Validity, Reliability, and Feasibility of Physical Literacy Assessments Designed for School Children: A Systematic Review.
Journal
Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)
ISSN: 1179-2035
Titre abrégé: Sports Med
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 8412297
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2023
10 2023
Historique:
accepted:
24
05
2023
medline:
18
9
2023
pubmed:
21
6
2023
entrez:
21
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37341907
doi: 10.1007/s40279-023-01867-4
pii: 10.1007/s40279-023-01867-4
pmc: PMC10504218
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1905-1929Subventions
Organisme : Australian Research Council
ID : DE220100847
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council
ID : 1026216
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
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 .
doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01063-3
pubmed: 30747375
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 .
doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0560-7
pubmed: 27365029
Jurbala P. What is physical literacy, really? Quest. 2015;67(4):367–83.
doi: 10.1080/00336297.2015.1084341
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 .
doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2018-0136
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 .
doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5903-x
pubmed: 30285701
pmcid: 6167775
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 .
doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9
pubmed: 29143266
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.
doi: 10.52165/sgj.12.1.27-47
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 .
doi: 10.1186/s40798-021-00324-8
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 .
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18157954
pubmed: 34360247
pmcid: 8345555
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 .
doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2018-0219
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 .
doi: 10.1007/s11125-020-09466-1
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 .
doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01162-3
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.
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 .
doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2106-6
pubmed: 26260572
pmcid: 4532252
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 .
doi: 10.1123/jpah.2014-0597
pubmed: 26106940
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 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2015.11.004
pubmed: 30356598
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 .
doi: 10.1177/1356336X20925502
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 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jesf.2018.03.002
pubmed: 30662489
pmcid: 6323161
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 .
doi: 10.1037/t63437-000
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 .
doi: 10.1080/1091367X.2017.1333002
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 .
doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5902-y
pubmed: 30285687
pmcid: 6167760
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 .
doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5890-y
pubmed: 30285679
pmcid: 6167766
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 .
doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5899-2
pubmed: 30285682
pmcid: 6167769
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 .
doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5900-0
pubmed: 30285796
pmcid: 6167763
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 .
doi: 10.18666/TPE-2019-V76-I3-8850
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 .
doi: 10.1139/apnm-2020-0648
Dudley DA. A conceptual model of observed physical literacy. Phys Educ. 2015. https://doi.org/10.18666/TPE-2015-V72-I5-6020 .
doi: 10.18666/TPE-2015-V72-I5-6020
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 .
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17082720
pubmed: 32316083
pmcid: 7215479
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 .
doi: 10.1080/25742981.2020.1810582
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 .
doi: 10.1007/s11332-021-00818-8
pubmed: 34457071
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 .
doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102164
pubmed: 37665815
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 .
doi: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1849596
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 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262976
pubmed: 36174059
pmcid: 9521930
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 .
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 .
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-12230-5
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].
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 .
doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2018-0129
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 .
doi: 10.7575/aiac.ijels
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 .
doi: 10.1249/mss.0000000000001494
pubmed: 29140898
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 .
doi: 10.1080/1091367X.2018.1500368
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 .
doi: 10.1139/apnm-2020-0410
pubmed: 33315524
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 .
doi: 10.3390/children9060796
pubmed: 35740733
pmcid: 9221622
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 .
doi: 10.1139/apnm-2020-1103
pubmed: 33945692
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 .
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-12301-7
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 .
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 .
doi: 10.1080/02640414.2019.1689076
pubmed: 31703541
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 .
doi: 10.1177/1356336X20904079
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 .
doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1730024
pubmed: 32079493
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 .
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 .
doi: 10.18666/TPE-2019-V76-I3-8850
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.
doi: 10.1080/1091367X.2016.1249793
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 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243841
pubmed: 33617576
pmcid: 7899353
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 .
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].
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 .
doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2018-0264
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 .
doi: 10.1123/jmld.2016-0080
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 .
doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.12.010
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.
doi: 10.4324/9781003026426-24
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 .
doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1756674
pubmed: 32608334
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 .
doi: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1544535
pubmed: 30604655
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 .
doi: 10.1007/s11125-020-09489-8
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 .
doi: 10.1080/13573322.2018.1491002
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 .
doi: 10.1080/17408989.2022.2028760
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 .
doi: 10.14221/ajte.2018v44n6.4
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 .
doi: 10.1080/25742981.2021.1872036
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.
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.
doi: 10.1186/s12966-023-01423-3
pubmed: 36805731
pmcid: 9938627