MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179587568 · doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2015.11.004

Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA): Validity, objectivity, and reliability evidence for children 8–12 years of age

2015· article· en· W2179587568 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of sport and health science/Journal of Sport and Health Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ontario Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Prince Edward IslandQueen's UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsObjectivity (philosophy)PsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Movement (music)Cognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologyReliability engineeringEngineeringEpistemologyArtAestheticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary aim of this study was to develop an assessment of the fundamental, combined, and complex movement skills required to support childhood physical literacy. The secondary aim was to establish the feasibility, objectivity, and reliability evidence for the assessment. An expert advisory group recommended a course format for the assessment that would require children to complete a series of dynamic movement skills. Criterion-referenced skill performance and completion time were the recommended forms of evaluation. Children, 8–12 years of age, self-reported their age and gender and then completed the study assessments while attending local schools or day camps. Face validity was previously established through a Delphi expert (n = 19, 21% female) review process. Convergent validity was evaluated by age and gender associations with assessment performance. Inter- and intra-rater (n = 53, 34% female) objectivity and test–retest (n = 60, 47% female) reliability were assessed through repeated test administration. Median total score was 21 of 28 points (range 5–28). Median completion time was 17 s. Total scores were feasible for all 995 children who self-reported age and gender. Total score did not differ between inside and outside environments (95% confidence interval (CI) of difference: −0.7 to 0.6; p = 0.91) or with/without footwear (95%CI of difference: −2.5 to 1.9; p = 0.77). Older age (p < 0.001, η2 = 0.15) and male gender (p < 0.001, η2 = 0.02) were associated with a higher total score. Inter-rater objectivity evidence was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.99) for completion time and substantial for skill score (ICC = 0.69) for 104 attempts by 53 children (34% female). Intra-rater objectivity was moderate (ICC = 0.52) for skill score and excellent for completion time (ICC = 0.99). Reliability was excellent for completion time over a short (2–4 days; ICC = 0.84) or long (8–14 days; ICC = 0.82) interval. Skill score reliability was moderate (ICC = 0.46) over a short interval, and substantial (ICC = 0.74) over a long interval. The Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment is a feasible measure of selected fundamental, complex and combined movement skills, which are an important building block for childhood physical literacy. Moderate-to-excellent objectivity was demonstrated for children 8–12 years of age. Test–retest reliability has been established over an interval of at least 1 week. The time and skill scores can be accurately estimated by 1 trained examiner.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it