Leveling the Playing Field: Assessing Physical Literacy in Children and Youth with Physical Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Research indicates that there are challenges associated with individuals with a disability acquiring mature movement patterns similar to their able-bodied peers (Capio, Sit & Abernethy, 2011), resulting in the notion that they are physically illiterate. Additionally, the benefits of physical literacy (PL) have not been comprehensively investigated in children/youth with disabilities, nor is there a reliable tool to assess PL in this population. Purpose: The main purpose of this research is to pilot a PL assessment tool for children/youth with physical disabilities. Methods: By modifying elements from Canadian Sport for Life’s Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth (PLAY), participants recruited from two recreation programs will take part in a pre- and post-test assessment using the amended tool. Lived experiences are also documented using semi-structured interviews. Results: Results indicate that everyone, regardless of ability, can be physically literate. Participants’ scores in individual PLAYSelf categories paralleled their ranking of PL as the most significant category of literacy. However, this was contradicted by ~70% of participants who testified to partaking in sedentary activities during their leisure time and reported limited participation in a wide range of physical activities. Conclusions: PL is an inclusive concept accessible to all and represents a unique journey for each person. The revised PL assessment tool represents the multidimensional facets of PL, but improvement is necessary to accommodate Paralympic or adapted sports/activities in the PLAYInventory questionnaire. Future research should look to comprehensively assess levels of physical literacy in individuals with any disability or exceptionality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".