Effects of coordination-based training on preschool children’s physical fitness, motor competence and inhibition control

Abstract

Aim

This study aimed to investigate the effects of a coordination-based training program on physical fitness, motor competence, and inhibition control in preschool children.

Method

Fifty-one preschool children aged 5 to 6 years (M = 6.03, SD = 0.30), were randomly assigned to either an exercise group (EG; n = 26), which received a coordination-based training program, or a control group (CG; n = 25), which continued their routine activities. All participants were recruited from a preschool. Physical fitness (PF) was assessed through agility, static and dynamic balance, and vertical jump tests. Motor competence (MC) was measured using the Körperkoordinationstest für Kinder 3+ (KTK3+), and inhibition control (IC) was evaluated via the Go/No-Go test.

Result

The group-time interaction showed that the exercise group’s score increase was significantly higher than that of the CG in vertical jumping (F₍₁₋₄₉₎ = 14.569, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.229) and KTK Balancing Backwards (F₍₁₋₄₉₎ = 14.051, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.223) variables. Also, CG’s score increase was significantly higher than that of the EG in KTK Moving Sideways (F₍₁₋₄₉₎ = 9.984, p < 0.01, η_p² = 0.169). However, statistically significant differences were not found in the comparison of group x time interaction in all other variables (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The coordination-based training provided to the exercise group led to significant improvements in vertical jump performance (an indicator of lower extremity strength) and KTK Balancing Backwards scores (an indicator of dynamic balance) compared to the control group. These findings suggest that coordination-based training can enhance lower extremity strength and dynamic balance in preschool children.

Introduction

The preschool years are a critical period for the acquisition and refinement of motor skills and the development of basic cognitive skills [1]. It is acknowledged that physical activity (PA) plays a role in the development of each of these traits. Numerous studies demonstrate how engaging in PA helps children develop their motor competence, cognitive abilities, and physical fitness [2–6]. However, in recent times, there has been an increasing amount of worry about preschool aged children leading sedentary lives, which may negatively impact their motor competence, physical fitness, and inhibitory control [7]. Inhibitory control, a crucial aspect of cognitive development, refers to the ability to suppress impulsive responses and regulate behaviour, which is essential for academic achievement and social interactions [8]. Thus, it is important for public health to understand how to support the development of preschoolers’ inhibitory control [9] and the relationships between each of these elements. Furthermore, comprehending the complex relationship of physical fitness, motor competences, and inhibition control in preschool children is essential to understanding the overall development of developing minds and bodies. Preschoolers’ physical fitness has improved as a result of daily physical exercise interventions [10]. Also, regular PA leads to anatomical and functional changes in the brain that have a multitude of positive health effects [11]. First off, according to Fernandes et al. [12], it impacts brain plasticity, improves blood flow, and increases gray matter volume in the frontal and hippocampal areas. Engaging in physical exercise is an organic and beneficial chance for cognitive and physical growth. According to Janssen and LeBlanc [7], exercise can enhance learning, reduce risk of disease, and make people feel better about themselves. In addition to daily PA interventions, the effect of coordination-based trainings on motor competence, physical fitness and cognitive functions, especially in preschool children, is of interest. According to Yu-Kai et al. [13], coordinated exercise may improve working memory, attentional resources, visuospatial perception, and the amount of time needed for neurocognitive processing. These may be explained by the fact that the movement’s coordinative element thickens connections in significant brain regions like the cerebellum [14].

Coordination-based training, characterized by tasks requiring precise control of body movements and spatial-temporal coordination, have significantly contributed to developing children’s motor competence [15]. Understanding the characteristics and effects of coordination-based training is crucial because they provide a foundation for developing motor competence, which, in turn, influences cognitive functions and overall well-being in preschool children. The characteristics of coordination-based activities play a pivotal role in promoting physical fitness and motor competence in preschool children [16, 17]. These activities not only contribute to the development of specific motor skills but also have a positive impact on cognitive performance [16]. When the studies in the literature are examined, it is shown that coordination trainings support children’s coordination skills such as agility and balance, as well as executive functions such as updating, attention, inhibition, neurocognitive processing efficiency, and planning processes [18–21]. Research in the literature has shown positive effects of coordination-based trainings on executive functions. Chang et al. [21] found positive effects of coordination-based training on executive functions in kindergarten children, highlighting its potential to enhance cognitive performance. The evidence indicates that coordination-based trainings positively impact the brain health of children and older adults.

