A systematic review of tools designed for teacher proxy-report of children's physical literacy or constituting elements

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews

PURPOSE

Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.

METHODS

One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings.

RESULTS

A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.

CONCLUSION

Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.

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

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.

Physical literacy assessment in adults: A systematic review

Physical literacy is a multidimensional construct that has been defined and interpreted in various ways, one of the most common being "the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to maintain physical activity throughout the life course". Although its improvement can positively affect many behavioral, psychological, social, and physical variables, debate remains over an appropriate method of collecting empirical physical literacy data. This systematic review sought to identify and critically evaluate all primary studies (published and unpublished, regardless of design or language) that assessed physical literacy in adults or have proposed measurement criteria. Relevant studies were identified by searching four databases (Pubmed, SportDiscus, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science), scanning reference lists of included articles, and manual cross-referencing of bibliographies cited in prior reviews. The final search was concluded on July 15, 2022. Thirty-one studies, published from 2016 to 2022, were analyzed. We found seven instruments measuring physical literacy in adults, of which six were questionnaires. The Perceived Physical Literacy Instrument was the first developed for adults and the most adopted. The included studies approached physical literacy definition in two ways: by pre-defining domains and assessing them discretely (through pre-validated or self-constructed instruments) and by defining domains as sub-scales after factorial analyses. We found a fair use of objective and subjective measures to assess different domains. The wide use of instruments developed for other purposes in combined assessments suggests the need for further instrument development and the potential oversimplification of the holistic concept, which may not result in a better understanding of physical literacy. Quality and usability characteristics of measurements were generally insufficiently reported. This lack of data makes it impossible to compare and make robust conclusions. We could not identify if any of the existing physical literacy assessments for adults is appropriate for large-scale/epidemiological studies.

Synthesising physical literacy research for 'blank spots': A Systematic review of reviews

The holistic concept of physical literacy (PL) has gained considerable attention worldwide and integrates different determinants (e.g., physical, affective, and cognitive) of physical activity. The purpose of this systematic review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022312764) was to broadly synthesise PL research and determine "blank spots". We performed standardized searches for PL reviews in 23 databases. Inclusion criteria were English language, any review with a systematized search, publication by June 2023 and PL relevance in an article's main body. The content and insights of the identified reviews were assigned to six literature-driven "problem fields": (i) theory/concept, (ii) measurement/levels/trends, (iii) determinants, (iv) outcomes, (v) interventions, and (vi) policy. We employed nine items for assessing the methodological quality of the reviews (including six items from AMSTAR-2). The screening resulted in an inclusion of 41 PL reviews of different methodology. Existing reviews most frequently analysed aspects of measurement (n = 20) as well as theory/definition (n = 19), followed by interventions (n = 17). In contrast, determinants (n = 6), outcomes (n = 5) and policy aspects (n = 4) were discussed less often. Accordingly, the major "blank spots" are: empirical studies on determinants and outcomes; PL levels and trends; pivotal moderators of interventions; and policy aspects. We recommend the scientific community to address these to move the field forward.

Development and evaluation of a school-based physical literacy intervention for children in Germany: protocol of the PLACE study

Introduction

Fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, the physical activity behavior of children has reached a concerning level nowadays. By empowering individuals to be physically active throughout the life course, the concept of physical literacy has recently gained increasing attention and adopts a holistic-integrative perspective on PA promotion. Although the field has successively attempted to translate the conceptual ideas of physical literacy into interventions, the theoretical base is heterogeneous and is often lacking within interventions. Furthermore, several countries, including Germany, have not equally adopted the concept yet. Therefore, the goal of the present study protocol is to describe the development and evaluation approach of a PL intervention ("PLACE") for children in grades three and four within the German all-day schooling system.

Methods

The physical literacy intervention cultivates explicit theory-content links and comprises 12 heterogeneous sessions (each 60-90 min in length). The study contains three different phases with two initial pilot studies and a subsequent main study. The two pilot studies take a mixed-methods character by drawing on quantitative pre-post-designs as well as interviews with children (in groups). In the main study, we will longitudinally compare the course of PL values (five outcome domains: physical, affective, cognitive, social, behavioral) between two study arms: school classes of children are either assigned to an intervention condition (regular physical education and health care plus PL intervention) or to a control condition (regular physical education and health care only).

