Shearer, 2021

Shearer et al.
Sports Medicine - Open (2021) 7:37

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-021-00324-8
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Open Access
Assessments Related to the Physical,

Affective and Cognitive Domains of
Physical Literacy Amongst Children Aged
7–11.9 Years: A Systematic Review
Cara Shearer1†, Hannah R. Goss1,2†, Lynne M. Boddy1, Zoe R. Knowles1, Elizabeth J. Durden-Myers3 and
Lawrence Foweather1*
Abstract
Background: Over the past decade, there has been increased interest amongst researchers, practitioners and
policymakers in physical literacy for children and young people and the assessment of the concept within physical
education (PE). This systematic review aimed to identify tools to assess physical literacy and its physical, cognitive
and affective domains within children aged 7–11.9 years, and to examine the measurement properties, feasibility
and elements of physical literacy assessed within each tool.
Methods: Six databases (EBSCO host platform, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Education Research Complete,
SPORTDiscus) were searched up to 10th September 2020. Studies were included if they sampled children aged
between 7 and 11.9 years, employed field-based assessments of physical literacy and/or related affective, physical or
cognitive domains, reported measurement properties (quantitative) or theoretical development (qualitative), and
were published in English in peer-reviewed journals. The methodological quality and measurement properties of
studies and assessment tools were appraised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health
Measurement INstruments risk of bias checklist. The feasibility of each assessment was considered using a utility
matrix and elements of physical literacy element were recorded using a descriptive checklist.
Results: The search strategy resulted in a total of 11467 initial results. After full text screening, 11 studies (3
assessments) related to explicit physical literacy assessments. Forty-four studies (32 assessments) were relevant to
the affective domain, 31 studies (15 assessments) were relevant to the physical domain and 2 studies (2
assessments) were included within the cognitive domain. Methodological quality and reporting of measurement
properties within the included studies were mixed. The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy-2 and the
Passport For Life had evidence of acceptable measurement properties from studies of very good methodological
quality and assessed a wide range of physical literacy elements. Feasibility results indicated that many tools would
be suitable for a primary PE setting, though some require a level of expertise to administer and score that would
require training.
* Correspondence: l.foweather@ljmu.ac.uk
Cara Shearer and Hannah R. Goss are joint lead authors
†
Cara Shearer and Hannah R. Goss contributed equally to this work.
1
Physical Activity Exchange, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise
Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, 5 Primrose Hill, Liverpool, UK
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons
licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons
licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Shearer et al. Sports Medicine - Open (2021) 7:37 Page 2 of 40
Conclusions: This review has identified a number of existing assessments that could be useful in a physical literacy
assessment approach within PE and provides further information to empower researchers and practitioners to make
informed decisions when selecting the most appropriate assessment for their needs, purpose and context. The
review indicates that researchers and tool developers should aim to improve the methodological quality and
reporting of measurement properties of assessments to better inform the field.
Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42017062217
Keywords: Physical literacy, Assessment, Physical education, Children, Systematic review
Key Points responsibility for engagement in physical activities for

life” ([21], p8), though her original conceptualisation
This systematic review identified 52 existing of physical literacy [18, 19], grounded in the philo-
assessment tools related to the physical, affective sophical traditions of phenomenology, existentialism
and cognitive domains of physical literacy for use in and monism, has evolved into an increasingly fluid
children aged 7–11.9 years old. concept subject to varying levels of abstraction and
Only three explicit (self-titled) physical literacy alignment in deployment by researchers and practi-
assessments were found. While these more tioners [3]. Indeed, physical literacy is a contested
comprehensive assessments show promise, more term [1, 22], with various contextually sensitive defi-
studies are needed to demonstrate their nitions and interpretations of the concept proposed
methodological rigour and feasibility for use in internationally [1–3, 6–8, 17, 23–26]. Nevertheless,
primary school settings. taken together, these diverse definitions seem to re-
This review identified a number of valid, reliable and flect a holistic view of physical literacy that empha-
feasible measures of elements of the physical and sises affective, physical and cognitive attributes and
affective domains that could be useful in a pragmatic predispositions necessary to participate in physical ac-
physical literacy assessment approach within tivity across the life course [3, 4, 25]. Furthermore,
physical education. More assessment development most researchers and practitioners advocating for
work is needed with regards to measuring the physical literacy agree that such an approach is inclu-
cognitive domain of physical literacy. sive and encourages more diverse forms of engage-
Findings indicate that researchers and tool ment in physical activity, and so would be more likely
developers should aim to improve the to lead to life-long safe, committed engagement in
methodological quality and reporting of physical activity, and better health, well-being and
measurement properties of assessments. quality of life for all [6, 7, 17, 27, 28].
The majority of existing physical literacy research
Background has focussed on children and youth populations
The concept of physical literacy has attracted signifi- within school settings [1]. Across the majority of
cant attention from researchers, policymakers and Western countries, school attendance within the 7–
practitioners within education, sport and public health 11-year-old age range is compulsory, thus making pri-
sectors and features prominently within current na- mary schools an optimal setting for physical activity
tional and international sport and physical activity promotion. While physical literacy is recognised as a
policies and strategic plans [1–16]. While physical lit- lifelong concept, the heightened attention on child-
eracy is a term that has been around since the late hood reflects the fact that this is seen as a critical
19th Century [17], current interest stems from the stage for the development of important physical liter-
work of Whitehead [18–20], who first introduced the acy attributes necessary for lifelong physical activity,
concept as a way forward to address low levels of health and well-being [29]. Schools are considered to
physical activity around the world and as a reaction be nurturing environments where children have op-
to a perceived focus on high performance and elitism portunities to be active, learn about physical activity
within physical education (PE), to the detriment of and develop positive physical activity behaviours [30–
the health and well-being of less-abled students. 32]. As a result, physical literacy has been identified
Whitehead most recently described physical literacy as a guiding framework and overarching goal of qual-
as “the motivation, confidence, physical competence, ity PE and a major focus of PE curriculum inter-
knowledge and understanding to value and take nationally [33–36]. In England, the National
Curriculum for PE aims to ensure that all pupils de- assessment, view physical literacy as holistic with insep-
velop competence to excel in a broad range of phys- arable dimensions and as a complex and dynamic
ical activities, are physically active for sustained process unique to each individual. Assessment can
periods of time, engage in competitive sports/activities therefore only be captured through subjective, qualita-
and lead healthy, active lives [37]. These ambitions tive, interpretivist methods and is centred on an
align with the concept of physical literacy. As such, a assessment-for-learning approach to monitor progress
cross-government action plan positioned physical lit- relative to the individual student’s physical literacy jour-
eracy as a core element of early learning and stated ney [17, 42, 48]. At the other end of the debate are prag-
that physical literacy should be a fundamental part of matic approaches that view physical literacy as a concept
every child’s school experience [38]. that can and should be assessed for the purposes of
Throughout compulsory education, assessment - both evidence-based practice and accountability, with positiv-
formative and summative - is a critical aspect of peda- ist, reductionist measurement methods typically utilised
gogical practice and accountability systems [39–41]. For [42]. Barnett et al. [54] suggested that these approaches
the purposes of this review and in accordance with Ed- do not need to be mutually exclusive: while acknowledg-
wards et al. [42], we define assessment as it is widely ing the holistic nature of physical literacy, they suggested
understood and used within educational contexts: as an that existing measures of physical literacy elements
umbrella term for measurement, charting, monitoring, should not be dismissed if they do not capture the entir-
tracking, evaluating, characterising, observing, indicating, ety of the concept; rather PE teachers should be encour-
and so on. Appropriate assessment of childhood physical aged to recognise this limitation and evaluate the
literacy in PE on both an individual and population level completeness of their assessment approaches. Similarly,
could improve standards and expectations, and raise the Essiet et al. [57] proposed that a comprehensive quanti-
profile of both PE and physical literacy [43, 44]. Primary tative assessment of physical literacy for teachers can be
teachers report that assessment in PE provides a struc- possible through an aggregate measure of all the ele-
ture and focus to planning, teaching and learning, which ments and domains identified within the corresponding
positively impacts on both the teacher and child [45]. definition. Thus, identifying assessments of physical lit-
Thus, the classroom teacher, utilising the close relation- eracy and/or its affective (motivation and confidence),
ship formed between teacher and pupil, should be physical, and cognitive (knowledge and understanding)
empowered to implement an assessment of physical lit- domains, inclusive of idealist and pragmatic approaches
eracy, fulfilling roles such as charting progress, providing to the concept, can inform physical literacy assessment
feedback, and highlighting key areas for how a child may efforts within primary (elementary) PE.
develop their physical literacy over time [46–50]. Barnett and colleagues [54] produced a decision-
Teachers themselves have, however, cited barriers to making guide for researchers and teachers for the assess-
implementing assessment in PE such as the lack of pri- ment of physical literacy within the context of school PE
ority given to PE within the curriculum; limited time, and within the parameters of the Australian definition of
space and expertise [51, 52]; difficulty in assessment dif- physical literacy [16]. This guidance outlined key consid-
ferentiation and limited availability of comparator sam- erations to inform what assessment approach to choose,
ples [45]; and varied beliefs, understandings and including factors such as the physical literacy elements
engagement regarding assessment [39, 40], alongside of importance (what is being measured and what is be-
limited knowledge of physical literacy [53]. Thus, consid- ing missed), the purpose of conducting the assessment,
ering the feasibility of a physical literacy assessment tool the assessment context and the target age range. Barnett
is of vital importance when determining appropriate use et al. [54] recognised that there was not an “ideal” ap-
within educational contexts [54]. proach to measurement and therefore the guidance was
Effective assessment of physical literacy in PE will en- aimed at empowering teachers and researchers to make
able funders, policymakers, researchers and educators to informed decisions on how to assess physical literacy
understand what teaching, learning and curriculum based on their intentions, needs and resources. It was
strategies are most effective in helping support physical beyond the remit of the study to review all potential as-
literacy [27, 44]. Despite this assertion, divergent ap- sessments that could align with physical literacy domains
proaches to understanding the concept of physical liter- and consider whether existing assessments/measures
acy have led to tensions in the research literature were reliable, valid, and trustworthy. Edwards et al. [42]
surrounding whether physical literacy can and should be conducted a systematic review of the literature and iden-
assessed, with implications for how assessment has been tified 52 assessments of physical literacy and related con-
operationalised in practice [5, 17, 18, 42, 47, 55, 56]. Ed- structs evaluating these in relation to age group,
wards et al. [42] suggested that idealist approaches to environment, and philosophy. While several qualitative
the concept of physical literacy, and therefore and quantitative tools were identified for the assessment
of affective, cognitive and physical domains as well as years (including overweight and obese children and
the related construct of physical activity for use with children from deprived areas).
children under 12 years old, few assessments captured 2. Reported on a field-based assessment tool (i.e. not
the entire range of domains [42]. Within their review, measured through laboratory methods) within PE
Edwards and colleagues used the global search term or related contexts (such as physical activity, sport,
“physical literacy” to identify assessments. There is scope active play, exercise or recreation) with an outcome
to expand this review through the use of wider search relating to physical literacy (see PICOS statement
terms related to the elements within affective (e.g. mo- for the list of outcomes (Additional file 1). Other
tivation and confidence), cognitive (e.g. knowledge and contexts were considered in order to capture assess-
understanding) and physical (e.g. motor skills) domains ments that could be suitable for use in school set-
of physical literacy, which could identify other relevant tings and PE.
assessment options for consideration in assessment dis- 3. Cross-sectional, longitudinal or experimental study
courses. Furthermore, since this review was published, a design.
number of explicit assessments of physical literacy have 4. Reported a measurement method (qualitative or
been developed, such as the Passport for Life [58] and quantitative) relevant to physical literacy and/or an
Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth [59], that war- element of physical literacy.
rant further consideration. It was outside of the scope of 5. Reported information on measurement properties
the Edwards et al. [42] review to consider the measure- (quantitative assessments) or theoretical
ment properties (i.e. validity, reliability, trustworthiness) development (qualitative assessments).
and feasibility of each assessment. We believe that pro- 6. Published in English and in a peer-reviewed journal.
viding researchers and teachers with information in a
single point of reference on the theoretical development, Exclusion Criteria
measurement properties and feasibility of assessments of Studies identified through the literature search were ex-
physical literacy and its elements within PE contexts will cluded if:
further empower them to make informed decisions on
selecting an appropriate assessment. Such information 1. Included special populations (i.e. children with
could assist with the development of a bank of assess- developmental coordination disorder, diagnosed
ment resources and guide potential physical literacy as- with learning difficulty).
sessment development in the field. 2. Lab-based assessment.
The aim of this study, therefore, is to systematically re- 3. Book chapters, case studies, student dissertations,
view the scientific literature for tools to assess physical conference abstracts, review articles, meta-analyses,
literacy and its physical, cognitive and affective domains editorials, protocol papers and systematic reviews.
within children aged 7–11.9 years. We selected this age 4. Full text articles were not available.
group as it represents the lower and upper ages for chil-
dren within Key Stage 2 of the National Curriculum in Information Sources
England [37] with the aim of informing PE assessments Relevant studies were identified by means of electronic
within this block of education (i.e. school years 3 to 6). searches on EBSCOhost and through scanning reference
This paper will explore and critically discuss each assess- lists of included articles. The EBSCOhost platform sup-
ment tool to appraise its (a) measurement properties, (b) plied access to MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Education
physical literacy elements assessed and (c) feasibility for Research Complete and SPORTDiscus databases. Each
use within a primary school setting. of the databases was searched independently. Publication
date restrictions were not applied in any search with the
Methods final search conducted on 10th September 2020.
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [60]. Search Strategy and Study Selection
The protocol information for this review was registered Search strategies used in the databases included combi-
with PROSPERO, reference: CRD42017062217. nations of key search terms which were divided into four
sections: tool (Assessment OR Measurement OR Test
Inclusion Criteria OR Tool OR Instrument OR Battery OR Method OR
The full PICOS statement can be found in Additional Psychometric OR Observation OR Indicator OR Evalu-
file 1. Studies were included if they: ate OR Valid Or Reliable) AND context (“Physical Activ-
ity” OR “Physical Literacy” OR Play OR Sport OR
1. Sampled typically developing children with a “Physical Education” OR Exercise OR Recreation) AND
reported mean age or age range between 7–11.9 population (Child OR Youth OR Adolescent OR
Paediatric OR Schoolchild OR Boy OR Girl OR Pre- of interpretation. The lead authors (CS physical and
school OR Juvenile OR Teenager) AND physical literacy physical literacy; HG affective and cognitive) independ-
elements (Motivation OR Enjoyment OR Confidence OR ently extracted individual study data relating to study in-
Self* Or “Perceived Competence” OR Affective OR So- formation (authors, publication date, country and study
cial OR Emotion* OR Attitude* OR Belief* OR Physical* design), sample description, purpose of study, the phys-
OR Fitness OR Motor OR Movement* OR Skills* OR ical literacy element being assessed (as described by the
Technique* OR Mastery OR Ability* OR Coordination study authors themselves), measurement technique (i.e.
OR Performance OR “Perceptual Motor” OR Knowledge interviews, questionnaires, practical trial), outcome vari-
OR Understanding OR Value OR Cognition* OR Health ables, measurement properties/theoretical development
OR Wellbeing*). Boolean searches were carried out and utility information (reliability, validity, responsive-
using “AND” to combine concepts (tool, context, popu- ness and feasibility). Data extraction was checked for ac-
lation, element) and narrow the search to only capture curacy for the first three studies across each domain by
articles in which all relevant concepts appear (see Add- a third reviewer (LF) and any inconsistencies were re-
itional file 2 for an example search strand). Following solved following discussion with the lead authors.
the initial search, all records were exported to Covidence
(Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Quality Appraisal
Innovation) for screening (Covidence data/reports are The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of
available from the contact author upon reasonable re- health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist
quest). Duplicates were removed using Endnote and the was used to evaluate the methodological rigour of as-
two lead authors (CS and HG) screened all titles and ab- sessments [61, 62]. The COSMIN checklist has been de-
stracts. Only articles published or accepted for publica- veloped by a team of international multidisciplinary
tion in peer-reviewed journals were considered. A third researchers and is of a modular design, which enabled
author (LF) checked decisions on what to include based flexibility to suit the needs of the current systematic re-
on the inclusion/exclusion criteria (i.e. age range, typic- view. Using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist [61] each
ally developing population, field-based assessment, study measurement property (content validity, construct valid-
design, physical literacy element, measurement proper- ity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, test re-
ties and peer-reviewed status) and any disagreements test reliability, intra-rater reliability, inter-rater reliability,
were resolved by discussion and collaboration with all criterion validity) was appraised for methodological
authors. Full-text articles were further evaluated separ- quality and subsequently given a rating of “very good”,
ately for relevance by the two lead authors (CS and HG) “adequate”, “doubtful”, or “inadequate” or, if not re-
and labelled “yes”, “no”, or “maybe”. The two reviewers ported, “NR”. This 4-point rating scale and worst score
conferred and, following discussion on any inconsisten- counts method were used throughout. Where the
cies, agreement was reached on all articles. A third re- reporting of measurement properties received a rating of
viewer (LF) checked all of the studies that met the “very good”, the validity and reliability of the tool can be
inclusion criteria and 10% of studies that were excluded appraised using established thresholds [63] (see Add-
to ensure accuracy in the study selection process. All de- itional file 3). The lead authors (CS physical and physical
cisions were made in closed meetings with no recorded literacy assessments; HG affective and cognitive assess-
minutes and are attributable to the authors. Where a ments) independently appraised measurement proper-
manual was available for an assessment that met the in- ties; a third reviewer checked 10% of measurement
clusion criteria, these were accessed if the manual was quality ratings and threshold scoring for accuracy and
freely available online or, alternatively, through contact- any uncertainties were discussed and agreed upon in
ing the study authors where possible. face-to-face meetings with all three reviewers (CS, HG,
LF). The COSMIN guidelines were updated during the
Data Collection Processes review process and new guidance regarding the import-
Due to the large number of studies included after full ance of each measurement property was detailed [62].
text screening, the studies were divided into explicit According to the updated guidelines, if neither the ori-
physical literacy assessments and related physical, ginal study, an associated paper or the tool manual ad-
affective, and cognitive domains in accordance with defi- equately describes the measurement development
nitions and conceptualisations of physical literacy [1, 2, process and/or aspects of content validity, then the tool
6, 16, 20, 26]. This categorisation of assessments of ele- should not be appraised by researchers further in rela-
ments into domains was undertaken in order to position tion to wider measurement properties. We elected to
assessments into familiar categories known to potential follow the previous guidelines and made a conscious de-
assessment users (e.g. coaches, researchers and teachers cision to appraise all the available measurement proper-
in physical literacy and physical education) and for ease ties within all the eligible studies in order to be inclusive
and present a detailed overview of what assessments are various conceptualisations of physical literacy [1, 20, 26,
available. As qualitative assessments were also eligible 67–69]. The definitions adopted internationally were
for inclusion, the National Institute for Healthcare and collated and cross-referenced, identifying distinctive
Excellence (NICE) Quality Appraisal Checklist for quali- characteristics of physical literacy referred to in research
tative studies [64] was identified as a tool to appraise the and policy. This process resulted in a checklist that in-
methodological rigour of these assessments. cluded 10 affective, 20 physical and 11 cognitive physical
The feasibility of each assessment tool, including fac- literacy elements (Table 2).
tors such as cost-efficiency (time, space, equipment, Each of the included studies was independently scored
training and qualifications required) and acceptability for feasibility and checked for physical literacy elements
(participant understanding, completed assessments), was by the two lead authors (CS and HG). As above, tools
appraised using a utility matrix developed from previous were divided into domains and scored separately by the
research [65, 66] (see Table 1). Each dimension of feasi- lead authors (CS: physical and physical literacy; HG cog-
bility was independently scored on a 1* (low feasibility) nitive and affective). Each lead author (CS an HG)
to 4* (high feasibility) scale using information reported checked 10% of studies from the other lead author to
within included studies and manuals. An overall feasibil- ensure consistent methodological rigour of the feasibility
ity utility matrix score was also calculated by summing and physical literacy element scoring. Any discrepancies
the scores from each of the seven feasibility items to were discussed and resolved in face-to-face meetings
allow comparisons between assessments (maximum with the third reviewer (LF).
feasibility score = 28).
A physical literacy element checklist was developed to Results
highlight which aspects of physical literacy each assess- An overview of the search process is provided in Fig. 1.
ment captured, as explicitly stated within the included The search strategy resulted in a total of 11467 results
studies and manuals. The checklist was developed by the (NB. this search strand was also used to identify assess-
research team through discussion in a closed meeting ments used in children aged 3–7.9 years, which will be
following an overview of international physical literacy reported elsewhere). After the screening of titles and ab-
literature [2] and utilised elements captured within stracts, 391 articles were retrieved for full text reading.
Table 1 Description of rating of feasibility of assessments