Interventions aimed at improving coordinative skills through structured exercise programmes hold promise for promoting optimal development in multiple domains [22]. By engaging in activities that challenge balance, spatial awareness and movement control, preschoolers may not only improve their motor skills, but also their physical fitness and cognitive control [23]. Recent evidence also highlights an important role for coordination-based training in improving academic performance [24, 25]. Cognitive performance appears to be influenced by bilateral coordination training, showing benefits even after short periods of exercise [26], particularly in tasks involving executive function [13]. Low and moderate-intensity coordination-based training may also improve visuospatial perception, attentional resources and working memory, and reduce the time required for neurocognitive processing [13]. These may be explained by the fact that the coordinative component of movement increases synapses in key brain areas such as the cerebellum [14]. Complex movement patterns involve the cerebellum, which affects areas such as attention and memory, functions that are influenced by the cerebellum [27].

This study aims to investigate the effects of a coordination-based training program on motor competence, physical fitness and inhibition control in preschool children. Based on theories of motor development and cognitive psychology, as well as empirical evidence from previous research, we hypothesize that participation in a coordination-based training program will lead to improvements in motor skills, physical fitness and inhibitory control in preschool children. Understanding the potential benefits of such interventions can inform the development of early childhood education and public health initiatives aimed at promoting healthy lifestyles and optimal development in young children.

Method

Participants

This study was conducted with the voluntary participation of a total of 51 children, including 27 boys (age = 5.96 ± 0.62) and 24 girls (aged = 6.09 ± 0.25), aged between 5 and 6 years (aged = 6.03 ± 0.30), attending a local preschool in Turkey. Inclusion criteria for the study were: (a) typically developing children; (b) participants should not be using any medication; (c) absence of any cardiovascular, neurological, orthopaedic, and psychiatric illnesses. Inclusion criteria were determined by filling out an informed voluntary consent form after explaining the study procedure in detail to all participants and parents. Participants who did not meet the criteria were excluded from the procedure. Prior to the start of the study, the Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Board of Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University approved the ethical committee protocol (2022.214.11.15). The experimental study was conducted following the Helsinki Declaration.

Procedure

The experimental design involved participants being randomly assigned to exercise (EG; n = 26) and control (CG; n = 25) groups. Researchers provided participants with theoretical and practical explanations of the test and measurement protocols. The researchers had experience with test protocols and the application of measurements. They were trained by specialised academic staff before the start of the research process. On the first session of tests, participants were asked to fill out a form describing their descriptive characteristics. The forms were filled in together with the parents. Anthropometric measurements, including height and body weight, were measured. Later, the Go/No-Go test for inhibition control measurement was administered. Following that, motor competence test (KTK3+) were measured sequentially. On the second session of tests, physical fitness tests were conducted. These included balance performance measurements, agility test (pro-agility), and vertical jump test (countermovement jump test) (Fig. 1). The same researchers administered the tests to the participants in the same order. A typical warm-up that included five minutes of dynamic stretching and five minutes of jogging was carried out before to the physical fitness assessment. For eight weeks, the exercise group received no interruptions in the coordination training. Without any assistance, the preschool’s control group carried on with their regularly scheduled lessons. To reduce the influence of circadian rhythms on the results, all tests were performed at the same time of day (09:30–11:00) [28]. The participants were instructed to complete cool-down activities after finishing the examinations. The participants were given all tests again in the same order as the post-test at the conclusion of the eight weeks.

Fig. 1.

An illustrative scheme of measures

Coordination-based training program

Over the eight weeks, the children in the coordination-based training intervention group attended two 25-minute sessions per week. The purpose-tailored basic movement patterns were organised in a game format appropriate for the preschool age group. These basic movement patterns consisted of open-ended tasks that progressed from simple to complex and required motor planning [29]. As the exercise intervention was game-based, the intervention sessions were maintained as a fun, active and social learning environment for the children (Table 1).

Table 1.

