Self-reported measurements of physical literacy in adults: a scoping review

Knud Ryom; Anne-Sofie Hargaard; Paulina Sander Melby; Helle Terkildsen Maindal; Peter Bentsen; Nikos Ntoumanis; Stephanie Schoeppe; Glen Nielsen; Peter Elsborg

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058351

Self-reported measurements of physical literacy in adults: a scoping review

BMJ Open. 2022 Sep 19;12(9):e058351. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058351.

Authors

Knud Ryom¹, Anne-Sofie Hargaard², Paulina Sander Melby³, Helle Terkildsen Maindal^{2

3}, Peter Bentsen⁴, Nikos Ntoumanis^{5

6}, Stephanie Schoeppe⁷, Glen Nielsen^{8

9}, Peter Elsborg^{3

4

9}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark knudryom@ph.au.dk.
² Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
³ Health Promotion Research, Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Gentofte, Denmark.
⁴ Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg Research Unit, Kobenhavn, Denmark.
⁵ Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, Danish Centre for Motivation and Behavior Science, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
⁶ School of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
⁷ Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
⁸ Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Kobenhavns, Denmark.
⁹ Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Kobenhavn, Denmark.

Abstract

Physical literacy (PL) is a comprehensive concept covering motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding of individuals' physical activity throughout life. PL has three overlapping domains, such as: an affective, a physical and a cognitive domain. So far, PL has not been measured in the adults and no complete measurement has been developed to date.

Objectives: The aim of this scoping review was to review existing self-reported instruments measuring different elements of domains of PL.

Method: We reviewed Education Research Complete, Cochrane, Medline, ScienceDirect, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. The reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Studies were coded using a thematic framework, which was based on the three domains of PL. The eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) age groups between 18 and 60 years; (2) meta-analyses, reviews or quantitative studies focusing on the measurement of at least one of the three domains of PL and (3) instrument that was self-reported. We finalised search on 1 August 2021 RESULTS: In total, 67 articles were identified as studies describing instruments reflecting the three domains of PL. Following full-text reading, 21 articles that met our inclusion criteria were included. Several instruments of relevance to PL are available for assessing motivation, confidence and the physical domain. However, few instruments exist that measure elements of the cognitive domain.

Conclusion: This review showed that a range of existing and validated instruments exists, covering two out of the three domains of PL, namely affective and physical domains. However, for the knowledge domain no valid measurement tools could be found. This scoping review has identified gaps in the research (namely the cognitive domain) and also a gap in the research as no measures that consider the inter-relatedness of the three domains (holistic nature of the concept).

Keywords: PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SPORTS MEDICINE.

Publication types

Review
Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Adolescent
Adult
Durable Medical Equipment
Exercise*
Humans
Literacy*
Middle Aged
Motivation
Self Report
Young Adult