Discussion
FMS
SECONDARY, FMS
We developed, implemented, and tested the efficacy of a theory-driven, scalable, evidence-based peer leadership program targeting the physical literacy of elementary school students to determine its impact on (a) student leadership skills (primary outcome) and leadership self-efficacy (i.e., confidence to lead; secondary outcome), as well as (b) components of physical literacy (secondary outcomes) of younger students who received the transformational leadership informed FMS development intervention. Utilization of a peer-leader delivery system provided an opportunity for leadership skills to be taught and practiced. The PLPL trial utilized a train-the-trainer implementation strategy (the intervention delivered by teachers) that we believed was potentially scalable within the Canadian elementary school context.Ultimately, we did not find evidence that the primary outcome, teacher rated transformational leadership of Grade 6/7 students could be changed by a seven-session leadership learning program and the subsequent implementation of a 10-week peer-led program. Further, there was no additional evidence of intervention effects for secondary outcomes, components of physical literacy in terms of increased FMS, self-perceptions, perceived competence, motivation, or physical activity in younger Grade 3/4 students who participated in the 10-week program. These results contradict our earlier pilot study [Although this was an adapted GLASS program, we believe there are two critical factors that may explain our null findings in the current efficacy trial. First, the delivery mechanism for the training of peer leaders was modified. The intention with this different delivery method was to test a more realistic, scalable approach that mimicked ways in which teachers receive other professional learning opportunities and continuing education credits. In this trial, the research team led a workshop with teachers and those teachers subsequently delivered the content to their Grade 6/7 students. The older students then delivered the physical literacy program to younger students in their school. In contrast, our pilot study focused on peer leaders allowed for the research team to travel to the one intervention school and directly work with the students. The current study therefore had an additional messenger (i.e., the teacher) to relay information from the research team to the students. Balanced against the null findings for primary and secondary outcomes, the current trial results suggest that some critical information or quality control may have been lost in translation with teachers acting as the mediating party between the research team and the students. While teachers self-reported that all lessons were provided to their Grade 6/7 classes, we did not conduct a process evaluation for this aspect of the intervention.A second potential reason for null effects of this intervention may be due to a decrease in intervention effectiveness that has been shown to be a common occurrence when moving to larger-scale trials [From a measurement perspective, failure to identify a statistically significant effect for the primary outcome could be a result of ceiling effects with the primary outcome, which was scored on a five-point scale [Existing evidence related to the use of a train-the-trainer model to deliver the intervention could be described as mixed [Strengths of the current study include the randomized design, the use of a train-the trainer implementation strategy which mimics a more realistic strategy than an intervention run exclusively by researchers, and the collection of a variety of measures at multiple levels (teacher, leaders, younger students). There are also limitations in the current study including the smaller sample than originally planned, which decreased our statistical power. As highlighted earlier, the study sample size was affected due to the mandatory pause in the study due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our initial power analyses necessitated that a total of 14 schools, 336 peer leaders, and 1,008 younger students would be needed to detect a medium effect size. In reality, we recruited 6 schools, 132 peer leaders, and 227 younger students. So we were underpowered and thus conclusions should be interpreted with caution. Other limitations include the lack of a detailed process evaluation across the duration of the intervention, which limits our ability to understand the true dose of intervention received by all participants. Lastly, we did not assess movement skill competence of the peer-leaders and as such cannot make determinations as to whether the differences in skill capability of these instructors contributed to null-findings related to changes in fundamental movement skills.