Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How
Physical literacy (PL) has been acknowledged to be an individual journey, in view of this contention, objective assessment of such a developing construct has become a debatable issue for the last couple of decades apart from physical domain of observable domain. The purpose of this systematic review...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Habyarimana Jean de Dieu [verfasserIn] Ke Zhou [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health - MDPI AG, 2005, 18(2021), 7954, p 7954 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:18 ; year:2021 ; number:7954, p 7954 |
| Links: |
Link aufrufen |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.3390/ijerph18157954 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ005954657 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ005954657 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230309195027.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.3390/ijerph18157954 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ005954657 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 0 | |a Habyarimana Jean de Dieu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Physical literacy (PL) has been acknowledged to be an individual journey, in view of this contention, objective assessment of such a developing construct has become a debatable issue for the last couple of decades apart from physical domain of observable domain. The purpose of this systematic review was to scrutinise what is currently known regarding the PL assessment tools—the existing PL assessment tools, their pioneers and year of publication, the philosophy behind their initiation, what they have been assessing (assessment domains), the category of population being assessed in relation to their age group, validity of the tools, other scholars notes, as well as the approaches being used, whether assessment for, as or of learning during physical activity participation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was used to undertake a comprehensive search from six electronic databases—ScienceDirect, Scopus, Eric, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SportDiscus retrieved 52 research articles and review papers, whereby only 22 articles were included after identification, screening, and eligibility selection criteria process. The study established that the majority—70%—of PL assessment tools were developed to promote either fundamental movement skills, athlete development or long-term health and well-being, instead of lifelong participation in physical activity. It was also ascertained that only 30% of PL assessment tools address both three domains comprising PL. Of a particular concern, it was explored that only the International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) PL matrix takes into account everyone of any age group, while the rest of the others segregate participants falling in a specific age groups to be based on. Afterward, the majority of PL assessment tools were identified at 70% to adopt assessment for learning or at a certain time combination with assessment as learning while assessing individuals’ PL progress. The conclusion was therefore drawn that the overall purpose of PL- to value and take responsibility of engaging in physical activity for life is still largely absent among the majority of existing PL assessment tools and both the ideal of what to assess and who to be assessed are far less to be met, while the effective PL assessment approaches remain critical. After all, in light of this conclusion future agenda has been suggested in view of designing PL assessment tools effective enough to promote PL for all. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a physical literacy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a assessment tools/instruments | |
| 650 | 4 | |a evaluation tools/instruments | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Medicine | |
| 653 | 0 | |a R | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Ke Zhou |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health |d MDPI AG, 2005 |g 18(2021), 7954, p 7954 |w (DE-627)477992463 |w (DE-600)2175195-X |x 16604601 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2021 |g number:7954, p 7954 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157954 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7954 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1661-7827 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1660-4601 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_224 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_370 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2153 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2021 |e 7954, p 7954 | ||
| author_variant |
h j d d hjdd k z kz |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:16604601:2021----::hsclieaysesetolaytmtcieaueei |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2021 |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| allfields |
10.3390/ijerph18157954 doi (DE-627)DOAJ005954657 (DE-599)DOAJ2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Habyarimana Jean de Dieu verfasserin aut Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Physical literacy (PL) has been acknowledged to be an individual journey, in view of this contention, objective assessment of such a developing construct has become a debatable issue for the last couple of decades apart from physical domain of observable domain. The purpose of this systematic review was to scrutinise what is currently known regarding the PL assessment tools—the existing PL assessment tools, their pioneers and year of publication, the philosophy behind their initiation, what they have been assessing (assessment domains), the category of population being assessed in relation to their age group, validity of the tools, other scholars notes, as well as the approaches being used, whether assessment for, as or of learning during physical activity participation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was used to undertake a comprehensive search from six electronic databases—ScienceDirect, Scopus, Eric, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SportDiscus retrieved 52 research articles and review papers, whereby only 22 articles were included after identification, screening, and eligibility selection criteria process. The study established that the majority—70%—of PL assessment tools were developed to promote either fundamental movement skills, athlete development or long-term health and well-being, instead of lifelong participation in physical activity. It was also ascertained that only 30% of PL assessment tools address both three domains comprising PL. Of a particular