Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Outcomes and Feasibility of a 12-Week Physical
Literacy Intervention for Children in
an Afterschool Program
Emily Bremer 1, 2,* , Jeffrey D. Graham 2and John Cairney 3
1Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, M5S 2W6, Canada
2INfant and Child Health (INCH) Lab, Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton,
ON L8P 1H6, Canada; grahajd2@mcmaster.ca
3School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Australia;
j.cairney@uq.edu.au
*Correspondence: emily.bremer@utoronto.ca
Received: 2 April 2020; Accepted: 26 April 2020; Published: 30 April 2020
Abstract:
Children (N=90) from eight afterschool programs (n=4 experimental sites with 47 children;
n=4 control sites with 43 children), along with the program leaders (N=7) from the experimental
sites, participated in a 12-week physical literacy intervention. Children were assessed on their physical
literacy (movement competence, affect, confidence, and motivation) pre- and post-intervention using
a suite of assessment tools that included the PLAYfun assessment of movement competence and a
comprehensive child questionnaire. Experimental participants engaged in a daily physical literacy
intervention at their afterschool program; controls engaged in their usual afterschool programming.
Experimental group program leaders were assessed on their cognitions pre- and post-training and
post-intervention, alongside questions regarding program acceptability and feasibility. Program
leaders’ perceived knowledge and self-efficacy to implement the physical literacy program increased
(p<0.05) from pre- to post-training and these effects were maintained at post-intervention. No group
differences were observed in the change of children’s motor competence, self-efficacy, or motivation
from baseline to post-intervention. However, significant increases in affect were observed among
participants in the experimental group (p<0.05). Program leaders said they would recommend
the program to future leaders. However, they reported challenges with implementation due to
equipment availability and behavioral challenges. Results suggest a comprehensive physical literacy
program during the afterschool period can be feasible to implement and can lead to improvements in
the affective domain of children’s physical literacy. Further research on childhood physical literacy
interventions is warranted.
Keywords: physical literacy; movement competence; physical activity; school children
1. Introduction
Physical inactivity is a global problem among children and youth [
1
]. In Canada, for example,
only one-third of children are meeting daily physical activity recommendations, with just under
one-fifth of children meeting all three of the current 24-h movement guidelines regarding physical
activity, sleep, and screen time [
2
]. Further, there is an alarming gap between boys and girls with
boys engaging in significantly more physical activity and meeting the 24-h movement guidelines
at a significantly higher rate than girls [
2
]. This discrepancy in participation is troublesome given
the numerous physical, mental, and cognitive health benefits of physical activity for children and
youth [
3
–
5
]. As such, strategies to increase the physical activity levels of all children and youth continue
to be a global priority, with a growing emphasis on increasing the participation of girls and women [
6
].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129; doi:10.3390/ijerph17093129 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 2 of 19
Yet, despite ongoing efforts to increase physical activity levels, most physical activity interventions are
largely unsuccessful at sustaining any long-term gains [7–11].
Although the school setting is often seen as an ideal environment to increase physical activity
levels [
12
], most evidence suggests that school-based physical activity interventions have a limited
impact on activity levels outside of the school day [
13
]. The afterschool period is therefore another
time of day that may provide an opportunity for intervention. As such, a number of municipalities
and sport and recreation organizations have worked to implement physical activity-based afterschool
programming. However, much like school-day initiatives, the evidence regarding the efficacy of
afterschool physical activity interventions is limited [
14
,
15
]. This may be due in part to implementation
challenges experienced in the afterschool setting, insufficient training for afterschool program leaders,
the program content not being sufficient to elicit a change in activity levels; or some combination of
one or more of these challenges.
Regardless of setting, it is critical that any intervention be grounded in a theory (or model) of
behavior change [
16
]. Indeed, several psychological theories have often been applied to understanding
physical activity behavior [
17
–
20
] and more recently, researchers have proposed models that incorporate
several psychological theories. Although many physical activity interventions have been developed
based on psychological theories of behavior change, the effects of these interventions remain relatively
small [
21
–
23
]. Similarly, interventions grounded in models of motor development [
24
,
25
] have also
shown relatively small positive effects on physical activity behavior [
26
]. Thus, future interventions
targeting physical activity may benefit from incorporating theories (or models) from several disciplines,
such as across sport/exercise psychology and motor development, in order to target various physical
(i.e., motor competence) and psychological (i.e., motivation) constructs altogether.
One potential solution to address the issue of theories or models spanning multiple disciplines
regarding physical activity participation is employing an intervention grounded in physical literacy.
Physical literacy is a multidimensional concept that includes the domains of movement competence,
positive affect, confidence, and motivation necessary for regular engagement in physical activity [
27
].
Physical literacy, in a sense, unifies previous theories and models from sport/exercise psychology
and motor development. Conceptually, physical literacy is linked to improved physical, mental, and
social health through participation in physical activity [
28
]. However, physical literacy also provides a
theoretical framework by which to guide intervention design. The importance of physical literacy is
highlighted by its inclusion in national and international policies including the Physical Activity Action
Plan for Canada and the World Health Organization’s Global Action Plan on Physical Activity [
29
,
30
].
Given the increasing emphasis on physical literacy, a number of stakeholders have focused their efforts
on improving physical literacy in school-aged children. Yet, there are few evidence-based examples
(e.g., [
31
–
33
]) of how to intentionally target physical literacy as a whole, and the effect this will have on
physical literacy and physical activity levels.
Although a strength of physical literacy is the synthesis of psychological constructs combined with
motor competence, we must also consider how other critical factors not included in the concept may
influence or are influenced by physical literacy, and how they impact physical activity. One concept
that is critical is gender. In this context, we use gender over sex given that the latter is used to refer
to biological differences between males and females whereas the former recognizes how sex-based
differences can be influenced by social and psychological factors [
34
]. In childhood and adolescence,
there are well-known gender differences in physical activity with boys engaging in physical activity at
a higher rate than girls [2]. Moreover, girls tend to drop-out of sport and physical activity at a higher
rate than boys [
35
,
36
]. These discrepancies in physical activity may be due to many factors including
societal norms about girls’ participation in physical activity [
36
], as well as differences in aspects of
physical literacy including movement skill competence, confidence, enjoyment, and motivation to
be active [
37
–
39
]. Thus, it is critical that we consider the role of gender in the design and analysis of
physical literacy interventions.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 3 of 19
The purpose of this study was to design and evaluate a physical literacy intervention for the
afterschool setting. Specifically, we examined the effect of the intervention on the components of
physical literacy in 7–13-year-old children and youth. We also examined the feasibility and acceptability
of program implementation through evaluations of the leader training as well as through leader
feedback following program implementation.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants and Design
Our target sample size was 90 afterschool participants, 7–13 years of age, based on a sample size
calculation of the change in movement competence using a moderate effect (Cohen’s d=0.60; [
40
]),
an alpha of 0.05, and 80% power. In order to generate a sample of 90 participants we decided to
randomly sample by program from the 386 afterschool programs in Ontario. Logistically, however, we
did not have the research funds to travel to locations across the province. Therefore, we restricted the
program sampling frame to programs located in the greater Hamilton region, a catchment area within
a 30-min car drive of our lab and university. We initially contacted 16 sites, 12 of which were located
within the City of Hamilton. Our initial enrolment target was a minimum of 15 children enrolled in the
study from each site; however, this target was difficult to meet at all sites. As a result, we lowered
our enrollment target to six participants per site to allow us to meet the overall target sample size of
90. Of the 16 sites contacted, two declined and one did not respond to our invitation to participate.
An additional five sites did not reach our minimum enrolment targets. We therefore had eight sites
who agreed to participate in the intervention and met enrolment targets; each of these sites were
located within the City of Hamilton. These eight sites were then randomized to participate in either
the experimental
(N=4)
or control (N=4) group. Participants in the experimental sites engaged
in a 12-week physical literacy intervention, implemented by the site’s afterschool program leader.
