Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Study Protocol

Development and evaluation of the IPLAY program: A protocol for a mixed-methods feasibility study targeting newcomer youth

  • Matthew Y. W. Kwan ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    mkwan@brocku.ca.

    Affiliations Department of Child & Youth Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada, Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

    ⨯
  • Sujane Kandasamy,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Child & Youth Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

    ⨯
  • Jeffrey D. Graham,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Child & Youth Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada

    ⨯
  • Jennifer Konopaki,

    Roles Conceptualization, Project administration, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation WinSport, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    ⨯
  • Denver M. Y. Brown

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Psychology, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, United States of America

    ⨯

Abstract

Background

Physical Literacy (PL) is a synthesis construct that ties together movement competencies with affective, motivational, and knowledge-based elements. It is considered foundational to the development of physical activity-related outcomes. Many diverse organizations and programs have embraced the concept and are implementing programs targeting each of those core elements. However, research has lagged behind its interest and adoption. Among the more prominent gaps is the design and evaluation of programs that aim to increase PL within special populations such as new immigrants or refugee youth.

Methods

The Immigrant-focused Physical Literacy for Youth (IPLAY) program is a co-developed evidence-informed 8-week PL program designed for new immigrant and refugee youths who have recently settled in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. This study aims to use a convergent parallel mixed-methods approach to collect, analyse, and interpret quantitative and qualitative data in the evaluation and iteration of the IPLAY program.

Discussion

PL programs can be used as a tool to build confidence and physical competencies among newcomer youth. Furthermore, academic-community collaborations in the design and delivery of PL programs can help improve the access and interest for PL programs among newcomer youth. These partnerships are critical and timely considering the recent and upcoming waves of immigration to “arrival cities” across Canada.

Citation: Kwan MYW, Kandasamy S, Graham JD, Konopaki J, Brown DMY (2023) Development and evaluation of the IPLAY program: A protocol for a mixed-methods feasibility study targeting newcomer youth. PLoS ONE 18(4): e0284373. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284373

Editor: James Mockridge, PLOS: Public Library of Science, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: March 20, 2023; Accepted: March 28, 2023; Published: April 13, 2023

This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Data Availability: Deidentified research data will be made publicly available when the study is completed and published.

Funding: This study (via author MK) has been reviewed and received funding from one of the national granting agencies in Canada: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada – as a Partnership Engage Grant. Value: $25 000 (Project Title: Development and evaluation of WinSport's IPLAY program: A mixed methods examination of a physical literacy-based initiative for newcomer youths; File # 892-2022-0018). Link: https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/partnership_engage_grants-subventions_d_engagement_partenarial-eng.aspx.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Physical inactivity is a major public health concern [1–4]. Regular engagement in physical activity (PA) confers numerous benefits including improved learning [5–8], life skills, and social/emotional development [9–13], academic performance [14, 15], and overall health and well-being [16–19]. Despite the many benefits, less than 40% of Canadian children and youth are meeting the recommended 60 minutes of daily moderate-to-vigorous PA [20, 21]. Importantly, studies have shown that immigrant youth are particularly vulnerable to the risk of physical inactivity compared to non-immigrant peers. A recent study using a nationally representative sample found that youth living in Canada but born elsewhere were significantly less likely to meet daily PA guidelines compared to Canadian-born peers [22].

Canada has one of the highest rates of immigration and acceptance of refugees in the world [23], with the greatest number of newcomers being children and youth [24, 25]. Immigrants represent nearly one-quarter of Canada’s population today, with the highest concentrations living in Ontario (29%), British Columbia (28%), and Alberta (21%), with numbers only projected to rise [26]–including more than 1.2 million immigrants who will be accepted to Canada over the next three years. This has important public health implications as emerging evidence suggests that over time, newcomers to Canada are at an increased risk for poorer health, and greater chronic disease and health burdens compared to those Canadian-born. Although there have been numerous studies that have observed what is commonly referred to as the “healthy immigrant effect”, whereby new immigrants entering Canada are found to be healthier compared to their Canadian-born counterparts [27, 28]; more recent research suggests that this initial health advantage deteriorates over time with settlement [29–31]. Furthermore, there is accumulating evidence that indicates assimilation and acculturation place settled newcomers at greater risk for chronic health conditions including cardiovascular disease, overweight/obesity, and depression when compared to the Canadian-born population [32–35].

