Comparability of the Test of Gross Motor Development–Second Edition and the Test of Gross Motor Development–Third Edition
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a test is revised, it is important that test users are made aware of the comparability of scores of the new and the original test. We examined how scores on the Test of Gross Motor Development–Second Edition (TGMD-2) and Test of Gross Motor Development–Third Edition (TGMD-3) compared among children in middle childhood. Participants were 270 children recruited in grade 3 (54% female; M age = 8 years 6 months) and followed through grade 5. Participants completed the skills of both tests. Subtest scores were converted into percent of maximum possible (POMP) scores to facilitate comparison. Although similar, uniformly the TGMD-3 POMP scores were slightly lower. Repeated measures analyses of variance revealed that locomotor subtest scores derived from both tests improved from grade 3 to grade 5, as did TGMD-3 assessed ball skills. However, there was no difference in TGMD-2 assessed object control skills over time. It appears that under-contribution by the underhand roll suppressed the trajectory of improvement of TGMD-2 assessed object control skills. This finding supports the exclusion of the roll from the TGMD-3. The consistent pattern of sex-based differences in TGMD-2 object control skill and TGMD-3 ball skills reinforces the need for male and female norm-reference data for ball skills.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it