Cited by 30School Health and Nursing EducationPhysical Activity and HealthPhysical Education and Pedagogy

Partnerships for Active Children in Elementary Schools (PACES): First year process evaluation

Egan, Cate A., Webster, Collin, Weaver, R. Glenn, Brian, Ali, Stodden, David, Russ, Laura, Nesbitt, Danielle, Vazou, Spyridoula·2018·Evaluation and Program Planning

Abstract

Movement integration (MI) is a strategy within comprehensive school physical activity programs (CSPAP). School-university partnerships are recommended to leverage teachers' capacity to use MI. A mixed method process evaluation was conducted of the first year of implementing Partnerships for Active Children in Elementary Schools (PACES). Classroom teachers (N=12) from four schools participated. Data were collected in Fall 2014 (baseline) and Spring 2015 (∼ four months of intervention) using the System for Observing Student Movement in Academic Routines and Transitions and semi-structured interviews. There were no significant differences between intervention classrooms and control classrooms MI promotion. Differences approaching significance (U=5, p=0.04, d=1.2) were observed when comparing classrooms that received two (community of practice, community-based participatory research) or three components (two components plus service learning) of the intervention and classrooms that received one (community of practice) or no components. Qualitative findings revealed that teachers in classrooms that were more successful responded more favorably to the intervention components than teachers in classrooms that were less successful. Quantitative and qualitative results supported the effectiveness of community-based participatory research as a component of PACES. This study provides information about MI process variables in the context of a CSPAP intervention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.12.002

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Egan, C. A., Webster, C., Weaver, R. G., Brian, A., Stodden, D., Russ, L., Nesbitt, D., & Vazou, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Idaho (US)
  • University of South Carolina (US)
  • Iowa State University (US)
Corresponding author
Egan, Cate A.
Venue
Evaluation and Program Planning
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-04
Volume
67
Pages
61-69
ISSN
0149-7189 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2773728996
Cited by
30
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3
FWCI
7.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Evaluation and Program Planning (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Physical Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
movement integration, Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program, university-school partnership, elementary school students, teacher capacity, communities of practice, community-based participatory research, service-learning, physical activity promotion, process evaluation
MeSH terms
School Teachers, Child, Health Promotion, Humans, Interinstitutional Relations, Interprofessional Relations, Interviews as Topic, Physical Education and Training, Pilot Projects, Schools, Program Evaluation, Exercise, Community-Based Participatory Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review