of these visits to provide adequate time for the child to wear the accelerometer for 7 days. Parents returned the accelerometer in-person for each visit. At both follow-up visits, parents completed questionnaires including child self-regulation and acceptability. Anthropometry, PMSC, and TGMD-3 were conducted with the preschool child and in that specific order. A trained research assistant deleted the PLAY study mobile app from the parent’s smartphone at the week 24 visit.

Intervention

App Development

The PLAY app was developed by research scientists with expertise in FMS, developmental psychology, and behavior change and programmed by CyberFision, an app development company. Because the app is web-based, the app can function on a smartphone, tablet, or other mobile internet-enabled device. Parents in both conditions downloaded the PLAY study mobile app. To standardize the appearance and usability of the mobile app across the two conditions, one mobile app was created to house all components of the intervention, with specific features turned on for each condition (ie, parents of the FMS intervention did not see the UPA intervention components and vice versa).

Weekly Lessons

Parents in both conditions were instructed to first read the lesson each week, which detailed the purpose and goals for the activity breaks, and then to have their child perform the respective activity break (which was either the FMS or UPA suggested activities). Parents were asked to have their child engage in the activity breaks for at least 12 minutes/day, 5 days a week, for 12 weeks. This resulted in a total of 720 minutes of time directed toward either the FMS or UPA activity breaks. If the child was unable to obtain 12 minutes in one bout, the parent was asked to obtain that total amount within the day (eg, two 6-minute sessions).

Reminders and Reinforcement Schedule

One-way SMS or text messages were sent 5 times each week via the mobile app to prompt the parent to read each week’s lesson (1 time/week) and to prompt the parent and child to engage in the activity break (5 times/week). Parents selected times at their screening visit of when they wanted to receive these reminders. Additionally, a reinforcement schedule was built into the PLAY study mobile app by a point system in which the child pressed a star on the screen for each day that they performed the activity break (5 stars available for each week). Parents were encouraged to reward their child with non-food–based rewards such as small toys or non-tangible items such as a high-five. A new lesson was available every 7 days for 12 weeks for 12 lessons total. Lessons were unlocked regardless of the number of activity breaks completed; parents had access to previous lessons but were unable to access future lessons until the respective week. Research assistants also monitored parents’ usage of the app weekly by monitoring whether the parents reported that the child engaged in at least one activity break through the star reporting system. The research assistants telephoned the parent when this information was missing to inquire if there were technical difficulties accessing the app.

Fundamental Motor Skill (FMS) Condition

The PLAY app provided parents in the FMS condition with brief instructional lessons, peer modeling videos of FMS, and peer modeling videos of activity breaks to deliver targeted, structured FMS instruction time. The FMS condition was built on a curriculum focused on 6 key FMS (3 locomotor, 3 object control) that were selected to be challenging but developmentally appropriate (hop, throw, slide, kick, jump, catch; each repeated twice). Activity breaks were developed and tested previously in a preschool-age population, demonstrating effectiveness to improve children’s motor skill competence with good adherence [40,41]. Each week’s lesson included 6 videos; 5 videos (approximately 5 seconds in length) showed preschool-aged children performing different aspects of an FMS (eg, stepping with opposition, bending knees). These series of videos were intended to help the parent select components of the FMS to focus on to shape the child’s skill towards mastery [42]. A final video each week (<1 minute in length) showed children demonstrating activities for the activity break, which included activities that reinforced the week’s selected skill. This final video was narrated by children.

For example, on Week 1 Day 1, the parent received a notification to open the app and access the first themed lesson, “Hop.” The parent was asked to read a brief instructional lesson about the targeted FMS (including a description of a proficient “hop”), view the brief videos of the demonstrated FMS and suggested activity break activities, and then engage in a 12-minute activity break designed to help the parent model the skill and provide the preschool child with practice for the targeted FMS. Given the complexity of each FMS, parents were given 5 videos of the subcomponents of completing each FMS and asked to practice the progression that fit the child. For example, for overhand throwing, the child would practice winding up, stepping forward with the opposite foot, following through across their body, and aiming either for distance or accuracy. Therefore, the child and parent had video examples of child peers completing these FMS subcomponents. The goal was to obtain a total exposure of 720 minutes of directed instruction over 12 weeks, a dosage that aligns with prior interventions that effectively improved children’s FMS [35,43].

Behavioral scaffolding [44] and social cognitive theory [44,45] informed the FMS approach. Behavioral scaffolding is a cognitive learning approach to problem solving that allows children to master skills beyond his or her current ability [46,47] and was implemented through video segments of children performing motor skills that increase in complexity. According to social cognitive theory, for modeling to effectively elicit behavior change, the child must undergo a process involving attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation [44,45]. This was accomplished through viewing of peers performing and narrating skills (attention), repeated practice and reminders (retention), replication of modeled activities (reproduction), and perceived competence and video and text files providing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, respectively (motivation).

Unstructured Physical Activity (UPA) Condition

Parents in the UPA (defined as child-led free play) condition had access to the UPA lessons and UPA activity breaks to promote the equivalent amount of UPA time for the child (ie, 720 minutes over 12 weeks). The lessons were adapted to be developmentally appropriate for preschool children using a curriculum previously developed and tested based on social cognitive theory [30]. This comparator arm was selected as it has shown to increase children’s PA levels [30] but does not explicitly target FMS or provide structured lessons to parents on how to model these skills. The following 6 topics were covered: setting goals, making time for child’s free play, being active indoors and outdoors (eg, dancing), reinforcing PA, reducing sedentary behaviors (eg, screen-time), and parental co-participation. The activity breaks provided specific strategies to encourage the child’s UPA (eg, take your child to the park or outside, use your phone alarm to remind your child to be physically active) with an accompanying video narrated by an adult that read aloud the lesson and featured photos depicting images that aligned with the lesson (eg, a photo of a park). There were no children featured in the photos so that the UPA group did not receive any peer modeling. Features of each condition may be found in Table 1.

Table 1. PLAY app: features of each condition.
FeaturesFundamental motor skills (FMS)Unstructured physical activity (PA)
Child physical activity720 minutes of directed instruction on FMS over 12 weeks (12 minutes/day, 5 days/week)720 minutes of unstructured PA over 12 weeks (12 minutes/day, 5 days/week)
Parent lessonParent reads lesson once a week on each targeted FMS (eg, description of a proficient “hop”)Parent reads lesson on PA support once a week (eg, how to make time for PA)
Peer modeling videosParent and child watch video of peers modeling each targeted FMS (eg, a child performing a “hop”)None
Activity breakPractice, modeling, and reinforcement of each targeted FMS (eg, hopping game)Activity breaks of unstructured PA (eg, take child to the park, play songs for a dance party)
Push notificationsOnce per week to notify of lesson availability; 5 times per week to prompt each 12-minute activity breakOnce per week to notify of lesson availability; 5 times per week to prompt each 12-minute activity break
Rewards and reinforcementPoint system reinforcement schedulePoint system reinforcement schedule

Measures

Primary Outcomes

Feasibility was measured as adherence to the mobile app intervention, including objective data on the number of lessons, videos, and activity breaks accessed, and self-reported frequency of interaction with the app through the reinforcement schedule (ie, star reporting system). These data were provided on an ongoing basis by CyberFision. Acceptability was captured at weeks 4, 8, and 12 with an in-app parent survey that assessed satisfaction with the intervention in 4 domains (overall satisfaction, helpfulness, ease of use, and perceived change in child’s motor skills) using a Likert-type scale. The System Usability Scale [48] and a satisfaction scale [49] were completed by the parents at the week 12 and 24 assessment visits. Additional usage data were captured via weekly parent surveys embedded within the app: the context of the activity breaks including the parent’s location, the child’s location, and who participated (weeks 1, 5, 9); barriers to performing the activity breaks and the use of equipment during the breaks (weeks 2, 6, 10); and engagement with the mobile app (weeks 3, 7, 11).

