‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs

A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)659-682
Number of pages23
JournalSports Medicine
Volume48
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

Research
Research Personnel
Physical Phenomena
Literacy
Empirical Research
Qualitative Research
Focus Groups
Psychometrics
Self Concept
Meta-Analysis
Language
Databases
Guidelines
Interviews
Equipment and Supplies
Surveys and Questionnaires

Cite this

Edwards, Lowri C. ; Bryant, Anna S. ; Keegan, Richard J. ; Morgan, Kevin ; Cooper, Stephen Mark ; Jones, Anwen M. / ‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs : A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings. In: Sports Medicine. 2018 ; Vol. 48, No. 3. pp. 659-682.
@article{87f8de51d56748fb87e67e947397b202,
title = "‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings",
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.",
author = "Edwards, {Lowri C.} and Bryant, {Anna S.} and Keegan, {Richard J.} and Kevin Morgan and Cooper, {Stephen Mark} and Jones, {Anwen M.}",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "659--682",
journal = "Sports Medicine",
issn = "0112-1642",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "3",

}

‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs : A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings. / Edwards, Lowri C.; Bryant, Anna S.; Keegan, Richard J.; Morgan, Kevin; Cooper, Stephen Mark; Jones, Anwen M.

In: Sports Medicine, Vol. 48, No. 3, 2018, p. 659-682.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - ‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs

T2 - A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings

AU - Edwards, Lowri C.

AU - Bryant, Anna S.

AU - Keegan, Richard J.

AU - Morgan, Kevin

AU - Cooper, Stephen Mark

AU - Jones, Anwen M.

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034030622&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9

DO - 10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9

M3 - Article

VL - 48

SP - 659

EP - 682

JO - Sports Medicine

JF - Sports Medicine

SN - 0112-1642

IS - 3

ER -