Top

Published in:

Open Access 21-06-2023 | Systematic Review

Validity, Reliability, and Feasibility of Physical Literacy Assessments Designed for School Children: A Systematic Review

Authors: Lisa M. Barnett, Alethea Jerebine, Richard Keegan, Kimberley Watson-Mackie, Lauren Arundell, Nicola D. Ridgers, Jo Salmon, Dean Dudley

Published in: Sports Medicine | Issue 10/2023

Abstract

Background

While the burgeoning researcher and practitioner interest in physical literacy has stimulated new assessment approaches, the optimal tool for assessment among school-aged children remains unclear.

Objective

The purpose of this review was to: (i) identify assessment instruments designed to measure physical literacy in school-aged children; (ii) map instruments to a holistic construct of physical literacy (as specified by the Australian Physical Literacy Framework); (iii) document the validity and reliability for these instruments; and (iv) assess the feasibility of these instruments for use in school environments.

Design

This systematic review (registered with PROSPERO on 21 August, 2022) was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement.

Data Sources

Reviews of physical literacy assessments in the past 5 years (2017 +) were initially used to identify relevant assessments. Following that, a search (20 July, 2022) in six databases (CINAHL, ERIC, GlobalHealth, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus) was conducted for assessments that were missed/or published since publication of the reviews. Each step of screening involved evaluation from two authors, with any issues resolved through discussion with a third author. Nine instruments were identified from eight reviews. The database search identified 375 potential papers of which 67 full text papers were screened, resulting in 39 papers relevant to a physical literacy assessment.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Instruments were classified against the Australian Physical Literacy Framework and needed to have assessed at least three of the Australian Physical Literacy Framework domains (i.e., psychological, social, cognitive, and/or physical).

Analyses

Instruments were assessed for five aspects of validity (test content, response processes, internal structure, relations with other variables, and the consequences of testing). Feasibility in schools was documented according to time, space, equipment, training, and qualifications.

Results

Assessments with more validity/reliability evidence, according to age, were as follows: for children, the Physical Literacy in Children Questionnaire (PL-C Quest) and Passport for Life (PFL). For older children and adolescents, the Canadian Assessment for Physical Literacy (CAPL version 2). For adolescents, the Adolescent Physical Literacy Questionnaire (APLQ) and Portuguese Physical Literacy Assessment Questionnaire (PPLA-Q). Survey-based instruments were appraised to be the most feasible to administer in schools.

Conclusions

This review identified optimal physical literacy assessments for children and adolescents based on current validity and reliability data. Instrument validity for specific populations was a clear gap, particularly for children with disability. While survey-based instruments were deemed the most feasible for use in schools, a comprehensive assessment may arguably require objective measures for elements in the physical domain. If a physical literacy assessment in schools is to be performed by teachers, this may require linking physical literacy to the curriculum and developing teachers’ skills to develop and assess children’s physical literacy.

Available only for authorised users

Cairney J, Dudley D, Kwan M, Bulten R, Kriellaars D. Physical literacy, physical activity and health: toward an evidence-informed conceptual model. Sports Med. 2019;49(3):371–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01063-3.CrossRefPubMed

Edwards LC, Bryant AS, Keegan RJ, Morgan K, Jones AM. Definitions, foundations and associations of physical literacy: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2017;47(1):113–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0560-7.CrossRefPubMed

Jurbala P. What is physical literacy, really? Quest. 2015;67(4):367–83.CrossRef

Shearer C, Goss H, Edwards L, Keegan RJ, Knowles ZR, Boddy LM, et al. How is physical literacy defined? A contemporary update. J Teach Phys Educ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0136.CrossRef

Tremblay MS, Costas-Bradstreet C, Barnes JD, Bartlett B, Dampier D, Lalonde C, et al. Canada’s Physical Literacy Consensus Statement: process and outcome. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(Suppl 2):1034. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5903-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Keegan RJ, Barnett LM, Dudley DA. Physical literacy: informing a definition and standard for Australia. Canberra: Australian Government, Australian Sports Commission; 2017.

Sport Australia. Australian physical literacy framework: Australian Government, 2020. https://www.sportaus.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/710173/35455_Physical-Literacy-Framework_access.pdf. [Accessed 15 Apr 2020].

Edwards LC, Bryant AS, Keegan RJ, Morgan K, Cooper S-M, Jones AM. ‘Measuring’ physical literacy and related constructs: a systematic review of empirical findings. Sports Med. 2018;48(3):659–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9.CrossRefPubMed

Kaioglou V, Venetsanou F. How can we assess physical literacy in gymnastics? A critical review of physical literacy assessment tools. Sci Gymnast J. 2020;12(1):27–47.CrossRef

10.

