Early Validation Evidence of a Canadian Practitioner-Based Assessment of Physical Literacy in Physical Education: Passport for Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical and Health Education Canada has developed and implemented a formative, criterion-referenced, and practitioner-based national (Canadian) online educational assessment and support resource called Passport for Life (PFL). It was developed to support the awareness and advancement of physical literacy among PE students and teachers. PFL consists of three assessments for each of the four components (active participation, fitness, movement, and living skills). The aim of this study was to uncover initial validation evidence for its current uses using four of the five broad guidelines (content, response processes, internal structure, relations with other variables) for establishing satisfactory score validity as established by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. We conducted a pilot test with 860 students in Grades 4 and 5 in 2013–2014. We analyzed these data, along with data collected across 2 years for Grades 3 to 6 (n = 1,036 in 2013–2014 and 1,254 in 2014–2015) and Grades 7 to 9 (n = 1,793 in 2013–2014 and 1,151 in 2014–2015). A portion (15 to 25%) of these students completed some of the assessments a second time in each of these years. Validation evidence included the development of PFL by a number of domain experts, the nature and format of the components and scales relative to existing literature and evidence, the administrative procedures to guide teachers to implement the assessments, the alignment of items with each component construct and scale, teacher feedback, and positive and significant relations and temporal (predictive) consistency over the 2 years within and across scales and components. These results provide general support for the PFL and its intended use and highlight several cautions and recommendations. Subscribe to TPE
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 | 0.138 | 0.268 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".