Evaluation of Physical Literacy in 9- to 11-Year-Old Children: Reliability and Validity of Two Measurement Tools in Three Southeastern European Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The awareness of the importance of physical literacy (PL) is globally increasing; however, knowledge of the applicability of PL measurement tools in southeastern Europe is limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of translated versions of the CAPL-2 and PLAYself questionnaires in 9- to 11-year-old elementary school children from Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro. The participants were 303 children (141 girls; all 9 to 11 years of age) from Croatia (n = 71), Bosnia and Herzegovina (n = 162), and Montenegro (n = 70), enrolled in regular elementary school. The participants were tested throughout a test–retest procedure using two PL evaluation tools, i.e., the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (shorter version, CAPL-2) and the Physical Literacy Assessment of Youth (PLAYself) questionnaires. With an intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.70–0.80 for specific questionnaire subscales and 0.84 for the total score, PLAYself was found to be reliable. With Kappa values of 0.11–0.23 and a percentage of absolute agreement of less than 62%, CAPL-2 appeared to be less reliable. Factors related to sport participation were significantly positively associated with the PLAYself score, indicating its proper validity. In conclusion, we suggest the usage of the PLAYself questionnaire in further studies examining PL in children of a similar age in the region. Future studies in other age groups and languages are also warranted.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".