Table 3.
Results of active commuting to school (ACS), cognition, and academic achievement.
| ID | Estimated Relationship between Active Commute and Cognition | Estimated Relationship between Active Commute and Academic Achievement | Qualitative Brief Summary for Cognition | Qualitative Brief Summary for Academic Achievement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Girls in the group with ACS longer than 15 min had significantly higher scores in verbal ability (score +2.75; 95% CI, 1.18–4.32), numeric ability (score +1.94; 95% CI, 0.71–3.17), reasoning ability (score +2.19; 95% CI, 0.81–3.57), and overall cognitive performance (score +7.06; 95% CI, 3.57–10.55) than girls in the non-ACS group (all p < 0.01); no statistically significant association among boys. | - | Among girls but not boys, active commute significantly associated with better verbal, numeric, reasoning and overall cognitive performance. | - |
| 2 | - | Children in the upper half of physically active school transportation in Grade 1 (≥median of 14 min/day) had a better reading fluency in Grades 1–3 than those who were in the lower half after adjusting for age, sex, parental education and the PANIC study group (p = 0.038, η2p = 0.02). Boys active commuting in Grade 1 (≥median of 14 min/d) had a better reading fluency and reading comprehension in Grades 1–3. Among girls, active commuting in grade 1 was inversely associated with reading comprehension in Grade 3. | - | Among all children, those active commuting for >14 min in grade 1 had significantly better reading fluency scores in grades 1 and 3. |
| 3 | - | High academic achievement was associated with active commuting to school among girls (AOR: 1.51 (1.10, 2.08)) and boys (AOR: 1.72 (1.26, 2.35)). | - | Active commuting was associated with high academic achievement in both boys and girls. |
| 4 | Active commuting to school was not significantly associated with performance on the d2 Test of Attention (β = 0.05) and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (β = 0.04). Simple slopes analyses revealed a significantly positive association between active commuting to school and performance on the d2 Test of Attention in girls (β= 0.17, p = 0.04), but no significant association in boys (β = −0.03, p = 0.66). | Active commuting to school was not significantly associated with academic achievement (β = 0.04) and mathematics achievement (β = 0.08). | Active commuting was significantly associated with executive function among girls only, and not associated with information processing speed among both boys and girls. | Active commuting was not significantly associated with academic or math achievement. |
| 5 | Active commuting to school, in terms of walking or bicycling was not significantly associated with interference scores on reaction time (walking: β = −1.4 (−6.9, 9.8), p = 0.74; cycling: β = 4.0 (−2.7, 10.6), p = 0.24) or accuracy (walking: β = −0.5 (−2.7, 1.6), p = 0.64; cycling: β = −0.1 (−1.8, 1.7), p = 0.93) on the Eriksen flanker task. | Bicycling to school was associated with superior mathematics performance as compared to passive transportation (β = 5.4 (1.9, 8.8), p < 0.01), and walking to school was not associated with mathematics performance (β = 0.1 (−4.1, 4.4), p = 0.95). | Active commuting was not significantly associated with executive functioning. | Cycling to school was associated with better mathematics performance as compared to using passive commuting. |
| 6 | More than 50 min of active commuting to school was associated with 9.9 d’ point greater 3-back baseline score and their 2-back growth was 11.2 d’ points below passive commuters. | - | More than 50 min of active commuting was associated with better performance on 3 back at baseline and lower performance on 2 back at 1 year | - |
| 7 | Active commuting to school was positively related to the number of objects, correctness of route orientation and aggregated scores, and negatively associated with correctness of route structure for the spatial cognition maps of the participants (all p < 0.01). Active commuting was not associated with the number of landmarks, paths and places in the participants’ cognitive maps. | - | Active travel was positively associated with 3 aspects of the cognitive maps, negatively associated with route structure correctness, and not associated with 3 aspects of the maps. | - |
| 8 | - | Children with 30 to 60 min of active commuting to school were more likely to have a better academic achievement than non-commuters (language, OR = 3.53, (1.12, 4.37); p < 0.01; mathematics, OR = 2.19 (1.06, 5.05); p = 0.03). There were no statistically significant differences between those passive commuting, active commuting for < 30 min, or active commuting for > 60 min. | - | Engaging in 30-60 min of active commuting was significantly associated with better grades in language and mathematics, as compared to passive commuting. |
| 9 | - | Passive primary school commuters had better grades in math (7.46 ± 0.17 vs. 6.95 ± 0.12, p < 0.01), Spanish (7.72 ± 0.16 vs. 7.10 ± 0.12, p < 0.01), English (7.63 ± 0.17 vs. 7.01 ± 0.12, p < 0.01), natural sciences (7.59 ± 0.17 vs. 7.02 ± 0.12, p < 0.01) and grade point average (7.60 ± 0.15 vs. 7.02 ± 0.11, p = 0.01) than active commuters, whereas no significant associations were found in the secondary school students for all the selected subjects and the grade point average (all p ≥ 0.06). Active primary school children had lower odds of having high grades for math (OR = 0.65 (0.43, 0.98)), Spanish (OR = 0.57 (0.38, 0.86)), English (OR = 0.48; (0.32, 0.73)) and grade point average (OR = 0.64; (0.41, 1.00)). There were no statistically significant associations for secondary school children. | - | Among primary school children, engaging in active commuting was associated with poorer grade point average and lower grades in Mathematics, Spanish, English and natural sciences, as compared to passive commuters. No significant associations were found among secondary school children. |
| 10 | The accuracy scores obtained from maps of children who walk to school most of the week (at least four out of six school-days) were significantly higher than those of children who did not (M = 8.69 vs. M = 7.71, t (90) = −3.66, p < 0.01). The richness scores of the sketch maps did not differ according to the children’s school travel mode. | - | Active commuters had significantly better accuracy scores but not with the richness scores on the cognitive maps, as compared to passive commuters. | - |
| 11 | A 3 (grade) by 2 (sex) by 3 (travel mode) ANOVA only yielded main effects of grade, F(2290) = 34.20, p < 0.01 and sex, F(1290) = 35.45, p < 0.01. | Active commuting was not associated with scores on the word fluency task | ||
| 12 | Walking to school (vs. passive commuting) was not significantly associated with general verbal intelligence (38.50 ± 7.76 vs. 40 ± 6.81, p = 0.54 and non-verbal intelligence (37.80 ± 8.25 vs. 39 ± 7.61, p = 0.97) and general intelligence (76.4 ± 14.94 vs. 79.10 ± 13.18, p = 0.76) among preschoolers. Among primary school children, walking was not significantly associated with logical reasoning (27.60 ± 9.50 vs. 28.00 ± 8.37, p = 0.80), verbal factor (21.80 ± 6.37 vs. 22.40 ± 5.27, p = 0.76), numerical factor (16.40 ± 8 vs. 17.40 ± 7.89, p = 0.47), spatial factor (15.90 ± 7.11 vs. 16.00 ± 6.30, p = 0.64) and general intelligence (54.20 ± 18.10 vs. 55.80 ± 15.89, p = 0.80). | - | Active commuting and its duration were not significantly associated with cognitive performance | - |