BACKGROUND: The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL) was conceptualized as a tool to monitor children's physical literacy. The original model (fitness, activity behavior, knowledge, motor skill) required revision and relative weights for calculating/interpreting scores were required. METHODS: Nineteen childhood physical activity/fitness experts completed a 3-round Delphi process. Round 1 was open-ended questions. Subsequent rounds rated statements using a 5-point Likert scale. Recommendations were sought regarding protocol inclusion, relative importance within composite scores and score interpretation. RESULTS: Delphi participant consensus was achieved for 64% (47/73) of statement topics, including a revised conceptual model, specific assessment protocols, the importance of longitudinal tracking, and the relative importance of individual protocols and composite scores. Divergent opinions remained regarding the inclusion of sleep time, assessment/ scoring of the obstacle course assessment of motor skill, and the need for an overall physical literacy classification. CONCLUSIONS: The revised CAPL model (overlapping domains of physical competence, motivation, and knowledge, encompassed by daily behavior) is appropriate for monitoring the physical literacy of children aged 8 to 12 years. Objectively measured domains (daily behavior, physical competence) have higher relative importance. The interpretation of CAPL results should be reevaluated as more data become available.
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL) was conceptualized as a tool to monitor children's physical literacy. The original model (fitness, activity behavior, knowledge, motor skill) required revision and relative weights for calculating/interpreting scores were required. METHODS: Nineteen childhood physical activity/fitness experts completed a 3-round Delphi process. Round 1 was open-ended questions. Subsequent rounds rated statements using a 5-point Likert scale. Recommendations were sought regarding protocol inclusion, relative importance within composite scores and score interpretation. RESULTS: Delphi participant consensus was achieved for 64% (47/73) of statement topics, including a revised conceptual model, specific assessment protocols, the importance of longitudinal tracking, and the relative importance of individual protocols and composite scores. Divergent opinions remained regarding the inclusion of sleep time, assessment/ scoring of the obstacle course assessment of motor skill, and the need for an overall physical literacy classification. CONCLUSIONS: The revised CAPL model (overlapping domains of physical competence, motivation, and knowledge, encompassed by daily behavior) is appropriate for monitoring the physical literacy of children aged 8 to 12 years. Objectively measured domains (daily behavior, physical competence) have higher relative importance. The interpretation of CAPL results should be reevaluated as more data become available.
Authors: Paulina S Melby; Glen Nielsen; Jan Christian Brønd; Mark S Tremblay; Peter Bentsen; Peter Elsborg Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Leeann M Lower-Hoppe; Amy Chan Hyung Kim; Shea M Brgoch; Christin M Zwolski; Laura Schmitt; Matthew K Paponetti; Catherine C Quatman-Yates Journal: Front Sports Act Living Date: 2022-04-12
Authors: Lowri C Edwards; Anna S Bryant; Richard J Keegan; Kevin Morgan; Stephen-Mark Cooper; Anwen M Jones Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Diego Augusto Santos Silva; Justin J Lang; Joel D Barnes; Grant R Tomkinson; Mark S Tremblay Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: An De Meester; Lisa M Barnett; Ali Brian; Steven J Bowe; Judith Jiménez-Díaz; Femke Van Duyse; J Megan Irwin; David F Stodden; Eva D'Hondt; Matthieu Lenoir; Leen Haerens Journal: Sports Med Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Patricia E Longmuir; Charles Boyer; Meghann Lloyd; Yan Yang; Elena Boiarskaia; Weimo Zhu; Mark S Tremblay Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Gareth R Jones; Liza Stathokostas; Bradley W Young; Andrew V Wister; Shirley Chau; Patricia Clark; Mary Duggan; Drew Mitchell; Peter Nordland Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Patricia E Longmuir; Sarah J Woodruff; Charles Boyer; Meghann Lloyd; Mark S Tremblay Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 3.295