Coordination-based training program

	1.week	Set/Dur./Rest	2.week	Set/Dur./Rest	3.week	Set/Dur./Rest	4.week	Set/Dur./Rest
Warm-up	Educational game (collecting tennis balls)	1/ 4min/ 1min	Educational game (collecting tennis balls)	1/ 4min/ 1min	Educational Game Moving the circle with sliding steps in a circle, followed by camel and dwarf game	1/ 4min/ 1min	Educational Game Camel and dwarf game (with different stimuli), accompanied by arm oscillations	1/ 4min/ 1min
Main section	1.Two-handed mutual throwing and catching 2.Jumper jack 3.Walking pattern 5-6 metres around the barrier second stage ball control 4.Double foot fixed squat -double foot jump 5.One foot right-left balancing	3/ 25 sec./ 25 sec.	1.walking pattern + jogging 5-6 metres around the barrier-second stage ball control 2.Burpee-game format 3.Arm swing-static 4.Lunge+jump static	3/ 30 sec./ 30 sec	1.Crab walking game with sliding steps (arms bent at the side) 2.Galop bounce (hands on waist) 3.Duck walking 4.Static single leg balance, with dynamic arm swings	3/ 30 sec./ 30 sec	1.Carrying tennis ball with sliding steps (ball hand changes) 2.Footwork (with hoop) 3.Bear walking 4.Dynamic knee pulling running	3/ 30 sec./ 30 sec
Warm-down	Educational game - stretching Using animal imitations	1/ 5min./ -	Educational game - stretching Using animal imitations	1/ 5min./ -	Static stretching with animal imitations (hip and leg orientated)	1/ 5min./ -	Static stretching with animal imitations	1/ 5min./ -
	5.week	Set/Dur./Rest	6.week	Set/Dur./Rest	7.week	Set/Dur./Rest	8.week	Set/Dur./Rest
Warm-up	Educational Game 1Camel and dwarf game (with different stimuli), accompanied by arm oscillations	1/ 4min/ 1min	Educational Game Camel and dwarf game (with different stimuli), accompanied by arm oscillations	1/ 4min/ 1min	The camel and dwarf game and jumping jack	1/ 5min./-		1/ 5min./-
Main section	1. Crab walk 2.Feet pulled to the hips (fixed position) 3.Duck walk followed by camel dwarf 4.One hand rotation around itself on the floor (right-left)	3/ 35 sec./ 30 sec	1.Flamingo balance pose (eyes closed) 2.Frog leap 3.Crab walk forwards 4.Dynamic knee pull	3/ 35 sec./ 30 sec	1.Forward single foot jump and balance stance 2.Arm oscillations during backward walking 3.Bunny hup 4.Single foot static balance, foot forward-backward movement without contact with the ground	3/ 40 sec./ 25 sec	1.Side-step tennis ball (hand change) 2.Flamingo balance stance (foot forward and back) 3.Bunny hup 4.Tennis ball game	3/ 40 sec./ 25 sec
Warm-down	Stretching (Whole body)	1/ 5min./ -	Stretching (Whole body)	1/ 5min./ -	Stretching (Whole body) Leg-focused stretching	1/ 5min./ -	Stretching (Whole body) Leg-focused stretching	1/ 5min./ -

Set Number of sets, Dur Practice duration, Rest Rest duration, min minute, sec second

¹The “camel and dwarf” game is a reaction-based activity in which children respond to verbal or visual cues by either standing tall like a camel or crouching low like a dwarf. The crouching movement resembles a basic squat, and the game promotes non-locomotor skills such as postural control, balance, and motor inhibition. It is a commonly used and culturally familiar activity in early childhood physical education settings in Türkiye

Tests

KTK3 + test battery

The KTK3 + test battery, supported by a hand-eye coordination task, was used to assess children’s motor competence [30–33]. Canlı et al. [33] determined that KTK3 + test was a highly valid and reliable measurement tool to be used by Turkish children. KTK3 measures general gross motor coordination [33]. By adding a throwing and catching task to the KTK3 test form, the KTK3 + test battery covering three fundamental motor skill domains (movement, balance, and object control) was developed [31, 32]. The KTK3 + test items are balancing backwards (BB), moving sideways (MS), jumping sideways (JS), and hand-eye coordination task (EHC). All test items have demonstrated good test-retest reliability (Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of KTK3+) BB 0.80, MS 0.84, JS 0.95, and EHC 0.87 [31, 34, 35].

