View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Reliability and Validity of the PLAY'fun' Tool with Children and Youth in Northern Canada

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Reliability and Validity of the PLAY'fun' Tool with Children and Youth in Northern Canada
Language: English
Authors: Stearns, Jodie A., Wohlers, Brendan, McHugh, Tara-Leigh F. (ORCID 0000-0002-6528-9613), Kuzik, Nicholas, Spence, John C. (ORCID 0000-0001-8485-1336)
Source: Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 2019 23(1):47-57.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Test Reliability, Test Validity, Psychomotor Skills, Physical Activities, Physical Fitness, Questionnaires, Interrater Reliability, Children, Early Adolescents, Literacy, Observation
Geographic Terms: Canada
DOI: 10.1080/1091367X.2018.1500368
ISSN: 1091-367X
Abstract: The reliability and validity of the PLAY"fun" and PLAY"basic" tools were assessed. The PLAY"fun", PLAY"basic", Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA) obstacle course, and Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children (PAQ-C) were administered to children (aged 8-14 years) in two remote Canadian communities. Inter-rater reliability of the PLAY"fun" and PLAY"basic" were good-to-excellent for average measures and moderate-to-good for single measures. The PLAY"fun" subscales were poor-to-excellent for average and single measures. The internal consistency of the PLAY"fun" tool was good, PLAY"basic" was poor-to-good, and the individual subscales were poor-to-good. Convergent validity was moderate-to-large for the PLAY tools and CAMSA obstacle course, and small-to-moderate for the PLAY tools and the PAQ-C, and small-to-moderate for the PLAY tools and age. For children and youth in northern Canada, the motor competence aspect of physical literacy is most accurately assessed using the complete PLAY"fun" tool and two raters.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1209865
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGMZ0_-o5UUDkyyis-M1okxAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHG4yh7Ub1QjolUHlgIBEICBmg_3pbjGasaFSb9t7RwHbwfMVENkvI8OKpZwXVYYtADf6stpTwqjzhbRB1Ltwv2ZtjPEAwQIAypIaUBSZIrkjxYAWG_QRTyGAV2_k49XL-UCJ8T723MWNV1xDtA1tDhWVkxi1bDg4jZxwn7vft98yMWuJZ4ne8KhjbEkfdxL4fFKb47pcDk2_wyPEd9_eVaFWq--0tIFfrT6Mdo=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0135500787;7mm01jan.19;2019Mar25.10:30;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0135500787-1">Reliability and Validity of the PLAYfun Tool with Children and Youth in Northern Canada </title> <p>The reliability and validity of the PLAYfun and PLAYbasic tools were assessed. The PLAYfun, PLAYbasic, Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA) obstacle course, and Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children (PAQ-C) were administered to children (aged 8-14 years) in two remote Canadian communities. Inter-rater reliability of the PLAYfun and PLAYbasic were good-to-excellent for average measures and moderate-to-good for single measures. The PLAYfun subscales were poor-to-excellent for average and single measures. The internal consistency of the PLAYfun tool was good, PLAYbasic was poor-to-good, and the individual subscales were poor-to-good. Convergent validity was moderate-to-large for the PLAY tools and CAMSA obstacle course, and small-to-moderate for the PLAY tools and the PAQ-C, and small-to-moderate for the PLAY tools and age. For children and youth in northern Canada, the motor competence aspect of physical literacy is most accurately assessed using the complete PLAYfun tool and two raters.</p> <p>Keywords: CAMSA obstacle course; Indigenous peoples; remote communities; reliability; validity</p> <p>Physical literacy is defined as "the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activity for life" (International Physical Literacy Association [IPLA], 2015). It is characterized as a shift in understanding and policy towards a more embodied and holistic perspective of physical activity (Edwards, Bryant, Keegan, Morgan, & Jones, 2017; Whitehead, 2007). Multiple sectors are being encouraged to embrace it as a transdisciplinary construct that can be used as a point of collaboration for physical activity policies and practice in education, sport, public health, and recreation (Dudley, Cairney, Wainwright, Kriellaars, & Mitchell, 2017). For example, the Canadian Sport for Life (CS4L) Society (2016) has recently created an Aboriginal Long-Term Participant Development Pathway that highlights physical literacy as beneficial to child development.</p> <p>Despite the widespread popularity of the concept, the progress of empirical research on physical literacy is still in its early stages and measurement tools have only been developed in recent years. Three instruments are currently available in the literature including the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL) (Longmuir et al., 2015), the Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth tools (PLAY) (CS4L Society, 2014), and the Passport for Life (Robinson & Randall, 2017). The PLAY tools were produced by the CS4L Society to assess the physical literacy of children and youth 7 years and older, and include the PLAY<emph>fun</emph>, PLAY<emph>parent</emph>, PLAY<emph>coach</emph>, PLAY<emph>inventory</emph>, and PLAY<emph>self</emph>. Together, they are a suite of measurement tools designed for different assessors and purposes. The CAPL is intended for ages 8-12 years, and captures all of the components of physical literacy, including physical competence, daily behaviour, knowledge and understanding, and motivation and confidence, and can be combined into an overall measure of physical literacy (Longmuir et al., 2015). Passport for Life was developed specifically for physical education teachers. This paper focuses on measures of the physical competence component of physical literacy, "an individual's ability to develop movement skills and patterns, and the capacity to experience a variety of movement intensities and durations" (IPLA, 2015). Motor competence as measured by the PLAY tools (i.e., PLAY<emph>fun</emph>), assesses proficiency in motor skills, such as locomotor and object control skills (Stodden et al., 2008). We focused on this specific component because it is the most rigorous measure within the suite of PLAY tools, and because the CAPL also has a measure of motor competence that is directly comparable.</p> <p>The PLAY<emph>fun</emph> is a rater-observed measure of motor competence that includes fundamental land-based movement competencies thought to be essential to developing and sustaining physical literacy in youth (CS4L Society, 2014). It was developed using a rigorous process in conjunction with 25 experts, and assesses 18 skills in isolation that fit within five subcategories (i.e., running; locomotor; object control - upper body; object control - lower body; and balance, stability, and body control). The PLAY<emph>basic</emph> is a shorter version of the instrument (five skills). Both versions use a continuous criterion-referenced visual analogue scale (0-100) that fall within four categories including initial, emerging, competence, and proficient. Newly published data support the initially proposed five-factor structure of the PLAY<emph>fun</emph>, as well as positive correlations with age and few gender differences (Cairney et al., 2017). No psychometric testing has been published on the PLAY<emph>basic.</emph></p> <p>The CAPL measures motor competence via the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA) (Longmuir et al., 2017). It involves the completion of an obstacle course requiring execution and integration of simple and complex movement skills and the optimization of motor planning, agility, and speed within a changing environment. Skills are scored as executed correctly or not, and final scores are based on both skill and speed and interpreted using age-based norms. Though the CAMSA and PLAY<emph>fun</emph> both measure motor competence objectively within the physical literacy context, the CAMSA is a more broad measure involving dynamic skill and speed components, whereas the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> involves a more comprehensive assessment of isolated skills.</p> <p>Definitions of physical literacy imply it exists across cultures and populations (Hyndman & Pill, in press; Whitehead, 2007), however a marked gap exists in the literature about physical literacy and its associated components (e.g., motor competence) in different contexts and cultures (Longmuir & Tremblay, 2016), and physical activity in Indigenous communities (McHugh, Holt, & Andersen, 2015). Northern remote Indigenous communities in particular may engage in different physical activities, such as traditional games, trapping, drumming, and canoeing (Tang & Jardine, 2016), and as such may develop different motor competencies than southern non-indigenous populations in Canada. In addition, these communities have been identified as ecologically different from urban communities, requiring priority in research due to unique barriers to physical activity, such as extreme cold and a short temperate season (Yousefian, Ziller, Swartz, & Hartley, 2009). As the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> tool was not developed specifically for children living in Northern climates and cultures, it is important to validate this instrument in such populations to determine its relevance.