Mentor: Dr.

Kay Malek
Research Partners: Denise Moser & Jennifer Reese
Student Researchers: Nikki Imhoff, Amy Senner,
Brittney Latuch, Lauren Trotz, & Emily Christoff
Introduction
Childhood obesity has become a widespread
epidemic in the United States, with
contributing factors suggested to be
decreased physical activity and poor nutrition.
Crucial factors that may contribute to
decreased physical activity in children include:
Confusion and misunderstanding of the
guidelines for physical activity
An increase in sedentary behaviors and a
decrease in physical activity
 Schools moving away from PE due to increased
emphasis on standardized testing
Purpose
Purpose of the study
 The purpose of our study is to explore factors that
influence physical activity behavior in children as well
as validate the effectiveness of Functional Fitness 4
Kids as a school-based program
Hypotheses
1st, prior to the implementation of the Functional
Fitness 4 Kids program, participants will not be
able to verbally define and identify differences
in light, moderate, and vigorous physical
activity.
2nd, participants will show a relationship
between fitness levels and the ability to define
and identify light, moderate, and vigorous
Methodology
Participants
Sample of convenience
 5th and 6th grade students
at a local school
 Total number (n) of 138
students: 65 fifth graders
& 73 sixth graders
 Boys vs Girls

Inclusion & Exclusion

Criteria
Informed Consent
IRB Approval
Methodology
Instrumentation:
Pretest/Posttest Design
Questionnaire
Physical Battery
 BMI
 12 minute run/walk test;
YMCA
3 minute step test (CRF)
 Isometric Wall Squats
Sits/Planks (Muscular
Endurance)
 Pushups/Lunges (Muscular
Strength)
 90/90 Hamstring (Flexibility)
Methodology
Intervention
 FF4K
 Collaborative Effort between the School District, PE teacher,
Non-profit Organization, and SFU students/mentor
 Mission statement - Non-Profit Organization
 Curriculum
 Class Format (team building, circuit training, group training,
station training, etc)
 Equipment (optional)
 Education on Self-Monitoring
 Borg Scale
 HR

 Time Period for Intervention

 7 weeks: 1 wk pretest, 1 week posttest, 5 wks intervention
Methodology
Intervention
Each week the 40-45 minute exercise session
was based off of a sample class provided in the
FF4K instructor’s manual.
 5-10 minute warm-up; 20-25 minutes CV/muscular
strength & endurance activities; 5-10 minute cool-
down
Each session concluded with a 10-15 minute
nutritional snack and informational session on
physical activity and/or nutritional topics.
Generally, station training was performed with
alternating cardiovascular exercise and
muscular strength & endurance exercises in
each of the sessions.
Methodology
Week One
Introduction to FF4K
Core exercises taught
Tip of the day: hydration
Week Two:
Taught to monitor heart rate & RPE scale
Dice game
Tip of the day: Difference between light,
moderate, and vigorous activity
Methodology
Week Three:
 Focused on lower extremity & core strengthening as
well as cardiovascular exercise
 Tip of the day: fruits & vegetables
Week Four:
 Focused on upper extremity & core strengthening
and cardiovascular exercise
 Tip of the day: fiber and healthy food choices
Week Five:
 Focused on balance and agility with incorporated
aerobic exercise
 Tip of the day: Importance of breakfast
Results
BMI distributions of our sample
Questionnaire
Do 5th and 6th sixth graders know the difference
between light, moderate, and vigorous physical
activity?
Did their knowledge improve during this
intervention?
Physical Battery of Tests
What kind of muscular and cardiopulmonary
endurance and strength did our participants
have initially? Did these components change
over the time that our intervention took place?
Let’s take a look…
Questionnaire
The results of the ten questions focused on
physical activity indicate a mean positive
change of 2.68 percent between pre-test and
post-test correct answers for the 5th grade.
Similarly, there was a mean positive change
of 2.24 percent between pre-test and post-
test correct answers in the 6th grade.
The statistical significance of these numbers
are to be determined in the future using a test
for non parametric data such as the Mann-
Whitney Test.
Number & Correct Percent Correct Pre Test Percent Correct Post Test Difference
Answer 6th Grade
5C 81.36 93.22 11.86
6D 78.33 83.33 5
7A 75 81.67 6.67
8C 80 91.38 11.38
9B 80 78.33 -1.67
10A 66.10 53.33 -12.77
11C 30 41.38 11.38
12A,B,C,D,E 22.03 20.34 -1.69
13A,D,E 33.33 27.12 -6.21
14B,C,D,E 8.33 6.78 -1.55
 Physical Battery Results
Test/Measureme Fifth Grade Sixth Grade
nt
Resting Heart -2 BPM 0 BPM
Rate
90-90 Hamstring R -1.2º L R +0.88º L
Length -1.9 º +2.65 º
Push-Ups +7.4 +6.6