Discussion

The findings of this study will provide evidence on how to structure a multicomponent intervention in Germany based on the PL concept. In summary, the results will report on the effectiveness of the intervention and, therefore, decide whether to scale-up the intervention.

Development, explanation, and presentation of the Physical Literacy Interventions Reporting Template (PLIRT)

BACKGROUND

The physical literacy (PL) concept integrates different personal (e.g., physical, cognitive, psychological/affective, social) determinants of physical activity and has received growing attention recently. Although practical efforts increasingly adopt PL as a guiding concept, latest evidence has shown that PL interventions often lack specification of important theoretical foundations and basic delivery information. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to develop an expert-based template that supports researchers and practitioners in planning and reporting PL interventions.

METHODS

The development process was informed by Moher et al.'s guidance for the development of research reporting guidelines. We composed a group of ten distinguished experts on PL. In two face-to-face meetings, the group first discussed a literature-driven draft of reporting items. In the second stage, the experts anonymously voted and commented on the items in two rounds (each leading to revisions) until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The panel recommended that stakeholders of PL initiatives should tightly interlock interventional aspects with PL theory while ensuring consistency throughout all stages of intervention development. The Physical Literacy Interventions Reporting Template (PLIRT) encompasses a total of 14 items (two additional items for mixed-methods studies) in six different sections: title (one item), background and definition (three items), assessment (one item each for quantitative and qualitative studies), design and content (five items), evaluation (one item plus one item each for quantitative and qualitative studies), discussion and conclusion (two items).

CONCLUSION

The PLIRT was designed to facilitate improved transparency and interpretability in reports on PL interventions. The template has the potential to close gaps between theory and practice, thereby contributing to more holistic interventions for the fields of physical education, sport, and health.

Physical literacy in Europe: The current state of implementation in research, practice, and policy

Background/objective

The holistic concept of physical literacy (PL) embraces different person-centered qualities (physical, cognitive, affective/psychological) necessary to lead physically active lifestyles. PL has recently gained increasing attention globally and Europe is no exception. However, scientific endeavors summarizing the current state of PL in Europe are lacking. Therefore, the goal of this study was to comprehensively assess and compare the implementation of PL in research, policy, and practice across the continent.

Methods

We assembled a panel of experts representing 25 European countries. Employing a complementary mixed-methods design, the experts first prepared reviews about the current state of PL in their countries (categories: research, practice/policy). The reviews underwent comparative document analysis, ensuring a transnational four-eyes principle. For re-validation purposes, the representatives completed a quantitative survey with questions reflecting the inductive themes from the document analysis.

Results

The document analysis resulted in ten disjunct themes (related to "concept", "research", "practice/policy", "future/prospect") and yielded a heterogenous PL situation in Europe. The implementation state was strongly linked to conceptual discussions (e.g., existence of competing approaches), linguistic issues (e.g., translations), and country-specific traditions. Despite growing scholarly attention, PL hesitantly permeates practice and policy in most countries. Nevertheless, the experts largely anticipate increasing popularity of PL for the future.

Conclusion

Despite the heterogeneous situation across Europe, the analysis has uncovered similarities among the countries, such as the presence of established yet not identical concepts. Research should intensify academic activities (conceptual-linguistic elaborations, empirical work) before PL may gain further access into practical and political spheres in the long term.

Portuguese Physical Literacy Assessment - Observation (PPLA-O) for adolescents (15-18 years) from grades 10-12: Development and initial validation through item response theory

Introduction

Aims of these studies were to develop the Portuguese Physical Literacy Assessment Observation instrument (PPLA-O) to assess the physical and part of the cognitive domain of Physical Literacy (PL) through data collected routinely by Physical Education (PE) teachers; and to assess the construct validity (dimensionality, measurement invariance, and convergent and discriminant validity) and score reliability of one of its modules [Movement Competence, Rules, and Tactics (MCRT)].

