This article was downloaded by: [Computing & Library Services, University of Huddersfield]On: 02 October 2014, At: 23:39Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Sport SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20

Effectiveness of professionally-guided physicaleducation on fitness outcomes of primary schoolchildrenFrancesco Lucertini a , Liana Spazzafumo b , Francesca De Lillo a , Debora Centonze a ,Manuela Valentini a & Ario Federici aa Department of Biomolecular Sciences, Division of Movement and Health Sciences ,University of Urbino , Urbino , Italyb INRCA, Biostatistical Center , Ancona , ItalyPublished online: 23 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Francesco Lucertini , Liana Spazzafumo , Francesca De Lillo , Debora Centonze , Manuela Valentini &Ario Federici (2013) Effectiveness of professionally-guided physical education on fitness outcomes of primary school children,European Journal of Sport Science, 13:5, 582-590, DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2012.746732

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2012.746732

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Effectiveness of professionally-guided physical education on fitnessoutcomes of primary school children

FRANCESCO LUCERTINI1, LIANA SPAZZAFUMO2, FRANCESCA DE LILLO1,

DEBORA CENTONZE1, MANUELA VALENTINI1, & ARIO FEDERICI1

1Department of Biomolecular Sciences, Division of Movement and Health Sciences, University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy,2INRCA, Biostatistical Center, Ancona, Italy

AbstractPhysical education (PE) at school is an important starting point for long-term interventions improving quality of life inelderly. To evaluate the effectiveness of professionally led PE on motor and health-related abilities of Italian primaryschoolchildren (3rd�5th graders), three schools were assigned to the experimental groups ‘‘A’’ (38 pupils, 17 M,21 F) and ‘‘B’’ (37 pupils, 16 M, 21 F), and to control group ‘‘C’’ (26 pupils, 18 M, 8 F). All groups underwent a six-month,twice-a-week (60 min each session) PE intervention. The PE program of the EGs was age-tailored, included strengthtraining and was administered by specialised teachers. Group A and B programs differed in the strength training devicesused, while they were identical in terms of training load. The control group program was not structured and administered bygeneralist teachers. At baseline and follow-up, children underwent a motor and health-related abilities test battery. Atfollow-up, children in group C gained significantly more weight than children in the EGs and scored significantly less thanthe children in the EGs in the following assessments: counter movement jump (C:�0.15% vs. A:�4.1% and B:�6.99%),plate tapping (C:�13.56% vs. A:�19.37% and B:�36.12%), sit-and-reach (C:�311.15% vs. B:�409.57%), pinchstrength (C:�2.39% vs. B:�10.83, on average) and sit-up (C:�29.69% vs. A:�72.61%). In conclusion, specialist-ledpupils demonstrated greater increases in some motor and health-related abilities tests compared to generalist-led peers,while different strength training devices produced comparable increases of strength in both EGs.

Keywords: Primary school, physical education, specialist teachers, strength, children, fitness

Introduction

Infancy and childhood are widely accepted as the

most important life span periods to start long-term

interventions, such as physical activity, aiming at

promoting both a healthier and a better quality of life

in adulthood and elderly years (World Health

Organization, 2005). The World Health Organiza-

tion published a number of reports and policies

(World Health Organization, 2005, 2008) concern-

ing the role of members’ government and non-

government institutions in promoting children’s

‘‘active’’ lifestyle switch from sedentary behaviours.

School is the very first institution providing many

opportunities for physical activity through the pur-

suit of the core physical education curriculum

(Cavill, Kahlmeier, & Racioppi, 2006). Unfortu-

nately, in Europe, a common scenario is the employ-

ment of qualified ‘‘specialist’’ physical education

(PE) teachers at secondary level and ‘‘generalist’’

teachers at primary level (Hardman, 2005), although

it is well recognised that pre-pubescent children

would need even higher specialised teachers to

meet the specific needs of developmental age. The

Italian picture does not diverge from the European

model. In Italian primary schools, 1. the actual

allocation of PE classes is only about 1 hour, once

per week; 2. PE classes are taught by non-qualified

and uninformed teachers and 3. didactic content is

neither periodised nor tailored to pre-pubescent

children’s needs. The last two points are strictly

related to each other, as non-qualified generalist

teachers cannot have the necessary expertise needed

Correspondence: F. Lucertini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, Division of Movement and Health Sciences, University of Urbino.

Via I Maggetti, 26/2 - 61029 Urbino (PU), Italy. E-mail: francesco.lucertini@uniurb.it

European Journal of Sport Science, 2013

Vol. 13, No. 5, 582�590, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2012.746732

# 2013 European College of Sport Science

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 23:

39 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

to periodise and tailor PE programs. Moreover, even

if periodisation is implemented, curriculum content

is usually obsolete. In particular, for many years

strength training in pre-pubescent children has been

neglected because considered potentially dangerous

and, in fact, it is usually not included in PE

programs. On the contrary, strength training in

children has proved to preserve and/or increase

bone mineral content, bone density and muscle

mass, thus leading to health benefits in adulthood

and late life (McCambridge & Stricker, 2008;

Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee,

2008). In the last decades, the misconception of

strength training importance has led to a marked

reduction in muscular fitness in Europe (Heeboll

Nielsen, 1982; Ekblom, Oddsson, & Ekblom, 2004;

Przeweda & Dobosz, 2003), despite, since 2001

(Bernhardt et al., 2001; Guy & Micheli, 2001),

internationally recognised paediatric organisations

have been stating the safety and effectiveness of

strength training in developmental children when

training sessions are taught by qualified personnel

and tailored to children’s needs (Faigenbaum et al.,

2009; McCambridge & Stricker, 2008).

