Body Weight, Self-Perception
Conditions
Keywords
inactive children, active video games, physical fitness, self-perception, enjoyment, obesity
Brief summary
Inactivity was reported to be high in children and considered to be the fourth common cause of death in all ages. The reason for children is usually the increasing indoor use of sedentary screen time. Active Video Games (AVG) have recently been introduced for decreasing the sedentary time for children and directing them to physical activity (PA) at home.The aim of this study is to show the quantitative effect of games on physical fitness parameters like weight, body mass index (BMI) and fat ratio (FR). The study also aims at the factors for motivation or continuance of the games as self-perception and enjoyment levels together with qualitative effects of games on satisfaction and attitude changes in inactive children.
Detailed description
Research related a causal association between inactivity, low esteem, and excess weight for children. For this reason, academic performance decreases and obesity associated diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart diseases, depression, and cancer might ensue. Children usually do not prefer to perform outdoor PA due to several causes including low sense of self perception. So far studies have shown an almost equivalent energy spent through AVGs to the physical activity of moderate intensity. Games have been previously demonstrated to prevent excess weight. There were no studies of AVG in children with varying weights, inactivity and technology preoccupation. Similarly, no qualitative research of AVG in children exploring enjoyment levels and attitude changes were encountered. Thus, the investigators aim to find the quantitative effect of AVG on physical fitness parameters like weight, BMI and FR. Other aims are studying factors for motivation or continuance of the games as well as the feelings and perspectives of the participant children's parents for the games.
Interventions
OTHERActive Video Games
Nintendo Wii® AVGs from sports, balance, aerobics, resort and training categories.
Sponsors
Abant Izzet Baysal University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
8 Years to 13 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
1. Being 8-13 years old 2. Being preoccupied with technology 3. Being physically inactive
Exclusion criteria
1. Having circulatory, respiratory and musculoskeletal disease 2. Having neuropsychiatric diseases 3. History of syncope or seizures 4. History of exercise induced anaphylaxis 5. Morbid obesity 6. Short stature
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Weight in Kilograms | Baseline, 12 weeks | Weight measured to the nearest 0.01 kg by Seca 767 scale. The first before the games, the second after the games. |
| Weight z Score | Baseline, 12 weeks | Weight measured to the nearest 0.01 kg by Seca 767 scale. Z scores were calculated using national data for Turkish children. The first before the games, the second after the games. Positive z-scores indicates the number of standard deviations of the child above the mean of the population of the same age, whereas negative z-scores indicates the number of standard deviations of the child below the mean of the population of the same age. |
| BMI Calculated as Weight (kg) / Height (m^2) | Baseline, 12 weeks | Body Mass Index calculation of both groups before the games and after the games. |
| BMI z Score | Baseline, 12 weeks | Weight and height were measured to the nearest 0.01 kg (Seca 767) and 0.1 cm (Seca 220). BMI Z-scores were calculated using national data for Turkish children derived from values obtained from calculations with Quetelet index. The first before the games, the second after the games. Positive BMI z-scores indicates the number of standard deviations of the child above the mean of the population of the same age, whereas negative z-scores indicates the number of standard deviations of the child below the mean of the population of the same age. |
| Body Fat Percentage as Determined by Siri Formula From Skinfold Thicknesses | Baseline, 12 weeks | The biceps, triceps, suprailiac and subscapular regions skinfold thicknesses were measured by Holtain caliper at the beginning of and after the games. Durnin-Womersley formula was used to calculate body densities. Then fat ratio of whole body was derived from the Siri equation by integrating body densities obtained by Durnin-Womersley formula. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Self-perception of Physical Condition Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | Baseline, 12 weeks | The scale Children and Youth Physical Self Perception Profile (CY-PSPP) assessed the children's self-percetion about physical condition competence subscale in both groups at the beginning and at the end of protocol. The subscale was assessed by 6 questions with four ordinal levels (1-4) of response. Minimum and maximum total scores change between 6 to 24 for the subscale. Higher scores mean a better score. |
