Associations of process-and hybrid-oriented motor competence assessment in spanish adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:despite the discrepancies between process and product-oriented motor assessments, some hybrid tests exist in the literature thatprovide a more comprehensive approach.Objective: thestudy explored the associations between process and hybrid-orientedmotorassessments in Spanish adolescents to test possible overlapping motor competence (MC) constructs.Methodology: asample of 82 Spanish public high school studentsunderwent assessments using the Test of Gross Motor Development –3rd edition (TGMD-3) and the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA) on separate days within the same week.Results: in boys, all variables showed significant associations, with a moderate correlation observed between TGMD-3 manipulative skills score (TGMD-3-MS) and CAMSA skill score (CAMSA-SS) (r = 0.30-0.49). For other variables, correlations were classified as high (r ≥ 0.50). Among girls, significant associations were found between TGMD-3-MS and CAMSA-SS, TGMD-3-MS and CAMSA total score (CAMSA-T), TGMD-3 loco-motor skills score (TGMD-3-LS) and CAMSA-T, TGMD-3 total score(TGMD-3-T)and CAMSA-SS, and TGMD-3-T and CAMSA-T. All associations for girls were moderate (r = 0.30-0.49). Boys exhibited statistically significant higher means in height (effect size [ES] = 0.65), TGMD-3-MS (ES = 1.74), TGMD-3-T (ES = 1.07), CAMSAtime score(ES = 1.09), and CAMSA-T (ES = 0.97).Discussion: the significant associations found betweentestsalign with the established patterns observed in other hybrid and process-oriented tests in the literature.Conclusions: theseresultssuggest that both tests may measure similar MC constructs. However, caution should be exercised in Spanish adolescent girls, where fewer correlations were observed between tests and the associations were weaker.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".