↓ Skip to main content

Validity and Reliability of Field-Based Measures for Assessing Movement Skill Competency in Lifelong Physical Activities: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, July 2015
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 (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 Mendeley
Title
Validity and Reliability of Field-Based Measures for Assessing Movement Skill Competency in Lifelong Physical Activities: A Systematic Review
Published in
Sports Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40279-015-0357-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan M. Hulteen, Natalie J. Lander, Philip J. Morgan, Lisa M. Barnett, Samuel J. Robertson, David R. Lubans

Abstract

It has been suggested that young people should develop competence in a variety of 'lifelong physical activities' to ensure that they can be active across the lifespan. The primary aim of this systematic review is to report the methodological properties, validity, reliability, and test duration of field-based measures that assess movement skill competency in lifelong physical activities. A secondary aim was to clearly define those characteristics unique to lifelong physical activities. A search of four electronic databases (Scopus, SPORTDiscus, ProQuest, and PubMed) was conducted between June 2014 and April 2015 with no date restrictions. Studies addressing the validity and/or reliability of lifelong physical activity tests were reviewed. Included articles were required to assess lifelong physical activities using process-oriented measures, as well as report either one type of validity or reliability. Assessment criteria for methodological quality were adapted from a checklist used in a previous review of sport skill outcome assessments. Movement skill assessments for eight different lifelong physical activities (badminton, cycling, dance, golf, racquetball, resistance training, swimming, and tennis) in 17 studies were identified for inclusion. Methodological quality, validity, reliability, and test duration (time to assess a single participant), for each article were assessed. Moderate to excellent reliability results were found in 16 of 17 studies, with 71 % reporting inter-rater reliability and 41 % reporting intra-rater reliability. Only four studies in this review reported test-retest reliability. Ten studies reported validity results; content validity was cited in 41 % of these studies. Construct validity was reported in 24 % of studies, while criterion validity was only reported in 12 % of studies. Numerous assessments for lifelong physical activities may exist, yet only assessments for eight lifelong physical activities were included in this review. Generalizability of results may be more applicable if more heterogeneous samples are used in future research. Moderate to excellent levels of inter- and intra-rater reliability were reported in the majority of studies. However, future work should look to establish test-retest reliability. Validity was less commonly reported than reliability, and further types of validity other than content validity need to be established in future research. Specifically, predictive validity of 'lifelong physical activity' movement skill competency is needed to support the assertion that such activities provide the foundation for a lifetime of activity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 171 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Researcher 14 8%
Lecturer 13 7%
Other 35 20%
Unknown 38 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 79 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 5%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 46 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 09 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,093,427
of 24,379,758 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,635
of 2,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,768
of 267,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#25
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,379,758 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,824 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 54.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 267,143 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.