Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29143266›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

'Measuring' Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings.

Lowri C Edwards, Anna S Bryant, Richard J Keegan, Kevin Morgan, Stephen-Mark Cooper, Anwen M Jones

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

99 citing papers in PubMed, 12 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. Pooled it
  10. 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
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

39 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

6 authors.

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

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept of physical literacy has received increased research and international attention recently. Where intervention programs and empirical research are gaining momentum, their operationalizations differ significantly.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to inform practice in the measure/assessment of physical literacy via a systematic review of research that has assessed physical literacy (up to 14 June, 2017).

methodsFive databases were searched using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols guidelines, with 32 published articles meeting the inclusion criteria. English-language, peer-reviewed published papers containing empirical studies of physical literacy were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

resultsQualitative methods included: (1) interviews; (2) open-ended questionnaires; (3) reflective diaries; (4) focus groups; (5) participant observations; and (6) visual methods. Quantitative methods included: (1) monitoring devices (e.g., accelerometers); (2) observations (e.g., of physical activity or motor proficiency); (3) psychometrics (e.g., enjoyment, self-perceptions); (4) performance measures (e.g., exergaming, objective times/distances); (5) anthropometric measurements; and (6) one compound measure. Of the measures that made an explicit distinction: 22 (61%) examined the physical domain, eight (22%) the affective domain; five (14%) the cognitive domain; and one (3%) combined three domains (physical, affective, and cognitive) of physical literacy. Researchers tended to declare their philosophical standpoint significantly more in qualitative research compared with quantitative research.

conclusionsCurrent research adopts diverse often incompatible methodologies in measuring/assessing physical literacy. Our analysis revealed that by adopting simplistic and linear methods, physical literacy cannot be measured/assessed in a traditional/conventional sense. Therefore, we recommend that researchers are more creative in developing integrated philosophically aligned approaches to measuring/assessing physical literacy. Future research should consider the most recent developments in the field of physical literacy for policy formation.

Indexed as

LiteracyPhysical Education and TrainingSportsAdultChildHumansInfant, Newborn

Identifiers

PMID29143266
PMCPMC5808047

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.