To the best of our knowledge, very few school-

based, exercise intervention, peer-reviewed studies

were carried out showing a higher improvement in

physical fitness of children whose classes were led by

specialist compared to classes led by non-specialist

teachers (Sallis et al., 1997; Serbescu et al., 2006).

Clearly, this topic � especially when strength training

is administered � has yet to be addressed properly.

In this study, a periodised, professionally guided

PE intervention including strength training was

implemented with primary school children. The

main aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness

of the specialised PE teacher intervention. It was

hypothesised that professionally guided PE classes

would lead to a higher fitness enhancement than

non-professionally led classes. Secondarily, this in-

vestigation aimed at evaluating the safety of strength

training at school and the relevance of two different

strength training devices in children.

Methods

Participants

One hundred and one 3rd to 5th grade primary

school children have been enrolled in this study.

Baseline subjects’ details and anthropometrics are

shown in Table I. The study was previously approved

by the Faculty of Sport, Exercise and Health Science

of the University of Urbino ‘‘Carlo Bo’’ (Italy) and

written informed consent was provided by each

child’s parents prior to their inclusion in the study.

Children with any conditions that could affect

normal participation in PE classes were excluded

from the study.

Study design

Three primary schools were involved in the study. All

the pupils of each school, as a whole, were randomly

assigned to two experimental groups, named ‘‘A’’

and ‘‘B’’, and to one control group, named ‘‘C’’. PE

classes of the experimental groups were led by

‘‘specialised’’ teachers, and children underwent a

specifically designed, twice-a-week training program

for six months. PE classes of the control group were

led by generalist teachers and the training program

was not controlled in this study, but still adminis-

tered twice-a-week for 6 months.

Although in Europe PE classes last usually for 45�50 minutes, in agreement with the Principal of each

school for the whole six-month intervention of the

study, the duration of the PE classes were extended

to 60 minutes, both in the experimental groups and

the control group.

Children of the three groups underwent a com-

plete test battery (see below), along with anthropo-

metric measurements, prior (baseline, t0) and after

(follow-up, t1) the PE intervention (Figure 1).

Training program

A six-month, twice-a-week PE program was

designed to meet the age-specific physical activity

Table I. Subjects’ baseline characteristics.

Male Female

Experimental groups Control group Experimental groups Control group

A B C A B C

Subjects (n) 17 16 18 21 21 8

Age (yr) 9.8[0.9] 9.4[1] 9.3[0.9] 9.3[0.8] 9.2[0.9] 9.8[0.7]

Weight (kg) 33.3[6.8] 37[5.8] 32.6[7.3] 33.9[10] 31[6.6] 41.4[12]

Height (cm) 136.5[7.5] 138.4[9.6] 135.2[7.6] 136[9.3] 133.7[8.5] 142[6.6]

BMI (kg/m2) 17.9[2.6] 19.2[1.9] 17.6[2.6] 18.1[3.6] 17.3[2.6] 20.5[5.6]

FM (%) 6.2[3.9] 7.4[2.9] 5.9[3.3] 7.2[3.5] 6.2[2.5] 10.5[6.3]

Note: Values are expressed as means9[s]. BMI, body mass index; FM, fat mass.

Specialist-led physical education at school 583

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 23:

39 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

needs of 3rd�5th graders, accomplishing well-

accepted motor and health-related abilities develop-

mental models (Gallahue & Ozmun, 2002). Each

experimental group class was approximately

60-minute-long workout periods divided into two

10-minute pre- and post-workout periods (named

‘‘warm-up’’ and ‘‘final game’’) and one 40-minute

in-between workout period. The in-between work-

out period was further divided into two 20-minute

phases: the basic motor abilities (BMAs) and the

health-related abilities (HRAs) training phases, deal-

ing predominantly with basic motor skills, coordina-

tion, rhythm, etc. and predominantly with

endurance, strength, flexibility, etc., respectively.

Before the workout period of each class, children

were randomly divided into two groups performing

alternatively BMA and HRA exercises, while during

pre- and post-workout periods pupils were not

grouped. Both experimental groups underwent the

same exercise program, except for the HRA phase,

although HRA workout was designed to approxi-

mately produce the same training load for both

experimental groups.

Group A trained strength and endurance with

specifically designed cardiovascular and resistance

devices (the ‘‘Kid’s System’’, Panatta Sport, Apiro,

MC, Italy), while group B by means of either

traditional or non-conventional devices (e.g. light

dumbbells, elastic bands, plastic water bottles, etc.).

Each class of the experimental groups was led and

supervised by two specialised PE teachers, needed to

teach simultaneously either children grouped for

BMA exercises and children grouped for HRA

exercises. Six qualified teachers were trained to

administer both the BMA and HRA programs. In

order to avoid as much as possible any personal

influence on children’s learning process, teachers

taught a different class of students every week and

they alternated the administration of the BMA and

HRA programs.

Before and after each PE class, specialist and

generalist teachers had to fill out an attendance

register along with an ‘‘activity’’ form, providing

information about the number of children (if any)

attending the class but not taking active part in it. To

be included in the study children had to attend at

least 75% of the classes, as informed by the activity

form.

Measures

All the assessments in the three groups were com-

pleted in 2 weeks, either before or after the inter-

vention (Figure 1). Before t0, all testing personnel

underwent several training sessions to get used with

the standardisation of the testing procedures.