Shearer C, Goss HR, Boddy LM, Knowles ZR, Durden-Myers EJ, Foweather L. Assessments related to the physical, affective and cognitive domains of physical literacy amongst children aged 7–11.9 years: a systematic review. Sportsmed Open. 2021;7(1):37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-021-00324-8.CrossRef

11.

Jean de Dieu H, Zhou K. Physical literacy assessment tools: a systematic literature review for why, what, who, and how. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(15):7954. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157954.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Barnett LM, Dudley DA, Telford RD, Lubans DR, Bryant AS, Roberts WM, et al. Guidelines for the selection of physical literacy measures in physical education in Australia. J Teach Phys Educ. 2019;38(2):119–25. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0219.CrossRef

13.

Martins J, Onofre M, Mota J, Murphy C, Repond R-M, Vost H, et al. International approaches to the definition, philosophical tenets, and core elements of physical literacy: a scoping review. Prospects. 2021;50(1):13–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09466-1.CrossRef

14.

Essiet IA, Lander NJ, Salmon J, Duncan MJ, Eyre EL, Ma J, et al. A systematic review of tools designed for teacher proxy-report of children’s physical literacy or constituting elements. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18(1):1–48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01162-3.CrossRef

15.

American Educational Research Association APA, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Psychological Testing, National Council on Measurement in Education Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington: American Educational Research Association; 2014.

16.

Longmuir PE, Boyer C, Lloyd M, Yang Y, Boiarskaia E, Zhu W, et al. The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy: methods for children in grades 4 to 6 (8 to 12 years). BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):767. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2106-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Francis CE, Longmuir PE, Boyer C, Andersen LB, Barnes JD, Boiarskaia E, et al. The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy: development of a model of children’s capacity for a healthy, active lifestyle through a Delphi process. J Phys Act Health. 2016;13(2):214–22. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2014-0597.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Longmuir PE, Boyer C, Lloyd M, Borghese MM, Knight E, Saunders TJ, et al. Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA): validity, objectivity, and reliability evidence for children 8–12 years of age. J Sport Health Sci. 2017;6(2):231–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2015.11.004.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Liu Y, Chen S. Physical literacy in children and adolescents: definitions, assessments, and interventions. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2020;27(1):96–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X20925502.CrossRef

20.

Sum RKW, Cheng C-F, Wallhead T, Kuo C-C, Wang F-J, Choi S-M. Perceived physical literacy instrument for adolescents: a further validation of PPLI. J Exerc Sci Fit. 2018;16(1):26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesf.2018.03.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Sum RKW, Ha ASC, Cheng CF, Chung PK, Yiu KTC, Kuo CC, et al. Perceived physical literacy instrument. APA PsycTests. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1037/t63437-000.CrossRef

22.

Tremblay MS, Longmuir PE. Conceptual critique of Canada’s physical literacy assessment instruments also misses the mark. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2017;21(3):174–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2017.1333002.CrossRef

23.

Longmuir PE, Gunnell KE, Barnes JD, Belanger K, Leduc G, Woodruff SJ, et al. Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy Second Edition: a streamlined assessment of the capacity for physical activity among children 8 to 12 years of age. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(2):1047. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5902-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Longmuir PE, Woodruff SJ, Boyer C, Lloyd M, Tremblay MS. Physical Literacy Knowledge Questionnaire: feasibility, validity, and reliability for Canadian children aged 8 to 12 years. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(2):1035. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5890-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Gunnell KE, Longmuir PE, Barnes JD, Belanger K, Tremblay MS. Refining the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy based on theory and factor analyses. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(2):1044. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5899-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Gunnell KE, Longmuir PE, Woodruff SJ, Barnes JD, Belanger K, Tremblay MS. Revising the motivation and confidence domain of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(2):1045. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5900-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Lodewyk KR, Mandigo JL. Early validation evidence of a Canadian practitioner-based assessment of physical literacy in physical education: passport for Life. Phys Educ. 2017;74(3):441. https://doi.org/10.18666/TPE-2019-V76-I3-8850.CrossRef

28.

Caldwell HA, Di Cristofaro NA, Cairney J, Bray SR, Timmons BW. Measurement properties of the Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth (PLAY) tools. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2021;99(999):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2020-0648.CrossRef

29.

Dudley DA. A conceptual model of observed physical literacy. Phys Educ. 2015. https://doi.org/10.18666/TPE-2015-V72-I5-6020.CrossRef

30.

Chen S-T, Tang Y, Chen P-J, Liu Y. The Development of Chinese Assessment and Evaluation of Physical Literacy (CAEPL): a study using Delphi method. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(8):2720. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082720.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Young L, O’Connor J, Alfrey L, Penney D. Assessing physical literacy in health and physical education. Curric Stud Health Phys Educ. 2021;12(2):156–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2020.1810582.CrossRef

32.

