Cross-validation of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy second edition (CAPL-2) for Spanish children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/objective This study aimed to explore physical literacy (PL) using the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy, second edition (CAPL-2), adapt it to the Spanish context and provide evidence of its validity for use in Spanish children aged 8–12. Methods A total of 280 students (150 girls, mean age 10.5±0.9 years) from Extremadura (Spain) completed the CAPL-2. Means and SDs were used to present CAPL-2 scores according to age and sex, as well as frequencies to place participants at different PL levels. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to establish the best model fit for the data. Results The median PL of Spanish children was progressing, and girls had a lower PL than boys for all ages except 12 years. The results supported a four-domain model for the CAPL-2 Spanish version and reported good fit indices after CFA (χ 2 per df ratio=1.118; P (χ 2 )=0.256; root mean square error of approximation=0.021; comparative fit index=0.987; Tuker-Lewis index=0.991; normed fit index=0.895). Conclusion The CAPL-2 model is a valid and reliable instrument for Spanish children aged 8–12. It represents the first tool that assesses PL in Spanish children, covering the domains of motivation and confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding, and daily behaviour. It may be relevant for all professionals related to physical activity, education and the health field.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".