****(High feasibility) *** ** * (Low feasibility)
Cost How long does < 15 min < 30 min 30–60 min > 60 min
Efficiency an assessment
take to complete
How much space Less than 6 m, a 6–10 m, a standard room 10-20 m (primary school 20 m+ (secondary school
is needed to corner of a room sports hall) sports hall requirement)
administer an
assessment?
What equipment Equipment likely to be Some extra equipment or Most of the equipment All equipment required
is required to present in a typical resource required would be required would be additional would be additional
administer an school additional to what is typically to what is typically present to what is typically present
assessment? present (primary school) (primary school) (primary school)
What qualification Able to be Able to be administered by a Able to be administered by Requires researcher with
is required to administered by any qualified teacher PE/Sport specialist specific higher
administer an school staff qualifications
assessment?
What training is Little or no additional Some additional training Further additional training Significant training
required to training required required (less than half a day) required (half a day to one required (more than one
administer an and a half days) and a half days)
assessment?
Acceptability Is there evidence Investigation of Estimated evidence of participant Participant understanding No evidence of participant
of participant participant understanding (evidence from not explicitly stated but can understanding
understanding? understanding source other than participant) be assumed
(evidence from
participants)
How many Low number of High number of missing items (> Low number of missing items High number of missing
assessments are missing items (< 10%) 10%) and adequate response or poor (< 10%) and items (> 10%) and poor
not completed? and adequate response rate (> 40%) adequate response rate (< response rate (< 40%)
rate (> 40%) 40%)
Table 2 Physical literacy element checklist

Affective domain Physical domain Cognitive domain
Confidence Object-control Knowledge and understanding of benefits of physical activity
Motivation Stability Knowledge and understanding of importance of physical activity
Emotional regulation Locomotor Knowledge and understanding of effects of physical activity on the body
Enjoyment Movement skills—land Knowledge and understanding of opportunities to be active
Persistence/resilience/ Movement skills—water Knowledge and understanding of sedentary behaviour
commitment Moving using equipment Ability to identify and describe movement
Adaptability Cardiovascular endurance Creativity and imagination in application of movement
Willingness to try new Muscular endurance Decision-making (ability to think, understand and make decisions, knowing how and
activities Coordination when to perform)
Autonomy Flexibility Ability to reflect and improve own performance, including setting optimal challenges
Self-perception/self-esteem Agility Knowledge and understanding of tactics, rules, and strategy
Perceived physical Strength Knowledge and understanding of safety considerations and risk
competence Reaction time
Speed
Power
Rhythmic ability
Aesthetic/expressive ability
Sequencing
Adapt movement strategies to the situation/
environment
Progression from simple-complex skills
Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram showing the process of study identification and selection
After full text screening was completed, in relation to Athletic Skills Track: AST [127]; Bruininks–Oseretsky
the 7–11.9 years age range, a total of 88 eligible studies Test of Motor Proficiency 2nd Edition Short Form:
were included. Eleven studies [58, 70–79] and two corre- BOTMP-SF [128–130, 158]; EUROFIT [131, 159]; FITN
sponding manuals [59, 80] were found for explicit (self- ESSGRAM [132–134, 160]; Golf Swing and Putt skill As-
titled) physical literacy assessments. We also found 44 sessment: GSPA [135]; Movement assessment battery
studies related to the affective domain [81–124] with for children-2: MABC-2 [136–139]; Motorische Basis-
one corresponding manual [125], 31 studies [126–156] kompetenzen in der 3: MOBAK-3 [140–143, 161];
and six corresponding manuals [157–162] related to the Motorisk Utveckling som Grund för Inlärning: MUGI
physical domain, and two studies related to the cognitive [166]; Obstacle Polygon: OP [145]; Physical Activity Re-
domain [163, 164]. From these studies, a total of 52 dis- search and Assessment tool for Garden Observation:
tinct assessments were identified. PARAGON [146]; Star Excursion Balance Test: SEBT
Three tools were explicitly labelled as physical literacy [147]; Stability skill test: SS [148]; Test of Gross Motor
assessments (Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy: Development-3: TGMD-3 [149–155, 162]; Y Balance
CAPL-2 [70–77, 80]; Physical Literacy Assessment in Test: YBT [156]). Two tools assessed elements within
Youth: PLAYfun [59, 79, 165]; Passport for Life: PFL the cognitive domain (Beat Osteoporosis Now-Physical
[58]). Thirty-two tools assessed elements within the Activity Survey: BONES PAS [163]; Pupil Health Know-
affective domain (Achievement Goal scale for Youth ledge Assessment: PHKA [164]).
Sports: AGSYS [81]; ASK-KIDS [82–84]; Attitudes To-
wards Curriculum Physical Education: ATCPE [85]; Atti- Assessment Characteristics
tudes Towards Outdoor play scale: ATOP [86]; Adapted Table 3 describes the characteristics of the 52 included
Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire: BREQ assessment tools. The majority of assessments were de-
[87]; Children’s Attraction to Physical Activity Question- veloped in the USA (n = 28), Australia (n = 5) and Eur-
naire: CAPA [88–90]; Children’s Attitudes Towards ope (n = 12). Notably, the three explicit (self-titled)
Physical Activity: CATPA [91–93]; Commitment to physical literacy assessments—CAPL-2, PLAYfun and
Physical Activity Scale: CPAS [94]; Children and Youth PFL—were all developed in Canada. PLAYfun is one
Physical Self-Perception Profile: CY-PSPP [95, 96]; Mo- component of a wider suite of physical literacy assess-
tivational determinants of elementary school students’ ment in youth (PLAY) tools designed to assist with
participation in physical activity: DPAPI [97]; Enjoyment programme evaluation and research in sport, health and
in Physical Education: EnjoyPE [98]; Food, Health and recreation, including PLAYbasic, PLAYfun, PLAYself,
Choices Questionnaire: FHC-Q [99, 100]; Feelings About PLAYparent and PLAYcoach [59]. Studies were only
Physical Movement: FAPM [83]; Healthy Opportunities found in relation to PLAYfun, which assesses eighteen
for Physical Activity and Nutrition Evaluation: HOP’N motor skill tasks (including running, locomotor, upper
[101]; Lunchtime Enjoyment of Activity and Play Ques- body control, lower body control) by observation from
tionnaire: LEAP [102]; Momentary Assessment of Affect trained assessors. The child’s confidence and compre-
and Physical feeling states: MAAP [103]; Motivational hension towards the movement are also recorded. Confi-
Orientation in Sport Scale: MOSS [104, 105]; Negative dence refers to whether the child had low, medium or
Attitudes Towards Physical Activity Scale: NAS [106]; high confidence when performing each task, while com-
Physical Activity Beliefs and Motives: PABM [107]; prehension is assessed as to whether the child requires a
Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale: PACES [108]; Phys- prompt, mimics their peers, asks the assessor for a de-
ical activity and Healthy Food Efficacy: PAHFE [109]; scription or demonstration of the task. The assessor
Positive Attitudes Towards Physical Activity Scale: PAS must have some education in movement or motion ana-
[106]; Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Questionnaire: lysis and grades each child’s physical ability using a
PASE [110]; Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Scale: PASES 100mm visual analogue scale, placing a mark in one of
[111, 112]; Physical Activity Self-efficacy, Enjoyment, four categories: initial, emerging, competent and profi-
and Social Support Scale [113]; The Revised Perceived cient. Scores of 100 on the scale represent “the best any-
Locus of causality in physical Education: PLOC in PE one can be at the skill, regardless of age” [59]. Scores
[114]; Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Ques- across tasks are summed and then divided by 18 to gen-
tionnaire: PMCS [115]; Response to Challenge Scale: erate the PLAYfun physical literacy score. The PFL is
RCS [116–118]; Self-Efficacy Scale [119]; Self-Perception designed as a formative criterion-based assessment for
Profile for Children: SPPC [120–123, 125]; Trichotom- PE practitioners and incorporates fitness and movement
ous Achievement Goal Model: TAGM [124]; Task and assessments (Plank, Lateral Bound, Four-Station Circuit,
Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire: TEOSQ [108, Run-Stop-Return, Throw and Catch with a Bounce, Ad-
115]). Fifteen tools assessed elements within the physical vanced Kick) as well as questionnaires to assess active
domain (ALPHA Fitness Battery: ALPHA [126, 157]; participation (22 self-report items relating to diversity,
Table 3 Characteristics of physical literacy and related affective, physical and affective domain assessments
Assessment, country of Participant n, sex Purpose/ use of assessment Constructs assessed Scale Scoring
origin, author(s) of (% female) (age
primary study range; mean age)
[citation], related
studies [citation(s)]
Explicit physical literacy assessments
CAPL-2 N = 963 Assess physical literacy CAMSA Scores from domains are summed to create a
Canada 55% (8–10; 10.1 ± PACER (10m or 25m) CAPL-2 total score out of 100, which is used to
Longmuir et al. [70–77, 1.17) Isometric plank hold classify the children into one of four interpretative
80] Motivation and confidence are measured by a 12 categories (beginning, progressing, achieving or
items questionnaire that aggregate to four excelling) based on age and sex specific cut
Shearer et al. Sports Medicine - Open
subscales (adequacy, predilection, intrinsic points.

motivation competence) CAMSA, PACER and Plank are combined within
Knowledge and understanding are measured via the physical domain, which is worth 30 points.
5 item s (PA guidelines, cardiorespiratory fitness For motivation and confidence 7.5 points are
definition, muscular endurance definition, PA assigned to each three-item component (intrinsic
comprehension, improve sport skill) questionnaire motivation, PA competence, adequacy, predilec-
(2021) 7:37
Daily behaviour is measured via self-report question) of the assessment, wherein participants re-
tionnaire and pedometer step counts spond to bipolar statements “What’s most like
me” selecting if it’s “really true for me” or “sort of
true for me” (30 points in total). Daily physical ac-
tivity behaviour as assessed by self-report and
daily pedometer step count (30 points) and know-
ledge and understanding (10 points). The know-
ledge and understanding component include four
questionnaire items and a missing word para-
graph activity.
PFL Pilot n = 860 PFL includes three assessments for each of Measures include student profile, living skill Living skill and active participation questionnaires
Canada (9–10) the four components (active participation, questionnaire (feelings—7 items, thinking—7 scored on a 4-point Likert scale
Lodewyk et al. [58] 2013–2014 n = fitness, movement and living skills). Aim of items, interacting—7 items) Fitness and Movement skills assessed by teachers
1036 the study was to uncover initial validation Active participation questionnaire (22 items across using a 4-point scale (1 = emerging, 2 = develop-
(8–11; NR) evidence 3 scales of diversity, interests, intentions) ing, 3 = acquired, 4 = accomplished) based on
46% (of the 176 Fitness kills assessed by the Plank Challenge, The detailed descriptions of each in a rubric provided
that reported sex) Lateral Bound and the Four-Station Circuit to teachers
approximately 40% Movement skills assessed by the Run-Stop-Return,
completed all Throw and Catch with a Bounce, Advanced Kick
measures.
2014–2015
n = 1199
(8–12; NR)
44% (of the 327
who reported sex)
Paper also reported
data for ages 12–19
years old
PLAYfun N = 215 Assess motor competence, comprehension 18 different movement tasks within five domains Children are assessed using a VAS that is 100 mm
Canada 48% (7–14; NR) and confidence that assess different aspects of a child’s in length and divided into four categories:
Cairney et al. [78, 79, movement skills. The five domains are as follows: Confidence is rated a low, medium or high
165] running Comprehension is rated as Prompt: If the child
locomotor needed the assessor to give them an additional
Page 9 of 40
Table 3 Characteristics of physical literacy and related affective, physical and affective domain assessments (Continued)
[citation], related
object control—upper body prompt (outside of the instructions) (e.g. “Go on.
object control—lower body You can do it.”), or to incite them to perform the
balance, stability, and body control skill/task, place a tick in the “Prompt” column.
Confidence and comprehension is assessed by Mimic: If the child waited for one of their peers to
rater when child is completing motor perform the skill first, place a tick in the “Mimic”
competence assessment column. Describe: If the child asked the assessor to
describe the skill/task, place a tick in the

“Describe” column. Demo: If the child asked the
assessor to demonstrate the skill/task, place a tick
in the “Demo” column.
Affective domain
(2021) 7:37
AGSYS N = 1675 Use the 2x2 achievement goal framework to 12 items related to mastery/ego X approach/ 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all true) to 5
USA NR (9–12, NR) assess goal approach orientations avoidance goal framework (very true)
Cumming et al. [81]
ASK-KIDS N = 76 Self-concept in relation to physical Dot-point rating scores 1 (low) to 5 (high) Scores averaged from (1) low to (5) high
Australia 43% (4–13.5, 8.1 ± movement, natural talent, effort, difficulty,
Bornholt & Piccolo 2.3) personal identity, and social identity
[82–84]
ATCPE N = 223 Assess attitudes towards curriculum PE 25 items (13 positive and 12 negative) 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to
UK NR (9–12, NR) strongly agree (5)
Jones [85]
ATOP N = 362 Attitudes towards outdoor play Three scales: Perceived benefit of playing outside “How much do you agree with each statement?”
USA 49% (9–13, 11) 4 items; Extent to which students enjoy Responses on a 5-point Likert scale from strongly
Beyer et al. [86] unstructured play 3 items; Barriers to outdoor play disagree to strongly agree
5 items
BREQ N = 462 Assess self-determined motivation for PA and Self-determined motivation for PA: 12 items, 3 per 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not true for me) to 5
UK 56.9% (7–11; 10.0 ± PA psychological need satisfaction in children motivation scale (intrinsic, extrinsic, external). PA (very true for me).
Sebire et al. [87] 0.6) psychological need satisfaction: autonomy (6
items), competence (6 items), relatedness (6
items)
CAPA N = 81 Measurement of attraction to PA Original scale has 25 items (5 subscales with 5 Structured alternate. Adapted version used 1 to 4
USA 53% (9–10; 10.4 ± items each), shorter scale has 15 items (5 Likert scale
Brustad [88–90] 0.3) subscales with 3 items each). Subscales include
liking of games and sports, liking of physical
exertion and exercise, liking of vigorous PA, peer
acceptance in sport and games, importance of
exercise
CATPA N = 992 Assess attitudes towards PA 6 scales; social, health and fitness, pursuit of 5-point Likert scale and semantic differential
USA 51% (9–12; NR) vertigo, aesthetic, catharsis, and aesthetic. Each technique with a 0-7 bipolar continuum, with 0 as
Simon & Smoll [87, 91] had 8 items a neutral reference point. Adjectives at each end
of the continuum included good-bad, of no use-
useful, not pleasant-pleasant, bitter-sweet, nice-
Page 10 of 40
[citation], related
awful, happy-sad, dirty-clean, steady-nervous
CPAS N = 932 Physical activity commitment 12 items measuring attitudes and feelings Likert scale 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly
USA 100% (9–14, NR) towards PA agree)
DeBate [94]
CY-PSPP N = 152 Assess physical self-perceptions in children 36 items, 6 items for each of the 6 domains 4 point structured alternate format and standard
USA 53% (9–11; NR) (global self-esteem, physical self-worth, sport com- 4-point Likert scale for comparison
Welk et al. [95, 96] petence, body attractiveness, physical strength,
physical condition)
DPAPI N = 435 Assess psychological needs, motivational Innate psychological needs (6 items), motivational Innate psychological needs, motivational types
USA 51% (11–12; 9.9 ± types, and motivational consequences for PA types (12 items), motivational consequences (6 and motivational behavioural consequences were
Chen [97] 1.1) participation outside of school items) assessed on a 5-point Likert scale 5 (very like me)
(2021) 7:37
to 1 (not like me). Responses to motivational

affective consequences included 4 semantic pairs
anchored on a 5-point Likert scale with smiley
faces
EnjoyPE N = 148 Assess student’s enjoyment in PE and 10 statements relating to enjoyment (7) and 5-point Likert scale, strongly disagree (1) strongly
USA 47% (8–10; NR) exergaming perceived exertion (3) agree (5)
Shewmake [98]
FHC-Q N = 112 Assess energy related behaviours including Questionnaire. Utilised Audience Response System 5-point Likert scale
USA 49.3% (9–12, NR) intake of fruits and vegetables, sugar- through PowerPoint. 71 items in total. Self-
Gray et al. [87] sweetened beverages, determination (9 questions). Outcome expecta-
processed packaged snacks, and fast food; tions (15 questions). Self-efficacy (20) questions.
physical activity; recreational screen time; and Habit strength (6 questions). Goal intention (6
associated psychosocial determinants questions). Knowledge (6 questions). Social desir-
ability (9 questions).
FAPM N = 56 Feelings about physical movements Diagram (stick figures running and catching) Responses scaled from 1 (low) to 7 (high)
Australia 43% (4–11, 8.0 ± researcher reads accompanying paragraph and
Bornholt & Piccolo [83] 2.1) the child ticks as many words as needed in
relation to five general feelings
HOP’N N = 230 Assess psychosocial variables as part of a 3- 16 items: PA task self-efficacy (1 item), PA barriers 3-point scale (e.g. not sure at all- somewhat sure-
USA 51% (9–10; 9.5 ± year randomised controlled trial aiming to self-efficacy (4 items), PA enjoyment (2 items), Per- very sure). Perceived habitual PA scores were
Rosenkranz et al. [101] 0.7) prevent obesity through an after-school ceived opportunity for PA (2 items), Perceived ha- assessed using a 2-item screener, averaged and
programme bitual PA (2 items), and perceived parental dichotomised a meeting PA guideline or not. Par-
support (5 items) ental support was rated on a 6-point scale (never
to daily)
LEAP N = 197 Enjoyment of lunchtime play Children completed “expected” (before lunch) and 5-point Likert pictorial scale from very unhappy (1)
Australia 43% (8–12, NR) “actual” (after lunch) enjoyment of lunch time to very happy (5)
Hyndman et al. [102] play using survey cards with pictorial scale
MAAP N = 119 Affective and feeling states relate to physical Positive affect, negative affect, physical feeling Response options included 0=not at all, 1=a little
USA 48% (9–13, NR) activity states all assessed by 2 items each when bit, 2=quite a bit, 3=extremely
Dunton et al. [103] prompted through a mobile phone
Page 11 of 40
[citation], related
MOSS N = 155 Assess children’s motivational orientation for 27 items, 5 subscales: Challenge (5 items relating Structured alternative scoring 1 (low) to 4 (high).
Australia 45% (8–12; 10.2 ± engagement in PA to preference for challenging or easy skills), Children indicate if “Sort of true for me” or “really
Weiss et al. [87] 1.4) curiosity (4 items relating to desire to participate), true for me”. Separate scores given for each
mastery (5 items relating to problem solving and subscale. High scores indicate more intrinsic
mastery attempts), judgement (6 items relating to motivation
self-assessment vs teacher assessment), criteria (7
items relating to preference for internal sense of

