Validation on the Scale for the Motivation and Confidence Domain within Physical Literacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The purpose of this study was to verify the validity of the Korean CAPL-2 questionnaire scale, which translates the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy-Second Edition questionnaire for measuring the motivation and confidence domain within Physical Literacy. Methods The subjects consisted of 163 students (male : 91 and female : 72) from the 3rd to 6th grade at a public elementary school located in D city of Korea. The Korean CAPL-2 psychological measurement questionnaire scale was completed through translation, reverse translation, and content review by expert groups, and data were collected using the Korean CAPL-2 questionnaire scale. For data analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and construct validity analysis were performed, using SPSS 26 and AMOS 27 statistical program. Results The results showed that first, the range of the total score of the study participants was 10.6 to 30.0, and the average value was 23.60 points. The skewness (-0.59) and kurtosis (0.03) values showed a normal distribution closed to 0, and the correlation range between the four sub-factors was between .468 and .650. Second, confirmatory factor analysis results for the Korean CAPL-2 questionnaire scale chi-square(χ2)/df 1.543, RMSEA .058, RMR .012, GFI .929, IFI .976, TLI .967, and CFI .976, all of which were found to meet the discrimination criteria. Third, as a result of the construct validity analysis of the Korean CAPL-2 questionnaire scale, it was found that both the criteria for determining concentrated validity and discriminant validity were satisfied. Conclusions Based on the results of this study, the Korean CAPL-2 questionnaire scale is expected to be used as a useful tool for understanding the level of motivation and confidence within physical literacy of elementary school students in Korea.
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 | 0.021 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".