Skip to main content

Table 2 The relationship between movement behaviours and motor development

From: Systematic review of the relationships between combinations of movement behaviours and health indicators in the early years (0-4 years)

No. of studies Design Quality assessment No. of participants Absolute effect Quality
Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other
Mean baseline ages were 3.3 and 4.2 years. Data were collected by clustered RCT (n = 2). Motor development was assessed via the Movement Assessment Battery for Children and the Test of Gross Motor Development–2.
2 Cluster RCTa Serious risk of biasb No serious inconsistency Serious indirectnessc No serious imprecision None 1245 SB + PA:
The movement behaviour interventions were favourably associated with overall motor skills in 2 studies [27, 31].
  1. LPA light-intensity physical activity, MVPA moderate- to vigorous-intensity activity, RCT randomized controlled trial, TPA total physical activity
  2. a Includes 2 cluster RCTs [27, 31]
  3. b Serious risk of bias. In 1 study sex was not adjusted for in the analysis [31]
  4. c Serious indirectness. The sedentary behaviour components of the interventions were minimal in both interventions, which could have caused a risk for indirectness. However, significant reductions in sedentary time were observed in 1 study [31]. Additionally, the intervention effects may have caused a risk for indirectness. In 1 study the intervention significantly decreased sedentary behaviour and increased LPA, but had no effect on MVPA [31]. In the other study [27], the intervention had no effect on sedentary time and TPA, while the control group showed improvements in MVPA
  5. d Quality of evidence was downgraded from “high” to “low” due to serious risk of bias and serious indirectness