Validation of The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy – CAPL-2 Questionnaire for German and Polish School Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Physical literacy (PL) is a lifelong process of developing the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engaging in physical activity throughout life. It is also an important concept for understanding and promoting physical activity in children and adolescents and is becoming a theoretical basis for analysing physical education in schools. One of the best known, well-operationalised assessments of PL is the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy – CAPL-2. The aim of the study was to translate and culturally adapt the CAPL-2 questionnaires in two EU languages, German and Polish. Data from Poland and Germany were combined for this study, with a total sample size of N=802, consisting of 58.6% Polish and 41.4% German students. We used the TRAPD (the Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pre-test and Documentation) approach to translate the CAPL-2 questionnaires. The main results of this study show that the proposed Polish and German versions of the CAPL-2 questionnaires are satisfactory for use in research or for teachers to assess PL in physical education. Our results also indicate better predictive characteristics of the CAPL-2 questionnaires for children who are very close to or who meet the moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) recommendations for health as defined by the WHO. We recommend that adaptations be made that are consistent with the original Canadian version, but which are deeply embedded in the language and culture of the country in question, especially in their wording and terminology.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".