Abstract
Purpose
Study aims were to determine: (a) how class structure varies by dance type, (b) how moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and sedentary behavior (SB) vary by dance class segments, and (c) how class structure relates to total MVPA in dance classes.
Methods
Participants were 291 boys and girls ages 5–18 yr. enrolled in 58 dance classes at 21 dance studios in Southern California. MVPA and SB were assessed with accelerometry, with data aggregated to 15-sec epochs. Percent and minutes of MVPA and SB during dance class segments and percent of class time and minutes spent in each segment were calculated using Freedson age-specific cut points. Differences in MVPA (>3 METS) and SB (<100 counts/min) were examined using mixed effects linear regression.
Results
The length of each class segment was fairly consistent across dance types, with the exception that in ballet, more time was spent in technique as compared to private jazz/hip-hop classes, and Latin-flamenco and less time was spent in routine/practice as compared to Latin-salsa/ballet folklorico. Segment type accounted for 17% of the variance in the proportion of the segment spent in MVPA. The proportion of the segment in MVPA was higher for routine/practice (44.2%) than technique (34.7%). The proportion of the segment in SB was lowest for routine/practice (22.8%).
Conclusion
The structure of dance lessons can impact youth’s physical activity. Working with instructors to increase time in routine/practice during dance classes could contribute to physical activity promotion in youth.
Keywords: accelerometry, instruction, sedentary behavior, sports
Engaging in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) can improve youths’ overall health, reduce risk for obesity, and increase academic achievement and self-esteem (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008a, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008b). Despite these benefits, self-report data suggested that about 29% of adolescents met the physical activity guidelines of engaging in at least 60 minutes of MVPA per day (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012). Objective accelerometer data indicated that only 42% of children ages 6–12 and 8% of adolescents met physical activity guidelines (Troiano et al., 2008). Sedentary behavior (i.e., sitting) in youth has been associated with obesity, risk of high blood pressure, low reading levels, poor cognitive test grades, low self-esteem, low perceptions of self-worth and high depressive symptoms (Tremblay et al., 2011). There are age and gender disparities in physical activity and sedentary behavior among youth in the U.S., with boys having higher physical activity levels than girls, and adolescents doing less physical activity and having more sedentary time than children (Whitt-Glover et al., 2009).
Out-of-school structured physical activity programs, such as after-school programs, organized sports and activity classes provide opportunities for physical activity promotion in youth (Huang, Hook, Zandieh & Bostwick, 2012; Silva et al., 2010; Trost, Rosenkranz & Dzewaltowski, 2008). Dance is a popular and preferred activity, especially among girls (Barr-Anderson et al., 2007; Grieser et al., 2006; National Center for Education Statistics, n.d; O’Neill, Pate & Liese, 2011). However, youth physical activity levels vary within and across sports (Guagliano, Rosenkranz & Kolt, 2012; Leek et al., 2011; Sacheck et al., 2011) and across dance types (Cain et al., 2013; O’Neill, Pate & Beets 2012; Sims, 2013). Evidence suggests dance classes contribute to 29% (O’Neill, Pate & Hooker, 2011), 40.6% (Sims, 2013) and more than 50% of youth’s physical activity (Huang, Hook, Zandieh & Bostwick, 2012). Thus, investigating factors that are associated with the variation of physical activity in dance classes could lead to recommendations for improved physical activity promotion in youth.
Class structure, defined as the amount of time youth engage in different segments during dance class (e.g., technique vs. routine/practice), is one potential explanatory variable of the variability in physical activity levels in dance classes that has been seldom investigated. Only one study examined the structure of dance classes and how it relates to physical activity levels. Findings were that the amount of choreography during the class was not associated with MVPA levels during the class (O’Neill, Pate, & Beets, 2012). Since choreography was the only activity or segment investigated in this previous study, more research is needed to better discern if and how class structure impacts youths’ physical activity during dance class.
The current study examined: (a) how class structure varied by dance type, (b) how MVPA and sedentary behavior varied by dance class segments (warm-up, technique, routine/practice, cool down, fun/games, break), and (c) how class structure related to total MVPA in dance classes, adjusting for dance type. It was hypothesized that class structure would vary across dance types and that class structure would be associated with total MVPA in dance classes.
