A Construct Validation Study of PLAYfun
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth (PLAYfun) is a measure of motor competence, comprehension, and confidence which is part of a suite of scales used to assess physical literacy in children and youth; however, its measurement properties have not been reported in the published literature. The purpose of this study is to examine the factor structure of PLAYfun, in addition to variations in PLAYfun subscale results by age and sex. METHOD: In this study, we use a sample of children and youth 7 to 14 yr of age (n = 215) to test a proposed factor structure for the motor competence component of PLAYfun and to examine age and sex differences in subscale and total scores. The initial (n = 128) and secondary (n = 98) samples were drawn from a stratified (by geographic region), random sample of 27 after-school programs from a larger pool of 400 programs across the province of Ontario. Seven research assistants were initially trained on the administration of PLAYfun and rated a small pilot sample of 10 children. These trained assessors then assessed the full sample. RESULTS: Interrater agreement was very good (intraclass correlation, 0.87). The hypothesized five-factor structure of the scale was found to have an acceptable fit to the data (root mean square error of approximation, 0.055; 90% confidence interval, 0.03-0.075; comparative fit index, 0.95; Tucker-Lewis Index, 0.94). In general, PLAYfun scores increased with age as developmentally expected. There were few sex differences across skills, but girls did not perform as well as boys on upper and lower body object control skills. CONCLUSIONS: The factor structure and patterns of results by age and sex support PLAYfun as a measure of motor competence. Continued evaluation of the tool and other subscales of PLAY is required.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".