| Self-perception of Strength Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | Baseline, 12 weeks | The scale Children and Youth Physical Self Perception Profile (CY-PSPP) assessed the children's self-percetion about strength competence subscale in both groups at the beginning and at the end of protocol. The subscale was assessed by 6 questions with four ordinal levels (1-4) of response. Minimum and maximum total scores change between 6 to 24 for the subscale. Higher scores mean a better score. |
| Self-perception of Body Attractiveness Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | Baseline, 12 weeks | The scale Children and Youth Physical Self Perception Profile (CY-PSPP) assessed the children's self-percetion about body attractiveness subscale in both groups at the beginning and at the end of protocol. The subscale was assessed by 6 questions with four ordinal levels (1-4) of response. Minimum and maximum total scores change between 6 to 24 for the subscale. Higher scores mean a better score. |
| Self-perception of Global Physical Self-worth Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | Baseline, 12 weeks | The scale Children and Youth Physical Self Perception Profile (CY-PSPP) assessed the children's self-percetion about physical self-worth subscale in both groups at the beginning and at the end of protocol. The subscale was assessed by 6 questions with four ordinal levels (1-4) of response. Minimum and maximum total scores change between 6 to 24 for the subscale. Higher scores mean a better score. |
| Self-perception of Global Self-worth Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | Baseline, 12 weeks | The scale Children and Youth Physical Self Perception Profile (CY-PSPP) assessed the children's self-percetion about global self-worth subscale in both groups at the beginning and at the end of protocol. The subscale was assessed by 6 questions with four ordinal levels (1-4) of response. Minimum and maximum total scores change between 6 to 24 for the subscale. Higher scores mean a better score. |
| Visual Reaction Times of Dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | Baseline, 12 weeks | Determination of visual reaction times after games in intervention groups, and control groups. First before the games, second after the games. |
| Enjoyment Levels of Genders From Resort Category in the Game Group by Physical Activity | After every game during 12 weeks | For Resort category, there were 8 games of jet-skiing, water skiing, table tennis, basketball, swordplay, archery, canoeing and frisbee. Thus, each child was evaluated after every single game by five bipolar scale questions. Questions 1 and 4 were starting from positive to negative answers (left to right) and therefore scored as 7-1. Scale scores were determined by calculating the mean. All scale scores were summed to calculate the Category score. The higher the score, the better the enjoyment in this category. Min-Max Resort Category scores were 23.2-37 for females and 25.8-37.8 for males. |
| Enjoyment Levels by Physical Activity of Genders From Balance Category in the Game Group | After every game during 12 weeks | For Balance category, there were 5 games of ski slalom, heading ball, balance bubble, ski jumping and penguin playing. Thus, each child was evaluated after every single game by five bipolar scale questions. Questions 1 and 4 were starting from positive to negative answers (left to right) and therefore scored as 7-1. Scale scores were determined by calculating the mean. All scale scores were summed to calculate the Category score. The higher the score, the better the enjoyment in this category. Min-Max Balance Category scores were 14.4-23.2 for females and 15-26.6 for males. |
| Enjoyment Levels by Physical Activity of Genders From Aerobic Category in the Game Group | After every game during 12 weeks | For Aerobics category, there were 5 games of rhytmic boxing, hula-hoop, cycling, step, and run. Thus, each child was evaluated after every single game by five bipolar scale questions. Questions 1 and 4 were starting from positive to negative answers (left to right) and therefore scored as 7-1. Scale scores were determined by calculating the mean. All scale scores were summed to calculate the Category score. The higher the score, the better the enjoyment in this category. Min-Max Aerobics Category scores were 17.8-24 for females and 14.4-26.4 for males. |
| Enjoyment Levels by Physical Activity of Genders From Training Category in the Game Group | After every game during 12 weeks | For Training category, there were 9 games of rhythm kung fu, snowball, turning ball, Segway circuit, perfect 10, skateboard, major, obstacle course and bicycle. Thus, each child was evaluated after every single game by five bipolar scale questions. Questions 1 and 4 were starting from positive to negative answers (left to right) and therefore scored as 7-1. Scale scores were determined by calculating the mean. All scale scores were summed to calculate the Category score. The higher the score, the better the enjoyment in this category. Min-Max Training Category scores were 31.6-41.8 for females and 29.2-45.2 for males. |