success/failure vs external determined success/
failure)
NAS N = 382 Measure negative attitudes towards PA All items (8) followed the stem “If I were to be 5-point Likert scale from 1 (disagree a lot) to 5
USA 46% (10–12; 10.8 ± physically active on most days…” (agree a lot)
Nelson et al. [106] 0.7)
(2021) 7:37
PABM N = 2092 Assess motives for physical activity Self-efficacy (8 items). Perceived barriers: 3 scales; All used 4-point order response format apart from
USA 53% (10–12, NR) obstacles (3 items), evaluation (3 items), outcomes perceived parental support, 5 point ordered for-
Dishman et al. [107] (3 items). Motives for PA: 30 items, 5 scales for mat. Participants entered all self-administered
intrinsic; enjoyment (7 items), competence (7 questionnaire responses into a survey software
items) and extrinsic; fitness (5 items), appearance database on laptop computers
(6 items), social (5 items). Parental support (5
items)
PACES N = 564 Assess the enjoyment of PA 16 bipolar statements starting with the stem 5-point Likert scale 1 (Disagree a lot) to 5 (Agree a
USA 53% (8–9; 8.7 ± 0.5 “When I am physically active…” lot)
Moore et al. [108]
PAHFE N = 131 Assess personal goal setting and decision- 18 items representing children may experiences 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not sure at all) to 5
USA 54% (8–14; 9.9 ± making efficacy for PA and food choices when attempting to improve PA and eating (completely sure)
Perry et al. [109] NR) behaviours
PAS N = 382 Measure positive attitudes towards PA All items (8) followed the stem “If I were to be 5-point Likert scale from 1 (disagree a lot) to 5
USA 46% (10–12; 10.8 ± physically active on most days…” (agree a lot)
Nelson et al. [106] 0.65)
PASE N = 560 Assess PA self-efficacy 23 physical activity and 24 sedentary behaviour (3 Dichotomous options (sure and not sure)
USA 49% (NR, 11.3 ± 0.6) subscales relating to TV, computer/video game/
Jago et al. [110] telephone) items were loaded onto palm pilots.
All items start with stem “How sure are you that
you have (can)…”
PASES N = 442 Assess psychosocial determinants on Social influences (1 factor), self-efficacy (3 factors; 2-point scale (yes or no)
USA NR (10–11; NR) children’s PA: social influences, self-efficacy, support seeking, barriers, positive alternatives), be-
Saunders et al. [87] beliefs, and intention liefs (2 factors; social outcomes, PA outcomes)
Physical Activity Self- N = 457 Assess PA self-efficacy, enjoyment, social 8 item scale used to measure PA self-efficacy. 7 Self-efficacy and enjoyment scales used Likert
efficacy, enjoyment, 50% (8–12, 10.3 ± support item scale to assess PA enjoyment. 10 items to as- scale ranging from 1 (Disagree a lot) to 5 (Agree a
social support 1.0) sess social support for exercise lot). Social support scale used a 5-point scale 1
China (none) to 5 (very often)
Liang et al. [113]
Page 12 of 40
PLOC in PE N = 817 Assess the revised PLOC for use in PE PLOC scale adapted for PE (19 items), perceived Participants provided their responses on a 1-5
[citation], related
USA 50% (11–12; NR) autonomy support (6 items), subjective vitality Likert type scale anchored by 1 (totally disagree) 4
Vlachopoulos et al. (unclear how many items) (in between) and 7 (totally agree)
[114]
PMCS N = 116 Assess perceptions of the motivational Statement starts with stem “In roadrunners…” Participants responded in agreement to
USA 42% (9–10; NR) climate of team in terms of matter and followed by 24 items related to perception of statements on a 5-point Likert scales from YES (5)
Xiang et al. [115] performance goals motivational climate. 11 mastery focussed and 13 to NO (1) (YES, yes? no, NO), scores calculated by
performance focussed items. In original scale an average for each scale. In original scale 1
(used with older children) 9 mastery and 12 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
performance items related team…
RCS N = 112 Assess children’s self-regulatory abilities in 16 items and three subscales: Cognitive Self- Bipolar adjectives (e.g. “attentive–inattentive”) are
USA 51% (NR, 4–11) physically active context Regulation (6 items, including “control over emo- used for each item, and raters were asked to rate
(2021) 7:37
Lakes & Hoyt [87] tions- uncontrolled emotions”) the child using a 7-point scale
Self-efficacy scale N = 15 children Assess self-efficacy in overcoming PA barriers Potentially 12 questions but not reported clearly 5-point Likert scale
USA 68% (NR, 8.2 ± 0.9)
Leary et al. [87]
SPPC N = 2704 Assess perceived competence in children 36 items, 5 domain specific sub-scale each with 6 Structure alternative format
USA NR (8–12, NR) items: scholastic competence, social acceptance,
Harter 1982 [87] athletic competence, physical appearance, behav-
ioural conduct. One global measure of self-worth
TAGM N = 15 Trichotomous achievement goal theory in 15 items reflecting mastery, performance 5-point Likert scale (not at all true to very true)
Turkey 57% elementary PE approach and performance avoidance
Agbuga [87] (8–12, NR) achievement goals. Each item prefaced “in my PE
classes…”
Physical Domain
ALPHA N = 58 Fitness assessment Pubertal status Individual scores for each test: if the student
Spain NR (6–11; NR) Weight and Height would not perform the task by selecting a reason:
España-Romero et al. Waist circumference 1=shyness, 2=lack of motivation
[87] Skinfold thickness (triceps and subscapular)
Hand grip strength
Standing long jump
4x10m shuttle run test
20m shuttle run test
Athletic Skills Track N = 463 FMS The tracks consisted of a series of fundamental Time taken to complete each track
(AST) NR (6–12; NR) motor tasks (n = 10)
Netherlands
Hoeboer et al. [127]
Bruininks–Oseretsky N = 2485 Motor competence Consists of 4 motor area composites: fine manual Motor skills are quantified based on the results of
Test of Motor 47.7% (6–11; 8.5 ± control, manual coordination, body coordination, goal-directed activities. A raw score for item out-
Proficiency (BOTMP- NR) strength and agility come may be a drawing, a number of correct ac-
SF) tivities performed, a number of seconds to
Canada complete a task, and/or a complete/incomplete
Page 13 of 40
[citation], related
Fransen et al. [130] task. A scoring form is used to convert raw scores
[87] into point scores
EUROFIT N = 119 Fitness assessment PWC 170 test Highest score for each assessment recorded
Norway 51% 6-min run test
Cepero et al. [87, 131, (8–12; 10.4 ± 1.2) Arm pull (or hand grip)
132] Participant Standing broad jump (or vertical jump)
numbers reported Bent arm hang

inconsistently Sit-ups in 30 s
Sit and reach
Plate tapping
Shuttle run (10 × 5 m) (or 50 m sprint)
Flamingo balance
(2021) 7:37
FITNESSGRAM N = 84 Fitness assessment PACER, One-Mile Run, Walk Test, Body Fat Percent- Individual scores for each assessment then
USA 57% (10–12; NR) age (Skinfold and Bioelectrical Impedance Ana- converted to FITnessGram® classifies fitness levels
Patterson et al. [132– lyser (BIA), Body Mass Index, Curl-Up, Trunk Lift, using discrete zones to allow for more
134, 160] 90° Push-Up, Modified Pull-Up, Flexed Arm Hang, personalised feedback
Flexibility , Back-Saver Sit and Reach, Shoulder
Stretch, flexibility and PA behaviour
Golf Swing and Putt N = 43 FMS Skill Scores for both skills were summed for each child
skill Assessment NR (6–10; 7.8 ± 1.3) Materials resulting in a potential score range of 0-24
Australia Directions
Barnett et al. [135] Golf Swing
Performance Criteria
MOBAK-3 test N = 317 Motor skill 10 test items: Throwing/ throwing and catching, Test items are dichotomously scaled (0 =failed, 1
Germany 55% (6–7;7.0 ± NR) bouncing, dribbling, balancing, rolling, rope = passed, both attempts passed = 2 points)
Hermann et al. [87, skipping and moving variably
140]
Movement N = 323 Motor skill The three broad motor skill categories that are Item performance may be a number of points, a
assessment battery 47% (7–10;9.0 ± assessed are Manual Dexterity, Aiming and number of performance correct or number of
for children - 2 NR) Catching, and Balance. errors performed, and number of seconds to
Spain complete task
Wagner et al. [87]
MUGI N = 251 Motor skill 9 gross motor tasks measuring two components Three levels are used for evaluation of motor skills
Sweden NR (6–8; NR) of motor skills; 0, 1 and 2.
Ericsson [87] Balance/bilateral coordination
Hand eye coordination
OP N = 95 Motor skill Space covering skills The result of the test is the time needed to
Croatia 49% (NR; 8.1 ± 0.3) Resistance overcoming skills successfully accomplish four of the tasks
Zuvela [145] Object control skills
PARAGON N = 65 Gardening movements Gardening motions (bending, carrying, lifting, For each time interval the observer chooses 1 of
USA 59% (5–9; NR) stretching, watering) the 7 PA codes and 1 of the 9 garden tasks
Myers & Wells [87]
Page 14 of 40
[citation], related
SEBT N = 24 Balance N/A The point at which the participant touched the
Spain 50% (10–12; 11.0 ± line was marked by the examiner and measured
Calatayud et al. [87] NR) manually using a measuring tape
SS N = 337 Stability skills Three postural control tasks were selected (the Each task completed twice, with tasks broken
Australia NR (6–10; 8.2 ± 1.2) log roll, rock and back support) down into performance components (rock-4, log
Rudd et al. [87] Confirmatory factor roll-3, back support 5)
analysis: N = 300
48% (NR; 8.2 ± 1.1)
TGMD-3 N = 1460 FMS The TGMD-3 assesses 13 fundamental motor skills, Each skill is evaluated on three to five
USA 50% (5–10; 8.4 ± subdivided into two subscales: Locomotor: run, performance criteria, 2- trials summed per skill
Ulrich et al. [87] NR) gallop, hop, leap, horizontal jump, slide 0 = if a criterion was not performed
(2021) 7:37
Ball Skills: two-handed strike, stationary dribble, 1 = if a criterion was performed

catch, kick, overhand throw, underhand roll
Y Balance Test N = 188 Balance N/A A total composite score was based on the sum of
USA NR (6.9–12.1; NR) performance in three directions on both legs
Faigenbaum et al. [87]
Cognitive domain
BONES PAS N = 41 Assess participation in and knowledge of Children given 10 different PA pictures, and 3 Each correct response scored as 1 and all
USA 63% weight-bearing PA coloured placemats with “yes”, “no”, “I don’t incorrect scores including “don’t know” responses
Economos et al. [87] NR, 7.1 ± 0.8) know”; “yesterday”, “the day before yesterday”; were scored as 0
“good for building bones”, “not good for building
bones”, “don’t know”
PHKA N = 4171 Assess knowledge of diet, food products, and Multiple choice questionnaire NR
Greece NR (6–10, NR) PA before and after 3-year intervention
Manios et al. [87]
NR not reported, PE Physical Education, PA Physical Activity, USA United States of America, UK United Kingdom, CAPL-2 Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy, PFL Passport for Life, AGSYS Achievement Goal scale for
Youth Sports, ATCPE Attitudes Towards Curriculum Physical Education, ATOP Attitudes Towards Outdoor play scale, BREQ Adapted Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire, CAPA Children’s Attraction to
Physical Activity Questionnaire, CATPA Children’s Attitudes Towards Physical Activity, CPAS Commitment to Physical Activity Scale, CY-PSPP Children and Youth Physical Self-Perception Profile, DPAPI Motivational
determinants of elementary school students’ participation in physical activity, EnjoyPE Enjoyment in Physical Education, FHC-Q Food Health and Choices Questionnaire, FAPM Feelings About Physical Movement, FMS
Fundamental Movement Skills, HOP’N Healthy Opportunities for Physical Activity and Nutrition Evaluation, LEAP Lunchtime Enjoyment of Activity and Play Questionnaire, Momentary Assessment of Affect and Physical
feeling states (MAAP);MOSS Motivational Orientation in Sport Scale, NAS Negative Attitudes Towards Physical Activity Scale, PABM Physical Activity Beliefs and Motives, PACES,Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale, PAHFE
Physical activity and Healthy Food Efficacy, PAS Positive Attitudes Towards Physical Activity Scale, PASE Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, PASES Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Scale, PLOC in PE,The Revised
Perceived Locus of causality in physical Education, PMCS Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire, RCS Response to Challenge Scale, SPPC Self-Perception Profile for Children, TAGM Trichotomous
Achievement Goal Model, TEOSQ Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire, ALPHA ALPHA Fitness Battery, AST Athletic Skills Track ½, BOTMP-SF Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, CAMSA Canadian
Agility and Movement Skills Assessment, EUROFIT, FG FITNESSGRAM, FGCOMP FG-COMPASS, GSPA Golf Swing and Putt skill Assessment, MOBAK-3 Motorische Basiskompetenzen in der 3, MABC2 Movement assessment
battery for children-2, MUGI Motorisk Utveckling som Grund för Inlärning, OP Obstacle Polygon, PARAGON PA Research and Assessment tool for Garden Observation, SMT Slalom Movement Test, SEBT Star Excursion
Balance Test, SS Stability skill test, TGMD-3 Test of Gross Motor Development-3, 20MSR The Leger 20m Shuttle Run test, YBT Y Balance Test, BONES PAS Beat Osteoporosis Now-Physical Activity Survey, PHKA Pupil
Health Knowledge Assessment
Page 15 of 40
Table 4 An overview of the elements of physical literacy covered by assessments included within the affective domain
Assessment tool Confidence Motivation Emotional Enjoyment Persistence/resilience/ Adaptability Willingness to try Autonomy Self-perception/ Perceived physical
regulation commitment new activities self-esteem competence
CAPL-2 • • • •
PLAYfun •
PFL • • • • • • • •
Affective domain
AGYS • •
ASK-KIDS • •
ATCPE • • • •
ATOP Scale •
BREQ • • •
(2021) 7:37
CAPA • •
CATPA •
CPAS • • •
CY-PSSP • •
DPAPI •
EnjoyPE •
FHC-Q • •
FAPM •
HOP’N • • •
LEAP •
MAAP •
MOSS • • • •
NAS • •
PABM • • • •
PACES •
PAHFE •
PAS • •
PASE • • • •
PASES • • •
PLOC in PE •
PMSC •
RCS •
Page 16 of 40
Table 4 An overview of the elements of physical literacy covered by assessments included within the affective domain (Continued)
Assessment tool Confidence Motivation Emotional Enjoyment Persistence/resilience/ Adaptability Willingness to try Autonomy Self-perception/ Perceived physical
regulation commitment new activities self-esteem competence
Self-Efficacy Scale •
SPPC • •
TAGM •
TEOSQ •
AGSYS Achievement Goal scale for Youth Sports, ATCPE Attitudes Towards Curriculum Physical Education, ATOP Attitudes Towards Outdoor play scale, BREQ Adapted Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire,
CAPA Children’s Attraction to Physical Activity Questionnaire, CATPA Children’s Attitudes Towards Physical Activity, CPAS Commitment to Physical Activity Scale, CY-PSPP Children and Youth Physical Self-Perception
Profile, DPAPI Motivational determinants of elementary school students’ participation in physical activity, EnjoyPE Enjoyment in Physical Education, FHC-Q Food Health and Choices Questionnaire, FAPM Feelings About
Physical Movement, HOP’N Healthy Opportunities for Physical Activity and Nutrition Evaluation, LEAP Lunchtime Enjoyment of Activity and Play Questionnaire, MAAP Momentary Assessment of Affect and Physical
feeling states, MOSS Motivational Orientation in Sport Scale, NAS Negative Attitudes Towards Physical Activity Scale, PABM Physical Activity Beliefs and Motives, PACES Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale, PAHFE Physical
activity and Healthy Food Efficacy, PAS Positive Attitudes Towards Physical Activity Scale, PASE Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, PASES Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Scale, PLOC in PE The Revised Perceived
Locus of causality in physical Education, PMCS Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire, RCS Response to Challenge Scale, SPPC Self-Perception Profile for Children, TAGM Trichotomous Achievement Goal
Model, TEOSQ Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire, CAPL-2 Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy, PFL Passport for Life
(2021) 7:37
Page 17 of 40
Table 5 An overview of the elements of physical literacy covered by assessments included within the physical domain
Assessment tool Object control Stability Locomotor Movement Movement Moving using Cardiovascular Muscular Coordination
skills—land skills—water equipment endurance endurance
CAPL-2 • • • • • • •
PLAYfun • • • • •
PFL • • • • • • •
Physical domain
ALPHA • • • •
AST-1/2 • • • • •
BOT-SF • • • • •
EUROFIT • • • •
FITNESSGRAM • • • • •
(2021) 7:37
GSPA • • •
MABC-2 • • • •
MOBAK-3 • • • • • •
MUGI • • • • •
PARAGON • • •
SEBT • •
Stability Skills • •
TGMD-3 • • •
Y-BT • •
ALPHA ALPHA Fitness Battery, AST Athletic Skills Track ½, BOTMP-SF Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, EUROFIT, FG FITNESSGRAM, GSPA Golf Swing and Putt skill Assessment, MOBAK-3 Motorische
Basiskompetenzen in der 3, MABC2 Movement assessment battery for children-2, MUGI Motorisk Utveckling som Grund för Inlärning, OP Obstacle Polygon, PARAGON PA Research and Assessment tool for Garden
Observation, SEBT Star Excursion Balance Test, SS Stability skill test protocol, TGMD-3 Test of Gross Motor Development-3, YBT Y Balance Test, CAPL-2 Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy, PFL Passport for Life
Page 18 of 40
Table 5 An overview of the elements of physical literacy covered by assessments included within the physical domain (Continued)
Assessment tool Flexibility Agility Strength Reaction Time Speed Power Rhythmic Aesthetic/expressive Sequencing Specific to an environment Progression (simple-complex)
CAPL-2 • • • •
PLAYfun
PFL • •
Physical domain
ALPHA • • •
AST-1/2
BOT-SF • • •
EUROFIT • • •
FITNESSGRAM • •
GSPA •
(2021) 7:37
MABC-2
MOBAK-3 • • • •
MUGI •
PARAGON • •
SEBT
Stability Skills
TGMD-3
Y-BT •
Page 19 of 40
Table 6 An overview of the elements of physical literacy covered by assessments included within the cognitive domain
(2021) 7:37
Assessment Benefits Importance Effects of PA PA Sedentary Ability to identify and Creativity and Decision- Ability to Tactics, rules Safety
tool of PA of PA on body opportunities behaviour describe movement imagination making reflect and strategy considerations
and risk
CAPL-2 • • •
PLAYfun •
PFL • • • •
Cognitive domain
BONES • • •
PAS
PHKA •
BONES PAS Beat Osteoporosis Now-Physical Activity Survey, PHKA Pupil Health Knowledge Assessment, CAPL-2 Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy, PFL Passport for Life
Page 20 of 40
Table 7 COSMIN risk of bias scores for the methodological quality of the included studies for each measurement property
Assessment tool [studies] Content Construct Internal Criterion Cross Test-retest Intra-rater Inter-rater
validity validity consistency validity cultural reliability reliability reliability
validity
CAPL-2 [70–77, 80] VG VG – VG VG VG A A
PFL [58] VG A D – – A A A
PLAYfun [79, 165] A VG VG VG – – A A
Affective domain
AGSYS [81] A VG VG – – A – –
ASK-KIDS [82–84] IN D VG – – – – –
ATCPE [85] A – VG – – – D –
ATOP [86] A D VG – – – – –
BREQ [87] IN VG VG – – – – –
CAPA [87] A – VG – VG – – –
CATPA [87] IN – VG – – – D –
CPAS [87] IN A – – – – – –
CY-PSPP [87] IN VG VG A A A
DPAPI [87] – VG D – – – – –
EnjoyPE [87] A – VG – – – – –
FHC-Q [87] A D VG – – A – –
FAPM [87] IN – VG – – – – –
HOP’N [87] – – VG – – – – –
LEAP [87] A – VG – – VG – –
MAAP [87] IN – VG – – – –
MOSS [87] – A VG
NAS [87] IN VG VG – – – – –
PABM [87] IN VG – – – – – –
PACES [87] IN VG VG – – – – –
PAHFE [87] A VG VG – – IN – –
PAS [87] IN VG VG – – – – –
PASE [87] A A VG – – – – –
PASES [87] IN A VG – VG A – –
Physical Activity Self-efficacy, en- IN VG VG – – A – –
joyment, social support [87]
PLOC in PE [87] – VG VG – – –
PMCS [87] A – VG – – –
RCS [87] D IN – – – D – D
Self-efficacy scale [87] VG – VG – – – –
SPPC [87] A VG VG – – – – –
TAGM [87] IN IN VG – – – – –
TEOSQ [87] IN – VG – – – – –
Physical domain
ALPHA [87] D – – – – D – D
AST [87] A A – VG – IN – –
BOTMP-SF [87] A A D D – A – A
EUROFIT [87] D – – – – D – –
Table 7 COSMIN risk of bias scores for the methodological quality of the included studies for each measurement property
(Continued)
Assessment tool [studies] Content Construct Internal Criterion Cross Test-retest Intra-rater Inter-rater
validity validity consistency validity cultural reliability reliability reliability
validity
FITNESSGRAM [87] A – D VG – A A A
GSPA [87] A – – – – D A –
MABC-2 [87] A VG VG VG A – A A
MOBAK-3 [87] A VG – – – – – –
MUGI [87] – D IN – – IN – IN
Obstacle Polygon [87] D IN – D – – IN –
PARAGON [87] – – – – – D – D
SEBT [87] – – – – – A – IN
SS [87] A VG – IN – D – –
TGMD–3 [87] A VG VG VG VG A A A
YBT [87] – – D – D – – –
Cognitive domain
BONES PAS [87] IN – – – – IN – –
PHKA [87] – – – – – IN – –
Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy; PFL Passport for Life, AGSYS Achievement Goal scale for Youth Sports, ATCPE Attitudes Towards Curriculum Physical
Education, ATOP,Attitudes Towards Outdoor play scale, BREQ Adapted Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire, CAPA Children’s Attraction to Physical
Activity Questionnaire, CATPA Children’s Attitudes Towards Physical Activity, CPAS Commitment to Physical Activity Scale, CY-PSPP Children and Youth Physical
Self-Perception Profile, DPAPI Motivational determinants of elementary school students’ participation in physical activity, EnjoyPE Enjoyment in Physical Education,
FHC-Q Food Health and Choices Questionnaire, FAPM Feelings About Physical Movement, HOP’N Healthy Opportunities for Physical Activity and Nutrition
Evaluation, LEAP Lunchtime Enjoyment of Activity and Play Questionnaire, MAAP Momentary Assessment of Affect and Physical feeling states, MOSS Motivational
Orientation in Sport Scale, NAS Negative Attitudes Towards Physical Activity Scale, PABM Physical Activity Beliefs and Motives, PACES Physical Activity Enjoyment
Scale, PAHFE Physical activity and Healthy Food Efficacy, PAS Positive Attitudes Towards Physical Activity Scale, PASE Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Questionnaire,
PASES Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Scale, PLOC in PE The Revised Perceived Locus of causality in physical Education, PMCS Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport
Questionnaire, RCS Response to Challenge Scale, SPPC Self-Perception Profile for Children, TAGM Trichotomous Achievement Goal Model, TEOSQ Task and Ego
Orientation in Sport Questionnaire, ALPHA ALPHA Fitness Battery, AST Athletic Skills Track ½, BOTMP-SF Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, CAMSA
Canadian Agility and Movement Skills Assessment, EUROFIT, FG FITNESSGRAM, FGCOMP FG-COMPASS, GSPA Golf Swing and Putt skill Assessment, MOBAK-3
Motorische Basiskompetenzen in der 3, MABC2 Movement assessment battery for children-2, MUGI Motorisk Utveckling som Grund för Inlärning, OP Obstacle
Polygon, PARAGON PA Research and Assessment tool for Garden Observation, SMT Slalom Movement Test, SEBT Star Excursion Balance Test, SS Stability skill test,
TGMD-3 Test of Gross Motor Development-3, 20MSR The Leger 20m Shuttle Run test, YBT Y Balance Test, BONES PAS Beat Osteoporosis Now-Physical Activity
Survey, PHKA Pupil Health Knowledge Assessment
interests and intentions) and living skills (21 items relat- (beginning, progressing, achieving or excelling) based on
ing to feelings, thinking and interacting skills). The fit- age and sex-specific cut points.
ness and movement assessments are scored by teachers Within the physical domain, assessments were typic-
using detailed rubrics that examine the technique and ally administered within the gym hall or an onsite sports
outcomes of the movements, with children placed into facility within the school setting (n = 15); only one tool
one of four categories: emerging, developing, acquired, (PARAGON) utilised an outdoor garden setting. Add-
accomplished. CAPL-2 was developed for monitoring itionally, each physical tool utilised a form of product
and surveillance of physical literacy [67]. The CAPL-2 scoring (i.e. ALPHA, AST, BOT-2 SF, EUROFIT, FITN
protocol integrates the measurement of physical compe- ESSGRAM, MABC-2, MOBAK-3, MUGI, OP, SEBT,
tence (PACER test, Plank [70] and the Canadian Agility YBT), which focuses on the outcomes of the move-
and Movement Skills Assessment: CAMSA [71]), which ments (e.g. distance jumped) or process scoring (i.e.
is worth 30 points, motivation and confidence (30 GSPA, SS, TGMD-3), which focuses on the technical
points), daily physical activity behaviour as assessed by quality of the movement (e.g. arms extending upwards
self-report and daily pedometer step count (30 points) and outwards during jump). Assessments within the
and knowledge and understanding (10 points). The affective and cognitive domain were typically adminis-
knowledge and understanding component includes four tered via a pen and paper or online questionnaire, with
questionnaire items and a missing word paragraph activ- picture/photo support for some. All questionnaires
ity. Scores from domains are summed to create a CAPL- used Likert scale rating systems or structured alternate
2 total score out of 100, which is used to classify the response formats to score responses. One affective do-
children into one of four interpretative categories main assessment, the RCS, consisted of the observation
of a child’s completion of a physical activity obstacle motivation together within the same assessment. Within
course, where observers were asked to score the child’s the cognitive domain, both BONES PAS and PHKA
self-regulation and response to challenge using a 7- assessed the benefits of physical activity. No cognitive
point bipolar adjective scale [118]. The two assessments measures assessed elements related to knowledge and
solely included within the cognitive domain were re- understanding of PA opportunities, sedentary behaviour,
ported in intervention studies [163, 164]. creativity/imagination or tactics, rules and strategy.
Physical literacy Elements Measurement Properties