Go/No-Go task

The Go/No-Go task is a protocol commonly used to measure inhibitory control in young children [36–38]. The Go/No-Go task, developed specifically for the preschool period, is included in the Early Years Toolbox, an iPad-based application, to assess children’s inhibitory control [39]. The convergent validity of inhibitory control measurement has been observed to be good in this age group, with a strong correlation with the NIH Toolbox, which is frequently used and has a similar structure (r (80) = 0.40, p < 0.001). Additionally, internal consistency analyses of the Go/No-Go task revealed good reliability for the “Go” stimulus (Cronbach α = 0.95) and the “No-Go” stimulus (Cronbach α = 0.84) [39]. In the Go/No-Go task, children were instructed to respond to the “go” stimulus (catch fish) by pressing the screen and to withhold their response to the “no-go” stimulus (avoid sharks). Since the majority of trials consisted of “go” stimuli (80% fish), it created a strong tendency to respond, and they needed to inhibit their response to the “no-go” trials (20% sharks). Before the measurement, children received appropriate verbal instructions followed by practice trials. The practice trials consisted of 5 blocks of “catch fish” trials, 5 blocks of “avoid sharks” trials, and then a mixed block of 10 trials. After a short rest, the task was completed with 75 stimulus trials divided into three test blocks (each containing 25 trials lasting 1 min). The order of stimuli presentation was random. A block does not begin with a “no-go” stimulus, and there are no more than two consecutive “no-go” trials. Each trial presents the fish and shark stimuli on the screen for 1500 ms, with each stimulus interval lasting 1000 ms.

Countermovement jump test

An accelerometer device was used to measure the vertical jump performance (IVMES Athlete, Ankara, Turkey). The apparatus was placed vertically at the participants’ waists and fastened to a belt. To prevent any unintentional movement in the vertical plane during a jump that could alter the height of the jump, all participants were given instructions. It was encouraged of the test participants to jump as high as they could by using arm swing. There was a 30-second break in between each of the two test runs. For the statistical analysis, the highest jump measurement from the two test trials was employed.

Balance performance test

Balance was assessed using a moveable platform (Sensbalance MiniBoard; Sensamove^®, Utrecht, The Netherlands), which provides an interactive training tool. While on the balance board, the participant was required to bring or hold the ball in the position required by the measured balance variable on the screen, for 30 s. It was examined two times while completing two balance tasks under two conditions. The first task required the participant to hold the ball steady at a specific position shown on the screen; during this, the MiniBoard could tilt approximately 10◦ in all directions (static balance). In the second task, the participant was expected to move the ball to a new specified position while maintaining balance on the MiniBoard (dynamic balance). The MiniBoard is a sturdy wooden equipment designed to enhance the complexity of balance challenges and is capable of multi-directional or bidirectional tilting. The posture during the balance test measurement and the screen display during the test are shown in Fig. 2. First, the device uses innovative, non-invasive technology for real-time data recording. It offers storage in the form of notepad data files, excel, and graphical files. The apparatus allowed for tests on static and dynamic balance and ankle joint mobility [40]. The balance device automatically calculated the scores of the static and dynamic balance performances of the participants in terms of %.

Fig. 2.

Balance performance test and sample test image

Pro-agility test

Markers were positioned 5 yards (4.57 m) to the left and right of the starting line on the test course, and age-appropriate indicators were placed in between. At the beginning, a photocell gate was installed to track the number of times a passage was made. The participant took their place at the starting line prior to the application beginning. When they were ready, they crossed the starting line, touched the marker on the right, and then touched the marker on the left to complete the test. Two trials of measurements were carried out. A 3-minute rest period was given in between assessments to prevent performance decreases, and the statistical analysis employed the lower of the two measurements’ times [41].