| Enjoyment Levels of Genders From Sports Category in the Game Group by Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES-SF) | After every game during 12 weeks | For Sports category, there were 5 games of boxing, tennis, golf, baseball, and bowling. Thus, each child was evaluated after every single game by five bipolar scale questions. Questions 1 and 4 were starting from positive to negative answers (left to right) and scored as 7-1. Scale scores were determined by calculating the mean. All scale scores were summed to calculate the Category score. The higher the score, the better the enjoyment in this category. Min-Max Sports Category scores were 11-25 for females and 17.8-26.2 for males. |
| Visual Reaction Times of Non-dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | Baseline, 12 weeks | — |
| Auditory Reaction Time of Dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | Baseline, 12 weeks | — |
| Auditory Reaction Time of Non-dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | Baseline, 12 weeks | — |
| Self-Perception of Sports Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | Baseline, 12 weeks | The scale Children and Youth Physical Self Perception Profile (CY-PSPP) assessed the children's self-percetion about sports competence subscale in both groups at the beginning and at the end of protocol. The subscale was assessed by 6 questions with four ordinal levels (1-4) of response. Minimum and maximum total scores change between 6 to 24 for the subscale. Higher scores mean a better score. |
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Four primary public schools among 14 in the central schools of Bolu region were randomly selected. In January to February of year 2013, all children (n=1300) from grades III,IV,V and VI were given froms for participation.Children positively responded to informed consent forms (n=918) were accepted as eligible for the study.
Pre-assignment details
The discrepancy between the enrolled (918) and assigned (n=106) numbers of children could be attributed to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, and particularly to dropped out children due to technological preoocupation and physical inactivity as well as problems interfering physical activity and self-perception.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Control Group Physically inactive children who did not play AVGs. | 53 |
| Intervention Group Physically inactive children who played alternately Nintendo Wii® active video games for 50-60 min, 3 days a week, 12 weeks, in laboratory environment.
Active Video Games: Nintendo Wii® AVGs from sports, balance, aerobics, resort and training categories. | 53 |
| Total | 106 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Control Group | Total | Intervention Group |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 10.31 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.15 | 9.96 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.13 | 9.62 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.02 |
| Race and Ethnicity Not Collected | — | 0 Participants | — |
| Region of Enrollment Turkey | 53 participants | 106 participants | 53 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 31 Participants | 60 Participants | 29 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 22 Participants | 46 Participants | 24 Participants |
| Techonology pre-occupation and physical inactivity | 53 participants | 106 participants | 53 participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | — / — | — / — |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 53 | 0 / 53 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 53 | 0 / 53 |
Outcome results
Primary
BMI Calculated as Weight (kg) / Height (m^2)
Body Mass Index calculation of both groups before the games and after the games.
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | BMI Calculated as Weight (kg) / Height (m^2) | At the beginning of games | 18.20 kg/ m^2 | Standard Deviation 3.29 |
| Control Group | BMI Calculated as Weight (kg) / Height (m^2) | At the end of the games | 18.86 kg/ m^2 | Standard Deviation 3.57 |
| Intervention Group | BMI Calculated as Weight (kg) / Height (m^2) | At the beginning of games | 17.97 kg/ m^2 | Standard Deviation 3.34 |
| Intervention Group | BMI Calculated as Weight (kg) / Height (m^2) | At the end of the games | 17.64 kg/ m^2 | Standard Deviation 3.36 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.p-value: 0ANCOVA
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.p-value: 0.00000306Linear mixed effects model
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.p-value: 0.00000367Linear mixed effects model
Primary
BMI z Score
Weight and height were measured to the nearest 0.01 kg (Seca 767) and 0.1 cm (Seca 220). BMI Z-scores were calculated using national data for Turkish children derived from values obtained from calculations with Quetelet index. The first before the games, the second after the games. Positive BMI z-scores indicates the number of standard deviations of the child above the mean of the population of the same age, whereas negative z-scores indicates the number of standard deviations of the child below the mean of the population of the same age.
