Validity and Reliability of Field-Based Measures for Assessing Movement Skill Competency in Lifelong Physical Activities: A Systematic Review
- 704 Downloads
It has been suggested that young people should develop competence in a variety of ‘lifelong physical activities’ to ensure that they can be active across the lifespan.
The primary aim of this systematic review is to report the methodological properties, validity, reliability, and test duration of field-based measures that assess movement skill competency in lifelong physical activities. A secondary aim was to clearly define those characteristics unique to lifelong physical activities.
A search of four electronic databases (Scopus, SPORTDiscus, ProQuest, and PubMed) was conducted between June 2014 and April 2015 with no date restrictions.
Studies addressing the validity and/or reliability of lifelong physical activity tests were reviewed. Included articles were required to assess lifelong physical activities using process-oriented measures, as well as report either one type of validity or reliability.
Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods
Assessment criteria for methodological quality were adapted from a checklist used in a previous review of sport skill outcome assessments.
Movement skill assessments for eight different lifelong physical activities (badminton, cycling, dance, golf, racquetball, resistance training, swimming, and tennis) in 17 studies were identified for inclusion. Methodological quality, validity, reliability, and test duration (time to assess a single participant), for each article were assessed. Moderate to excellent reliability results were found in 16 of 17 studies, with 71 % reporting inter-rater reliability and 41 % reporting intra-rater reliability. Only four studies in this review reported test–retest reliability. Ten studies reported validity results; content validity was cited in 41 % of these studies. Construct validity was reported in 24 % of studies, while criterion validity was only reported in 12 % of studies.
Numerous assessments for lifelong physical activities may exist, yet only assessments for eight lifelong physical activities were included in this review. Generalizability of results may be more applicable if more heterogeneous samples are used in future research.
Moderate to excellent levels of inter- and intra-rater reliability were reported in the majority of studies. However, future work should look to establish test–retest reliability. Validity was less commonly reported than reliability, and further types of validity other than content validity need to be established in future research. Specifically, predictive validity of ‘lifelong physical activity’ movement skill competency is needed to support the assertion that such activities provide the foundation for a lifetime of activity.
KeywordsResistance Training Content Validity Test Duration Movement Skill Fundamental Movement Skill
The authors report no conflicts of interest within the information provided in this review. No funding was received by any of the authors to perform any portion of the review. Authorship criteria was met by all authors for this journal, and each author made a significant contribution to the final version of this paper.
- 5.Gallahue DL, Ozmun JC, Goodway J. Understanding motor development: infants, children, adolescents, adults. 7th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2012.Google Scholar
- 7.Clark JE, Metcalfe JS. The mountain of motor development: a metaphor. In: Clarke JE, Humphrey JH, editors. Motor development: research and reviews, vol. 2. Reston: National Association for Sport and Physical Education; 2002. p. 163–90.Google Scholar
- 8.Burton AW, Miller DE, Miller D. Movement skill assessment. Champaign: Human Kinetics Champaign; 1998.Google Scholar
- 11.Seefeldt V. The concepts of readiness applied to motor skill acquisition. In: Magill RA, Ash MJ, Smoll FL, editors. Children in sport. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1982. p. 31–7.Google Scholar
- 19.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Comprehensive school physical activity programs: a guide for schools. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2013.Google Scholar
- 21.Dunn AL, Ross AE, Jakicic JM. Lifestyle physical activity interventions: history, short- and long-term effects, and recommendations. Am J Sport Med. 1998;15(4):398–412.Google Scholar
- 24.Pangrazi R. Dynamic physical education for elementary school children. 15th ed. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings; 2007.Google Scholar
- 28.Australian Bureau of Statistics. Participation in sport and physical recreation, Australia, 2011–2012. 2013. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/4177.0~2011-12~+Features~Characteristics+of+participation?OpenDocument. Accessed 12 Nov 2014.
- 29.Hands BP. How can we best measure fundamental movement skills? Paper presented at the Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation Inc. (ACHPER). In: 23rd biennial national/international conference: interactive health and physical education. 2002. Launceston, TAS.Google Scholar
- 34.Pang AW-Y, Fong DT-P. Fundamental motor skill proficiency of Hong Kong children aged 6–9 years. Res Sports Med. 2009;17(3):125–44.Google Scholar
- 36.Ulrich DA. Test of gross motor development. 2nd ed. Austin: PRO-ED, Inc.; 2000.Google Scholar
- 38.Barrow HM, McGee R, Tritschler KA. Practical measurement in physical education and sport. 4th ed. Philidelphia: Lea &Febiger; 1989.Google Scholar
- 55.Zetou E, Nikolaos V, Evaggelos B. The effect of instructional self-talk on performance and learning the backstroke of young swimmers and on the perceived functions of it. J Phys Educ Sport. 2014;14(1):27–35.Google Scholar
- 63.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Comprehensive school physical activity programs: a guide for schools. 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/physicalactivity/cspap.htm. Accessed 10 Nov 2014.
- 65.Streiner DL. 22 A checklist for evaluating the usefulness of rating scales. A guide for the statistically perplexed: selected readings for clinical researchers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2013. pp. 267–288.Google Scholar