Physical Literacy in Children Questionnaire: Adaptation, Validity, and Reliability Evidence for 4–12-Year-Old Greek Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study adapted the Physical literacy in children questionnaire (PL-C Quest) for Greek children (4–12 years; N = 552, Mage = 9.2 ± 2.2 years) and conducted comprehensive psychometric analyses: (1) Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested a four-domain model (physical, psychological, social, cognitive) with higher-order factor (physical literacy); (2) Multi-group CFA examined measurement invariance across sexes; (3) convergent validity was assessed through Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability, with additional Pearson’s correlations against the Canadian Assessment of Physical literacy-2 scores (n = 90); (4) discriminant validity was evaluated via AVE comparisons; (5) Cronbach’s α was used to evaluate internal consistency; and (6) test–retest reliability was determined through Interclass Correlation Coefficient in a subsample (n = 120). Results supported the model’s adequate fit, measurement invariance, and moderate convergent validity. While discriminant validity was limited, reliability metrics were strong. The PL-C Quest (Greek) demonstrates adequate psychometric properties for assessing perceived physical literacy, facilitating monitoring and program evaluation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".