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | BMI z Score | At the beginning of games | 0.06 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.15 |
| Control Group | BMI z Score | At the end of the games | 0.27 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.17 |
| Intervention Group | BMI z Score | At the beginning of games | 0.13 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.3 |
| Intervention Group | BMI z Score | At the end of the games | 0.00 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.31 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index z score.p-value: 0ANCOVA
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index z score.p-value: 0.0001402Linear mixed effects model
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body index z score.p-value: 0.000235Linear mixed-effects model
Primary
Body Fat Percentage as Determined by Siri Formula From Skinfold Thicknesses
The biceps, triceps, suprailiac and subscapular regions skinfold thicknesses were measured by Holtain caliper at the beginning of and after the games. Durnin-Womersley formula was used to calculate body densities. Then fat ratio of whole body was derived from the Siri equation by integrating body densities obtained by Durnin-Womersley formula.
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Body Fat Percentage as Determined by Siri Formula From Skinfold Thicknesses | At the beginning of games | 25.43 percentage of fat | Standard Deviation 6.78 |
| Control Group | Body Fat Percentage as Determined by Siri Formula From Skinfold Thicknesses | At the end of the games | 24.62 percentage of fat | Standard Deviation 7.83 |
| Intervention Group | Body Fat Percentage as Determined by Siri Formula From Skinfold Thicknesses | At the beginning of games | 24.54 percentage of fat | Standard Deviation 7.14 |
| Intervention Group | Body Fat Percentage as Determined by Siri Formula From Skinfold Thicknesses | At the end of the games | 22.37 percentage of fat | Standard Deviation 6.68 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.p-value: 0.259ANCOVA
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.p-value: 0.22Linear mixed-effects model
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.p-value: 0.250006Linear mixed effects model
Primary
Weight in Kilograms
Weight measured to the nearest 0.01 kg by Seca 767 scale. The first before the games, the second after the games.
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Weight in Kilograms | At the beginning of games | 34.29 kg | Standard Deviation 8.46 |
| Control Group | Weight in Kilograms | At the end of the games | 36.19 kg | Standard Deviation 9.04 |
| Intervention Group | Weight in Kilograms | At the beginning of games | 33.65 kg | Standard Deviation 9.39 |
| Intervention Group | Weight in Kilograms | At the end of the games | 34.18 kg | Standard Deviation 9.58 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.p-value: 0.001ANCOVA
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.p-value: 0.0002535Linear mixed effects model
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.p-value: 0.000397Linear mixed-effects model
Primary
Weight z Score
Weight measured to the nearest 0.01 kg by Seca 767 scale. Z scores were calculated using national data for Turkish children. The first before the games, the second after the games. Positive z-scores indicates the number of standard deviations of the child above the mean of the population of the same age, whereas negative z-scores indicates the number of standard deviations of the child below the mean of the population of the same age.
