Perceived Physical Literacy Scale for Secondary School Students: A Study on Validity and Reliability

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to develop a physical literacy scale for secondary school students. 650 students from 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades participated in the research. The draft form was prepared by reviewing the literature and taking expert opinions. Interviews were conducted with 40 students to test the comprehensibility of the items (the wording of 5 items was revised). As a result of the pilot reliability analysis and Bartlett's sphericity test, it was accepted that the correlation between the variables was sufficient, and the scale consisted of questions with a unique and homogeneous structure. Then, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin, Bartlett and Cronbach Alpha values were checked, and they were determined to be suitable and sufficient for EFA. As a result of EFA, 20 items collected in 4 factors were obtained. The variance explained by these factors is 58.442%. As a result of the CFA conducted in SPSS AMOS 24 programme, 3 items that did not meet the model fit index criteria were removed. It was determined that the standardized item loadings of the 17 items that met the model fit conditions ranged between 0.654-0.895, R2 values ranged between 0.43-0.80 and standard errors ranged between 0.045-0.102. Regarding reliability, AVE, CR, and internal consistency coefficients were examined, and it was determined that they meet the specified criteria. The final version of the scale consists of four sub-dimensions ("Motivation", "Knowledge and Understanding", "Confidence" and "Physical Competence"). In conclusion, it was determined that the developed scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool for assessing students' perceptions of physical literacy.

Keywords

• Physical literacy
• Physical activity
• Physical education and sports
• Secondary school students

Ortaokul Öğrencileri için Algılanan Fiziksel Okuryazarlık Ölçeği: Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlilik Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, ortaokul öğrencileri için fiziksel okuryazarlık ölçeği geliştirmektir. Araştırmaya 5,6,7 ve 8. Sınıflardan 650 öğrenci katılmıştır. Taslak form literatür taraması ve uzman görüşleri alınarak hazırlanmıştır. Maddelerin anlaşılırlığını test etmek için 40 öğrenciyle görüşmeler yapılmıştır (5 maddenin ifadeleri yeniden düzenlendi). Pilot güvenirlilik analizi ve Bartlett’s küresellik testi sonucunda değişkenler arası korelasyonun yeterli olduğu, ölçeğin özgün ve homojen yapıda sorulardan oluştuğu kabul edilmiştir. Ardından Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin, Barlett ve Cronbach Alfa değerleri kontrol edilerek AFA için uygun ve yeterli oldukları tespit edilmiştir. AFA sonucunda 4 faktörde toplanan 20 madde elde edilmiştir. Bu faktörlerin açıkladığı varyans %58.442’dir. SPSS AMOS 24 programında yapılan DFA sonucunda ise, model uyum indekslerini karşılamayan 3 madde çıkarılmıştır. Model uyum şartlarını taşıyan 17 maddenin standartlaştırılmış madde yükleri 0,654-0,895 arasında; R2 değerleri 0,43-0,80 arasında ve standart hataları 0.045-0.102 arasında değiştiği tespit edilmiştir. Güvenirlilik kapsamında ise AVE, CR ve iç tutarlık katsayıları incelenmiş ve koşulları sağladığı belirlenmiştir. Ölçek son haliyle 4 alt boyuttan (“Motivasyon”, “Bilgi ve Anlayış”, “Güven” ve “Fiziksel Yeterlilik”) oluşmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, geliştirilen ölçeğin, öğrencilerin fiziksel okuryazarlık algılarını ölçen, geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fiziksel okuryazarlık
• Fiziksel aktivite
• Beden eğitimi ve spor
• Ortaokul öğrencileri

