4. Discussion
gross motor skills, confusion
¡Míranos! is one of the first intervention studies to report significant effects on gross motor development among Latino children during early childhood, in which movement experience can have a long-term influence on child development [In general, young children are better prepared to develop locomotive skills involving simpler neuromuscular coordination of large muscle group (i.e., body parts). However, ball skills require more complex coordination of vision and muscle groups that are more challenging to master in young children [The improvements in gross motor skills among children in the intervention groups can be attributed to one of the prominent foci of ¡Míranos! to develop children’s gross motor skills via teacher-led structured physical activities [Additionally, the relationship between motor-skill competence and physical activity is reciprocal such that gross motor competence can inform ability to engage in physical activity and greater opportunities to be physically active can influence motor-skill competence [Epidemiological and intervention studies have consistently demonstrated that a higher level of gross motor skills is predictive of a higher level of PA and improved health-related outcomes in childhood and later years [There are several limitations in this study that need to be considered when interpreting the findings. First, each component of ¡Míranos!, i.e., CBI and HBI, had multiple intervention strategies for multiple children behaviors, and therefore, it was not possible to ascertain which component or strategy had more influence on gross motor development. Furthermore, the study was not designed to compare the effect of the treatment conditions on gross motor development. Second, children’s gross motor skills were only assessed twice, i.e., once at baseline and once at post test, and only one evaluator was responsible for rating gross motor skills. Although this was carried out to reduce the burden of data collection on Head Start centers, it did not allow for the assessment of either inter- or intra-rater reliability. Third, although the TGMD-2 has consistently been found to be a valid and reliable measure of gross motor skills in young children across various races/ethnicities, previous research has noted that some children exhibit confusion when performing the skills in the sequence suggested by the TGMD-2 [Fourth, it is unclear why children in the CBI + HBI did not experience the same robust effect on BS skill scores as those in the CBI group since they used identical center-based strategies. Evaluation of intervention implementation fidelity showed that 100% of both CBI and CBI + HBI centers implemented ¡Míranos! PA and nutrition policies. Moreover, weekly reports from Head Start directors and staff indicated that 84% and 92% of intervention activities were implemented following the 26-week intervention schedule in CBI and CBI + HBI centers, respectively. Given the fidelity-related results, one would expect children in CBI centers to have BS skill scores worse than or equal to those in CBI + HBI centers, but this was not the case. However, quality of implementation was not assessed and may have impacted findings related to BS skill scores. For instance, one possibility is that the CBI centers had an instructional climate that was more conducive to the development of object-control skills. Previous research has indicated low-autonomy (i.e., teacher-centered) climates result in more proficient object-control skills among a disadvantaged preschool population compared to students in a comparison learning environment (i.e., unstructured recess) [