An exploratory analysis of missing data from the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) Learn to Play – Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL) project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical literacy comprises a range of tests over four domains (Physical Competence, Daily Behaviour, Motivation and Confidence, and Knowledge and Understanding). The patterns of missing data in large field test batteries such as those for physical literacy are largely unknown. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to explore the patterns and possible reasons for missing data in the Royal Bank of Canada Learn to Play-Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (RBC Learn to Play-CAPL) project. METHODS: A total of 10,034 Canadian children aged 8 to 12 years participated in the RBC Learn to Play-CAPL project. A 32-variable subset from the larger CAPL dataset was used for these analyses. Several R packages ("Hmisc", "mice", "VIM") were used to generate matrices and plots of missing data, and to perform multiple imputations. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of missing data for individual measures and domains ranged from 0.0 to 33.8%, with the average proportion of missing data being 4.0%. The largest proportion of missing data in CAPL was the pedometer step counts, followed by the components of the Physical Competence domain and the Children's Self-Perception of Adequacy in and Predilection for Physical Activity subscales. When domain scores were regressed on five imputed subsets with the original subset as the reference, there were small and statistically detectable differences in the Daily Behaviour score (β = - 1.6 to - 1.7, p < 0.001). However, for the other domain scores the differences were negligible and statistically undetectable (β = - 0.01 to - 0.06, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study has implications for other researchers or educators who are creating or using large field-based assessment measures in the areas of physical literacy, physical activity, or physical fitness, as this study demonstrates where problems in data collection can arise and how missing data can be avoided. When large proportions of missing data are present, imputation techniques, correction factors, or other treatment options may be 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".