FMS were assessed using the TGMD-3, a direct observation assessment used with children aged 3-10 years [37]. The TGMD-3 is a process-oriented and product-oriented assessment to evaluate FMS performance in 2 subscales: locomotor (run, gallop, one-legged hop, skip, jump, and slide) and ball skills (two-hand strike, one-hand strike, catch, kick, dribble, overhand throw, and underhand throw). By design, these include skills targeted in the intervention. Previous research has demonstrated that the TGMD-3 is a valid and reliable assessment tool [50,51]. Assessments were filmed in an open space and coded by trained research assistants blinded to the purpose of this project. An FMS expert (EKW), who previously attained 99% reliability coding with the author of the TGMD-3 assessment, coded the administrations and was blinded to the experimental condition of the participants.

Exploratory Outcomes

To measure PA, the child was asked to wear an Actigraph GT3X+BT accelerometer for 7 days on the right hip, which has been previously validated in preschool children [52]. Minimal wear time was accepted as 4 days at ≥10 hours/day (≥1 weekend day) and 15-second epoch length [53] were used. Cutpoints by Pate et al [52] were used to classify moderate and vigorous PA, and cutpoints by Evenson et al [54] were used to classify sedentary time.

The PMSC [38] was used to examine the child’s perceived movement competence on the 13 skills assessed with the TGMD-3 and took approximately 10 minutes for the child to complete. Previous research has established validity and reliability with this scale in this age range [39].

Self-regulation skills were reported by the parent using the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment, 2nd Edition, which is a 38-item proxy report with good validity and reliability to measure self-regulation and behavioral concerns in children aged 3-5 years [55].

Descriptive Characteristics and Potential Covariates

For anthropometry, height and weight were measured using a stadiometer and portable scale, respectively, without shoes, and recorded to the nearest 1.0 cm and 0.1 kg, respectively. A third measurement was taken if the 2 measurements differed by more than 0.5 units. BMI z-score was calculated [56].

To collect sociodemographic data, parents reported information on child and parent age, sex, race/ethnicity, parental education, family structure, childcare or away-from-home care, home environment [57], and household income. To collect health behavior information, parents reported the child’s screen use, sleep, and prior experience of the preschool child and parent with mobile apps. The parent also completed a short questionnaire related to child diet, including intake frequency of specific food groups (high fat foods and sugary drinks), that has been previously validated in this age range [58].

Statistical Analysis

Intent-to-treat analyses will be used to include all participants with baseline and at least one follow-up value. Additional analyses will be conducted per protocol based on intervention adherence. Final selection of covariates included in the models will be based on model fit statistics, such as AIC.

Aim 1

Initial results for feasibility, broken down separately for number of lessons and videos accessed, activity breaks accessed, and frequency of interaction, will be expressed using contingency tables. Rates, based on a generalized linear model with a Poisson distribution, will be used to both adjust for covariates and compare the 2 versions of the app (FMS vs UPA). Each of the 4 domains of acceptability will be treated independently and considered as a continuous response, analyzed with a linear model for covariate and app effects.

Aim 2

FMS results will be estimated using a linear mixed effect model with the baseline and follow-up scores at week 12 (end of intervention) and week 24 (end of study) as the outcome. This model will use random effects to account for the correlation in a participant over time. Results from the model will be reported as least square means, with P values based on t tests.

Exploratory Aims

PA levels, perceived movement competence, and self-regulation will be analyzed similarly as for Aim 2. FMS will be tested as a potential mediator and moderator. Mediations will investigate how the covariates affect the relationship between the condition and each outcome variable (for the exploratory analyses, these include PA levels, perceived movement competence, and academic readiness or self-regulation). Mediation analyses will be applied using both structural mean models and principal stratification [59].

Sustained effects will be estimated using a similar linear mixed model as described in an earlier section. However, time will be considered a continuous covariate in order to estimate the rate of sustained effect. This allows the interaction of app and time to test for rate differences between the 2 apps on outcomes of interest through the follow-up at weeks 12 and 24 (separate models conducted for each dependent variable measured continuously over time: FMS, PA levels, perceived movement competence, and self-regulation).