Methods
Participants and Procedures
Dance studios in Southern California were identified from searching the Internet and local telephone book, with 551 private and public dance studios identified. Eligible studios offered group classes to youth and taught at least one of the dance types identified a priori. Two- hundred eighty-seven studios did not meet these criteria, and 54 were closed. Thirty-one studios were randomly selected to contact from the list of 210 eligible studios. Ten studios declined to participate in the study, and 21 agreed (17 private studios and 4 community centers; 68% participation rate). The 17 private studios taught the following types of dance: ballet, partnered dance, private jazz/hip-hop, Latin-flamenco, Latin-salsa/ballet folklorico and tap. The public community centers were specifically recruited to assess studios serving low-income students, and they specialized in jazz/hip-hop. Thus, private and public jazz/hip-hop classes could be compared. The average number of classes assessed per studio was 2.5 (SD = 1.5), the average number of dance types per studio was 1.7 (SD = .80), and the average number of instructors assessed per studio was 1.6 (SD = .80).
Research staff visited the dance studios when classes were being taught and recruited children and parents into the study. Eligibility criteria were for the child to be between 5 and 18 years old and willing to wear an accelerometer during the dance lesson. All classes served introductory-level students and most classes were labeled “beginner” classes. Classes serving adolescents were often labeled “beginner and early-intermediate” but were still considered introductory classes for this age group. Advanced and competition classes were excluded. A total of 291 children were enrolled and all completed the study. Parental consent and child assent were obtained, and the study protocol was approved by the sponsoring university’s IRB.
Measures
Children characteristics
Parents reported their children’s, gender, and race/ethnicity (coded as White non-Hispanic vs. other), height and weight. Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated using the following formula BMI = weight (in kg) divided by height (in meters2). BMI-for-age and gender percentiles were calculated using the 2000 CDC Growth Charts (Kuczmarski et al., 2000).
Dance instructor characteristics
Dance instructors reported their age, gender, race/ethnicity (coded as White non-Hispanic vs. other), and years of experience teaching dance.
Dance class characteristics
Research staff observed each dance lesson and documented the number of children present for the class and the start and end time of the lesson.
Coding of dance class characteristics
The researcher completed a minute-by-minute time log to describe the type of activity being covered by the instructor and noted when the lesson transitioned into a new type of activity. The open-ended descriptions were later coded to derive a measure of class “segment”, which represented the different purposes of activities within the dance lesson. Six segment types were identified: (a) warm-up, which included descriptions such as stretches, sit-ups, jumps, jogging, barre work or planks at the beginning of class; (b) technique, which included descriptions such as demonstrating moves and working on “dance technique”, shuffles, or kick ball change; (c) routine/practice, which included descriptions such as performing dance, usually with feedback from the instructor; (d) fun/games, which included descriptions such as playing games or engaging in freestyle dance; (e) break, which included descriptions such as a resting period or time to get water; and (f) cool-down, which included descriptions such as stretching, push-ups, squats and crunches at the end of the lesson.
Once the segment codes were developed, two researchers applied these codes to the segment logs, and the coding between the two researchers was compared. The coders agreed on 145 of the 149 segments (97.3% agreement), and the remaining four segment codes were reconciled to reach agreement.
Physical activity
Each participant was fitted with a waist-worn Actigraph GT3X accelerometer before the dance lesson. One dance lesson per child was measured with accelerometers. Accelerometers have been validated for objectively assessing physical activity in youth and have been used in numerous studies (Cain, Sallis, Conway, Van Dyck & Calhoon, 2012; Troiano, 2008; Welk, 2002). Accelerometer data were collected at 15-second epochs using the “normal” filter and scored using Freedson 3 MET age-specific cut points (Freedson, Pober & Janz, 2005). Sedentary behavior was defined as ≤100 counts per minute (Evenson, Catellier, Gill, Ondrak & McMurray, 2008; Treuth et al., 2004). The time feature in MeterPlus version 4.3 (Santech Inc, San Diego, CA; www.meterplussoftware.com) paired with time logs kept by research staff allowed for scoring accelerometer data according to the start and end times of each class segment. Minutes of MVPA and sedentary time were derived for (a) the entire dance lesson and (b) each segment of the lesson. Additional variables were calculated to represent (a) the percent of the lesson spent in each segment and (b) the percent of each segment that was spent in MVPA or sedentary time (i.e., MVPA time during segment divided by total time in segment).