</p> <p>The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> and PLAY<emph>basic</emph> tools with children and youth aged 8-14 years (grades 4-7) in two remote communities in the Northwest Territories (NT), Canada. Inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and convergent validity with age, the CAMSA obstacle course, and self-reported physical activity were assessed. We defined convergent validity as the relationship between scores on the instrument of interest and variables to which it should be related (Streiner, Norman, & Cairney, 2014). The PLAY<emph>fun</emph> and PLAY<emph>basic</emph> are hypothesized to correlate strongly with the CAMSA obstacle course as both measure motor competence as a component of physical literacy. Although this could be considered a test of criterion validity (i.e., correlation between scores on the instrument of interest and a gold standard or criterion measure) (Streiner et al., 2014), the CAMSA is not considered a gold standard or criterion measure. As physical literacy and its subcomponents, including motor competence are thought to encompass the building blocks to lifelong engagement in physical activity (Whitehead, 2007), the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> and PLAY<emph>basic</emph> are also expected to correlate with physical activity. Finally, because movement competencies in young people tend to improve with age due to increased physical activity experiences and maturational neuromotor development (Stodden et al., 2008), we hypothesized that the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> and PLAY<emph>basic</emph> will positively correlate with age. These specific tests of reliability and validity were chosen based on available data and sample size.</p> <hd id="AN0135500787-2">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0135500787-3">Participants</hd> <p>As part of an ongoing community-based project that is broadly focused on examining the physical literacy and physical activity experiences of children and youth in the NT, participants were recruited from the only schools in Fort Providence (October 2014, <emph>N</emph> = 36; March 2015, <emph>N</emph> = 36) and Fort Resolution (October 2014, <emph>N</emph> = 23; March 2015, <emph>N</emph> = 20). The schools were selected by the NT government for this project and thus were recruited through convenience sampling. These communities are relatively isolated and small (~ 500-800 people). Compared to the wider NT where 50% of the population is Indigenous (65% Dene, 12% Metis, 23% Inuit), 90-91% of the population in these two communities is Indigenous (Fort Providence: 92% Dene, 6% Metis, 2% Inuit; Fort Resolution: 88% Dene, 6% Metis, 5% Inuit) (NWT Bureau of Statistics, 2017). The education and income level in these communities (Fort Providence: 50% have high school diploma or more, 32% have a household income >$75,000; Fort Resolution: 51% have high school diploma or more, 31% have a household income >$75,000) is also lower than the general NT population (74% have high school diploma or more). Traditional activities are more common in these communities (Fort Providence: 54% hunt and fish, 16% trap; Fort Resolution: 62% hunt and fish, 19% trap) compared to the wider NT population (48% hunt and fish, 6% trap). Of the youth present during data collection, one did not have parent consent in October 2014 (98% participation rate), and one did not have parent consent and another did not want to participate in March 2015 (96% participation rate).</p> <hd id="AN0135500787-4">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0135500787-5">Demographics</hd> <p>The birthdate of each child was reported by the parents and age was calculated by subtracting the birthdate from the testing date. Gender of the child was self-reported.</p> <hd id="AN0135500787-6">Motor competence</hd> <p>The PLAY<emph>fun</emph> tool (CS4L Society, 2014) is an objective measure of the motor competence aspect of physical literacy that includes 18 skills performed in isolation that fit within (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) running (run a square; run there and back; run, jump, then land on two feet); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) locomotor (crossovers, skip, gallap, hop, jump); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) object control - upper body (overhand throw; strike with stick; one handed catch, hand dribble stationary, and moving forward); (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) object control - lower body (kick ball; foot dribble moving forward); and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>) balance, stability, and body control (balance walk [heel-to-toe] forward; balance walk [toe-to-heel] backward; drop to the group and back up; lift and lower). The PLAY<emph>basic</emph> tool (CS4L Society, 2014) is shorter version of the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> and includes five skills (run there and back; hop; overhand throw; kick ball; balance walk [toe-to-heel] backward). Each skill is assessed using a visual analogue scale to assign a score on a continuum from 0 to 100 mm, which is categorized as: initial (0-24.99 mm), emerging (25-49.99 mm), competent (50-74.99 mm), or proficient (75-100 mm). An average score across the two raters was calculated for each of the 18 items. In a few instances, if the score for an item was missing for one rater, then the other rater's score was used to represent the average for the two raters. The total motor component and subcomponent scores were calculated as the mean across items for both individual raters and the average between raters. Support for the five-factor structure of the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> has been demonstrated using confirmatory factor analysis (Cairney et al., 2017). PLAY<emph>fun</emph> scores are also significantly correlated with age in both males (<emph>r</emph> = .51) and females (<emph>r</emph> = .50), and males exhibited higher scores than females on the object control upper and lower body components. No reliability or validity information is available for the PLAY<emph>basic</emph>.</p> <p>The CAMSA obstacle course is an objective assessment of movement competency for children 8-12 years of age (Longmuir et al., 2017). Participants complete an obstacle course involving 2-foot jump, sliding, catching, throwing, skipping, 1-foot hop, and kicking. They are awarded a point for each skill correctly performed (total skill scores range between 0 and 14). Time to complete the course is recorded and assigned a value from 1 to 14 (<14 sec = 14; 14 < 15 sec = 13; 15 < 16 sec = 12; 16 < 17 sec = 11; 17 < 18 sec = 10; 18 < 19 sec = 9; 19 < 20 sec = 8; 20 < 21 sec = 7; 21 < 22 sec = 6; 22 < 24 sec = 5; 24 < 26 sec = 4; 26 < 28 sec = 3; 28 < 30 sec = 2; ≥ 30 = 1). Final scores are calculated by summing the time score (range 1-14) and skill score (range 0-14) and multiplying this aggregate by 1.5 (range 1.5-42). These scores are interpreted as beginning (8 years: < 14; 9 years: < 17; 10 years: < 19; 11 years: < 20; 12 years: < 21), progressing (8 years: 14-18; 9 years: 17-21; 10 years: 19-23; 11 years: 20-24; 12 years: 21-24), achieving (8 years: > 18-23; 9 years: > 21-24; 10 years: > 23-26; 11 years: > 24-27; 12 years: > 24-27) and excelling (8 years: > 23; 9 years: > 24; 10 years: > 26; 11 years: > 27; 12 years: > 27) (Healthy Active Living Obesity (HALO) Research Group, 2014). For the few participants who were over 12 years (5 in October 2014, 6 in March 2015), 12 years criteria was used. A recent study demonstrated inter-rater reliability was moderate-to-excellent (ICC = .69, 95% CI = .61,.76 for skill score; ICC = 1.00, 95% CI = 1.00, 1.00 for completion time), intra-rater reliability was poor-to-excellent (ICC = .52, 95% CI = .43,.60 for skill score; ICC = 1.00, 95% CI = 1.00, 1.00 for completion time), and test-retest reliability was poor-to-excellent for short (ICC = .46, 95% CI = .20,.66 for skill score; ICC = .84, 95% CI = .74,.91 for completion time) and long intervals (ICC = .74, 95% CI = .42,.90 for skill score; ICC = .82, 95% CI = .53,.93 for completion time) (Longmuir et al., 2017). Gender and age were significantly related to total scores in a multivariate model, with males having higher scores than females and scores increasing with age. Also, no differences existed in total scores when tested indoors or outdoors and with or without footwear.