Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26173900›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2015

Validity and Reliability of Field-Based Measures for Assessing Movement Skill Competency in Lifelong Physical Activities: A Systematic Review.

Ryan M Hulteen, Natalie J Lander, Philip J Morgan, Lisa M Barnett, Samuel J Robertson, David R Lubans

Abstract readSystematic ReviewValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ryan M HulteenPriority Research Centre in Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Natalie J LanderSchool of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia.
Philip J MorganPriority Research Centre in Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Lisa M BarnettSchool of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia.
Samuel J RobertsonInstitute for Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Footscray, VIC, Australia.
David R LubansPriority Research Centre in Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. David.Lubans@newcastle.edu.au.
University of Newcastle Australia · AUDeakin University · AUVictoria University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has been suggested that young people should develop competence in a variety of 'lifelong physical activities' to ensure that they can be active across the lifespan.

objectiveThe primary aim of this systematic review is to report the methodological properties, validity, reliability, and test duration of field-based measures that assess movement skill competency in lifelong physical activities. A secondary aim was to clearly define those characteristics unique to lifelong physical activities. DATA SOURCES: A search of four electronic databases (Scopus, SPORTDiscus, ProQuest, and PubMed) was conducted between June 2014 and April 2015 with no date restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Studies addressing the validity and/or reliability of lifelong physical activity tests were reviewed. Included articles were required to assess lifelong physical activities using process-oriented measures, as well as report either one type of validity or reliability. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

methodsAssessment criteria for methodological quality were adapted from a checklist used in a previous review of sport skill outcome assessments.

resultsMovement skill assessments for eight different lifelong physical activities (badminton, cycling, dance, golf, racquetball, resistance training, swimming, and tennis) in 17 studies were identified for inclusion. Methodological quality, validity, reliability, and test duration (time to assess a single participant), for each article were assessed. Moderate to excellent reliability results were found in 16 of 17 studies, with 71% reporting inter-rater reliability and 41% reporting intra-rater reliability. Only four studies in this review reported test-retest reliability. Ten studies reported validity results; content validity was cited in 41% of these studies. Construct validity was reported in 24% of studies, while criterion validity was only reported in 12% of studies. LIMITATIONS: Numerous assessments for lifelong physical activities may exist, yet only assessments for eight lifelong physical activities were included in this review. Generalizability of results may be more applicable if more heterogeneous samples are used in future research.

conclusionModerate to excellent levels of inter- and intra-rater reliability were reported in the majority of studies. However, future work should look to establish test-retest reliability. Validity was less commonly reported than reliability, and further types of validity other than content validity need to be established in future research. Specifically, predictive validity of 'lifelong physical activity' movement skill competency is needed to support the assertion that such activities provide the foundation for a lifetime of activity.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHumansMotor ActivityMotor SkillsMovementReproducibility of ResultsSportsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID26173900
OpenAlexW1156230214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.