Assessments Related to the Physical, Affective and Cognitive Domains of Physical Literacy Amongst Children Aged 7–11.9 Years: A Systematic Review

Background Over the past decade, there has been increased interest amongst researchers, practitioners and policymakers in physical literacy for children and young people and the assessment of the concept within physical education (PE). This systematic review aimed to identify tools to assess physica...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Sports Medicine - Open 2021-05, Vol.7 (1), Article 37
Hauptverfasser: Shearer, Cara, Goss, Hannah R., Boddy, Lynne M., Knowles, Zoe R., Durden-Myers, Elizabeth J., Foweather, Lawrence
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page
container_title Sports Medicine - Open
container_volume 7
creator Shearer, Cara
Goss, Hannah R.
Boddy, Lynne M.
Knowles, Zoe R.
Durden-Myers, Elizabeth J.
Foweather, Lawrence
description Background Over the past decade, there has been increased interest amongst researchers, practitioners and policymakers in physical literacy for children and young people and the assessment of the concept within physical education (PE). This systematic review aimed to identify tools to assess physical literacy and its physical, cognitive and affective domains within children aged 7–11.9 years, and to examine the measurement properties, feasibility and elements of physical literacy assessed within each tool. Methods Six databases (EBSCO host platform, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Education Research Complete, SPORTDiscus) were searched up to 10th September 2020. Studies were included if they sampled children aged between 7 and 11.9 years, employed field-based assessments of physical literacy and/or related affective, physical or cognitive domains, reported measurement properties (quantitative) or theoretical development (qualitative), and were published in English in peer-reviewed journals. The methodological quality and measurement properties of studies and assessment tools were appraised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments risk of bias checklist. The feasibility of each assessment was considered using a utility matrix and elements of physical literacy element were recorded using a descriptive checklist. Results The search strategy resulted in a total of 11467 initial results. After full text screening, 11 studies (3 assessments) related to explicit physical literacy assessments. Forty-four studies (32 assessments) were relevant to the affective domain, 31 studies (15 assessments) were relevant to the physical domain and 2 studies (2 assessments) were included within the cognitive domain. Methodological quality and reporting of measurement properties within the included studies were mixed. The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy-2 and the Passport For Life had evidence of acceptable measurement properties from studies of very good methodological quality and assessed a wide range of physical literacy elements. Feasibility results indicated that many tools would be suitable for a primary PE setting, though some require a level of expertise to administer and score that would require training. Conclusions This review has identified a number of existing assessments that could be useful in a physical literacy assessment approach within PE and provides further information to empower researchers and practitioner
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s40798-021-00324-8
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8160065</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A666289999</galeid><sourcerecordid>A666289999</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c539t-ecb41d7c9066ad5c694dc7023f54b4d30cf1c8bd5f777cba18c6ad4ff28e7c3e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UcuOFCEUrRiNMxnnB1yRuLVaKCiocmFS6fGVdKLxsXBFKLhUY6pgBLpN7_yH-UO_RKZ7MsaNsOBy7zknJ_dU1VOCV4R0_EViWPRdjRtSY0wbVncPqvOGlFYvOHl4rPuaEIHPqsuU3IhbzBijmD6uzijDjAtMz6ubISVIaQGfE_oEs8pgUA4obwF93B6S02p-jgZrQWe3B6S8QesweXf8XYVFOZ9QsPdgtHEZotIHNCzBTymj9dbNJoJHw1S0xe9fN4SsevQNVEwv0YA-H1KGRWWni4G9g59PqkdWzQku796L6uub11_W7-rNh7fv18Om1i3tcw16ZMQI3WPOlWk175nRAjfUtmxkhmJtie5G01ohhB4V6XTBMWubDoSmQC-qVyfd6924gNFlB1HN8jq6RcWDDMrJfyfebeUU9rIjHGPeFoFndwIx_NhByvJ72EVfPMumpRS3HLNb1OqEmtQM0nkbipgu18DidPBgXekPnPOm68sphOZE0DGkFMHeWyJY3oYvT-HLEr48hi-7QqInUipgP0H86-U_rD_xzLNs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2533056045</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessments Related to the Physical, Affective and Cognitive Domains of Physical Literacy Amongst Children Aged 7–11.9 Years: A Systematic Review</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Shearer, Cara ; Goss, Hannah R. ; Boddy, Lynne M. ; Knowles, Zoe R. ; Durden-Myers, Elizabeth J. ; Foweather, Lawrence</creator><creatorcontrib>Shearer, Cara ; Goss, Hannah R. ; Boddy, Lynne M. ; Knowles, Zoe R. ; Durden-Myers, Elizabeth J. ; Foweather, Lawrence</creatorcontrib><description>Background Over the past decade, there has been increased interest amongst researchers, practitioners and policymakers in physical literacy for children and young people and the