Statistical Analyses
Differences in participant, instructor, and class characteristics by dance type were assessed using ANOVA models with Bonferroni post hoc tests (for continuous variables) and chi-squared tests with Bonferroni p value adjustments (for proportion variables). Differences in lesson structure (i.e., time in each segment) by dance type were investigated using ANOVA models with Bonferroni post hoc tests. Partial Eta Squared values were presented for the full models (i.e., omnibus) to represent effect sizes. The proportion of each segment spent in MVPA and sedentary time was estimated using mixed-effects regression (adjusted for nesting of participants within lessons) with the percent of the segment in MVPA (Model 1) and sedentary time (Model 2) regressed on segment type. Because the outcome was a proportion, it was logit transformed for fitting the model and the estimated means were back transformed so they could be interpreted in their original metric. Effect sizes representing the segment effect from these mixed effects models were calculated as the difference in percent of segment in MVPA between the segments, from the adjusted means. To identify the segment types that had the largest contributions to participants’ MVPA during the entire lesson, another mixed effects linear regression model was fitted, with total MVPA minutes during the lesson regressed on minutes spent in each segment type. This model was additionally adjusted for dance type, and ballroom was set as the reference because it was approximately in the middle when ordering the dance types on the amount of MVPA they provided. All mixed effects models were adjusted for participant, instructor, and class characteristics. Continuous covariates were mean centered, female was used as the reference category for gender, and White non-Hispanic was used as the reference category for race/ethnicity. SPSS software (version 21.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois) was used for all analyses.
Results
A total of 291 children and adolescents participated in the study. Table 1 presents the descriptive characteristics of participants and dance classes. The mean age was 10.4 (SD = 3.2), 91% of participants were girls, 69% were White non-Hispanic, and 17% were overweight or obese. A total of 58 dance classes were observed, with a mean of 8.4 (SD = 4.8) youth per class and a mean class length of 49.7 (SD = 9.9) minutes. Participant race/ethnicity and gender, and instructor experience differed across dance types.
Table 1.
Descriptive characteristics of participants and dance classes (N = 291 participants from 58 dance classes)
| All classes | By dance type
|
Differences (p < .05)a |
Partial Eta Squared (omnibus) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ballet | 2. Partnered dance |
3. Community jazz/hip- hop |
4. Private jazz/hip-hop |
5. Latin- flamenco |
6. Latin-salsa ballet/folkorico |
7. Tap | ||||
| Participant characteristics | ||||||||||
| Number of participants | 291 | 50 | 30 | 54 | 49 | 28 | 28 | 52 | - | - |
| Percent girls | 90.7 | 100 | 63.3 | 88.7 | 93.9 | 100 | 89.3 | 92.5 | 2vAll others | .12 |
| Mean (SD) age (years) | 10.4 (3.2) | 11.3 (3.7) | 10.4(3.1) | 9.7 (2.9) | 11.3 (3.1) | 9.9 (2.4) | 9.2 (2.4) | 10.7 (3.3) | none | - |
| Percent White non-Hispanic | 69.4 | 66.0 | 73.3 | 73.6 | 85.4 | 33.3 | 51.9 | 79.2 | 1v5;2v5;3v5;4v6;5v7;4v5 | .10 |
| Mean (SD) BMI (kg/m2) | 18.0 (3.7) | 18.2 (3.0) | 17.6 (2.9) | 17.5(2.8) | 19.1 (3.4) | 18.7 (6.6) | 18.4 (4.2) | 17.1 (3.5) | none | - |
| Mean (SD) BMI percentile | 53.2 (32.7) | 49.5(33.0) | 51.4 (29.7) | 54.0 (33.2) | 61.9 (30.2) | 57.7 (30.7) | 62.8 (32.5) | 41.0 (33.9) | 4v7 | .05 |
| Percent overweight or obese | 16.9 | 9.8 | 17.9 | 15.2 | 22.0 | 26.1 | 19.0 | 14.6 | none | - |