Lunge Test R -1.33cm L- R +0.12cm L

1.91 cm +3.9cm
12 Minute Walk +1.92 laps +0.22 laps

YMCA 3-Minute +5 BPM post +0.45 BPM post

Step Test exercise exercise
Plank Test +21 seconds + 12.9 seconds

Isometric Wall +131 seconds +103 seconds

Squat
Discussion
Hypothesis
 In order to address our original hypothesis analyzing
whether the 5th and 6th graders knew the difference
between light, moderate, and vigorous physical
activity, data were analyzed regarding their
responses to 10 multiple choice questions on the
administered questionnaire which addressed this
topic.
 As we mentioned in the results, an overall increase
of 2.6% in the 5th grade and 2.24% in the 6th grade’s
correct responses from pretest to posttest was
determined.
 Even though further analysis should be done to
determine whether these percentages are
statistically significant, a positive change in
Discussion
FF4K
=
 Upon observation, FF4K, as implemented by Denise
Moser, seems to be an appropriate vehicle for
children in increasing both their knowledge about
physical activity and their physical fitness in areas
of muscular endurance, strength, flexibility, and
cardiovascular endurance.
 As mentioned in the results, overall, the 5th and 6th
graders made improvements in some of the physical
battery of tests.
 However, the limitations to our study prevent us
from concluding about the overall effectiveness of
this program as implemented during school hours.
FF4K is traditionally implemented as an after school,
Limitations
Space constraints with regard to the number
of participants
Implemented in a school-based setting
therefore, some considerations were: a Dr.
Seuss Reading Day, a Fire drill, spring break,
and music instrument instruction.
Questionnaire
Conclusion
Overall, FF4k seems to be an appropriate
model program for increasing not only
knowledge about physical activity but also
actual physical activity performance in
children.
However, performing the intervention in a
school-based setting with a large amount of
students suggests that this may not be the
appropriate environment for optimal
outcomes of the program.
Further research in differing settings and with
better controlled conditions is warranted.

References
1. Wolf AM, Colditz GA. Current estimates of the economic cost of obesity in the United States. Obesity Research. 1998;6:97-
106.
 2. Shape of the Nation Report (2006). Status of Physical Education in the USA: Conducted by the National Association for
Sport and Physical Education and the American Heart Association.
 3. Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness and Council on School Health. Active healthy living: Prevention of childhood
obesity through increased physical activity. Pediatrics Journal. 2006; 117(5): 1834-1842.
 4. Center for Disease Control (CDC). Importance of physical activity for youth. Providing healthy snacks and meals. pp.51.
Available at: http://www.cdc.gov. Accessed October 31, 2007.
 5. Center for Disease Control (CDC). Physical activity for everyone: physical activity terms. pp 1-3. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/physical/terms/index.htm. Accessed October 31, 2007.
 6. Koebel CI, Swank AM, Shelburne L. Fitness testing in children: A comparison between PCPFS and AAHPERD standards.
Journal of Applied Sport Science Research.1992; 6(2): 107-114.
 7. Ross JG, Gilbert GG. The national children and youth fitness study: A summary of findings. JOPERD. 1985; 56: 45-50
 8. President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. Youth physical fitness in 1985. Washington, D.C: President’s Council
on Physical Fitness and Sports.
 9. President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. 1985 school population fitness survey: test items and normative data.
Washington, D.C: President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. 1987.
 10. Department of Health and Human Services: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Summary of findings
from national children and youth fitness study II. JOPER. 1987; 6: 51-96.
 11. Black L,Greiner K, Schellhammer E, Whipkey J, Malek K. Physical activity levels in adolescents in western Pennsylvania:
Towards a school based diabetes prevention program.” 2006.
 12. Updated Physical Activity Guidelines. 08/01/2007. American Heart Association. Available at:
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3049282.
 13. “Physical fitness and the role of physical therapy in health, wellness, and fitness.” American Physical Therapy
Association. Accessed on 11/22/2006. Available at:
http://www.apta.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Info_for_Managers&TEMPLATE=/CM/htm.
 14. Carraro, R. Role of prevention in the contention of the obesity epidemic. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition; 2003:57,
Suppl 1, S94–S96.
 15. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 7thed. Baltimore, MD:
Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2006: 58.
 16. Sopher A, Shen W, Pietrobelli A. Pediatric Body Composition Methods. In: Human Body Composition. Edited by
Heymsfield S, Lohman T, Wanz ZM, Going SB. 2005
 17. Tremblay MS, Barnes JD, Copeland JL, Esliger DW. Conquering childhood inactivity: Is the answer in the past? Medicine &
Science In Sports & Exercise 2005:37:1187-1194. Available from: American College of Sports Medicine. Accessed October

