ArticlePloS one2026
Are teachers missing the beat on students' motor competence?
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCompare physical education (PE) teachers' perceptions of their students' motor competence (MC) with students' objectively assessed actual motor competence.
methods20 PE teachers and 340 students participated. Teachers were asked to estimate the student MC. Normative videos of the performance on each test (Standing Long Jump, Shuttle Run, Shifting Platforms, Jumping Sideways, Ball Throwing, and Kicking Velocity) were presented to assess teachers' perceptions of MC. Paired t-tests with Cohen's d quantified differences between children's actual motor competence and teachers' perceptions, alongside error tendency analyses (accurate, over-, or underestimation) using a 5% threshold. Associations and agreement between perceived and actual MC were examined using Pearson correlations and Bland-Altman plots.
findingsTeachers overestimated MC in most tests, particularly stability-related tasks such as the Shifting Platforms test (p < 0.001). However, underestimations were evident in the Standing Long Jump test (p < 0.001), where students performed above national values. Also, there was a tendency to underestimate the lateral jumps, but it was not significant.
conclusionOur findings underscore the need for targeted teacher training programs and curriculum adjustments to improve assessment accuracy, ensuring that PE instruction effectively promotes skill development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.