This project was funded from September 2018 through 2021 by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health. Pennington Biomedical Research Center’s Institutional Review Board approved this study in August 2018. Recruitment occurred between May 2019 and August 2019. Accordingly, data collection happened from May 2019 through February 2020, including all baseline, week 12, and week 24 visits. To date, the project team has completed data collection on 69 parent-child dyads and is currently analyzing the primary and exploratory outcomes. Results of the current study are expected to be published in 2021.


PLAY is a parent-targeted, theoretically grounded, mobile-based intervention designed to teach parents how to model, support, and guide their preschool-aged children’s FMS competence. The scientific premise for the protocol is based on: (1) evidence showing that children must establish a minimal level of FMS proficiency to continue participating in PA opportunities as they age [4-8]; (2) longitudinal data linking FMS proficiency in childhood with higher levels of PA and lower adiposity 4 y later [15] and into adolescence [12], including an FMS intervention that increased preschoolers’ PA [60]; (3) the lack of published mHealth interventions that specifically focus on parents of preschool-aged children or on PA promotion or FMS development; (4) the mixed results of prior mHealth interventions, which are at least partially attributable to previous efforts failing to fully capitalize on behavior change theory and maintain treatment intensity; and (5) the desire of parents to have family-focused interventions that are convenient to access [61].

Unlike other interventions that are primarily in childcare settings [11,62], this intervention utilizes parents to deliver the FMS curriculum, as parents serve an important role to enable early PA behaviors [63]. Previous work in low-income populations found that some of parents’ PA was related to their preschool children’s PA, providing more evidence that these behaviors could be modeled from parent to child [64]. Given the ubiquity of digital devices in parents’ and children’s daily lives [21], this study will leverage this existing screen-time and mobile app use to promote FMS development and healthy development in children.

The use of a mobile app to deliver the intervention offers the unique opportunity to distribute evidence-based content in a succinct and easily accessible manner to parents. This mode of delivery directly to the hands of the parent offers many advantages compared to receiving this instruction at in-person classes or health clinics, reducing barriers such as transportation, time commitment, and other family priorities [65]. The app offers ecological validity, so the child is practicing FMS and engaging in PA in the real-world setting of their own home rather than in a research laboratory. Further, the curriculum delivered on the mobile app is grounded in behavior change techniques, such as behavioral scaffolding and peer modelling, whereas many other mobile apps incorporate few behavior change techniques to shape behaviors [66]. Apps also offer the opportunity to incorporate real-time feedback through wearable devices, such as step counters and accelerometers, which are growing in popularity and acceptability by parents [67] but may or may not be acceptable or feasible for preschool-aged children.

One of the key strengths of using a mobile app is the opportunity for dissemination and implementation (ie, scaling up the intervention). The mobile app may be readily updated from parents’ feedback and thereby adapted in a timely manner. This adaptability allows the study to bypass challenges in dissemination and implementation commonly presented in school and health care interventions, such as structural and personnel limitations. For example, the PLAY study mobile app delivers lessons that require little to no equipment and provides lessons directly to the parent and child. These two components decrease the potential for organizational challenges, along with hiring and training personnel to implement the intervention. Additionally, mobile apps allow accessibility to families and individuals living in rural areas where access to appropriate curriculum and health-enhancing activities is limited. A FMS curriculum delivered on a smartphone app is an innovative and potentially acceptable way to create a social learning environment that can benefit young children and their parents from their homes.

There are potential limitations to the PLAY study. The parents were provided with videos that demonstrate each level of FMS progression divided into skill components and expected to determine their child’s ability and adjust the activities for their child’s current FMS level. An important consideration is that previous studies indicate parents do not provide a valid report of their child’s FMS [68,69], which may lead to parents delivering content or curriculum that is not developmentally appropriate for their child. While the study outcome data on FMS were collected using a valid and reliable test and scored by a trained expert, future iterations may share these data directly with the parent to assist their intervention delivery.