Statistical analysis

The data was analyzed using SPSS v.18.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA) statistical software, and a significance level of p < 0.05 was determined. The homogeneity and normality of the data were evaluated using the Levene’s test and Shapiro-Wilk test, respectively, before any analysis was conducted. The mean, standard deviation are the presentation formats for descriptive statistics. Delta values (Δ) were calculated between pre and post measurements for CG and the (EG). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) using repeated measures (group x measurement) was carried out. Prior to executing the ANOVA, the prerequisites for the analysis were verified. To determine whether there were any statistically significant variations in the covariances between the measurement groups for pairwise combinations of the groups, Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices was employed. Furthermore, the partial eta squared effect size was employed to assess the magnitudes of the variances among the values. According to Fröhlich et al. [42] the partial eta squared coefficient (ηp²), was introduced to show how much of the variance of the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variable. In the analysis of the obtained data, one-factor Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare the post-test scores of the exercise and control groups. Analysis of covariance is a technique that allows statistical control of a variable or variables that have a relationship with the dependent variable, other than a factor or factors whose effect is tested in a research [43]. Within the scope of this study, the pre-test scores of the participants’ physical fitness, motor competence and executive function scores were determined as covariate. Before the covariance analysis, the following assumptions required by Büyüköztürk [43] were tested for the hypotheses: (1) Within-group regression (2) In a randomised design, the relationship between the dependent variable and the covariate is linear. (3) The scores of the dependent variable for each of the groups formed according to a factor are normally distributed in the population and their variances are equal. (4) The samples whose mean scores will be compared are unrelated. According to Rutherford [44], the fulfilment of two of these assumptions is suitable for covariance analysis.

Results

The mean and standard deviation values of the participants’ age, height, body weight and body mass index values for the exercise group, control group and the whole group are detailed. Additionally, the frequency and percentage distributions of the participants in terms of gender variable are also shown (Table 2).

Table 2.

Characteristic of participants

Variables	Whole group (n = 51)	EG (n = 26)	CG (n = 25)
	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD
Age (y)	6.03 ± 0.30	6.13 ± 0.22	5.93 ± 0.34
Height (cm)	113.84 ± 4.80	114.65 ± 5.01	113.00 ± 4.53
Body mass (kg)	20.89 ± 3.45	21.23 ± 3.98	20.55 ± 2.83
Body mass index (kg.m−2)	16.03 ± 1.74	16.02 ± 1.37	16.05 ± 2.06
Sex. n (%)
Boy	27 (52.9)	15 (57.7)	12 (48.0)
Girl	24 (47.1)	11 (42.3)	13 (52.0)

The pre-test and post-test values of physical fitness, motor competence and executive function variables of the exercise and control groups are detailed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Comparison of physical fitness and motor competence and executive function in the two groups at pre-test and post-test

	EG		CG		Δ		DiD
	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	EG	CG	EG vs. CG
Physical fitness
Static balance (%)	80.42 ± 11.70	83.84 ± 7.62	78.36 ± 8.17	79.40 ± 9.62	3.42 ± 11.74	1.04 ± 10.59	2.38
Dynamic balance (%)	74.96 ± 13.08	82.76 ± 12.19	63.40 ± 15.77	71.80 ± 13.40	7.80 ± 13.72	8.40 ± 17.33	−0.59
Agility (s)	9.31 ± 0.79	8.68 ± 0.89	9.25 ± 0.73	8.34 ± 0.62	−0.62 ± 0.81	−0.91 ± 0.76	0.28
Vertical jumping (cm)	16.96 ± 2.51	19.38 ± 2.71	21.58 ± 2.77	20.64 ± 2.55	2.42 ± 3.75	−0.93 ± 2.33	3.35a
Motor competence
KTK BB	17.57 ± 7.54	31.38 ± 12.58	27.56 ± 9.54	32.80 ± 11.63	13.80 ± 9.22	5.24 ± 6.87	8.56a
KTK JS	27.23 ± 7.38	31.26 ± 9.09	28.48 ± 5.70	33.04 ± 8.03	4.03 ± 6.99	4.56 ± 6.96	−0.52
KTK MS	26.73 ± 5.31	26.26 ± 5.49	26.64 ± 4.75	29.88 ± 5.78	−0.46 ± 4.50	3.24 ± 3.82	−3.70a
KTK EHC	4.38 ± 3.71	5.96 ± 6.14	3.12 ± 2.84	3.72 ± 4.11	1.57 ± 6.04	0.60 ± 1.73	0.97
Executive function
AC (n)	55.03 ± 7.65	57.07 ± 3.57	55.64 ± 4.68	58.72 ± 1.72	2.03 ± 5.73	3.08 ± 4.66	−1.04
RT (ms)	862.54 ± 71.00	830.94 ± 69.80	872.58 ± 72.72	863.22 ± 47.80	−31.59 ± 57.27	−9.35 ± 90.63	−22.24

EG Exercise Group, CG Control Group, Δ Delta (post– pre), DiD Differences in Delta values, KTK_BB KTK _{Balancing Backwards}, KTK_JS KTK _{Jumping Sideways}, KTK_MS KTK _{Moving Sideways}, KTK_EHC KTK _{Eye Hand Coordination}, AC Accuracy number, RT Response Time