| Class/lesson characteristics | ||||||||||
| Number of classes | 58 | 12 | 5 | 7 | 14 | 6 | 4 | 10 | - | - |
| Mean (SD) number of participants per class | 5.0 (2.5) | 4.2 (2.1) | 6.0 (2.3) | 7.7 (2.0) | 3.5 (1.6) | 4.7 (2.3) | 7.0 (2.2) | 5.1 (2.7) | 1v3;3v4 | .32 |
| Mean (SD) class size (including non-participants) | 8.1 (4.8) | 6.8 (3.5) | 9.6 (7.1) | 12.6 (3.3) | 6.6 (4.4) | 7.3 (4.0) | 8.50 (3.4) | 8.0 (5.9) | none | - |
| Mean (SD) class length (minutes) | 49.7 (9.9) | 53.7 (9.5) | 58.2 (17.2) | 43.9 (6.8) | 47.8 (9.8) | 46.8 (5.9) | 55.5 (6.5) | 46.8 (7.4) | 6v3 | .20 |
| Mean (SD) instructor age | 32.9 (12.5) | 32.4 (10.7) | 31.4 (4.7) | 31.1 (5.2) | 24.1 (4.8) | 49.8 (18.1) | 42.2 (9.5) | 34.1 (15.0) | 1v5;4v5 | .36 |
| Percent of instructors women | 88.2 | 91.7 | 60 | 100 | 78.6 | 100 | 100 | 90 | none | - |
| Percent of instructors | 62.5 | 58.3 | 80 | 85.7 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 100 | 80 | none | - |
| White non-Hispanic | ||||||||||
| Mean (SD) instructor years of experience | 13.7 (12.2) | 12.8 (9.3) | 16.0 (2.2) | 8.7 (3.9) | 7.0(5.6) | 24.0 (20.4) | 28.5(10.1) | 14.7(15.8) | none | - |
Abbreviations: CC = community center; P = private
From ANOVA models with Bonferroni post hoc tests (for the minutes outcomes), or chi-squared tests with Bonferroni corrections (for percent outcomes); ; e.g., 1v5 means that the participant characteristic differed significantly between Ballet and Latin-flamenco
The length of each segment (i.e., class structure) was fairly consistent across dance types, with the exception of ballet having more time in technique than private jazz/hip-hop and Latin –flamenco, and less time in routine/practice as compared to Latin salsa/ballet folkorico (see Table 2). There were no differences in class structure and segment length between community and private jazz/hip-hop classes.
Table 2.
Minutes and percent of lesson time in each segment by dance type (N = 58 classes)
| All classes | By dance type
|
Differences (p < .05)a |
Partial Eta Squared (omnibus) |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ballet | 2. Partnered dance |
3. Community jazz/hip-hop |
4. Private jazz/hip-hop |
5. Latin- flamenco |
6. Latin- salsa/ballet folkorico |
7. Tap | |||||
| Warm-up | Mean (SD) minutes | 7.72(6.20) | 9.33 (7.90) | 5.40(4.39) | 9.57(2.70) | 8.07(6.11) | 6.33(4.41) | 5.25(3.30) | 7.00(8.47) | none | - |
| Mean (SD) % of class time | 18.06(13.79) | 20.90(18.20) | 10.59(5.67) | 25.92(6.58) | 19.09(13.32) | 16.36(9.23) | 8.71(3.52) | 16.19(17.68) | - | - | |
| Technique | Mean (SD) minutes | 12.05(10.16) | 21.08 (13.42) | 15.00 (14.44) | 7.71(5.38) | 8.43(5.24) | 3.50(3.02) | 12.25(1.50) | 12.90(8.80) | 1v4;1v5 | .33 |
| Mean (SD) % of class time | 26.73(19.49) | 42.01(24.30) | 27.56(23.57) | 20.88(14.87) | 20.47(11.73) | 10.58(8.46) | 22.07(4.92) | 32.37(20.65) | - | - | |
| Routine/practice | Mean (SD) minutes | 21.67(10.86) | 17.17(14.35) | 25.80(10.40) | 17.71(4.61) | 22.50 (9.71) | 25.33(11.50) | 36.00(7.70) | 18.70(6.60) | 1v6 | .26 |
| Mean (SD) % of class time | 49.38(19.35) | 33.86(22.08) | 54.62(20.69) | 48.06(10.23) | 53.21(18.59) | 64.61(16.18) | 63.18(6.09) | 46.30(15.78) | - | - | |
| Cool-down | Mean (SD) minutes | 0.28(0.81) | 0.42(1.17) | 0.40(0.89) | .00(.00) | 0.21(0.80) | .00(.00) | 0.50 (1.00) | 0.40 (0.84) | none | - |
| Mean (SD) % of class time | 0.63(1.87) | 0.98(2.76) | 1.00(2.24) | .00(.00) | 0.47(1.74) | .00(.00) | 0.94(1.89) | 0.93(1.99) | - | - | |
| Fun and games | Mean (SD) minutes | 0.69(1.93) | 0.17(0.58) | 1.20(2.17) | .00(.00) | 1.36(2.90) | .00(.00) | 1.25(2.50) | 0.80(2.20) | none | - |
| Mean (SD) % of class time | 1.49(4.11) | 0.46(1.61) | 2.44(4.53) | .00(.00) | 2.98(5.83) | .00(.00) | 1.62(3.25) | 2.04(5.79) | - | - | |
