Abstract: The development of gross motor skills is fundamental to the advanced movement and specific skills. The development of such skill should be studied at an early childhood because development of gross motor skills which is in line with chronological age allows children to master their locomotor and manipulative skills. This study aimed to determine, the effects of traditional games on the level of gross motor development of early childhood. This study adopts two different modules, namely the traditional games module and the regular physical education module. The research questions were tested by two-phases of study: A descriptive analysis to determine the level of gross motor development and equality of age and MANOVA and MANCOVA analysis to determine the effects of interventions to control the other factors. Gross motor development data were obtained from locomotor and manipulative skills video recordings by using the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD) instrument. The overall level of gross motor development research subjects are below the average of 50% based on the percentile score of the GMDQ; year 3 (7.42%), year 2 (11.77%) and year 1 (20.56%). The findings also indicate the subject of year 3 very significant problems in three variables, namely; SLS, SMS and GMDQ. This group also experienced a significant delay in the AEL (2.93 years) and AEM (3.42 years) score. MANOVA analysis showed no significant difference in the GMDQ mean for pre-test [F (4.59) = 2:51, p>0.05, R² = 0.146] between the control and treatment groups. However, there are significant differences in the GMDQ mean for post-test [F (4.59) = 29.81, p<0.01, R² = 0.669]. Univariate F analysis showed a significant difference for the five dependent variables during the post-test; GMDQ [F (1.62) = 116.16; p<0.001, R² = 0.65), SLS [F (1.62) = 63.38; p<0.001, R² = 0.51), AEL [F (1.62) = 36.53; p<0.001, R² = 0.37) SMS [F (1.62) = 86.23; p<0.001, R² = 0.58) and AEM [F (1.62) = 48.76; p<0.001, R² = 0.44). Comparative analysis of the pair showed that the mean of the treatment group is significantly more than the mean of the control group in the GMDQ score (mean difference = 23.25; p<0.001), SLS (mean difference = 3.63; p<0.001), AEL (mean difference = 2.25; p<0.001), SMS (mean difference = 4.13; p<0.001) and AEM (mean difference = 2.01; p<0.001). MANCOVA analysis showed that there are significant effects of the traditional games for the GMDQ mean [F (4.53) = 26.13; p<0.001, R² = 0.664] after controlling the pre-test score, gender and income factors. In conclusion, the analysis supports the traditional games intervention programs to help improve the level of gross motor development of the treatment group after other factors are being controlled.