concern, it was explored that only the International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) PL matrix takes into account everyone of any age group, while the rest of the others segregate participants falling in a specific age groups to be based on. Afterward, the majority of PL assessment tools were identified at 70% to adopt assessment for learning or at a certain time combination with assessment as learning while assessing individuals’ PL progress. The conclusion was therefore drawn that the overall purpose of PL- to value and take responsibility of engaging in physical activity for life is still largely absent among the majority of existing PL assessment tools and both the ideal of what to assess and who to be assessed are far less to be met, while the effective PL assessment approaches remain critical. After all, in light of this conclusion future agenda has been suggested in view of designing PL assessment tools effective enough to promote PL for all. physical literacy assessment tools/instruments evaluation tools/instruments Medicine R Ke Zhou verfasserin aut In International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health MDPI AG, 2005 18(2021), 7954, p 7954 (DE-627)477992463 (DE-600)2175195-X 16604601 nnns volume:18 year:2021 number:7954, p 7954 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157954 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7954 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1661-7827 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1660-4601 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2021 7954, p 7954 |
| spelling |
10.3390/ijerph18157954 doi (DE-627)DOAJ005954657 (DE-599)DOAJ2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Habyarimana Jean de Dieu verfasserin aut Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Physical literacy (PL) has been acknowledged to be an individual journey, in view of this contention, objective assessment of such a developing construct has become a debatable issue for the last couple of decades apart from physical domain of observable domain. The purpose of this systematic review was to scrutinise what is currently known regarding the PL assessment tools—the existing PL assessment tools, their pioneers and year of publication, the philosophy behind their initiation, what they have been assessing (assessment domains), the category of population being assessed in relation to their age group, validity of the tools, other scholars notes, as well as the approaches being used, whether assessment for, as or of learning during physical activity participation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was used to undertake a comprehensive search from six electronic databases—ScienceDirect, Scopus, Eric, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SportDiscus retrieved 52 research articles and review papers, whereby only 22 articles were included after identification, screening, and eligibility selection criteria process. The study established that the majority—70%—of PL assessment tools were developed to promote either fundamental movement skills, athlete development or long-term health and well-being, instead of lifelong participation in physical activity. It was also ascertained that only 30% of PL assessment tools address both three domains comprising PL. Of a particular concern, it was explored that only the International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) PL matrix takes into account everyone of any age group, while the rest of the others segregate participants falling in a specific age groups to be based on. Afterward, the majority of PL assessment tools were identified at 70% to adopt assessment for learning or at a certain time combination with assessment as learning while assessing individuals’ PL progress. The conclusion was therefore drawn that the overall purpose of PL- to value and take responsibility of engaging in physical activity for life is still largely absent among the majority of existing PL assessment tools and both the ideal of what to assess and who to be assessed are far less to be met, while the effective PL assessment approaches remain critical. After all, in light of this conclusion future agenda has been suggested in view of designing PL assessment tools effective enough to promote PL for all. physical literacy assessment tools/instruments evaluation tools/instruments Medicine R Ke Zhou verfasserin aut In International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health MDPI AG, 2005 18(2021), 7954, p 7954 (DE-627)477992463 (DE-600)2175195-X 16604601 nnns volume:18 year:2021 number:7954, p 7954 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157954 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7954 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1661-7827 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1660-4601 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2021 7954, p 7954 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.3390/ijerph18157954 doi (DE-627)DOAJ005954657 (DE-599)DOAJ2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Habyarimana Jean de Dieu verfasserin aut Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Physical literacy (PL) has been acknowledged to be an individual journey, in view of this contention, objective assessment of such a developing construct has become a debatable issue for the last couple of decades apart from physical domain of observable domain. The purpose of this systematic review was to scrutinise what is currently known regarding the PL assessment tools—the existing PL assessment tools, their pioneers and year of publication, the philosophy behind their initiation, what they have been assessing (assessment domains), the category of population being assessed in relation to their age group, validity of the tools, other scholars notes, as well as the approaches being used, whether assessment for, as or of learning during physical activity participation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was used to undertake a comprehensive search from six electronic databases—ScienceDirect, Scopus, Eric, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SportDiscus retrieved 52 research articles and review papers, whereby only 22 articles were included after identification, screening, and eligibility selection criteria process. The study established that the majority—70%—of PL assessment tools were developed to promote either fundamental movement skills, athlete development or long-term health and well-being, instead of lifelong participation in physical activity. It was also ascertained that only 30% of PL assessment tools address both three domains comprising PL. Of a particular concern, it was explored that only the