Anthropometrics. Weight (barefoot, at nearest 0.5 kg),

height (barefoot and head in the Frankfurt plane, at

nearest 0.01 m), and skinfold thickness (right sub-

scapular and triceps sites, at the nearest 0.001 m)

were measured in triplicates � following the recom-

mendation of Lohman et al., (1988) � and mean

values used for analysis. Skinfold thickness measure-

ments were always taken by the same experienced

operator (first author) to increase repeatability, using

the Harpenden skinfold caliper (Baty international,

Burgess Hill, West Sussex, UK). Body mass index

(BMI) was calculated as follows: weight[kg]/

height[m2], while fat mass was obtained with the

Slaughter et al., (1988) prepubescent, white males,

two sites formula (either the ‘‘prepubescent white

males’’ or the ‘‘all males’’ formula was chosen when

the sum of the two skinfolds was lesser or equal/

greater than 35 mm, respectively).

Fitness assessment. In order to assess the effects of

BMA and HRA exercises, a complete test battery

(see below) was devised. Tests were chosen from

both the EUROFIT (Cilia, Bellucci, Riva, & Vener-

ucci, 1996; Comitato per lo sviluppo dello sport del

Consiglio d’Europa, 1993) and the Italian Olympic

Committee (2003) batteries, and from other trusted

references such as the American College of Sports

Medicine’s exercise testing and prescription guide-

lines (Thompson, Gordon, & Pescatello, 2009), the

Brodie’s manual (1996) and Harre’s (1972) and

Leger, Mercier, Gadoury, and Lambert’s (1988)

popular tests. Upper and lower limb laterality were

determined with a custom made test battery

(including throwing and kicking with the preferred

hand and foot, respectively), to classify the fitness

assessments by means of the use of dominant or non-

dominant limb. All the assessments described below

Figure 1. Overview of the phases and timing of the study, along

with study group names, training program contents and teachers

specialisation levels. t0, baseline test battery; t1, follow-up test

battery; BMA and HRA, categories of exercises to improve

the ‘basic motor abilities’ and the ‘health-related abilities’,

respectively.

584 F. Lucertini et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 23:

39 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

were performed in duplicate and best results retained

for later analysis.

Basic Motor Abilities. The Single Leg Stance Stand

(SLS) test was used to assess standing balance

quantitatively. Briefly, timing was started as soon as

the barefoot child reached the one foot testing

position called ‘‘flamingo’’ (i.e. the sole of the non�weight-bearing foot positioned against the opposite

knee, hands on the hips and eyes staring at a visual

target placed at eyes level on the wall), and stopped

when the position was no longer perfectly main-

tained. Children were allowed to choose the testing

foot on the floor in t0 and asked to perform the test

with the same foot in t1.

Speed of movement of upper and lower limbs were

assessed by means of the Plate Tapping (PTU and

PTL, respectively) tests. While sitting, subject was

asked to move the arm as fast as possible, 50 times

back and forth between two rubber discs (10 cm in

diameter) placed on a table at a fixed distance

(30 cm between the discs centre points). Time to

perform the 25 cycles was recorded for both domi-

nant and non-dominant arm, and used for later

analysis. Lower limbs speed of movement were

assessed performing the same test as before, with

both dominant and non-dominant foot tapping two

rubber discs placed on the floor.

Whole body agility and lower limb speed were

measured by means of the 10 m stage shuttle run (SSR)

test. Subject was asked to sprint 10 times back and

forth between two marker cones placed 10 meters

apart while time was recorded using a stopwatch.

Dexterity was tested by means of the Harre’s

obstacle course (HOC) test, also known as Harre’s

circuit (Chiodera et al., 2008). Briefly, the subject

was asked to deftly complete a non-linear course,

while time was recorded by a stopwatch. The course

started with a forward roll on a soft mat. Then the

subject was asked to (and repeat for 3 times) run as

fast as possible, take a 908 right turn, jump over and

go back crawling under a bench. Finally, he/she had

to run back towards the starting point.

Health-related abilities. Muscular fitness of hands

and forearms (pinch-strength [PS] and hand-grip

[HG] strength tests), abdomen (sit-up [SUP] endur-

ance test) and lower limbs (swinging counter move-

ment jump [sCMJ] power test) were assessed as

follows.

In the PS test, the subject was asked to stand,

maintain the 908 elbow position and pinch the Jamar

dynamometer (Sammons Preston, Bolingbrook, IL,

USA) as hard and fast as possible. The force exerted

was measured (in kilograms) in both dominant and

non-dominant hand.

The HG test requires the same maximal effort of

the PS test. The standing subject (with the arm

straight at the side of the body) squeezed as hard and

fast as possible the handle bar of a paediatric hand

dynamometer (Lafayette Instrument Company,

Lafayette, IN, USA) previously regulated on the

subject’s hand dimension. The force exerted was

measured (in kilograms) in both dominant and non-

dominant hand.

In the SUP test, the subject was asked to perform

as many curls of the trunk as possible in 60 seconds,

while laying on the back on a mat, keeping the arms

crossed on the chest (with the hand on the opposite

shoulder) and the feet on the floor at a knee angle of

approximately 908. The test score was the number of

correctly executed sit-ups.

In the sCMJ test, the subject was asked to stand

between a transmitting and a receiving optical bar

(therefore interrupting the optical communication)

and to perform an all-out vertical jump after bending

knees at approximately 908. The OptoJump optical

system (Microgate, Bolzano, BZ, Italy) measured

flight time and calculated jump height via a dedi-

cated software. The subject was allowed to swing the

arms as needed to maximise the flight time.

Cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed by means of

Leger’s 20 m multistage shuttle run (LSR) cardiovas-

cular endurance test. The subject had to run back

and forth between two marker cones placed 20 m

apart at a running speed starting from 8.5 km �h�1

and increasing each stage (lasting one minute) by 0.5

km �h�1. An acoustic tone (beep) was used as feed-

back of the running speed: time interval between two

beeps reduced each stage and at the beep the subject

was asked to reach the cone area (less than 0.5 m

before the marker cone). The test ended when the

subject was fatigued and therefore unable to be in

the cone area on the signal. The distance covered

was recorded and computed in a sex- and age-

specific equation (Leger et al., 1988) to estimate

maximal oxygen consumption (in mL �kg�1 �min�1).

Low-back flexibility was assessed by means of the

Trunk Forward Flexion (TFF) test. This is a sit and

reach test performed using a box to measure the

extent of trunk flexion above the knee, while sitting

on the floor.

Injuries. Before and after each class, children were

asked about any muscular ‘‘pain’’ or ‘‘discomfort’’

eventually felt during or after the previous and

present class. This information, which was reported

in the ‘‘activity form’’, was used to look into any

possible injury related to the PE intervention.

Statistical analysis

The SPSS (ver. 12) package software (SPSS Inc.,

Chicago, IL, USA) was used for the statistical

analysis. Descriptive statistical analysis was run on

Specialist-led physical education at school 585

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 23:

39 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

all variables to evaluate presence of outliers (cases

with standardised scores in excess of 3.29); normal-

ity of distribution (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) and miss-

ing values. Outliers were excluded from both

baseline and follow-up test scores (pair wise) and

missing values replaced (Expectation Maximisation

method). When the distribution of a variable was

non-normal, it was log transformed. A two-way

(group and gender) analysis of covariance with one

repeated measure (t0 and t1) was performed on each

variable to compare the means. Either children’s age

at t0 or the results of each assessment at t0 were used

as covariates to have the results of the dependent

variable analysed accounted for the probable con-

founding effect of children’s age and baseline test

differences, respectively. The Bonferroni test was

applied for post-hoc comparisons. The significance

level was set at P B0.05, while an alpha level lower

than 0.01 was considered highly significant.

Results

In Table II, the results from all variables are pre-

sented. The differences between pre- (t0) and post-

intervention (t1) are outlined, taking into account the

independent variables ‘‘group’’ and ‘‘gender’’. Also,

the significant ‘‘gender�group’’ interactions are out-

lined in Table II. Comparisons between gender and

groups are not included in Table II, but are presented

hereafter.

Anthropometrics

At follow-up, a significantly greater weight gain was

observed in control group children than in group A

(P B0.05) and group B (P B0.01) children.

Basic motor abilities and health-related abilities

At follow-up, both the experimental groups and the

control group significantly (P B0.05) increased LSR

and HG (in both dominant and non-dominant

hand), while PTU and PTL scores increased sig-

nificantly (P B0.05) in non-dominant limb and

highly significantly (P B0.01) in dominant limb.

Results revealed significantly higher scores in the

sCMJ test at follow-up, in both the experimental

groups than the control group (P B0.01). Group B

scored significantly better than group C in both

dominant (P B0.05) and non-dominant (P B0.01)

PS tests, while group A scored significantly better

than group B (P B0.05) and group C (P B0.01) in

the SUP test. TFF scores were significantly better

(P B0.01) in group B males versus either A and C

peers, and in group B females versus group C peers

solely, as evidenced by the significant gender by

group interaction (P B0.05). Group influenced

significantly PTU test scores (P B0.05) in the

dominant arm, resulting in a significant higher

improvement in group A, compared to group B

(P B0.05) and C (P B0.01). At follow-up, group A

scored significantly lower than group B (P B0.01)

and C (P B0.05) in the HOC test. Finally, group A

scored significantly lower than C in the SSR test

(P B0.01).

Class attendance and injuries

Children’s attendance and participation in the ex-

perimental groups was higher than 75%, thus no

withdrawals were necessary. No children, neither in

the experimental groups nor in the control group,

suffered from any muscular injury that the authors

could somehow relate to the training program

proposed.

Discussion

This study was primarily designed to assess the

effects of a professionally guided PE intervention �including strength training � on school children’s

motor and health-related abilities.

The main findings concern the health-related and

motor abilities assessments, with children attending

professionally led classes scoring significantly better

than controls in the sCMJ power test, PS tests (both

dominant and non dominant arm) and PTU (domi-

nant arm only) motor ability test.

Anthropometrics

Height, weight and BMI scores of most of the

children enrolled in this study fell inside the inter-

quartile (average) range (]25th and 575th centile)

obtained from the reference values of children living

in Central-Northern Italy (Cacciari et al., 2006),

with only very few cases outside this average limit,

particularly in stature. Thus, both in t0 and in t1,

present study children’s anthropometrics was repre-

sentative of age- and gender-matching children from

the same living area.

Basic motor abilities and health-related abilities

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, very few peer-

reviewed studies examined and tried to demonstrate

the effectiveness of a professionally guided versus a

non-professionally led PE program in primary school

children, by comparing the results of a large number

of motor and health-related ability tests. In the late

1990s, Sallis et al. (1997) implemented a PE

program on 4th graders led by professional PE

teachers, trained teachers or classroom teachers.