| Break | Mean (SD) minutes | 1.47(2.10) | 0.75(1.22) | 1.80(1.79) | 2.00(3.83) | 1.50(1.70) | 2.67(2.16) | 2.00(2.45) | 0.80(1.87) | none | - |
| Mean (SD) % of class time | 3.72(5.68) | 1.79(2.98) | 3.80(4.18) | 5.13(9.39) | 3.78(4.19) | 8.46(8.76) | 3.48(4.72) | 2.18(5.20) | - | - | |
Abbreviations: CC = community center; P = private
From ANOVA models with Bonferroni post hoc tests; e.g., 1v4 means that segment time differed significantly between Ballet and Private jazz/hip-hop
Participants’ MVPA and sedentary time during each of the class segments is presented in Table 3. The proportion of the segment spent in MVPA (i.e., MVPA time during segment divided by total segment time) was highest for cool-down (60.5%) and fun and games (53.5%). However, only 12.7% of classes had cool-down and 12.4% had fun and games. The proportion of the segment spent in MVPA was lowest for break (28.8%), warm-up (37.2%) and technique (34.7%). A large majority of the classes included technique and routine/practice, and participants had proportionally more MVPA in routine/practice (44.2%) vs. technique (34.7%). Age was the only covariate that was statistically associated with the proportion of the segment spent in MVPA (B = 1.9% more MVPA for a 1-year increase in age). Segment type accounted for 17% of the variance in the proportion of the segment spent in MVPA, over and above student and teacher characteristics and dance type.
Table 3.
Participants’ MVPA and sedentary time during each segment (N = 291 participants)
| Number (%) of participants with segment |
Percent of segment in MVPA
|
Percent of segment sedentary
|
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observed Mean (SD) |
Adjusted Mean (CI)a |
Differences (p < .01)a |
Effect size rangeb |
Observed Mean (SD) |
Adjusted Mean (CI)a |
Differences (p < .01)a |
Effect size rangeb |
||
| Segment type | |||||||||
| a. Warm-up | 224 (77.0%) | 37.2 (21.9) | 22.7 (17.1, 29.4) | c,d,f | 9.5–47.6 | 38.0 (24.9) | 34.4 (29.4, 40.1) | b,c,d,e | 5.5–18.3 |
| b. Technique | 257 (88.3%) | 34.7 (23.2) | 27.8 (21.3, 34.9) | c,d,f | 13–42.5 | 32.3 (18.5) | 28.9 (24.3, 34.2) | a,c,e,f | 5.5–23.8 |
| c. Routine/practice | 282 (96.9%) | 44.2 (21.0) | 40.8 (33.1, 49.1) | a,b,d,f | 13–29.5 | 22.8 (13.1) | 19.4 (15.9, 23.4) | a,b,e,f | 9.5–33.3 |
| d. Cool-down | 37 (12.7%) | 60.5 (29.9) | 70.3 (58.7, 79.8) | a,b,c,e,f | 29.5–57.1 | 31.0 (20.6) | 20.8 (12.4, 30.6) | a,e,f | 13.6–31.9 |
| e. Fun and games | 36 (12.4%) | 53.5 (30.4) | 32.6 (22.7, 44.3) | d,f | 19.4–37.7 | 47.7 (28.7) | 52.7 (42.0, 63.1) | a,b,c,d | 18.3–33.3 |
| f. Break | 97 (33.3%) | 28.8 (19.4) | 13.2 (9.2, 18.5) | a,b,c,d,e | 9.5–57.1 | 45.1 (23.8) | 41.3 (34.7, 48.3) | b,c,d | 12.4–21.9 |
Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; MVPA = moderate to vigorous physical activity
From mixed-effects regression models adjusted for child age, gender, and race/ethnicity, dance type, instructor experience, class size, and nesting of participants within classes; e.g., “c” means that percent of MVPA during the segment different significantly from the percent of MVPA during Routine/practice
Calculated as the difference in percent of segment in MVPA between the segments, from the adjusted means
The associations between time in each segment and total MVPA during the lesson are presented in Table 4. When adjusting for length of each segment, youth spent an average of 15.8 minutes engaged in MVPA during the average 50-minute lesson. Youth obtained 0.23 more minutes of MVPA for every 1-minute increase in routine/practice. Although the coefficient suggests youth obtained 3.12 fewer minutes of MVPA for every 1-minute increase in cool-down, this coefficient is likely unreliable because of the large confidence interval and because only 12.7% of classes had cool-down.