</p> <hd id="AN0135500787-7">Physical activity</hd> <p>The Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children (PAQ-C) (Kowalski, Crocker, & Faulkner, 1997) is a self-report measure of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity for children and youth in grades 4 through 8 (~ 8-14 years of age). It includes nine items about the child's physical activity in the last seven days, including how frequently they did 22 different activities, how often they were very active during PE class, what they did during recess and lunch, and the number of days they did higher intensity activities right after school, in the evening, and during the previous weekend. The respondent is also asked to indicate how often they engaged in physical activity in their free time, and the frequency they did physical activity each day of the previous week. A final question asks about whether they were sick in the past week or did anything that influenced their physical activity. The total score is calculated as the mean of the first nine items, and ranges between 1 and 5, indicating low to high physical activity. Participants with complete data on 7 items or more were included for this scale. In terms of reliability and validity, 1-week test-retest ICCs were.75 for males and.82 for females (aged 9-14 years of age) and internal consistency was <emph>α</emph> = .79-.89 across two time points (Crocker, Bailey, Faulkner, Kowalski, & Mcgrath, 1997). Evidence of convergent validity was demonstrated via correlations with a motion sensor (<emph>r</emph> = .39), 7-day and 24-hour physical activity recall (<emph>r</emph> = .46-.53), teacher-reported physical activity (<emph>r</emph> = .45), activity rating compared to peers (<emph>r</emph> = .57-.63), leisure-time exercise questionnaire (<emph>r</emph> = .41), athletic competence (<emph>r</emph> = .48), and aerobic fitness (<emph>r</emph> = .28) among 8-14 years-olds. A lack of correlation with behavioural conduct showed evidence of divergent validity (Kowalski et al., 1997). In our study, internal consistency was good (October 2014, <emph>α</emph> = .71, <emph>n </emph>= 56; March 2015, <emph>α</emph> = .72, <emph>n </emph>= 39).</p> <hd id="AN0135500787-8">Procedures</hd> <p>All study procedures were approved by the Human Research Ethics Board (REB1) at the University of Alberta and a Northwest Territories Scientific Research Licence was issued by Aurora Research Institute, Aurora College, Inuvik, NT. Furthermore, the Tri-Council Policy Statement on ethical conduct for research involving the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples of Canada (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2014) was adhered to throughout the study. Standard consent procedures were followed in which parents/guardians informed written or verbal consent was sought for a child's participation along with verbal and written assent from the child at the time of the testing.</p> <p>Four kinesiology graduate assistants visited the schools for 1.5 days in October 2014 and March 2015. Participants were brought to the gym by their teachers or school staff. Assessments were three hours in duration and done in separate groups (~ 20 participants or less at once) in the gym and classrooms. At the beginning of the day participants were told that they would be doing skills, such as running, jumping and kicking, and to perform the skills to the best of their abilities. Two of the graduate assistants, who had taken university courses on skill assessment and completed a 3-hour training session involving a thorough review of the protocol and extensive practice rating each skill, used the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> tool to evaluate the motor competence of each child individually in an isolated portion of the gymnasium. Simultaneously, the remaining students played supervised games and completed a questionnaire (including the PAQ-C, PLAY<emph>self</emph>, screen time) in small groups or one-on-one, as needed. Instructions and demonstrations of the CAMSA obstacle course were completed as a group in the gym. The children then lined up and completed the practice and timed runs one-by-one. When more convenient for the school, the above mentioned questionnaire was completed in a classroom, and/or the assessments were split over two days. The same assessors scored the CAMSA and PLAY tools in both October 2014 and March 2015.</p> <p>For the administration of the PLAY<emph>fun</emph>, a specific instruction was provided for each skill as outlined in the manual (CS4L Society, 2014). For example, with the skill "run a square" the assessor said "<emph>I want you to run a square around the pylons. I want you to run a square as best as you can. Ready? Run now</emph>." One trial was allowed for each skill. Only when required, participants were provided a prompt (i.e., "<emph>Go on. You can do it</emph>"), description of the skill, and/or a demonstration. Completion of all 18 skills with one participant required approximately 10 minutes.</p> <p>For the CAMSA obstacle course, one graduate assistant demonstrated the sequence of skills to the entire group and provided cues throughout the obstacle course. A second research assistant scored the skills and a third research assistant timed each performance. Participants were allowed one practice run before their assessment and were scored and timed once. Though the CAPL manual recommends doing two timed runs and taking the best score, the CAMSA can be reliably estimated using one timed run (Longmuir et al., 2017).</p> <hd id="AN0135500787-9">Analysis</hd> <p>The data were checked for normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and outliers (<emph>z</emph>-score < −3 or > 3). Inter-rater reliability of the tools (i.e., the variation in scores of two or more raters who rate the performance of the same participants) (Koo & Li, 2016) was examined using two-way random effects intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for absolute agreement at each time point (October 2014, March 2015). Because the PLAY<emph>fun and</emph> PLAY<emph>basic</emph> tools can be assessed with only one rater, both single rater (for use if rater scores will be used separately) and average across raters (<emph>k </emph>= 2; for use when two scores will be averaged) were calculated. For continuous data, ICC is preferred over other statistical tests, such as Pearson's <emph>r</emph> and Bland-Altman plot because it assesses both correlation and agreement across measurements (Koo & Li, 2016), and takes systematic errors between ratings into account (Scholtes, Terwee, & Poolman, 2011). Based on recommendations by Koo and Li (2016), ICC's were interpreted as poor (< .50), moderate (.50-.74), good (.75-.89), and excellent (≥ .90). Additionally, because the ICC is an expected value of the true estimate, judgment was made based on the 95% confidence intervals that reflect the range of scores where we can be confident that the true estimate lies.</p> <p>Internal consistency reliability for the items in the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> and PLAY<emph>basic</emph> tools were examined using Cronbach's alpha for each time point (October 2014, March 2015). Scores were defined as borderline (<emph>α</emph> = .60-.69), good (<emph>α</emph> = .70-.89), or excellent (<emph>α</emph> ≥ .90) based on criteria used in the health literature (Lubans et al., 2011; Terwee et al., 2007). Individual items were also inspected to determine if they correlated with other items in the entire scale and each subscale (<emph>r</emph> < .3 = cause for concern) and if removing the item would improve the alpha or variance explained. Convergent validity was examined via Pearson's <emph>r</emph>, and Cohen's effect size was used to gauge the magnitude of the association (small <emph>r </emph>≥ .1, medium <emph>r </emph>≥ .3, large <emph>r </emph>≥ .5) (Cohen, 1992). Significance level was set at <emph>p</emph> < .05 and all analyses were completed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25.</p> <p>For October 2014, of the participants that had parent consent, four were not assessed on the PLAY tools (final <emph>n </emph>= 54), four were not assessed and one had an extreme score on the CAMSA (final <emph>n </emph>= 53), and two did not complete the PAQ-C (final <emph>n </emph>= 56). For March 2015, of the participants that had parent consent, two had extreme scores and four did not complete the PLAY tools (final <emph>n </emph>= 48), two had incomplete data (< 7 of 9 items completed) and four did not complete the PAQ-C (final <emph>n </emph>= 48), and three did not complete the CAMSA (final <emph>n </emph>= 51).</p> <hd id="AN0135500787-10">Results</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics of the sample are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Across the two time points approximately half of the sample was female, and included a fairly even distribution of participants in each grade (Table 1). At the start of the school year, participants ranged between 8 and 14 years of age (<emph>M</emph> = 11.10, <emph>n </emph>= 54). For the average scores across raters, PLAY<emph>fun</emph> total scores ranged between 57.83 and 65.39, and the PLAY<emph>basic</emph> mean scores ranged from 61.35 to 68.21 (Table 2). Children and youth received the highest ratings for object control - upper body (average across raters <emph>M</emph> = 63.58-71.57) and the lowest scores for object control - lower body (average across raters <emph>M</emph> = 51.01-60.06). Differences between raters were minimal. For example, the difference on the <emph>PLAYfun</emph> total score was.44 points in October 2014, and was.25 points in March 2015. In October 2014 20% had total PLAY<emph>fun</emph> scores in the "emerging" category, 78% in the "competent" category, and 2% in the proficient category (Table 1). In March 2015, 4% had total PLAY<emph>fun</emph> scores in the "emerging" category, 83% in the "competent" category, and 13% in the "proficient category". In October 2014, mean scores on the CAMSA obstacle course were 30.10 and 2% were categorized as beginning, 8% as progressing, 4% as achieving, and 82% as excelling, and in March 2015 mean scores were 31.11 with 11% categorized as progressing, 7% as achieving, and 83% as excelling. Mean PAQ-C scores ranged from 2.95 to 2.97, which falls at the midpoint of the scale.