Urdu Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy-2 (CAPL-2) Questionnaires: A Reliability Analysis in Pakistani Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Physical literacy is vital for addressing children’s health issues such as childhood obesity, physical inactivity, and sedentary behavior. However, there is a lack of research on PL assessment in Pakistan. This study is aimed at translating and cross-culturally adapting the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy-2 (CAPL-2) tool and establishing its validity and reliability in the Pakistani population. Methods. The CAPL-2 was translated to Urdu employing the translation and back translation method. A cross-sectional study involving 350 school children (8-12 years) from Multan, South Punjab, evaluated the CAPL-2U version’s reliability. Results. Expert consensus and pilot testing successfully achieved translation, cross-cultural adaptation, face and content validity. The CAPL-2U demonstrated excellent reliability and internal consistency across the domains. Specifically, daily behavior domain had an internal consistency of α=0.964 and test-retest reliability of ICC=0.930 . Knowledge and understanding domain showed internal consistency ranging from α=0.906 to 0.986 and test-retest reliability of ICC=0.827 to 0.986. The motivation and confidence domain had an internal consistency of α=0.923 to 0.997 and test-retest reliability of ICC=0.857 to 0.993. The correlation between test-retest results for knowledge and understanding and motivation and confidence domains was r=0.318 to 0.973. However, two items in the motivation and confidence domain showed discrepancies in test-retest outcomes. Conclusion. The study confirms the successful translation and adaptation of the CAPL-2 questionnaire for use in Urdu and Pakistani contexts. The findings endorse the tool’s reliability and suitability for assessing physical literacy in Pakistan’s children aged 8-12.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".