assessment of the concept within physical education (PE). This systematic review aimed to identify tools to assess physical literacy and its physical, cognitive and affective domains within children aged 7–11.9 years, and to examine the measurement properties, feasibility and elements of physical literacy assessed within each tool. Methods Six databases (EBSCO host platform, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Education Research Complete, SPORTDiscus) were searched up to 10th September 2020. Studies were included if they sampled children aged between 7 and 11.9 years, employed field-based assessments of physical literacy and/or related affective, physical or cognitive domains, reported measurement properties (quantitative) or theoretical development (qualitative), and were published in English in peer-reviewed journals. The methodological quality and measurement properties of studies and assessment tools were appraised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments risk of bias checklist. The feasibility of each assessment was considered using a utility matrix and elements of physical literacy element were recorded using a descriptive checklist. Results The search strategy resulted in a total of 11467 initial results. After full text screening, 11 studies (3 assessments) related to explicit physical literacy assessments. Forty-four studies (32 assessments) were relevant to the affective domain, 31 studies (15 assessments) were relevant to the physical domain and 2 studies (2 assessments) were included within the cognitive domain. Methodological quality and reporting of measurement properties within the included studies were mixed. The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy-2 and the Passport For Life had evidence of acceptable measurement properties from studies of very good methodological quality and assessed a wide range of physical literacy elements. Feasibility results indicated that many tools would be suitable for a primary PE setting, though some require a level of expertise to administer and score that would require training. Conclusions This review has identified a number of existing assessments that could be useful in a physical literacy assessment approach within PE and provides further information to empower researchers and practitioners to make informed decisions when selecting the most appropriate assessment for their needs, purpose and context. The review indicates that researchers and tool developers should aim to improve the methodological quality and reporting of measurement properties of assessments to better inform the field. Trial registration PROSPERO: CRD42017062217</description><identifier>ISSN: 2199-1170</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2198-9761</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s40798-021-00324-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34046703</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Affect (Psychology) ; Australia ; Canada ; Educational evaluation ; Literacy ; Measuring instruments ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Physical education ; Real property ; Sports Medicine ; Systematic Review ; United Kingdom ; Valuation</subject><ispartof>Sports Medicine - Open, 2021-05, Vol.7 (1), Article 37</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Springer</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c539t-ecb41d7c9066ad5c694dc7023f54b4d30cf1c8bd5f777cba18c6ad4ff28e7c3e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c539t-ecb41d7c9066ad5c694dc7023f54b4d30cf1c8bd5f777cba18c6ad4ff28e7c3e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9851-5421</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8160065/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8160065/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,27924,27925,41120,41488,42189,42557,51319,51576,53791,53793</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shearer, Cara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goss, Hannah R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boddy, Lynne M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knowles, Zoe R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durden-Myers, Elizabeth J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foweather, Lawrence</creatorcontrib><title>Assessments Related to the Physical, Affective and Cognitive Domains of Physical Literacy Amongst Children Aged 7–11.9 Years: A Systematic Review</title><title>Sports Medicine - Open</title><addtitle>Sports Med - Open</addtitle><description>Background Over the past decade, there has been increased interest amongst researchers, practitioners and policymakers in physical literacy for children and young people and the assessment of the concept within physical education (PE). This systematic review aimed to identify tools to assess physical literacy and its physical, cognitive and affective domains within children aged 7–11.9 years, and to examine the measurement properties, feasibility and elements of physical literacy assessed within each tool. Methods Six databases (EBSCO host platform, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Education