Table 4.
Associations between time in each segment and participants’ total MVPA during dance classesa (N = 291 participants)
| Minutes of total MVPA during lesson | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| B | 95% CI | p | |
| Minutes in each segment | |||
| Intercept (overall mean) | 15.8 | 10.3, 21.2 | - |
| Warm-up | −0.06 | −0.36, 0.25 | .712 |
| Technique | −0.09 | −0.32, 0.13 | .404 |
| Routine/practice | 0.23 | 0.05, 0.41 | .012 |
| Cool-down | −3.12 | −5.33, −0.90 | .007 |
| Fun and games | 0.56 | −0.34, 1.46 | .217 |
| Break | −0.28 | −1.10, 0.54 | .494 |
Abbreviations: B = unstandardized regression coefficient; CI = confidence interval; MVPA = moderate to vigorous physical activity
From mixed effects regression models adjusted for dance type (reference ballroom), child age, gender, and race/ethnicity, instructor experience, class size, and nesting of participants within classes
Discussion
The main finding of the present study was that youth’s physical activity during dance classes differed by class structure over and above dance type. Of the six segment types assessed, technique and routine/practice comprised a majority of dance classes and routine/practice had a higher proportion of MVPA than technique. A previous substudy of this sample compared activity across the dance types and found that youth were most active in jazz/hip-hop and least active in Latin-flamenco, with MVPA during the lesson ranging from approximately five to 25 minutes across the dance types (Cain et al., 2013). Based on findings that physical activity varies by dance type, it appears that both dance type and class structure are important to understanding youth’s physical activity.
Physical activity was proportionally higher in routine/practice than technique, and routine/practice had the lowest proportion of sedentary time. These findings are not surprising because, based on observations of dance classes, technique involved instructor demonstration with limited student activity, whereas during routine/practice students carried out the demonstrated moves with constant repetitions and little time to pause between dance movements. Break and warm-up had the second and third highest proportion of sedentary time. This finding is not surprising given that warm-up mostly included stretching exercises and break included resting periods.
The finding that physical activity differed by segment type was similar to that of Guagliano et al. (2012), who found that lesson context was associated with physical activity levels in girls’ sports. Evidence from the present study suggests that increasing time in routine/practice and/or making technique segments more active could increase youth’s physical activity during dance classes. However, O’Neill et al. (2012) did not find an association between the amount of choreography (similar to the segment we named routine/practice) and MVPA, so further studies are needed to determine whether the present findings are replicable.
The finding that ballet classes had more time in technique and less time in routine/practice than private jazz/hip-hop and Latin-flamenco could explain some of the variation in physical activity across dance types. Consistent with a previous study, youth had more physical activity during jazz/hip-hop than ballet classes (O’Neill et al., 2012). However, in the present study youth had more physical activity in ballet as compared to Latin-flamenco (Cain et al., 2013), so dance structure cannot completely explain the variation in physical activity across dance types.
