Trial reportChild: care, health and development2025
Potential Efficacy of the MOVERS Professional Development Programme: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Child: care, health and development, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential Efficacy of the MOVERS Professional Development Programme: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial.Child: care, health and development · 2025Trial
- The relationship between sleep quality and physical learning engagement among Chinese college students: a variable centered and person centered analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-quality early childhood education (ECE) environments positively impact child outcomes. This study examined the potential efficacy of a professional development (PD) programme on improving the quality of the ECE movement environment and children's physical activity, motor, literacy and numeracy skills.
methodsA 6-month RCT involving 5 ECE services and 157 children (mean age 3.84 ± 0.61 years) was conducted. ECE services were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 3) or wait-list control group (n = 2). The PD comprised five monthly face-to-face sessions, including theory, practice and reflective thinking components. Outcomes included the quality of the ECE movement environment (MOVERS), children's gross motor skills (TGMD-2), physical activity (GT3X accelerometers), fine motor skills (ASQ-3), receptive vocabulary (PPVT-4) and numeracy (PENS). All outcomes were assessed at baseline and follow-up. Data were analysed using linear mixed models (SPSS, Version 26) and effect sizes were calculated. Educator engagement was collected using questionnaires.
resultsLarge effect sizes were reported for the quality of the ECE movement environment (d = 1.77-9.35). Medium to large effect sizes were reported for children's gross motor skills (d = 0.68-1.23), and small to medium effect sizes were reported for three subscales of the numeracy test (d = 0.43-0.63). In the intervention group, a significantly greater number of children moved from being at risk of delay or delayed to normal development in fine motor skills (Phi = 0.21). Educators reported that the PD content was relevant and clearly explained, highlighting the hands-on components as the most valued aspect.
conclusionThe MOVERS PD pilot programme resulted in changes in educators' pedagogy and practice and in children's gross and fine motor skills and numeracy skills. Future studies with larger sample sizes will be important to confirm these results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.