4.6 Article

An R Package for Computing Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL) scores and interpretations from raw data

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243841

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL) is the first comprehensive protocol designed to assess a child's level of physical literacy. The capl R package provides users with a fast, efficient, and reliable approach to analyzing CAPL-2 raw data, suppressing noisy error messages through validation, and simplifying the process of computing and visualizing results.
The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL) is the first comprehensive protocol designed to assess a child's level of physical literacy. Current approaches to analyzing CAPL-2 raw data are tedious, inefficient, and/or can lead to computation errors. In this paper we introduce the capl R package (open source), designed to compute and visualize CAPL-2 scores and interpretations from raw data. The capl package takes advantage of the R environment to provide users with a fast, efficient, and reliable approach to analyzing their CAPL-2 raw data and a quiet user experience, whereby noisy error messages are suppressed via validation. We begin by discussing several preparatory steps that are required prior to using the capl package. These steps include preparing, formatting, and importing CAPL-2 raw data. We then use demo data to show that computing the CAPL-2 scores and interpretations is as simple as executing one line of code. This one line of code uses the main function in the capl package (get_capl()) to compute 40 variables within a matter of seconds. Next, we showcase the helper functions that are called within the main function to compute individual variables and scores for each test element within the four domains as well as an overall physical literacy score. Finally, we show how to visualize CAPL-2 results using the ggplot2 R package.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据