References
19. Campbell C, Viner R, Bryant-Waugh R, Nicholas D, Christie C. Childhood Obesity. British Medical Journal. 2000, May 20
 20. Harris JO, Cale L. A review of children’s fitness testing. European Physical Education Review. 2006; 12(2):201-225
 21. Nestle, M. Preventing Childhood Diabetes: The Need for Public Health Intervention. American Journal of Public Health
2005:95:1497-1499. Available from:Proquest. Accessed October 10, 2007, Document ID: 0524404624004
 22. Burton WN, Chen CY, Schultz AB, Edington DW. The economic costs associated with body mass index in a workplace. JOEM.
1998:786–92.
 23. Pronk NP, Goodman MJ, O’Connor PJ, Martinson BC. Relationship between modifiable health risks and short-term charges. JAMA.
1999;282:2235–9.
 24. American Heart Association
 25. Trost SG, Kerr LM, Ward DS, Pate RR. Physical Activity and determinants of physical activity in obese and non-obese children.
International Journal of Obesity. 2001.
 26. Loucks, HE. A Teachers’ Union Perspective on NCLB Accountability Issues. http://www.nesinc.com/PDFs/2005_15Loucks.pdf
Retrieved from: Google Scholar. Accessed December 13, 2007.
 27. “Academic Standards for Health, Safety and Physical Education.” Pennsylvania Department of Education. 22 Pa. Code, Chapter
4, Appendix D (#006-276). p. 11-19.
 28. Center for Disease Control (CDC). Physical activity for everyone: Measuring physical activity intensity: Target heart rate and
estimated maximum heart rate. pp 1-2. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/physical/measuring/target_heart_rate.htm.
Accessed October, 31, 2007.
 29. Pennsylvania Department of Education. Academic Standards for Health, Safety and Physical Education. 22 Pa. code, Chapter
4, Appendix D (#006-276). July 18, 2002.
 30. Strauss RS, Rodzilsky D, Burack G, Colin M. Psychosocial correlates of physical activity in healthy children. Archives of Pediatric
Adolescent Medicine. 2001.
 31. Center for Disease Control (CDC). Your role in promoting physical activity and tips for successful physical activity. Empowering
youth with nutrition and physical activity. pp. 52-54. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov. Accessed October 31, 2007.
 32. Kid’s Health for Parents: How T.V. affects your child. Updated and Reviewed by Mary L. Gavin, MD. February 2005. Available
at: http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/family/tv_affects_child.html. Accessed on July 2, 2008. 
 33. Rasmussen M. Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among children and adolescents: a review of the literature.
Part I: quantitative studies. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2006; 3:22
 34. McKenzie TL, Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, et al. Evaluation of a two-year middle-school physical
 education intervention: M-SPAN. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2004; 36(8): 1382-1388.
 35. MA Chase, Children's Self Efficacy, Motivational Intentions, and Attributions in Physical Education and Sport, Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, March 2001, Vol 72, No. 1, pp.47-54.
 36. Bandura A. Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal agency. Applied Sport Psychology. 1990; 2: 128-163.
 37. Functional Fitness 4 Kids, Inc. Manual. Denise Moser, Executive Director. 2008.
 38. United States Department of Agriculture. My Pyramid.Gov. Inside the Pyramid: Fruits and Vegetables. Accessed on July 2,
2008. Available at: http://www.mypyramid.gov/pyramid/fruits_amount_table.html.
