Validity and Reliability of Comprehensive Assessment Instruments for Handball and Badminton Games in Physical Education
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 study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of the Comprehensive Assessment instruments for handball and badminton games in physical education. This study conducted by six types of instruments in comprehensive assessment, that are handball cognitive assessment, handball psychomotor assessment, handball affective assessment, badminton cognitive assessment, badminton psychomotor assessment and badminton affective assessment. The measuring instruments of this study are built based on the level of Bloom's taxonomy (1956) for cognitive domain, taxonomy Dave (1970), taxonomy for psychomotor domain and taxonomy Krathwohl et al. (1964) for affective domain. The results showed the validity of a comprehensive assessment for handball was r = .82 and r = .80 for badminton. While the reliability of handball cognitive assessment r = .78 (n = 36), handball psychomotor assessment r = .93 (n = 31), handball affective assessment r = .83 (n = 39), badminton cognitive assessment r = .75 (n = 40), badminton psychomotor assessment r = .81 (n = 40), badminton affective assessment r = .81 (n = 40). The percentage of agreement between examiners (inter observer agreement) for handball is (70.11 %, SD = 0.57) and badminton (70.03 %, SD = 0.68). Based on the findings, this comprehensive assessment is suitable to be used as a standard instrument to assess students’ achievement in handball and badminton games through Physical Education subject in School Based Assessment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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