Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27365029›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2017

Definitions, Foundations and Associations of Physical Literacy: A Systematic Review.

Lowri C Edwards, Anna S Bryant, Richard J Keegan, Kevin Morgan, Anwen M Jones

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 209 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
209citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

209 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Physical Literacy and Obesity Risk in Children: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

149 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Lowri C EdwardsCardiff School of Sport, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cyncoed Campus, Cardiff, CF23 6XD, UK. Loedwards@cardiffmet.ac.uk.
Anna S BryantCardiff School of Sport, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cyncoed Campus, Cardiff, CF23 6XD, UK.
Richard J KeeganFaculty of Health, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, Australia.
Kevin MorganCardiff School of Sport, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cyncoed Campus, Cardiff, CF23 6XD, UK.
Anwen M JonesCardiff School of Sport, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cyncoed Campus, Cardiff, CF23 6XD, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept of physical literacy has stimulated increased research attention in recent years-being deployed in physical education, sport participation, and the promotion of physical activity. Independent research groups currently operationalize the construct differently.

objectiveThe purpose of this systematic review was to conduct a systematic review of the physical literacy construct, as reflected in contemporary research literature.

methodsFive databases were searched using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. Inclusion criteria were English language, peer reviewed, published by March 2016, and seeking to conceptualize physical literacy. Articles that met these criteria were analyzed in relation to three core areas: properties/attributes, philosophical foundations and theoretical associations with other constructs. A total of 50 published articles met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed qualitatively using inductive thematic analysis.

resultsThe thematic analysis addressed the three core areas. Under definitions, core attributes that define physical literacy were identified, as well as areas of conflict between different approaches currently being adopted. One relatively clear philosophical approach was prominent in approximately half of the papers, based on a monist/holistic ontology and phenomenological epistemology. Finally, the analysis identified a number of theoretical associations, including health, physical activity and academic performance.

conclusionsCurrent literature contains different representations of the physical literacy construct. The costs and benefits of adopting an exclusive approach versus pluralism are considered. Recommendations for both researchers and practitioners focus on identifying and clearly articulating the definitions, philosophical assumptions and expected outcomes prior to evaluating the effectiveness of this emerging concept.

Indexed as

LiteracyPhysical Education and TrainingSportsHumans

Identifiers

PMID27365029
PMCPMC5215133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.