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Weight z Score | At the beginning of games | -0.22 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.05 |
| Control Group | Weight z Score | At the end of the games | 0.06 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.02 |
| Intervention Group | Weight z Score | At the beginning of games | 0.13 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.23 |
| Intervention Group | Weight z Score | At the end of the games | 0.23 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.23 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight z scores.p-value: 0.005ANCOVA
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight z score.p-value: 0.002Linear mixed effects model
Comparison: Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality. Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom correction method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.p-value: 0.00386Linear mixed effects model
Secondary
Auditory Reaction Time of Dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Auditory Reaction Time of Dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the beginning of games | 0.314 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.071 |
| Control Group | Auditory Reaction Time of Dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the end of the games | 0.289 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.079 |
| Intervention Group | Auditory Reaction Time of Dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the beginning of games | 0.285 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.079 |
| Intervention Group | Auditory Reaction Time of Dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the end of the games | 0.243 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.053 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.p-value: 0ANCOVA
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.p-value: 0.00001633Linear mixed-effects model
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.p-value: 0.0000367Linear mixed-effects model
Secondary
Auditory Reaction Time of Non-dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Auditory Reaction Time of Non-dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the beginning of games | 0.321 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.074 |
| Control Group | Auditory Reaction Time of Non-dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the end of the games | 0.293 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.08 |
| Intervention Group | Auditory Reaction Time of Non-dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the beginning of games | 0.294 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.086 |
| Intervention Group | Auditory Reaction Time of Non-dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the end of the games | 0.264 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.049 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.p-value: 0.008ANCOVA
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.p-value: 0.006Linear mixed effects model
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.p-value: 0.006602Linear mixed-effects model
Secondary
Enjoyment Levels by Physical Activity of Genders From Aerobic Category in the Game Group
For Aerobics category, there were 5 games of rhytmic boxing, hula-hoop, cycling, step, and run. Thus, each child was evaluated after every single game by five bipolar scale questions. Questions 1 and 4 were starting from positive to negative answers (left to right) and therefore scored as 7-1. Scale scores were determined by calculating the mean. All scale scores were summed to calculate the Category score. The higher the score, the better the enjoyment in this category. Min-Max Aerobics Category scores were 17.8-24 for females and 14.4-26.4 for males.
Time frame: After every game during 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Enjoyment Levels by Physical Activity of Genders From Aerobic Category in the Game Group | 22.17 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.41 |
| Intervention Group | Enjoyment Levels by Physical Activity of Genders From Aerobic Category in the Game Group | 21.54 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.39 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from aerobic category.p-value: 0.247Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Secondary
Enjoyment Levels by Physical Activity of Genders From Balance Category in the Game Group
For Balance category, there were 5 games of ski slalom, heading ball, balance bubble, ski jumping and penguin playing. Thus, each child was evaluated after every single game by five bipolar scale questions. Questions 1 and 4 were starting from positive to negative answers (left to right) and therefore scored as 7-1. Scale scores were determined by calculating the mean. All scale scores were summed to calculate the Category score. The higher the score, the better the enjoyment in this category. Min-Max Balance Category scores were 14.4-23.2 for females and 15-26.6 for males.
Time frame: After every game during 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Enjoyment Levels by Physical Activity of Genders From Balance Category in the Game Group | 21.24 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.32 |
| Intervention Group | Enjoyment Levels by Physical Activity of Genders From Balance Category in the Game Group | 21.41 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.49 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from balance category.p-value: 0.843Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Secondary
Enjoyment Levels by Physical Activity of Genders From Training Category in the Game Group
For Training category, there were 9 games of rhythm kung fu, snowball, turning ball, Segway circuit, perfect 10, skateboard, major, obstacle course and bicycle. Thus, each child was evaluated after every single game by five bipolar scale questions. Questions 1 and 4 were starting from positive to negative answers (left to right) and therefore scored as 7-1. Scale scores were determined by calculating the mean. All scale scores were summed to calculate the Category score. The higher the score, the better the enjoyment in this category. Min-Max Training Category scores were 31.6-41.8 for females and 29.2-45.2 for males.
Time frame: After every game during 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Enjoyment Levels by Physical Activity of Genders From Training Category in the Game Group | 38.50 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.7 |
| Intervention Group | Enjoyment Levels by Physical Activity of Genders From Training Category in the Game Group | 37.95 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.61 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from training category.p-value: 0.543Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Secondary
Enjoyment Levels of Genders From Resort Category in the Game Group by Physical Activity
For Resort category, there were 8 games of jet-skiing, water skiing, table tennis, basketball, swordplay, archery, canoeing and frisbee. Thus, each child was evaluated after every single game by five bipolar scale questions. Questions 1 and 4 were starting from positive to negative answers (left to right) and therefore scored as 7-1. Scale scores were determined by calculating the mean. All scale scores were summed to calculate the Category score. The higher the score, the better the enjoyment in this category. Min-Max Resort Category scores were 23.2-37 for females and 25.8-37.8 for males.