</p> <p>Sample demographics and descriptive information.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="3"><tbody><tr><td /><td align="center">October 2014</td><td align="center">March 2015</td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td>Grade - Count (%)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> <italic>n</italic></td><td align="center">54</td><td align="center">48</td></tr><tr><td> Grade 4</td><td>14 (26%)</td><td>10 (21%)</td></tr><tr><td> Grade 5</td><td>13 (24%)</td><td>13 (27%)</td></tr><tr><td> Grade 6</td><td>17 (32%)</td><td>15 (31%)</td></tr><tr><td> Grade 7</td><td>10 (19%)</td><td>10 (21%)</td></tr><tr><td>Age - Mean (SD)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> <italic>N</italic></td><td align="center">54</td><td align="center">48</td></tr><tr><td> Age in years</td><td>11.10 (1.36)</td><td>11.48 (1.31)</td></tr><tr><td> Range</td><td align="center">8.98 to 13.85</td><td align="center">9.27 to 14.12</td></tr><tr><td>Gender - Count (%)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> <italic>n</italic></td><td align="center">54</td><td align="center">48</td></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td>28 (52%)</td><td>21 (44%)</td></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td>26 (48%)</td><td>27 (56%)</td></tr><tr><td>CAMSA - Mean (SD)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> <italic>n</italic></td><td align="center">52</td><td align="center">46</td></tr><tr><td> Timed score (1-14)</td><td>10.60 (2.56)</td><td>10.48 (2.35)</td></tr><tr><td> Skill score (0-14)</td><td>10.13 (1.95)</td><td>10.26 (1.95)</td></tr><tr><td> Overall score (1.5-42)</td><td>31.10 (5.45)</td><td>31.11(4.78)</td></tr><tr><td>CAMSA categories - count (%)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> <italic>n</italic></td><td align="center">52</td><td align="center">46</td></tr><tr><td> Beginning</td><td>1 (2%)</td><td>(0%)</td></tr><tr><td> Progressing</td><td>4 (8%)</td><td>5 (11%)</td></tr><tr><td> Achieving</td><td>4 (8%)</td><td>3 (7%)</td></tr><tr><td> Excelling</td><td>43 (82%)</td><td>38 (83%)</td></tr><tr><td>PAQ-C - Mean (SD)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> <italic>n</italic></td><td align="center">54</td><td align="center">45</td></tr><tr><td> Score (1-5)</td><td>2.96 (0.73)</td><td>2.90 (0.71)</td></tr><tr><td>PLAY<italic>fun</italic> categories - Count (%)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> <italic>n</italic></td><td align="center">54</td><td align="center">48</td></tr><tr><td> Initial</td><td>0 (0%)</td><td>0 (0%)</td></tr><tr><td> Emerging</td><td>11 (20%)</td><td>2 (4%)</td></tr><tr><td> Competent</td><td>42 (78%)</td><td>40 (83%)</td></tr><tr><td> Proficient</td><td>1 (2%)</td><td>6 (13%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> Note. CAMSA = Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment; PAQ-C = Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children; PLAY = Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth; percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.</p> <p>Descriptive statistics for the PLAY tools.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="7"><tbody><tr><td /><td align="center" colspan="3">October 2014 (<italic>n </italic>= 54)</td><td align="center" colspan="3">March 2015 (<italic>n </italic>= 48)</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="center">Mean</td><td align="center">Skew</td><td align="center">Kurtosis</td><td align="center">Mean</td><td align="center">Skew</td><td align="center">Kurtosis</td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td>PLAY<italic>fun</italic> total</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Mean across raters</td><td>58.28 (8.87)</td><td>−.19</td><td>−.45</td><td>65.18 (8.29)</td><td>−.06</td><td>−.70</td></tr><tr><td> R2</td><td>58.72 (10.86)</td><td>-.19</td><td>-.18</td><td>65.39 (7.50)</td><td>-.31</td><td>-.82</td></tr><tr><td> R1</td><td>57.83 (7.70)</td><td>-.44</td><td>-.26</td><td>64.93 (9.82)</td><td>.14</td><td>-.67</td></tr><tr><td>Running</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Mean across raters</td><td>56.00 (10.00)</td><td>−.03</td><td>−.36</td><td>64.71 (11.16)</td><td>.26</td><td>−.25</td></tr><tr><td> R1</td><td>57.35 (13.58)</td><td>.21</td><td>-.69</td><td>62.10 (10.28)</td><td>.11</td><td>-.46</td></tr><tr><td> R2</td><td>54.66 (8.48)</td><td>-.33</td><td>.45</td><td>67.24 (13.56)</td><td>.22</td><td>-.33</td></tr><tr><td>Locomotor</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Mean across raters</td><td>58.99 (11.90)</td><td>−.67</td><td>−.56</td><td>65.91 (8.88)</td><td>−.46</td><td>.05</td></tr><tr><td> R1</td><td>58.36 (14.27)</td><td>-.65</td><td>-.34</td><td>65.23 (7.44)</td><td>-.17</td><td>-.53</td></tr><tr><td> R2</td><td>59.62 (10.78)</td><td>-.55</td><td>-.51</td><td>66.52 (11.55)</td><td>-.36</td><td>.23</td></tr><tr><td>Object control - Upper body</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Mean across raters</td><td>63.58 (13.13)</td><td>−.12</td><td>−.83</td><td>71.57 (11.28)</td><td>−.70</td><td>.10</td></tr><tr><td> R1</td><td>66.25 (15.27)</td><td>-.28</td><td>-.43</td><td>68.46 (10.09)</td><td>-.65</td><td>.04</td></tr><tr><td> R2</td><td>60.83 (11.83)</td><td>-.09</td><td>-.89</td><td>74.64 (13.39)</td><td>-.87</td><td>.57</td></tr><tr><td>Object control - Lower body</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Mean across raters</td><td>51.01 (16.55)</td><td>−.06</td><td>−.87</td><td>60.06 (14.70)</td><td>−.13</td><td>−.83</td></tr><tr><td> R1</td><td>51.72 (20.13)</td><td>-.15</td><td>-.92</td><td>61.35 (13.62)</td><td>-.56</td><td>-.24</td></tr><tr><td> R2</td><td>50.30 (14.80)</td><td>.04</td><td>-.83</td><td>58.76 (18.03)</td><td>-.04</td><td>-.69</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, stability, and control</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Mean across raters</td><td>57.44 (10.28)</td><td>−.02</td><td>−.95</td><td>60.78 (10.36)</td><td>−.95</td><td>1.07</td></tr><tr><td> R1</td><td>56.16 (13.20)</td><td>-.11</td><td>-.73</td><td>66.99 (9.21)</td><td>-1.17</td><td>1.02</td></tr><tr><td> R2</td><td>58.72 (9.89)</td><td>-.77</td><td>1.38</td><td>54.56 (13.54)</td><td>-.78</td><td>1.03</td></tr><tr><td>PLAY<italic>basic</italic> total</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Mean across raters</td><td>61.35 (9.06)</td><td>−.20</td><td>−.51</td><td>68.21 (9.94)</td><td>−.10</td><td>−.56</td></tr><tr><td> R1</td><td>61.99 (11.41)</td><td>-.19</td><td>-.23</td><td>67.25 (8.79)</td><td>-.28</td><td>-.66</td></tr><tr><td> R2</td><td>60.70 (7.75)</td><td>-.24</td><td>-.61</td><td>69.16 (11.93)</td><td>-.12</td><td>-.39</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> Note. All scores are out of 100; R1 = rater 1; R2 = rater 2; Mean = mean across rater 1 and 2; PLAY = Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth; scores range from 0-100 and are interpreted as initial (0-24.99), emerging (25-49.99), competent (50-74.99), and proficient (<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref6">75-100</reflink>).</p> <p>Inter-rater reliability statistics are presented in Table 3. For <emph>average measures</emph> (for use when two scores will be averaged), good-to-excellent inter-rater reliability was observed for the larger PLAY<emph>fun</emph> tool. The PLAY<emph>basic</emph> and the running, locomotor, and object control - lower body subscales had moderate or better inter-rater reliability. However, the object control - upper body; and balance, stability, and control subscales demonstrated only poor or better scores. For <emph>single measures</emph> (for use if raters' scores will be used separately), moderate-to-good inter-rater reliability was observed for the larger PLAY<emph>fun</emph> and PLAY<emph>basic</emph> tools. For the subscales, inter-rater reliability was moderate or better for locomotor and object control - lower body, yet was poor or better for the remaining.</p> <p>Inter-rater reliability of the PLAY tools.