Participants in the control sites engaged in their usual afterschool program activities for the 12 weeks.
All children participating in the afterschool programs across the eight sites were approached
by members of the research team to participate in the study. We received written parental consent
and child assent from 96 children. All program leaders (n=7) at the participating experimental sites
(N=4)
also provided written informed consent to participate in the study. Parents of all participating
children provided informed written consent and participants provided written child assent, while
all program leaders provided informed written consent prior to participation in the study. The study
was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the
Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (Project #1182).
2.2. Procedure
Child-level outcomes were measured using direct assessments of movement competence and
a questionnaire administered at two points: baseline (prior to the commencement of the intervention)
and post-intervention. Program leader outcomes were measured using a questionnaire administered
at three time points: Pre- and post-leader training and post-intervention.
2.3. Intervention
The intervention was designed to deliberately target each domain of physical literacy through the
inclusion of multiple teaching and intervention strategies. The movement competence component
of the intervention was primarily based upon a previous 12-week curriculum designed by Ontario
Physical and Health Education Association (OPHEA) and Sport for Life (https://sportforlife.ca) using
OPHEA’s PlaySport activities (http://www.playsport.net/). The intervention was composed of two
main components: skill stations and an active game. The program was designed to run 30 min per
day, five days per week, for 12-weeks. The 12 weeks were divided into 20 skill blocks, with each
block lasting three days. Each of these skill blocks focused on learning and practicing a different set of
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 4 of 19
fundamental movement skills (e.g., jumping, throwing, catching) during the first 15 min of the program,
with the remaining 15 min consisting of a novel active game incorporating the day’s movements.
All active games were chosen from the PlaySport activities. The level of difficulty of both the skill
stations and active game progressed in difficulty over the course of the three-day skill block and more
generally over the 12-week intervention. This intervention was designed using a teaching games for
understanding approach [
41
] and the inclusion of skill blocks and active games were chosen to target
multiple aspects of the physical literacy cycle. Such an approach has been identified as consistent with
a physical literacy-based approach [
41
] in that it emphasizes the importance of using novel games
to learn new skills, the application of those skills in group-based settings, and how breaking down
games into its skill components demonstrates the transferability of the skills that underlie sport and
physical activity. Our inclusion of skill blocks also used a mastery approach whereby appropriate
challenges were set, allowing children to experience the competence-confidence cycle emphasized in
the physical literacy model [
42
]. The mastery climate also reinforced personal growth and the activities
were designed to be challenging, yet scalable to ability, and fun. In all, the design of the intervention
sought to create an experiential convergence of motor, affective, and social elements as described by
Cairney et al. [28].
In addition, the curriculum targeted motivation and confidence (or self-efficacy) through several
approaches. A general culture of mentoring and support was established within the program using
two main strategies focusing on inclusivity and peer-modelling and support. Inclusivity referred to the
creation of both a gender- and skill-inclusive environment that focused on ensuring all children had
the opportunity to learn and practice new skills, regardless of their gender or level of movement skill
proficiency. This culture of inclusivity was created through the leader training, a child workshop which
set the tone for the intervention, and weekly tips sent to program leaders. In addition, the importance
of peer modelling and support was discussed during the leader training and child workshops as a
means for improving children’s confidence and, ultimately, motivation for engaging in sports and
physical activity.
During both the skill station and active game portions of the intervention, pairings and groups
were made to be inclusive of both gender and skill. Confidence and motivation were targeted through
strategies aimed at increasing Bandura’s (1997) four sources of self-efficacy: Past performance mastery,
vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological/affective states. However, as children and
youth often struggle to gauge their own self-efficacy [
43
], they often rely on both verbal and nonverbal
cues from influential others (i.e., peers, leaders, and coaches) to inform their efficacy beliefs. Therefore,
based on Lent and Lopez’s [
44
] extension of Bandura’s [
45
] theory of self-efficacy, two other forms of
efficacy perceptions (i.e., other-efficacy and relation-inferred self-efficacy) that are informed in relational
contexts and, in turn, influence one’s self-efficacy were targeted. Other-efficacy refers to one’s beliefs in
another’s ability. For example, in an afterschool setting, a child could have other-efficacy perceptions
about a program leader’s ability to teach them how to kick a ball. Relation-inferred self-efficacy (RISE)
refers to one’s estimate about another’s belief in one’s ability. For example, this would refer to a child’s
estimate of their coach’s belief in their own ability to kick a ball. In other words, if the child thinks
the coach believes in their ability to kick a ball, then their own self-efficacy for kicking a ball would
be enhanced. Indeed, children often report seeking both verbal and nonverbal cues from influential
others in sport or exercise settings to inform their RISE and self-efficacy beliefs [46–48].
In order to enhance self-efficacy, other efficacy and RISE, modelling and support (from leaders and
peers) were used extensively in all aspects of the intervention. For instance, leaders first demonstrated
the skills and then children completed the skill stations in pairs whereby children worked together to
teach each other how to perform the skill. Additionally, children were encouraged to model behavior
and skills to one another during the active games. Based on previous research [
47
], coaches and
children were also encouraged to provide RISE-enhancing verbal feedback (e.g., “I believe in you”, “I’m
confident you are going to do really well”) to children when they were practicing the skills and during the
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 5 of 19
active games. All program leaders were provided with information during training (see below) and in
the manual on how to use RISE-enhancing cues in order to increase the self-efficacy of the children.
2.4. Program Leader Training
Afterschool Program Leaders from the experimental sites attended a 2-h training session prior to
the start of the program. Consistent with previous research [
48
,
49
] and social cognitive theory [
50
],
the training program consisted of two-phases designed to enhance the leaders’ perceived knowledge,
outcome expectations, self-efficacy, and intentions for delivering a physical literacy-based intervention.
The first phase of the training consisted of a classroom-based workshop that included presenting
information on the importance of physical literacy, the status of physical literacy levels of Canadian
children and youth, the need to create a gender- and skill-inclusive environment, and the importance
of instilling confidence in children through RISE-enhancing feedback. The second phase involved an
experiential learning component whereby program leaders were then shown how to use the manual
and supporting documents and were led through an interactive hands-on practice session. Program
leaders in the experimental group (N=7) were also emailed a weekly tip on how to make their program
more gender inclusive. They also received a weekly call for the first three weeks of the program, during
which a trained member of the research team used techniques from motivational interviewing [
51
]
to help the leaders create Brief Action Plans for the upcoming week [
52
] of their program in order to
meet their goals for program implementation as well as deal with any issues that arose during the
previous week.
2.5. Measures
Given that physical literacy is a multi-dimensional concept, we employed a measurement strategy
to capture each of the core domains, consistent with the approach advocated by Barnett et al. [53].
2.5.1. Physical Literacy—Movement Competence Domain
Movement competence of participating children was assessed at each time point with the
PLAYfun tool [
54
]. PLAYfun consists of 18 movement tasks, completed by participants, and scored
by trained assessors using a modified 100 mm visual analogue scale. The scores on the 18 tasks
are averaged to create an average PLAYfun score, as well as individual domain scores across five
respective domains: running, locomotor, object control—upper body, object control—lower body,
and balance. Complete scoring criteria for each of the tasks can be found in the manual (https:
//play.physicalliteracy.ca/play-tools/playfun). The PLAYfun tool has previously been shown to have
acceptable construct validity through both confirmatory factor analysis [
55
] and a convergent validation
study [
56
]. All assessors underwent substantial training on the tool, had excellent inter-rater reliability
(>90%), and were blind to group assignment.
