‘Measuring’ physical literacy and related constructs : a systematic review of empirical findings
Deutscher übersetzter Titel: | Messung physischer Kenntnisse und derer verwandter Konstrukte : eine systematische Übersicht über empirische Befunde |
---|---|
Autor: | Edwards, Lowri C.; Bryant, Anna S.; Keegan, Richard J.; Morgan, Kevin; Cooper, Stephen-Mark; Jones, Anwen M. |
Erschienen in: | Sports medicine |
Veröffentlicht: | 48 (2018), 3, S. 659-682, Lit. |
Format: | Literatur (SPOLIT) |
Publikationstyp: | Zeitschriftenartikel |
Medienart: | Elektronische Ressource (online) Gedruckte Ressource |
Sprache: | Englisch |
ISSN: | 0112-1642, 1179-2035 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9 |
Schlagworte: | |
Online Zugang: | |
Erfassungsnummer: | PU201803002241 |
Quelle: | BISp |
Abstract des Autors
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.