<b> Test of Gross Motor Development : Expert Validity, confirmatory validity and internal consistence </b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2) is an instrument used to evaluate children’s level of motordevelopment. The objective of this study was to translate and verify the clarity and pertinence of the TGMD-2 items by expertsand the confirmatory factorial validity and the internal consistence by means of test-retest of the Portuguese TGMD-2. Across-cultural translation was used to construct the Portuguese version. The participants of this study were 7 professionalsand 587 children, from 27 schools (kindergarten and elementary) from 3 to 10 years old (51.1% boys and 48.9% girls).Each child was videotaped performing the test twice. The videotaped tests were then scored. The results indicated thatthe Portuguese version of the TGMD-2 contains clear and pertinent motor items; demonstrated satisfactory indices ofconfirmatory factorial validity (χ2/gl = 3.38; Goodness-of-fit Index = 0.95; Adjusted Goodness-of-fit index = 0.92 and Tuckerand Lewis’s Index of Fit = 0.83) and test-retest internal consistency (locomotion r = 0.82; control of object: r = 0.88). ThePortuguese TGMD-2 demonstrated validity and reliability for the sample investigated.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".