2.5.2. Physical Literacy—Cognitive and Affective Domains
Children completed a 92-item questionnaire to assess demographic variables (at baseline only),
their self-efficacy, other-efficacy (i.e., their belief in their leaders and peers’ abilities), RISE (i.e., their
belief about what they think their leaders and peers think about them), and motivation and enjoyment
to engage in physical activity pre- and post-intervention (see below). This questionnaire was based on
previous work completed by our lab and consisted of task appropriate questions created specifically
for this study, in addition to the PLAYself survey [
54
]. The items assessing self-efficacy, other-efficacy,
and RISE were developed by adhering to Bandura’s [
57
] recommendations for constructing self-efficacy
scales and were based on previous research that assessed these constructs in youth [
46
,
58
]. Motivation
and enjoyment were assessed using items from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory [
59
], which has been
validated for use in sport and exercise settings [
60
] and has been successfully used with children [
61
].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 6 of 19
Demographic Information
Children reported their date of birth, gender, ethnicity/cultural heritage, and the composition of
their household.
Self-Efficacy
Adhering to recommendations by Bandura [
57
], self-efficacy was assessed using a 16-item scale.
Each item was prefaced with the stem “How confident are you in your ability”. The individual items
represented various perceptions in relation to when the child is engaging in sports and physical activity
at their afterschool program. Children rated their confidence for each item using an 11-point scale from
0 (not confident) to 10 (totally confident). An example item is: “To engage in physical activity (e.g., running,
biking)”. The self-efficacy score was computed by averaging the ratings for each item to produce a
scale value out of 10. The average internal consistency of the scale across the two time points was good
(Cronbach’s α=0.84).
Other-Efficacy—Leader
Children’s other-efficacy perceptions with regards to their primary group leader was assessed
using 8-items. Each item was prefaced with the stem “How confident are you in your group leaders’ ability”.
The individual items represented the child’s belief in their group leaders’ ability to provide guidance
and encouragement with regards to when the child is engaging in sports and physical activity at their
afterschool program. Children rated their confidence for each item using an 11-point scale from 0
(not confident) to 10 (totally confident). An example item is: “To teach you the skills to play the sports
and games”. The other-efficacy—leader score was computed by averaging the ratings for each item
to produce a scale value out of 10. The average internal consistency of the scale across the two time
points was good (α=0.87).
Other-Efficacy—Peer
Similar to the above, children’s other-efficacy perceptions with regards to their peers was assessed
using the same 8-items. However, each item was prefaced with the stem “How confident are you in your
friends’ and peers’ ability”. The individual items represented the child’s belief in their friends’ and peers’
abilities to provide guidance and encouragement with regards to when the child is engaging in sports
and physical activity at their afterschool program. Children rated their confidence for each item using
an 11-point scale from 0 (not confident) to 10 (totally confident). An example item is: “To encourage you,
even when you make a mistake or find something difficult”. The other-efficacy—peer score was computed by
averaging the ratings for each item to produce a scale value out of 10. The average internal consistency
of the scale across the two time points was good (α=0.88).
Relation-Inferred Self-Efficacy—Leader
Children’s RISE perceptions with regards to their primary group leader was assessed using 12-items.
Each item was prefaced with the stem “How confident do you think your group leader is in your ability”.
The individual items represented the child’s belief in their group leader’s belief in their own abilities
in relation to when the child is engaging in sports and physical activity at their afterschool program.
Children rated their confidence for each item using an 11-point scale from 0 (not confident) to 10 (totally
confident). An example item is: “To engage in sports (e.g., baseball, soccer)”. The RISE—leader score was
computed by averaging the ratings for each item to produce a scale value out of 10. The average internal
consistency of the scale across the two time points was excellent (α=0.91).
Relation-Inferred Self-Efficacy—Peer
Similar to the above, children’s RISE perceptions with regards to their friends and peers was
assessed using 12-items. Each item was prefaced with the stem “How confident do you think your friends
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 7 of 19
and peers are in your ability”. The individual items represented the child’s belief in their friends and peers’
beliefs in their own abilities in relation to when the child is engaging in sports and physical activity at
their afterschool program. Children rated their confidence for each item using an 11-point scale from 0
(not confident) to 10 (totally confident). An example item is: “To jump, hop, and skip”. The RISE—peer score
was computed by averaging the ratings for each item to produce a scale value out of 10. The average
internal consistency of the scale across the two time points was excellent (α=0.91).
Motivation
Motivation for engaging in physical activity and sports within the afterschool setting was assessed
using the effort and importance subscale from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory [59]. The effort and
importance subscale is a five-item seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7
(very true). Each item was prefaced with the following stem “For each of the following statements, please
indicate how true it is for you when you are engaging in physical activity and sports at your afterschool program”.
An example item is: “I put a lot of effort into sports and games”. The motivation score was computed
by averaging the ratings for each item to produce a scale value out of seven. The average internal
consistency of the scale across the two time points was good (α=0.84).
Enjoyment
Enjoyment for engaging in physical and sports within the afterschool setting was assessed using
2-items from the interest/enjoyment subscale from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (Ryan, 1982)
rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true). Each item was
prefaced with the following stem “For each of the following statements, please indicate how true it is for you
when you are engaging in physical activity and sports at your afterschool program”. The two-items include
“I enjoy playing sports and games” and “I have fun playing sports and games”. The enjoyment score was
computed by averaging the ratings for each item to produce a scale value out of seven. The average
internal consistency of the scale across the two time points was good (α=0.85).
PLAYself
The PLAYself survey was completed by participants as a self-evaluation of their perception of their
physical literacy [
54
] (https://play.physicalliteracy.ca/play-tools/playself). PLAYself includes 21-items,
across four domains including perceptions of the participant’s confidence in different environments
(e.g., water, snow, playground); their self-efficacy toward engaging in physical activity; and their
relative ranking of different literacies (i.e., literacy, numeracy, physical literacy). The PLAYself has
demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (0.83) in children 6–14 years of age, along with convergent
validity consistent with definitions of physical literacy (P. Jefferies, personal communication, April 2020).
The average internal consistency of the measure across the two time points was good (α=0.84).
2.5.3. Program Leader Questionnaire
Based on previous research [
48
] and constructs contained within social cognitive theory [
62
,
63
]
program leaders completed a 54-item questionnaire pre- and post-training, in addition to
post-intervention, in order to assess social cognitive variables (i.e., perceived knowledge, outcome
expectations, self-efficacy, and intentions) toward implementing aspects of the physical literacy
intervention (e.g., knowledge of ways to provide verbal and non-verbal feedback to increase
RISE, knowledge of ways to create gender and skill-inclusive learning and playing environments).
The post-intervention questionnaire also included open-ended questions to elicit the program leaders’
feedback on the program. As we were interested in program leaders’ state perceptions, and whether
these changed over time, program leaders were reminded to report on their beliefs “at this point in
time”. The questions included in the program leader questionnaire can be found in Table S1. Items
from this questionnaire have been used successfully in past research [
48
] when assessing perceived
knowledge, outcome expectations, self-efficacy, and intentions before and after a RISE workshop
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 8 of 19
including young adult and adult participants, and were created adhering to recommendations ([
58
];
also see [59]).
Perceived Knowledge
Program leaders’ perceived knowledge regarding methods for providing RISE-enhancing
information, and for creating gender and skill inclusive learning and playing environments was
assessed with 10-items developed for this study. Each item was prefaced with the following stem
“To what extent are you knowledgeable about” and rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(not very knowledgeable) to 7 (very knowledgeable). Example items include “The best things to say in order
to effectively communicate your confidence in your students’ abilities” and “The best ways to create physical
activity and sport learning environments consisting of higher skilled and lower skilled children”. The perceived
knowledge score was computed by averaging the ratings for each item to produce a scale value out of 7.
