Background

Physical activity and exercise play central roles in the healthy physical, psychosocial, cognitive, and emotional development of children and adolescents [1,2,3]. Despite this knowledge, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, only 15% of adolescents aged 11–17 years worldwide engaged in the 60 min of physical activity per day recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) [4]. In Germany, according to the second KIGGs Wave cross-sectional study, similarly low physical activity levels were observed in children aged 7–10 years: only 23% of girls and 30% of boys reached the recommended physical activity levels [5]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, children’s physical activity time further decreased between 10.8 min/day and 91 min/day [6].

Due to the potential negative consequences of insufficient physical activity, including excessive weight gain, obesity, and motor deficits [7], the WHO Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030 called for reducing the global prevalence of physical inactivity by 15% by 2030 [8]. To this end, programmes promoting individual physical activity behaviours should be developed and expanded. Thus far, however, despite a multitude of actions taken by various institutions and schools [9,10,11], a reversal in the downward trend has not been achieved [12]. Comprehensive strategies may thus be needed that target daily life and living environment and address additional factors such as children’s and adolescents’ intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy for initiating and maintaining an active or healthy lifestyle [13, 14]. Such considerations can already be found in process models of behavioural change pertaining to health-related behaviours [15]. Knowledge and understanding of the effects and impacts of physical activity also support individuals’ sense of responsibility for their own (health) behaviours [16].

One possible theoretical basis for such interventions, which recognise this broader understanding of exercise and the promotion of exercise, is the concept of physical literacy (PL) [17]. Margaret Whitehead proposed this term to describe participation and physical activity behaviour with a philosophical underpinning. According to Whitehead, the human being exists as a unity of body and mind (monism) and is the result of accumulated experiences in the world (existentialism), which form the basis for one’s process of perception (phenomenology) [18]. Movement experiences thus frame future behaviour and shape the domains of PL, which include the cognitive domain (knowledge and understanding of the physical and psychological effects of sport and exercise), the affective domain (regulation of motivation, movement-related self-efficacy, and self-confidence), and the physical domain (movement, sports participation, motor skills, and fundamental movement skills). These domains exist not in isolation but instead in relation to each other. For example, motor skills (physical domain) are considered a prerequisite for participation in a country’s physical activity and sports culture [19], and they also affect self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation (affective domain). Additionally, the interrelated domains, as PL, may form the basis for a lifelong process [17].

Various culturally adapted definitions and (depending on the field of application) corresponding assessment systems have been developed from this theoretical framework [20,21,22,23]. Among the most well-known assessment instruments is the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL), which is employed internationally and has been translated and culturally adapted for use in several countries [24,25,26,27,28,29].

Currently no model or procedure for assessing PL is available for any age group in Germany. Before effective physical activity support measures for children and adolescents can be developed and compared, an adequate operationalisation of the domains or construct and a clear and uniform definition are needed [30]. For this purpose, a scoping review was conducted to compile information on existing PL assessment systems for children and adolescents, including their underlying definitions, structural designs, and development and evaluation processes, and facilitate both a review of common approaches and the identification and discussion of the most suitable methods for measuring PL. The results of this study can therefore form a cornerstone of a German system for PL assessment on which future PL developments can build.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted according to the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute [31] and the framework employed by Arksey and O’Malley [32].

Search and screening process

An initial systematic literature search was conducted in July 2022 and followed by an updated search in May 2023 using three electronic sports science and medical databases: (i) MEDLINE (via PubMed), (ii) Web of Science, and (iii) SPORTDiscus. The literature search results were manually checked for duplicate publications. The search strategy combined the term ‘physical literacy’ and the target group of children and adolescents (‘physical literacy’ AND (‘children’ OR ‘childhood’ OR ‘youth’ OR ‘adolescent’)).

Two independent reviewers (MG and SW) screened the identified articles for the specified inclusion criteria. The screening process was carried out using the program Rayyan [33] and was divided into two successive stages: (1) title and abstract screening and (2) full-text screening. Duplicates were removed. Any disagreements were discussed after each stage. If a consensus could not be reached, a third researcher (CJ) was consulted. Additionally, a search for further relevant articles was conducted by exploring the reference lists of the included studies. The inclusion criteria were specified using the PCC (participants, concept, context) scheme:

  • Participants: The target group of the articles had to include children and adolescents up to 18 years of age. Articles were excluded if the target group included children with specific pre-existing conditions, such as obesity.

  • Concept: Only articles that focused on or operationalised the construct of PL were included. In addition, validation studies of PL assessment instruments were included. At least two of the three constituent PL domains (cognitive, affective, physical) had to be covered in the assessment procedure. The cognitive domain was understood to be knowledge and understanding of changes to the body and psyche due to movement. The affective domain referred to the areas of motivation, self-efficacy, and self-confidence. The physical domain was related to motor skills, movement behaviour and fundamental movement skills.

  • Context: All institutions for children and young people, such as kindergartens, schools, youth centres and community projects, were included as settings for the PL assessment systems. All nationalities were included. Assessment systems conducted at universities were excluded.

The exclusion criteria included contributions to conferences, scientific posters, and non-English or non-German articles. Conference papers were excluded due to their tendency to present the applied methodology with limited detail and incompleteness. If full-text access to a publication was unavailable, the author was contacted and asked to send the full text.

Data items and charting

A standardised extraction protocol for summarising relevant variables was developed for this review. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for scoping reviews, the reviewers first checked five articles for completeness and applicability [34]. The extraction protocol was then adapted based on this pilot review and included the following elements:

  • Name of the first author, year of publication, and country of publication;

  • The target group of the assessment tool;

  • The underlying PL definition;

  • Evaluation that the articles included an assessment of PL as a superordinate construct;

  • The terminology used for the domains;

  • The name and characteristics of the instrument used to evaluate each domain;

  • The assessment of each domain.

Results

Literature search and study characteristics

The literature search identified 882 articles (Fig. 1). Five additional sources that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were added manually. After duplicates were removed, the titles and abstracts of 563 articles were checked for inclusion criteria. In the next step, 107 full texts were processed and checked for suitability, from which 40 articles met all criteria and were included in data extraction. Twenty-three PL assessment procedures were described in the 40 articles. Eleven articles were related to the CAPL and its further development (Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy Second Edition, CAPL-2; Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy in grades 7–9, CAPL 789) by the Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group [24,25,26,27,28,29, 35,36,37,38,39]. Seven sources were identified pertaining to the Physical Literacy Assessments for Youth (PLAY) and the Preschool Physical Literacy Assessment Tool (Pre PLAy) [40,41,42,43,44,45,46]. Two articles described the Perceived Physical Literacy Instrument (PPLI) [47, 48]. Three articles described the Portuguese Physical Literacy Assessment (PPLA) consisting of the Portuguese Physical Literacy Assessment-Questionnaire (PPLA-Q) and the Portuguese Physical Literacy Assessment-Observation (PPLA-O) [49,50,51]. The development of the Physical Literacy in Children Questionnaire (PL-C Quest) was described in two articles [52, 53]. One article each dealt with the Adolescent Physical Literacy Questionnaire (APLQ) [54], the Physical Literacy Self-Assessment Questionnaire (PLAQ) [55], the Play, Lifestyle & Activity in Youth Questionnaire [56], and the German Physical Literacy Assessment for Children [57]. Eleven other methods focused on individual PL domains and were not validated with respect to use as a PL tool [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68].

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram showing the process of study selection. Abbreviations: CAPL Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy, PL Physical Literacy, PLAY Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth, PPLI Perceived Physical Literacy Instrument, Pre PLAy Preschool Physical Literacy Assessment Tool, PL-C Quest Physical Literacy in Children Questionnaire, APLQ Adolescent Physical Literacy Questionnaire, PPLA Portuguese Physical Literacy Assessment, PLAQ physical literacy self-assessment questionnaire

Full size image

General procedure for the development of PL test instruments

The test procedures identified in the literature can be found in Table 1. In general, the objective and target group(s) of the instrument were determined first, followed by a determination of the underlying definition of PL based on literature research [42, 46, 49, 54, 57, 58, 60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68], Delphi procedures [37], and interviews with practitioners and experts [48, 49, 52, 54, 55]. In a subsequent step, either survey methods of the domains were developed or existing methods were used. These methods varied between observational questionnaires, validated or newly developed questionnaires, and motor skills tests. The choice of test methods depended on the underlying definition of the respective domain (see Tables 2, 3 and 4).

