MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415981358 · doi:10.1080/03601277.2025.2582561

Testing the psychometric properties of the perceived physical literacy instrument among Nigerian older adults

2025· article· en· W4415981358 on OpenAlexaff
David Ohuoba Nosamudiana, Israel I. Adandom, Henrietta O. Fawole, Daniel Rayner, Bunmi Ehigie, Stephanie Ohuoba, Susan I. Okoro, Michael Kalu

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Gerontology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyPsychometricsTest (biology)Quality of life (healthcare)Reliability (semiconductor)Physical activityHealth literacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational GerontologySame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207