34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      ‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The concept of physical literacy has received increased research and international attention recently. Where intervention programs and empirical research are gaining momentum, their operationalizations differ significantly.

          Objective

          The objective of this study was to inform practice in the measure/assessment of physical literacy via a systematic review of research that has assessed physical literacy (up to 14 June, 2017).

          Methods

          Five databases were searched using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols guidelines, with 32 published articles meeting the inclusion criteria. English-language, peer-reviewed published papers containing empirical studies of physical literacy were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

          Results

          Qualitative methods included: (1) interviews; (2) open-ended questionnaires; (3) reflective diaries; (4) focus groups; (5) participant observations; and (6) visual methods. Quantitative methods included: (1) monitoring devices (e.g., accelerometers); (2) observations (e.g., of physical activity or motor proficiency); (3) psychometrics (e.g., enjoyment, self-perceptions); (4) performance measures (e.g., exergaming, objective times/distances); (5) anthropometric measurements; and (6) one compound measure. Of the measures that made an explicit distinction: 22 (61%) examined the physical domain, eight (22%) the affective domain; five (14%) the cognitive domain; and one (3%) combined three domains (physical, affective, and cognitive) of physical literacy. Researchers tended to declare their philosophical standpoint significantly more in qualitative research compared with quantitative research.

          Conclusions

          Current research adopts diverse often incompatible methodologies in measuring/assessing physical literacy. Our analysis revealed that by adopting simplistic and linear methods, physical literacy cannot be measured/assessed in a traditional/conventional sense. Therefore, we recommend that researchers are more creative in developing integrated philosophically aligned approaches to measuring/assessing physical literacy. Future research should consider the most recent developments in the field of physical literacy for policy formation.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references98

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Definitions, Foundations and Associations of Physical Literacy: A Systematic Review

            Background The concept of physical literacy has stimulated increased research attention in recent years—being deployed in physical education, sport participation, and the promotion of physical activity. Independent research groups currently operationalize the construct differently. Objective The purpose of this systematic review was to conduct a systematic review of the physical literacy construct, as reflected in contemporary research literature. Methods Five databases were searched using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. Inclusion criteria were English language, peer reviewed, published by March 2016, and seeking to conceptualize physical literacy. Articles that met these criteria were analyzed in relation to three core areas: properties/attributes, philosophical foundations and theoretical associations with other constructs. A total of 50 published articles met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed qualitatively using inductive thematic analysis. Results The thematic analysis addressed the three core areas. Under definitions, core attributes that define physical literacy were identified, as well as areas of conflict between different approaches currently being adopted. One relatively clear philosophical approach was prominent in approximately half of the papers, based on a monist/holistic ontology and phenomenological epistemology. Finally, the analysis identified a number of theoretical associations, including health, physical activity and academic performance. Conclusions Current literature contains different representations of the physical literacy construct. The costs and benefits of adopting an exclusive approach versus pluralism are considered. Recommendations for both researchers and practitioners focus on identifying and clearly articulating the definitions, philosophical assumptions and expected outcomes prior to evaluating the effectiveness of this emerging concept. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0560-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A checklist designed to aid consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments: development and pilot validation

              Background The grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach is widely implemented in health technology assessment and guideline development organisations throughout the world. GRADE provides a transparent approach to reaching judgements about the quality of evidence on the effects of a health care intervention, but is complex and therefore challenging to apply in a consistent manner. Methods We developed a checklist to guide the researcher to extract the data required to make a GRADE assessment. We applied the checklist to 29 meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of health care interventions. Two reviewers used the checklist for each paper and used these data to rate the quality of evidence for a particular outcome. Results For most (70%) checklist items, there was good agreement between reviewers. The main problems were for items relating to indirectness where considerable judgement is required. Conclusions There was consistent agreement between reviewers on most items in the checklist. The use of this checklist may be an aid to improving the consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments, particularly for inexperienced users or in rapid reviews without the resources to conduct assessments by two researchers independently.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                anbryant@cardiffmet.ac.uk
                Journal
                Sports Med
                Sports Med
                Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.z.)
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                0112-1642
                1179-2035
                15 November 2017
                15 November 2017
                2018
                : 48
                : 3
                : 659-682
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.47170.35, Cardiff School of Sport and Health Sciences, , Cardiff Metropolitan University, ; Cyncoed Road, Cardiff, CF23 6XD, UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0385 7472, GRID grid.1039.b, Faculty of Health, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, , University of Canberra, ; Canberra, ACT Australia
                Article
                817
                10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9
                5808047
                29143266
                91b6067e-dc82-4336-8247-3ccab5d517ca
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

                Comments

                Comment on this article