...
首页> 外文期刊>Sports medicine >‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings
【24h】

‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings

机译:“衡量”物理素养及相关构建:对实证发现的系统审查

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Abstract Background The concept of physical literacy has received increased research and international attention recently. Where intervention programs and empirical research are gaining momentum, their operationalizations differ significantly. Objective The objective of this study was to inform practice in the measure/assessment of physical literacy via a systematic review of research that has assessed physical literacy (up to 14 June, 2017). Methods Five databases were searched using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols guidelines, with 32 published articles meeting the inclusion criteria. English-language, peer-reviewed published papers containing empirical studies of physical literacy were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results Qualitative methods included: (1) interviews; (2) open-ended questionnaires; (3) reflective diaries; (4) focus groups; (5) participant observations; and (6) visual methods. Quantitative methods included: (1) monitoring devices (e.g., accelerometers); (2) observations (e.g., of physical activity or motor proficiency); (3) psychometrics (e.g., enjoyment, self-perceptions); (4) performance measures (e.g., exergaming, objective times/distances); (5) anthropometric measurements; and (6) one compound measure. Of the measures that made an explicit distinction: 22 (61%) examined the physical domain, eight (22%) the affective domain; five (14%) the cognitive domain; and one (3%) combined three domains (physical, affective, and cognitive) of physical literacy. Researchers tended to declare their philosophical standpoint significantly more in qualitative research compared with quantitative research. Conclusions Current research adopts diverse often incompatible methodologies in measuring/assessing physical literacy. Our analysis revealed that by adopting simplistic and linear methods, physical literacy cannot be measured/assessed in a traditional/conventional sense. Therefore, we recommend that researchers are more creative in developing integrated philosophically aligned approaches to measuring/assessing physical literacy. Future research should consider the most recent developments in the field of physical literacy for policy formation.
机译:摘要背景物理素养的概念最近得到了研究和国际关注。在干预计划和实证研究获得势头的情况下,他们的操作化差异显着差异。目的这项研究的目的是通过评估物理素养的系统审查(截至2017年6月14日),以对物理素养的衡量/评估物理素养进行信息。方法使用首选报告项目进行系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目进行调查,符合纳入标准的32条已发表的文章。使用归纳专题分析分析了含有物理素养的实证研究的英语,同行评审的发布论文。结果包括定性方法:(1)访谈; (2)开放式问卷; (3)反思日记; (4)焦点小组; (5)参与者观察; (6)视觉方法。包括定量方法:(1)监测装置(例如,加速度计); (2)观察(例如,身体活动或机动熟练程度); (3)精神病学(例如,享受,自我看法); (4)绩效措施(例如,外国人,客观时间/距离); (5)人体测量值; (6)一种复合措施。明确区别的措施:22(61%)检查了物理领域,八(22%)的情感领域;五(14%)认知领域;和一个(3%)合并了物理素养的三个域(物理,情感和认知)。与定量研究相比,研究人员倾向于在定性研究中显着宣布其哲学观点。结论目前的研究采用多种往往不相容的方法测量/评估物理素养。我们的分析显示,通过采用简单和线性方法,无法以传统/常规意义测量/评估物理素养。因此,我们建议研究人员在开发综合哲学​​对齐的方法以测量/评估物理素养方面更具创造力。未来的研究应考虑政策形成的物理素养领域的最新发展。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Sports medicine》 |2018年第3期|共24页
  • 作者单位

    Cardiff School of Sport and Health Sciences Cardiff Metropolitan University;

    Cardiff School of Sport and Health Sciences Cardiff Metropolitan University;

    Faculty of Health Research Institute for Sport and Exercise University of Canberra;

    Cardiff School of Sport and Health Sciences Cardiff Metropolitan University;

    Cardiff School of Sport and Health Sciences Cardiff Metropolitan University;

    Cardiff School of Sport and Health Sciences Cardiff Metropolitan University;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 运动医学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号