Study strengths included use of accelerometry to objectively measure MVPA and sedentary behavior and the high reliability of coding dance segments from observer logs. Another strength was the careful recording of dance class segments that allowed matching of accelerometer data to dance class segments. Including a variety of dance styles and dance class segments from 21 dance studios improved the generalizability of findings. A limitation was the potential lack of precision in defining class segments given that dance activities (e.g., stretching) were categorized into segments from logs rather than pre-determined categories during in-person observations. The waist-worn accelerometers may not have accurately assessed physical activity in flamenco because flamenco consists largely of hand clapping, upper body and arm movements, with little trunk movement. The 15-second epoch used has been recommended over the typical 30- to 60- second epoch used in adults, but it is possible that a 1- to 5- second epoch would have better assessed physical activity in this sample.(McClain, Abraham, Brusseau & Tudor-Locke, 2008) Results regarding cool-down segments were less reliable because only 13% of classes included cool-down. Future studies should assess multiple dance classes per individual to increase measurement precision. The present study took place in one metropolitan area and the majority of the participants were girls and beginning dancers, limiting generalizability. Future studies should further investigate associations between skill level and physical activity.
There are implications from present results for increasing physical activity in dance classes. Dance instructors could find ways to increase the frequency or intensity of movement in all dance class segments, particularly routine/practice and technique because both comprise large proportions of class time. For example, instructors could support students to engage in a simple but physically active activity such as walking in place while teaching a new technique. In warm-up, exercises such as jumping jacks, push-ups and sit-ups could be included. Instructors could motivate students to put their maximum efforts during routine/practice by explaining the importance of physical activity at the beginning of dance classes and during routine/practice.
Maximizing physical activity in organized settings has been successful in physical education (McKenzie et al., 2004; Pate et al., 2005). Modifying lesson structure has been acceptable to instructors in physical education and could be acceptable to dance instructors, although several steps should be taken to maximize acceptability. For example, formative evaluation should be conducted to assess attitudes of dance instructors to inform intervention strategies. A community-based participatory research model should be used to allow instructors to have input into intervention strategies, and a menu of implementation strategies should be provided so instructors can choose methods that will work best with their students. The structure of youth dance classes was related to MVPA and sedentary time during class, so changing the structure of dance classes could be an effective intervention. Future research should examine the feasibility of an intervention specifically designed to increase MVPA in youth during dance classes. Youth spent a larger proportion of class in routine/practice (44%) compared to technique (35%). Spending more time in practice during dance classes, motivating students to maximize their effort during routine/practice, and enhancing activity levels during other segments are strategies for increasing MPVA in dance classes that could contribute to more youth obtaining the recommended 60 minutes per day of MVPA.
What Does This Article Add?
This article fills a gap in the literature by investigating youth’s physical activity and sedentary time during dance classes. Understanding physical activity during organized activities is important for gauging the impact of these common programs on public health. The present findings indicated that the structure of dance classes impacted youth’s physical activity. Specific strategies for instructors to increase overall physical activity in dance classes are highlighted. These findings can be applied to other organized youth activities and sports to maximize physical activity and public health benefits.
Contributor Information
Maria A. Lopez Castillo, San Diego State University
Jordan A. Carlson, University of California, San Diego
Kelli L. Cain, University of California, San Diego
Edith A. Bonilla, University of California, San Diego
Emmeline Chuang, San Diego State University.
John P. Elder, San Diego State University
James F. Sallis, University of California, San Diego
References
- Barr-Anderson DJ, Young DR, Sallis JF, Neumark-Sztainer DR, Gittelsohn J, Webber L, Jobe JB. Structured physical activity and psychosocial correlates in middle-school girls. Preventive Medicine. 2007;44(5):404–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.02.01. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cain KL, Peck E, Bracy NL, Husak LE, Marquez E, Conway TL, Sallis JF. Physical activity in youth dance classes. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2013;45(Abstract Supplement):s230. [Google Scholar]
- Cain KL, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Van Dyck D, Calhoon L. Using accelerometers in youth physical activity studies: A review of methods. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 2012;10:437–450. doi: 10.1123/jpah.10.3.437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Association between school-based physical activity, including physical education and academic performance. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth risk behavior surveillance-United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports. 2012;61:SS-4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Evenson KR, Catellier DJ, Gill K, Ondrak KS, McMurray R. Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2008;26(14):1557–1565. doi: 10.1080/02640410802334196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Freedson P, Pober D, Janz KF. Calibration of accelerometer output for children. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2005;37(Suppl 11):S523–S530. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000185658.28284.ba. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Grieser M, Vu MB, Bedimo-Rung AL, Neumark-Sztainer D, Moody J, Young DR, Moe SG. Physical activity attitudes, preferences, and practices in African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian girls. Health Education and Behavior. 2006;33:40–51. doi: 10.1177/1090198105282416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Guagliano JM, Rosenkranz RR, Kolt GS. Girls’ physical activity levels during organized sports in Australia. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2012;45(1):116–122. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31826a0a73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Huang SY, Hogg J, Zandieh S, Bostwick SB. A ballroom dance classroom program promotes moderate to vigorous physical activity in elementary school children. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2012;26(3):160–165. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.090625-QUAN-203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kuczmarski RJ, Ogden CL, Grummer-Strawn LM, Flegal KM, Guo SS, Wei R, Mei Z, et al. CDC growth charts: United States. Advance Data. 2000;(314):1–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Leek D, Carlson JA, Cain KL, Sara H, Rosenberg D, Patrick K, Sallis JF. Physical activity during youth sports practices. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. 2011;165(4):294–299. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McClain JJ, Abraham TL, Brusseau TA, Tudor-Locke C. Epoch length and accelerometer outputs in children: comparison to direct observation. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2008;40(12):2080–2087. doi: 10.1249/mss.0b013e3181824d98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nader PR, Bradley RH, Houts RM, Mcritchie SL, O’Brien M. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity from ages 9 to 15 years. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2008;300(3):295–305. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.3.295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- National Dance Education Organization. Statistics on General US Education. n.d Retrieved from http://www.ndeo.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=893257&module_id=55774.
