CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07764913Updated Aug 14, 2026

Effects of Functional Training vs Dual-Task Training in School-Going Children

An interventional study of progressive functional training and dual task performance in Functional Performance, sponsored by Riphah International University. Completed at 1 site in Pakistan. Open to participants aged 6 Years to 12 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-14.

Sponsored by Riphah International University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
66
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
6 Years to 12 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This study aims to compare the effects of Progressive Functional Training and Dual-Task Training on motor skills in school-going children. It focuses on improving balance, coordination, strength, and motor-cognitive integration. A randomized clinical trial will be conducted on children aged 6-12 years divided into two groups receiving different interventions for 4 weeks.

Read the detailed description

Motor skill development during childhood plays a vital role in physical fitness, academic participation, and overall functional independence. School-going children require adequate motor competence to perform daily activities, participate in sports, and adapt to increasingly complex physical and cognitive demands. Traditional physical education programs often focus on isolated physical skills, which may not fully address real-life multitasking requirements. Progressive functional training (PFT) emphasizes task-oriented, developmentally appropriate movements that mimic daily activities and progressively increase in difficulty. This approach helps improve fundamental motor skills, balance, coordination, and strength. In contrast, dual-task training (DTT) involves the simultaneous performance of motor and cognitive tasks, thereby enhancing motor performance under divided attention and improving motor-cognitive integration. Although both training methods have shown positive effects on motor skills, limited evidence exists comparing their effectiveness in school-going children. Therefore, this study aims to compare the effects of progressive functional training versus dual-task training on motor skills in school-going children. This study will adopt a randomized clinical design. A total of 66 school-going children aged 6-12 years will be selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Participants will be randomly allocated into two groups: Group A (Progressive Functional Training) and Group B (Dual-Task Training). Baseline assessments of motor skills will be conducted using standardized tools such Bruin inks- as the Ossietzky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2), Pediatric Balance Scale, and Dual-Task Timed Up and Go Test. Group A will undergo progressive functional training focusing on balance, coordination, strength, and functional movement patterns. Group B will receive dual-task training involving motor activities combined with cognitive tasks. Both groups will receive training for 4 weeks, with sessions conducted 3 times per week. Post-intervention assessments will be performed using the same outcome measures. The collected data will be statistically analyzed to compare pre- and post test outcomes within and between groups.

02

Conditions studied

  • Functional Performance

Keywords

  • Progressive Functional Training
  • Dual Task Performance
  • Motor Skills
  • School going children
  • balance
  • coordination
  • Motor performance
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
6 Years to 12 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • School going children aged 6-12 years ,
  • Both gender ,Ability to understand and follow simple verbal instruction ,
  • Typically developing children

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Visual or hearing issue ,
  • Recent injury or surgeries
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
66 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Progressive Functional Training Group

    This program involves task-oriented exercises such as sit-to-stand, step-ups, reaching, jumping, and obstacle walking, with progressive increases in difficulty, speed, and resistance. It is performed for 30-40 minutes per session, three times per week for six weeks, including a 5-7 minute warm-up, 30 minutes of functional training, and a 5-8 minute cool-down. Training progresses from low-intensity activities in weeks 1-2 (e.g., sit-to-stand, walking, low step-ups, ball activities, and static balance) to moderate intensity in weeks 3-4 (e.g., squats with reach, tandem and obstacle walking, ball tasks, and dynamic balance), and high intensity in weeks 5-6 (e.g., lunges, jumping, agility drills, direction changes, and advanced balance tasks).

    Other: progressive functional training

  • Active comparator
    Dual Task Performance Group

    This program combines motor and cognitive tasks, such as walking while counting, balance with memory recall, and ball activities with verbal tasks, with gradually increasing cognitive complexity. It is performed for 30-40 minutes per session, three times per week for six weeks, to improve dual-task performance, attention, and executive function. Each session includes a 5-7 minute warm-up, followed by 30 minutes of dual-task training progressing from simple tasks (e.g., walking while counting forward, naming animals during balance) to moderate (e.g., counting backward, obstacle walking with naming tasks) and then complex activities (e.g., direction-change walking while counting by threes, hopping with verbal tasks, TUG with cognitive tasks). Sessions end with a 5-8 minute cool-down of relaxed walking, stretching, and breathing exercises.

    Other: dual task performance

Interventions

  • Otherprogressive functional training

    This program involves task-oriented exercises such as sit-to-stand, step-ups, reaching, jumping, and obstacle walking, with progressive increases in difficulty, speed, and resistance. It is performed for 30-40 minutes per session, three times per week for six weeks, including a 5-7 minute warm-up, 30 minutes of functional training, and a 5-8 minute cool-down. Training progresses from low-intensity activities in weeks 1-2 (e.g., sit-to-stand, walking, low step-ups, ball activities, and static balance) to moderate intensity in weeks 3-4 (e.g., squats with reach, tandem and obstacle walking, ball tasks, and dynamic balance), and high intensity in weeks 5-6 (e.g., lunges, jumping, agility drills, direction changes, and advanced balance tasks).

  • Otherdual task performance

    This program combines motor and cognitive tasks, such as walking while counting, balance with memory recall, and ball activities with verbal tasks, with gradually increasing cognitive complexity. It is performed for 30-40 minutes per session, three times per week for six weeks, to improve dual-task performance, attention, and executive function. Each session includes a 5-7 minute warm-up, followed by 30 minutes of dual-task training progressing from simple tasks (e.g., walking while counting forward, naming animals during balance) to moderate (e.g., counting backward, obstacle walking with naming tasks) and then complex activities (e.g., direction-change walking while counting by threes, hopping with verbal tasks, TUG with cognitive tasks). Sessions end with a 5-8 minute cool-down of relaxed walking, stretching, and breathing exercises.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency

    Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency Used for composites and overall proficiency, ranging from a scale of 20 to 80 . Assesses gross and fine motor skills Subtests include: Balance, running, speed and agility, Bilateral coordination, Strength Suitable for children aged 4-21 years, widely used, reliable, and valid for school aged children

    Time frame: The BOT-2 Short Form was administered at baseline and after the 6-week intervention. Each assessment required approximately 15-20 minutes to complete.

  2. digit span test

    This framework assesses fundamental motor skills in children aged 3-10, including locomotor skills (running, jumping, hopping) and object control skills (throwing, catching, kicking), commonly used in school-based interventions. Cognitive dual-task performance is measured using the Digit Span Test (forward and backward) to assess attention and working memory during concurrent motor tasks, and the Verbal Fluency Test (animal naming) to evaluate executive function and cognitive flexibility, with outcomes based on correct recall sequences and number of words generated in 60 seconds.

    Time frame: Time Frame: Assessed at baseline (Week 1) and after 6 weeks of intervention (Week 6).

06

Study locations

1 site
  • Riphah International University
    Lahore, Punjab Province 54660, Pakistan
07

References and documents

Publications

  • Aung N, Hiengkaew V, Tretriluxana J, Bryant MS, Bovonsunthonchai S. Effectiveness of Motor Imagery Combined with Structured Progressive Circuit Class Training on Functional Mobility in Post-Stroke Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Rehabil Med. 2022 Jul 27;54:jrm00297. doi: 10.2340/jrm.v54.1390. PubMed 35797065 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07764913
Lead sponsor
Riphah International University
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Aug 14, 2026
Start date
Apr 16, 2026
Primary completion
Jul 5, 2026
Completion
Jul 10, 2026
Last update
Aug 14, 2026

Study contacts

Hafsa Aslam, MS-PT
principal investigator · Riphah International University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion