A Cross-Sectional Study on the Assessment of Physical Literacy among Medical Students of Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupathi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Physical literacy (PL) is the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge & understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life. Physical literacy can be identified as a basis for the characteristics, attributes, behaviours, awareness, knowledge & understanding, towards a healthy lifestyle, as well as a foundation to an elite sport. Research shows that without the development of physical literacy, many children and youth withdraw from physical activity and sport and turn to more inactive &/or unhealthy choices during their leisure time. The objective of this study is to determine the physical literacy and the factors influencing it among medical students. METHODS This was a cross sectional study. Selection of participants was based on simple random sampling method by computer generated random numbers and then questionnaires were administered to all the participants. The questionnaire consisted of questions pertaining to sociodemographic and cultural factors, anthropometric measurements, and PLAY (physical literacy assessment for youth) self-tool. PLAY self-tool has the following sub-sections - environment, physical literacy self-description, relative ranking of literacies and fitness. RESULTS The mean physical literacy total score in our study was 59.5 ± 11.3. About 19 % of the subjects scored PLAY self-total score grade of less than or equal to 50.0. Nearly 30 % scored physical literacy self-efficacy score of less than 600. Our results demonstrate significant associations between PLAY self-total score grade and gender, waist hip ratio, leisure time activity, Asian BMI, physical literacy selfefficacy score, fitness, and the most common mode of transport between college and home/hostel (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Future research should explore and standardize the tools to assess physical literacy objectively in the young adults (18 - 25 years). We recommend increasing the physical activity hours in the medical curriculum and encourage active modes of transport (bicycles/walk etc) within the campus. KEYWORDS Physical Literacy, Physical Activity, Medical Students, Dr. Kriellaars’s PLAY SelfTool, Canadian Sport for life CS4L), Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth PLAY)
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".