The validity of the Physical Literacy in Children Questionnaire in children aged 4 to 12.

BACKGROUND: Given the growing evidence on the health benefits associated with physical literacy (PL), it is necessary to develop sound measures to assess the levels of PL in children. The Physical Literacy in Children Questionnaire (PL-C Quest) is the first self-report pictorial-based scale to assess children's perceived PL. It has good validity and reliability in Australian children aged 7 to 12 years, but little is known in younger children and in other cultural contexts. The aim of this study was to examine the validity and reliability in an expanded age range. METHODS: A total of 1,870 Chinese children (girls, n = 871; 46.6%), aged 4 to 12 years (M = 8.07 ± 2.42) participated in validity testing. Structural equation modeling with the Weighted Least Squares with Mean and Variance approach was used to assess construct validity. The hypothesized theoretical model used the 30 items and four hypothesized factors: physical, psychological, social and cognitive capabilities. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess sex and age group (4-6 years, 7-9 years and 10-12 years) measurement invariance. Internal consistency analyses were conducted using polychoric alpha. A random subsample (n = 262) was selected to determine test-retest reliability using Intra-Class Correlations (ICC). RESULTS: All items except one (moving with equipment-skateboarding) loaded on sub-domains with λ > 0.45. The hypothesized model had a good fit (CFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.950, RMSEA = 0.042), with measurement equivalence across sex and age groups separately. Internal consistency values were good to excellent (overall: α = 0.94; physical: α = 0.86; psychological: α = 0.83; social: α = 0.81; cognitive: α = 0.86). Test-retest reliability was adequate to excellent (overall: ICC = 0.90, physical: ICC = 0.86, psychological: ICC = 0.75, social: ICC = 0.71, cognitive: ICC = 0.72). CONCLUSION: The Chinese version of the PL-C Quest is valid and reliable for testing the self-reported PL of Chinese children aged 4 to 12. This study provides the first evidence of validity for this tool in children aged 4-6 years and also evidence that the PL-C Quest would be a meaningful instrument to assess PL in Chinese children.

A systematic review of tools designed for teacher proxy-report of children's physical literacy or constituting elements.

BACKGROUND: Physical literacy (PL) in childhood is essential for a healthy active lifestyle, with teachers playing a critical role in guiding its development. Teachers can assist children to acquire the skills, confidence, and creativity required to perform diverse movements and physical activities. However, to detect and directly intervene on the aspects of children's PL that are suboptimal, teachers require valid and reliable measures. This systematic review critically evaluates the psychometric properties of teacher proxy-report instruments for assessing one or more of the 30 elements within the four domains (physical, psychological, cognitive, social) of the Australian Physical Literacy Framework (APLF), in children aged 5-12 years. Secondary aims were to: examine alignment of each measure (and relevant items) with the APLF and provide recommendations for teachers in assessing PL. METHODS: Seven electronic databases (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Complete, Education Source, Global Health, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus) were systematically searched originally in October 2019, with an updated search in April 2021. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed English language publications that sampled a population of children with mean age between 5 and 12 years and focused on developing and evaluating at least one psychometric property of a teacher proxy-report instrument for assessing one or more of the 30 APLF elements. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance was followed for the conduct and reporting of this review. The methodological quality of included studies and quality of psychometric properties of identified tools were evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidance. Alignment of each measure (and relevant items) with the APLF domains and 30 elements was appraised. RESULTS: Database searches generated 61,412 citations; reduced to 41 studies that evaluated the psychometric properties of 24 teacher proxy-report tools. Six tools were classified as single domain measures (i.e. assessing a single domain of the APLF), eleven as dual-domain measures, and seven as tri-domain measures. No single tool captured all four domains and 30 elements of the APLF. Tools contained items that aligned with all physical, psychological, and social elements; however, four cognitive elements were not addressed by any measure. No tool was assessed for all nine psychometric properties outlined by COSMIN. Included studies reported a median of 3 out of nine psychometric properties. Most reported psychometric properties were construct validity (n = 32; 78% of studies), structural validity (n = 26; 63% of studies), and internal consistency (n = 25; 61% of studies). There was underreporting of content validity, cross-cultural validity, measurement error, and responsiveness. Psychometric data across tools were mostly indeterminate for construct validity, structural validity, and internal consistency. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to fully support the use of a specific teacher proxy-report tool in practice. Further psychometric testing and detailed reporting of methodological aspects in future validity and reliability studies is needed. Tools have been designed to assess some elements of the framework. However, no comprehensive teacher proxy-report tool exists to assess all 30 elements of the APLF, demonstrating the need for a new tool. It is our recommendation that such tools be developed and psychometrically tested. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews, with registration number CRD42019130936 .

It's Not Just What You Do but the Way You Do It: A Systematic Review of Process Evaluation of Interventions to Improve Gross Motor Competence.

BACKGROUND: Motor competence is an important predictor of health behaviours. However, levels of motor competence are low in children and adolescents. Many interventions have improved motor competence, yet intervention effects were highly variable. Potential causes of such variations are not fully understood. Process evaluation can assist with the understanding of why an intervention worked or not, but its application and reporting in motor competence interventions has received little attention. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this review was to investigate whether process evaluations have been reported in interventions to improve motor competence and, if reported, which process evaluation measures have been used. A secondary aim was to explore the association of intervention characteristics and process evaluation findings (outcomes of process evaluation measures) with intervention outcomes, in a search for what process evaluation measures may impact on intervention functioning and outcomes. METHODS: The process of conducting and reporting this review adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019124412). A systematic search of seven electronic databases (i.e. MEDLINE [via EBSCOhost], Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL], CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, Education Database, SPORTDiscus and Scopus) was conducted with no date restrictions. Eligibility criteria included the following: (1) a study sample of typically developing children and adolescents aged 5-18 years, (2) an intervention aimed to improve motor competence, (3) an intervention included a control group, (4) a report of motor competence outcome at both pre- and post-intervention. Only original articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals were considered. Process evaluation measures and findings were extracted using the UK Medical Research Council's process evaluation framework in order to provide overarching descriptions on the implementation, mechanism of change and context of interventions. Univariable meta-regressions were performed to ascertain whether selected study-level covariates moderated the improvement in motor competence outcomes in interventions. RESULTS: The search identified 60 intervention studies. Only 30 studies (50%) reported process evaluation measures. No studies reported (or employed) theoretical frameworks to guide process evaluation. Process evaluation measures relating to implementation were most commonly reported, with the most prevalent aspect being fidelity. This was followed by reporting on measures relating to mechanism of change and context of the intervention. Meta-analysis results suggested intervention duration, dose, inclusion of process evaluation aim, provision of lesson plans, sample size and sex as potential moderators. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of process evaluation measures may help build our understanding of the optimal characteristics of motor competence interventions. However, process evaluation is under-used and/or under-reported. This review serves as a call for more process evaluations and better reporting in motor competence interventions.

Art Meets Sport: What Can Actor Training Bring to Physical Literacy Programs?

The aim of this communication is to highlight synergies and opportunities between the fields of education, sport and health and the performing arts for the promotion of physical literacy. First, physical literacy is introduced and then defined according to the definition used in this communication. Secondly, we highlight the gap in physical literacy interventions, in that they do not address learning based on a holistic comprehensive definition of physical literacy. Then we provide examples of interventions that do borrow from the arts, such as circus arts, and show how these approaches explicitly link to the discipline of arts. This is followed by program examples, which approach motor and language development from discipline-specific perspectives. Then we introduce actor training (within the discipline of arts) in terms of how this approach may be useful to our understanding of physical literacy and how to expand the conception of physical literacy to include affective meaning making, and tolerance for ambiguity and discomfort in not-knowing. Finally, we conclude with the next step for the bridging of disciplines in order to further our journey to understand and improve physical literacy.