^aSignificant between-group difference; Data are presented as means ± SD

In the two-way analysis of variance conducted to determine whether being in the exercise group had a significant effect on test scores for mixed measurements, the group-time interaction showed that the exercise group’s score increase was significantly higher than that of the control group in vertical jumping (2.42 ± 3.75 vs.−0.93 ± 2.33; F₍₁₋₄₉₎ = 14.569, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.229) and KTK _BB (13.80 ± 9.22 vs. 5.24 ± 6.87; F₍₁₋₄₉₎ = 14.051, p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.223) variables. Also, control group’s score increase was significantly higher than that of the exercise group in KTK _MS (−0.46 ± 4.50 vs. 3.24 ± 3.82; F₍₁₋₄₉₎ = 9.984, p < 0.01, η_p² = 0.169). However, statistically significant differences were not found in the comparison of group x time interaction in all other variables (p > 0.05) (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 4.

The comparison of participants’ physical fitness, motor competence, and executive functions in terms of group x time

Variables	Mean square	F	p-value (group x time)	ηp2
Physical fitness
Static balance (%)	36.190	0.578	0.451	0.012
Dynamic balance (%)	2.236	0.018	0.893	0.001
Agility (s)	0.520	1.678	0.201	0.033
Vertical jumping (cm)	71.904	14.569	p < 0.000***	0.229
Motor competence
KTK BB	467.779	14.051	p < 0.000***	0.223
KTK JS	1.733	0.071	0.791	0.001
KTK MS	87.313	9.984	p < 0.003**	0.169
KTK EHC	6.082	0.604	0.441	0.012
Executive function
AC (n)	6.913	0.505	0.481	0.010
RT (ms)	3153.571	1.107	0.298	0.022

KTK_BB KTK _{Balancing Backwards}, KTK_JS KTK _{Jumping Sideways}, KTK_MS KTK _{Moving Sideways}, KTK_EHC KTK _{Eye Hand Coordination}, AC Accuracy number, RT Response Time

p < 0.05*, p < 0.01**, p < 0.001***

ANCOVA results of all post-test scores of the control and exercise groups according to the adjusted pre-test scores of physical fitness, motor competence and executive function are presented. As a result of ANCOVA in which pre-test scores were taken as a covariate, it was determined that there was a difference in favour of the CG in the dynamic balance of the participants in the EG and CG (F_(1,48) = 4.056, p = 0.050). However, the effect size of this difference was found to be very low. A significant difference with a medium effect size was determined in favour of the exercise group in the KTK _BB (F_(1,48) = 11.347, p = 0.001). There was a significant difference in the medium effect size in favour of the control group in the KTK _MS (F_(1,48) = 10.405, p = 0.002). As a result of ANCOVA in which only the pre-test scores of the AC variable, one of the executive function indicators, were taken as a covariate, a significant difference was found between the post-test AC scores of the participants in the EG and CG (F_(1,48) = 5.279, p = 0.026). This difference was found to be in favour of the control group with a low level effect. No significant difference was found between the groups in other parameters (p > 0.05) (Table 5).

Table 5.

ANCOVA results of the post-test physical fitness, motor competence and executive function variables scores according to the corrected pre-test scores of the training and control groups

	Source	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	p	ηp2
Static balance (%)	Regression	326.914	1	326.914	4.683	0.035	0.089
	Group	193.766	1	193.766	2.776	0.102	0.055
	Error	3350.470	48	69.801
Dynamic balance (%)	Regression	988.009	1	988.009	6.732	0.013	0.123
	Group	595.288	1	595.288	4.056	0.050*	0.078
	Error	7044.606	48	146.763
Agility (s)	Regression	6.641	1	6.641	14.096	0.000	0.227
	Group	1.261	1	1.261	2.677	0.108	0.053
	Error	22.613	48	0.471
Vertical jumping (cm)	Regression	28.844	1	28.844	4.449	0.040	0.085
	Group	0.047	1	0.047	0.007	0.933	0.000
	Error	311.225	48	6.484
KTK BB	Regression	3955.421	1	3955.421	58.334	0.000	0.549
	Group	769.408	1	769.408	11.347	0.001**	0.191
	Error	3254.732	48	67.807
KTK JS	Regression	1329.879	1	1329.879	27.873	0.000	0.367
	Group	7.823	1	7.823	0.164	0.687	0.003
	Error	2290.196	48	47.712
KTK MS	Regression	760.880	1	760.880	45.832	0.000	0.488
	Group	172.737	1	172.737	10.405	0.002**	0.178
	Error	796.876	48	16.602
KTK EHC	Regression	379.565	1	379.565	18.736	0.000	0.281
	Group	17.103	1	17.103	0.844	0.363	0.017
	Error	972.437	48	20.259
AC (n)	Regression	135.518	1	135.518	25.473	0.000	0.347
	Group	28.083	1	28.083	5.279	0.026*	0.099
	Error	255.368	48	5.320
RT (ms)	Regression	22375.232	1	22375.232	6.961	0.011	0.127
	Group	10887.208	1	10887.208	3.387	0.072	0.066
	Error	154290.190	48	3214.379