Although the study was well designed (three large

586 F. Lucertini et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 23:

39 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table II. Comparison of anthropometric variables and test performances before and after the intervention.

Experimental groups Control group

A B C Repeated Measure ANCOVA (P)a Post-Hoc

baseline follow-up gain baseline follow-up gain baseline follow-up gain

Baseline vs.

follow-up

time�gender

time�group

Time�gender�

group

Between groups at

follow-up

Anthropometrics

Height (cm) 136.2[8.4] 139.2[9] 2.19% 135.7[9.2] 139.4[9.5] 2.67% 137.3[7.9] 140.9[8] 2.67% n.s. n.s. n.s. B0.05 n.s.

Weight (kg) 33.6[8.6] 35.3[9.3] 4.95% 33.6[6.9] 35.5[7.4] 5.68% 35.3[9.7] 37.7[10.8] 6.74% n.s. B0.01 B0.05 B0.05 C�A*; C�B**

BMI (kg/m2) 18[3.2] 18[3.4] 0.00% 18.1[2.5] 18.1[2.6] 0.25% 18.5[3.9] 18.7[4.2] 1.32% n.s. B0.01 n.s. n.s. n.s.

FM (kg) 6.8[3.7] 7.4[4.7] 9.99% 6.7[2.7] 7.3[3.2] 8.67% 7.3[4.8] 7.9[5.6] 8.63% n.s. n.s. n.s. B0.05 n.s.

Basic motor abilities

PTUdom (s)b 14.1[2.6] 11.4[2] 19.37% 14.4[2.1] 11.2[1.9] 22.12% 12.6[2.5] 10.9[2.2] 13.56% B0.01 n.s. B0.05 n.s. A �B*; A �C**

PTUnd (s)b 16.5[2.8] 13.6[2.2] 17.45% 15.9[2.1] 13.1[2.2] 17.95% 13.9[3.1] 11.8[3] 15.38% B0.05 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

PTLdom (s)b 15.3[1.9] 13.2[1.4] 13.70% 15.7[2.3] 13.6[1.9] 13.75% 14.9[3] 13[2.7] 13.02% B0.01 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

PTLnd (s)b 17.3[2.2] 15.1[2] 12.74% 16.7[2.3] 14.8[2.3] 11.48% 15.4[2.7] 13.8[2.4] 10.58% B0.05 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

SLS (s) 30.7[25.5] 53.6[34.9] 74.65% 27.8[19.8] 80.5[82.4] 189.53% 60.2[92.2] 121.8[95.7] 102.28% n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

SSR (s) 24.1[2.2] 23.2[1.9] 3.91% 25.6[2.7] 23.7[1.8] 7.36% 27.3[2.9] 24.9[2.1] 8.60% n.s. n.s. B0.01 n.s. C �A**

HOC (s) 23.9[3.9] 23.3[4.3] 2.45% 24.5[4.6] 22.1[3.8] 9.90% 24.9[5.1] 22.8[4.9] 8.73% n.s. n.s. B0.05 n.s. A BB**; A BC*

Health-related abilities

TFF (cm) 1.9[6.8] 1[8] �49.99% �0.3[6.7] 1.1[6.3] 409.57% 0.7[7.8] �1.5[8] �311.15% n.s. n.s. B0.01 B0.05 B �A**; B �C**

PSdom (kg) 4.9[1.1] 5.2[1.1] 5.73% 4.8[0.9] 5.3[1.1] 9.69% 5.2[1.1] 5.3[0.9] 1.84% n.s. n.s. B0.05 n.s. B �C*

PSnd (kg) 4.7[1] 5[1.1] 5.64% 4.6[1] 5.1[1] 11.97% 5.1[1.2] 5.3[1.1] 2.94% n.s. n.s. B0.01 n.s. B �C**

HGdom (kg) 17.1[3.2] 20[3.9] 17.07% 16.6[2.6] 20.3[3.4] 22.86% 17.8[4.1] 22.2[4.8] 24.57% B0.05 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

HGnd (kg) 16.5[3.2] 19[3.5] 15.23% 15.9[2.6] 19[3.4] 19.37% 17.2[3.8] 21.5[4.9] 24.58% B0.05 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

SUP (number) 9.4[5.5] 16.3[4.8] 72.61% 12.4[6] 14.6[5] 17.28% 11.2[6.9] 14.5[7.2] 29.69% n.s. n.s. B0.01 n.s. A �B*; A �C**

sCMJ (cm) 23.1[4.5] 24[4.6] 4.10% 23[4] 24.6[4.4] 6.99% 23.3[4.9] 23.3[4.8] 0.15% n.s. n.s. B0.05 n.s. C BA**; C BB**

LSR (mL kg�1

min�1)

45.5[4] 47.7[4.9] 4.88% 47.3[3.9] 47.9[4.1] 1.22% 48[4.3] 49.6[4.8] 3.30% B0.05 n.s. n.s. n.s. A �B*

Note: Values are expressed as mean9[s] and P is the ‘‘alpha level’’ of significance. aAdjusted for age and scores of baseline assessments. bLog-transformed. The ‘‘asterisk’’ symbol(s) means significant

(P B0.05) differences (*) or highly significant (P B0.01) differences (**); n.s. means non-significant. Height, weight, BMI and FM gains represent the percentage increases at follow-up vs. baseline

results, while other variable gains represent the percentage improvements at follow-up; negative gains represent a worse test performance at follow-up. BMI, body mass index; FM, fat mass; PTU,

plate tapping (upper limb); PTL, plate tapping (lower limb); SLS, single leg stance stand; SSR, speed shuttle run; HOC, Harre’s obstacle course; TFF, trunk forward flexion; PS, pinch strength; HG,

hand grip; SUP, sit up; sCMJ, swinging counter movement jump; LSR, Leger’s shuttle run; dom, dominant limb; nd, non-dominant limb.

