The Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth (PLAY) Tools are a suite of tools to assess an individual’s physical literacy. The purpose of this study is to examine the psychometric properties of the PLAY Tools, including inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, validity and the associations between the tools. In this study, 218 children and youth (8.4- to- 13.7-years old) and a parent/ guardian completed the appropriate physical literacy assessments (i.e., PLAYbasic, PLAYfun, PLAYparent and PLAYself) and the Bruiniks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2). Inter-rater reliability for PLAYfun was excellent (ICC=0.94). The PLAYbasic, PLAYfun total, running and object control scores, and PLAYparent motor competence domain were higher in males than females, and PLAYfun locomotor skills were lower in males than females (p<0.05). Age was positively correlated with PLAYbasic and PLAYfun (r=0.14-0.32, p<0.05). BOT-2 was positively correlated with PLAYfun and PLAYbasic (r=0.19-0.59, p<0.05). PLAYbasic is a significant predictor of PLAYfun (R<sup>2</sup>=0.742, p<0.001). PLAYfun, PLAYparent and PLAYself were moderately correlated with one another. PLAYfun, PLAYparent and PLAYself demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α=0.74-0.87, ω=0.73-0.87). The PLAY Tools demonstrated moderate associations between one another, strong inter-rater reliability and good construct and convergent validity. Continued evaluation of these tools with other populations, such as adolescents, is necessary.
•In school-age children, the PLAY Tools demonstrated strong inter-rater reliability, moderate associations with one another, acceptable internal consistency and good construct and convergent validity.•The results suggest that that PLAY Tools are an acceptable method of evaluation for physical literacy in school-age children.
Background
dance is a mind–body activity that stimulates neuroplasticity. We explored the effect of dance on cognitive function in older adults.
Methods
we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PsycInfo databases from inception to August 2020 (PROSPERO:CRD42017057138). Inclusion criteria were (i) randomised controlled trials (ii) older adults (aged ≥ 55 years), (iii) intervention—dance and (iv) outcome—cognitive function. Cognitive domains were classified with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 Neurocognitive Framework. Meta-analyses were performed in RevMan5.3 and certainty of evidence with GradePro.
Results
we reviewed 3,997 records and included 11 studies (N = 1,412 participants). Seven studies included only healthy older adults and four included those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Dance interventions varied in frequency (1–3×/week), time (35–60 minutes), duration (3–12 months) and type. We found a mean difference (MD) = 1.58 (95% confidence interval [CI) = 0.21–2.95) on the Mini Mental State Examination for global cognitive function (moderate-certainty evidence), and the Wechsler Memory Test for learning and memory had an MD = 3.02 (95% CI = 1.38–4.65; low-certainty evidence). On the Trail Making Test-A for complex attention, MD = 3.07 (95% CI = −0.81 to 6.95; high-certainty evidence) and on the Trail Making Test-B for executive function, MD = −4.12 (95% CI = −21.28 to 13.03; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses did not suggest consistently greater effects in older adults with MCI. Evidence is uncertain for language, and no studies evaluated social cognition or perceptual–motor function.
Conclusions
dance probably improves global cognitive function and executive function. However, there is little difference in complex attention, and evidence also suggests little effect on learning and memory. Future research is needed to determine the optimal dose and if dance results in greater cognitive benefits than other types of physical activity and exercise.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.