One challenge is potential malfunction of the mobile app that can influence delivery and lesson implementation during the trial. The research study team conducted usability testing prior to use and also contacted parents with technical support if they did not engage with the mobile app (via reporting participation) at least once per week. This communication was intended to allow any mobile app errors to be found in real-time and quickly addressed. Another limitation is a concern in app research, which is differentiating between adherence to protocol (ie, completing the activity breaks) and engagement with the mobile app (ie, opening and utilizing the mobile app) [70]. This study used mobile app data (eg, viewing videos) as objective measurements of utilization of the app, but adherence to the protocol was limited to parent-report based on the family selecting stars each week to indicate completed activity breaks. Finally, as these data were collected in the southeastern United States, generalizability of the results of this feasibility study will be limited to this region. Future work will be needed to assess the feasibility in different regions, as well as to examine the effectiveness of this intervention in different subgroups (eg, sex, race/ethnicity, income level).

Overall, parents and preschool children spend much of their time using screens, and this existing screen-time may provide an opportunity to deliver beneficial and developmentally appropriate content to enhance FMS proficiency in young children. The PLAY study examines the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of a mobile app and parent-led curricula to promote FMS proficiency for preschool children. If found to be effective, the app has the potential for wide-scale dissemination to parents of preschoolers and to provide a model for the utilization of mobile apps to promote young children’s motor skill development.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the parents and children who participated in the study. This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (grant numbers R21HD095035, P30DK072476, U54 GM104940, T32DK064584). The funders had no role in study design; collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; writing of the report; or decision to submit the article for publication.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