Specia

list-ledphysica

led

uca

tionat

school

587

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 23:

39 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

cohorts of subjects were enrolled and the duration of

the intervention was 2 year long), authors found

higher improvements of specialist-led children’s

abilities only in two out of four health-related fitness

tests at follow-up: mile-run (a cardiorespiratory

fitness test very similar to the LSR test here

proposed) and SUP (muscular endurance of the

abdomen region) tests. The lack of statistically

significant differences in some results of the experi-

mental groups found at t1 in the present study is

hence in line with Sallis et al. (1997) and also with

Serbescu et al. (2006). Serbescu et al. (2006)

implemented an afterschool PE program and at

follow-up they did not find any differences in

cardiovascular endurance (LSR), balance (SLS)

and low-back flexibility (TFF), between intervention

and control group. As a matter of fact, in spite of

percentage changes from baseline ranging from

about 75% to as much as 190%, SLS scores did

not significantly differ between groups. On the

contrary, the results of this study evidenced signifi-

cantly different TFF scores between groups at

follow-up, with group B children increasing their

performance by about 400%, whereas group A and

C children reducing flexibility by about 50% and

300%, respectively. It is difficult to explain this

result, but it may be hypothesised that control group

scored the lowest result because of the lack of a

specific training program concerning this health-

related ability.

Although test standardisation procedures were

taken into great account by present and other

authors, it is well established that assessing motor

and health-related abilities may still represent a

challenge in young people, especially in children, as

their fitness test performances are more likely to be

influenced by external factors, including motivation

to maximal effort (Naughton, Carlson, & Greene,

2006). This could partially explain why, as in this

study, several papers investigating the effectiveness

of school-based PE interventions reported only little

(Sallis et al., 1997; Serbescu et al., 2006) or no

effects on school children’s overall physical fitness

(Boyle-Holmes et al., 2010; Donnelly et al., 1996;

Luepker et al., 1996; Verstraete, Cardon, De Clercq,

& De Bourdeaudhuij, 2007). Nonetheless, Serbescu

et al. (2006) found significantly higher improve-

ments in the intervention group compared to the

control group in the following tests: Standing broad

jump (a lower limb power test very similar to the

sCMJ test here proposed), SUP (�20.4%) and PTU

(�37.2%). In line with Serbescu et al. (2006), the

results of the present study also show a significant

improvement of lower limb power, with both the

experimental groups scoring significantly better than

the control group in the sCMJ. In the case of SUP

and PTU, only group A scored significantly better

than the group B and C in both tests. Particularly,

group A improved SUP performance by 72.61% at

follow-up, i.e. about 55% and 43% more than group

B and C, respectively. The percentage changes

indicated are quite similar to those evidenced by

Sallis et al. (1997) in the specialist-led female

children of their study (about 50% more than

control children), whereas they represent about a

two-fold increase relatively to those showed by

Serbescu et al. (2006) in their training group

children (24% more than control group children).

Contrary to the hypothesis of the present study,

group A children showed significantly lower scores

than group C peers both in the HOC test (with even

lower scores than group B) and in the SSR test.

Although Serbescu et al. (2006) did not test chil-

dren’s dexterity, in their study the intervention group

showed a significant improvement in SSR scores at

follow-up. These partially conflicting results may

probably be due to the different study designs

implemented. In the present study, the twice-a-

week PE program was implemented to replace the

non-tailored curricular content in school classes,

while Serbescu et al. (2006) proposed an additional

twice-a-week, afterschool PE program, approxi-

mately doubling the training load administered in

the present study. This probably led to a more

pronounced training effect despite the similar inter-

vention duration.

Results should also be discussed in light of the two

main limitations affecting the experimental design of

this study: 1. the duration of the training program

and 2. the children’s residence area. In fact, because

of the short duration of the study, the increase of

motor and health-related abilities due to children’s

physiological development may have partially

masked the intervention benefits, reducing possible

statistically significant results to only trends.

The second limitation relates to the children’s living

environment: two out of the three schools partners of

the study were located in an urban area, while the 3rd

was located in a rural area. The random allocation of

the study schools to the experimental conditions

assigned the children attending the school located in

the rural area to the control group, while children

living in the urban environments were both assigned

to the experimental groups. The modern urban

environment is commonly regarded as less suitable

to afterschool, free-play, indoor and outdoor activities

than the rural one, which provides children with more

opportunities to be physically active and, therefore, to

train to a greater extent their motor and health-related

abilities. A number of cross-sectional studies found

better fitness levels, motor abilities and body compo-

sition in children living in rural areas than those living

in urban environments (Albarwani, Al-Hashmi, Al-

Abri, Jaju, & Hassan, 2009; Cappellini et al., 2008;

588 F. Lucertini et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 23:

39 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Joens-Matre et al., 2008; Kriemler et al., 2008; Pena

Reyes, Tan, & Malina, 2003). Control group children

living in the rural environment had more opportu-

nities to carry out afterschool physical activities,

which were not kept under control in the present

study. As a consequence, the living environment may

have contributed in lowering the differences of several

test scores between the experimental groups and the

control group.

