No Cover Image

Journal article 1049 views 269 downloads

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

Lowri Edwards Orcid Logo, Anna S. Bryant, Richard J. Keegan, Kevin Morgan, Stephen-Mark Cooper, Anwen M. Jones

Sports Medicine

Swansea University Author: Lowri Edwards Orcid Logo

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9

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 th...

Full description

Published in: Sports Medicine
ISSN: 0112-1642 1179-2035
Published: 2017
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa37584
first_indexed 2017-12-13T20:28:19Z
last_indexed 2020-06-19T12:52:32Z
id cronfa37584
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2020-06-19T11:32:08.7709719</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>37584</id><entry>2017-12-13</entry><title>&#x2018;Measuring&#x2019; Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>401e03771f62aba1b30234c1a0f175db</sid><ORCID>0000-0003-2175-1973</ORCID><firstname>Lowri</firstname><surname>Edwards</surname><name>Lowri Edwards</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2017-12-13</date><deptcode>EAAS</deptcode><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.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Sports Medicine</journal><publisher/><issnPrint>0112-1642</issnPrint><issnElectronic>1179-2035</issnElectronic><keywords>physical literacy, measurement, assessment, fundamental movement skills</keywords><publishedDay>31</publishedDay><publishedMonth>12</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2017</publishedYear><publishedDate>2017-12-31</publishedDate><doi>10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Engineering and Applied Sciences School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>EAAS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><lastEdited>2020-06-19T11:32:08.7709719</lastEdited><Created>2017-12-13T16:56:21.5032275</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Science and Engineering</level><level id="2">School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Lowri</firstname><surname>Edwards</surname><orcid>0000-0003-2175-1973</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Anna S.</firstname><surname>Bryant</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Richard J.</firstname><surname>Keegan</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Kevin</firstname><surname>Morgan</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Stephen-Mark</firstname><surname>Cooper</surname><order>5</order></author><author><firstname>Anwen M.</firstname><surname>Jones</surname><order>6</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>0037584-13122017165807.pdf</filename><originalFilename>Edwardsetal.Measuringphysicalliteracyandrelatedconstructs,asystematicreviewofempiricalfindings.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2017-12-13T16:58:07.8830000</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>841127</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Corrected Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><embargoDate>2017-12-13T00:00:00.0000000</embargoDate><copyrightCorrect>false</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2020-06-19T11:32:08.7709719 v2 37584 2017-12-13 ‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings 401e03771f62aba1b30234c1a0f175db 0000-0003-2175-1973 Lowri Edwards Lowri Edwards true false 2017-12-13 EAAS 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. Journal Article Sports Medicine 0112-1642 1179-2035 physical literacy, measurement, assessment, fundamental movement skills 31 12 2017 2017-12-31 10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9 COLLEGE NANME Engineering and Applied Sciences School COLLEGE CODE EAAS Swansea University 2020-06-19T11:32:08.7709719 2017-12-13T16:56:21.5032275 Faculty of Science and Engineering School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences Lowri Edwards 0000-0003-2175-1973 1 Anna S. Bryant 2 Richard J. Keegan 3 Kevin Morgan 4 Stephen-Mark Cooper 5 Anwen M. Jones 6 0037584-13122017165807.pdf Edwardsetal.Measuringphysicalliteracyandrelatedconstructs,asystematicreviewofempiricalfindings.pdf 2017-12-13T16:58:07.8830000 Output 841127 application/pdf Corrected Version of Record true 2017-12-13T00:00:00.0000000 false eng
title ‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings
spellingShingle ‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings
Lowri Edwards
title_short ‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings
title_full ‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings
title_fullStr ‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings
title_full_unstemmed ‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings
title_sort ‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings
author_id_str_mv 401e03771f62aba1b30234c1a0f175db
author_id_fullname_str_mv 401e03771f62aba1b30234c1a0f175db_***_Lowri Edwards
author Lowri Edwards
author2 Lowri Edwards
Anna S. Bryant
Richard J. Keegan
Kevin Morgan
Stephen-Mark Cooper
Anwen M. Jones
format Journal article
container_title Sports Medicine
publishDate 2017
institution Swansea University
issn 0112-1642
1179-2035
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9
college_str Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
department_str School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Science and Engineering{{{_:::_}}}School of Aerospace, Civil, Electrical, General and Mechanical Engineering - Sport and Exercise Sciences
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description 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.
published_date 2017-12-31T13:21:59Z
_version_ 1821321272442748928
score 11.047935

Similar Items