MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Teste de Desenvolvimento Motor Grosso: Validade e consistência interna para uma população Gaúcha

2008· article· pt· W3113008974 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Kinanthropometry and Human Performance · 2008
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInternal consistencyConstruct validityPortugueseTest (biology)Brazilian PortugueseDevelopmental psychologyPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2) is an instrument used to evaluate children’s level of motor development. The objective of this study was to translate and verify the clarity and pertinence of the TGMD-2 items by experts and the confirmatory factorial validity and the internal consistence by means of test-retest of the Portuguese TGMD-2. A cross-cultural translation was used to construct the Portuguese version. The participants of this study were 7 professionals and 587 children, from 27 schools (kindergarten and elementary) from 3 to 10 years old (51.1% boys and 48.9% girls). Each child was videotaped performing the test twice. The videotaped tests were then scored. The results indicated that the Portuguese version of the TGMD-2 contains clear and pertinent motor items; demonstrated satisfactory indices of confirmatory factorial validity (÷2/gl = 3.38; Goodness-of-fit Index = 0.95; Adjusted Goodness-of-fit index = 0.92 and Tucker and Lewis’s Index of Fit = 0.83) and test-retest internal consistency (locomotion r = 0.82; control of object: r = 0.88). The Portuguese TGMD-2 demonstrated validity and reliability for the sample investigated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it