Performances of the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA), and validity of timing components in comparison with three commonly used agility tests in Chinese boys: an exploratory study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background The practical application of the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA) has been reported in some Western countries. However, a few studies reported the application of the CAMSA in Chinese children. In addition, given that the CAMSA was designing to incorporate both movement skills and agility assessment, the value and validity of the timing component of the CAMSA are worth discussing. Methods By choosing the Illinois Agility Test, Repeated Side Step-1 m distance, and the newly designed Repeated Side Step-half of height as the benchmark, we evaluate the performance of the CAMSA, further establish the concurrent validity of the CAMSA timing components (completion time and time score). In total, 149 male children (mean age 9.0 ± 0.8 years) from public schools in Shanghai, China, participated in the study. Results The mean CAMSA completion time was 19.3 ± 5.3 (s), and mean time score was 8.7 ± 3.9 (range of 1–14) for all participants ( n = 149). After adjusted the sprint speed, older age was positively associated with the performance of the CAMSA. Being overweight was not associated with the performance of the CAMSA comparing with healthy body mass children, however, being obese was negatively associated with the CAMSA timing components and total score. Children having extracurricular sports activities (e.g., athletic experiences), mostly soccer, were more likely to demonstrated better performances of the CAMSA completion time, time score and total score. However, overweight and obese, also athletic experiences were not significantly contributed to the CAMSA skill score, although the association was slight (Adj R 2 = 0.13). Besides, the CAMSA completion time has a strong correlation with the IAT, r = 0.77; RSS-1MD, r = − 0.76; and RSS-HHD, r = − 0.77, p < 0.01. The same pattern of correlation was also found between the CAMSA time score and three agility tests: IAT, r = − 0.79; RSS-1MD, r = 0.76; RSS-HHD, r = 0.78, p < 0.01. Discussion Overall, a few participants in the study were able to reach the recommended level of the total CAMSA score referring to the Canadian criterion. The strong concurrent validity was found between the CAMSA timing components and three selected agility tests, respectively.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».