Development of ELIP to Assess Physical Literacy for Emerging Adults: A Methodological and Epistemological Challenge

Purpose: Following increased interest in physical literacy (PL), development of appropriate tools for assessment has become an important next step for its operationalization. To forward the development of such tools, the objective of this study was to build the foundations of the Évaluation de la Littératie Physique (ELIP), designed to help reduce existing tensions in approaches to PL assessment that may be resulting in a low uptake into applied settings. Methods: We followed two steps: (1) the development of the first version of ELIP by deploying a Delphi method (n = 30); and (2) the modification of items through cognitive interviews with emerging adults (n = 32). Results: The expert consensus highlighted four dimensions of PL to be assessed-physical; affective; cognitive; and social-with new perspectives, including a preference for broad motor tests over fitness. Conclusion: Results offer new insights into the assessment of emerging adults' PL, but ELIP still requires further work concerning validity, reliability, and sensitivity.

Translation, Cultural Adaptation and Validation of Perceived Physical Literacy Instrument-Spanish Version (PPLI-Sp) for Adults

To translate and culturally adapt the Perceived Physical Literacy Instrument (PPLI) questionnaire, as well as to evaluate the factor structure. A single-measure cross-sectional study was conducted. For the first phase of the study, a translation and cultural adaptation of the PPLI questionnaire was carried out, as well as an interview, with the aim of assessing the understanding of the instrument. In the second part of the study, exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factorial analyses were conducted. A total of 213 Spanish adults with a mean age of 27.40 (10.58) participated. EFA was performed because of the good results offered by the sampling adequacy indices (Bartlett test = 1081.848; df = 153; p < 0.001; and KMO test = 0.825). The factor solution comprised three correlated factors:1) physical competence, 2) motivation and confidence, and 3) knowledge and understanding. After the EFA, items 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 were excluded. Therefore, through CFA, a factor structure of 9 items grouped into three dimensions was extracted. The PPLI-Sp version for adults, obtained from the back-translation process as well as after individual interviews, proved to be valid and reliable after the EFA and CFA analyses, obtaining an instrument of nine items, divided into three dimensions. This instrument can be used to determine the perception of physical literacy among different Spanish adult populations.

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.