Table 1 Underlying physical literacy definition of the assessment conception (n = 23)
Full size table
Table 2 Assessment tools and scoring of the physical domain (n = 23)
Full size table
Table 3 Assessment tools, procedures and scoring of the affective domain (n = 23)
Full size table
Table 4 Assessment Tools, Procedures and Scoring of the Cognitive Domain (n = 14)
Full size table

Consideration of the PL domains

All three PL domains were addressed in 12 assessment tools [24, 38, 39, 49, 52, 54,55,56,57, 59, 60, 63] (see Table 5). The physical domain was collected in 22 assessment procedures; only the PPLI did not include this domain [47]. Reasons for omission were not given.

Table 5 Assessing physical literacy as a holistic approach: procedure of the different research groups
Full size table

The affective domain was also included in 22 of the 23 assessment procedures. Gu et al.’s [64] combined this domain with the cognitive domain in their PL definition and did not explicitly operationalise the affective PL domain.

The cognitive domain was considered in 14 assessment systems [24, 38, 39, 47, 49, 52, 54,55,56,57, 59, 60, 63, 64].

Only in eight of the 23 systems analysed, was PL assessed in the form of a total score resulting from the domain scores [24, 38, 39, 46, 47, 52, 54, 57]. In CAPL-2 and CAPL 789, the total score and the domain scores were additionally classified in an age- and gender-adjusted percentile system [38, 39]. On this basis, children can be assigned to one of four categories: Beginning, Progressing, Achieving and Excelling. Brown et al. [61], in contrast, designed an individual profile based on the domain characteristics (see Table 5).

Evaluation of the assessment systems

Varying statistical procedures were used to validate the scoring systems. For some of the PLAY tools [42] as well as the CAPL [24], German Physical Literacy Assessment for Children [57], PLAQ [55], APLQ [54], and PPLI [47] exploratory factor analysis was conducted to generate the factor structure from empirical data, exclude individual items, check the internal consistency of the scales and thus address construct validity. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess construct validity [24,25,26, 28, 29, 35, 36, 44, 47, 52, 54, 55, 60]. Longmuir et al. [24] employed correlational analysis between children’s CAPL domain scores and teachers’ assessments of children’s PL to determine convergent validity. The PLAY tools were also tested against a variety of instruments to examine convergent validity: the PLAYfun and PLAYbasic scores were compared with other motor test scores [43], and physical activity was measured using pedometers [45] or questionnaires [40]. The PLAYself questionnaire from the PLAY tools and the PPLA-O tool were validated based on item response theory and tested for the unidimensionality of the scales [41, 50]. The PPLA-Q was checked for content validity using the Mokken scale analysis [51].

Discussion

PL is becoming increasingly important as a potential guiding concept for the promotion of physical activity and health due to its holistic approach. However, there is currently neither a uniform framework concept nor a corresponding assessment procedure established in Germany to develop and test appropriate interventions. A scoping review was thus conducted to summarise current definitions and test methods, including assessments of individual PL, for children and adolescents.

A total of 23 models and procedures were identified, some of which varied considerably. As previous reviews have also shown, the assessment procedure developed depended on the underlying definition of PL and the context in which the procedure was used [20, 21].

Only 12 assessment instruments addressed all core components of the Whiteheadian conceptualisation (see Table 5). In the CAPL, CAPL-2, CAPL 789, PPLI, APLQ, PL-C Quest, German Physical Literacy Assessment for Children and Pre PLAy, a total score was determined by summing individual domain scores. Although a sum score can be used to quantify as well as compare PL status within and between groups, a more nuanced and individualised consideration of strengths or weaknesses may be more meaningful in terms of PL promotion. A promising approach is the profiling performed by Brown et al. [61]. Each child was assigned to one of five profiles based on their manifestation within the domains. For example, children with low scores in ‘motor competence’ and ‘confidence and motivation’ and a very low score in ‘enjoyment’ were assigned to profile 1, termed ‘inconsistently low PL’. Profile 3, on the other hand, was characterised by low scores in ‘motor competence’ and ‘confidence and motivation’ and a high score in ‘enjoyment’. The researchers showed that children with a ‘better’ PL profile were more physically active. This approach appears to align more closely with the holistic perspective on the individual in the Whiteheadian PL tradition [17].

