Reliability of field‐ and laboratory‐based assessments of health‐related fitness in preschool‐aged children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Reliable measurements of health-related fitness-cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular endurance, muscular strength, body composition, and flexibility-are imperative for understanding and tracking health-related fitness from the preschool age. This study aimed to examine the test-retest reliability of field-based (i.e., sit and reach [standard and back-saver], standing long jump, grip strength); and laboratory-based (i.e., Bruce Protocol Treadmill Test, Wingate Anaerobic Test) assessments of health-related fitness in preschool aged children (4-5 years). METHODS: Forty-two typically developing children participated in both assessment time points separated by 2-3 weeks. All fitness assessments were administered individually and repeated in the same order by the same assessor. Heteroscedasticity was examined for each parameter. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to assess test-retest reliability. RESULTS: All parameters were homoscedastic. Test-retest reliability for the field-based tests and Bruce Protocol Treadmill Test parameters were moderate to good. Test-retest reliability for the Wingate Test parameters were good to excellent for maximum pedal rate, peak power, and peak power/kg; mean power and fatigue measured at 10 and 30 s demonstrated moderate to excellent test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION: The standard sit and reach, grip strength, and short-term muscle power from the Wingate test are reliable assessments of health-related fitness in preschool-aged children.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".