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

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Knud Ryom
  • Anne-Sofie Hargaard
  • ,
  • Paulina Sander Melby, Steno Diabetes Centre
  • ,
  • Helle Terkildsen Maindal
  • Peter Bentsen, Center for Clinical Research and Prevention
  • ,
  • Nikos Ntoumanis, University of Southern Denmark, Halmstad University
  • ,
  • Stephanie Schoeppe, Queensland University of Technology
  • ,
  • Glen Nielsen, University of Copenhagen
  • ,
  • Peter Elsborg, Steno Diabetes Centre, Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, University of Copenhagen

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).

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere058351
JournalBMJ Open
Volume12
Issue9
Number of pages12
ISSN2044-6055
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2022

See relations at Aarhus University Citationformats

ID: 282622474