Assessing physical literacy with school-aged children in occupational therapy practice: An exploratory qualitative study

0Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: Physical literacy (the physical, psychological, social and cognitive capacities needed for movement and physical activity) is arguably important to occupational therapy yet is not explicit within current practice. This study aimed to understand how occupational therapists can engage with the physical literacy concept. Method: Eight paediatric occupational therapists were recruited by purposive sampling. Participants completed up to three semi-structured interviews to understand perspectives on physical literacy, introduce a novel pictorial assessment and to seek feedback on the assessment after trialling. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Sixteen interviews were conducted. Four themes were identified: ‘Foreign tongue’ (occupational therapists have an understanding of physical literacy but used different terminology); ‘Sounds very OT oriented’ (illustrating the connection between physical literacy and occupational therapy); ‘We need the child’s voice’ (measure highlights the child’s perspective); and ‘Contemporary, useful BUT not for all’ (measure had utility for some children but was dependant on child’s condition). Conclusion: Occupational therapists can apply the physical literacy construct to traditional models and core concepts. The assessment can be used in paediatric occupational therapy practice supported by clinical reasoning, although future tool iterations may need to accommodate some children with disability.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Clark, E., Elliott, A., Jerebine, A., & Barnett, L. M. (2024). Assessing physical literacy with school-aged children in occupational therapy practice: An exploratory qualitative study. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 87(5), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/03080226231220566

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free