Preliminary evaluation of a video questionnaire to assess activity levels of children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the validity of the Assessment of Young Children's Activity Using Video Technology (ACTIVITY) self-report instrument in assessing previous-day physical activity. METHODS: Forty-seven third-grade children (mean age 7.72 +/- 0.45, 41% female) from one elementary school completed the ACTIVITY on one weekday. To evaluate concurrent validity, children wore a Caltrac accelerometer and a Polar Vantage XL heart rate monitor on the day before completing the ACTIVITY. An ACTIVITY score from six time-anchored questions was obtained from the ACTIVITY. Mean Caltrac counts per minute (CNTSMIN), average activity heart rates, and cumulative minutes at or above 50% of heart rate reserve (50% HRR) were calculated for the entire day (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.). RESULTS: Significant Pearson product-moment correlations were observed between the ACTIVITY score and CNTSMIN (r = 0.40, P < 0.001) and 50% HRR (r = 0.50, P < 0.001). Answers from four of six time-anchored questions correlated significantly with heart rate scores during those time periods (r = 0.30-0.49). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study suggests that the ACTIVITY self-report instrument is a moderately valid instrument for measuring general activity levels of young children during the school year, including during specified periods of time. The potential for video technology to facilitate accurate physical activity recall in young children warrants further study.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".