Methods

Content analysis of the Portuguese PE syllabus and literature review were used for PPLA-O domain identification. Multidimensional Item Response Theory (MIRT) models were used to assess construct validity and reliability, along with bivariate correlations in a sample of 515 Portuguese grade 10-12 students (M _age = 16, SD = 1).

Results

PPLA-O development resulted in an instrument with two modules: MCRT (22 physical activities) and Health-Related Fitness (HRF; 5 protocols); both assessed with teacher-reported data entered in a spreadsheet. A two correlated dimensions Graded Response Model (Manipulative-based Activities [MA], and Stability-based Activities [SA]) showed best fit to the MCRT data, suggesting measurement invariance across sexes, and adequate to good score reliabilities (MA = .89, and SA = .73). There was a moderate to high correlation (r = .68) between dimensions, and boys had higher scores in both dimensions. Correlations among MCRT scores and HRF variables were similar in magnitude to previous reports in meta-analysis and systematic reviews.

Conclusions

PPLA-O is composed of two modules that integrate observational data collected by PE teachers into a common frame of criterion-referenced PL assessment. The HRF module uses data collected through widely validated FITescola® assessment protocols. The MCRT makes use of teacher-reported data collected in a wide range of activities and movement pursuits to measure movement competence and inherent cognitive skills (Tactics and Rules). We also gathered initial evidence supporting construct validity and score reliability of the MCRT module. This highly feasible instrument can provide Portuguese grade 10-12 (15-18 years) PE students with feedback on their PL journey, along with the other instrument of PPLA (PPLA-Questionnaire). Further studies should assess inter and intra-rater reliability and criterion-related validity of its two modules.

The Effectiveness of Physical Literacy Interventions: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The holistic concept of physical literacy assumes that individuals require adequate cognitive (knowledge and understanding), affective (motivation and confidence), and physical (physical competence) qualities to engage in lifelong physical activity behavior. In recent years, the research field has undergone rapid development and has also yielded an increasing number of interventions that aim to translate the theoretical-philosophical ideas into practical endeavors.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the present pre-registered systematic review was to (a) provide a general overview of evaluation studies on physical literacy interventions and (b) to quantitatively examine the effectiveness of physical literacy interventions.

METHODS

Drawing on the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched a total of 18 databases for physical literacy interventions. Inclusion criteria were English language, publication by November 2021, and interventions using physical literacy as a theoretical underpinning or evaluation outcome. Articles that met these criteria were analyzed with respect to their basic delivery characteristics, study quality, evaluation approach, and main findings. We additionally ran meta-analyses with all non-randomized and randomized controlled trials to examine and compare the effect of these interventions on five outcome categories: (i) physical competence, (ii) motivation and confidence, (iii) knowledge and understanding, (iv) physical activity behavior, and (v) total physical literacy. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effects on the different categories.

RESULTS

The screening process with two independent raters yielded 48 eligible interventions reported in 51 eligible articles. Quantitative evaluations most frequently addressed physical competence (72.2%), followed by motivation and confidence (47.2%), physical activity behavior (41.7%), and knowledge and understanding (33.3%). The controlled intervention studies (n = 24) exerted significant effects on all five physical literacy categories. Despite meaningful heterogeneity across the subgroups, the strongest effects were found for physical competence (SMD 0.90; 95% CI 0.55-1.25), followed by physical literacy aggregate scores (SMD 0.61; 95% CI 0.20-1.01), knowledge and understanding (SMD 0.54; 95% CI 0.30-0.79), physical activity behavior (SMD 0.39; 95% CI 0.23-0.55), and motivation and confidence (SMD 0.30; 95% CI 0.17-0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study empirically demonstrated the effectiveness of physical literacy interventions on several outcomes relevant for promoting physical activity and health. To better inform current practices, future studies are advised to identify those program characteristics that significantly influence the effectiveness of physical literacy interventions.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020188926.