- O’Neill JR, Pate RR, Beets MW. Physical activity levels of adolescent girls during dance classes. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 2012;9(3):382–388. doi: 10.1123/jpah.9.3.382. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21941018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- O’Neill JR, Pate RR, Hooker SP. The contribution of dance to daily physical activity among adolescent girls. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2011;8:87–95. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- O’Neill JR, Pate RR, Liese AD. Descriptive epidemiology of dance participation in adolescents. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2011;82(3):373–380. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2011.10599769. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21957695. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pate RR, Ward DS, Saunders RP, Felton G, Dishman RK, Dowda M. Promotion of physical activity among high-school girls: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:1582–1587. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.045807. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sacheck JM, Nelson T, Ficker L, Kafka T, Kuder J, Economos CD. Physical activity during soccer and its contribution to physical activity recommendations in normal weight and overweight children. Pediatric Exercise Science. 2011;23(2):281–292. doi: 10.1123/pes.23.2.281. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21633140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Silva P, Sousa M, Aires L, Seabra A, Ribeiro J, Welk G, Mota J. Physical activity patterns in Portuguese adolescents: The contribution of extracurricular sports. European Physical Education Review. 2010;16(2):171–181. doi: 10.1177/1356336X10381305. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Sims ME. Validation and descriptive analysis of the system of observing dance activities in the classroom environment (SODANCE) Doctoral dissertation. 2013 Retrieved from http://uknowledge.uky.edu/khp_etds/10/
- Tremblay MS, Leblanc AG, Kho ME, Saunders TJ, Larouche R, Colley RC, Gorber SC. Systematic review of sedentary behavior and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2011;8:98. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Treuth MS, Schmitz K, Catellier DJ, McMurray RG, Murray DM, Almeida MJ, Pate R. Defining accelerometer thresholds for activity intensities in adolescent girls. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2004;36(7):1259–1266. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Troiano RP, Berrigan P, Dodd KW, Mâsse LC, Tilert T, McDowell M. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2008;40(1):181–188. doi: 10.1249/mss.0b013e31815a51b3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Trost SG, Rosenkranz RR, Dzewaltowski D. Physical activity levels among children attending after-school programs. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2008;40(4):622–629. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318161eaa5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical activity guidelines advisory committee report, 2008. Washington, DC: Author; 2008a. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008 Physical activity guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: Author; 2008b. [Google Scholar]
- Wickel EE, Eisenmann JC. Contribution of youth sport to total daily physical activity among 6- to 12-yr-old boys. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2007;39(9):1493–1500. doi: 10.1249/mss.0b013e318093f56a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Whitt-Glover MC, Taylor WC, Floyd MF, Yore MM, Yancey AK, Matthews CE. Disparities in physical activity and sedentary behaviors among US children and adolescents: prevalence, correlates, and intervention implications. Journal of Public Health Policy. 2009;30(Suppl 1):S309–334. doi: 10.1057/jphp.2008.46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Welk GJ. Use of accelerometry-based activity monitors to assess physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2002. [Google Scholar]