The average internal consistency of the measure across the three time points was acceptable (
α
=0.76).
Outcome Expectations
Program leaders’ beliefs about the usefulness of providing RISE-enhancing information, and for
creating gender and skill inclusive learning and playing environments was assessed with 15-items
developed for this study. Each item was rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree)to7(strongly agree). Example items include “To what extent do you think providing non-verbal
feedback helps kids develop confidence in their physical activity and sport abilities”, “To what extent do you
think it is important to create gender inclusive physical activity and sport playing environments”, “Effectively
communicating confidence in my students’ abilities would make them feel more confident in their own abilities”,
and “Effectively communicating confidence in my students’ abilities would motivate them to attempt things
they haven’t done before”. The outcome expectations score was computed by averaging the ratings for
each item to produce a scale value out of 7. The average internal consistency of the measure across the
three time points was excellent (α=0.93).
Self-Efficacy
Program leaders’ beliefs in their abilities for providing RISE-enhancing information, and for
creating gender and skill inclusive learning and playing environments was assessed with 11-items
developed for this study. Each item was prefaced with the following stem “How confident are you
in your ability to” and rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not confidence at all) to 7
(completely confident). Example items include “Use verbal feedback to effectively communicate your belief
in your students’ abilities” and “Identify appropriate situations for which to communicate your belief in your
students’ abilities”. The self-efficacy score was computed by averaging the ratings for each item to
produce a scale value out of 7. The average internal consistency of the measure across the three time
points was excellent (α=0.92).
Intentions
Program leaders’ intentions for providing RISE-enhancing information, and for creating gender
and skill inclusive learning and playing environments was assessed at two time points (post-training
and post-intervention) with 9-items developed for this study. Each item was rated on a 7-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not true at all) to 7 (very true). Example items include “I intend to
use non-verbal feedback to effectively communicate your belief in your students’ abilities” and “I intend on
communicating my confidence in my students’ physical and sport abilities during every physical activity session”.
The intention score was computed by averaging the ratings for each item to produce a scale value out
of 7. The average internal consistency of the measure across the two time points was good (α=0.83).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 9 of 19
Program Feedback
Program leaders were asked five open-ended questions post-intervention to solicit their feedback on
the program. These questions asked (1) whether they would recommend the program; (2) if there was
anything they would like to change about the program; (3) their favorite part of the program; (4) their
least favorite part of the program; and (5) any additional feedback or comments about the program.
2.6. Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated for child and leader demographic and outcome variables.
Independent samples t-tests were used to examine differences between the experimental and control
groups on age and all outcome variables at baseline. Chi-squared tests were used to examine differences
between the groups on all other demographic variables at baseline. Three repeated measures ANOVAs
were used to assess change in the program leaders’ outcome expectations, perceived knowledge,
and self-efficacy across the three time points (pre-training, post-training, post-intervention). A paired
samples t-test was used to assess change in the program leaders’ intentions from post-training to
post-intervention. Effect sizes for the ANOVAs are reported as partial eta squared (
ηp2
) and the values
for small, medium, and large effects are 0.01, 0.06, and 0.14, respectively [
64
]. Effect sizes for the t-tests
are reported as Cohen’s dand the values for small, medium, and large effects are 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8,
respectively [
64
]. A series of nine linear regression models were conducted to examine the effect of
the intervention (change in each of the nine child-level outcomes from baseline to post-intervention
for both the control and experimental groups), controlling for age, gender, baseline score on the
outcome of interest, and adjusting for clustering within sites. Assumptions for multicollinearity and
autocorrelation were met in each of the nine models with the VIFs of each predictor ranging from 1–3,
and the Durbin Watson test statistics ranging from 1.5–2.5, respectively [
65
]. All quantitative analyses
were conducted in SPSS 25 [66].
Finally, open-ended survey responses from the program leaders, regarding their feedback on the
program, are provided verbatim to add context on the feasibility and acceptability of the program.
3. Results
3.1. Program Leader Outcomes
Seven program leaders took part in the study. These leaders were mostly female and had, on
average, two years of experience leading afterschool programs. Demographic characteristics of the
program leaders are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the program leaders at baseline.
Mean or Frequency
Age (mean (SD)) 31.1 (14.4)
Sex
Female (n)6
Male (n)1
Race/Ethnicity
White (n)3
Black (n)2
Other (n)2
Level of Education
Completed high school (n)1
Some college or technical training (n)1
Completed college or technical training (n)3
Completed a bachelor’s degree (n)2
Years of Experience as Program Leader
<1 year (n)2
1–2 years (n)3
>2 years (n)2
Previous Physical Activity Training
No (n)3
Yes (n)4
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 10 of 19
Changes in the program leaders’ outcome expectations, perceived knowledge, self-efficacy, and
intentions are presented in Table 2and indicate that the training generally had a positive impact on
these outcomes. Specifically, their perceived knowledge and self-efficacy to implement a physical
literacy program significantly increased from pre- to post-training and these improvements were
maintained at post-intervention.
Table 2. Change in program leaders’ outcomes across time.
Outcome Pre-Training Post-Training Post-Intervention Difference
Outcome expectations 6.4 (0.5) 6.5 (0.4) 6.6 (0.3)
F (2,12) =1.22,
p=0.33,
ηp2=0.17
Perceived knowledge 4.8 (1.3) 6.2 (0.6) * 6.2 (0.6) *
F (2,12) =7.41,
p=0.01,
ηp2=0.55
Self-efficacy 5.3 (0.7) 6.3 (0.5) * 6.4 (0.6) **
F (2,12) =11.75,
p=0.001,
ηp2=0.66
Intentions N/A 6.8 (0.4) 6.4 (0.7) t(6) =1.8,
p=0.13, d=0.52
* Significantly different from pre-training (p<0.05) ** Significantly different from pre-training (p<0.01).
3.2. Child Outcomes
A total of 96 children provided consent for the study; however, six of these children were absent for
baseline testing. Therefore, the final sample included 90 children. Of these, 47 received the intervention,
while 43 served as controls. The post-tests were completed by 38 participants in the experimental
group and 28 participants in the control group with attrition due to children no longer attending their
respective afterschool program. The demographic characteristics of the sample at baseline are shown in
Table 3. Only age was significant, with children in the control group being slightly older than children
in the experimental group. As sites were randomized to condition, differences in age between arms of
the study is due to chance. Table 4presents baseline scores on all outcomes, by condition. The control
group scored significantly better than the experimental group on the PLAYfun at baseline, possibly
due to age differences. No other baseline differences were present between the groups.
Table 3. Demographic characteristics of the participating children at baseline.
Variable Experimental Control Difference
Age (mean (SD)) 9.1 (1.4) 10.5 (1.8) t=4.1, df =88,
p<0.001
Gender
Girls (n) 23 19 x2(1) =0.20,
p=0.65
Boys (n) 24 24
Race/ethnicity
White (n) 32 33 x2(1) =0.58,
p=0.45
Other (n) 14 10
Living situation
Lives in one-home (n) 33 29 x2(1) =0.19,
p=0.66
Splits time between two homes (n) 13 14
Parental place of birth
Both parents born in Canada (n) 32 27 x2(1) =0.28,
p=0.60
One or both parents born elsewhere (n) 15 16
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 11 of 19
Table 4. Baseline scores, by group, on all child-level outcomes.