Each tool within the review assessed an element of phys- Table 7 shows the risk of bias scores (i.e. the methodo-
ical literacy (see Tables 4, 5 and 6). Of the explicit (self- logical quality of the included studies for each measure-
titled) physical literacy tools, PFL assessed 21 out of the ment property). The data extracted from the studies in
43 elements of physical literacy in our checklist, followed relation to validity and reliability can be found in Add-
by CAPL-2, which assessed a total of 18 elements, and itional file 4 and Additional file 5, respectively. In gen-
PLAYfun, which assessed 7 elements. PFL measured the eral, evidence was limited with few studies reporting
highest elements within the affective domain, assessing 8 across the range of COSMIN measurement properties.
out of the 10 identified elements (missing elements: per- Studies reporting the measurement properties of explicit
ceived competence and willingness to try new activities), physical literacy assessments tended to have higher
and within the cognitive domain, assessing 4 elements of methodological quality scores, with all three tools receiv-
the 11 listed (importance of PA, benefits of PA, ability to ing ratings of “adequate” or “very good” for the measure-
describe movement, decision-making). PFL was the only ment properties reported. Overall, CAPL-2 was assessed
tool to assess decision-making. CAPL-2 included 11 of in the most robust methodological studies. CAPL-2 and
the 20 elements identified within the physical domain, PFL received quality scores of “very good” for content
the most comprehensive assessment in this regard. validity due to studies reporting methods which pro-
CAPL-2 also assessed 4 affective (confidence, motivation, vided opportunities for experts and child participants to
enjoyment and perceived competence) and 3 cognitive el- feedback on the assessment such as Delphi consultations
ements (importance of PA, effects of PA on the body, ben- and pilot testing. Construct validity was also well re-
efits of PA). PLAYfun assessed five elements within the ported within research studies for the physical literacy
physical domain, one element within the affective do- tools, with all three assessments receiving a score of
main (confidence), and one element within the cognitive “very good” due to undertaking a confirmatory factor
domain (ability to identify and describe movement). analysis within an adequate sample size and reporting an
Within the physical domain, all of the included tools “acceptable fit” to the data provided. Although all expli-
assessed an aspect of movement skills on land; no tool cit assessments included reliability information, only
considered movement skills in water. Additionally, fun- PLAYfun and PFL reported on internal consistency,
damental movement skills were well represented, with while only CAPL-2 had good evidence for test-retest re-
53% of tools assessing locomotor skills (AST, BOT-SF, liability. For PLAYfun, the specific physical subscales
FITNESSGRAM, MABC-2, MOBAK-3, MUGI, OP, scores ranged from poor-to-good for internal
TGMD-3), 60% object control skills (AST, BOT-SF, consistency (α = 0.47–0.82), though only of the subscales
GSPA, MABC-2, MOBAK-3, MUGI, OP, PARAGON, was below a good level (< 0.7). For PFL, ICC values
TGMD-3) and 80% of tools reportedly assessed stability ranged from 0.61 to 0.87 across subscales, indicating
skills (AST, BOT-SF, MABC-2, MOBAK-3, MUGI, OP, moderate to good internal consistency. CAPL-2 provided
PARAGON, SEBT, SS, YBT). Few assessment tools ex- intra-rater reliability results for the plank hold (ICC =
plicitly assessed rhythm, speed, aesthetic/expressive 0.83), skill score (ICC = 0.52) and completion time (ICC
movement, sequencing, progression and an application = 0.99). Inter-rater reliability was good for PLAYfun
of movement specific to the environment. Within the (ICC, 0.87), and moderate for CAPL-2 in the plank hold
affective domain, 11 tools related to the assessment of (ICC = 0.62) and skill score (ICC = 0.69) though excel-
enjoyment (ATCPE, CAPA, CPAS, EnjoyPE, HOP’N, lent for completion time (ICC = 0.99), though the meth-
LEAP, MAAP, NAS, PABM, PACES, PAS), making it odological quality of studies in this regard was only
the most frequently assessed affective element. Nine adequate. PLAYfun was the only tool to report informa-
tools assessed an aspect of motivation (AGYS, DPAPI, tion for criterion validity (methodological rigour scored
FHC-Q, MOSS, PABM, PLOC in PE, SPPC, TAGM, as “very good”), with a moderate to large correlation be-
TEOSQ) and seven assessments related to the measure- tween PLAYfun and the CAMSA (r = 0.47–0.60).
ment of confidence (FHC-Q, HOP’N, PABM, PAHFE, CAPL-2 received a score of “very good” for cross-
PASE, PASES, Self-efficacy scale), while three assessment cultural validity, with Dania et al. [76] and Li et al. [77]
tools (FHC-Q, PABM) considered both confidence and reporting confirmatory factor analysis procedures that
Table 8 Feasibility appraisal of each assessment tool

Assessment tool Time Space Equipment Qualification Training Participant Incomplete
understanding assessments
CAPL-2 *** ** *** ** **** – **
PFL ** ** *** **** *** **** **
PLAYfun ** ** *** * ** **** –
Affective domain
AGSYS – *** **** – – **** –
ASK-KIDS **** **** – – – – –
ATCPE **** **** *** – – **** –
ATOP – **** *** – – **** ***
BREQ – **** **** – – – –
CAPA *** *** **** * * **** –
CATPA – **** **** * – – –
CPAS ** **** **** – * – –
CY-PSPP – **** **** – – – –
DPAPI – **** **** – – – ****
EnjoyPE **** **** **** – – – –
FHC-Q ** *** *** – – **** –
FAPM – *** **** – – – –
HOP’N – **** **** ** – – –
LEAP * **** **** – – **** ***
MAAP * **** * – – – **
MOSS *** *** **** – – – –
NAS – **** **** * – – –
PABM – **** **** * – – –
PACES ** **** **** * – **** ****
PAHFE *** **** **** *** – **** –
PAS – **** **** * – – –
PASE – **** *** – – **** **
PASES ** **** **** * – **** –
Physical Activity Self-efficacy, enjoyment, social support – **** **** – **** – –
PLOC in PE – **** **** – – – –
PMCS ** **** **** * – – –
RCS – ** ** * *** – –
Self-efficacy scale ** **** **** – – **** –
SPPC – **** **** * – **** –
TAGM ** **** **** * – **** –
TEOSQ ** **** **** * – – –
Physical domain
ALPHA ** ** **** ** *** – –
AST 1-2 **** ** **** ** *** – –
BOT-2-SF *** *** * * * – –
CAMSA **** ** **** ** *** – ****
EUROFIT ** * ** ** *** – –
Table 8 Feasibility appraisal of each assessment tool (Continued)