References

  1. Janssen I, Leblanc AG. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2010 May 11;7:40 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. Guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep for children under 5 years of age. World Health Organization. 2019 Apr 2.   URL: https:/​/www.​who.int/​publications/​i/​item/​guidelines-on-physical-activity-sedentary-behaviour-and-sleep-for-children-under-5-years-of-age [accessed 2020-10-03]
  3. Clark JE, Metcalfe JS. The mountain of motor development: A metaphor. Motor development: research and review 2002;2:163-190.
  4. Stodden DF, Goodway JD, Langendorfer SJ, Roberton MA, Rudisill ME, Garcia C, et al. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: an emergent relationship. Quest 2008 May;60(2):290-306. [CrossRef]
  5. De Meester A, Stodden D, Goodway J, True L, Brian A, Ferkel R, et al. Identifying a motor proficiency barrier for meeting physical activity guidelines in children. J Sci Med Sport 2018 Jan;21(1):58-62. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Logan SW, Webster EK, Getchell N, Pfeiffer KA, Robinson LE. Relationship between fundamental motor skill competence and physical activity during childhood and adolescence: a systematic review. Kinesiology Review 2015;4(4):416-426. [CrossRef]
  7. Robinson LE, Stodden DF, Barnett LM, Lopes VP, Logan SW, Rodrigues LP, et al. Motor competence and its effect on positive developmental trajectories of health. Sports Med 2015 Sep;45(9):1273-1284. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  8. Seefeldt V. Developmental Motor Patterns: Implications for Elementary School Physical Education. In: Nadeau WHC, Newell K, Roberts G, editors. Psychology of Motor Behavior and Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1980:314-323.
  9. Williams HG, Pfeiffer KA, O'Neill JR, Dowda M, McIver KL, Brown WH, et al. Motor skill performance and physical activity in preschool children. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2008 Jun;16(6):1421-1426 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Cliff DP, Okely AD, Smith LM, McKeen K. Relationships between fundamental movement skills and objectively measured physical activity in preschool children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2009 Nov;21(4):436-449. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Jones RA, Riethmuller A, Hesketh K, Trezise J, Batterham M, Okely AD. Promoting fundamental movement skill development and physical activity in early childhood settings: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2011 Nov;23(4):600-615. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Barnett LM, van Beurden E, Morgan PJ, Brooks LO, Beard JR. Childhood motor skill proficiency as a predictor of adolescent physical activity. J Adolesc Health 2009 Mar;44(3):252-259. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  13. Barnett LM, Van Beurden E, Morgan PJ, Brooks LO, Beard JR. Does childhood motor skill proficiency predict adolescent fitness? Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008 Dec;40(12):2137-2144. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  14. Hands B. Changes in motor skill and fitness measures among children with high and low motor competence: a five-year longitudinal study. J Sci Med Sport 2008 Apr;11(2):155-162. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  15. Lopes VP, Maia JAR, Rodrigues LP, Malina R. Motor coordination, physical activity and fitness as predictors of longitudinal change in adiposity during childhood. European Journal of Sport Science 2012 Jul;12(4):384-391. [CrossRef]
  16. Clark J. Motor Development. In: Ramachandran VS, editor. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Vol. 3). San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1994:245-255.
  17. Logan SW, Scrabis-Fletcher K, Modlesky C, Getchell N. The relationship between motor skill proficiency and body mass index in preschool children. Res Q Exerc Sport 2011 Sep;82(3):442-448. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. Robinson LE, Palmer KK, Bub KL. Effect of the children's health activity motor program on motor skills and self-regulation in head start preschoolers: an efficacy trial. Front Public Health 2016;4:173 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  19. Raver CC, Jones SM, Li-Grining C, Zhai F, Bub K, Pressler E. CSRP's Impact on low-income preschoolers' preacademic skills: self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Dev 2011;82(1):362-378 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  20. Miller AL, Horodynski MA, Herb HEB, Peterson KE, Contreras D, Kaciroti N, et al. Enhancing self-regulation as a strategy for obesity prevention in Head Start preschoolers: the growing healthy study. BMC Public Health 2012 Nov 30;12:1040 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  21. Webster EK, Martin CK, Staiano AE. Fundamental motor skills, screen-time, and physical activity in preschoolers. J Sport Health Sci 2019 Mar;8(2):114-121 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  22. Pratt M, Sarmiento OL, Montes F, Ogilvie D, Marcus BH, Perez LG, et al. The implications of megatrends in information and communication technology and transportation for changes in global physical activity. The Lancet 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):282-293. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  23. Newton KH, Wiltshire EJ, Elley CR. Pedometers and text messaging to increase physical activity: randomized controlled trial of adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009 May;32(5):813-815 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  24. Shapiro JR, Bauer S, Hamer RM, Kordy H, Ward D, Bulik CM. Use of text messaging for monitoring sugar-sweetened beverages, physical activity, and screen time in children: a pilot study. J Nutr Educ Behav 2008;40(6):385-391 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  25. Bauer S, de Niet J, Timman R, Kordy H. Enhancement of care through self-monitoring and tailored feedback via text messaging and their use in the treatment of childhood overweight. Patient Educ Couns 2010 Jun;79(3):315-319. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  26. de Niet J, Timman R, Bauer S, van den Akker E, Buijks H, de Klerk C, et al. The effect of a short message service maintenance treatment on body mass index and psychological well-being in overweight and obese children: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Obes 2012 Jun;7(3):205-219. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  27. Nyström CD, Sandin S, Henriksson P, Henriksson H, Trolle-Lagerros Y, Larsson C, et al. Mobile-based intervention intended to stop obesity in preschool-aged children: the MINISTOP randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2017 Jun;105(6):1327-1335. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  28. Militello L, Melnyk BM, Hekler EB, Small L, Jacobson D. Automated behavioral text messaging and face-to-face intervention for parents of overweight or obese preschool children: results from a pilot study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2016 Mar 14;4(1):e21 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  29. Haines J, McDonald J, O'Brien A, Sherry B, Bottino CJ, Schmidt ME, et al. Healthy habits, happy homes: randomized trial to improve household routines for obesity prevention among preschool-aged children. JAMA Pediatr 2013 Nov;167(11):1072-1079. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  30. Newton RL, Marker AM, Allen HR, Machtmes R, Han H, Johnson WD, et al. Parent-targeted mobile phone intervention to increase physical activity in sedentary children: randomized pilot trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2014 Nov 10;2(4):e48 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  31. Maitland C, Stratton G, Foster S, Braham R, Rosenberg M. A place for play? The influence of the home physical environment on children's physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013 Aug 17;10:99 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  32. Davison KK, Cutting TM, Birch LL. Parents' activity-related parenting practices predict girls' physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003 Sep;35(9):1589-1595 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  33. Crawford D, Cleland V, Timperio A, Salmon J, Andrianopoulos N, Roberts R, et al. The longitudinal influence of home and neighbourhood environments on children's body mass index and physical activity over 5 years: the CLAN study. Int J Obes (Lond) 2010 Jul;34(7):1177-1187 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  34. Fuemmeler BF, Anderson CB, Mâsse LC. Parent-child relationship of directly measured physical activity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011 Mar 08;8:17 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  35. Logan SW, Robinson LE, Wilson AE, Lucas WA. Getting the fundamentals of movement: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of motor skill interventions in children. Child Care Health Dev 2012 May;38(3):305-315. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  36. Ignico AA. Effects of competency-based instruction on kindergarten children's gross motor development. Physical Educator 1991;48(4):188.
  37. Ulrich DA. Test of Gross Motor Development (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2019.
  38. Barnett LM, Ridgers ND, Zask A, Salmon J. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport 2015 Jan;18(1):98-102. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  39. Barnett LM, Robinson LE, Webster EK, Ridgers ND. Reliability of the pictorial scale of perceived movement skill competence in 2 diverse samples of young children. J Phys Act Health 2015 Aug;12(8):1045-1051. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  40. Wadsworth D, Robinson L, Beckham K, Webster K. Break for physical activity: incorporating classroom-based physical activity breaks into preschools. Early Childhood Educ J 2011 Oct 15;39(6):391-395 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
  41. Webster EK, Wadsworth DD, Robinson LE. Preschoolers' time on-task and physical activity during a classroom activity break. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2015 Feb;27(1):160-167. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  42. Galbicka G. Shaping in the 21st century: moving percentile schedules into applied settings. J Appl Behav Anal 1994;27(4):739-760 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  43. Robinson LE, Palmer KK, Meehan SK. Dose–response relationship: the effect of motor skill intervention duration on motor performance. Journal of Motor Learning and Development 2017;5(2):280-290. [CrossRef]
  44. Bandura A, National Institute of Mental Health. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986.
  45. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1991 Dec;50(2):248-287 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
  46. Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G. The role of tutoring in problem solving. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1976 Apr;17(2):89-100. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  47. Wood D, Middleton D. A study of assisted problem-solving. Br J Psychol 1975;66(2):181-191 [FREE Full text]
  48. Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 2008 Jul 30;24(6):574-594. [CrossRef]
  49. Newton RL, Perri MG. A randomized pilot trial of exercise promotion in sedentary african-american adults. Ethn Dis 2004;14(4):548-557. [Medline]