Research Complete, SPORTDiscus) were searched up to 10th September 2020. Studies were included if they sampled children aged between 7 and 11.9 years, employed field-based assessments of physical literacy and/or related affective, physical or cognitive domains, reported measurement properties (quantitative) or theoretical development (qualitative), and were published in English in peer-reviewed journals. The methodological quality and measurement properties of studies and assessment tools were appraised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments risk of bias checklist. The feasibility of each assessment was considered using a utility matrix and elements of physical literacy element were recorded using a descriptive checklist. Results The search strategy resulted in a total of 11467 initial results. After full text screening, 11 studies (3 assessments) related to explicit physical literacy assessments. Forty-four studies (32 assessments) were relevant to the affective domain, 31 studies (15 assessments) were relevant to the physical domain and 2 studies (2 assessments) were included within the cognitive domain. Methodological quality and reporting of measurement properties within the included studies were mixed. The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy-2 and the Passport For Life had evidence of acceptable measurement properties from studies of very good methodological quality and assessed a wide range of physical literacy elements. Feasibility results indicated that many tools would be suitable for a primary PE setting, though some require a level of expertise to administer and score that would require training. Conclusions This review has identified a number of existing assessments that could be useful in a physical literacy assessment approach within PE and provides further information to empower researchers and practitioners to make informed decisions when selecting the most appropriate assessment for their needs, purpose and context. The review indicates that researchers and tool developers should aim to improve the methodological quality and reporting of measurement properties of assessments to better inform the field. Trial registration PROSPERO: CRD42017062217</description><subject>Affect (Psychology)</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Educational evaluation</subject><subject>Literacy</subject><subject>Measuring instruments</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Physical education</subject><subject>Real property</subject><subject>Sports Medicine</subject><subject>Systematic Review</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>Valuation</subject><issn>2199-1170</issn><issn>2198-9761</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UcuOFCEUrRiNMxnnB1yRuLVaKCiocmFS6fGVdKLxsXBFKLhUY6pgBLpN7_yH-UO_RKZ7MsaNsOBy7zknJ_dU1VOCV4R0_EViWPRdjRtSY0wbVncPqvOGlFYvOHl4rPuaEIHPqsuU3IhbzBijmD6uzijDjAtMz6ubISVIaQGfE_oEs8pgUA4obwF93B6S02p-jgZrQWe3B6S8QesweXf8XYVFOZ9QsPdgtHEZotIHNCzBTymj9dbNJoJHw1S0xe9fN4SsevQNVEwv0YA-H1KGRWWni4G9g59PqkdWzQku796L6uub11_W7-rNh7fv18Om1i3tcw16ZMQI3WPOlWk175nRAjfUtmxkhmJtie5G01ohhB4V6XTBMWubDoSmQC-qVyfd6924gNFlB1HN8jq6RcWDDMrJfyfebeUU9rIjHGPeFoFndwIx_NhByvJ72EVfPMumpRS3HLNb1OqEmtQM0nkbipgu18DidPBgXekPnPOm68sphOZE0DGkFMHeWyJY3oYvT-HLEr48hi-7QqInUipgP0H86-U_rD_xzLNs</recordid><startdate>20210527</startdate><enddate>20210527</enddate><creator>Shearer, Cara</creator><creator>Goss, Hannah R.</creator><creator>Boddy, Lynne M.</creator><creator>Knowles, Zoe R.</creator><creator>Durden-Myers, Elizabeth J.</creator><creator>Foweather, Lawrence</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IAO</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9851-5421</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210527</creationdate><title>Assessments Related to the Physical, Affective and Cognitive Domains of Physical Literacy Amongst Children Aged 7–11.9 Years: A Systematic Review</title><author>Shearer, Cara ; Goss, Hannah R. ; Boddy, Lynne M. ; Knowles, Zoe R. ; Durden-Myers, Elizabeth J. ; Foweather, Lawrence</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c539t-ecb41d7c9066ad5c694dc7023f54b4d30cf1c8bd5f777cba18c6ad4ff28e7c3e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Affect (Psychology)</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Educational evaluation</topic><topic>Literacy</topic><topic>Measuring instruments</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Physical education</topic><topic>Real property</topic><topic>Sports Medicine</topic><topic>Systematic Review</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>Valuation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shearer, Cara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goss, Hannah R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boddy, Lynne M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Knowles, Zoe R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Durden-Myers, Elizabeth J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foweather, Lawrence</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale Academic OneFile</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Sports Medicine - Open</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shearer, Cara</au><au>Goss, Hannah R.