International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) PL matrix takes into account everyone of any age group, while the rest of the others segregate participants falling in a specific age groups to be based on. Afterward, the majority of PL assessment tools were identified at 70% to adopt assessment for learning or at a certain time combination with assessment as learning while assessing individuals’ PL progress. The conclusion was therefore drawn that the overall purpose of PL- to value and take responsibility of engaging in physical activity for life is still largely absent among the majority of existing PL assessment tools and both the ideal of what to assess and who to be assessed are far less to be met, while the effective PL assessment approaches remain critical. After all, in light of this conclusion future agenda has been suggested in view of designing PL assessment tools effective enough to promote PL for all. physical literacy assessment tools/instruments evaluation tools/instruments Medicine R Ke Zhou verfasserin aut In International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health MDPI AG, 2005 18(2021), 7954, p 7954 (DE-627)477992463 (DE-600)2175195-X 16604601 nnns volume:18 year:2021 number:7954, p 7954 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157954 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7954 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1661-7827 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1660-4601 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2021 7954, p 7954 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.3390/ijerph18157954 doi (DE-627)DOAJ005954657 (DE-599)DOAJ2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Habyarimana Jean de Dieu verfasserin aut Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Physical literacy (PL) has been acknowledged to be an individual journey, in view of this contention, objective assessment of such a developing construct has become a debatable issue for the last couple of decades apart from physical domain of observable domain. The purpose of this systematic review was to scrutinise what is currently known regarding the PL assessment tools—the existing PL assessment tools, their pioneers and year of publication, the philosophy behind their initiation, what they have been assessing (assessment domains), the category of population being assessed in relation to their age group, validity of the tools, other scholars notes, as well as the approaches being used, whether assessment for, as or of learning during physical activity participation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was used to undertake a comprehensive search from six electronic databases—ScienceDirect, Scopus, Eric, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SportDiscus retrieved 52 research articles and review papers, whereby only 22 articles were included after identification, screening, and eligibility selection criteria process. The study established that the majority—70%—of PL assessment tools were developed to promote either fundamental movement skills, athlete development or long-term health and well-being, instead of lifelong participation in physical activity. It was also ascertained that only 30% of PL assessment tools address both three domains comprising PL. Of a particular concern, it was explored that only the International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) PL matrix takes into account everyone of any age group, while the rest of the others segregate participants falling in a specific age groups to be based on. Afterward, the majority of PL assessment tools were identified at 70% to adopt assessment for learning or at a certain time combination with assessment as learning while assessing individuals’ PL progress. The conclusion was therefore drawn that the overall purpose of PL- to value and take responsibility of engaging in physical activity for life is still largely absent among the majority of existing PL assessment tools and both the ideal of what to assess and who to be assessed are far less to be met, while the effective PL assessment approaches remain critical. After all, in light of this conclusion future agenda has been suggested in view of designing PL assessment tools effective enough to promote PL for all. physical literacy assessment tools/instruments evaluation tools/instruments Medicine R Ke Zhou verfasserin aut In International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health MDPI AG, 2005 18(2021), 7954, p 7954 (DE-627)477992463 (DE-600)2175195-X 16604601 nnns volume:18 year:2021 number:7954, p 7954 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157954 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7954 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1661-7827 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1660-4601 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2021 7954, p 7954 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.3390/ijerph18157954 doi (DE-627)DOAJ005954657 (DE-599)DOAJ2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Habyarimana Jean de Dieu verfasserin aut Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Physical literacy (PL) has been acknowledged to be an individual journey, in view of this contention, objective assessment of such a developing construct has become a debatable issue for the last couple of decades apart from physical domain of observable domain. The purpose of this systematic review was to scrutinise what is currently known regarding the PL assessment tools—the existing PL assessment tools, their pioneers and year of publication, the philosophy behind their initiation, what they have been assessing (assessment domains), the category of population being assessed in relation to their age group, validity of the tools, other scholars notes, as well as the approaches being used, whether assessment for, as or of learning during physical activity participation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was used to undertake a comprehensive search from six electronic databases—ScienceDirect, Scopus, Eric, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SportDiscus retrieved 52 research articles and review papers, whereby only 22 articles were included after identification, screening, and eligibility selection criteria process. The study established that the majority—70%—of PL assessment tools were developed to promote either fundamental movement skills, athlete development or long-term health and well-being, instead of lifelong participation in physical activity. It was also ascertained that only 30% of PL assessment tools address both three domains comprising PL. Of a particular concern, it was explored that only the International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) PL