Ultimately, the estimation of the measurement

error associated with each variable measured was not

performed in this study, and this could be a further

limitation. However, the repeatability of the tests

proposed is already known for most of the variables

measured (Brodie, 1996). As a matter of fact, beside

height and weight (and thus BMI), whose reliability

is very high (r�0.99 and r�0.98, respectively), on

average the repeatability of most of the other

variables is good (SLS range from 0.82 to 0.99;

TFF range from 0.70 to 0.98; HG, r�0.90; SUP,

r�0.94; sCMJ range from 0.90 to 0.97; LSR range

from 0.89 to 0.97). Unfortunately, the measurement

error of other assessments cannot be taken from the

literature. Despite the reliabilities of PT and SSR

were stated (Brodie, 1996) as ‘‘acceptable or not be

within Eurofit’’, we are not aware of studies that

evaluated the measurement errors in the PT, SSR,

HOC, and PS tests. Thus, the potential measure-

ment errors of those variables should be accounted

for when the results are interpreted.

Conclusions

The present study revealed a higher effectiveness of

‘‘specialised’’ teachers in improving some motor and

health-related abilities test scores compared to ‘‘gen-

eralist’’ teachers. Therefore, it is authors’ opinion

that the study highlights the important role profes-

sional PE teachers have in primary schools in

promoting motor development and fitness achieve-

ment for late-life health benefits.

In this study, as in many others (see for example

Guy & Micheli, 2001), strength training in children

has proven to be safe when properly proposed. As a

matter of fact, the children of the experimental groups

suffered from no muscular injury, neither in the group

exercising with the ‘‘Kid’s System’’ devices nor in the

group using traditional and non-conventional de-

vices. It is hoped that the results of this study, along

with those of numerous similar investigations

(Bernhardt et al., 2001; Faigenbaum et al., 2009;

McCambridge & Stricker, 2008), can contribute to

eradicate the misconception, still often present in

Italy, that strength training is unsuitable for children

and adolescents. According to the results here ob-

tained, strength training may be included in the

elementary school PE curriculum as a safe and

effective method to improve strength in children,

provided it is delivered by qualified PE teachers.

Finally, the use of different kind of training methods

and devices in this study showed similar strength

gains in children of the two experimental groups, and

it effectively helped teachers in improving children’s

adherence to, compliance to and enjoinment of PE

classes. Therefore, it is authors’ opinion that the use

of different kinds of training methods and devices

provides high-quality PE classes, with indubitable

educational benefits.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Valentina Berluti, Arianna

Lesina, Angela Marra, Laura Scalbi, Melissa Seghet-

ti, and Baldo Danilo Sinacori for their commitment

in teaching PE classes; Isabella Zucchi, Elisa Bellucci

and Erika Moretti for their support; Ilaria Lucertini,

for proofreading the English translation; and Massi-

miliano Ditroilo for his advice, discussion, and

revision of the manuscript.

Finally, the invaluable support of the Panatta

Sport S.r.l. (Apiro, MC, Italy), which devised the

‘Kid’ System’ machine line, is also acknowledged.

References

Albarwani, S., Al-Hashmi, K., Al-Abri, M., Jaju, D., & Hassan,

M. O. (2009). Effects of overweight and leisure-time activities

on aerobic fitness in urban and rural adolescents. Metabolic

Syndrome and Related Disorders, 7, 369�374.

Bernhardt, D. T., Gomez, J., Johnson, M. D., Martin, T. J.,

Rowland, T. W., Small, E., et al. (2001). Strength training by

children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 107, 1470�1472.

Boyle-Holmes, T., Grost, L., Russell, L., Laris, B. A., Robin, L.,

Haller, E., et al. (2010). Promoting elementary physical

education: Results of a school-based evaluation study. Health

Education & Behavior, 37, 377�389.

Brodie, D. A. (Ed.). (1996). A reference manual for human

performance measurement in the field of physical education and

sports sciences (Vol. 26). Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen

Press.

Cacciari, E., Milani, S., Balsamo, A., Spada, E., Bona, G.,

Cavallo, L., et al. (2006). Italian cross-sectional growth charts

for height, weight and BMI (2 to 20 yr). Journal of Endocrino-

logical Investigation, 29, 581�593.

Cappellini, A. C., Mancini, S., Zuffellato, S., Bini, F., Polcaro, P.,

Conti, A. A., et al. (2008). Environmental effects on school age

child psychomotricity. Minerva Pediatrica, 60, 277�284.

Cavill, N., Kahlmeier, S., & Racioppi, F. (2006). What can the

health sector and others do to increase physical activity? In

N. Cavill, S. Kahlmeier, & F. Racioppi (Eds.), Physical activity

and health in Europe: Evidence for action (pp. 15�23). Copenha-

gen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe.

Chiodera, P., Volta, E., Gobbi, G., Milioli, M. A., Mirandola, P.,

Bonetti, A., et al. (2008). Specifically designed physical

exercise programs improve children’s motor abilities.

Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 18,

179�187.

Cilia, G., Bellucci, M., Riva, M., & Venerucci, I. (1996). Eurofit

1995. Roma: Istituto Superiore Statale di Educazione Fisica.

Specialist-led physical education at school 589

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 23:

39 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Comitato per lo sviluppo dello sport del Consiglio d’Europa.

(1993). EUROFIT- Eurofit tests manual [EUROFIT - Manuale

per i tests Eurofit di efficienza fisica]. Roma: Istituto Superiore

Statale di Educazione Fisica.

