Was it a HIIT? A process evaluation of a school-based high-intensity interval training intervention

Table 1 Participating school and class characteristics

School	School Type	Students	ICSEA percentile^a	Background Language Other than English^a	Class	Group	Year Level	Average Age (years)	Number of students (% female)
One	State	Co-educational	41%	42%	A	Co-Design	8	13.3 ± 0.3	25 students (44%)
					B	HIIT Only	8	13.3 ± 0.3	12 students (50%)
					C	Control	8	13.2 ± 0.4	12 students (50%)
Two	Independent	Boys Only	87%	24%	D	Co-Design	7	12.6 ± 0.3	25 students (0%)
					E	Co-Design	7	12.5 ± 0.3	24 students (0%)
					F	HIIT Only	8	13.6 ± 0.4	26 students (0%)
					G	HIIT Only	8	13.7 ± 0.3	24 students (0%)
					H	Control	8	13.5 ± 0.2	13 students (0%)
					I	Control	8	13.5 ± 0.4	22 students (0%)
Three	Catholic Education	Girls Only	65%	5%	J	Co-Design	8	13.3 ± 0.3	23 students (100%)
					K	Co-Design	8	13.4 ± 0.3	25 students (100%)
					L	HIIT Only	7	12.4 ± 0.3	20 students (100%)
					M	HIIT Only	7	12.5 ± 0.3	18 students (100%)
					N	Control	7	12.4 ± 0.5	21 students (100%)
					O	Control	7	12.3 ± 0.4	18 students (100%)

^aThe values presented in the school information columns were acquired from myschool.edu.au and are based on 2021/2022 data. ICSEA Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage, which is generated based on family background data that is highly correlated with student performance

ISSN: 1479-5868