Assessment tool Time Space Equipment Qualification Training Participant Incomplete
understanding assessments
FG * * **** ** *** – **
GSPA **** * * ** * – –
MABC-2 ** *** ** ** * – –
MOBAK3 *** ** *** ** *** – –
MUGI ** ** *** ** ** ** –
OP **** * *** ** ** – –
PARAGON ** ** * *** ** – –
SEBT **** **** **** ** *** – –
SS *** *** *** *** *** – –
TGMD-3 ** *** **** ** ** – –
YBT **** **** **** ** *** – –
Cognitive domain
BONES PAS – **** *** – – **** –
PHKA – **** *** ** – – *
****Excellent, ***good, **fair, *poor, – not reported
AGSYS Achievement Goal scale for Youth Sports; ATCPE Attitudes Towards Curriculum Physical Education, ATOP Attitudes Towards Outdoor play scale, BREQ
Adapted Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire, CAPA Children’s Attraction to Physical Activity Questionnaire, CATPA Children’s Attitudes Towards
Physical Activity, CPAS Commitment to Physical Activity Scale, CY-PSPP Children and Youth Physical Self-Perception Profile, DPAPI Motivational determinants of
elementary school students’ participation in physical activity, EnjoyPE Enjoyment in Physical Education, FHC-Q Food Health and Choices Questionnaire, FAPM
Feelings About Physical Movement, HOP’N Healthy Opportunities for Physical Activity and Nutrition Evaluation, LEAP Lunchtime Enjoyment of Activity and Play
Questionnaire, MAAP Momentary Assessment of Affect and Physical feeling states, MOSS Motivational Orientation in Sport Scale, NAS Negative Attitudes Towards
Physical Activity Scale, PABM Physical Activity Beliefs and Motives, PACES Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale, PAHFE Physical activity and Healthy Food Efficacy, PAS
Positive Attitudes Towards Physical Activity Scale, PASE Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, PASES Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Scale, PLOC in PE The
Revised Perceived Locus of causality in physical Education, PMCS Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire, RCS Response to Challenge Scale, SPPC
Self-Perception Profile for Children, TAGM Trichotomous Achievement Goal Model, TEOSQ Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire, ALPHA ALPHA Fitness
Battery, AST Athletic Skills Track ½, BOTMP-SF Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, CAMSA Canadian Agility and Movement Skills Assessment, EUROFIT,
FG FITNESSGRAM, FGCOMP FG-COMPASS, GSPA Golf Swing and Putt skill Assessment, MOBAK-3 Motorische Basiskompetenzen in der 3, MABC2 Movement
assessment battery for children-2, MUGI Motorisk Utveckling som Grund för Inlärning, OP Obstacle Polygon, PARAGON PA Research and Assessment tool for
Garden Observation, SMT Slalom Movement Test, SEBT Star Excursion Balance Test, SS Stability skill test, TGMD-3 Test of Gross Motor Development-3, 20MSR The
Leger 20m Shuttle Run test, YBT Y Balance Test, BONES PAS Beat Osteoporosis Now-Physical Activity Survey, PHKA Pupil Health Knowledge Assessment, CAPL-2
Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy, PFL Passport for Life
confirm the four-factor structure as a good fit within good methodological quality generally reported that the
Greek and Chinese populations, respectively. factor analysis supported the proposed model structure
Within the affective domain, 87% of included studies (AGYS, BREQ, CY-PSPP, DPAPI, NAS, PABM, PACES,
provided detail surrounding content validity. This typic- PAHFE, PAS, PA self-efficacy enjoyment and social sup-
ally included reviews of the literature and contributions port scale, PLOC in PE, SPPC). Cross-cultural validity
from an expert panel. A large number of the affective as- was reported for CAPA [90] and PASES [112] as both
sessments were originally developed for adolescent or studies provided satisfactory evidence that no important
adult populations and were adapted for use with chil- differences were found between language versions in
dren. As a result, these studies received an “inadequate multiple group factor analysis. Only 31% of studies in-
rating” for content validity. Only 36% of studies involved cluded within the affective domain reported information
children in assessment development: ATCPE and CAPA relating to reliability (AGSYS, ATCPE, CATPA, CY-
used children to generate items while other studies in- PSPP, FHC-Q, LEAP, PAHFE, PASES, PA self-efficacy
volved children in pilot assessment or cognitive inter- enjoyment social support, RCS). The majority of studies
viewing (AGYS, ATOP, FHC-Q, MAAP, PACES, reported internal consistency (91%). With the exception
PAHFE, PASES, RCS, Self-efficacy Scale, TAGM). The of the DPAPI, all of the tools that did report internal
majority of affective related studies reported construct consistency were considered of very good methodo-
validity (66%), which was commonly determined through logical quality as they presented Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
confirmatory factor analysis, although the use of other cient for each subscale. The Cronbach’s alpha
methods and lower sample size downgraded the meth- coefficients generally reported were > 0.7 and therefore
odological quality of some of these studies for other deemed acceptable. Only one affective tool was assessed
tools (CPAS, PASE, PASES, TAGM). The studies of very for test-retest reliability within a very good quality study
(LEAP). Median kappa agreement scores varied signifi- details on validity were reported. Both tools (BONES
cantly from 0.22 to 0.74 by construct, ranging from fair PAS, PHKA) included in the cognitive domain reported
to substantial agreement [102]. The RCS scored “inad- test-retest reliability. However, methodological flaws re-
equate” for construct validity, and “doubtful” for inter- sulted in “inadequate” scoring. BONES PAS was admin-
rater reliability methodological quality. istered by trained research assistants once to each child
Within the physical domain, 13 tools (86%) reported on the same day, but only 1–2 h apart. PHKA re-
information relating to content validity, however, no as- administered the questionnaire after a 2-week interval,
sessments received a score of “very good” for methodo- however, ICC or weighted kappa was not reported. Nei-
logical quality. Despite the majority of tools utilising ther tool within the cognitive domain reported details
“widely recognised or well-justified methods” [61] (i.e. relating to other measurement properties and therefore
literature reviews, consulting experts, Delphi polls etc.), these could not be appraised.
there was a lack of clarity regarding the implementation
of these methods and how/if any findings were ana- Feasibility
lysed. This included information concerning researcher Table 8 provides the utility matrix ratings of each assess-
involvement, data collection process, recording of con- ment (maximum score possible=28). All of the explicit
sultations/meetings and who led the analysis of col- physical literacy assessments could be completed using
lected information. Nine tools had studies that reported the space and resources available in a typical primary
construct validity, with studies of the MABC-2, school environment. CAPL-2 (feasibility score=16),
MOKAB-3, SS and TGMD-3 displaying “very good” PLAYfun (14) and PFL (20) all provide a catalogue of re-
methodological rigour and reporting a good fit between sources online, which can be accessed and used by a
each conceptual model and the provided data. In class teacher (or any other engaged stakeholder) to pre-
addition, AST, MABC-2 and the TGMD-3 reported pare for, administer and score all portions of the assess-
“very good” criterion validity protocols. Specifically, ment. PFL, designed for PE teachers, scored highly in
moderate correlations were reported between AST and qualification requirements, training and participant un-
the KTK (r = 0.47 to 0.50) and between TGMD-2 and derstanding. PLAYfun is, however, designed to be used
MABC-2 (r = 0.30). Internal consistency was reported by trained professionals (e.g. coach, physiotherapist, ath-
for 6 assessment tools (BOT-SF, FITNESSGRAM, letic therapist, exercise professional or recreation profes-
MACB 2, MUGI, TGMD-3 and YBT) with only the sional) and therefore was deemed less feasible for use by
MABC-2 and TGMD-3 receiving scores of “very good” PE teachers in terms of qualifications required, though
methodological quality due to studies reporting the specific training for the aforementioned professionals is
relevant statistics for each unidimensional scale. not required. Stearns et al. [79] reported that graduate
MABC-2 showed good reliability across three subscales assistants undertook 3 h of training for PLAYfun, sug-
(α = 0.78), alongside the standard scores on each sub- gesting good feasibility. PLAYfun also records child
test independently (manual dexterity: α = 0.77; ball comprehension; as a result, it scored highly in relation
skills: α = 0.52; balance: α = 0.77). Similarly, the to participant understanding. CAPL-2 scored best for
TGMD-3 reported excellent internal consistency: loco- training requirements and time out of the explicit phys-
motor skills α = 0.92; ball skills α = 0.89; and object ical literacy assessments. CAPL-2 is reported to be com-
control α = 0.92. Finally, the TGMD-3 had very good pleted in approximately 30–40 min per individual (not
evidence for cross-cultural validity, with two studies including the pedometer assessment of daily PA behav-
using confirmatory factor analysis to indicate a good iour across a week), with the knowledge questionnaire
factor structure within Spanish and Brazilian popula- taking up to 20 min depending on the child. Teachers
tions [151, 154]. are encouraged to conduct the assessment components
Both tools within the cognitive domain, BONES PAS over separate days if this is more feasible for larger
[163] and PHKA [164], were developed as part of a group class sizes. Teachers reported conducting PFL
wider intervention. In relation to the content validity of took between 2.5 and 6 classes [58], while four assessors
tool development, BONES PAS researchers reported the completed PLAYfun assessments with 20 children or less
use of focus groups and literature reviews, while PE spe- in 3 h, evaluating each child individually in an isolated
cialists were also consulted by the research team to iden- portion of the gymnasium (remaining students played
tify common weight-bearing activities that children supervised games and other assessments) [79].
engage in on a regular basis. The authors noted that the Within the affective domain, the highest scoring feasi-
need to quantify knowledge and understanding of bility tools were PACES (19), PAHFE (18), LEAP (16)
weight-bearing physical activity was balanced against the and CAPA (16). Within the cognitive domain, BONES
cognitive limitations of children (i.e. short attention PAS scored 11, and PHKA 10, with neither assessment
span, inability to accurately estimate time). No other reporting information on time required to complete or
training required to administer the questionnaire. Feasi- aged 7–11.9 years old for use in a primary school PE set-
bility relating to space and equipment scored highly ting. From 88 studies, a total of 52 unique quantitative
across the affective and cognitive domain as many of assessments were identified and subsequently examined
these assessments are pen and paper questionnaires that for validity, reliability, feasibility and physical literacy ele-
could be completed in a small space with equipment ments being measured. In contrast to Edwards et al.
typically available in a primary school. Studies included [42], our search did not find any qualitative assess-
within these domains often failed to report further de- ments of physical literacy within this age group. Only
tails in relation to feasibility. Only 31% of cognitive and three explicit physical literacy assessments were repre-
affective assessments had information in relation to the sented in studies that met the inclusion criteria (CAPL,
time needed to complete an assessment (ASK-KIDS, P4L, PLAYFun), though there were a number of as-
ATCPE, CAPA, CPAS, EnjoyPE, FHC-Q, LEAP, MAAP, sessments within affective (32 assessments) and phys-
MOSS, PACES, PAHFE, PASES, PMCS, Self-efficacy ical (15 assessments) domains that could be used
scale, TAGM, TEOSQ), 29% of assessments detailed the within a pragmatic physical literacy assessment ap-
qualifications of administrators (CAPA, CATPA, proach. Far fewer assessments were found within the
HOP’N, NAS, PABM, PACES, PAHFE, PAS, PASES, cognitive domain (two assessments). Our check for as-
PMCS, RCS, SPPC, TAGM, TEOSQ, PHKA) and only sessment of 41 different elements of physical literacy
8% of assessments had information on the training re- (10 affective, 20 physical and 11 cognitive), contained
quired to administer these assessments (CAPA, CPAS, in various conceptualisations of the concept [1, 20, 26,
Physical Activity Self-efficacy enjoyment social support, 67–69], highlighted elements that were consistently
RCS). BONES PAS was slightly higher scoring within measured across tools and those not yet measured
the cognitive domain, primarily as the assessment scored through existing assessments. Our analysis revealed
highly for participant understanding, as children were that while some tools have established validity and reli-
involved in the development of the scale and statements. ability, and are feasible, the quality of reporting in
Manios et al. [164] reported little detail in relation to studies concerning many measurement properties are
feasibility, simply stating the PHKA portion of their data mixed, indicating that more robust methodological
collection “was completed in the presence of a member work is required to support tool development. Never-
of the research team”. theless, taken together, the results suggest that there
Within the physical domain, feasibility scores ranged are a number of measurement options available to re-
from 9 (BOTMP-SF) to 17 (YBT, SEBT), with SS (15) searchers and PE teachers to assess physical literacy
also scoring highly. The feasibility findings highlight that and/or its affective, physical and cognitive domains
typically an appropriate time for a school PE lesson (ap- that are feasible for administration within upper pri-
proximately 50 min) was required to complete an assess- mary PE (7–11.9 years old in the UK).
ment. Specifically, 4 assessments (AST, GSPA, SEBT,
YBT) reported taking less than 15 min to complete, with Study Quality
a further 3 tools (BOT-SF, MOKAB-3 and SS) requiring To be included in this review, studies of quantitative
between 15–30 min. Additionally, the equipment needed assessments of physical literacy and related domains
to conduct assessments was scored positively for the ma- had to report data for at one least measurement
jority of tools, as most required equipment would likely property from the properties assessed using the COS-
be present in a typical primary school setting, e.g. balls, MIN risk of bias checklist. Overall, the methodo-
cones, and skipping ropes. Some tools (40%) did require logical quality of studies reporting this information
additional or specialised equipment (OP, GSPA, BOT- was inconsistent. Studies tended to examine and re-
SF) such as sport-specific equipment (i.e. junior-sized port on one or two measurement properties (typically
gold club [GSPA]), or equipment to measure specific el- an aspect of reliability and/or validity), but rarely ad-
ements such as manual dexterity (e.g. pegs and a peg- dressed all relevant measurement properties within
board [BOT-2 SF]). Furthermore, the majority of the risk of bias checklist. Reliability was most fre-
assessments required either a PE/Sports specialist/re- quently assessed across all domains, echoing the find-
searcher to administer (80%), with only two tools (PARA ings of recent reviews investigating motor skill
GON and MUGI) being appraised as “Able to be admin- assessments [167–169]. The majority of studies within
istered by qualified teacher”. the affective domain reported information related to
internal consistency (i.e. the interrelatedness of items
Discussion on a scale) and in the required level of detail (87% of
The aim of this systematic review was to identify and ap- studies receiving a score of “very good”). Similarly,
praise tools to assess physical literacy and related within the cognitive and physical domains, 83% and
affective, physical and cognitive elements within children 80% of assessments provided information relating to
tool reliability, respectively. Physical domain assess- Explicit Physical Literacy Assessments
ments were more likely to report inter- and (to a There have been significant efforts towards physical
lesser extent) intra-rater reliability due to the assess- literacy in Canada for over a decade [12, 44]. Each of
ments being administered and scored by researchers the three explicit physical literacy assessments identi-
or teachers, whereas cognitive and affective domain fied was developed by Canadian organisations who
assessments typically employed questionnaire have embraced the concept. These include the
methods, and therefore, these reliability dimensions Healthy Active Living Research Group’s (HALO) Can-
are not relevant. Though test-retest reliability was adian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL-2: see
rarely reported, the wider reporting of a measurement www.capl-eclp.ca/) [71, 72], Canadian Sport for Life’s
property relating to other aspects of reliability (i.e. in- Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth (PLAY, specif-
ternal consistency, intra- and inter-rater reliability) ically PLAYfun, see https://play.physicalliteracy.ca/)
may suggest that, to date, researchers in physical ac- [59], and Physical and Health Education Canada’s
tivity, exercise, sport and health fields have prioritised Passport for Life (PFL, see https://passportforlife.ca/)
assessing and reporting the reliability of an assess- [58]. These assessments are suitable for ages 8–12
ment tool above other measurement properties. years, 7+ years and 8–18 years, respectively, and sup-
Recent guidance from COSMIN outlines that tool de- ported by a wide range of online resources and train-
velopment and content validity are the most important ing materials, including information and feedback
measurement properties to be considered for assess- guides for children, parents and teachers. Their stated
ments [61, 62]. We found that 43 tools reported infor- purposes differ somewhat with CAPL-2 being devel-
mation relating to content validity, however, only 5 tools oped for monitoring and surveillance of physical liter-
(TGMD-3, FitnessGram, Self-Efficacy Scale, CAPL-2 and acy in children, PFL for formative assessment in PE,
PFL) received a study quality score of “very good”; not- and PLAYfun for programme evaluation and research
ably, two of these assessments (CAPL-2 and PFL) were in sport, health and recreation.
developed specifically as physical literacy tools. This is We found that CAPL-2 (affective, n = 4; physical, n =
particularly concerning as if researchers do not provide 11; cognitive, n = 3) and PFL (affective, n = 8; physical, n
sufficient evidence that assessments are valid for use = 9; cognitive, n = 4) assessed more physical literacy ele-
within the targeted population, then arguably the assessments noted within our checklists than the PLAYfun
ments are not appropriate for use [61, 62]. COSMIN (affective, n = 1; physical, n = 5; cognitive, n = 1) assess-
guidance states that in order to achieve a “very good” ment. These tools are anchored within somewhat differ-
score for tool development/content validity, the rele- ent evolutions of physical literacy definitions, which may
vance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of as- explain the different elements assessed. In 2015, many
sessments should be considered in detail, i.e. “ensuring organisations across sport, health and education sectors
that included assessment items are relevant and under- in Canada joined together to generate the Canadian
stood by the target population” [61]. This can be Physical Literacy Consensus Statement [7], which en-
achieved by tool developers including participants in the dorsed the IPLA/Whitehead definition of physical liter-
tool development process and encouraging the sharing acy [7, 21]. As such, CAPL-2 assesses the elements
of experiences and opinions regarding assessment. For stated within the IPLA definition using a points-based
tools that received an “inadequate” or “doubtful” score modular system with assessments of motivation and
for tool development/content validity, the associated confidence (30 points), physical competence (30 points),
studies failed to provide adequate detail on concept knowledge and understanding (10 points), as well as
elicitation, i.e. the methods used to identify relevant physical activity behaviour (30 points), which can be ag-
items and/or how these items were piloted and re- gregated to determine a physical literacy score out of
fined. It is unclear whether this information was not 100. The remaining Canadian assessments (PFL, PLAY-
considered by study authors within the tool develop- fun) more closely align with the previous definition put
ment process or whether it was just not reported. forward by Canadian Sport for Life and PHE Canada in
Our findings around the poor methodological quality accordance with Whitehead’s earlier work [18]: “Individ-
of studies reflect those found within recent reviews of uals who are physically literate move with competence
motor competence assessments [167, 168]. Taken to- and confidence in a wide variety of physical activities in
gether, the mixed standards of reporting of informa- multiple environments that benefit the healthy develop-
tion relating to measurement properties indicate that ment of the whole person”. PFL has four distinct assess-
researchers should be encouraged to utilise the COS- ment domains that are intended to be viewed in
MIN checklist to improve the methodological quality isolation including movement skills, fitness, living skills
of assessment development and the reporting of the (described as feeling and thinking skills), and active par-
measurement properties of assessments. ticipation (diversity, interests and intentions). PLAYfun
focuses on assessing movement competence in 18 tasks, purposes, so practitioners are encouraged to reflect on
respectively. The child’s confidence and comprehension the most appropriate tool that fits their needs [54].
of each movement task can also be simultaneously
assessed but are not accounted for in the scoring, indi- Assessments of the Affective Domain
cating a hierarchy of focus on physical competence. The affective domain of physical literacy includes ele-
PLAY [59] includes a number of other assessment re- ments such as confidence, motivation, emotional regula-
sources including PLAYparent, PLAYcoach, and PLAY- tion and resilience [1, 20, 26, 67–69]. In total, we found
self, with the latter being a self-report questionnaire for 32 assessments within this domain (35 including CAPL-
children that assesses affective and affective elements, 2, PFL and PLAYfun), with enjoyment being the most
but, at the time of this review, no studies were found frequently assessed affective element (13 assessments),
that reported measurement properties for the wider followed by motivation (11 assessments), confidence (10
PLAY tools. assessments) and perceived competence (8 assessments).
Despite using variations of Whitehead’s conceptualisa- Enjoyment is not explicitly included in definitions of
tions of physical literacy, these Canadian explicit phys- physical literacy [2], though Edwards et al. [1] did iden-
ical literacy assessments appear to have distinct tify “engage, enthuse, enjoy” as a core category of physical
assessment hierarchies (i.e. prioritising one domain over literacy and “engagement and enjoyment” is listed as an
another), strong yet different classifications (referring to element within the psychological domain of the Austra-
what is being assessed and what is not, and within fixed lian Physical Literacy Framework [16]. Previous research
chronological age ranges) and diverse scoring criteria has linked enjoyment to intrinsic motivation and more
[170]. The prioritising of one domain over another autonomously regulated behaviour in relation to PE and
within an explicit physical literacy assessment is prob- PA [11, 171, 172], as well as meaningful experiences in
lematic as it is inconsistent with holistic perspectives PE [173]. The importance of enjoyment indicates that
that view all domains as equal [48]. Furthermore, while researchers and PE teachers may wish to consider the
both CAPL-2 and PFL assess across affective, physical construct within a physical literacy assessment approach
and cognitive elements of physical literacy, these are within PE. Further research and consensus are needed,
modular assessments, and thus, domains are assessed in however, on whether enjoyment should be a more
isolation, reflective of more pragmatic approaches to prominent (i.e. core) element of physical literacy due to
physical literacy assessment [42]. Each tool uses self- its relevance in fostering meaningful movement experi-
reported questionnaires to capture affective, cognitive or ences—perhaps likened to the ongoing considerations
behavioural domains of physical literacy, thus allowing concerning the inclusion of social and behavioural ele-
the participant to portray their own capabilities. Yet as- ments in relation to physical literacy [6, 17, 28].
sessments within the physical domain are primarily Considering the explicit physical literacy assessment
framed as teacher-led and assessed through process and tools, PLAYfun records two affective elements (confi-
product criteria interpreted against age and sex-specific dence and willingness to try new things), yet these do
norms (CAPL-2), or detailed rubrics (PFL) and rating not contribute to the PLAYfun scoring (NB. PLAYself
systems (PLAYfun) based on the quality of movement [59] does assess wider affective items, but no studies
[170]. The latter provide a more individualised focus for reporting measurement properties were located at the
the assessment and reduce comparisons with others, time of this review). CAPL-2 includes questionnaire
which some may consider more reflective of agreed con- items stated to assess confidence, intrinsic motivation,
ceptualisations of physical literacy [48]. PFL and PLAY- enjoyment, and perceived physical competence, though
fun tools show promise in capturing important aspects the confidence items more closely relate to perceived
of physical literacy, but more validity, reliability and competence (e.g. “When it comes to playing active
feasibility evidence are required. CAPL-2 demonstrated games, I think I’m pretty good”) and adequacy (e.g.
the strongest methodological quality of the three explicit “Some kids are good at active games, Other kids find ac-
physical literacy assessments, with good validity and reli- tive games hard to play”), than confidence or self-
ability reported across several studies. Furthermore, efficacy per se, which corresponds with capability beliefs
CAPL-2 is the only one of the three tools that has pro- about whether the movement or physical activity behav-
vided evidence of cross-cultural validity, supporting its iour can be achieved [174, 175]. The PFL questionnaire
potential use with other countries and cultures [76, 77]. items assessed eight elements of the affective domain
Accordingly, to date, we suggest that the CAPL-2 is cur- and therefore was the most comprehensive; the only
rently the most robust explicit physical literacy assess- element it did not assess was the willingness to try new
ment tool available to PE teachers and researchers to activities. As a result, and in consideration of the re-
assess children aged 8 to 12. Of course, each explicit ported measurement quality, properties and feasibility,
physical literacy assessment can be aimed at different this could be an appropriate questionnaire-based
method to assess the affective domain of physical literacy important to chart progress in relation to an individual’s
in this age group (7–11.9 years), though this question- attitudes, beliefs, emotions and understanding in relation
naire is lengthy (21 items) and would take longer for to movement and physical activity. Yet the feasibility of
children to complete. time-poor primary school PE teachers undertaking these
We identified 32 other tools that assessed affective re- qualitative assessments with a class of approximately 30
lated elements of physical literacy and could therefore children is unclear. Thus, more research is needed to de-
be useful in a physical literacy measurement approach. velop rigorous qualitative methods that align with the
Several of these tools reported good evidence for con- stated definition adopted for physical literacy and its
struct validity and internal consistency (AGSYS, BREQ, corresponding elements and are feasible for use in
CY-PSPP, NAS, PASES, PAHFE, PAS, PASSEESS, PLOC school contexts by primary school teachers.
in PE, SPPC), indicating that they were theoretically
sound in their measured outcomes. Eight of these add- Assessments of the Physical Domain
itional tools measured at least three affective elements in Physical competence is a fundamental component of
our checklist (ATCPE, BREQ, CPAS, HOP’N, MOSS, physical literacy and as such is represented in every con-
PABM, PASE, PASES). For example, the PABM (motiv- temporary definition of the concept available [2, 42].
ation, confidence and enjoyment, persistence), ATCPE Within the physical domain, there is some overlap be-
(emotional regulation, enjoyment, self-esteem, perceived tween physical competence and common terminology
physical competence) and PASE (confidence, autonomy, used within well-established research fields, i.e. motor
self-esteem and perceived physical competence) each in- competence, motor control, motor proficiency, and
clude items to assess four affective elements. There were health- and skill-related fitness [13–15]. This was further
13 tools that only assessed one element: ATOP (emo- supported by the findings of this review as a high pro-
tional regulation), DPAPI (motivation), EnjoyPE (enjoy- portion of existing tools assessed fundamental move-
ment), FAPM (emotional regulation), LEAP (enjoyment), ment skills (AST, BOT-2 SF, MABC-2, MOBAK-3,
MAAP (enjoyment), PAHFE (confidence), PLOC in PE MUGI, OP, TGMD-3) and fitness components (ALPHA,
(motivation), PMSC (motivation), RCS (emotional regu- EUROFIT, FITNESSGRAM). Similar to recent reviews
lation), Self-efficacy scale (confidence), TAGM (motiv- on motor competence assessments [167, 168], we found
ation) and TEOSQ (motivation). While many affective that the TGMD-3 [149–155, 162] and MABC-2 [136–
measures were found, these individual elements are fre- 139] had the best methodological quality studies for
quently assessed as multi-dimensional constructs and as measurement properties of the movement skill-specific
such include a large number of questions/items per at- assessments, while FITNESSGRAM [132–134, 160] had
tribute. Thus, regardless of their feasibility, methodo- the best methodological quality studies for the broader
logical quality and measurement properties, these tools health and skill-related fitness test batteries. All tools
only provide a narrow picture of the affective domain of within the physical domain provided assessments for
physical literacy and would therefore need to be com- land-based movement skills, though we did not examine
bined with other affective assessments if a more compre- whether assessments were suitable for assessing the use
hensive assessment was sought by PE teachers or of such skills within different terrains (e.g. rocky-terrain,
researchers. forest, sand). None of the tools assessed water-based ac-
The majority of the affective (and cognitive) assess- tivities, despite swimming being the only compulsory
ments included within this review were questionnaire physical activity within the UK, Australian and American
based. The systematic review by Edwards et al. [42] on primary PE curriculums [37, 176]. Similarly, through our
physical literacy measurement identified a number of search terms and inclusion criteria, we did not identify
qualitative assessments including interviews, reflective any assessments of cycling, which is an important foun-
diaries, and participant observation used amongst chil- dational movement for physical activity across the life-
dren under 12. These findings suggest that alternative span [177], nor did we identify tools designed to
methods are available, though these studies were not explicitly assess the elements of aesthetic/expressive
identified in the current review using our search terms movement, sequencing, progression and application of
and inclusion criteria. Although these qualitative assess- movement specific to the environment. This could be a
ment methods can be individualised, ipsative, holistic limitation of our search strand (e.g. we did not include
and thus aligning with idealist perspectives of physical dance as a search term, but did include “coordination”
literacy [48], these methods are perhaps not appropriate and “performance”) or a consequence of the lack of as-
to effectively assess the affective/cognitive domains of sessments of these elements in this age group and/or
physical literacy in children when used in isolation due associated studies not reporting information on meas-
to the (in)stability of children’s thoughts and feelings urement properties to meet the inclusion criteria. Given
[42]. Thus, regular observations of children would be that the capability to move within different
environments, regardless of weather, season, or terrain, PHKA), though the methodological quality of these
will likely influence a child’s safety and opportunities to studies [163, 164] was inadequate and therefore we do
be physically active, the appropriateness of land-based not recommend these tools for use at this time. Some
assessments to assess competence in moving across dif- cognitive aspects are also captured in the explicit phys-
ferent terrains warrants further study. Similarly, the ical literacy assessments (CAPL-2, PFL and PLAYfun).
identification and appraisal or development of assess- BONES PAS, PHKA, CPAL-2 and PFL included an as-
ments of dance and foundational movement skills for sessment for knowledge and understanding of the bene-
