Three-Year Fitness Outcomes Comparison: PE4Life Program Versus Traditional Physical Education Program

Thursday, March 18, 2010: 2:55 PM
110 (Convention Center)
Traci D. Zillifro, Randall A. Nichols and Wenhao Liu, Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA
Background/Purpose: While PE4life program is well known for its health-related fitness focus and the routine use of pedometers and heart rate monitors to improve physical activity in PE, its impact on children's health-related fitness has seldom been reported. This study was intended to compare children's three-year fitness outcomes between a PE4life Academy program and a traditional PE program.

Method: Participants were 152 sixth graders (72 girls and 80 boys) in a PE4life Academy middle school (School1) and 103 sixth graders (55 Girls and 48 boys) in a same-area school (School2) with a traditional PE program and similar socioeconomic status, race composition (white > 93%), and weekly PE class time (105 minutes vs. 82 minutes). The 6th grade cohort completed five fitness tests, PACER, curl-ups, push-ups, sit and reach (right and left), and BMI at the following four time points during 2006-07 to 2008-09 school years: fall 2006 (pretest), spring 2007 (posttest1), spring 2008 (posttest2), and spring 2009 (posttest3). Fitness scores between the two schools at each of the three posttests were compared using one-way repeated-measures multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), controlling for the pretest scores.

Analysis/Results: The number of 6th grade cohort completing each fitness test across the four time points ranged from 113 to 129 at School1 and 79 to 92 at School2. Holding the pretest scores constant, the MANCOVAs yielded highly significant differences (p < .001) in adjusted means in favor of School1 on (a) PACER at posttest2 (36.00±20.70 vs. 28.95±17.37) and posttest3 (40.75±22.87 vs. 29.76±16.22), (b) curl-ups at posttest2 (54.62±31.45 vs. 38.73±22.64) and posttest3 (55.99±25.35 vs. 42.07±21.62), and (c) push-ups at posttest2 (13.24±8.88 vs. 6.20±9.59) and posttest3 (15.06±9.86 vs. 7.38±7.91). However, adjusted means were significantly against School1 (p <. 001) on (a) right sit and reach at posttest2 (10.38±2.37 vs. 11.66±2.25) and posttest3 (9.61±2.11 vs. 11.59±2.70), and (b) left sit and reach at posttest2 (10.26±2.32 vs. 11.66±2.69) and posttest3 (9.83±2.32 vs. 11.59±2.70). As for BMI, no significant difference was found.

Conclusions: Compared to the traditional PE program, the PE4life program demonstrates significantly greater positive impact on children's cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular strength/endurance, which are primary and important fitness components. This might be attributed to its fitness focus and routine use of physical activity promotion technology, which tends to promote physical activity level in PE classes. It is desirable, however, for the PE4life program to consider how to impact children's fitness in a more comprehensive manner.