KTK_BB KTK _{Balancing Backwards}, KTK_JS KTK _{Jumping Sideways}, KTK_MS KTK _{Moving Sideways}, KTK_EHC KTK _{Eye Hand Coordination}, AC Accuracy number, RT Response Time

p<0.05*; p<0.01**

Discussion

This study aimed to determine the effects of coordination-based training on physical fitness, motor competence, and inhibition control in preschool children. At the same time, to make a comparison of the performance improvements in the CG and the EG who continue physical activity within the scope of the education-training programme.

It was determined that the coordination-based training performed in the EG in addition to standard physical activity provided more significant improvements on vertical jump and KTK _BB compared to the CG. However, it was revealed that coordination-based training did not provide a significant improvement in static balance, dynamic balance and agility. In addition, it was determined that there was no significant improvement in the KTK _JS, KTK _MS and KTK _EHC and inhibition indicator. In the literature, the observation of improvements in physical fitness elements and motor competence at the point of physical activity and coordinate-based trainings on motor skill development supports the literature [18, 20–22, 45–48]. Furthermore, it was also found that the CG had higher scores on the KTK _MS task after the eight-week program compared to the EG. This may be partially explained by observational impressions during the test sessions, where children in the control group appeared more motivated and enthusiastic while performing the task. However, since motivation and enthusiasm were not directly measured in this study, this interpretation should be considered with caution and viewed as a subjective observation by the research team.

These results indicate that the coordination-based trainings lead to a significant improvement, especially in vertical jump and dynamic balance skills. However, it is thought that potential confounders should be taken into consideration especially in the process of interpreting the research findings. In this study, when the pre-test scores were used as covariates, it was revealed that the exercise group showed a significant improvement in the KTK _BB representing dynamic balance. On the contrary, it was revealed that there was a more significant change in the dynamic balance, KTK _MS and AC parameters in the control group. However, in the interpretation of this result, it should not be stated that physical activity practices are fully effective. In addition, it is recommended that researchers working on this subject should determine the physical activity levels of the participants as a potential confounder. In the literature, it is seen that there are studies in which the effect of coordination-based physical activity programmes is tried to be determined. For example, Alesi et al. [20] claimed the efficacy of a football exercise program in enhancing children’s agility, balance, and moving skills, underscoring the potential of physical activities to bolster motor competence. Zhang et al. [45] reported that intervention programmes aiming to improve motor skills in preschool children with normal development can be effective in increasing motor competencies. It is thought that acute variables such as exercise intensity, duration and frequency should be considered in the interpretation process of similar studies.

In our study, it was determined that there were improvements in inhibition markers in both CG and EG. It was revealed that there were higher improvements in the in the response time variable in the exercise group. However, the difference between these improvements was not significant. It is thought that the most important reason for the emergence of this situation may be due to the frequency of exercise. In the study, the coordination-based training programme was designed as two days a week. Therefore, it is thought that increasing the frequency of exercise will contribute to more significant improvements in inhibition markers. At this point, focussing on studies that take into account the acute variables of exercise, especially in preschool children, may contribute to finding the answer to this question. In the literature, it has been revealed that research on the subject has been conducted and executive functions have shown positive improvements. Santana et al.‘s [49] systematic review emphasized the link between physical fitness and academic performance in youth, suggesting that physical activities, including coordination-based trainings, may contribute to physical and cognitive development. In a recent study by Han et al. [50], a cross-sectional analysis revealed a positive association between fundamental motor skills and executive function in preschool children. These findings further substantiate the close interconnection between motor skills and executive functions during early childhood development. Chang et al. [21] conducted an ERP study revealing the positive impact of coordination-based trainings on the executive functions of preschoolers, highlighting the cognitive benefits associated with such interventions.