Outcome Experimental
Mean (SD)
Control
Mean (SD)
Effect Size
(Cohen’s d)
PLAYfun average score 39.2 (9.8) 47.3 (8.9) * 0.86
Self-efficacy 7.6 (1.9) 7.5 (1.4) 0.06
Motivation 6.0 (1.4) 6.0 (1.2) <0.01
Enjoyment 6.4 (1.2) 6.2 (1.4) 0.15
PLAYself total score 76.2 (13.4) 75.5 (13.0) 0.05
Other-efficacy—leader 8.2 (1.9) 7.9 (1.9) 0.16
Other-efficacy—peer 7.7 (2.3) 7.4 (2.1) 0.14
Relation-inferred self-efficacy (RISE)—leader 8.2 (2.2) 7.8 (1.8) 0.20
RISE—peer 7.8 (1.9) 7.6 (1.7) 0.11
Note: * significantly different from the experimental group at p<0.001.
There were no significant differences observed in the change of motor competence from baseline
to post-intervention between the experimental and control groups, after adjustment for age, gender,
baseline score, and site. However, baseline scores in motor competence did predict post-intervention
motor competence; children who scored higher on PLAYfun at baseline tended to perform better
post-intervention. As well, older children and boys also performed better on the post-assessment of
motor competence. Similarly, baseline scores on the cognitive and affective domains (i.e., self-efficacy,
motivation, enjoyment, PLAYself, other-efficacy, and RISE) predicted post-intervention scores on these
outcomes, with those children who had higher scores at baseline performing better post-intervention.
There were, however, significant differences observed in the change of enjoyment, other-efficacy—leader,
and RISE—leader from baseline to post-intervention between the experimental and control groups,
after adjustment for age, gender, baseline score, and site; children in the experimental group reported
higher scores on these outcomes post-intervention. Intervention effects are reported in Table 5.
Table 5. Intervention effects on motor competence, cognitive, and affective outcomes.
Outcome b (SE) p-Value r-Squared
PLAYfun average score
Experimental group −3.99 (2.36) 0.10
Age (years) 1.52 (0.59) 0.01 **
Boys 4.27 (1.48) <0.01 **
Baseline score 0.43 (0.10) <0.001 *** 0.728
Self-efficacy
Experimental group 0.07 (0.38) 0.85
Age (years) 0.04 (0.09) 0.68
Boys 0.03 (0.29) 0.93
Baseline score 0.53 (0.08) <0.001 *** 0.541
Motivation
Experimental group 0.56 (0.38) 0.14
Age (years) −0.04 (0.09) 0.63
Boys 0.38 (0.27) 0.17
Baseline score 0.30 (0.11) 0.01 ** 0.330
Enjoyment
Experimental group 0.95 (0.43) 0.03 *
Age (years) −0.02 (0.10) 0.82
Boys 0.38 (0.29) 0.20
Baseline score 0.61 (0.14) <0.001 *** 0.391
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 12 of 19
Table 5. Cont.
Outcome b (SE) p-Value r-Squared
PLAYself total score
Experimental group 0.61 (4.78) 0.90
Age (years) −0.17 (1.10) 0.88
Boys 1.86 (3.25) 0.57
Baseline score 0.36 (0.12) <0.01 ** 0.289
Other-efficacy—Leader
Experimental group 2.92 (0.66) <0.001 ***
Age (years) −0.04 (0.15) 0.76
Boys 0.22 (0.43) 0.62
Baseline score 0.41 (0.13) <0.01 ** 0.497
Other-efficacy—Peer
Experimental group 0.07 (0.81) 0.93
Age (years) 0.02 (0.18) 0.90
Boys 1.18 (0.50) 0.02 *
Baseline score 0.19 (0.11) 0.10 0.192
RISE—Leader
Experimental group 1.14 (0.56) 0.05 *
Age (years) −0.07 (0.13) 0.59
Boys 0.24 (0.37) 0.52
Baseline score 0.55 (0.10) <0.001 *** 0.494
RISE—Peer
Experimental group 1.36 (0.81) 0.10
Age (years) −0.10 (0.19) 0.62
Boys 0.85 (0.56) 0.13
Baseline score 0.41 (0.17) 0.02 * 0.272
Note: * significant at p<0.05; ** significant at p<0.01; *** significant at p<0.001.
3.3. Program Feedback
Verbatim responses from the program leaders’ post-intervention feedback survey are presented
in Table 6. Overall, the program leaders had positive feedback about the program although they
did report some challenges with implementation. All program leaders reported that they would
recommend the program to future program leaders; however, they had a few suggested changes
to the program structure and administration. For example, two program leaders suggested that all
equipment be supplied while other leaders suggested an increase in program length, the inclusion
of free time, and an increased variety of activities. When asked about their least favorite part of the
program, the leaders reported challenges with behavioral issues and keeping the participants engaged
on a daily basis. Conversely, the leaders reported that their favorite part of the program was seeing
children help one another and respond to positive feedback provided by their leaders. The leaders also
reported that the children had fun participating in the novel games and that it was beneficial for the
leaders to not have to prepare their own lesson plans.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 13 of 19
Table 6. Post-intervention feedback from the program leaders.
Question Program Leader Responses
Would you
recommend the
program to other
program leaders?
Please elaborate.
1. I would recommend the program to other leaders as long as they are not implementing
another program and have participants who are used to structured programming.
2. Yes, this has increased our children’s participation in fundamental skills that they do not
usually enjoy.
3. I would for programs that have a lot of structure. On the other hand, programs like mine are
very hard to implement this.
4. Yes. It covers a wide range of physical activities to enhance PL skills. They are clearly
explained and offer a variety of games with and without equipment. It encourages children to
lead, as well in terms of skill sharing.
5. I would recommend to other program leaders because it is a great way of keeping a group of
children occupied and entertained. This program has taught me a number of different gym
games that cover a variety of categories.
6. Yes! The lesson plans were easy to follow so long as you have the right kind (or
any) equipment.
7. Yes, because it helps build the confidence in the children and helps leaders to learn new
gym games.
Is there anything you
would like to change
about the program?
Please describe.
1. Supply all equipment and supplies at the beginning of the program to leaders who are
implementing the program.
2. An increase in the variety of activities would be helpful in keeping children engaged.
3. Maybe have some free time.
4. Could the font size be a bit larger for text in booklet?
5. The only thing I would change were the games given as examples in the books. It became
difficult to think of certain activities.
6. 12 Weeks is (in my opinion) too short to make true lasting attitude change. I think also 3-day
blocks are too short.
7. The thing I would like to change is taking into consideration that we didn’t have the
proper equipment.
What was your
favorite part about
the program?
1. Introducing new skills to some participants while helping others maintain and develop
certain skills.
2. My favorite part of the program was seeing kids helping each other with peer-based learning.
3. Diverse games
4. Seeing children interact with enthusiasm when participating in whole group games or in
pairs practicing their skills and also responding to positive feedback from their leaders. When
a child developed a skill and recognized their own progress for those skills.
5. Seeing the kids having fun with the various games.
6. The new games—kids loved them. Not having to prepare plans was great.
7. Everything
What was your least
favorite part about
the program?
1. Overwhelmed due to implementing more than one program plan.
2. My least favorite part of the program was keeping children engaged in repeat
games/activities and having to keep up engagement.
3. How short the weeks were.
4. Sometimes, children may not always want to have 3-day blocks and also some children due
to behavioral issues, wanted to do their own thing (regardless of what was presented)—They
are this way prior to the program.
5. Getting the kids to participate.
6. Having to meet deadlines and “strict” structure. I think structure is important though, and
kids need structure, but it was too tight.
7. Not having the proper equipment for some games.
Do you have any
additional feedback
or comments about
the program?
1. Staying in contact with staffthroughout the duration of program was great support. Supply
equipment at initial training in order for staffto properly implement activities and skill stations.
2. I think this was very helpful in increasing participant skills and increasing the idea of
gender inclusivity (not all children fully understand this concept yet, but it is starting to set in).
3. N/A
4. Could an abridged version be offered with featuring a variety of activities but more
economizing on use of words/explanations?
5. Hopefully this study sticks around in the future.
6. 5-day blocks. Rotation after 5 days of activity from block 1 to 6.
7. No.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 14 of 19
4. Discussion
While there has been great interest in the concept of physical literacy at both the policy and
programming level, empirical inquiry has lagged behind theoretical interest. Recently, researchers have
begun to design and evaluate interventions that employ a physical literacy-based approach [
31
–
33
].
Yet, much of this work includes program evaluations of existing programs or interventions only
targeting some of the domains of physical literacy. Further, none of these studies have taken
place in the afterschool setting—a setting that has been identified as a critical target for physical
activity programming [
14
]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to empirically test a
comprehensive physical literacy intervention in the afterschool setting.
Despite the comprehensive design of our physical literacy intervention, intervention effects were
only evident in three of our child-level outcomes. However, the fact that we found a significant
intervention effect on participants’ enjoyment, their efficacy in their leaders, and their perceived RISE
from their leaders is quite promising. These findings suggest that participating in the intervention
led to increased enjoyment in physical activity and sports. Further, it demonstrates that participants
gained confidence in their group leader’s ability to teach them and increased their perception of their
group leader’s confidence in their own abilities. These cognitive and affective outcomes are critical
components of physical literacy and are necessary for regular participation in physical activity [28].
While the lack of an intervention effect on the remaining outcomes, particularly movement
competence, is disappointing, it is not too surprising given the challenges of the afterschool space,
as highlighted by the program leaders. Specifically, issues in securing equipment made implementation
a challenge. Likewise, program leaders struggled with behavioral challenges, such as children acting
out or not wanting to participate in afterschool activities, within the program. It is therefore unclear
if the lack of intervention effect, across all variables, was simply due to low fidelity, rather than
the intervention itself. These challenges in the afterschool setting are not unique to this study as
previous research aimed at increasing physical activity through afterschool programming has also
demonstrated mixed results [
14
]. It is unclear however, if the limited success of afterschool programs
to increase physical activity is due to the afterschool setting, the intervention itself, or the general
difficulty in increasing physical activity levels in school-aged children [
7
]. In contrast, previous
research has demonstrated the effectiveness of improving movement competence in children and
youth through school-based interventions [40,67]; however, this work has not focused specifically on
the afterschool setting. More research is needed not only to examine the effectiveness of afterschool
programs at improving physical literacy, but measures of feasibility and intervention fidelity in the
afterschool setting.
Despite limited effects on the child-level outcomes, the results of the leader training are promising.
That we were able to improve the cognitions of the afterschool program leaders through a brieftwo-hour
training session suggests that the problem may not be with training the leaders but, with the afterschool
setting itself. Indeed, we saw that the program leaders improved their perceived knowledge and
self-efficacy for delivering a physical literacy-based afterschool intervention; and these improvements
were maintained through the intervention period with minimal support. This is promising given that
the program leaders had little to no prior knowledge of physical literacy, or how to implement a physical
literacy program in the afterschool setting. It is possible, then, that with more comprehensive training
we may be able to engage afterschool program leaders to not only deliver physical literacy programs
but, also be better prepared to address some of the challenges associated with program implementation.
Despite the challenges of the afterschool setting for this type of intervention work, it is important
that we continue to explore the role of comprehensive physical literacy interventions for school-aged
children and youth. However, it may be more optimal to test these effects in a more controlled
environment, such as during the school day. This could potentially limit barriers to implementation
that were faced in the present study including limited access to the gymnasium and children being
picked-up early from afterschool programming. Kriellaars and colleagues [
31
], for instance, recently
evaluated a physical literacy-inspired circus arts instruction program for the physical education setting.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 15 of 19
While they found that both traditional physical education and physical literacy-inspired circus arts
instruction led to significant improvements in movement competence, endpoint scores in movement
competence favored the physical literacy-inspired circus arts [
31
]. These results suggest that physical
literacy programming, delivered during the school day, may be an effective way to improve aspects of
children’s physical literacy beyond gains seen in traditional physical education. Yet, in addition to
testing physical literacy programs in more controlled settings, such as in school, it is important that we
continue to test how we can support afterschool program leaders in the implementation of physical
literacy programs. This may mean enhanced training for the program leaders and on-going support
over the duration of the intervention.
Limitations include the relatively small sample size given the multiple sites included in the study.
Further, the included sites were from a geographically narrow region. We were also limited by our
ability to control intervention fidelity and the variable environment of the afterschool setting. While a
qualitative analysis, using a thematic or content analysis approach, may have provided further insight
into the survey responses [
68
,
69
] this was beyond the scope of this study, which may have limited
our ability to gain an even deeper understanding of the program leaders’ post-program feedback.
However, the leaders’ responses did provide insight into some of the challenges they experienced with
program implementation. For example, feedback from the program leaders revealed that each site
was unique in its ability to access resources such as space and equipment. Many sites indicated that
this access was limited (e.g., only having access to the gymnasium two or three days per week, rather
than all five days) and negatively affected program implementation. Further, despite randomization,
it appeared that some of the control sites had more regular access to the gymnasium and equipment
than the experimental sites. That participants in the control group may have had greater opportunities
to be active could account for some of our null findings. It is possible that additional, unmeasured,
variables may also help to account for these findings as we were unable to measure individual- or
school-level socioeconomic variables such as parental education, income, and other variables that may
have differed between the sites. We recommend that future research include measures of additional
individual- and site-level variables that could influence program outcomes. A final limitation is that
the results of the program leaders’ cognitions may be biased given the potential social desirability
of the leaders to respond positively to the training. Further, while we saw positive changes in their
beliefs and intentions, these alone are often insufficient to actually change behavior [
70
,
71
]. Future
work should observe the program leaders in practice to assess the impact of the training on their ability
to implement the intervention. A strength of this study is the novelty of using a physical literacy-based
framework to comprehensively intervene on and measure the core domains of physical literacy. While
physical literacy is a holistic concept, it is important to consider and measure its component domains
using valid assessments and a combination of direct and self-reported assessments.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, it appears that a comprehensive 12-week physical literacy program implemented
during the afterschool period can be feasible for non-experts to deliver and in the current study showed
improvements in cognitive and affective domains of children’s physical literacy. More research is
needed regarding the effect of comprehensive physical literacy programming on children’s physical
literacy, and how this relates to their physical activity and associated health outcomes.
Supplementary Materials:
The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/9/3129/s1,
Table S1: Questions included in the program leader questionnaire.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, E.B., J.D.G. and J.C. Data curation, E.B. and J.D.G. Formal analysis, E.B.
Funding acquisition, J.C. Investigation, E.B. and J.D.G. Methodology, E.B., J.D.G. and J.C. Project administration,
E.B. and J.D.G. Resources, J.C. Supervision, J.C. Validation, E.B. Visualization, E.B. Writing—original draft, E.B.
Writing—review and editing, E.B., J.D.G. and J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by Sport for Life Society, Ontario Trillium Foundation, and the Government
of Ontario.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 16 of 19
Acknowledgments:
We would like to thank Drew Mitchell, Sport for Life, and the Ontario Physical and Health
Education Association (OPHEA) for their support of this project. We would also like to thank the participating
sites and program leaders for their time in the study, along with all participating children.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.
