Performances of the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA), and validity of timing components in comparison with three commonly used agility tests in Chinese boys: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The practical application of the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA) has been reported in some Western countries. However, a few studies reported the application of the CAMSA in Chinese children. In addition, given that the CAMSA was designing to incorporate both movement skills and agility assessment, the value and validity of the timing component of the CAMSA are worth discussing. Methods By choosing the Illinois Agility Test, Repeated Side Step-1 m distance, and the newly designed Repeated Side Step-half of height as the benchmark, we evaluate the performance of the CAMSA, further establish the concurrent validity of the CAMSA timing components (completion time and time score). In total, 149 male children (mean age 9.0 ± 0.8 years) from public schools in Shanghai, China, participated in the study. Results The mean CAMSA completion time was 19.3 ± 5.3 (s), and mean time score was 8.7 ± 3.9 (range of 1–14) for all participants ( n = 149). After adjusted the sprint speed, older age was positively associated with the performance of the CAMSA. Being overweight was not associated with the performance of the CAMSA comparing with healthy body mass children, however, being obese was negatively associated with the CAMSA timing components and total score. Children having extracurricular sports activities (e.g., athletic experiences), mostly soccer, were more likely to demonstrated better performances of the CAMSA completion time, time score and total score. However, overweight and obese, also athletic experiences were not significantly contributed to the CAMSA skill score, although the association was slight (Adj R 2 = 0.13). Besides, the CAMSA completion time has a strong correlation with the IAT, r = 0.77; RSS-1MD, r = − 0.76; and RSS-HHD, r = − 0.77, p < 0.01. The same pattern of correlation was also found between the CAMSA time score and three agility tests: IAT, r = − 0.79; RSS-1MD, r = 0.76; RSS-HHD, r = 0.78, p < 0.01. Discussion Overall, a few participants in the study were able to reach the recommended level of the total CAMSA score referring to the Canadian criterion. The strong concurrent validity was found between the CAMSA timing components and three selected agility tests, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".