</au><au>Boddy, Lynne M.</au><au>Knowles, Zoe R.</au><au>Durden-Myers, Elizabeth J.</au><au>Foweather, Lawrence</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessments Related to the Physical, Affective and Cognitive Domains of Physical Literacy Amongst Children Aged 7–11.9 Years: A Systematic Review</atitle><jtitle>Sports Medicine - Open</jtitle><stitle>Sports Med - Open</stitle><date>2021-05-27</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>1</issue><artnum>37</artnum><issn>2199-1170</issn><eissn>2198-9761</eissn><abstract>Background Over the past decade, there has been increased interest amongst researchers, practitioners and policymakers in physical literacy for children and young people and the assessment of the concept within physical education (PE). This systematic review aimed to identify tools to assess physical literacy and its physical, cognitive and affective domains within children aged 7–11.9 years, and to examine the measurement properties, feasibility and elements of physical literacy assessed within each tool. Methods Six databases (EBSCO host platform, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Education Research Complete, SPORTDiscus) were searched up to 10th September 2020. Studies were included if they sampled children aged between 7 and 11.9 years, employed field-based assessments of physical literacy and/or related affective, physical or cognitive domains, reported measurement properties (quantitative) or theoretical development (qualitative), and were published in English in peer-reviewed journals. The methodological quality and measurement properties of studies and assessment tools were appraised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments risk of bias checklist. The feasibility of each assessment was considered using a utility matrix and elements of physical literacy element were recorded using a descriptive checklist. Results The search strategy resulted in a total of 11467 initial results. After full text screening, 11 studies (3 assessments) related to explicit physical literacy assessments. Forty-four studies (32 assessments) were relevant to the affective domain, 31 studies (15 assessments) were relevant to the physical domain and 2 studies (2 assessments) were included within the cognitive domain. Methodological quality and reporting of measurement properties within the included studies were mixed. The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy-2 and the Passport For Life had evidence of acceptable measurement properties from studies of very good methodological quality and assessed a wide range of physical literacy elements. Feasibility results indicated that many tools would be suitable for a primary PE setting, though some require a level of expertise to administer and score that would require training. Conclusions This review has identified a number of existing assessments that could be useful in a physical literacy assessment approach within PE and provides further information to empower researchers and practitioners to make informed decisions when selecting the most appropriate assessment for their needs, purpose and context. The review indicates that researchers and tool developers should aim to improve the methodological quality and reporting of measurement properties of assessments to better inform the field. Trial registration PROSPERO: CRD42017062217</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>34046703</pmid><doi>10.1186/s40798-021-00324-8</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9851-5421</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2199-1170
ispartof Sports Medicine - Open, 2021-05, Vol.7 (1), Article 37
issn 2199-1170
2198-9761
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8160065
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; Springer Nature OA Free Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Affect (Psychology)
Australia
Canada
Educational evaluation
Literacy
Measuring instruments
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Physical education
Real property
Sports Medicine
Systematic Review
United Kingdom
Valuation
title Assessments Related to the Physical, Affective and Cognitive Domains of Physical Literacy Amongst Children Aged 7–11.9 Years: A Systematic Review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T18%3A26%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessments%20Related%20to%20the%20Physical,%20Affective%20and%20Cognitive%20Domains%20of%20Physical%20Literacy%20Amongst%20Children%20Aged%207%E2%80%9311.9%20Years:%20A%20Systematic%20Review&rft.jtitle=Sports%20Medicine%20-%20Open&rft.au=Shearer,%20Cara&rft.date=2021-05-27&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=1&rft.artnum=37&rft.issn=2199-1170&rft.eissn=2198-9761&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s40798-021-00324-8&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA666289999%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2533056045&rft_id=info:pmid/34046703&rft_galeid=A666289999&rfr_iscdi=true