References
1.
Guthold, R.; Stevens, G.A.; Riley, L.M.; Bull, F.C. Global trends in insufficient physical activity among
adolescents: A pooled analysis of 298 population-based surveys with 1
·
6 million participants. Lancet Child
Adolesc. Health 2020,4, 23–35. [CrossRef]
2.
Roberts, K.C.; Yao, X.; Carson, V.; Chaput, J.-P.; Janssen, I.; Tremblay, M.S. Meeting the Canadian 24-Hour
Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth. Health Rep. 2017,28, 3–7. [PubMed]
3.
Biddle, S.J.H.; Ciaccioni, S.; Thomas, G.; Vergeer, I. Physical activity and mental health in children and
adolescents: An updated review of reviews and an analysis of causality. Psychol. Sport Exerc.
2018
. [CrossRef]
4.
Gunnell, K.E.; Poitras, V.J.; LeBlanc, A.; Schibli, K.; Barbeau, K.; Hedayati, N.; Ponitfex, M.B.; Goldfield, G.S.;
Dunlap, C.; Lehan, E.; et al. Physical activity and brain structure, brain function, and cognition in children
and youth: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Ment. Health Phys. Act. 2018. [CrossRef]
5.
Poitras, V.J.; Gray, C.E.; Borghese, M.M.; Carson, V.; Chaput, J.-P.; Janssen, I.; Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Pate, R.R.;
Connor Gorber, S.; Kho, M.E.; et al. Systematic review of the relationships between objectively measured
physical activity and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab.
2016
,
41, S197–S239. [CrossRef]
6.
Mielke, G.I.; da Silva, I.C.M.; Kolbe-Alexander, T.L.; Brown, W.J. Shifting the Physical Inactivity Curve
Worldwide by Closing the Gender Gap. Sports Med. 2018,48, 481–489. [CrossRef]
7.
Love, R.; Adams, J.; van Sluijs, E.M.F. Are school-based physical activity interventions effective and equitable?
A meta-analysis of cluster randomized controlled trials with accelerometer-assessed activity. Obes. Rev.
2019
,
20, 859–870. [CrossRef]
8.
Metcalf, B.; Henley, W.; Wilkin, T. Effectiveness of intervention on physical activity of children: Systematic
review and meta-analysis of controlled trials with objectively measured outcomes (EarlyBird 54). BMJ
2012
,
345, e5888. [CrossRef]
9.
Owen, M.B.; Curry, W.B.; Kerner, C.; Newson, L.; Fairclough, S.J. The effectiveness of school-based physical
activity interventions for adolescent girls: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev. Med.
2017
,105,
237–249. [CrossRef]
10.
van de Kop, J.H.; van Kernebeek, W.G.; Otten, R.H.J.; Toussaint, H.M.; Verhoeff, A.P. School-Based
Physical Activity Interventions in Prevocational Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.
J. Adolesc. Health 2019,65, 185–194. [CrossRef]
11.
van Sluijs, E.M.F.; McMinn, A.M.; Griffin, S.J. Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in
children and adolescents: Systematic review of controlled trials. BMJ 2007,335, 703. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12.
Naylor, P.-J.; McKay, H.A. Prevention in the first place: Schools a setting for action on physical inactivity.
Br. J. Sports Med. 2008,43, 10–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Kriemler, S.; Meyer, U.; Martin, E.; van Sluijs, E.M.F.; Andersen, L.B.; Martin, B.W. Effect of school-based
interventions on physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents: A review of reviews and systematic
update. Br. J. Sports Med. 2011,45, 923–930. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Atkin, A.J.; Gorely, T.; Biddle, S.J.H.; Cavill, N.; Foster, C. Interventions to Promote Physical Activity in
Young People Conducted in the Hours Immediately After School: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Behav. Med.
2011,18, 176–187. [CrossRef]
15.
Beets, M.W.; Beighle, A.; Erwin, H.E.; Huberty, J.L. After-School Program Impact on Physical Activity and
Fitness. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2009,36, 527–537. [CrossRef]
16.
Michie, S.; Johnston, M. Theories and techniques of behaviour change: Developing a cumulative science of
behaviour change. Health Psychol. Rev. 2012,6, 1–6. [CrossRef]
17.
Hagger, M.; Chatzisarantis, N.L.D.; Biddle, S. A meta-analytic review of the theories of reasoned action
and planned behavior in physical activity: Predictive validity and the contribution of additional variables.
J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2002,24, 3–32. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 17 of 19
18.
Hattar, A.; Pal, S.; Hagger, M.S. Predicting Physical Activity-Related Outcomes in Overweight and Obese
Adults: A Health Action Process Approach. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 2016,8, 127–151. [CrossRef]
19.
Teixeira, P.J.; Carraça, E.V.; Markland, D.; Silva, M.N.; Ryan, R.M. Exercise, physical activity,
and self-determination theory: A systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2012,9, 78. [CrossRef]
20.
Young, M.D.; Plotnikoff, R.C.; Collins, C.E.; Callister, R.; Morgan, P.J. Social cognitive theory and physical
activity: A systematic review and meta-analysis: Social cognitive theory and physical activity. Obes. Rev.
2014,15, 983–995. [CrossRef]
21.
Rhodes, R.E.; Janssen, I.; Bredin, S.S.D.; Warburton, D.E.R.; Bauman, A. Physical activity: Health impact,
prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychol. Health 2017,32, 942–975. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22.
Rhodes, R.E. The Evolving Understanding of Physical Activity Behavior: A Multi-Process Action Control
Approach. In Advances in Motivation Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 4,
pp. 171–205, ISBN 978-0-12-812123-8.
23.
Hagger, M.S.; Chatzisarantis, N.L.D. An Integrated Behavior Change Model for Physical Activity. Exerc. Sport
Sci. Rev. 2014,42, 62–69. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Renshaw, I.; Chow, J.Y.; Davids, K.; Hammond, J. A constraints-led perspective to understanding skill
acquisition and game play: A basis for integration of motor learning theory and physical education praxis?
Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2010,15, 117–137. [CrossRef]
25. Thelen, E. Motor development: A new synthesis. Am. Psychol. 1995,50, 79. [CrossRef]
26.
Engel, A.C.; Broderick, C.R.; van Doorn, N.; Hardy, L.L.; Parmenter, B.J. Exploring the Relationship Between
Fundamental Motor Skill Interventions and Physical Activity Levels in Children: A Systematic Review and
Meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018,48, 1845–1857. [CrossRef]
27.
Edwards, L.C.; Bryant, A.S.; Keegan, R.J.; Morgan, K.; Jones, A.M. Definitions, Foundations and Associations
of Physical Literacy: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2017,47, 113–126. [CrossRef]
28.
Cairney, J.; Dudley, D.; Kwan, M.; Bulten, R.; Kriellaars, D. Physical Literacy, Physical Activity and Health:
Toward an Evidence-Informed Conceptual Model. Sports Med. 2019,49, 371–383. [CrossRef]
29.
Public Health Agency of Canada. A Common Vision for Increasing Physical Activity and Reducing Sedentary
Living in Canada: Let’s Get Moving; Public Health Agency of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2018.
30.
World Health Organization. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030: More Active People for a Healthier
World; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
31.
Kriellaars, D.J.; Cairney, J.; Bortoleto, M.A.C.; Kiez, T.K.M.; Dudley, D.; Aubertin, P. The Impact of Circus Arts
Instruction in Physical Education on the Physical Literacy of Children in Grades 4 and 5. J. Teach. Phys. Educ.
2019,38, 162–170. [CrossRef]
32.
