The concurrent and predictive validity of a tool to measure strength engagement during inclusive equestrian vaulting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participation in muscle strengthening activities is a less examined component of public health physical activity guidelines for children and youth compared to participation in physical activity. In part, the lack of focus on strength is associated with the difficultly of measuring strength activities during participation. The aim of this pilot study was to develop and provide evidence of the concurrent and predictive validity of the Strength Observation during Vaulting (SOV) tool. Six female youth (4 with a disability and 2 without a disability) ranging in age from 11 – 22 years (Mage = 14.2 y, SD = 4.0) participating in a 5-day inclusive equestrian vaulting camp were recruited. Participants completed three measures of strength, and video of vaulters engaging in camp activities was coded using the System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time (SOFIT) and SOV tools. From a linear regression model (significant p = .020), the three measures of strength accounted for 98.7% of the shared variance with time spent in SOV levels 4 and 5. Bivariate correlation coefficients comparing SOV levels 4 and 5 and moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) from SOFIT were r = .73 for all contexts, r = .89 for floor-work, r = .64 for barrel vaulting, r = .76 for horse vaulting, and r = .81 for stable chores. The predictive and concurrent validity of the SOV tool was more than adequate. Based on these results, the systematic observation is a feasible approach to assess engagement in strength activities during vaulting.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".