dc.contributor.author | Edwards, Lowri Cerys | |
dc.contributor.author | Bryant, Anna | |
dc.contributor.author | Keegan, Richard | |
dc.contributor.author | Morgan, Kevin | |
dc.contributor.author | Cooper, Stephen-Mark | |
dc.contributor.author | Jones, Anwen Mair | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-11-27T10:42:01Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-11-27T10:42:01Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2017-11-15 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Edwards, L.C., Bryant, A.S., Keegan, R.J., Morgan, K., Cooper, S.M. and Jones, A.M. (2017) ''Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings', Sports Medicine DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1179-2035 (ESSN) | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10369/9167 | |
dc.description | This article was published in Sports Medicine on 15 November 2017, available open access at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9 | en_US |
dc.description.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: To inform practice in the measure/assessment of physical literacy, a systematic review was46 conducted of research that has assessed physical literacy (up to 14th June 2017). Methods: Five databases were searched using the PRISMA-P 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: (i) interviews; (ii) open-ended questionnaires; (iii) reflective diaries; (iv) focus-groups; (v) participant observations; and (vi) visual methods. Quantitative methods included: (i) monitoring devices (e.g. accelerometers); (ii) observations (e.g. of physical activity or motor proficiency); (iii) psychometrics (e.g. enjoyment, self-perceptions); (iv) performance measures (e.g. exergaming, objective times/distances); (v) anthropometric measurements; and (vi) 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 to 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. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | Springer | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Sports Medicine; | |
dc.subject | systematic review | en_US |
dc.subject | physical literacy | en_US |
dc.subject | physical activity and health outcomes | en_US |
dc.subject | methodologies | en_US |
dc.subject | empirical research | en_US |
dc.title | 'Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9 | |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2017-10-27 | |
rioxxterms.version | VoR | en_US |
rioxxterms.licenseref.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | en_US |