http://www.mypyramid.gov/pyramid/vegetables_amount_table.html
 39. Van Der Horst K, Chin MJ, Paw A, Marijke J, Twisk WR, Van Mechelen W. A Brief Review on Correlates of Physical Activity and
Sedentariness in Youth. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2007:39:1241-1250. Available from: Proquest. Accessed
December 12, 2007
 40. Johnson J, Deshpande C. Health education and physical education: Disciplines preparing students as productive, health
citizens for the challenges of the 21st century. The Journal of School Health. 2000; 70(2): 66-68.
 References
 42. Center for Disease Control (CDC). Physical activity for everyone: Measuring physical activity intensity: Talk test. Available at:
http//www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/physical/measuring/talk_test.htm. Accessed October, 31, 2007.
  43. Karavatas, SG, Tavakol, K. Concurrent Validity Of Borg’s Rating Of Perceived Exertion In African-American Young Adults,
Employing Heart Rate As The Standard.  The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice. January 2005. Volume 3
Number 1. 
 44. Drinkard B, Roberts M, Ranzanhofer L, Han J, Merke D, Savastano D, et al. Oxygen-uptake Efficiency Slope as a Determinant of
Fitness in Overweight Adolescents Medical Science of Sports Exercise 2007: Oct; 39 (10) 1811-1816.
 45. Blazevich AJ, Gill N, Newton RU. Reliability and Validity of Two Isometric Squat Tests. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. 2002; 16(2): 298-304.
 46. Arab AM, Ebrahimi I, Mousavi ME, Salavati M. Sensitivity, Specificity and Predictive Value of the Clinical Trunk Muscle
Endurance Tests in Low Back Pain. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2007; 21: 640-647.
 47. Jacobs CA, Johnson DL, Mattacola CG, Rund MA. Functional Assessment Using the Step Up and Over Test and Forward Lunge
Following ACL Reconstruction. Orthopedics. 2004; 27(6): 602-609.
 48. Baumgartner TA, Chung H, Hales D, Oh S. Objectivity, Reliability and Validity for a Revised Push-Up Test Protocol.
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 2002; 6(4): 225-242.
 49. Magee DJ. Orthopedic Physical Assessment. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Sciences (USA); 2002: 634-635.
 50. Kogan SL, Muller MJ. Ethnographic Study of Knowledge Work. IBM Systems Journal. 45:4:2006.
 51. Murucia JA, San Roman ML, Galindo CM, Alonso Nester, Gonzalez-Cutre D. Peers’ Influence on exercise enjoyment: A self0-
determination theory approach. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 2008: 7;23-31.

 Bibliography/Other References.
 52. Johansson G. Underreporting of energy intake in repeated 24-hour recalls related to gender, age, weight status, day of
interview, educational level, reported food intake, smoking habits and area of living Public Health Nutrition. 2000: 4(4); 919-927.
 53. Adams GM, Beam WC. Exercise Physiology Laboratory Manual. 5th ed. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.;
2008: 126-131.
 54. Cooley D, Hall P, McNaughton L. Validation of Several Methods of Estimating Maximal Oxygen Uptake in Young Men.
Perceptual & Motor Skills. 1998; 87: 575-584.
 55. Borys JM, Charles MA, Ducimetière P, Heude B, Kettaneh A, Lommez A. Reliability of bioimpedance analysis compared with
other adiposity measurements in children: The FLVS II Study. Diabetes & Metabolism. 2005; 31(6): 534-541.
 56. Bosaeus I, DeLorenzo AD, Deurenberg P, et al. Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis – part I: review of principles and methods.
Clinical Nutrition. 2004; 23: 1226-1243.