When the literature is analysed in detail, it becomes evident that various studies have consistently demonstrated the positive effects of coordination-based trainings on children’s motor skills and executive functions [51]. Consistent with these findings, Biino et al. [18] suggested that integrating cognitive components into physical activities might nurture motor competence and executive function in preschool children, demonstrating the potential synergies between the physical and cognitive domains in early childhood development. Mulvey et al. [52] demonstrated that a motor competence intervention improved preschool children’s executive function, highlighting the potential of targeted motor interventions in enhancing cognitive development. As stated before, in addition to the necessity of keeping potential confounders under control in revealing the effect of coordination-based training programmes in preschool age groups, determination of exercise acute variables and investigation of different acute variable applications will contribute to more accurate results. At this point, it is thought that the findings obtained in this study, especially as a result of a coordination-based training programme with well-defined acute variables, make an important contribution to the literature.

Strengths and limitations

This study has several strengths. Firstly, the age group composing the sample of the study is a group with less research conducted on it in the literature. Therefore, the existence of data related to the subject in the 5–6 age group is considered one of the strengths of the study. Secondly, designing and implementing a coordination-based training program tailored to preschool children, apart from the standard PA programs found in the literature, is also considered one of the strengths of the study. Finally, in addition to determining the impact of the applied coordination-based training on motor competence and physical fitness characteristics, identifying its effect on inhibitory control, which is one of the main components of executive function, is also a strength of the study.

There are a few limitations in this study. The most important limitation in the study is the neglect of confounding factors such as nutrition, participation in physical activities outside of school, and the socioeconomic status of the family. Additionally, conducting the coordination-based training program twice a week is also considered one of the limitations of the study. Another limitation is the small sample size.

Practical applications

In the study, it has been demonstrated that there were improvements in some physical fitness, motor competence, and inhibitory control variables in the control group children. Similarly, improvements in all specified characteristics have been identified in the children in the coordination-based training group. However, it has been determined that coordination-based training, in addition to the standard PA program for preschool children, particularly resulted in more positive developments in vertical jumping and dynamic balance variables. At this point, it is recommended, especially for educators working with preschool children, to incorporate coordination-based training programs into PA activities. However, when the performance status of the participants was controlled, it was determined that coordination-based training did not make a significant difference in the development of physical fitness, motor competence and executive functions. It is recommended that researchers who will conduct research on the subject should plan the frequency of exercise as 4 or 5 days.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the coordination-based training program applied to the exercise group led to significant improvements in agility, vertical jump, dynamic balance, and response time, which is an indicator of inhibition control. These findings demonstrate that coordination-based trainings enhance participants’ physical fitness and motor competence in various aspects. Furthermore, when evaluating the group-time interaction between the exercise group and the control group, it was observed that the coordination-based training group showed a significant increase in vertical jump and dynamic balance variables. These results indicate that coordination-based trainings are particularly effective in certain skill areas and lead to greater improvements compared to those who do not perform coordination-based trainings. However, when the pre-performance variables of the participants were controlled, it was revealed that coordination-based training did not contribute to significant improvements at the expected level.

Authors’ contributions

BB, UC, AMȘ, CIA and DIA contributed to the conception of the study. RAT, DIA, BB, LOB contributed to the data curation. Formal analysis was made by UC, CIA and LOB. Funding acquisition was made by CIA, RAT, DIA and LOB. BB, UC and AMȘ, carried out the investigation. BB, UC, AMȘ, DIA aimed at complying with the methodology, while the project administration was carried out by DIA UC, BB and AMȘ. DIA, RAT, LOB and UC took care of securing the resources, for software activity UC, BB, AMȘ, CIA were involved, while supervision was the objective of UC and DIA. Writing - original draft was the task of BB, UC, AMȘ and DIA, while for writing - review & editing and for validation BB, UC, AMȘ, CIA, RAT, DIA and LOB were involved. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The studies involving humans were approved by Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Board of Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University approved the ethical committee protocol (2022.214.11.15). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardians.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.