Physical Literacy in Children and Youth—A Construct Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Physical literacy (PL) has been proposed as a key construct for understanding participation in physical activity. However, the lack of an agreed-upon definition and measure has hindered research on the topic. The current study proposed and analyzed the construct validity of a PL model comprised of motor competence, perceived competence, motivation, and enjoyment. Method: The authors tested three different models in two samples: Grade 5 (N = 1,448) and Grade 7 students (N = 698). Results: The PL construct was best represented as a hierarchical model in both the Grade 5, X2(295) = 791.90, p < .001; root mean square error of approximation = .035; and comparative-fit index = .97, and the Grade 7 samples, X2(295) = 557.21, p < .001; root mean square error of approximation = .036; and comparative-fit index = .98, samples. Discussion: Future work is needed to design and evaluate a PL measure consistent with our model. Such work will help generate further research and understanding of PL.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".