Perceptions Matter! Active Physical Recreation Participation of Children with High and Low Actual and Perceived Physical Competence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging evidence suggests that the accuracy of a child’s perceived physical competence (PPC) impacts participation in physical activity. We examined differences in active physical recreation (APR) participation based on clusters of high and low motor competence and perceptions from grades 3–5. Participants were a longitudinal sample (n = 155; 85 girls) of grade three, four, and five children. Fundamental motor skills (FMSs) were assessed using the TGMD-2, perceptions were assessed using the Self-Perception Profile for Children, and APR was measured using the Children’s Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment. K-means cluster analysis was used to create four clusters per grade based on participants’ FMSs and PPC z-scores. Differences in FMSs, PPC, and APR with cluster group as a factor were examined using a series of factorial ANOVAs. In each grade, participants in the high–high cluster participated in significantly more APR than those in the low–low cluster (p = 0.002 in grades three and four; p < 0.001 in grade five). Among the less accurate clusters (e.g., low FMSs with high PPC) was a trend toward positive FMSs growth among the children with higher perceptions. Results show that combinations of FMSs and PPC influence patterns of engagement or disengagement in active physical recreation persistently across middle childhood.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".