matrix takes into account everyone of any age group, while the rest of the others segregate participants falling in a specific age groups to be based on. Afterward, the majority of PL assessment tools were identified at 70% to adopt assessment for learning or at a certain time combination with assessment as learning while assessing individuals’ PL progress. The conclusion was therefore drawn that the overall purpose of PL- to value and take responsibility of engaging in physical activity for life is still largely absent among the majority of existing PL assessment tools and both the ideal of what to assess and who to be assessed are far less to be met, while the effective PL assessment approaches remain critical. After all, in light of this conclusion future agenda has been suggested in view of designing PL assessment tools effective enough to promote PL for all. physical literacy assessment tools/instruments evaluation tools/instruments Medicine R Ke Zhou verfasserin aut In International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health MDPI AG, 2005 18(2021), 7954, p 7954 (DE-627)477992463 (DE-600)2175195-X 16604601 nnns volume:18 year:2021 number:7954, p 7954 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157954 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9 kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7954 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1661-7827 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1660-4601 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2021 7954, p 7954 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(2021), 7954, p 7954 volume:18 year:2021 number:7954, p 7954 |
| sourceStr |
In International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(2021), 7954, p 7954 volume:18 year:2021 number:7954, p 7954 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
physical literacy assessment tools/instruments evaluation tools/instruments Medicine R |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Habyarimana Jean de Dieu @@aut@@ Ke Zhou @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2021-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
477992463 |
| id |
DOAJ005954657 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ005954657</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230309195027.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/ijerph18157954</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ005954657</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Habyarimana Jean de Dieu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Physical literacy (PL) has been acknowledged to be an individual journey, in view of this contention, objective assessment of such a developing construct has become a debatable issue for the last couple of decades apart from physical domain of observable domain. The purpose of this systematic review was to scrutinise what is currently known regarding the PL assessment tools—the existing PL assessment tools, their pioneers and year of publication, the philosophy behind their initiation, what they have been assessing (assessment domains), the category of population being assessed in relation to their age group, validity of the tools, other scholars notes, as well as the approaches being used, whether assessment for, as or of learning during physical activity participation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was used to undertake a comprehensive search from six electronic databases—ScienceDirect, Scopus, Eric, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SportDiscus retrieved 52 research articles and review papers, whereby only 22 articles were included after identification, screening, and eligibility selection criteria process. The study established that the majority—70%—of PL assessment tools were developed to promote either fundamental movement skills, athlete development or long-term health and well-being, instead of lifelong participation in physical activity. It was also ascertained that only 30% of PL assessment tools address both three domains comprising PL. Of a particular concern, it was explored that only the International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) PL matrix takes into account everyone of any age group, while the rest of the others segregate participants falling in a specific age groups to be based on. Afterward, the majority of PL assessment tools were identified at 70% to adopt assessment for learning or at a certain time combination with assessment as learning while assessing individuals’ PL progress. The conclusion was therefore drawn that the overall purpose of PL- to value and take responsibility of engaging in physical activity for life is still largely absent among the majority of existing PL assessment tools and both the ideal of what to assess and who to be assessed are far less to be met, while the effective PL assessment approaches remain critical. After all, in light of this conclusion future agenda has been suggested in view of designing PL assessment tools effective enough to promote PL for all.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">physical literacy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">assessment tools/instruments</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">evaluation tools/instruments</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ke Zhou</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2005</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2021), 7954, p 7954</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)477992463</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2175195-X</subfield><subfield code="x">16604601</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:7954, p 7954</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157954</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7954</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1661-7827</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1660-4601</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">7954, p 7954</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Habyarimana Jean de Dieu |
| spellingShingle |
Habyarimana Jean de Dieu misc physical literacy misc assessment tools/instruments misc evaluation tools/instruments misc Medicine misc R Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How |
| authorStr |
Habyarimana Jean de Dieu |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)477992463 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
16604601 |
| topic_title |
Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How physical literacy assessment tools/instruments evaluation tools/instruments |
| topic |