Time frame: After every game during 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Enjoyment Levels of Genders From Resort Category in the Game Group by Physical Activity | 33.04 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.36 |
| Intervention Group | Enjoyment Levels of Genders From Resort Category in the Game Group by Physical Activity | 33.27 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.3 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the Active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from sports category.p-value: 0.809Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Secondary
Enjoyment Levels of Genders From Sports Category in the Game Group by Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES-SF)
For Sports category, there were 5 games of boxing, tennis, golf, baseball, and bowling. Thus, each child was evaluated after every single game by five bipolar scale questions. Questions 1 and 4 were starting from positive to negative answers (left to right) and scored as 7-1. Scale scores were determined by calculating the mean. All scale scores were summed to calculate the Category score. The higher the score, the better the enjoyment in this category. Min-Max Sports Category scores were 11-25 for females and 17.8-26.2 for males.
Time frame: After every game during 12 weeks
Population: Enjoyment levels only in the intervention group were assessed since control group did not play the games of interest.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Enjoyment Levels of Genders From Sports Category in the Game Group by Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES-SF) | 21.34 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.59 |
| Intervention Group | Enjoyment Levels of Genders From Sports Category in the Game Group by Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES-SF) | 20.46 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.08 |
Comparison: Enjoyment scale of physical activity sports in intervention group between male and female gendersp-value: 0.194Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Secondary
Self-perception of Body Attractiveness Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP)
The scale Children and Youth Physical Self Perception Profile (CY-PSPP) assessed the children's self-percetion about body attractiveness subscale in both groups at the beginning and at the end of protocol. The subscale was assessed by 6 questions with four ordinal levels (1-4) of response. Minimum and maximum total scores change between 6 to 24 for the subscale. Higher scores mean a better score.
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Self-perception of Body Attractiveness Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the beginning of games | 17.37 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.78 |
| Control Group | Self-perception of Body Attractiveness Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the end of the games | 18.69 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.57 |
| Intervention Group | Self-perception of Body Attractiveness Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the beginning of games | 16.11 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.17 |
| Intervention Group | Self-perception of Body Attractiveness Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the end of the games | 17.11 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.19 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.p-value: 0.638505ANCOVA
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.p-value: 0.632Linear mixed effects model
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.p-value: 0.6328Linear mixed-effects model
Secondary
Self-perception of Global Physical Self-worth Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP)
The scale Children and Youth Physical Self Perception Profile (CY-PSPP) assessed the children's self-percetion about physical self-worth subscale in both groups at the beginning and at the end of protocol. The subscale was assessed by 6 questions with four ordinal levels (1-4) of response. Minimum and maximum total scores change between 6 to 24 for the subscale. Higher scores mean a better score.
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Self-perception of Global Physical Self-worth Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the beginning of games | 18.03 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.5 |
| Control Group | Self-perception of Global Physical Self-worth Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the end of the games | 20.32 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.48 |
| Intervention Group | Self-perception of Global Physical Self-worth Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the beginning of games | 17.37 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.74 |
| Intervention Group | Self-perception of Global Physical Self-worth Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the end of the games | 18.15 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.05 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.p-value: 0.007061ANCOVA
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.p-value: 0.005Linear mixed effects model
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.p-value: 0.00603Linear mixed-effects model
Secondary
Self-perception of Global Self-worth Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP)
The scale Children and Youth Physical Self Perception Profile (CY-PSPP) assessed the children's self-percetion about global self-worth subscale in both groups at the beginning and at the end of protocol. The subscale was assessed by 6 questions with four ordinal levels (1-4) of response. Minimum and maximum total scores change between 6 to 24 for the subscale. Higher scores mean a better score.
