Associations Between Domains of Physical Literacy In 8-12 Year-Old Children, by Weight Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, only a small number of studies have examined the results of physical literacy (PL) assessments using the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL). Among these studies, none have evaluated the correlations between the four domains of PL assessed within the CAPL, nor have they evaluated whether these correlations differ depending on weight status. The current study aimed to determine the strength of associations between the four domains of PL, and compare the correlation coefficients between healthy weight and overweight/obese children. Children aged 8-12 years (n=456) were assessed using the CAPL protocol and partial correlations (controlling for age, sex, and other domain scores) were calculated between domains, for healthy weight (n=275) and overweight/obese children (n=181) separately. The results of this study show that the domains of physical competence, daily behaviour, and motivation and confidence correlate significantly with one another at similar low-to-moderate levels in both body weight groups examined (r = 0.15 to 0.38). The domain of knowledge and understanding did not correlate significantly with other domains in healthy weight participants, and only correlated significantly with physical competence in overweight/obese children (r = 0.22). Overall, the low level of correlations seen between domains in this study lends support to the psychometric architecture of the CAPL and suggests that the four domains of CAPL measure different constructs. Furthermore, the results of this study suggest that interventions aimed at improving PL in children should assess multiple domains, and do not necessarily need to be tailored based on a child’s weight status.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".