  50. Ulrich D. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi 2013;24:27-33.
  51. Webster EK, Ulrich DA. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the test of gross motor development-third edition. Journal of Motor Learning and Development 2017;5(1):45-58. [CrossRef]
  52. Pate RR, Almeida MJ, McIver KL, Pfeiffer KA, Dowda M. Validation and calibration of an accelerometer in preschool children. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2006 Nov;14(11):2000-2006 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  53. Cliff DP, Reilly JJ, Okely AD. Methodological considerations in using accelerometers to assess habitual physical activity in children aged 0-5 years. J Sci Med Sport 2009 Sep;12(5):557-567. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  54. Evenson KR, Catellier DJ, Gill K, Ondrak KS, McMurray RG. Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. J Sports Sci 2008 Dec;26(14):1557-1565. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  55. Barbu OC, Levine-Donnerstein D, Marx RW, Yaden DB. Reliability and validity of the devereux early childhood assessment (DECA) as a function of parent and teacher ratings. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 2012 Dec 20;31(5):469-481. [CrossRef]
  56. A SAS program for the CDC growth charts. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011.   URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/growthcharts/resources/sas.htm [accessed 2015-07-09]
  57. Matheny AP, Wachs TD, Ludwig JL, Phillips K. Bringing order out of chaos: psychometric characteristics of the confusion, hubbub, and order scale. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 1995 Jul;16(3):429-444. [CrossRef]
  58. Henry BW, Smith TJ, Ahmad S. Psychometric assessment of the behavior and attitudes questionnaire for healthy habits: measuring parents' views on food and physical activity. Public Health Nutr 2014 May;17(5):1004-1012. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  59. Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford Publications; 2017.
  60. Cohen KE, Morgan PJ, Plotnikoff RC, Callister R, Lubans DR. Physical activity and skills intervention: SCORES cluster randomized controlled trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2015 Apr;47(4):765-774. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  61. Staiano AE, Marker AM, Comeaux J, Frelier JM, Hsia DS, Broyles ST. Family-based behavioral treatment for childhood obesity: caretaker-reported barriers and facilitators. Ochsner J 2017;17(1):83-92 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
  62. Wasenius NS, Grattan KP, Harvey ALJ, Naylor P, Goldfield GS, Adamo KB. The effect of a physical activity intervention on preschoolers' fundamental motor skills - a cluster RCT. J Sci Med Sport 2018 Jul;21(7):714-719. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  63. Carson V, Langlois K, Colley R. Associations between parent and child sedentary behaviour and physical activity in early childhood. Health Rep 2020 Feb 19;31(2):3-10 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  64. Barkin SL, Lamichhane AP, Banda JA, JaKa MM, Buchowski MS, Evenson KR, et al. Parent's physical activity associated with preschooler activity in underserved populations. Am J Prev Med 2017 Apr;52(4):424-432 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  65. Barber SE, Jackson C, Hewitt C, Ainsworth HR, Buckley H, Akhtar S, et al. Assessing the feasibility of evaluating and delivering a physical activity intervention for pre-school children: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2016;2:12 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  66. McKay FH, Wright A, Shill J, Stephens H, Uccellini M. Using health and well-being apps for behavior change: a systematic search and rating of apps. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019 Jul 04;7(7):e11926 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  67. Mackintosh KA, Chappel SE, Salmon J, Timperio A, Ball K, Brown H, et al. Parental perspectives of a wearable activity tracker for children younger than 13 years: acceptability and usability study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019 Nov 04;7(11):e13858 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  68. Maher S, Schott N, Lander NJ, Hinkley T, Barnett LM. A comparison of parent report and actual motor competence in young children. Aust Occup Ther J 2018 Oct;65(5):387-394. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  69. Zysset AE, Kakebeeke TH, Messerli-Bürgy N, Meyer AH, Stülb K, Leeger-Aschmann CS, et al. The validity of parental reports on motor skills performance level in preschool children: a comparison with a standardized motor test. Eur J Pediatr 2018 May;177(5):715-722 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  70. Sieverink F, Kelders SM, van Gemert-Pijnen JE. Clarifying the concept of adherence to eHealth technology: systematic review on when usage becomes adherence. J Med Internet Res 2017 Dec 06;19(12):e402 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]


FMS: fundamental motor skills
mHealth: mobile health
PA: physical activity
PLAY: Promoting Lifelong Activity in Youth
PSMC: Pictorial Scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence for Young Children
TGMD-3: Test of Gross Motor Development – 3rd edition
UPA: unstructured physical activity


Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 07.05.20; peer-reviewed by L Militello, R Quigg; comments to author 02.08.20; revised version received 26.09.20; accepted 29.09.20; published 20.10.20

Copyright

©E Kipling Webster, Chelsea L. Kracht, Robert L. Newton Jr, Robbie A. Beyl, Amanda E. Staiano. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 20.10.2020.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.