MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792246322 · doi:10.1123/apaq.2017-0061

Psychometric Properties of the Test of Gross Motor Development-3 for Children With Visual Impairments

2018· article· en· W2792246322 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdapted Physical Activity Quarterly · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGross motor skillPsychologyInternal consistencyInter-rater reliabilityTest (biology)PsychometricsAudiologyDevelopmental psychologyMotor skillClinical psychologyMedicineRating scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results of the Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2) consistently show acceptable validity and reliability for children/adolescents who are sighted and those who have visual impairments. Results of the Test of Gross Motor Development-3 (TGMD-3) are often valid and reliable for children who are sighted, but its psychometric properties are unknown for children with visual impairments. Participants ( N = 66; M age = 12.93, SD = 2.40) with visual impairments completed the TGMD-2 and TGMD-3. The TGMD-3 results from this sample revealed high internal consistency (ω = .89–.95), strong interrater reliability (ICC = .91–.92), convergence with the TGMD-2 ( r = .96), and good model fit, χ 2 (63) = 80.10, p = .072, χ 2 / df ratio = 1.27, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .97. Researchers and practitioners can use the TGMD-3 to assess the motor skill performance for children/adolescents with visual impairments and most likely produce results that are valid and reliable.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.253 · 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