One domain – the physical domain – was predominantly integrated into the reviewed systems’ consideration of PL, consistent with the findings of earlier reviews [20, 22]. Only one approach did not assess the physical domain as physical or motor skills [47]. Jean de Dieu and Zhou showed that 70% of the PL assessment systems they identified only addressed the physical domain [22]. Whitehead criticised this rather one-sided view of physical activity and sport as insufficient for developing an active lifestyle [18], as it does not do justice to the holistic view of physical activity behaviour. Although simplification of certain aspects of the theory may be necessary due to the operationalisation process, assessment systems should always maintain the theoretical model as their basis [127]. The affective domain was also identified in almost all assessment procedures found, with only one instrument not considering this domain [64]. In most cases, existing questionnaires were employed to assess, for example, intrinsic motivation (see Table 3).

The cognitive domain (i.e. following the Whiteheadian definition knowledge and understanding of changes in the body and mind through exercise [17]) was only considered in 14 of the assessment procedures. However, the status of the research has improved considerably over time in this area in particular. While in the initial search in July 2022, only seven out of 16 identified assessment systems addressed this area, by May 2023, 14 of the 23 identified systems included this domain. The assessment tools utilised questionnaires or teacher assessments to capture the cognitive domain. In the case of questionnaires, alongside self-report questionnaires, multiple-choice questionnaires were frequently employed to represent children’s knowledge [24, 38, 39, 49, 60, 63, 64]. In assessment systems that did not consider the cognitive domain, the reasons for its exclusion were manifold. In some cases, it was not included in the definition of PL [68], and in other, corresponding data were not collected [61, 62]. In Rudd et al. [66] and George et al. [58], the cognitive domain was described in the assessment but did not match the underlying understanding of the cognitive domain adopted in this work. While we were guided by Whitehead’s definition, which emphasis knowledge and understanding of physical and psychological changes due to exercise, George et al. [58] focused on intrinsic motivation (affective domain) and Rudd et al. [68] focused on executive functions and self-regulation. The remaining research groups did not justify the omission of the cognitive domain [42, 65, 67].

Presumably, this inconsistency in measuring the cognitive components of PL is due to the challenge of systematically capturing and, most importantly, to defining the content that should be addressed in this domain. There is currently no consensus on what knowledge regarding the effects of sport and exercise can be expected for children and adolescents at different age levels. The CAPL, for instance, is oriented towards the contents of the Canadian school sports curriculum [24]. However, this is not transferable to other geographical regions and particular to other age groups, such as pre-school aged children. Cairney et al. [46] justified the absence of the cognitive domain from the Pre PLAy tool by arguing that it was not developmentally suitable for preschool-aged children. Of greater importance at this early age appears to be a specific attitude towards movement or an understanding or feeling of what movement entails. Such a focus would likely align with the original PL approach, but quantitatively capturing it could prove difficult.

Strengths and limitations

This study was conducted based on a literature search of three databases: SPORTDiscus, PubMed and Web of Science. This approach covered a broad range of research in sports science and sports medicine, but educational literature was underrepresented. The databases used were chosen because of the health- and prevention-oriented focus of the scoping review.

Only papers written in English were included in this work. The literature search did identify several articles from Asia that were not included due to the language of the text. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that relevant literature may have been overlooked.

During our publication process, a rapid increase in literature and assessment systems in the field of PL was observed. Therefore, a follow-up research was conducted, but it can be assumed that the research area is still expanding, further relevant and innovative developments will occur.

Finally, it is possible that the requirement that at least two of the three domains be addressed in the PL assessment also led to a reduction in possible search results. However, we chose this approach to do justice to the holistic nature of the PL concept.

Conclusion

The PL construct is a promising concept for promoting physical activity in childhood and adolescence because it considers multiple facets of physical activity and is thus intended to lay an essential foundation for an active lifestyle throughout the lifespan. However, to enable the development of concrete promotion measures based on this holistic approach, a clear and theory-based definition and assessment derived from it are needed. Unfortunately, the holistic nature of the approach, though promising, is precisely what makes adequate assessment a methodological challenge due to its complexity. In addition, the developmental stages of children and adolescents must be taken into account. A certain abstraction from the original construct may be unavoidable when putting the theory into practice, but the fundamental PL approach should always remain in focus. Priority should therefore be given to developing assessments that are holistic instruments rather than merely domain-specific constructs.