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="5"><tbody><tr><td /><td align="center" colspan="2">October 2014 (<italic>n</italic> = 54)</td><td align="center" colspan="2">March 2015 (<italic>n</italic> = 48)</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="center">ICC</td><td align="center">95% CI</td><td align="center">ICC</td><td align="center">95% CI</td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td>PLAY<italic>fun</italic> total (18 items)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>  Average measures</td><td>88***</td><td>.79,.93</td><td>.90***</td><td>.82,.94</td></tr><tr><td>  Single measures</td><td>.78***</td><td>.65,.86</td><td>.82***</td><td>.70,.89</td></tr><tr><td>Running (3 items)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>  Average measures</td><td>.71***</td><td>.50,.83</td><td>.80***</td><td>.55,.90</td></tr><tr><td>  Single measures</td><td>.55***</td><td>.33,.71</td><td>.66***</td><td>.38,.82</td></tr><tr><td>Locomotor (5 items)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>  Average measures</td><td>.87***</td><td>.78,.92</td><td>.81***</td><td>.67,.89</td></tr><tr><td>  Single measures</td><td>.77***</td><td>.64,.86</td><td>.68***</td><td>.50,.81</td></tr><tr><td>Object Control- Upper body (4 items)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>  Average measures</td><td>.88***</td><td>.63,.95</td><td>.87***</td><td>.27,.96</td></tr><tr><td>  Single measures</td><td>.78***</td><td>.46,.90</td><td>.78***</td><td>.16,.92</td></tr><tr><td>Object control - Lower body (2 items)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>  Average measures</td><td>.86***</td><td>.76,.92</td><td>.82***</td><td>.67,.90</td></tr><tr><td>  Single measures</td><td>.76***</td><td>.62,.85</td><td>.69***</td><td>.51,.81</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, stability & body control (4 items)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>  Average measures</td><td>.71***</td><td>.50,.83</td><td>.55***</td><td>-.18,.81</td></tr><tr><td>  Single measures</td><td>.55***</td><td>.33,.71</td><td>.38***</td><td>-.08,.68</td></tr><tr><td>PLAY<italic>basic</italic> total (5 items)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>  Average measures</td><td>.84***</td><td>.73,.91</td><td>.88***</td><td>.79,.94</td></tr><tr><td>  Single measures</td><td>.72***</td><td>.57,.83</td><td>.79***</td><td>.65,.88</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> Note. ***<emph>p</emph> < .001; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC was a two-way random effects intraclass correlation coefficient for absolute agreement and both single and average measures; ICC scores are interpreted based on the 95% confidence interval, poor < .50, moderate.50-.74, good.75-.89, and excellent ≥ .90; PLAY = Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth.</p> <p>Internal consistency reliability statistics are presented in Table 4. For the average scores across raters, the overall PLAY<emph>fun</emph> and PLAY<emph>basic</emph> were good (<emph>α</emph> = .87) and borderline (<emph>α</emph> = .61-.62), respectively. The specific subscales scores were poor-to-good (<emph>α</emph> = .47-.82; only 1/8 of the scores are slightly below borderline). For individual raters, the internal consistency was good for the overall PLAY<emph>fun</emph> (<emph>α</emph> = .83-.87), borderline for the PLAY<emph>basic</emph> (<emph>α</emph> = .56-.65; only 1/4 of the scores are slightly below borderline), and poor-to-good across the subscales (<emph>α</emph> = .35-.83). Therefore, for both average across raters and for individual raters, the internal consistency of the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> is acceptable, and the PLAY<emph>basic</emph> and individual subscales are less reliable. When inspected, the removal of specific items did not meaningfully improve scores.</p> <p>Internal consistency of the PLAY tools.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="5"><tbody><tr><td /><td align="center" colspan="2">October 2014</td><td align="center" colspan="2">March 2015</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="center"><italic>n</italic></td><td align="center"><italic>α</italic></td><td align="center"><italic>n</italic></td><td align="center"><italic>α</italic></td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td>PLAY<italic>fun</italic> total (18 items)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Mean between raters*</td><td>54</td><td>.87</td><td>46</td><td>.87</td></tr><tr><td> Rater 1</td><td>54</td><td>.87</td><td>46</td><td>.87</td></tr><tr><td> Rater 2</td><td>53</td><td>.86</td><td>44</td><td>.83</td></tr><tr><td>Running (3 items)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Mean between raters*</td><td>54</td><td>.66</td><td>48</td><td>.69</td></tr><tr><td> Rater 1</td><td>54</td><td>.68</td><td>48</td><td>.70</td></tr><tr><td> Rater 2</td><td>54</td><td>.63</td><td>47</td><td>.67</td></tr><tr><td>Locomotor (5 items)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Mean between raters*</td><td>54</td><td>.82</td><td>46</td><td>.60</td></tr><tr><td> Rater 1</td><td>54</td><td>.77</td><td>46</td><td>.59</td></tr><tr><td> Rater 2</td><td>54</td><td>.83</td><td>45</td><td>.54</td></tr><tr><td>Object control - Lower body (2 items)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Mean between raters*</td><td>54</td><td>.79</td><td>48</td><td>.72</td></tr><tr><td> Rater 1</td><td>54</td><td>.75</td><td>48</td><td>.66</td></tr><tr><td> Rater 2</td><td>53</td><td>.78</td><td>46</td><td>.67</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, stability, and body control (4 items)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Mean between raters*</td><td>54</td><td>.77</td><td>48</td><td>.47</td></tr><tr><td> Rater 1</td><td>54</td><td>.80</td><td>48</td><td>.58</td></tr><tr><td> Rater 2</td><td>54</td><td>.70</td><td>48</td><td>.35</td></tr><tr><td>PLAY<italic>basic</italic> total (5 items)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Mean between raters*</td><td>54</td><td>.61</td><td>48</td><td>.62</td></tr><tr><td> Rater 1</td><td>54</td><td>.62</td><td>48</td><td>.61</td></tr><tr><td> Rater 2</td><td>54</td><td>.65</td><td>48</td><td>.56</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> Note. *to maximize sample size, if an item was missing from one rater, we used the other rater's score; PLAY = Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth; scores are interpreted as borderline = .60-.69, good = .70-.89, excellent ≥ .90.</p> <p>Convergent validity statistics, including the relationships between the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> and PLAY<emph>basic</emph> tools with the PAQ-C and the CAMSA obstacle course are reported in Table 5. Correlations with the CAMSA obstacle course were moderate-to-large for the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> (<emph>r</emph> = .47-.60) and the PLAY<emph>basic</emph> (<emph>r </emph>= .40-.61), and were small-to- moderate for all of the subscales. Correlations with the PAQ-C were small-to-medium for the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> (<emph>r </emph>= .24-.44) and the PLAY<emph>basic</emph> (<emph>r </emph>= .20-.42), and were moderate for all of the subscales. Correlations between PLAY<emph>basic</emph> and PLAY<emph>fun</emph> were large (<emph>r</emph> = .83-.90). Therefore, as expected, the PLAY tools correlate with the CAMSA obstacle course and self-reported physical activity.</p> <p>Correlations (r) between the PLAY tools and the CAMSA obstacle course and self-reported physical activity.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="13"><tbody><tr><td /><td align="center" colspan="6">October 2014</td><td align="center" colspan="6">March 2015</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="center" colspan="3">CAMSA (<italic>n</italic> = 52)</td><td align="center" colspan="3">PAQ-C (<italic>n</italic> = 54)</td><td align="center" colspan="3">CAMSA (<italic>n</italic> = 46)</td><td align="center" colspan="3">PAQ-C (<italic>n </italic>= 48)</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="center">Mean</td><td align="center">R1</td><td align="center">R2</td><td align="center">Mean</td><td align="center">R1</td><td align="center">R2</td><td align="center">Mean</td><td align="center">R1</td><td align="center">R2</td><td align="center">Mean</td><td align="center">R1</td><td align="center">R2</td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td>PLAY<italic>fun</italic></td><td>.51**</td><td>.47**</td><td>.50**</td><td>.30*</td><td>.24</td><td>.36**</td><td>.58**</td><td>.51**</td><td>.60**</td><td>.40**</td><td>.34*</td><td>.44**</td></tr><tr><td>Running</td><td>.53**</td><td>.51**</td><td>.41**</td><td>.27*</td><td>.22</td><td>.49**</td><td>.57**</td><td>.47**</td><td>.61**</td><td>.34*</td><td>.32*</td><td>.31*</td></tr><tr><td>Locomotor</td><td>.27</td><td>.22</td><td>.30*</td><td>.24</td><td>.17</td><td>.35**</td><td>.49**</td><td>.49**</td><td>.43**</td><td>.29*</td><td>.16</td><td>.44**</td></tr><tr><td>Object control - Upper body</td><td>.38**</td><td>.35*</td><td>.38*</td><td>.26</td><td>.25</td><td>.31*</td><td>.40**</td><td>.38*</td><td>.39**</td><td>.37*</td><td>.31*</td><td>.40**</td></tr><tr><td>Object control - Lower body</td><td>.48**</td><td>.46**</td><td>.43**</td><td>.37**</td><td>.37**</td><td>.22</td><td>.53**</td><td>.41**</td><td>.60**</td><td>.40**</td><td>.45**</td><td>.27</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, stability, and body control</td><td>.25</td><td>.23</td><td>.20</td><td>.15</td><td>.08</td><td>.29*</td><td>.24</td><td>.14</td><td>.35*</td><td>.18</td><td>.09</td><td>.26</td></tr><tr><td>PLAY<italic>basic</italic></td><td>.48**</td><td>.47**</td><td>.41**</td><td>.26</td><td>.20</td><td>.30*</td><td>.51**</td><td>.40**</td><td>.61**</td><td>.36*</td><td>.29*</td><td>.42**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> Note. *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01; R1 = rater 1; R2 = rater 2; Mean = mean across rater 1 and 2; PAQ-C = Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children; CAMSA = Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment; PLAY = Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth; scores are interpreted as small ≥ .1, medium ≥ .3, large ≥ .5.