Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEdwards, Lowri Cerys
dc.contributor.authorBryant, Anna
dc.contributor.authorKeegan, Richard
dc.contributor.authorMorgan, Kevin
dc.contributor.authorCooper, Stephen-Mark
dc.contributor.authorJones, Anwen Mair
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-27T10:42:01Z
dc.date.available2017-11-27T10:42:01Z
dc.date.issued2017-11-15
dc.identifier.citationEdwards, 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/s40279-017-0817-9en_US
dc.identifier.issn1179-2035 (ESSN)
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10369/9167
dc.descriptionThis article was published in Sports Medicine on 15 November 2017, available open access at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSports Medicine;
dc.subjectsystematic reviewen_US
dc.subjectphysical literacyen_US
dc.subjectphysical activity and health outcomesen_US
dc.subjectmethodologiesen_US
dc.subjectempirical researchen_US
dc.title'Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findingsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9
dcterms.dateAccepted2017-10-27
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record