Psychometric Properties of the Test of Gross Motor Development-3 for Children With Visual Impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".