ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Reliability and validity testing of the Canadian agility and movement skill assessment test and establishment of the shanghai norm.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Childhood is crucial for students' FMS development, and the growth of these skills is also highly important for their adulthood development. Offering an effective, dependable assessment tool can not only accurately measure students' FMS development but also offer specific guidance to help them enhance their skills. Methods: CAMSA was conducted with a sample of 1,183 students from five districts in Shanghai, with an average age of 9.98 ± 1.42 years. This study adopted specific methods and procedures for assessing the reliability and validity of measurement tools. Two indicators were selected for reliability: test-retest reliability and rater reliability. For validity, three indicators were chosen: structural validity, content validity, and concurrent validity-in addition to the subsequent construction of age-specific percentile norms for Shanghai children via standardized Z-score transformation. Results: The revised CAMSA demonstrated a reliability coefficient between 0.704 and 0.874, with the time score at 0.777, skill score at 0.814, and total score at 0.850. Rater reliability ranged from 0.678 to 0.922. The difficulty scores ranged from 0.52 to 0.71, with skill score difficulty between 0.64 and 0.77, and time score difficulty from 0.39 to 0.64. The skill and time scores were 0.71 and 0.52, respectively, indicating appropriate difficulty levels. The differentiation values for the total CAMSA score, skill score, and time score were 0.35, 0.34, and 0.52, respectively, suggesting effective differentiation. The scale also demonstrated acceptable structural validity, with fit indices meeting the pre-specified thresholds (χ Conclusion: The CAMSA is a reliable and valid assessment tool for evaluating fundamental movement skills in children aged 8-12 years. The study established norms from grades 1 to 5 and percentile norms that can be used to assess the development of children's fundamental movement skills.
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.