MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417439921 · doi:10.2196/75632

The Lifetime Dance Exposure Questionnaire for Professional Training: Survey Development and Reliability Study

2025· article· en· W4417439921 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aston K. McCullough, Kai Yi Han

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)DanceProfessional developmentTraining (meteorology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Dance is a complex mode of physical activity (PA) behavior and an art form, and one's participation in dance may occur across discrete contexts throughout the lifespan. To further advance the study of lifetime participation in dance behavior, reliable questionnaires are needed. Objective: This study aimed to develop and test the reliability of a self-report, online questionnaire for surveilling lifetime participation in professionally led dance classes among adults. Methods: Community-dwelling adults (N=373) completed the Lifetime Dance Exposure Questionnaire for Professional Training (LDEQ-T) at baseline (T1), and 150 adults repeated the LDEQ-T after an 8-week delay (T2). Test-retest reliability for self-reported dance training frequency, duration, and PA intensity was analyzed for the LDEQ-T between T1 and T2. Reliability for the LDEQ-T item on total years of professional dance training was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs; 2-way, random effects); linearly weighted kappa (𝜿w) was used for ordinal variables on dance class duration, intensity, and frequency; an unweighted kappa (𝜿) statistic was used to test the reliability of 3 dance training exposure groups (no or low, homogenous, or variable lifetime exposure to professional dance training). The significance level was set a priori with α=.05. Results: Adults reported having no or low (n=92), homogenous (n=196), or variable (n=85) lifetime exposures to professional dance classes at T1. Among adults who self-reported homogenous exposures to dance training throughout the lifespan, years of dance training were found to be reliable across all age periods (ICC range 0.83-0.94); as were weeks/month, months/year, and hours/week of dance training (𝜿w range 0.35-0.61); but not any measure of PA intensity. Among adults who self-reported variable exposures to dance training, years of dance training across all age periods (ICC=0.70-0.96); classes/week, weeks/month, months/year, and hours/week (𝜿w range 0.32-0.56); and some estimates of PA intensity (𝜿w range 0.30-0.41) were found to be sufficiently reliable. Conclusions: The LDEQ-T appears to be a reliable instrument for quantifying lifetime participation in professional dance training among adults with self-reported low, homogenous, or variable exposures to professional dance classes throughout the lifespan. Among adults, researchers may surveil lifetime exposure to dance training in early childhood, childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, and middle or older adulthood using the LDEQ-T.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicDiversity and Impact of DanceFrench-language works237,207