Validity and reliability evidence for motor competence assessments in children and adolescents: A systematic review
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
Valid and reliable tests of motor competence are necessary to allow researchers and practitioners to quantify levels of motor competence, identify skill deficiencies, and determine the effectiveness of motor skill interventions. The primary study aim was to systematically review the validity and reliability of scores derived from gross motor competence tests for typically developing child and adolescent populations. The secondary aim of this review was to identify the most prevalent motor skills assessed across all instruments. A search of seven electronic databases identified 57 different skill assessment tools from 107 studies. Construct validity was the most common measurement property examined (60 studies; 56%). Content validity (21 studies; 20%) was the least commonly explored measurement property. Scores derived from the Test of Gross Motor Development - second and third edition had the most support for validity and reliability. The most common skills included in these skill batteries were the overhand throw (n = 33), catch (n = 32), jump (n = 31) and hop (n = 26). Research efforts should focus on: (1) further investigation of measurement properties of existing tools rather than developing new assessments and (2) further investigation of existing tools and their measurement properties in adolescent populations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it