Cognitive and Psychological Constructs of Korean Physical Literacy Scale in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The current study examined the cognitive and psychological factors of Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy-2 (CAPL-2) using a cross-sectional design. Also, this study assessed the measurement and structural invariance of the CAPL-2.METHODS The survey was conducted on 539 elementary school students in Seoul, Korea. Among the collected data, 274 datasets were used for confirmatory factor analysis, and 25 datasets for test-retest reliability analysis and 240 datasets for differences by group. Confirmatory factor analysis, reliability analysis, and criterion-related validity analysis were carried out by using SPSS 23.0 and AMOS 23.0.RESULTS Results indicated that the Korean physical literacy scale consists of four factors (interest, motivation, competence, and understanding with 15 items). In addition, the findings revealed that all factors in physical literacy differed by the stage of physical activity (λ= .723, F=5.59, p<.001).CONCLUSIONS This study was the first to validate the CAPL-2 into the Korean children. The Korean physical literacy scale offers the possibility of assessing physical literacy to researchers and practitioners and Korean children’s physical activity enhancement could be easily tracked in school and community settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".