Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The 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. OBJECTIVE:The 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). METHODS:Five 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. RESULTS:Qualitative 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. CONCLUSIONS:Current 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.

SUBMITTER: Edwards LC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5808047 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Edwards Lowri C LC Bryant Anna S AS Keegan Richard J RJ Morgan Kevin K Cooper Stephen-Mark SM Jones Anwen M AM

Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) 20180301 3

<h4>Background</h4>The 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.<h4>Objective</h4>The 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).<h4>Methods</h4>Five databases were searched usi ...[more]

PMID: 29143266

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOver the past decade, there has been increased interest amongst researchers, practitioners and policymakers in physical literacy for children and young people and the assessment of the concept within physical education (PE). This systematic review aimed to identify tools to assess physical literacy and its physical, cognitive and affective domains within children aged 7-11.9 years, and to examine the measurement properties, feasibility and elements of physical literacy assessed within each tool.MethodsSix databases (EBSCO host platform, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Education Research Complete, SPORTDiscus) were searched up to 10th September 2020. Studies were included if they sampled children aged between 7 and 11.9 years, employed field-based assessments of physical literacy and/or related affective, physical or cognitive domains, reported measurement properties (quantitative) or theoretical development (qualitative), and were published in English in peer-reviewed journals. The methodological quality and measurement properties of studies and assessment tools were appraised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments risk of bias checklist. The feasibility of each assessment was considered using a utility matrix and elements of physical literacy element were recorded using a descriptive checklist.ResultsThe search strategy resulted in a total of 11467 initial results. After full text screening, 11 studies (3 assessments) related to explicit physical literacy assessments. Forty-four studies (32 assessments) were relevant to the affective domain, 31 studies (15 assessments) were relevant to the physical domain and 2 studies (2 assessments) were included within the cognitive domain. Methodological quality and reporting of measurement properties within the included studies were mixed. The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy-2 and the Passport For Life had evidence of acceptable measurement properties from studies of very good methodological quality and assessed a wide range of physical literacy elements. Feasibility results indicated that many tools would be suitable for a primary PE setting, though some require a level of expertise to administer and score that would require training.ConclusionsThis review has identified a number of existing assessments that could be useful in a physical literacy assessment approach within PE and provides further information to empower researchers and practitioners to make informed decisions when selecting the most appropriate assessment for their needs, purpose and context. The review indicates that researchers and tool developers should aim to improve the methodological quality and reporting of measurement properties of assessments to better inform the field.Trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42017062217.

Project description:BackgroundCompassion in healthcare provides measurable benefits to patients, physicians, and healthcare systems. However, data regarding the factors that predict care (and a lack of care) are scattered. This study systematically reviews biomedical literature within the Transactional Model of Physician Compassion and synthesizes evidence regarding the predictors of physician empathy, compassion, and related constructs (ECRC).MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, OvidJournals, ProQuest, Web of Science, and Scopus using search terms relating to ECRC and its predictors. Eligible studies included physicians as participants. Methodological quality was assessed based on the Cochrane Handbook, using ROBINS-I risk of bias tool for quantitative and CASP for qualitative studies. Confidence in findings was evaluated according to GRADE-CERQual approach.ResultsOne hundred fifty-two included studies (74,866 physicians) highlighted the diversity of influences on compassion in healthcare (54 unique predictors). Physician-related predictors (88%) were gender, experience, values, emotions and coping strategies, quality of life, and burnout. Environmental predictors (38%) were organizational structure, resources, culture, and clinical environment and processes. Patient-related predictors (24%) were communication ease, and physicians' perceptions of patients' motives; compassion was also less forthcoming with lower SES and minority patients. Evidence related to clinical predictors (15%) was scarce; high acuity presentations predicted greater ECRC.DiscussionThe growth of evidence in the recent years reflects ECRC's ongoing importance. However, evidence remains scattered, concentrates on physicians' factors that may not be amenable to interventions, lacks designs permitting causal commentary, and is limited by self-reported outcomes. Inconsistent findings in the direction of the predictors' effects indicate the need to study the relationships among predictors to better understand the mechanisms of ECRCs. The current review can guide future research and interventions.

Project description:Wellbeing literacy is the intentional use of wellbeing relevant vocabulary, knowledge and language skills to maintain or improve the wellbeing of oneself, others and the world. In this study, we operationalize the human aspects of the concept of wellbeing literacy and empirically test its relationship with wellbeing and illbeing. We also assess its incremental variance in wellbeing and illbeing, after controlling for existing and well-established predictors of these constructs within education settings. We developed and empirically tested the Wellbeing literacy 6-item (Well-Lit 6) scale to assess the concept of wellbeing literacy in the education context. The scale was developed based on a working definition of wellbeing literacy, in combination with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA)'s definition of literacy. The Well-Lit 6 was administered via a cross-sectional survey to three Australian samples that comprise different elements of Australian education systems: students (N = 1392), parents (N = 584) and school staff (N = 317). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) suggested the six items of the Well-Lit 6 form an independent construct, empirically distinguishable from other wellbeing-related constructs (e.g., general wellbeing, resilience, and emotion regulation). Convergent analyses showed wellbeing literacy was positively related to wellbeing and negatively related to illbeing. Incremental validity analyses showed wellbeing literacy predicted variance in wellbeing and illbeing after controlling for participant demographics, resilience, and emotion regulation, showing initial evidence of incremental validity. Our results provide preliminary evidence that wellbeing literacy is a distinct construct from wellbeing and illbeing, and it also demonstrates significant unique variance in these constructs over and above resilience and emotion regulation. The Well-Lit 6 is a useful provisional measure of wellbeing literacy, although we suggest a fruitful avenue for future research is to develop a more comprehensive scale of wellbeing literacy that denotes specific facets of communication, allowing a fuller exploration wellbeing literacy, its components, and their antecedents and consequences. We offer further recommendations for future research and discuss limitations with our approach.

Project description:BackgroundMentoring as a knowledge translation (KT) intervention uses social influence among healthcare professionals to increase use of evidence in clinical practice.AimTo determine the effectiveness of mentoring as a KT intervention designed to increase healthcare professionals' use of evidence in clinical practice.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using electronic databases (i.e., MEDLINE, CINAHL), grey literature, and hand searching. Eligible studies evaluated mentoring of healthcare professionals responsible for patient care to enhance the uptake of evidence into practice. Mentoring is defined as (a) a mentor more experienced than mentee; (b) individualized support based on mentee's needs; and (c) involved in an interpersonal relationship as indicated by mutual benefit, engagement, and commitment. Two reviewers independently screened citations for eligibility, extracted data, and appraised quality of studies. Data were analyzed descriptively.ResultsOf 10,669 citations from 1988 to 2012, 10 studies were eligible. Mentoring as a KT intervention was evaluated in Canada, USA, and Australia. Exposure to mentoring compared to no mentoring improved some behavioral outcomes (one study). Compared to controls or other multifaceted interventions, multifaceted interventions with mentoring improved practitioners' knowledge (four of five studies), beliefs (four of six studies), and impact on organizational outcomes (three of four studies). There were mixed findings for changes in professionals' behaviors and impact on practitioners' and patients' outcomes: some outcomes improved, while others showed no difference.Linking evidence to actionOnly one study evaluated the effectiveness of mentoring alone as a KT intervention and showed improvement in some behavioral outcomes. The other nine studies that evaluated the effectiveness of mentoring as part of a multifaceted intervention showed mixed findings, making it difficult to determine the added effect of mentoring. Further research is needed to identify effective mentoring as a KT intervention.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure