↓ Skip to main content

‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
36 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
167 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
422 Mendeley
Title
‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings
Published in
Sports Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

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. 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). 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. 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. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 422 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 422 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 62 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 12%
Student > Bachelor 36 9%
Lecturer 31 7%
Researcher 24 6%
Other 75 18%
Unknown 144 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 135 32%
Social Sciences 33 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 4%
Psychology 16 4%
Other 34 8%
Unknown 164 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,279,078
of 24,820,264 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,064
of 2,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,690
of 331,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#31
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,820,264 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 54.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.