Testing the psychometric properties of the perceived physical literacy instrument among Nigerian older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Promoting physical literacy offers a promising approach to enhancing physical activity among older adults. However, methods to measure physical literacy have primarily been limited to developed regions globally. This study evaluated the reliability (internal consistency), validity (content, construct, and convergence validity), and floor and ceiling effects of the Perceived Physical Literacy Instrument (PPLI) among Nigerian older adults. This cross-sectional study included 409 Nigerian older adults [mean age (SD) = 67.9 (6.7) years]. Data were analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis for construct and convergent validity, and item-level (I-CVI), scale-level (S-CVI) content validity index, along with kappa statistics, for content validity. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.736, indicating adequate internal consistency. The analysis revealed two factors: functional competency (α = 0.80) and psychosocial empowerment (α = 0.73), with an average variance extracted of 0.62, suggesting the items captured a sufficient proportion of construct-relevant variance. The I-CVI ranged from 0.22 to 0.67, and the S-CVI was 0.49; the kappa coefficients ranged from 0.22 to 0.67. Floor and ceiling effects were both minimal at 0.24%. While the PPLI demonstrates acceptable internal consistency and preliminary evidence of construct validity, it requires further face and content validity to ensure its language and items are fully appropriate for Nigerian older adults with a lower level of education.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".