lifelong physical activity such as cycling, and swimming fits of PA, an element which is associated with improved
should be a focus for future research. PA behaviours [185] and a defining element within
Of the self-titled physical literacy assessments, CAPL-2 Whitehead’s interpretation of the cognitive domain [21].
explicitly assessed 11 elements within the physical do- BONES PAS, CAPL-2 and PFL also assessed the import-
main—the most comprehensive assessment in this re- ance of PA, while BONES PAS and CAPL-2 both
gard, PFL 9 elements, while PLAYfun assessed 5 assessed the effects of PA on the body. Considering these
elements. PLAYfun only assessed skill-related aspects of five tools together in relation to the cognitive domain,
physical competence and did not include any measures there remains a lack of assessments relating to the sub-
of strength or endurance, which have been found to be elements of sedentary behaviour, safety considerations,
important markers of health and functional living across reflection, creativity and imagination in application of
the life course [178–180]. The assessments within the movement, and knowledge and understanding of tactics,
physical domain utilised a form of product scoring (i.e. rules and strategy. The original CAPL assessment [67]
ALPHA, AST, BOT-2 SF, EUROFIT, FITNESSGRAM, did include items related to safety, activity preferences,
MABC-2, MOBAK-3, MUGI, OP, SEBT, YBT), which and screen time guidelines, but they were removed from
focuses on the outcomes of the movements (e.g. distance CAPL-2 following a Delphi survey with experts and be-
jumped, time to completion) or process scoring (i.e. cause of their weak factor loadings onto higher order
GSPA, SS, TGMD-3), which focuses on the technical constructs [73]. Movement creativity is a perceptual abil-
quality of the movement (e.g. arms extending upwards ity that requires emotional regulation and critical think-
and outwards during jump). Some researchers have ar- ing, with a high degree of knowledge and understanding
gued that the use of product-based scoring does not required to achieve a task goal [186, 187]. Assessing
consider the quality of the movement and therefore po- movement creativity could be an important outcome for
tentially provides an opportunity for children to draw PE teachers within a physical literacy assessment ap-
comparisons between peers, which they consider prob- proach as children that can create and modify move-
lematic as physical literacy is a concept concerned with ment actions within different physical activity
the unique individual [42, 48]. On the other hand, re- environments can also identify opportunities to engage
searchers advocating for nonlinear perspectives on in physical activity [188]. Furthermore, knowledge of
movement competence argue that assessing the tech- tactics, rules and strategy are likely to be important out-
nical quality of movement is less important than the comes for the primary educational curriculum wherein
functional effectiveness of the movement, which can be children are introduced to competitive games and sports
achieved through a range of different movement solu- and asked to apply basic principles of attacking and
tions [181]. Moreover, product scoring does require less defending [189]. Thus, working with PE educators to es-
training and expertise than observing the quality of tablish assessments in this regard would be useful to
movement [182, 183], and so therefore may have a place chart developmental progress in cognitive domains of
in primary school assessment providing it is adminis- physical literacy.
tered in an appropriate, non-competitive manner. The cognitive domain is the least frequently assessed
domain of physical literacy in children aged 7–11.9 years
Assessments of the Cognitive Domain old, and the least represented domain in the explicit
For individuals to value and take responsibility for main- physical literacy assessments. This is problematic for
taining an active lifestyle, knowledge and understanding holistic considerations of physical literacy. Identifying
of the benefits of involvement in physical activity and of stage-appropriate knowledge and understanding in rela-
the nature of different activities and their particular chal- tion to physical activity, and the subsequent assessment
lenges is important [20, 184, 185]. The cognitive domain of this competency, and its relationship to physical activ-
checklist therefore included 11 elements related to the ity behaviour, is an area for ongoing development. The
knowledge and understanding of factors related to phys- development of the Physical Literacy Knowledge Ques-
ical activity [1, 20, 26, 67–69]. We found two assess- tionnaire for children aged 8–12 years old in CAPL-2 by
ments that solely related to elements within the Longmuir et al. [73] followed robust methodological
cognitive domain of physical literacy (BONES PAS, work. This included content analysis of the educational
curriculum, contributions from expert advisors and the and qualifications required to administer and score the
piloting of open-ended questions with children, to gen- assessment, nor the time it would take for children to
erate the closed-ended format. Again, it may be benefi- complete the assessment (see Table 8). Furthermore,
cial for physical literacy researchers to examine across domains, only around a third of tools reported in-
educational curriculums and explore other fields such as formation on participant understanding of the assess-
physical activity or health literacy, to identify what is ments, which is particularly important if an assessment
stage-appropriate knowledge in this age group, and how is to be used as assessment for learning, as feedback is a
this is assessed. Health literacy, defined as the ability of crucial part of the assessment process [195]. Affective
an individual to find, understand, appraise, remember and cognitive assessments were mostly questionnaires
and apply information to promote and maintain good and therefore scored excellent for space and equipment
health and wellbeing [190–192], includes similar core required. Some of the physical assessments scored
outcomes to physical literacy. Therefore, the potential poorly for space requirements due to needing over 20 m
links between health and physical literacy warrant fur- of space for some aerobic or locomotor tasks (e.g. 20-m
ther study [193]. Taken together, the cognitive domain shuttle run in EUROFIT), which would not be possible
is understudied and perhaps not widely understood. indoors in a primary school within a UK context. Studies
Therefore, more research is needed to identify and clar- associated with assessment tools within the physical do-
ify the key cognitive elements that are important to the main better reported the training and qualification skills
concept of physical literacy and enrich assessments of required to administer assessments, though most tools
this domain. rated as “fair” as they generally needed to be conducted
by a PE/ sports specialist, or a researcher with additional
Feasibility qualifications. Typically, physical domain assessments
Teachers have noted significant barriers to implement- using product-based scoring which focuses on quantify-
ing assessment in PE [34, 35, 40. 46-48] [194]. Therefore, ing the outcome of the movement (e.g. EUROFIT,
considering the feasibility of each physical literacy as- MOBAK) scored slightly higher for feasibility in terms of
sessment tool in relation to a primary school context expertise required than assessments that assessed the
was an important aspect of this review. The results of technical quality of the movement (e.g. TGMD-3). Al-
this review suggest that many of the included assess- though not included within the matrix, the equipment
ments could be suitable for a primary school setting. costs of many of the assessments should not be a barrier
The explicit physical literacy assessments (CAPL-2, to assessment and could easily be met within primary
PLAYfun, PFL) scored relatively high for feasibility, school budgets. Many of the assessments are freely avail-
though PLAYfun required more qualified staff to admin- able, while the cost of the resources for physical assess-
ister the tool, suggesting that this tool may not be feas- ments, which require sports equipment, is typically
ible for a generalist teacher. These explicit tools under $1000 (e.g. full equipment kits for MABC2 $976,
generally scored higher as a result of more comprehen- TGMD-3 $300, YBT $260, respectively).
sive reporting of feasibility information within studies. Feasibility findings suggest that there is insufficient at-
This is likely because they have been designed with prac- tention given to reporting the expertise, confidence and
titioners in mind, reflecting a growing demand for as- competence of individuals required to administer assess-
sessments within applied rather than research or clinical ments, particularly in assessments within the affective
settings [66]. Both CAPL-2 and PFL assess affective, and cognitive domains. Therefore, an effective assess-
physical and cognitive elements of physical literacy but ment would need to consider who would be conducting
the assessment process can be lengthy in terms of time, it to determine any potential training needed, ultimately,
with the assessment of large groups of children necessi- this would be an influential factor in the overall cost of
tating assessment activity to run across several classes. the assessment. Edwards et al. [42, 53] and Goss et al.
This indicates the feasibility challenges of using separate [194] highlighted the need to support teachers with con-
domain-level assessments of physical literacy to paint an tinuous professional development in order to ensure that
overall “holistic” picture of a child’s physical literacy. pedagogical processes regarding assessment, teaching
Klingberg et al. [66] conducted a systematic review of and learning were appropriate. Thus, assessments aimed
the feasibility of motor skill assessments for preschool towards educators should ensure that appropriate train-
children and their findings revealed weak reporting of ing and resources, designed at a level to be understood
feasibility-related information. Similarly, we found that by generalist primary school teachers, should be offered.
the quality of reporting of some aspects of feasibility in- This could include written guidance for how to adminis-
formation was lacking for many assessments. For ex- ter questionnaires, model videos of how to score phys-
ample, a large number of affective and cognitive domain ical competence assessments [52, 194], and the creation
assessments did not report information on the training of communities of practice to support the ongoing
development of physical literacy assessment. While it [39, 194, 195, 200, 201]. Therefore, assessment devel-
may require additional resources to effectively prepare opers and manuals should include guidance on how to
classroom teachers to administer assessments, enabling facilitate a meaningful discussion concerning progress
the teacher to conduct and interpret the results of a with individual learners and key stakeholders. Future re-
physical literacy assessment is particularly important as searchers could examine the subsequent implementation
a classroom teacher will relate to and understand their and effectiveness of these feedback guidelines by the as-
pupils on a deeper level than that of a researcher [46]. sessment users.
Our findings suggest that there is scope for more re-
Future Considerations in Physical Literacy Assessment search developing and examining rigorous qualitative
Goss et al. [194] recently examined stakeholder percep- methods of physical literacy assessment for use in pri-
tions of physical literacy assessment in a qualitative mary school contexts. Such methods might include in-
study involving children, teachers, academics and practi- terviews, verbal discussions, pupil diaries, portfolios,
tioners. In the study, children themselves highlighted photographs, video, text, drawing tasks and storytelling
that assessment should be a fun and enjoyable experi- [42, 48, 202]. Given teacher time constraints [51, 52], fu-
ence. Participants across stakeholder groups indicated ture studies could also explore the development of self-
that being active, working with peers, providing optimal assessment and reflective strategies and the use of tech-
challenges, and positive teacher feedback would contrib- nology [194]. Self-assessment aligns with the person-
ute to a fun assessment. Scholars have also argued that centred philosophy of physical literacy [48] and has been
assessment in PE should be an enjoyable and motivating found to promote self-regulated learning and self-
learning experience [195, 196], particularly given, as efficacy [203]. Self-assessment could also provide an op-
noted above, the importance of enjoyment for autono- portunity for children to evaluate and reflect on their
mous motivation and meaningful experiences in PE progress and help to develop their self-awareness of
[171–173]. Therefore, whatever measure/assessment is meaningful experiences [202]; in turn, empowering chil-
used, researchers and practitioners should monitor children to take ownership of their relationship with phys-
dren’s acceptability, satisfaction, and enjoyment of the ical activity [48, 202]. Few of the assessments identified
assessment process. This is important as poor experi- within our review utilised technology. Nevertheless, the
ences of assessment could generate negative memories importance and use of technology in PE assessment were
of PE, which could have implications for lifelong enjoy- highlighted within a recent position statement from the
ment and motivation for physical activity [197, 198]. International Association for Physical Education in
This review has identified a range of assessments of Higher Education (AIESEP) [204]. Technology has been
learning within physical literacy and related domains, yet successful within an assessment for the learning process
it is unclear how these assessments help to support chil- that enhanced knowledge and understanding [205] and
dren’s learning per se. Learning is a critical concept has been shown to provide an engaging and learning ex-
within physical literacy [1, 15, 20, 21, 26] and many perience for students of all abilities [206]. Furthermore,
teachers and educators would argue that assessment technology can be used to support students to document
should be a learning experience [194–196]. Future re- their learning experiences and physical literacy journey
search should therefore explore the learning potential of through pictures and videos, which can be uploaded to
physical literacy assessments, for example in developing mobile and web-based platforms and shared for discus-
children’s knowledge and understanding of movement sion with wider stakeholders, including teachers and par-
and physical activity concepts. Moreover, researchers ents [52]. Thus, further research examining how
could evidence how an assessment helps children to technology can be used to support physical literacy as-
chart and reflect on their own physical literacy journey, sessment in PE is warranted.
setting goals and optimal, realistic challenges [48]. In re-
lation, more evidence is needed concerning if and how Strengths and Limitations
results from physical literacy assessments are returned The strengths of this systematic review include:
to learners, as well as if and how learners utilise this
feedback. In order for an assessment to inspire learning (i) The use of wider search terms encompassing
and have educational impact, participants should feel physical literacy elements identified 52 physical
empowered [195, 199]. To achieve this, physical literacy literacy or related affective, physical and cognitive
assessment results could be discussed by teachers/re- assessments that can be used to inform assessment
searchers with each individual child and their parents, approaches in PE.
with constructive and encouraging feedback offered in (ii) An assessment of the methodological quality of
terms of areas where the child is progressing well on included studies through the COSMIN risk of bias
their physical literacy journey and areas for development checklist enabled a robust, transparent and
systematic appraisal of the validity and reliability within the affective domain within physical literacy
standards of the identified quantitative assessments. conceptualisations, but confidence could also be
(iii)The reporting of the feasibility of assessments classified within the cognitive domain as it is
provided pragmatic information that can be used by influenced by social-cognitive means [207]. Conse-
teachers, coaches and researchers to decide whether quently, our checklist should not be taken as the
a tool is appropriate for use in PE and educational definitive list of key elements within the concept.
contexts. Researchers should check and appraise the tools for
the elements in accordance with their stated defin-
The limitations of this systematic review include: ition of physical literacy.
(vi) Each assessment tool was appraised for physical
(i) Only papers published in the English language were literacy elements in accordance with the explicit
considered. Thus, the identified assessment tools information provided within the associated studies
were primarily derived from the US, the UK, and manuals. It is therefore possible that some tools
Australia, Canada and Western Europe and relevant may assess wider elements than those appraised
assessments developed within non-English language within our results and this should be explored in
countries may have been missed. future research.
(ii) To be included in the review, articles had to be
published in a peer-reviewed journal and written in Conclusions
the English language. Therefore, tools developed by There is demand amongst primary school children and
practitioners and used currently within schools may wider stakeholders in England for assessments to chart
not have been captured. progress in physical literacy [194]. This systematic re-
(iii)Although we used “assessment” related search view has identified three explicit physical literacy assess-
terms in our search strand, we did not capture any ments and a number of assessments within affective and
qualitative assessments of physical literacy. Had we physical domains that could be used within a pragmatic
used more specific qualitative methods as search physical literacy assessment approach. The review pro-
terms (e.g. interviews, focus groups) then we might vides information that can help researchers and PE
have captured more assessments better aligned with teachers understand what elements of physical literacy
an idealist perception of assessment of physical are being assessed and what elements are being missed.
literacy. Our findings highlight that the methodological quality
(iv) The developed search strand did not include sport- and reporting of measurement properties in the assess-
specific search terms such as, “swimming”, “dance” ment literature require improvement. Furthermore,
and “gymnastics”. Inclusion of these terms may have while many assessments are considered feasible within a
better captured water-based assessments and tools school context, further empirical research is needed to
assessing elements such as rhythm, coordination consider the feasibility of the scoring and administration
and expressive/aesthetic movement. of assessment tools by teachers as opposed to re-
(v) The physical literacy elements checklist reflects searchers. Nevertheless, this review provides information
commonly identified elements and was developed that can be used by researchers and PE teachers to in-
by the research team through discussion in a closed form the selection or development of tools for the as-
meeting after an overview of international physical sessment of physical literacy within the 7–11.9-year-old
literacy literature was conducted [1, 20, 26, 67–69]. age range.
Some elements identified within international
definitions and various conceptualisations of the Abbreviations
concept were not included in our checklist and PA: Physical activity; COSMIN: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection
of health status Measurement INstruments; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting
therefore not checked for, but this should not Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis; IPLA: International Physical
diminish their respective importance. In addition, Literacy Association; PROM: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures; AGSY
assessments of elements were categorised within S: Achievement Goal scale for Youth Sports; ATCPE: Attitudes Towards
Curriculum Physical Education; ATOP: Attitudes Towards Outdoor play scale;
physical, affective and cognitive domains in BREQ: Adapted Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire;
accordance with different definitions and CAPA: Children’s Attraction to Physical Activity Questionnaire;
conceptualisations of physical literacy in order to CATPA: Children’s Attitudes Towards Physical Activity; CPAS: Commitment to
Physical Activity Scale; CY-PSPP: Children and Youth Physical Self-Perception
position assessments into familiar categories for Profile; DPAPI: Motivational determinants of elementary school students’
assessment users [1, 2, 6, 16, 20, 26]. Arguably, participation in physical activity; EnjoyPE: Enjoyment in Physical Education;
many physical literacy elements and therefore FHC-Q: Food, Health and Choices Questionnaire; FAPM: Feelings About
Physical Movement; HOP’N: Healthy Opportunities for Physical Activity and
assessments could span across different domains. Nutrition Evaluation; LEAP: Lunchtime Enjoyment of Activity and Play
For example, confidence is commonly classified Questionnaire; MAAP: Momentary Assessment of Affect and Physical feeling
states; MOSS: Motivational Orientation in Sport Scale; NAS: Negative Attitudes Author details
1
Towards Physical Activity Scale; PABM: Physical Activity Beliefs and Motives; Physical Activity Exchange, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise
PACES: Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale; PAHFE: Physical activity and Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, 5 Primrose Hill, Liverpool, UK.
2
Healthy Food Efficacy; PAS: Positive Attitudes Towards Physical Activity Scale; School of Health & Human Performance, Dublin City University, Dublin,
PASE: Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Questionnaire; PASES: Physical Activity Ireland. 3Faculty of Education, The University of Gloucestershire, Francis Close
Self-Efficacy Scale; PLOC in PE: The Revised Perceived Locus of causality in Hall, Swindon Road, Cheltenham, UK.
physical Education; PMCS: Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport
Questionnaire; RCS: Response to Challenge Scale; SPPC: Self-Perception Received: 28 October 2019 Accepted: 29 April 2021
Profile for Children; TAGM: Trichotomous Achievement Goal Model;
TEOSQ: Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire; ALPHA: ALPHA
Fitness Battery; AST: Athletic Skills Track ½; BOTMP-SF: Bruininks–Oseretsky
Test of Motor Proficiency; CAMSA: Canadian Agility and Movement Skills References
Assessment; EUROFIT; FG: FITNESSGRAM; FGCOMP: FG-COMPASS; GSPA: Golf 1. Edwards LC, Bryant AS, Keegan RJ, Morgan K, Jones AM. Definitions,
Swing and Putt skill Assessment; MOBAK-3: Motorische Basiskompetenzen in foundations and associations of physical literacy: a systematic review. Sports
der 3; MABC2: Movement assessment battery for children-2; MUGI: Motorisk Med. 2016;47(1):113–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0560-7.
Utveckling som Grund för Inlärning; OP: Obstacle Polygon; PARAGON: PA 2. Shearer C, Goss HR, Edwards LC, Keegan RJ, Knowles ZR, Boddy LM, et al.
Research and Assessment tool for Garden Observation; SMT: Slalom How is physical literacy defined? A contemporary update. J Teach Phys
Movement Test; SEBT: Star Excursion Balance Test; SS: Stability skill test; Educ. 2018;37(3):237–45. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0136.
TGMD-3: Test of Gross Motor Development-3; 20MSR: The Leger 20m Shuttle 3. Young L, O’Connor J, Alfrey L. Physical literacy: a concept analysis. Sport
Run test; YBT: Y Balance Test; BONES PAS: Beat Osteoporosis Now-Physical Educ Soc. 2019;25(8):946–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2019.1
Activity Survey; PHKA: Pupil Health Knowledge Assessment; CAPL-2: Canadian 677586.
Assessment of Physical Literacy; PFL: Passport for Life 4. Liu Y, Chen S. Physical literacy in children and adolescents: definitions,
assessments, and interventions. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2020. https://doi.org/1
0.1177/1356336x20925502.
Supplementary Information 5. Lundvall S. Physical literacy in the field of physical education – a challenge
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi. and a possibility. J Sport Health Sci. 2015;4(2):113–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/
org/10.1186/s40798-021-00324-8. j.jshs.2015.02.001.
6. Keegan RJ, Barnett LM, Dudley DA, Telford RD, Lubans DR, Bryant AS, et al.
Defining physical literacy for application in Australia: A Modified Delphi
Additional file 1. Method. J Teach Phys Educ. 2019;38(2):105–18.
Additional file 2. 7. Tremblay MS, Costas-Bradstreet C, Barnes JD, Bartlett B, Dampier D, Lalonde
C, et al. Canadaʼs physical literacy consensus statement: process and
Additional file 3.
outcome. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(Suppl 2):1034. https://doi.org/10.1186/
Additional file 4. s12889-018-5903-x.
Additional file 5. 8. Shortt CA, Webster CA, Keegan RJ, Egan CA, Brian AS. Operationally
Conceptualizing physical literacy: results of a Delphi study. J Teach Phys
Educ. 2019;38(2):91–104. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0202.
Acknowledgements 9. World Health Organization. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018-
Not applicable 2030: More Active People for a Healthier World. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2018.
Authors’ Contributions 10. Sport New Zealand: physical literacy approach. (2020) https://sportnz.org.nz/
All authors read and approved the final manuscript. LF conceived and media/1258/spnz-ag1039-spnz-physical-literacy-aw4.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov
designed the study. CS and HG conducted the searches, screening, data 2020.
extraction and appraisal processes, with LF acting as the third reviewer as 11. Sport England: active lives: children and young people survey: attitudes
needed. CS, HG and LF wrote the manuscript with LB, LDM, ZK providing towards sport and physical activity. (2019) https://sportengland-production-
critical feedback and input. The author(s) read and approved the final files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/active-lives-children-survey-2
manuscript. 017-18-attitudes-report.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.
12. Institute TA: Physical literacy: a global environmental scan. 2015. https://a
ssets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/pubs/GlobalSca
Funding n.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.
All of the work included within this paper has been funded by Liverpool 13. Sport Wales: Sport Wales Strategy: Enabling Sport in Wales to Thrive. 2019.
John Moores University. The funding body was not involved in the design of https://futures.sport.wales/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Sport-Wales-Enable-
the study or collection, analysis and interpretation of data. Sport-In-Wales-To-Thrive-F1.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.
14. Canadian Sport for Life: Physical Literacy. 2020. https://physicalliteracy.ca/.
Availability of Data and Materials Accessed 20 Nov 2020.
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available 15. Sport Australia: Physical Literacy. 2019. https://www.sportaus.gov.au/physica
from the corresponding author on reasonable request. l_literacy. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.
16. Sport Australia: The Australian Physical Literacy Framework. 2019. https://
Declarations www.sportaus.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/710173/35455_Physical-
Literacy-Framework_access.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate 17. Cairney J, Kiez T, Roetert EP, Kriellaars D. A 20th-century narrative on the
Not applicable. origins of the physical literacy construct. J Teach Phys Educ. 2019;38(2):79–
83. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0072.
18. Whitehead M. The concept of physical literacy. Eur J Phys Educ. 2001;6(2):
Consent for Publication 127–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/1740898010060205.
Not applicable. 19. Whitehead M. Physical literacy. International Association of Physical
Education and Sport for Girls and Women Congress. Melbourne. 1993.
Competing Interests 20. Whitehead M. Physical literacy throughout the lifecourse. London:
Cara Shearer, Hannah Goss and Elizabeth Durden-Myers are Committee Routledge; 2010.
Members of the International Physical Literacy Association. Lawrence 21. Whitehead M. Physical literacy across the world. London: Routledge; 2019.
Foweather, Lynne Boddy and Zoe Knowles have no potential conflicts of 22. Belton S, Issartel J, McGrane B, Powell D, O’Brien W. A consideration for
interest with the content of this article. physical literacy in Irish youth, and implications for physical education in a
changing landscape. Irish Educ Stud. 2019;38(2):193–211. https://doi.org/10.1 45. Ní Chróinín D, Cosgrave C. Implementing formative assessment in primary
080/03323315.2018.1552604. physical education: teacher perspectives and experiences. Phys Educ Sport
23. Roetert EP, Ellenbecker TS, Kriellaars D. Physical literacy: why should we Pedagogy. 2012;18(2):219–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.666787.
embrace this construct? Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(20):1291–2. https://doi. 46. Durden-Myers EJ, Keegan S. Physical Literacy and Teacher Professional
org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098465. Development. J Phys Educ Recreation Dance. 2019;90(5):30–5. https://doi.
24. Hyndman B, Pill S. What’s in a concept? A Leximancer text mining analysis org/10.1080/07303084.2019.1580636.
of physical literacy across the international literature. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 47. Durden-Myers EJ, Whitehead ME, Pot N. Physical Literacy and Human
2017;24(3):292–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x17690312. Flourishing. J Teach Phys Educ. 2018;37(3):308–11. https://doi.org/10.1123/
25. Quennerstedt M, McCuaig L, Mårdh A. The fantasmatic logics of physical jtpe.2018-0132.
literacy. Sport Educ Soc. 2020:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1 48. Green NR, Roberts WM, Sheehan D, Keegan RJ. Charting Physical Literacy
791065. Journeys Within Physical Education Settings. J Teach Phys Educ. 2018;37(3):
26. Dudley DA. A conceptual model of observed physical literacy. Phys Educ. 272–9. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0129.
2015. https://doi.org/10.18666/tpe-2015-v72-i5-6020. 49. Mandigo J, Francis N, Lodewyk K, Lopez R. Physical literacy for educators.
27. Keegan R, Keegan, S., Daley, S., Ordway, C., & Edwards, A. : Getting Australia Phys Health Educ J. 2009;75(3):27–30.
moving: Establishing a physically literate & active nation (game plan). 2013. 50. Mandigo J, Lodewyk K, Tredway J. Examining the Impact of a Teaching
https://researchprofiles.canberra.edu.au/en/publications/getting-australia- Games for Understanding Approach on the Development of Physical
moving-establishing-a-physically-literate-activ. Accessed 20 Nov 2020. Literacy Using the Passport for Life Assessment Tool. J Teach Phys Educ.
28. Cairney J, Dudley D, Kwan M, Bulten R, Kriellaars D. Physical Literacy, 2019;38(2):136–45. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0028.
Physical Activity and Health: Toward an Evidence-Informed Conceptual 51. Lander NJ, Barnett LM, Brown H, Telford A. Physical Education Teacher
Model. Sports Med. 2019;49(3):371–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019- Training in Fundamental Movement Skills Makes a Difference to Instruction
01063-3. and Assessment Practices. J Teach Phys Educ. 2015;34(3):548–56. https://doi.
29. Belanger K, Barnes JD, Longmuir PE, Anderson KD, Bruner B, Copeland JL, org/10.1123/jtpe.2014-0043.
et al. The relationship between physical literacy scores and adherence to 52. van Rossum T, Foweather L, Richardson D, Hayes SJ, Morley D. Primary
Canadian physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines. BMC Public Teachers’ Recommendations for the Development of a Teacher-Oriented
Health. 2018;18(Suppl 2):1042. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5897-4. Movement Assessment Tool for 4–7 Years Children. Meas Phys Educ Exerc
30. Martin R, Murtagh EM. Preliminary findings of Active Classrooms: An Sci. 2018;23(2):124–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367x.2018.1552587.
intervention to increase physical activity levels of primary school children 53. Edwards LC, Bryant AS, Morgan K, Cooper S-M, Jones AM, Keegan RJ. A
during class time. Teach Teach Educ. 2015;52:113–27. https://doi.org/10.101 Professional Development Program to Enhance Primary School Teachers’
6/j.tate.2015.09.007. Knowledge and Operationalization of Physical Literacy. J Teach Phys Educ.
31. Ní Chróinín D, Murtagh E, Bowles R. Flying the ‘Active School Flag’: Physical 2019;38(2):126–35. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0275.
activity promotion through self-evaluation in primary schools in Ireland. Irish 54. Barnett LM, Dudley DA, Telford RD, Lubans DR, Bryant AS, Roberts WM, et al.
Educ Stud. 2012;31(3):281–96. Guidelines for the Selection of Physical Literacy Measures in Physical
32. Hills AP, Dengel DR, Lubans DR. Supporting public health priorities: Education in Australia. J Teach Phys Educ. 2019;38(2):119–25. https://doi.
recommendations for physical education and physical activity promotion in org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0219.
schools. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;57(4):368–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pca 55. Whitehead ME, Durden-Myers EJ, Pot N. The Value of Fostering Physical
d.2014.09.010. Literacy. J Teach Phys Educ. 2018;37(3):252–61. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2
