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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Sports Medicine - Open 2021-05, Vol.7 (1), Article 37 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |