Do Perceptions of Competence Mediate The Relationship Between Fundamental Motor Skill Proficiency and Physical Activity Levels of Children in Kindergarten?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perceptions of competence mediate the relationship between motor skill proficiency and physical activity among older children and adolescents. This study examined kindergarten children's perceptions of physical competence as a mediator of the relationship between motor skill proficiency as a predictor variable and physical activity levels as the outcome variable; and also with physical activity as a predictor and motor skill proficiency as the outcome. METHODS: Participants were 116 children (mean age = 5 years 7 months, 58% boys) from 10 schools. Motor skills were measured using the Test of Gross Motor Development-2 and physical activity was monitored through accelerometry. Perceptions of physical competence were measured using The Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children, and the relationships between these variables were examined using a model of mediation. RESULTS: The direct path between object control skills and moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was significant and object control skills predicted perceived physical competence. However, perceived competence did not mediate the relationship between object control skills and MVPA. CONCLUSION: The significant relationship between motor proficiency and perceptions of competence did not in turn influence kindergarten children's participation in physical activity. These findings support concepts of developmental differences in the structure of the self-perception system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".