33. United Nations Educational SaCO. Quality Physical Education: Guidelines for 018-0139.
Policy-Makers. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 56. Jurbala P. What Is Physical Literacy, Really? Quest. 2015;67(4):367–83. https://
Organization; 2015. doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2015.1084341.
34. SHAPE America: Grade-level outcomes for K-12 physical education. 2013. 57. Essiet IA, Salmon J, Lander NJ, Duncan MJ, Eyre ELJ, Barnett LM.
https://www.shapeamerica.org/standards/pe/upload/Grade-Level-Outcomes- Rationalizing teacher roles in developing and assessing physical literacy in
for-K-12-Physical-Education.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020. children. Prospects. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09489-8.
35. Youth Sport Trust: Primary School Physical Literacy Framework. 2013. 58. Lodewyk KR, Mandigo JL. Early Validation Evidence of a Canadian
https://sportengland-production-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs- Practitioner-Based Assessment of Physical Literacy in Physical Education:
public/physical-literacy-framework.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020. Passport for Life. Phys Educ. 2017;74(3):441–75. https://doi.org/10.18666/
36. Gleddie DL, Morgan A. Physical literacy praxis: A theoretical framework for tpe-2017-v74-i3-7459.
transformative physical education. Prospects. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 59. Kriellars D: Physical Literacy Assessments for Youth. 2013 https://physica
s11125-020-09481-2. lliteracy.ca/play-tools/. Accessed 20 Nov 2020.
37. Education Df. National curriculum in England: primary curriculum. In: 60. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting
Education Df, editor.2013. items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
38. Department fo Education, Department for Digital Culture Media and Sport, PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1
Department of Health and Social Care: School Sport and Activity Action 000097.
Plan. 2019. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-sport-and-a 61. Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, et al.
ctivity-action-plan. Accessed 11 Dec 2020. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported
39. DinanThompson M, Penney D. Assessment literacy in primary physical Outcome Measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171–9. https://doi.org/10.1
education. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2015;21(4):485–503. https://doi.org/10.11 007/s11136-017-1765-4.
77/1356336x15584087. 62. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al.
40. Hay P, Penney D. Assessment in Physical Education: A Sociocultural COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome
Perspective. 1st ed; 2013. measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-
41. Dixson DD, Worrell FC. Formative and Summative Assessment in the 018-1798-3.
Classroom. Theory Into Pract. 2016;55(2):153–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/004 63. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al.
05841.2016.1148989. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status
42. Edwards LC, Bryant AS, Keegan RJ, Morgan K, Cooper SM, Jones AM. questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of jclinepi.2006.03.012.
Empirical Findings. Sports Med. 2018;48(3):659–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s4 64. National Institute for Healthcare and Excellence: Appendix H Quality
0279-017-0817-9. Appraisal Checklist - qualitative studies. 2012. https://www.nice.org.uk/
43. Corbin CB. Implications of Physical Literacy for Research and Practice: A process/pmg4/chapter/appendix-h-quality-appraisal-checklist-qualitative-
Commentary. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2016;87(1):14–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/ studies. Accessed 1 Nov 2020
02701367.2016.1124722. 65. Beattie M, Murphy DJ, Atherton I, Lauder W. Instruments to measure patient
44. Tremblay M, Lloyd M. Physical Literacy Measurement - The Missing Piece. experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review. Syst Rev.
Phys Health Educ J. 2010;76(1):26. 2015;4:97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0089-0.
66. Klingberg B, Schranz N, Barnett LM, Booth V, Ferrar K. The feasibility of 85. Jones BA. A Scale to Measure the Attitudes of School Pupils Towards their
fundamental movement skill assessments for pre-school aged children. J Lessons in Physical Education. Educ Stud. 1988;14(1):51–63. https://doi.org/1
Sports Sci. 2019;37(4):378–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1504 0.1080/0305569880140106.
603. 86. Beyer K, Bizub J, Szabo A, Heller B, Kistner A, Shawgo E, et al. Development
67. Longmuir PE, Boyer C, Lloyd M, Yang Y, Boiarskaia E, Zhu W, et al. The and validation of the attitudes toward outdoor play scales for children. Soc
Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy: methods for children in grades 4 Sci Med. 2015;133:253–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.033.
to 6 (8 to 12 years). BMC Public Health. 2015;15:767. https://doi.org/10.1186/ 87. Sebire SJ, Jago R, Fox KR, Edwards MJ, Thompson JL. Testing a self-
s12889-015-2106-6. determination theory model of children’s physical activity motivation: a
68. Longmuir PE, Tremblay MS. Top 10 Research Questions Related to Physical cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:111. https://doi.
Literacy. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2016;87(1):28–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/027013 org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-111.
67.2016.1124671. 88. Brustad RJ. Who Will Go Out and Play? Parental and Psychological
69. Keegan R, Barnett L, Dudley D: Physical Literacy: Informing a Definition and Influences on Children’s Attraction to Physical Activity. Pediatr Exerc Sci.
Standard for Australia. 2017. https://research-management.mq.edu.au/ws/ 1993;5(3):210–23. https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.5.3.210.
portalfiles/portal/83466511/72163431.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2020. 89. Brustad RJ. Attraction to physical activity in urban schoolchildren: parental
70. Boyer C, Tremblay M, Saunders TJ, McFarlane A, Borghese M, Lloyd M, et al. socialization and gender influences. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1996;67(3):316–23.
Feasibility, validity and reliability of the plank isometric hold as a field-based https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1996.10607959.
assessment of torso muscular endurance for children 8-12 years of age. 90. Seabra AC, Malina RM, Parker M, Seabra A, Brustad R, Maia JA, et al.
Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2013;25(3):407–22. https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.25.3.407. Validation and factorial invariance of children’s attraction to physical activity
71. Longmuir PE, Boyer C, Lloyd M, Borghese MM, Knight E, Saunders TJ, et al. (CAPA) scale in Portugal. Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14(4):384–91. https://doi.org/1
Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA): Validity, 0.1080/17461391.2013.828777.
objectivity, and reliability evidence for children 8-12 years of age. J Sport 91. Simon JA, Smoll FL. An Instrument for Assessing Children’s Attitudes toward
Health Sci. 2017;6(2):231–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2015.11.004. Physical Activity. Res Q Am Alliance Health Phys Educ Recreation. 1974;45(4):
72. Longmuir PE, Gunnell KE, Barnes JD, Belanger K, Leduc G, Woodruff SJ, et al. 407–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10671315.1974.10615288.
Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy Second Edition: a streamlined 92. Schutz RW, Smoll FL, Wood TM. A Psychometric Analysis of an Inventory for
assessment of the capacity for physical activity among children 8 to 12 Assessing Children’s Attitudes Toward Physical Activity1. J Sport Psychol.
years of age. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(Suppl 2):1047. https://doi.org/10.11 1981;3(4):321–44. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.3.4.321.
86/s12889-018-5902-y. 93. Martin CJ, Williams LRT. A psychometric analysis of an instrument for
73. Longmuir PE, Woodruff SJ, Boyer C, Lloyd M, Tremblay MS. Physical Literacy assessing children’s attitudes toward physical activity. / Analyse
Knowledge Questionnaire: feasibility, validity, and reliability for Canadian psychometrique d ’ un instrument d’ evaluation des attitudes d’ enfants
children aged 8 to 12 years. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(Suppl 2):1035. envers l ’ activite physique. J Hum Mov Stud. 1985;11(2):89–104.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5890-y. 94. DeBate R. Psychometric Properties of the Commitment to Physical Activity
74. Gunnell KE, Longmuir PE, Barnes JD, Belanger K, Tremblay MS. Refining the Scale. Am J Health Behav. 2009;33(4). https://doi.org/10.5993/ajhb.33.4.8.
Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy based on theory and factor 95. Welk GJ, Corbin CB, Dowell MN, Harris H. The Validity and Reliability of Two
analyses. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(Suppl 2):1044. https://doi.org/10.1186/ Different Versions of the Children and Youth Physical Self-Perception Profile.
s12889-018-5899-2. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 1997;1(3):163–77. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532
75. Gunnell KE, Longmuir PE, Woodruff SJ, Barnes JD, Belanger K, Tremblay MS. 7841mpee0103_2.
Revising the motivation and confidence domain of the Canadian 96. Welk GJ, Eklund B. Validation of the children and youth physical self
assessment of physical literacy. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(S2). https://doi. perceptions profile for young children. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2005;6(1):51–65.
org/10.1186/s12889-018-5900-0. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2003.10.006.
76. Dania A, Kaioglou V, Venetsanou F. Validation of the Canadian Assessment 97. Chen W. Motivational determinants of elementary school students’
of Physical Literacy for Greek children: Understanding assessment in participation in physical activity: a preliminary validation study. Int J Appl
response to culture and pedagogy. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2020;26(4):903–19. Educ Stud. 2011;10(1):1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x20904079. 98. Shewmake CJ, Merrie MD, Calleja P. Xbox Kinect Gaming Systems as a
77. Li MH, Sum RKW, Tremblay M, Sit CHP, Ha ASC, Wong SHS. Cross-validation Supplemental Tool Within a Physical Education Setting: Third and Fourth
of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy second edition (CAPL-2): Grade Students’ Perspectives. Phys Educ. 2015. https://doi.org/10.18666/
The case of a Chinese population. J Sports Sci. 2020:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1 tpe-2015-v72-i5-5526.
080/02640414.2020.1803016. 99. Gray HL, Koch PA, Contento IR, Bandelli LN, Ang IYH, Di Noia J. Validity and
78. Cairney J, Veldhuizen S, Graham JD, Rodriguez C, Bedard C, Bremer E, et al. Reliability of Behavior and Theory-Based Psychosocial Determinants
A Construct Validation Study of PLAYfun. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50(4): Measures, Using Audience Response System Technology in Urban Upper-
855–62. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001494. Elementary Schoolchildren. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2016;48(7):437–52 e1. https://
79. Stearns JA, Wohlers B, McHugh T-LF, Kuzik N, Spence JC. Reliability and doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2016.03.018.
Validity of the PLAYfun Tool with Children and Youth in Northern Canada. 100. Bandelli LN, Gray HL, Paul RC, Contento IR, Koch PA. Associations among
Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2018;23(1):47–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10913 measures of energy balance related behaviors and psychosocial
67x.2018.1500368. determinants in urban upper elementary school children. Appetite. 2017;
80. Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group: Canadian Assessment of 108:171–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.09.027.
Physical Literacy. Manual for Test Administration. 2017. https://www.capl- 101. Rosenkranz RR, Welk GJ, Hastmann TJ, Dzewaltowski DA. Psychosocial and
eclp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/capl-2-manual-en.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov demographic correlates of objectively measured physical activity in
2020. structured and unstructured after-school recreation sessions. J Sci Med
81. Cumming SP, Smith RE, Smoll FL, Standage M, Grossbard JR. Development and Sport. 2011;14(4):306–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2011.01.005.
validation of the Achievement Goal Scale for Youth Sports. Psychol Sport 102. Hyndman B, Telford A, Finch C, Ullah S, Benson AC. The development of
Exerc. 2008;9(5):686–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.09.003. the lunchtime enjoyment of activity and play questionnaire. J Sch Health.
82. Bornholt LJ, Ingram A. Personal and Social Identity in Children’s Self- 2013;83(4):256–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12025.
concepts About Drawing. Educ Psychol. 2001;21(2):151–66. https://doi.org/1 103. Dunton GF, Huh J, Leventhal AM, Riggs N, Hedeker D, Spruijt-Metz D, et al.
0.1080/01443410020043850. Momentary assessment of affect, physical feeling states, and physical activity in
83. Bornholt LJ, Piccolo A. Individuality, Belonging, and Children’s Self Concepts: children. Health Psychol. 2014;33(3):255–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032640.
A Motivational Spiral Model of Self-Evaluation, Performance, and 104. Rose E, Larkin D. Validity of the Motivational Orientation in Sport Scale
Participation in Physical Activities. Appl Psychol. 2005;54(4):515–36. https:// (MOSS) for Use with Australian Children. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2016;8(1):51–68.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00223.x. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x020081004.
84. Brake NA, Bornholt LJ. Personal and social bases of children’s self-concepts 105. Weiss MR, Bredemeier BJ, Shewchuk RM. An Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation
about physical movement. Percept Mot Skills. 2004;98(2):711–24. https://doi. Scale for the Youth Sport Setting: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. J Sport
org/10.2466/pms.98.2.711-724. Psychol. 1985;7(1):75–91. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.7.1.75.
106. Nelson TD, Benson ER, Jensen CD. Negative attitudes toward physical setting: reliability, feasibility and safety; the ALPHA Study. Int J Sports Med.
activity: measurement and role in predicting physical activity levels among 2010;31(7):490–7. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1251990.
preadolescents. J Pediatr Psychol. 2010;35(1):89–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/ 127. Hoeboer J, De Vries S, Krijger-Hombergen M, Wormhoudt R, Drent A,
jpepsy/jsp040. Krabben K, et al. Validity of an Athletic Skills Track among 6- to 12-year-old
107. Dishman RK, Saunders RP, McIver KL, Dowda M, Pate RR. Construct validity children. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(21):2095–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/0264
of selected measures of physical activity beliefs and motives in fifth and 0414.2016.1151920.
sixth grade boys and girls. J Pediatr Psychol. 2013;38(5):563–76. https://doi. 128. Hassan MM. Validity and reliability for the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor
org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst013. Proficiency-Short Form as applied in the United Arab Emirates culture.
108. Moore JB, Yin Z, Hanes J, Duda J, Gutin B, Barbeau P. Measuring Enjoyment Percept Mot Skills. 2001;92(1):157–66. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2001.
of Physical Activity in Children: Validation of the Physical Activity Enjoyment 92.1.157.
Scale. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2009;21(S1):S116–S29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 129. Deitz JC, Kartin D, Kopp K. Review of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor
0413200802593612. Proficiency, Second Edition (BOT-2). Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2009;27(4):87–
109. Perry CM, De Ayala RJ, Lebow R, Hayden E. A Validation and Reliability 102. https://doi.org/10.1080/J006v27n04_06.
Study of the Physical Activity and Healthy Food Efficacy Scale for Children 130. Fransen J, D’Hondt E, Bourgois J, Vaeyens R, Philippaerts RM, Lenoir M.
(PAHFE). Health Educ Behav. 2008;35(3):346–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1 Motor competence assessment in children: convergent and discriminant
090198106294892. validity between the BOT-2 Short Form and KTK testing batteries. Res Dev
110. Jago R, Baranowski T, Watson K, Bachman C, Baranowski JC, Thompson D, Disabil. 2014;35(6):1375–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.03.011.
et al. Development of new physical activity and sedentary behavior change 131. Cepero M, López R, Suárez-Llorca C, Andreu-Cabrera E, Rojas FJ. Fitness test
self-efficacy questionnaires using item response modeling. Int J Behav Nutr profiles in children aged 8-12 years old in Granada (Spain). J Hum Sport
Phys Act. 2009;6:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-6-20. Exerc. 2011;6(1):135–45. https://doi.org/10.4100/jhse.2011.61.15.
111. Saunders RP, Pate RR, Felton G, Dowda M, Weinrich MC, Ward DS, et al. 132. Mahar MT, Rowe DA, Parker CR, Mahar FJ, Dawson DM, Holt JE. Criterion-
Development of questionnaires to measure psychosocial influences on Referenced and Norm-Referenced Agreement Between the Mile Run/Walk
children’s physical activity. Prev Med. 1997;26(2):241–7. https://doi.org/10.1 and PACER. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 1997;1(4):245–58. https://doi.org/1
006/pmed.1996.0134. 0.1207/s15327841mpee0104_4.
112. Bartholomew JB, Loukas A, Jowers EM, Allua S. Validation of the Physical 133. Patterson P, Bennington J, De La Rosa T. Psychometric properties of child-
Activity Self-Efficacy Scale: Testing Measurement Invariance Between and teacher-reported curl-up scores in children ages 10-12 years. Res Q
Hispanic and Caucasian Children. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3(1):70–8. https:// Exerc Sport. 2001;72(2):117–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2001.1
doi.org/10.1123/jpah.3.1.70. 0608941.
113. Liang Y, Lau PW, Huang WY, Maddison R, Baranowski T. Validity and 134. Morrow JR Jr, Martin SB, Jackson AW. Reliability and validity of the FITNESSG
reliability of questionnaires measuring physical activity self-efficacy, RAM: quality of teacher-collected health-related fitness surveillance data. Res
enjoyment, social support among Hong Kong Chinese children. Prev Med Q Exerc Sport. 2010;81(3 Suppl):S24–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2
Rep. 2014;1:48–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2014.09.005. 010.10599691.
114. Vlachopoulos SP, Katartzi ES, Kontou MG, Moustaka FC, Goudas M. The 135. Barnett LM, Hardy LL, Brian AS, Robertson S. The development and
revised perceived locus of causality in physical education scale: validation of a golf swing and putt skill assessment for children. J Sports Sci
Psychometric evaluation among youth. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2011;12(6):583– Med. 2015;14(1):147–54.
92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.07.003. 136. Wagner MO, Kastner J, Petermann F, Bos K. Factorial validity of the
115. Xiang P, Bruene A, McBride RE. Using Achievement Goal Theory to assess Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (age band 2). Res Dev Disabil.
an elementary physical education running program. J Sch Health. 2004; 2011;32(2):674–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2010.11.016.
74(6):220–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb07936.x. 137. Holm I, Tveter AT, Aulie VS, Stuge B. High intra- and inter-rater chance
116. Lakes KD, Hoyt WT. Promoting self-regulation through school-based martial variation of the movement assessment battery for children 2, ageband 2.
arts training. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2004;25(3):283–302. https://doi.org/10.101 Res Dev Disabil. 2013;34(2):795–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.11.
6/j.appdev.2004.04.002. 002.
117. Lakes K. The Response to Challenge Scale (RCS): The Development and 138. Valentini NC, Ramalho MH, Oliveira MA. Movement assessment battery for
Construct Validity of an Observer-Rated Measure of Children’s Self- children-2: translation, reliability, and validity for Brazilian children. Res Dev
Regulation. Int J Educ Psychol Assess. 2012;10:83–96. Disabil. 2014;35(3):733–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.10.028.
118. Lakes KD. Measuring self-regulation in a physically active context: 139. Kita Y, Suzuki K, Hirata S, Sakihara K, Inagaki M, Nakai A. Applicability of the
Psychometric analyses of scores derived from an observer-rated measure of Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition to Japanese
self-regulation. Ment Health Phys Act. 2013;8(3):189–96. https://doi.org/10.1 children: A study of the Age Band 2. Brain Dev. 2016;38(8):706–13. https://
016/j.mhpa.2013.09.003. doi.org/10.1016/j.braindev.2016.02.012.
119. Leary JM, Ice C, Cottrell L. Adaptation and cognitive testing of physical activity 140. Herrmann C, Gerlach E, Seelig H. Development and Validation of a Test
measures for use with young, school-aged children and their parents. Qual Life Instrument for the Assessment of Basic Motor Competencies in Primary
Res. 2012;21(10):1815–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0095-1. School. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2015;19(2):80–90. https://doi.org/10.1
120. Harter S. The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Dev. 1982; 080/1091367x.2014.998821.
53(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/1129640. 141. Herrmann C, Seelig H. Structure and Profiles of Basic Motor Competencies
121. Klint KA, Weiss MR. Perceived Competence and Motives for Participating in in the Third Grade-Validation of the Test Instrument MOBAK-3. Percept Mot
Youth Sports: A Test of Harter’s Competence Motivation Theory. J Sport Skills. 2017;124(1):5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512516679060.
Psychol. 1987;9(1):55–65. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.9.1.55. 142. Herrmann C, Seelig H. Basic motor competencies of fifth graders. German J
122. Byrne BM, Schneider BH. Perceived Competence Scale for Children: Testing Exerc Sport Res. 2017;47(2):110–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-016-0430-3.
for Factorial Validity and Invariance Across Age and Ability. Appl Meas Educ. 143. Carcamo-Oyarzun J, Herrmann C. Validez de constructo de la batería
1988;1(2):171–87. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0102_5. MOBAK para la evaluación de las competencias motrices básicas en
123. Shevlin M, Adamson G, Collins K. The Self-Perception Profile for Children escolares de educación primaria. Rev Española de Pedagogía. 2020;78(276).
(SPPC): a multiple-indicator multiple-wave analysis using LISREL. Person https://doi.org/10.22550/rep78-2-2020-03.
Individ Differences. 2003;35(8):1993–2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191- 144. Ericsson I. Motor skills, attention and academic achievements. An
8869(03)00046-1. intervention study in school years 1–3. Br Educ Res J. 2008;34(3):301–13.
124. Agbuga B. Reliability and validity of the trichotomous achievement goal https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701609299.
model in an elementary school physical education setting. Eurasian J Educ 145. Zuvela F, Bozanic A, Miletic D. POLYGON - A New Fundamental Movement
Res. 2009;37:17–31. Skills Test for 8 Year Old Children: Construction and Validation. J Sports Sci
125. Harter S. The Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver: University of Med. 2011;1(10):157–63.
Denver; 1985. 146. Myers BM, Wells NM. Children’s Physical Activity While Gardening:
126. Espana-Romero V, Artero EG, Jimenez-Pavon D, Cuenca-Garcia M, Ortega FB, Development of a Valid and Reliable Direct Observation Tool. J Phys Act
Castro-Pinero J, et al. Assessing health-related fitness tests in the school Health. 2015;12(4):522–8. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2013-0290.
147. Calatayud J, Borreani S, Colado JC, Martin F, Flandez J. Test-retest reliability 168. Hulteen RM, Barnett LM, True L, Lander NJ, Del Pozo CB, Lonsdale C. Validity
of the Star Excursion Balance Test in primary school children. Phys and reliability evidence for motor competence assessments in children and
Sportsmed. 2014;42(4):120–4. https://doi.org/10.3810/psm.2014.11.2098. adolescents: A systematic review. J Sports Sci. 2020:1–82. https://doi.org/1
148. Rudd JR, Barnett LM, Butson ML, Farrow D, Berry J, Polman RC. Fundamental 0.1080/02640414.2020.1756674.
Movement Skills Are More than Run, Throw and Catch: The Role of Stability 169. Downs SJ, Boddy LM, McGrane B, Rudd JR, Melville CA, Foweather L. Motor
Skills. Plos One. 2015;10(10):e0140224. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. competence assessments for children with intellectual disabilities and/or
0140224. autism: a systematic review. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2020;6(1). https://
149. Webster EK, Ulrich DA. Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Test doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2020-000902.
of Gross Motor Development—Third Edition. J Motor Learn Dev. 2017;5(1): 170. Young L, O’Connor J, Alfrey L, Penney D. Assessing physical literacy in
45–58. https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2016-0003. health and physical education. Curriculum Stud Health Phys Educ. 2020:1–
150. Maeng H, Webster EK, Pitchford EA, Ulrich DA. Inter- and Intrarater 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2020.1810582.
Reliabilities of the Test of Gross Motor Development-Third Edition Among 171. Haerens L, Aelterman N, Vansteenkiste M, Soenens B, Van Petegem S. Do
Experienced TGMD-2 Raters. Adapt Phys Activ Q. 2017;34(4):442–55. https:// perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical
doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2016-0026. education students’ motivational experiences through unique pathways?
151. Valentini NC, Zanella LW, Webster EK. Test of Gross Motor Distinguishing between the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychol
Development—Third Edition: Establishing Content and Construct Validity Sport Exerc. 2015;16:26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013.
for Brazilian Children. J Motor Learn Dev. 2017;5(1):15–28. https://doi.org/1 172. Domville M, Watson PM, Richardson D, Graves LEF. Children’s perceptions of
0.1123/jmld.2016-0002. factors that influence PE enjoyment: a qualitative investigation. Phys Educ
152. Wagner MO, Webster EK, Ulrich DA. Psychometric Properties of the Test of Sport Pedagogy. 2019;24(3):207–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1
Gross Motor Development, Third Edition (German Translation): Results of a 561836.
Pilot Study. J Motor Learn Dev. 2017;5(1):29–44. https://doi.org/10.1123/ 173. Beni S, Fletcher T, Ní CD. Meaningful Experiences in Physical Education and
jmld.2016-0006. Youth Sport: A Review of the Literature. Quest. 2016;69(3):291–312. https://
153. Temple VA, Foley JT. A Peek at the Developmental Validity of the Test of doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1224192.
Gross Motor Development–3. J Motor Learn Dev. 2017;5(1):5–14. https://doi. 174. Bandura A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares F, Urdan T,
org/10.1123/jmld.2016-0005. editors. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Greenwich: Information Age
154. Estevan I, Molina-García J, Queralt A, Álvarez O, Castillo I, Barnett L. Validity Publishing; 2006. p. 307–37.
and Reliability of the Spanish Version of the Test of Gross Motor 175. Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Worth; 1997.
Development–3. J Motor Learn Dev. 2017;5(1):69–81. https://doi.org/1 176. Lynch TJ. Australian Curriculum Reform: Treading Water Carefully? Int J
0.1123/jmld.2016-0045. Aquatic Res Educ. 2015;9(2). https://doi.org/10.25035/ijare.09.02.10.
155. Bisi MC, Pacini Panebianco G, Polman R, Stagni R. Objective assessment of 177. Hulteen RM, Morgan PJ, Barnett LM, Stodden DF, Lubans DR. Development
movement competence in children using wearable sensors: An of Foundational Movement Skills: A Conceptual Model for Physical Activity
instrumented version of the TGMD-2 locomotor subtest. Gait Posture. 2017; Across the Lifespan. Sports Med. 2018;48(7):1533–40. https://doi.org/10.1
56:42–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.04.025. 007/s40279-018-0892-6.
156. Faigenbaum AD, Bagley J, Boise S, Farrell A, Bates N, Myer GD. Dynamic 178. Garcia-Hermoso A, Ramirez-Campillo R, Izquierdo M. Is Muscular Fitness
Balance in Children: Performance Comparison Between Two Testing Associated with Future Health Benefits in Children and Adolescents? A
Devices. Athletic Train Sports Health Care. 2015;7(4):160–4. https://doi.org/1 Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies. Sports Med.
0.3928/19425864-20150707-06. 2019;49(7):1079–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01098-6.
157. The ALPHA Project Consortium: The ALPHA Health-Related Fitness Test 179. Ortega FB, Ruiz JR, Castillo MJ, Sjostrom M. Physical fitness in childhood and
Battery for Children and Adolescents - Test Manual. 2009. https://sites. adolescence: a powerful marker of health. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008;32(1):1–
google.com/site/alphaprojectphysicalactivity/alpha-public-documents/alpha- 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803774.
fit/assessing-fitness-in-children. Accessed 1/11/2020. 180. Smith JJ, Eather N, Morgan PJ, Plotnikoff RC, Faigenbaum AD, Lubans DR.
158. Bruininks RH, Bruininks BD. Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, The health benefits of muscular fitness for children and adolescents: a
Second Edition (BOT-2). Minneapolis: Pearson; 2005. systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2014;44(9):1209–23.
159. Council of Europe: TESTING PHYISICAL FITNESS: EUROFIT Experimental https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-014-0196-4.
Battery - PROVISIONAL HANDBOOK. 2011. https://bitworks-engineering.co. 181. Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, Shuttleworth R, Renshaw I, Araújo D. The Role
uk/Products_files/eurofit%20provisional%20handbook%20leger%20beep%2 of Nonlinear Pedagogy in Physical Education. Rev Educ Res. 2016;77(3):251–
0test%201983.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2020. 78. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430305615.
160. The Cooper Institute. Fitnessgram and Activitygram Test Administration 182. Barnett LM, Stodden DF, Hulteen RM, Sacko RS. Motor Competence
Manual. 4th ed; 2010. Assessment. In: Brusseau TA, Fairclough SJ, Lubans DR, editors. Routledge
161. Herrmann C, Seelig H. MOBAK-3: Základné pohybové kompetencie piatakov Handbook of Youth Physical Activity. London: Routledge; 2020. p. 384–408.
- Testovací manuál. Rukopis: Preložil Peter Mačura; 2018. 183. Bardid F, Vannozzi G, Logan SW, Hardy LL, Barnett LM. A hitchhiker’s guide
162. Ulrich DA. Test of Gross Motor Development–Third Edition. Austin: PRO-ED; to assessing young people’s motor competence: Deciding what method to
2019. use. J Sci Med Sport. 2019;22(3):311–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2018.
163. Economos CD, Hennessy E, Sacheck JM, Shea MK, Naumova EN. 08.007.
Development and testing of the BONES physical activity survey for young 184. Cale L, Harris J. Physical education and health: considerations and issues. In:
children. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:195. https://doi.org/10.1186/14 Capel S, Whitehead M, editors. Debates in Physical Education. Oxon:
71-2474-11-195. Routledge; 2013. p. 74–88.
164. Manios Y, Moschandreas J, Hatzis C, Kafatos A. Evaluation of a health and 185. Cale L, Harris J. The Role of Knowledge and Understanding in Fostering
nutrition education program in primary school children of Crete over a Physical Literacy. J Teach Phys Educ. 2018;37(3):280–7. https://doi.org/1
three-year period. Prev Med. 1999;28(2):149–59. https://doi.org/10.1006/ 0.1123/jtpe.2018-0134.
pmed.1998.0388. 186. Orth D, van der Kamp J, Memmert D, Savelsbergh GJP. Creative Motor
165. Cairney J, Clark H, Dudley D, Kriellaars D. Physical Literacy in Children and Actions As Emerging from Movement Variability. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1903.
Youth—A Construct Validation Study. J Teach Phys Educ. 2019;38(2):84–90. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01903.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0270. 187. Oppici L, Frith E, Rudd J. A Perspective on Implementing Movement
166. Ericsson I. MUGI observation checklist: An alternative to measuring motor Sonification to Influence Movement (and Eventually Cognitive) Creativity.
skills in physical education classes. Asian J Exerc Sports Sci. 2007;1(4):1–8. Front Psychol. 2020;11:2233. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02233.
167. Eddy LH, Bingham DD, Crossley KL, Shahid NF, Ellingham-Khan M, Otteslev 188. Chow JY, Atencio M. Complex and nonlinear pedagogy and the
A, et al. The validity and reliability of observational assessment tools implications for physical education. Sport Educ Soc. 2012;19(8):1034–54.
available to measure fundamental movement skills in school-age children: A https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2012.728528.
systematic review. Plos One. 2020;15(8):e0237919. https://doi.org/10.1371/ 189. Adair B, Said CM, Rodda J, Morris ME. Psychometric properties of functional
journal.pone.0237919. mobility tools in hereditary spastic paraplegia and other childhood
neurological conditions. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012;54(7):596–605. https://

doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2012.04284.x.
190. Nash R, Elmer S, Thomas K, Osborne R, MacIntyre K, Shelley B, et al.
HealthLit4Kids study protocol; crossing boundaries for positive health
literacy outcomes. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):690. https://doi.org/10.11
86/s12889-018-5558-7.
191. Nutbeam D. Defining and measuring health literacy: what can we learn
from literacy studies? Int J Public Health. 2009;54(5):303–5. https://doi.org/1
0.1007/s00038-009-0050-x.
192. Sorensen K, Van den Broucke S, Fullam J, Doyle G, Pelikan J, Slonska Z, et al.
Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of
definitions and models. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:80. https://doi.org/10.11
86/1471-2458-12-80.
193. Cornish K, Fox G, Fyfe T, Koopmans E, Pousette A, Pelletier CA.
Understanding physical literacy in the context of health: a rapid scoping
review. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1569. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-
020-09583-8.
194. Goss H, Shearer C, Knowles ZR, Boddy LM, Durden-Myers E, Foweather L.
Stakeholder Perceptions of Physical Literacy Assessment in Primary School
Children. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/174
08989.2021.1911979.
195. Tolgfors B. Transformative assessment in physical education. Eur Phys Educ
Rev. 2018;25(4):1211–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x18814863.
196. Torrance H. Assessmentaslearning? How the use of explicit learning
objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education
and training can come to dominate learning.1. Assess Educ. 2007;14(3):281–
94. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701591867.
197. Ladwig MA, Vazou S, Ekkekakis P. “My Best Memory Is When I Was Done
with It”. Transl J ACSM. 2018;3(16):119-129. doi: https://doi.org/10.1249/tjx.
0000000000000067.
198. Cale L, Harris J. Fitness testing in physical education – a misdirected effort
in promoting healthy lifestyles and physical activity? Phys Educ Sport
Pedagogy. 2009;14(1):89–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980701345782.
199. López-Pastor VM, Kirk D, Lorente-Catalán E, MacPhail A, Macdonald D.
Alternative assessment in physical education: a review of international
literature. Sport Educ Soc. 2013;18(1):57–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/13
573322.2012.713860.
200. Black P, Wiliam D. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educ
Assess Eval Account. 2009;21(1):5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-
9068-5.
201. Tolgfors B. Different versions of assessmentforlearning in the subject of
physical education. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2018;23(3):311–27. https://
doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1429589.
202. Fletcher T, Ní CD. Pedagogical principles that support the prioritisation of
meaningful experiences in physical education: conceptual and practical
considerations. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2021:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1
080/17408989.2021.1884672.
203. Panadero E, Jonsson A, Botella J. Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated
learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educ Res Rev. 2017;22:74–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.004.
204. AIESEP: Position Statement on Physical Education Assessment. 2020.
https://aiesep.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/AIESEP-Position-Statement-
on-PE-Assessment-FINAL1.pdf. Accessed 9 Apr 2021.
205. Heitink MC, Van der Kleij FM, Veldkamp BP, Schildkamp K, Kippers WB. A
systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning
in classroom practice. Educ Res Rev. 2016;17:50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
edurev.2015.12.002.
206. O’Loughlin J, Chróinín DN, O’Grady D. Digital video: The impact on
children’s learning experiences in primary physical education. Eur Phys Educ
Rev. 2013;19(2):165–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x13486050.
207. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.

Shearer, 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shearer, 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shearer, 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shearer et al.

Sports Medicine - Open (2021) 7:37

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Open Access

Assessments Related to the Physical,

Key Points responsibility for engagement in physical activities for

Table 1 Description of rating of feasibility of assessments

Table 2 Physical literacy element checklist

subscales (adequacy, predilection, intrinsic points.

describe the skill/task, place a tick in the

to 1 (not like me). Responses to motivational

items relating to preference for internal sense of

numbers reported Bent arm hang

Ball Skills: two-handed strike, stationary dribble, 1 = if a criterion was performed

Physical literacy Elements Measurement Properties

Table 8 Feasibility appraisal of each assessment tool

Table 8 Feasibility appraisal of each assessment tool (Continued)

neurological conditions. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012;54(7):596–605. https://

You might also like