The aim of this research was determining disruptive behaviours of Primary and Secondary Schoolchildren in physical education classes according to educational stage, age and gender. The sample consisted of a total of 1304 students from 10 to 16 years old (M = 12.77; SD = 1.89), of whom 548 were Primary Education and 756 of Secondary Education; 612 were boys (46.9%) and 692 were girls (53.1%). The data collection was conducted through to the appropriate conduct scale in physical education and sport (CCDEF). The results obtained showed significant statistical differences in the age factor on Aggressiveness (AGR) (p < .001), Irresponsibility (IRRP) (p < .001), Fails to follow directions (FFD) (p < .001), Distracts or disturbs others (DDO) (p < .001) and Poor self-management (PSM) (p < .001). Regarding gender, there were statistically significant differences between boys and girls in FFD and on PSM (p < .001). Also, significant statistical differences were found on stage factor on AGR (p < .001), IRRP (p < .001), FFD (p < .001), DDO (p < .001) and PSM (p < .001). Disruptive behaviours scores increase with age and are higher in Compulsory Secondary Education than in Primary education schoolchildren. Boys in Primary Education scores higher than girls in all dimensions studied, while boys in Compulsory Secondary Education do so on aggressiveness.

Introduction Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is vital for the survival of people who has suffered a cardiac arrest. In order to achieve a good quality CPR performance, rescuer needs a good training which could be gotten with the use of feedback devices. The aim of this study was to compare the use of visual feedback device in CPR training to learning without feedback. Methods Ninety-nine subjects without basic life support knowledge participating in the study were divided into three groups. All of them carried out two tests: 2 minutes of CPR with compressions and ventilations. First two groups received trainings on CPR between the tests (experimental groups): one group with instructor-led training and the other one with visual feedback device. The third group did not receive any training between the tests (control group). Results In the first test no differences among the three groups were found. The experimental groups improved their scores in the last test. The number of correct chest compressions by hand position and depth, and the number of correct rescue breaths was increased. The experimental group with visual feedback CPR training achieved better scores of quality CPR in the second test than the instructor-led training group. Conclusions The visual feedback and instruction-led training have positive effects on the quality CPR. The use of visual feedback during learning has greater benefits than instruction-led training in the three variables analysed.