Mohammadzadeh M, Sheikh M, Houminiyan Sharif Abadi D, Bagherzadeh F, Kazemnejad A. Design and psychometrics evaluation of Adolescent Physical Literacy Questionnaire (APLQ). Sport Sci Health. 2022;18(2):397–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-021-00818-8.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Barnett LM, Mazzoli E, Bowe SJ, Lander N, Salmon J. Reliability and validity of the PL-C Quest, a scale designed to assess children’s self-reported physical literacy. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102164.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Barnett LM, Mazzoli E, Hawkins M, Lander N, Lubans DR, Caldwell S, et al. Development of a self-report scale to assess children’s perceived physical literacy. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2022;27(1):91–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1849596.CrossRef

35.

YongKang W, QianQian F. The Chinese assessment of physical literacy: based on grounded theory paradigm for children in grades 3–6. PLoS One. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262976.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Mota J, Martins J, Onofre M. Portuguese Physical Literacy Assessment Questionnaire (PPLA-Q) for adolescents (15–18 years) from grades 10–12: validity and reliability evidence of the psychological and social modules using Mokken Scale analysis. 2022. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1458709/v3.

37.

Mota J, Martins J, Onofre M. Portuguese Physical Literacy Assessment Questionnaire (PPLA-Q) for adolescents (15–18 years) from grades 10–12: development, content validation and pilot testing. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12230-5.CrossRef

38.

Dong X. Measuring middle-school students’ physical literacy: instrument development: Barry University; 2021. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Available from: https://www.proquest.com/openview/6a4e01c27efe1b37104e7b3955feae2b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y. [Accessed 9 Jun 2023].

39.

Green NR, Roberts WM, Sheehan D, Keegan RJ. Charting physical literacy journeys within physical education settings. J Teach Phys Educ. 2018;37(3):272–9. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0129.CrossRef

40.

Yılmaz A, Kabak S. Perceived Physical Literacy Scale for Adolescents (PPLSA): validity and reliability study. Int J Literacy Educ. 2021;9(1):159–71. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.CrossRef

41.

Cairney J, Veldhuizen S, Graham JD, Rodriguez C, Bedard C, Bremer E, et al. A construct validation study of PLAYfun. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50(4):855–62. https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0000000000001494.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Stearns JA, Wohlers B, McHugh T-LF, Kuzik N, Spence JC. Reliability and validity of the PLAYfun tool with children and youth in northern Canada. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2019;23(1):47–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2018.1500368.CrossRef

43.

Jefferies P, Bremer E, Kozera T, Cairney J, Kriellaars D. Psychometric properties and construct validity of PLAYself: a self-reported measure of physical literacy for children and youth. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2020-0410.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Gilic B, Malovic P, Sunda M, Maras N, Zenic N. Adolescents with higher cognitive and affective domains of physical literacy possess better physical fitness: the importance of developing the concept of physical literacy in high schools. Children. 2022;9(6):796. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9060796.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Longmuir PE, Prikryl E, Rotz HL, Boyer C, Alpous A. Predilection for physical activity and body mass index z-score can quickly identify children needing support for a physically active lifestyle. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2021;46(10):1265–72. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2020-1103.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Elsborg P, Melby PS, Kurtzhals M, Tremblay MS, Nielsen G, Bentsen P. Translation and validation of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy-2 in a Danish sample. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12301-7.CrossRef

47.

Li MH, Sum RKW, Tremblay M, Sit CHP, Ha ASC, Wong SHS. Cross-validation of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy second edition (CAPL-2): the case of a Chinese population. J Sports Sci. 2020;38(24):2850–2857. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1803016.

48.

Blanchard J, Van Wyk N, Ertel E, Alpous A, Longmuir PE. Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy in grades 7–9 (12–16 years): preliminary validity and descriptive results. J Sports Sci. 2020;38(2):177–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1689076.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Dania A, Kaioglou V, Venetsanou F. Validation of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy for Greek children: understanding assessment in response to culture and pedagogy. Eur Phy Educ Rev. 2020;26(4):903–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X20904079.CrossRef

50.

Kaioglou V, Dania A, Venetsanou F. How physically literate are children today? A baseline assessment of Greek children 8–12 years of age. J Sports Sci. 2020;38(7):741–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1730024.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Mota J, Martins J, Onofre M. Portuguese Physical Literacy Assessment Questionnaire (PPLA-Q) for adolescents (15–18 years) from grades 10–12: item response theory analysis of the content knowledge questionnaire. 2022. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1458688/v2.

52.

Lodewyk KR. Early validation evidence of the Canadian practitioner-based assessment of physical literacy in secondary physical education. J Phys Educ. 2019;76(3):634–60. https://doi.org/10.18666/TPE-2019-V76-I3-8850.CrossRef

53.