Donnelly, J. E., Jacobsen, D. J., Whatley, J. E., Hill, J. O., Swift, L.

L., Cherrington, A., et al. (1996). Nutrition and physical

activity program to attenuate obesity and promote physical and

metabolic fitness in elementary school children. Obesity

Research, 4, 229�243.

Ekblom, O., Oddsson, K., & Ekblom, B. (2004). Health-related

fitness in Swedish adolescents between 1987 and 2001. Acta

Paediatrica, 93, 681�686.

Faigenbaum, A. D., Kraemer, W. J., Blimkie, C. J., Jeffreys, I.,

Micheli, L. J., Nitka, M., et al. (2009). Youth resistance

training: updated position statement paper from the national

strength and conditioning association. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, 23, S60�S79.

Gallahue, D. L., & Ozmun, J. C. (2002). Understanding motor

development: Infants, children, adolescents, adults (5th ed). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Guy, J. A., & Micheli, L. J. (2001). Strength training for children

and adolescents. The Journal of the American Academy of

Orthopaedic Surgeons, 9, 29�36.

Hardman, F. (2005). An up-date on the status of physical education

in schools worldwide. Technical report for the World Health

Organization. Retrieved September 7, 2011, from http://www.

icsspe.org/documente/PEworldwide.pdf

Harre, D. (1972). Teaching training [Trainingslehre]. Berlin:

Sportverlag.

Heeboll Nielsen, K. (1982). Muscle strength of boys and girls,

1981 compared to 1956. Scandinavian Journal of Sports Science,

4, 37�43.

Italian Olympic Commitee. (2003). Standardization manual of

motor tests [Manuale di standardizzazione dei test motori].

Roma: Istituto Superiore Statale di Educazione Fisica.

Joens-Matre, R. R., Welk, G. J., Calabro, M. A., Russell, D. W.,

Nicklay, E., & Hensley, L. D. (2008). Rural-urban differences

in physical activity, physical fitness, and overweight prevalence

of children. The Journal of Rural Health, 24, 49�54.

Kriemler, S., Manser-Wenger, S., Zahner, L., Braun-Fahrlander,

C., Schindler, C., & Puder, J. J. (2008). Reduced cardior-

espiratory fitness, low physical activity and an urban environ-

ment are independently associated with increased

cardiovascular risk in children. Diabetologia, 51, 1408�1415.

Leger, L. A., Mercier, D., Gadoury, C., & Lambert, J. (1988).

The multistage 20 meter shuttle run test for aerobic fitness.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 6, 93�101.

Lohman, T., Roche, A., & Mortarell, R. (1988). Anthropometric

standardization reference manual. Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

Luepker, R. V., Perry, C. L., McKinlay, S. M., Nader, P. R.,

Parcel, G. S., Stone, E. J., et al. (1996). Outcomes of a field

trial to improve children’s dietary patterns and physical activity.

The Child and adolescent trial for cardiovascular health.

CATCH collaborative group. Journal of the American Medical

Association, 275, 768�776.

McCambridge, T. M., & Stricker, P. R. (2008). Strength training

by children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 121, 835�840.

Naughton, G. A., Carlson, J. S., & Greene, D. A. (2006). A

challenge to fitness testing in primary schools. Journal of Science

and Medicine in Sport, 9, 40�45.

Pena Reyes, M. E., Tan, S. K., & Malina, R. M. (2003). Urban-rural

contrasts in the physical fitness of school children in Oaxaca,

Mexico. American Journal of Human Biology, 15, 800�813.

Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. (2008).

Physical activity guidelines advisory committee report. Washington,

DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Przeweda, R., & Dobosz, J. (2003). Growth and physical fitness of

Polish youths in two successive decades. The Journal of Sports

Medicine and Physical Fitness, 43, 465�474.

Sallis, J. F., McKenzie, T. L., Alcaraz, J. E., Kolody, B., Faucette,

N., & Hovell, M. F. (1997). The effects of a 2-year physical

education program (SPARK) on physical activity and fitness in

elementary school students. Sports, play and active recreation

for kids. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1328�1334.

Serbescu, C., Flora, D., Hantiu, I., Greene, D., Laurent

Benhamou, C., & Courteix, D. (2006). Effect of a six-month

training programme on the physical capacities of Romanian

schoolchildren. Acta Paediatrica, 95, 1258�1265.

Slaughter, M. H., Lohman, T. G., Boileau, R. A., Horswill, C. A.,

Stillman, R. J., Van Loan, M. D., et al. (1988). Skinfold

equations for estimation of body fatness in children and youth.

Human Biology, 60, 709�723.

Thompson, W., Gordon, N., & Pescatello, L. (Eds.) (2009).

ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription (8th ed.).

Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Verstraete, S. J., Cardon, G. M., De Clercq, D. L., & De

Bourdeaudhuij, I. M. (2007). A comprehensive physical

activity promotion programme at elementary school: The

effects on physical activity, physical fitness and psychosocial

correlates of physical activity. Public Health Nutrition, 10,

477�484.

World Health Organization. (2005). Preventing chronic diseases: A

vital investment. Geneva: Author.

World Health Organization. (2008). School policy framework:

implementation of the WHO global strategy on diet, physical

activity and health. Geneva: Author.

590 F. Lucertini et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Com

putin

g &

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s, U

nive

rsity

of

Hud

ders

fiel

d] a

t 23:

39 0

2 O

ctob

er 2

014