Trust the “Process”? When Fundamental Motor Skill Scores are Reliably Unreliable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The typical process for assessing inter-rater reliability is facilitated by training raters within a research team. Lacking is an understanding if inter-rater reliability scores between research teams demonstrate adequate reliability. This study examined inter-rater reliability between 16 researchers who assessed fundamental motor skills using the Test of Gross Motor Development-3rd edition. Total score agreement (ICC = 0.363) and locomotor subscale agreement (ICC = 0.383) were “very poor,” while ball skills subscale agreement (ICC = 0.478) was “poor.” Consistencies of total (ICC = 0.757), locomotor (ICC = 0.730), and ball skills (ICC = 0.746) scores were “fair.” Component percentage agreement ranged from 40.5% to 96.2%. These data suggest that there are significant differences in how different research groups evaluate fundamental motor skills based on the subjective nature of scoring. Consistency and agreement among users need to be addressed in motor development research to allow for direct comparisons across studies that use process-oriented measures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.224 | 0.618 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".