Coyne, P.; Vandenborn, E.; Santarossa, S.; Milne, M.M.; Milne, K.J.; Woodruff, S.J. Physical literacy improves
with the Run Jump Throw Wheel program among students in grades 4–6 in southwestern Ontario.
Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2019,44, 645–649. [CrossRef]
33.
Mandigo, J.; Lodewyk, K.; Tredway, J. Examining the Impact of a Teaching Games for Understanding
Approach on the Development of Physical Literacy Using the Passport for Life Assessment Tool. J. Teach.
Phys. Educ. 2019,38, 136–145. [CrossRef]
34. Health Canada. Health Portfolio Sex and Gender-based Analysis Policy; Health Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2009.
35.
Craggs, C.; Corder, K.; van Sluijs, E.M.F.; Griffin, S.J. Determinants of Change in Physical Activity in Children
and Adolescents. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011,40, 645–658. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36.
Spencer, R.A.; Rehman, L.; Kirk, S.F. Understanding gender norms, nutrition, and physical activity in
adolescent girls: A scoping review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015,12, 6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37.
Barnett, L.M.; van Beurden, E.; Morgan, P.J.; Brooks, L.O.; Beard, J.R. Gender Differences in Motor Skill
Proficiency From Childhood to Adolescence: A Longitudinal Study. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport
2010
,81, 162–170.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
38.
Cairney, J.; Kwan, M.Y.; Velduizen, S.; Hay, J.; Bray, S.R.; Faught, B.E. Gender, perceived competence and the
enjoyment of physical education in children: A longitudinal examination. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act.
2012
,
9, 26. [CrossRef]
39.
Hardy, L.L.; Reinten-Reynolds, T.; Espinel, P.; Zask, A.; Okely, A.D. Prevalence and Correlates of Low
Fundamental Movement Skill Competency in Children. Pediatrics 2012,130, e390–e398. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 18 of 19
40.
Morgan, P.J.; Barnett, L.M.; Cliff, D.P.; Okely, A.D.; Scott, H.A.; Cohen, K.E.; Lubans, D.R. Fundamental
Movement Skill Interventions in Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Pediatrics
2013
,132,
e1361–e1383. [CrossRef]
41.
Mandigo, J.; Butler, J.; Hopper, T. What is Teaching Games for Understanding? A Canadian perspective.
Phys. Health Educ. J. 2007,73, 14–20.
42.
Jefferies, P.; Ungar, M.; Aubertin, P.; Kriellaars, D. Physical Literacy and Resilience in Children and Youth.
Front. Public Health 2019,7, 346. [CrossRef]
43.
Horn, T.S.; Weiss, M.R. A developmental analysis of children’s self-ability judgments in the physical domain.
Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 1991,3, 310–326. [CrossRef]
44.
Lent, R.W.; Lopez, F.G. Cognitive ties that bind: A tripartite view of efficacy beliefs in growth-promoting
relationships. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2002,21, 256–286. [CrossRef]
45. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1997; ISBN 0-7167-2850-8.
46.
Jackson, B.; Gucciardi, D.F.; Lonsdale, C.; Whipp, P.R.; Dimmock, J.A. “I think they believe in me”:
The predictive effects of teammate-and classmate-focused relation-inferred self-efficacy in sport and physical
activity settings. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2014,36, 486–505. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
Saville, P.D.; Bray, S.R.; Ginis, K.A.M.; Cairney, J.; Marinoff-Shupe, D.; Pettit, A. Sources of Self-Efficacy and
Coach/Instructor Behaviors Underlying Relation-Inferred Self-Efficacy (RISE) in Recreational Youth Sport.
J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2014,36, 146–156. [CrossRef]
48.
Saville, P.D.; Bray, S.R. Effects on Measures of Coaches’ Cognitions Toward Integrating Relation-Inferred
Self-Efficacy Communication into Practice. J. Sport Behav. 2018,41, 189–208.
49.
Edwards, J.; Law, B.; Latimer-Cheung, A. Effects of an Imagery Workshop on Coaches’ Encouragement of
Imagery Use. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2012,7, 317–331. [CrossRef]
50.
Bandura, A. Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
2001
,52, 1–26. [CrossRef]
51.
Miller, W.R.; Rollnick, S. Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change; Guilford Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2012; ISBN 1-60918-227-8.
52.
Gutnick, D.; Reims, K.; Davis, C.; Gainforth, H.; Jay, M.; Cole, S. Brief action planning to facilitate behavior
change and support patient self-management. JCOM 2014,21, 17–29.
53.
Barnett, L.M.; Dudley, D.A.; Telford, R.D.; Lubans, D.R.; Bryant, A.S.; Roberts, W.M.; Morgan, P.J.;
Schranz, N.K.; Weissensteiner, J.R.; Vella, S.A.; et al. Guidelines for the Selection of Physical Literacy
Measures in Physical Education in Australia. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2019,38, 119–125. [CrossRef]
54.
Canadian Sport for Life. Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth; Canadian Sport Institute: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2013.
55.
Cairney, J.; Veldhuizen, S.; Graham, J.D.; Rodriguez, C.; Bedard, C.; Bremer, E.; Kriellaars, D. A Construct
Validation Study of PLAYfun. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2018,50, 855–862. [CrossRef]
56.
Bremer, E.; Graham, J.D.; Bedard, C.; Rodriguez, C.; Kriellaars, D.; Cairney, J. The association between
PLAYfun and physical activity: A convergent validation study. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2019, 1–9. [CrossRef]
57. Bandura, A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-Effic. Beliefs Adolesc. 2006,5, 307–337.
58.
Jackson, B.; Whipp, P.R.; Chua, K.L.P.; Dimmock, J.A.; Hagger, M.S. Students’ Tripartite Efficacy Beliefs in
High School Physical Education: Within- and Cross-Domain Relations With Motivational Processes and
Leisure-Time Physical Activity. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2013,35, 72–84. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59.
Ryan, R.M. Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1982,43, 450. [CrossRef]
60.
McAuley, E.; Duncan, T.; Tammen, V.V. Psychometric Properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a
Competitive Sport Setting: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport
1989
,60, 48–58. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
61.
Goudas, M.; Biddle, S.; Fox, K. Achievement Goal Orientations and Intrinsic Motivation in Physical Fitness
Testing with Children. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 1994,6, 159–167. [CrossRef]
62.
Bandura, A. Social Foundations of thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986; ISBN 0-13-815614-X.
63.
Lent, R.W.; Brown, S.D. On Conceptualizing and Assessing Social Cognitive Constructs in Career Research:
A Measurement Guide. J. Career Assess. 2006,14, 12–35. [CrossRef]
64. Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992,112, 155. [CrossRef]
65. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2009.
66.
IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 25.0; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2017.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 3129 19 of 19
67.
Lai, S.K.; Costigan, S.A.; Morgan, P.J.; Lubans, D.R.; Stodden, D.F.; Salmon, J.; Barnett, L.M. Do School-Based
Interventions Focusing on Physical Activity, Fitness, or Fundamental Movement Skill Competency Produce
a Sustained Impact in These Outcomes in Children and Adolescents? A Systematic Review of Follow-Up
Studies. Sports Med. 2014,44, 67–79. [CrossRef]
68. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006,3, 77–101. [CrossRef]
69.
Hsieh, H.-F.; Shannon, S.E. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual. Health Res.
2005
,15,
1277–1288. [CrossRef]
70.
Rhodes, R.E.; de Bruijn, G.-J. How big is the physical activity intention–behaviour gap? A meta-analysis
using the action control framework. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2013,18, 296–309. [CrossRef]
71.
Sheeran, P.; Webb, T.L. The Intention-Behavior Gap. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass
2016
,10, 503–518.
[CrossRef]
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
