| Title |
Definitions, Foundations and Associations of Physical Literacy: A Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-016-0560-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lowri C. Edwards, Anna S. Bryant, Richard J. Keegan, Kevin Morgan, Anwen M. Jones |
| Abstract |
The concept of physical literacy has stimulated increased research attention in recent years-being deployed in physical education, sport participation, and the promotion of physical activity. Independent research groups currently operationalize the construct differently. The purpose of this systematic review was to conduct a systematic review of the physical literacy construct, as reflected in contemporary research literature. Five databases were searched using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. Inclusion criteria were English language, peer reviewed, published by March 2016, and seeking to conceptualize physical literacy. Articles that met these criteria were analyzed in relation to three core areas: properties/attributes, philosophical foundations and theoretical associations with other constructs. A total of 50 published articles met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed qualitatively using inductive thematic analysis. The thematic analysis addressed the three core areas. Under definitions, core attributes that define physical literacy were identified, as well as areas of conflict between different approaches currently being adopted. One relatively clear philosophical approach was prominent in approximately half of the papers, based on a monist/holistic ontology and phenomenological epistemology. Finally, the analysis identified a number of theoretical associations, including health, physical activity and academic performance. Current literature contains different representations of the physical literacy construct. The costs and benefits of adopting an exclusive approach versus pluralism are considered. Recommendations for both researchers and practitioners focus on identifying and clearly articulating the definitions, philosophical assumptions and expected outcomes prior to evaluating the effectiveness of this emerging concept. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 79 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 24 | 30% |
| United States | 8 | 10% |
| Australia | 8 | 10% |
| Canada | 5 | 6% |
| Denmark | 2 | 3% |
| Isle of Man | 1 | 1% |
| Jersey | 1 | 1% |
| Saint Lucia | 1 | 1% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 28 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 59 | 75% |
| Scientists | 16 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 589 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 589 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 91 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 66 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 56 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 43 | 7% |
| Researcher | 31 | 5% |
| Other | 94 | 16% |
| Unknown | 208 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 193 | 33% |
| Social Sciences | 37 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 4% |
| Psychology | 18 | 3% |
| Other | 52 | 9% |
| Unknown | 227 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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
#747,310
of 25,504,429 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#691
of 2,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,494
of 367,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#15
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,504,429 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,884 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 367,142 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.