Determininig the validity and reliability of the physical literacy knowledge and motivation questionnaire for 8 to 10 year old children of isfahan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: It is essential to become physically literate to develop movement skills, as the knowledge and motivation necessary to lead an active lifestyle. The aim of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of Canadian physical literacy knowledge and motivation questionnaires among 8-10-year-old children in Isfahan.Methods: These questionnaires were translated using the translation–back-translation methodology into Persian and adapted to the Iranian context. A Persian version of these questionnaires was evaluated for its psychometric properties by 384 students aged 8 to 10 in Isfahan city (Iran). The construct validity of the questionnaires was determined using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses based on structural equation modeling, and the internal consistency was checked using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The test-retest method determined the temporal reliability of the questionnaires.Results: Face validity was confirmed by five experts in the field of motor behavior. According to the obtained thresholds, the construct validity was acceptable based on the goodness of fit index. A Cronbach's alpha coefficient greater than 0.85 was obtained for the knowledge and motivation questionnaire as its dimensions. The test-retests within two weeks showed that the intragroup correlation coefficients for all five components were acceptable for both boys and girls.Conclusion: Based on the results, the Persian version of Canadian Physical Literacy Knowledge and Motivation Questionnaires for 8-10-year-old children had good validity and reliability. Therefore, it is appropriate to use these tools to measure the children's physical literacy in Isfahan city.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".