Feasibility, Validity, and Reliability of the Plank Isometric Hold as a Field-Based Assessment of Torso Muscular Endurance for Children 8–12 Years of Age
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project examined the feasibility, validity, and reliability of the plank isometric hold for children 8-12 years of age. 1502 children (52.5% female) performed partial curl-up and/or plank protocols to assess plank feasibility (n = 823, 52.1% girls), validity (n = 641, 54.1% girls) and reliability (n = 111, 47.8% girls). 12% (n = 52/431) of children could not perform a partial curl-up, but virtually all children (n = 1066/1084) could attain a nonzero score for the plank. Plank performance without time limit was influenced by small effects with age (β = 6.86; p < .001, η(2) = 0.03), flexibility (β = 0.79; p < .001, η(2) = 0.03), and medium effects with cardiovascular endurance (β = 1.07; p < .001, η(2) = 0.08), and waist circumference (β = -0.92; p < .001, η(2) = 0.06). Interrater (ICC = 0.62; CI = 0.50, 0.75), intra-rater (ICC = 0.83; CI = 0.73, 0.90) and test-retest (ICC = 0.63; CI = 0.46, 0.75) reliability were acceptable for the plank without time limit. These data suggest the plank without time limit is a feasible, valid and reliable assessment of torso muscular endurance for children 8-12 years of age.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it