</p> <p>Correlations between the PLAY tools and age are presented in Table 6. Small-to-moderate correlations were observed between age and the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> (<emph>r</emph> = .23-.39) and PLAY<emph>basic</emph> (<emph>r</emph> = .21-.34). Age also had generally small-to-moderate correlations across the subscales. Therefore, as expected, the motor competence aspect of physical literacy tends to increase with age.</p> <p>Correlations (r) between age and the PLAY tools.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="9"><tbody><tr><td /><td align="center" colspan="4">October 2014</td><td align="center" colspan="4">March 2015</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="center"><italic>n</italic></td><td align="center">Mean</td><td align="center">R1</td><td align="center">R2</td><td align="center"><italic>n</italic></td><td align="center">Mean</td><td align="center">R1</td><td align="center">R2</td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td>PLAY<italic>fun</italic></td><td>54</td><td>.28*</td><td>.27*</td><td>.26</td><td>48</td><td>.36*</td><td>.31*</td><td>.38**</td></tr><tr><td>Running subscale</td><td>54</td><td>.22</td><td>.24</td><td>.14</td><td>48</td><td>.36*</td><td>.34*</td><td>.34*</td></tr><tr><td>Locomotor subscale</td><td>54</td><td>.15</td><td>.11</td><td>.18</td><td>48</td><td>.20</td><td>.19</td><td>.17</td></tr><tr><td>Object control - Upper body</td><td>54</td><td>.34*</td><td>.32*</td><td>.34*</td><td>48</td><td>.38**</td><td>.41**</td><td>.34*</td></tr><tr><td>Object control - Lower body</td><td>54</td><td>.12</td><td>.06</td><td>.18</td><td>48</td><td>.34*</td><td>.28</td><td>.37**</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, stability, and body control</td><td>54</td><td>.18</td><td>.26*</td><td>.04</td><td>48</td><td>.12</td><td>−.02</td><td>.29*</td></tr><tr><td>PLAY<italic>basic</italic></td><td>54</td><td>.22</td><td>.19</td><td>.24</td><td>48</td><td>.26</td><td>.24</td><td>.26</td></tr><tr><td>CAMSA obstacle course</td><td>53</td><td>.46**</td><td align="center">-</td><td align="center">-</td><td>51</td><td>.39**</td><td align="center">-</td><td align="center">-</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> Note. *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05; ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01; R1 = rater 1; R2 = rater 2; Mean = mean across rater 1 and 2; CAMSA = Canadian Agility and Movement Skill; PAQ-C = Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children; PLAY = Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth; scores are interpreted as small ≥ .1, medium ≥ .3, large ≥ .5.</p> <hd id="AN0135500787-11">Discussion</hd> <p>Considering the widespread implementation of physical literacy into practice, it is essential to validate existing physical literacy tools in culturally diverse populations and contexts. Our study addresses this important gap by examining the reliability and validity of two motor competence tools (PLAY<emph>fun</emph> and PLAY<emph>basic</emph>) in two small communities in northern Canada. The highest inter-rater reliability (i.e., good-to-excellent) and internal consistency (i.e., good) were observed for the overall PLAY<emph>fun</emph> tool with two raters. The PLAY<emph>basic</emph> also performed well with two raters on reliability (i.e., moderate-to-excellent) and internal consistency if minimal levels (i.e., borderline) are acceptable. Individual rater scores for the overall scales were less reliable, yet could be deemed acceptable for the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> (i.e., moderate or greater inter-rater reliability, generally borderline or greater internal consistency). In general, convergent validity was demonstrated for the overall PLAY tools, as well as the subscales. The overall <emph>PLAYfun</emph> and PLAY<emph>basic</emph> tools had moderate-to-large correlations with the CAMSA obstacle course, generally small-to-moderate correlations with the PAQ-C, and small-to-moderate correlations with age. Therefore, within northern populations of children and youth in grades 4-7, researchers can be confident in using the complete tools to measure the motor competence aspect of physical literacy.</p> <p>Two studies have published on the psychometric properties of physical literacy tools (Cairney et al., 2017; Longmuir et al., 2017). Cairney and colleagues (2017) observed very good inter-rater agreement (ICC = .87) for the PLAY<emph>fun</emph>; however, the sample was small (i.e., 10 participants) thus limiting generalizability, and agreement was not assessed for individual subscales or for the PLAY<emph>basic</emph>, nor were sample descriptives, such as age reported. ICC scores in our study (for single measures only) with children and youth aged 8-14 years are slightly lower and in the moderate-to-good range for the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> (October 2014, ICC = .78, 95% CI = .65,.86; March 2015, ICC = .82, 95% CI = .70,.89). Using the CAMSA obstacle course, another study of 53 children aged 8-12 years, observed inter-rater reliability as moderate-to-good for skill score (ICC = .69, 95% CI = .61,.76) and excellent for completion time (ICC = 1.00, 95% CI = 1.00, 1.00) (Longmuir et al., 2017). However, they did not complete these analyses for the final obstacle course score that is calculated by summing the time score and skill score, making comparisons difficult. Nonetheless, the findings from our study are comparable.</p> <p>To our knowledge, no studies have examined the reliability of the subscales of the PLAY<emph>fun</emph>. The scores for the subscales were lower than the overall tools. Specifically, for average measures, running, locomotor, and object control - lower body achieved a moderate score or above based on the 95% confidence interval, yet for single measures, only locomotor and object control - lower body achieved a moderate score or above. Consequently, when doing research with northern populations of children and youth we recommend not using the specific subscales, but instead summarizing scores across the complete tools only.</p> <p>For internal consistency, the overall PLAY<emph>fun</emph> tool exhibited good scores when averaged across raters or when individual raters were examined separately, and PLAY<emph>basic</emph> showed generally borderline scores. This suggests that the larger 18-item tool better represents a single concept of motor competence than does the smaller 5-item scale. When averaged across raters only the object control - lower body achieved a score of good, and running and locomotor achieved borderline scores. For individual raters only running and object control - upper body achieved borderline scores. The lower number of items in some subscales (e.g., object control - lower body, 2 items) could explain the weaker associations as the Cronbach's alpha statistic is influenced by the number of items in the scale (Terwee et al., 2007). The low internal consistency scores for the subscales are inconsistent with Cairney et al. (2017) who found evidence of a five-factor structure of the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> with children and youth in the south. If a five-factor structure holds in northern populations the subscales would typically have good internal consistency. Thus, future research should examine the factor structure of the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> with a sufficient sample (≥ 100) (Terwee et al., 2007) of children and youth from northern Canada.</p> <p>Particularly problematic are the results for the balance, stability, and control subscale for March 2015, which have some low internal consistency scores (e.g., <emph>α</emph> = .35), as well as inter-rater reliability scores (e.g., ICC = .38) with negative values at the lower end of the 95% confidence interval. We investigated each item in this subscale further and two items had large discrepancies between raters: balance walk (heel-to-toe) forward, and balance walk (heel-to-toe) backward. Though not that far apart, it is possible that the different viewing points of the raters may have impacted the findings for this skill. Consequently, more attention should be given to how best to view these skills and we caution against using this subscale on its own.</p> <p>Evidence of convergent validity was found for the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> and PLAY<emph>basic</emph> tools, as assessed by their relationship with PAC-C (self-reported physical activity) and the CAMSA obstacle course (motor competence). The moderate-to-large correlations with the CAMSA obstacle course are encouraging as both of these tools were designed to measure the motor competence component of physical literacy. Further, the small-to-moderate correlations with physical activity are consistent with the concept of physical literacy being a building block for engagement in physical activity for life (Whitehead, 2007).