Physical Education School of Henan University, Kaifeng 475000, China.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 28;18(15):7954. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18157954.
Physical literacy (PL) has been acknowledged to be an individual journey, in view of this contention, objective assessment of such a developing construct has become a debatable issue for the last couple of decades apart from physical domain of observable domain. The purpose of this systematic review was to scrutinise what is currently known regarding the PL assessment tools-the existing PL assessment tools, their pioneers and year of publication, the philosophy behind their initiation, what they have been assessing (assessment domains), the category of population being assessed in relation to their age group, validity of the tools, other scholars notes, as well as the approaches being used, whether assessment for, as or of learning during physical activity participation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was used to undertake a comprehensive search from six electronic databases-ScienceDirect, Scopus, Eric, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SportDiscus retrieved 52 research articles and review papers, whereby only 22 articles were included after identification, screening, and eligibility selection criteria process. The study established that the majority-70%-of PL assessment tools were developed to promote either fundamental movement skills, athlete development or long-term health and well-being, instead of lifelong participation in physical activity. It was also ascertained that only 30% of PL assessment tools address both three domains comprising PL. Of a particular concern, it was explored that only the International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) PL matrix takes into account everyone of any age group, while the rest of the others segregate participants falling in a specific age groups to be based on. Afterward, the majority of PL assessment tools were identified at 70% to adopt assessment for learning or at a certain time combination with assessment as learning while assessing individuals' PL progress. The conclusion was therefore drawn that the overall purpose of PL- to value and take responsibility of engaging in physical activity for life is still largely absent among the majority of existing PL assessment tools and both the ideal of what to assess and who to be assessed are far less to be met, while the effective PL assessment approaches remain critical. After all, in light of this conclusion future agenda has been suggested in view of designing PL assessment tools effective enough to promote PL for all.
身体素养 (PL) 被认为是一个个体的发展历程，因此，除了可观察的身体领域外，对这一发展中的结构进行客观评估在过去几十年已经成为一个有争议的问题。本系统评价的目的是审查目前关于 PL 评估工具的知识，包括现有的 PL 评估工具、它们的先驱者和出版年份、它们启动的理念、它们评估的内容（评估领域）、与年龄组相关的评估人群类别、工具的有效性、其他学者的注释，以及所使用的方法，无论是在身体活动参与期间评估学习的结果、过程还是学习本身。本研究使用系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目 (PRISMA) 从六个电子数据库（ScienceDirect、Scopus、Eric、PubMed、Google Scholar 和 SportDiscus）中进行了全面搜索，共检索到 52 篇研究文章和综述文章，在经过识别、筛选和资格选择标准过程后，只有 22 篇文章被纳入。研究发现，大多数 70%的 PL 评估工具是为了促进基本运动技能、运动员发展或长期健康和幸福感而开发的，而不是为了终身参与身体活动。还确定只有 30%的 PL 评估工具涉及包含 PL 的三个领域。特别值得关注的是，只有国际身体素养协会 (IPLA) 的 PL 矩阵考虑到了任何年龄段的每个人，而其他的评估工具则将参与者划分为特定的年龄组。此后，大多数 PL 评估工具被确定为 70%用于评估学习或在特定时间与评估学习相结合，同时评估个体的 PL 进展。因此得出的结论是，PL 的总体目的——重视并承担参与身体活动的责任，在大多数现有的 PL 评估工具中仍然基本缺失，评估的理想和评估的对象都远未得到满足，而有效的 PL 评估方法仍然至关重要。毕竟，鉴于这一结论，为了设计出足够有效的促进所有人身体素养的 PL 评估工具，已经提出了未来的议程。