misc physical literacy misc assessment tools/instruments misc evaluation tools/instruments misc Medicine misc R |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc physical literacy misc assessment tools/instruments misc evaluation tools/instruments misc Medicine misc R |
| topic_browse |
misc physical literacy misc assessment tools/instruments misc evaluation tools/instruments misc Medicine misc R |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
477992463 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)477992463 (DE-600)2175195-X |
| title |
Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ005954657 (DE-599)DOAJ2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9 |
| title_full |
Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How |
| author_sort |
Habyarimana Jean de Dieu |
| journal |
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health |
| journalStr |
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2021 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Habyarimana Jean de Dieu Ke Zhou |
| container_volume |
18 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Habyarimana Jean de Dieu |
| doi_str_mv |
10.3390/ijerph18157954 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
physical literacy assessment tools: a systematic literature review for why, what, who, and how |
| title_auth |
Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How |
| abstract |
Physical literacy (PL) has been acknowledged to be an individual journey, in view of this contention, objective assessment of such a developing construct has become a debatable issue for the last couple of decades apart from physical domain of observable domain. The purpose of this systematic review was to scrutinise what is currently known regarding the PL assessment tools—the existing PL assessment tools, their pioneers and year of publication, the philosophy behind their initiation, what they have been assessing (assessment domains), the category of population being assessed in relation to their age group, validity of the tools, other scholars notes, as well as the approaches being used, whether assessment for, as or of learning during physical activity participation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was used to undertake a comprehensive search from six electronic databases—ScienceDirect, Scopus, Eric, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SportDiscus retrieved 52 research articles and review papers, whereby only 22 articles were included after identification, screening, and eligibility selection criteria process. The study established that the majority—70%—of PL assessment tools were developed to promote either fundamental movement skills, athlete development or long-term health and well-being, instead of lifelong participation in physical activity. It was also ascertained that only 30% of PL assessment tools address both three domains comprising PL. Of a particular concern, it was explored that only the International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) PL matrix takes into account everyone of any age group, while the rest of the others segregate participants falling in a specific age groups to be based on. Afterward, the majority of PL assessment tools were identified at 70% to adopt assessment for learning or at a certain time combination with assessment as learning while assessing individuals’ PL progress. The conclusion was therefore drawn that the overall purpose of PL- to value and take responsibility of engaging in physical activity for life is still largely absent among the majority of existing PL assessment tools and both the ideal of what to assess and who to be assessed are far less to be met, while the effective PL assessment approaches remain critical. After all, in light of this conclusion future agenda has been suggested in view of designing PL assessment tools effective enough to promote PL for all. |
| abstractGer |
Physical literacy (PL) has been acknowledged to be an individual journey, in view of this contention, objective assessment of such a developing construct has become a debatable issue for the last couple of decades apart from physical domain of observable domain. The purpose of this systematic review was to scrutinise what is currently known regarding the PL assessment tools—the existing PL assessment tools, their pioneers and year of publication, the philosophy behind their initiation, what they have been assessing (assessment domains), the category of population being assessed in relation to their age group, validity of the tools, other scholars notes, as well as the approaches being used, whether assessment for, as or of learning during physical activity participation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was used to undertake a comprehensive search from six electronic databases—ScienceDirect, Scopus, Eric, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SportDiscus retrieved 52 research articles and review papers, whereby only 22 articles were included after identification, screening, and eligibility selection criteria process. The study established that the majority—70%—of PL assessment tools were developed to promote either fundamental movement skills, athlete development or long-term health and well-being, instead of lifelong participation in physical activity. It was also ascertained that only 30% of PL assessment tools address both three domains comprising PL. Of a particular concern, it was explored that only the International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) PL matrix takes into account everyone of any age group, while the rest of the others segregate participants falling in a specific age groups to be based on. Afterward, the majority of PL assessment tools were identified at 70% to adopt assessment for learning or at a certain time combination with assessment as learning while assessing individuals’ PL progress. The conclusion was therefore drawn that the overall purpose of PL- to value and take responsibility of engaging in physical activity for life is still largely absent among the majority of existing PL assessment tools and both the ideal of what to assess and who to be assessed are far less to be met, while the effective PL assessment approaches remain critical. After all, in light of this conclusion future agenda has been suggested in view of designing PL assessment tools effective enough to promote PL for all. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Physical literacy (PL) has been acknowledged to be an individual journey, in view of this contention, objective assessment of such a developing construct has become a debatable issue for the last couple of decades apart from physical domain of observable domain. The purpose of this systematic review was to scrutinise what is currently known regarding the PL assessment tools—the existing PL assessment tools, their pioneers and year of publication, the philosophy behind their initiation, what they have been assessing (assessment domains), the category of population being assessed in relation to their age group, validity of the tools, other scholars notes, as well as the approaches being used, whether assessment for, as or of learning during physical activity participation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was used to undertake a comprehensive search from six electronic databases—ScienceDirect, Scopus, Eric, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SportDiscus retrieved 52 research articles and review papers, whereby only 22 articles were included after identification, screening, and eligibility selection criteria process. The study established that the majority—70%—of PL assessment tools were developed to promote either fundamental movement skills, athlete development or long-term health and well-being, instead of lifelong participation in physical activity. It was also ascertained that only 30% of PL assessment tools address both three domains comprising PL. Of a particular concern, it was explored that only the International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) PL matrix takes into account everyone of any age group, while the rest of the others segregate participants falling in a specific age groups to be based on. Afterward, the majority of PL assessment tools were identified at 70% to adopt assessment for learning or at a certain time combination with assessment as learning while assessing individuals’ PL progress. The conclusion was therefore drawn that the overall purpose of PL- to value and take responsibility of engaging in physical activity for life is still largely absent among the majority of existing PL assessment tools and both the ideal of what to assess and who to be assessed are far less to be met, while the effective PL assessment approaches remain critical. After all, in light of this conclusion future agenda has been suggested in view of designing PL assessment tools effective enough to promote PL for all. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
7954, p 7954 |
| title_short |
Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157954 https://doaj.org/article/2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9 https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7954 https://doaj.org/toc/1661-7827 https://doaj.org/toc/1660-4601 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Ke Zhou |
| author2Str |
Ke Zhou |
| ppnlink |
477992463 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.3390/ijerph18157954 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T18:06:38.108Z |
| _version_ |
1803582175295045632 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ005954657</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230309195027.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/ijerph18157954</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ005954657</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Habyarimana Jean de Dieu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Physical literacy (PL) has been acknowledged to be an individual journey, in view of this contention, objective assessment of such a developing construct has become a debatable issue for the last couple of decades apart from physical domain of observable domain. The purpose of this systematic review was to scrutinise what is currently known regarding the PL assessment tools—the existing PL assessment tools, their pioneers and year of publication, the philosophy behind their initiation, what they have been assessing (assessment domains), the category of population being assessed in relation to their age group, validity of the tools, other scholars notes, as well as the approaches being used, whether assessment for, as or of learning during physical activity participation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was used to undertake a comprehensive search from six electronic databases—ScienceDirect, Scopus, Eric, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SportDiscus retrieved 52 research articles and review papers, whereby only 22 articles were included after identification, screening, and eligibility selection criteria process. The study established that the majority—70%—of PL assessment tools were developed to promote either fundamental movement skills, athlete development or long-term health and well-being, instead of lifelong participation in physical activity. It was also ascertained that only 30% of PL assessment tools address both three domains comprising PL. Of a particular concern, it was explored that only the International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) PL matrix takes into account everyone of any age group, while the rest of the others segregate participants falling in a specific age groups to be based on. Afterward, the majority of PL assessment tools were identified at 70% to adopt assessment for learning or at a certain time combination with assessment as learning while assessing individuals’ PL progress. The conclusion was therefore drawn that the overall purpose of PL- to value and take responsibility of engaging in physical activity for life is still largely absent among the majority of existing PL assessment tools and both the ideal of what to assess and who to be assessed are far less to be met, while the effective PL assessment approaches remain critical. After all, in light of this conclusion future agenda has been suggested in view of designing PL assessment tools effective enough to promote PL for all.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">physical literacy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">assessment tools/instruments</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">evaluation tools/instruments</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ke Zhou</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2005</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2021), 7954, p 7954</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)477992463</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2175195-X</subfield><subfield code="x">16604601</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:7954, p 7954</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157954</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/2c31cf0845c74077b2103556da6ed1a9</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7954</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1661-7827</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1660-4601</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">7954, p 7954</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.398987 |