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Self-perception of Global Self-worth Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the beginning of games | 18.03 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.5 |
| Control Group | Self-perception of Global Self-worth Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the end of the games | 20.69 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.8 |
| Intervention Group | Self-perception of Global Self-worth Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the beginning of games | 17.92 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.65 |
| Intervention Group | Self-perception of Global Self-worth Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the end of the games | 18.69 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.25 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.p-value: 0.002879ANCOVA
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.p-value: 0.002Linear mixed effects model
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.p-value: 0.00238Linear mixed-effects model
Secondary
Self-perception of Physical Condition Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP)
The scale Children and Youth Physical Self Perception Profile (CY-PSPP) assessed the children's self-percetion about physical condition competence subscale in both groups at the beginning and at the end of protocol. The subscale was assessed by 6 questions with four ordinal levels (1-4) of response. Minimum and maximum total scores change between 6 to 24 for the subscale. Higher scores mean a better score.
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Self-perception of Physical Condition Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | 18.15 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.08 |
| Intervention Group | Self-perception of Physical Condition Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | 17.52 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.78 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of physical condition competence.p-value: 0.094ANCOVA
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of physical condition competence.p-value: 0.085Linear mixed effects model
Comparison: The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.p-value: 0.08818Linear mixed-effects model
Secondary
Self-Perception of Sports Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP)
The scale Children and Youth Physical Self Perception Profile (CY-PSPP) assessed the children's self-percetion about sports competence subscale in both groups at the beginning and at the end of protocol. The subscale was assessed by 6 questions with four ordinal levels (1-4) of response. Minimum and maximum total scores change between 6 to 24 for the subscale. Higher scores mean a better score.
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Self-Perception of Sports Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the beginning of games | 17.11 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.59 |
| Control Group | Self-Perception of Sports Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the end of the games | 18.79 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.95 |
| Intervention Group | Self-Perception of Sports Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the beginning of games | 16.11 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.35 |
| Intervention Group | Self-Perception of Sports Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the end of the games | 17.73 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.63 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of sports competence.p-value: 0.615648ANCOVA
Comparison: The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.p-value: 0.608Linear mixed effects model
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of sports competence.p-value: 0.60938Linear mixed-effects model
Secondary
Self-perception of Strength Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP)
The scale Children and Youth Physical Self Perception Profile (CY-PSPP) assessed the children's self-percetion about strength competence subscale in both groups at the beginning and at the end of protocol. The subscale was assessed by 6 questions with four ordinal levels (1-4) of response. Minimum and maximum total scores change between 6 to 24 for the subscale. Higher scores mean a better score.
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Self-perception of Strength Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the beginning of games | 17.03 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.05 |
| Control Group | Self-perception of Strength Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the end of the games | 19.24 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.27 |
| Intervention Group | Self-perception of Strength Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the beginning of games | 16.35 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.24 |
| Intervention Group | Self-perception of Strength Competence Assessed by Children and Youth Physical Self-perception Profile (CY-PSPP) | At the end of the games | 17.49 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.66 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.p-value: 0.058102ANCOVA
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.p-value: 0.051Linear mixed effects model
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.p-value: 0.0534Linear mixed-effects model
Secondary
Visual Reaction Times of Dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer
Determination of visual reaction times after games in intervention groups, and control groups. First before the games, second after the games.
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Visual Reaction Times of Dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the beginning of games | 0.269 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.055 |
| Control Group | Visual Reaction Times of Dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the end of the games | 0.269 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.075 |
| Intervention Group | Visual Reaction Times of Dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the end of the games | 0.233 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.04 |
| Intervention Group | Visual Reaction Times of Dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the beginning of games | 0.263 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.067 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time.p-value: 0ANCOVA
Comparison: The outcome of visual reaction time was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.p-value: 0.00001196Linear mixed-effects model
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time.p-value: 0.0000282Linear mixed-effects model
Secondary
Visual Reaction Times of Non-dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Visual Reaction Times of Non-dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the beginning of games | 0.284 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.058 |
| Control Group | Visual Reaction Times of Non-dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the end of the games | 0.282 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.076 |
| Intervention Group | Visual Reaction Times of Non-dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the beginning of games | 0.282 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.083 |
| Intervention Group | Visual Reaction Times of Non-dominant Hand by Newtest 1000 Timer | At the end of the games | 0.240 seconds | Standard Deviation 0.045 |
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.p-value: 0ANCOVA
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.p-value: 9e-8Linear mixed-effects model
Comparison: Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.p-value: 55Linear mixed-effects model