Conceptual Critique of Canada’s Physical Literacy Assessment Instruments Also Misses the Mark

The recently published articleMarking Physical Literacy or Missing the Mark on Physical Literacy? A Conceptual Critique of Canada’s Physical Literacy Assessment Instruments by Robinson and Randall (2017) aimed to “offer a conceptual critique focused not upon physical literacy itself but, rather, focused upon the physical literacy assessment instruments that are intended for use by Canadian teachers” (p. 40). While the article offers some insightful narrative, in our view, it does not discuss some important points. First, it is a significant oversight that the authors did not initially disclose their conflict of interest. It is our understanding that they have a leadership role with Physical and Health Education (PHE) Canada, who owns Passport for Life (PHE Canada, 2014). Readers may view the content of the narrative differently with this fact openly disclosed. In this regard, it is also important to recognize that we are the primary architects of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy (CAPL; https://www.capl-ecsfp.ca) also assessed in the article. Second, the authors have assessed the fidelity of each assessment instrument relative to definitions of physical literacy which differ from the current consensus definition (ParticipACTION, 2015). The Canadian consensus definition is, in fact, the definition published by the International Physical Literacy Association (www.physical-literacy.org. uk), which is cited as the work of Whitehead (2016). It was endorsed in 2015 by Canadian Sport for Life (2014), PHE Canada, our group, and others (http://www.pheca nada.ca/programs/physical-literacy/what-physical-lit eracy). It is unclear why the authors chose to evaluate the fidelity of the assessment instruments relative to older works (Capel &Whitehead, 2013; Whitehead, 2010) rather than to Whitehead’s current thinking in this regard. We chose the four domains of the CAPL (motivation and confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding, and daily behavior) specifically to align with Whitehead’s current definition. These domains differ from the information presented by the authors (p. 51), which cite an earlier article by Tremblay (2012), as well as Whitehead’s comments about that original article (which was published several years before the CAPL was released). In specifically evaluating the fidelity of the CAPL, the authors state “Fitness assessments are a very large part of the HALO assessment” (Robinson & Randall, 2017, p. 51). We would contend this is not an accurate statement. The total CAPL score is 100 points. Of that, 32 points are assigned to physical competence, of which 51% of the potential points are assigned to fitness activities (the remainder are assigned to motor skill and other components). Therefore, the fitness assessments within CAPL account for only 17 of 100 possible points. We also disagree with the author’s contention that fitness is not part of Whitehead’s concept of physical literacy. Whitehead emphasizes that physical literacy is a journey, not something that occurs at one point in time. On that basis, we believe that measuring the child’s capacity to sustain physical activity participation is critically important if they are to engage in physical activities for life. We disagree with the authors that because the CAPL is an objective measure it is dualistic rather than monistic. Our understanding of monism is that the body and mind are understood as one entity, with all parts working together in an integrated and reciprocal fashion. This monistic approach is reflected in our choice of the CAPL protocols (e.g., plank, shuttle run, sit and reach) which are specifically designed to require the mind and body to work together in order to optimize performance. Third, we believe that it is inappropriate to equate peer-reviewed evidence with self-made claims when evaluating assessment trustworthiness. The authors provide equal columns based on the same star rating system for both “self-made” and “peer-reviewed” trustworthiness (Table 4) suggesting that both types of claim