Robinson DB, Randall L. Marking physical literacy or missing the mark on physical literacy? A conceptual critique of Canada’s physical literacy assessment instruments. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2017;21(1):40–55.CrossRef

54.

Barnes JD, Guerrero MD. An R package for computing Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL) scores and interpretations from raw data. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(2): e0243841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243841.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Dudley D, Cairney J. How the lack of content validity in the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy is undermining quality physical education. J Teach Phys Educ. 2022;1(aop):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2022-0063.

56.

St John LR. From exercise to physical literacy measurement in individuals with intellectual disabilities. Canada University of Toronto, 2022. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/125684. [Accessed 9 Jun 2023].

57.

Keegan RJ, Barnett LM, Dudley DA, Telford RD, Lubans DR, Bryant AS, et al. Defining physical literacy for application in Australia: a modified Delphi method. J Teach Phys Educ. 2019;38(2):105–18. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0264.CrossRef

58.

Dreiskaemper D, Utesch T, Tietjens M. The perceived motor competence questionnaire in childhood (PMC-C). J Mot Learn Dev. 2018;6(s2):S264–80. https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2016-0080.CrossRef

59.

Sabiston C, Pila E, Vani M, Thogersen-Ntoumani C. Body image, physical activity, and sport: a scoping review. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2019;42:48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.12.010.CrossRef

60.

Barnett LM, Stodden DF, Hulteen RM, Sacko RS. 19: motor competency assessment. In: Brusseau TA, editor. The Routledge handbook of pediatric physical activity. Routledge; 2020. p. 384–408.CrossRef

61.

Hulteen RM, Barnett LM, True L, Lander NJ, del Pozo Cruz B, Lonsdale C. Validity and reliability evidence for motor competence assessments in children and adolescents: a systematic review. J Sports Sci. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1756674.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Scheuer C, Herrmann C, Bund A. Motor tests for primary school aged children: a systematic review. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(10):1097–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1544535.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Essiet IA, Salmon J, Lander NJ, Duncan MJ, Eyre ELJ, Barnett LM. Rationalizing teacher roles in developing and assessing physical literacy in children. Prospects. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09489-8.CrossRef

64.

Harvey S, Pill S. Exploring physical education teachers ‘everyday understandings’ of physical literacy. Sport Educ Soc. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2018.1491002.CrossRef

65.

Essiet I, Lander NJ, Warner E, Eyre ELJ, Duncan MJ, Barnett LM. Primary school teachers’ perceptions of physical literacy assessment: a mixed-methods study. J Teach Phys Educ. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2022.2028760.CrossRef

66.

Dinham J, Williams P. Developing children’s physical literacy: how well prepared are prospective teachers? Aust J Teach Educ. 2019;44(6):53–68. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n6.4.CrossRef

67.

Brown TD, Whittle RJ. Physical literacy: a sixth proposition in the Australian/Victorian curriculum: health and physical education? Curric Stud Health Phys Educ. 2021;12(2):180–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2021.1872036.CrossRef

68.

Macdonald D, Enright E, McCuaig L. Re-visioning the Australian curriculum for health and physical education. Redesigning physical education. London: Hal A. Lawson; 2018. p. 196–209.

69.

Carl J, Barratt J, Arbour-Nicitopoulos KP, Barnett LM, Dudley DA, Holler P, et al. Development, explanation, and presentation of the Physical Literacy Interventions Reporting Template (PLIRT). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2023;20(1):21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Validity, Reliability, and Feasibility of Physical Literacy Assessments Designed for School Children: A Systematic Review
Authors: Lisa M. Barnett
Alethea Jerebine
Richard Keegan
Kimberley Watson-Mackie
Lauren Arundell
Nicola D. Ridgers
Jo Salmon
Dean Dudley
Publication date: 21-06-2023
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Sports Medicine / Issue 10/2023
Print ISSN: 0112-1642
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2035
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01867-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Validity, Reliability, and Feasibility of Physical Literacy Assessments Designed for School Children: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Objective

Design

Data Sources

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Analyses

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objective

Design

Data Sources

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Analyses

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2023

Extraordinary Claims in the Literature on High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT): I. Bonafide Scientific Revolution or a Looming Crisis of Replication and Credibility?

The Prevalence of Menstrual Cycle Disorders and Menstrual Cycle-Related Symptoms in Female Athletes: A Systematic Literature Review

The Women’s Soccer Health Study: From Head to Toe

Early Exercise is Associated with Faster Concussion Recovery Among Collegiate Athletes: Findings from the NCAA-DoD CARE Consortium

Correction to: The Prevalence of Menstrual Cycle Disorders and Menstrual Cycle-Related Symptoms in Female Athletes: A Systematic Literature Review

Correction to: The Women’s Soccer Health Study: From Head to Toe