</p> <p>Because of a combination of exposure to a variety of physical activities and maturational neuromotor development (Stodden et al., 2008), movement competencies in young people tend to improve as they age. Therefore, a relationship between motor competence and age should exist. As expected, both the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> and PLAY<emph>basic</emph> tools positively correlated with age to a small-to-moderate degree suggesting that the developmental increases in motor competence is captured by these tools. Similarly, the running, object control - upper body, and object control - lower body subscales also exhibited a positive relationship with age generally in the small-to-moderate range. In contrast, Cairney et al. (2017)) observed positive moderate-to-large correlations (PLAY<emph>fun, r</emph> = .58) with age. These differences may be due to the age range of the samples, with our study including youth 8-14 years of age (<emph>M</emph> = 10.5) and Cairney et al. including youth 6-14 years of age (<emph>M</emph> = 10.3). It is also possible that a greater exposure to traditional Indigenous activities (e.g., hunting, trapping, canoeing) in northern communities allows children in the north to develop motor competencies at an earlier age, thus resulting in a weaker relationship with age.</p> <p>Additionally, the total PLAY<emph>fun</emph> scores (<emph>M</emph> = 57.83-65.39) in our study were higher than reported in Cairney et al. (2017) (<emph>M</emph> = 47.1). Both studies observed the highest ratings for object control - upper body (our study individual raters <emph>M</emph> = 60.8-74.6, their study <emph>M</emph> = 50.5), yet our study found the lowest scores for object control - lower body (individual raters <emph>M</emph> = 50.3-61.35), and in Cairney et al. (2017) the lowest score was for locomotor (<emph>M</emph> = 41.7). Differences between the studies could be due to their younger sample, them having raters who scored slightly stricter, and/or our sample being more physically literate. Differences could also reflect the motor competences of children in small northern remote Indigenous communities compared to southern population. Though no studies with descriptive information on the CAMSA exist, most scores in our sample were in the excelling category, also providing evidence that our sample was more physically literate. As mentioned previously, the more traditional Indigenous activities that are common in these communities (e.g., hunting) may offer children greater opportunities for motor skill development. Future research is needed to confirm whether northern populations of children and youth are indeed more physically literate than southern populations.</p> <p>Our study has several strengths. To our knowledge, we are the first to administer the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> and PLAY<emph>basic</emph> tools in remote Indigenous communities in northern Canada and to publish psychometric properties of the PLAY<emph>basic</emph> and PLAY<emph>fun</emph> subscales. Our study is also the first to examine the relationship between different physical literacy measurement tools (i.e., CAMSA, PLAY<emph>fun</emph>), which is an important step in establishing the psychometric properties of an instrument (Terwee et al., 2007). Thus, our study provides an important contribution to knowledge in terms of both the measurement of physical literacy (specifically motor competence) and the relevance of these measures for culturally diverse populations (e.g., predominantly Indigenous). Another strength of this report is that, though cross-sectional, two time-points are used to confirm the results. Finally, our study interpreted reliability statistics using 95% confidence intervals, which is a more conservative approach (Koo & Li, 2016), yet important in our opinion as it reflects confidence in the estimate.</p> <p>But, this study is not without limitations. First, the relatively small sample size may have limited statistical power to detect meaningful relationships or effects as being significant. However, a sample size of 50 has been regarded as sufficient for reliability and validity testing (Chinapaw, Mokkink, Van Poppel, Van Mechelen, & Terwee, 2010), and our evaluation of the numbers was primarily based on magnitude of effect. Additionally, we measured a large proportion of children and youth in grades 4-7 from these two small communities. Second, though the CAPL manual recommends two examples and two-timed runs when administering the CAMSA obstacle course (Healthy Active Living Obesity (HALO) Research Group, 2014), we were only able to demonstrate one example and record one-timed run due to time restraints and the ability to hold the attention of the participants. Consequently, we may have underestimated scores on this assessment. However, reliable scores can be obtained for the CAMSA with one-timed rating (Longmuir et al., 2017). Third, though every effort was made by the team to engage the participants, some exhibited low motivation and there were some behavioural issues, which may have increased error and attenuated scores. Finally, the findings may not generalize to all Indigenous and remote communities.</p> <p>In summary, when working with children and youth in northern Canada, the motor competence aspect of physical literacy is most accurately assessed using the complete PLAY<emph>fun</emph> tool and two raters. The PLAY<emph>basic</emph> can also be used if minimum standards of reliability are acceptable. Further, our findings suggest that the PLAY<emph>fun</emph> subscales should not be used on their own with this population. Additional psychometric testing of the PLAY tools is needed with diverse populations of young people before they are accepted as established tools.</p> <hd id="AN0135500787-12">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We would like to thank the children and youth who participated and the school staff and government employees who supported this project.</p> <ref id="AN0135500787-13"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Cairney, J., Veldhuizen, S., Graham, J. D., Rodriguez, C., Bedard, C., Bremer, E., & Kriellaars, D. ( 2017 ). A construct validation study of PLAYfun. <emph>Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise</emph>, 50 ( 4 ). doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001494</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Canadian Institutes of Health Research, N. S. a. E. R. C. o. C., & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. ( 2014 ). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/">http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Chinapaw, M. J., Mokkink, L. B., Van Poppel, M. N., Van Mechelen, W., & Terwee, C. B. ( 2010 ). Physical activity questionnaires for youth: A systematic review of measurement properties. <emph>Sports Medicine</emph>, 40 ( 7 ), 539 - 563.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J. ( 1992 ). A power primer. <emph>Psychological Bulletin</emph>, 112 ( 1 ), 155. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Crocker, P., Bailey, D. A., Faulkner, R. A., Kowalski, K. C., & Mcgrath, R. ( 1997 ). Measuring general levels of physical activity: Preliminary evidence for the physical activity questionnaire for older children. <emph>Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise</emph>, 29 ( 10 ), 1344 - 1349. doi: 10.1097/00005768-199710000-00011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> CS4L Society. ( 2014 ). PLAY tools. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://physicalliteracy.ca/education-training/play-tools/">http://physicalliteracy.ca/education-training/play-tools/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> CS4L Society. ( 2016 ). Aboriginal Sport for Life: Long-Term Participant Development Pathway 1.1. Retrieved from https://sportforlife.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ALTPD1.1-Oct2016-EN.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dudley, D., Cairney, J., Wainwright, N., Kriellaars, D., & Mitchell, D. ( 2017 ). Critical considerations for physical literacy policy in public health, recreation, sport, and education agencies. <emph>Quest</emph>, 69 ( 4 ), 436 - 452. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2016.1268967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Edwards, L. C., Bryant, A. S., Keegan, R. J., Morgan, K., & Jones, A. M. ( 2017 ). Definitions, foundations and associations of physical literacy: A systematic review. <emph>Sports Medicine</emph>, 47 ( 1 ), 113 - 126. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0560-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Healthy Active Living Obesity (HALO) Research Group. ( 2014 ). Canadian assessment of physical literacy: Manual for test administration. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.capl-ecsfp.ca/wp-content/uploads/capl-manual-english.pdf">www.capl-ecsfp.ca/wp-content/uploads/capl-manual-english.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyndman, B., & Pill, S. ( in press ). What's in a concept? A leximancer text mining analysis of physical literacy across the international literature. <emph>European Physical Education Review</emph>, 1356336 × 17690312. doi: 10.1177/1356336X17690312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA). ( 2015 ). Canada's physical literacy consensus statement. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://physicalliteracy.ca/physical-literacy/consensus-statement/">http://physicalliteracy.ca/physical-literacy/consensus-statement/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. ( 2016 ). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. <emph>Journal of Chiropractic Medicine</emph>, 15 ( 2 ), 155 - 163.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kowalski, K. C., Crocker, P. R., & Faulkner, R. A. ( 1997 ). Validation of the physical activity questionnaire for older children. <emph>Pediatric Exercise Science</emph>, 9 ( 2 ), 174 - 186. doi: 10.1123/pes.9.2.174</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longmuir, P. E., Boyer, C., Lloyd, M., Borghese, M. M., Knight, E., Saunders, T. J., ... Tremblay, M. S. ( 2017 ). Canadian agility and movement skill assessment (CAMSA): Validity, objectivity, and reliability evidence for children 8-12 years of age. <emph>Journal of Sport and Health Science</emph>, 6 ( 2 ), 231 - 240. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2015.11.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longmuir, P. E., Boyer, C., Lloyd, M., Yang, Y., Boiarskaia, E., Zhu, W., & Tremblay, M. S. ( 2015 ). The Canadian assessment of physical literacy: Methods for children in grades 4 to 6 (8 to 12 years). <emph>BMC Public Health</emph>, 15 ( 1 ), 767. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2106-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longmuir, P. E., & Tremblay, M. S. ( 2016 ). Top 10 research questions related to physical literacy. <emph>Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport</emph>, 87 ( 1 ), 28 - 35. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2016.1124671</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lubans, D. R., Hesketh, K., Cliff, D., Barnett, L., Salmon, J., Dollman, J., ... Hardy, L. ( 2011 ). A systematic review of the validity and reliability of sedentary behaviour measures used with children and adolescents. <emph>Obesity Reviews</emph>, 12 ( 10 ), 781 - 799. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00896.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McHugh, T.-L. F., Holt, N. L., & Andersen, C. ( 2015 ). Community-cased sport research with indigenous youth. <emph>Federación Española De Asociaciones De Docentes De Educación Física</emph>, <emph>28</emph>, 219 - 224.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NWT Bureau of Statistics. ( 2017 ). <emph>Population Estimates By Community</emph>. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.statsnwt.ca/population/population-estimates/bycommunity.php">www.statsnwt.ca/population/population-estimates/bycommunity.php</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, D. B., & Randall, L. ( 2017 ). Marking physical literacy or missing the mark on physical literacy? A conceptual critique of Canada's physical literacy assessment instruments. <emph>Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science</emph>, 21 ( 1 ), 40 - 55. doi: 10.1080/1091367X.2016.1249793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scholtes, V. A., Terwee, C. B., & Poolman, R. W. ( 2011 ). What makes a measurement instrument valid and reliable? <emph>Injury</emph>, 42 ( 3 ), 236 - 240. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stodden, D. F., Goodway, J. D., Langendorfer, S. J., Roberton, M. A., Rudisill, M. E., Garcia, C., & Garcia, L. E. ( 2008 ). A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. <emph>Quest</emph>, 60 ( 2 ), 290 - 306. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2008.10483582</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. ( 2014 ). Validity [Chapter 10]. In <emph>Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use</emph> ( 5th ed., pp. 227 - 253 ). Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tang, K., & Jardine, C. G. ( 2016 ). Our way of life: Importance of indigenous culture and tradition to physical activity practices. <emph>International Journal of Indigenous Health</emph>, 11 ( 1 ), 211. doi: 10.18357/ijih111201616018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., De Boer, M. R., Van Der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., ... De Vet, H. C. ( 2007 ). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. <emph>Journal of Clinical Epidemiology</emph>, 60 ( 1 ), 34 - 42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehead, M. ( 2007 ). Physical literacy: Philosophical considerations in relation to developing a sense of self, universality and propositional knowledge. <emph>Sports Ethics and Philosophy</emph>, 1 ( 3 ), 281 - 298.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yousefian, A., Ziller, E., Swartz, J., & Hartley, D. ( 2009 ). Active living for rural youth: Addressing physical inactivity in rural communities. <emph>Journal of Public Health Management and Practice</emph>, 15 ( 3 ), 223 - 231. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181a11822</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jodie A. Stearns; Brendan Wohlers; Tara-Leigh F. McHugh; Nicholas Kuzik and John C. Spence</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref6"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1209865
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Reliability and Validity of the PLAY'fun' Tool with Children and Youth in Northern Canada
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stearns%2C+Jodie+A%2E%22">Stearns, Jodie A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wohlers%2C+Brendan%22">Wohlers, Brendan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McHugh%2C+Tara-Leigh+F%2E%22">McHugh, Tara-Leigh F.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6528-9613">0000-0002-6528-9613</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kuzik%2C+Nicholas%22">Kuzik, Nicholas</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Spence%2C+John+C%2E%22">Spence, John C.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8485-1336">0000-0001-8485-1336</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Measurement+in+Physical+Education+and+Exercise+Science%22"><i>Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science</i></searchLink>. 2019 23(1):47-57.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychomotor+Skills%22">Psychomotor Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Activities%22">Physical Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Fitness%22">Physical Fitness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interrater+Reliability%22">Interrater Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Adolescents%22">Early Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy%22">Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Observation%22">Observation</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1091367X.2018.1500368
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1091-367X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The reliability and validity of the PLAY"fun" and PLAY"basic" tools were assessed. The PLAY"fun", PLAY"basic", Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA) obstacle course, and Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children (PAQ-C) were administered to children (aged 8-14 years) in two remote Canadian communities. Inter-rater reliability of the PLAY"fun" and PLAY"basic" were good-to-excellent for average measures and moderate-to-good for single measures. The PLAY"fun" subscales were poor-to-excellent for average and single measures. The internal consistency of the PLAY"fun" tool was good, PLAY"basic" was poor-to-good, and the individual subscales were poor-to-good. Convergent validity was moderate-to-large for the PLAY tools and CAMSA obstacle course, and small-to-moderate for the PLAY tools and the PAQ-C, and small-to-moderate for the PLAY tools and age. For children and youth in northern Canada, the motor competence aspect of physical literacy is most accurately assessed using the complete PLAY"fun" tool and two raters.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1209865
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1209865
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1091367X.2018.1500368
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 47
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychomotor Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Fitness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interrater Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Observation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Reliability and Validity of the PLAY'fun' Tool with Children and Youth in Northern Canada
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stearns, Jodie A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wohlers, Brendan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McHugh, Tara-Leigh F.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kuzik, Nicholas
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Spence, John C.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1091-367X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 23
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science
              Type: main
ResultId 1