Kaynakça

1. Akarsu, M., & Büyükçelebi, H. (2022). Foundations, definitions, and significance of physical literacy. In C. Gündoğdu & Ş. Tüfekçi (Eds.), Physical education and sports in the light of current approaches (pp. 119-132). Efe Academy Publications.
2. Bayram, N. (2004). Data analysis with SPSS in social sciences. Ezgi Bookstore.
3. Bayram, N. (2010). Introduction to structural equation modeling AMOS applications. Ezgi Bookstore.
4. Belanger, K., Barnes, J. D., Longmuir, P. E., Anderson, K. D., Bruner, B., Copeland, J. L., Melanie, J. G., Hall, N., Kolen, A. M., Lane, K. N., Law, B., MacDonald, D. J., Martin, L. J., Saunders, T. J., Sheehan, D., Stone, M., Woodruff, S. J., & Tremblay, M. S. (2018). The relationship between physical literacy scores and adherence to Canadian physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines. BMC Public Health, 18(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5897-4
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Manual of data analysis for social sciences. Pegem Academy Publishing.
6. Corbin, C. B. (2016). Implications of physical literacy for research and practice: A commentary. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 87(1), 14-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2016.1124722
7. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Applications of SPSS and LISREL (2nd ed.). Pegem Academy.
8. Erkorkmaz, Ü., Etikhan, İ., Özdamar, K., & Sanisoğlu, Y. (2013). Confirmatory factor analysis and fit indices: review. Türkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 33(1), 210-223. https://doi.org/10.5336/medsci.2011-26747

9. Giblin, S., Collins, D., & Button, C. (2014). Physical literacy: Importance, assessment and future directions. Sports Medicine, 44(9), 1177-1184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-014-0205-7
10. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.
11. Lawshe, C.H. (1975). A Quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
12. Longmuir, P. E., Boyer, C., Lloyd, M., Borghese, M. M., Knight, E., Saunders, T. J., Boiarskaia, E., Zhu, W., & Tremblay, M. S. (2017). Canadian agility and movement skill assessment (CAMSA): Validity, objectivity, and reliability evidence for children 8–12 years of age. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 6(2), 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2015.11.004
13. Lundvall, S. (2015). Physical literacy in the field of physical education–A challenge and a possibility. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4(2), 113-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2015.02.001
14. McKean, M. (2013). Physical literacy in children–the underpinning movement competencies?. Journal of Sports Medicine & Doping Studies, 3(2), e135. http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0673.1000e135
15. Meydan, C. H., & Şeşen, H. (2011). AMOS applications of structural equation modeling. Detay Publishing.
16. Mohammadzadeh, M., Sheikh, M., Houminiyan Sharif Abadi, D., Bagherzadeh, F., & Kazemnejad, A. (2021). Design and psychometrics evaluation of Adolescent Physical Literacy Questionnaire (APLQ). Sport Sciences for Health, 18(2), 397-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-021-00818-8
17. Munusturlar, S., & Yıldızer, G. (2020). Assessing factor structure of perceived physical literacy scale for physical education teachers for Turkish sample. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 35(1), 200-209. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2019049146
18. Özgül, F., Semiz, K., & Kangalgil, M. (2023). Development of the physical literacy attitude scale for middle school students. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Journal of Sports Sciences, 6(1), 1-12.
19. Sport for Life. (2023). Play tools. Retrieved from https://physicalliteracy.ca/play-tools/
20. Sum, R. K. W., Ha, A. S. C., Cheng, C. F., Chung, P. K., Yiu, K. T. C., Kuo, C. C., Yu, C. K. & Wang, F. J. (2016). Construction and validation of a perceived physical literacy instrument for physical education teachers. PLoS One, 11(5), e0155610. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155610
21. Sum, R. K., Cheng, C. F., Wallhead, T., Kuo, C. C., Wang, F. J., & Choi, S. M. (2018). Perceived physical literacy instrument for adolescents: A further validation of PPLI. Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness, 16(1), 26-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesf.2018.03.002
22. Şimşek, Ö. (2007). Introduction to structural equation modeling. Ekinos.
23. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
24. Tekin, H. (2004). Measurement and evaluation in education (17th ed.). Yargı Publishing.
25. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2015). Quality physical education: Guidelines for policy makers. Paris, Fransa.
26. Veneziano L., & Hooper J. (1997). A method for quantifying content validity of health-related questionnaires. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21(1), 67-70.
27. Whitehead, M. (2001). The concept of physical literacy. European Journal of Physical Education, 6(2), 127-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1740898010060205
28. Whitehead, M. (2013). Definition of physical literacy and clarification of related issues. ICSSPE Bulletin, 65, 28-33.
29. Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: Application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business, 46(Special Issue), 74-85.
30. Yılmaz, A., & Kabak, S. (2021). Perceived physical literacy scale for adolescents (PPLSA): Validity and Reliability Study. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 9(1), 159-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.9n.1p.159
31. Yurdugül, H. (2005). Using content validity indices for content validity in scale development studies. XIV. National Educational Sciences Congress, Pamukkale University Faculty of Education, Denizli.