Physical Literacy Levels Of Canadian Children In Grades 7-9 (12-16 Years): Descriptive Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL) is the first validated protocol to accurately and reliably assess the physical literacy level of children between 8 and 12 years of age. However, a ceiling effect was found when using the CAPL in older children, within the knowledge/understanding domain and in the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment, one component of the physical competence domain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of a modified version of the CAPL for older children. METHODS: The modified CAPL (CAPL 789) was used to assess physical literacy among Canadian youth in grades 7-9 (aged 12-16 years). Data were collected from schools and recreation facilities in the provinces of Alberta and Ontario (Canada), yielding a sample of 245 participants (129 girls, mean age 13.7 ± 0.9 years). Descriptive statistics were calculated for all CAPL assessments. Age and gender effects were examined to establish the validity of the CAPL 789 within this age group. RESULTS: Physical competence increased significantly with age (p<0.05), the means in grades 7 to 9 being 19 ± 3, 21 ± 4 and 21 ± 3 respectively. Gender did not influence most scores. For example, the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment total score (/36) showed no significant difference (p>0.05) between boys (25 ± 5) and girls (25 ± 4). Girls scored significantly higher (p<0.05) than boys (6.6 ± 1.2 vs. 6.3 ± 1.3) in the knowledge assessment (/10). There was also a significant increase (p<0.05) in knowledge scores among girls as they got older. CONCLUSIONS: This study described the physical literacy of youth in grades 7 to 9 (12-16 years old). Gender did not influence physical competence, a result different from the data for younger children. Knowledge increased with age among girls but not boys. Future research might be necessary to identify if these unexpected results can be explained by different rates of maturation at this age, unique characteristics of this sample or that the CAPL 789 requires additional protocol modifications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".