Cargando…
‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5808047/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29143266 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9 |
_version_ | 1783299388562472960 |
---|---|
author | Edwards, Lowri C. Bryant, Anna S. Keegan, Richard J. Morgan, Kevin Cooper, Stephen-Mark Jones, Anwen M. |
author_facet | Edwards, Lowri C. Bryant, Anna S. Keegan, Richard J. Morgan, Kevin Cooper, Stephen-Mark Jones, Anwen M. |
author_sort | Edwards, Lowri C. |
collection | PubMed |
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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5808047 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58080472018-02-22 ‘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. Sports Med Systematic Review 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2017-11-15 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5808047/ /pubmed/29143266 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review 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 |
title | ‘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_short | ‘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 |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5808047/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29143266 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT edwardslowric measuringphysicalliteracyandrelatedconstructsasystematicreviewofempiricalfindings AT bryantannas measuringphysicalliteracyandrelatedconstructsasystematicreviewofempiricalfindings AT keeganrichardj measuringphysicalliteracyandrelatedconstructsasystematicreviewofempiricalfindings AT morgankevin measuringphysicalliteracyandrelatedconstructsasystematicreviewofempiricalfindings AT cooperstephenmark measuringphysicalliteracyandrelatedconstructsasystematicreviewofempiricalfindings AT jonesanwenm measuringphysicalliteracyandrelatedconstructsasystematicreviewofempiricalfindings |