Physical Literacy Assessment Tools: A Systematic Literature Review for Why, What, Who, and How

Physical literacy (PL) has been acknowledged to be an individual journey, in view of this contention, objective assessment of such a developing construct has become a debatable issue for the last couple of decades apart from physical domain of observable domain. The purpose of this systematic review was to scrutinise what is currently known regarding the PL assessment tools-the existing PL assessment tools, their pioneers and year of publication, the philosophy behind their initiation, what they have been assessing (assessment domains), the category of population being assessed in relation to their age group, validity of the tools, other scholars notes, as well as the approaches being used, whether assessment for, as or of learning during physical activity participation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was used to undertake a comprehensive search from six electronic databases-ScienceDirect, Scopus, Eric, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SportDiscus retrieved 52 research articles and review papers, whereby only 22 articles were included after identification, screening, and eligibility selection criteria process. The study established that the majority-70%-of PL assessment tools were developed to promote either fundamental movement skills, athlete development or long-term health and well-being, instead of lifelong participation in physical activity. It was also ascertained that only 30% of PL assessment tools address both three domains comprising PL. Of a particular concern, it was explored that only the International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) PL matrix takes into account everyone of any age group, while the rest of the others segregate participants falling in a specific age groups to be based on. Afterward, the majority of PL assessment tools were identified at 70% to adopt assessment for learning or at a certain time combination with assessment as learning while assessing individuals' PL progress. The conclusion was therefore drawn that the overall purpose of PL- to value and take responsibility of engaging in physical activity for life is still largely absent among the majority of existing PL assessment tools and both the ideal of what to assess and who to be assessed are far less to be met, while the effective PL assessment approaches remain critical. After all, in light of this conclusion future agenda has been suggested in view of designing PL assessment tools effective enough to promote PL for all.