Addressing physical inactivity is a complex issue [36], and some experts have argued that youth today lack the necessary fundamental movement skills, motivation, positive feelings toward, and knowledge to be physically active–what is now collectively referred to as physical literacy (PL). PL is a multifaceted concept [37, 38], uniting multiple previously siloed theoretical paradigms, providing a framework for interventions to build upon. Movement competence is identified as a core domain [38, 39], with competencies in movements applied across a wide range of contexts, including on land, air, or on ice [40, 41]. Positive affect, often expressed in terms of fun and enjoyment, and motivational constructs, such as confidence and self-competence, are also central to the concept [42–44]. Lastly, definitions of PL include understanding movement as an essential condition of human experience [42, 43]. At times, the social aspects of movement are considered as an implicit imperative of PL [44]. Individually, each of the core domains of PL are reasonably well-evidenced. For example, the connections between movement skills and perceived competence in relation to participation in PA are well researched [45, 46]. It is hypothesized that developing motor skill competence enhances perceived competence and, in turn, positively affects PA [47]. The model, however, fails to address key psychological components of PL, namely enjoyment, motivation, and knowledge. Following Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) [48], evidence suggests that efforts should be made to help youth successfully learn new motor skills in order to enhance perceived competence (or confidence) and in turn, make PA more enjoyable in order to increase the likelihood of future PA engagement [49].

Developing PL through a wide range of skills, activities, and environments may be particularly beneficial for recent newcomers to Canada [50]. Coming to a new country often demands acculturation into new beliefs, practices, and structures that are foreign [51]. In the case of PA, this might mean learning new activities for which the person has not been exposed, and therefore, lacks the basic competencies for engagement. For example, newcomers immigrating or relocating from warmer tropical, or desert climates may have never been exposed to snow and ice or water for recreation. Learning how to navigate movement within this new context may be a challenge. Consequently, in addition to being limited in terms of participation (e.g., skating for recreation), it poses a health and safety hazard. For instance, slipping on ice could lead to fractures and concussions. As another example, many new community swimming programs are now marketing themselves as ‘learn to swim’ for water safety and drowning prevention. While not exclusive to newcomers, competencies for movement in water could have life or death implications and the transition for youth, may be challenging, as they move into a foreign place, having to learn and experience a new culture while finding new social groups [52].

Overall, the purpose of the current study is to evaluate a newly developed PL-based program targeting new immigrant and refugee youth. In collaboration with a community organization, the current study will co-develop the Immigrant-focused Physical Literacy for Youth (IPLAY) program and evaluate its impact. Specifically, the research objective of this study will be to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of the IPLAY program for newcomer youths. We hypothesize that the PL, PA, and overall mental health of newcomer youths will improve from baseline to post-intervention across each 8-week session.

Materials and methods

Co-Development of IPLAY program

IPLAY will be an 8-week program designed for newcomer youths. Inclusion criteria includes self-identification as a new immigrant and aged 12–16 years. This program will take place at the large community centre of WinSport, in Calgary, Alberta. Youth participants will attend a session once per week for 90 minutes, engaging in novel movement and sport activities aimed at challenging movements on land, air, and ice. This program includes unique games like Gagaball (i.e., an adapted form of dodgeball within an octagon space outdoors), Kin-ball (i.e., a Canadian-developed game utilizing giant inflatable balls), wheelchair basketball, and sledge hockey or ice luge in the arena. The basic idea is that newcomer youths will be able to experience a variety of different movement activities and games within a supportive group-based setting. Trained facilitators with a PL background will lead these sessions specifically targeting participants’ competence (i.e., skill development), confidence (i.e., efficacy to move in different ways), motivation (i.e., interests towards future engagement of activities), and knowledge and understanding (i.e., understanding the benefits of being physically active and understanding how various activities and facilities such as WinSport can facilitate their interests). The aim of this study is to co-develop a PL-based program tailored for newcomer youth, implement the program across two separate iterations, and evaluate both sessions using a mixed methods approach.

Research design

The initial implementation of IPLAY will take place in the Fall of 2022 for 8 weeks and then again in the Winter of 2023 for 8 weeks. Each session will include two groups engaging in the same program concurrently, accommodating up to 20 participants in each group. We will use a multipronged recruitment strategy that includes a partnership with local newcomer-focused service organizations to engage the community and enroll eligible participants into the study. First, we will work with these local organizations to plan appropriate strategies and develop promotional materials (including materials translated to different languages as needed). Participation in the IPLAY program will come at no costs to the youth, and those agreeing to take part in the research component will be remunerated $25 in gift cards for each part of the study that they engage in (i.e., one gift card for the baseline assessment of PL, one gift card for the post-program assessment of PL, and one for participation in the qualitative interviews).

The current study will use a mixed-methods approach, with three distinct phases of the evaluation. Firstly, using a pre-post test design, this study will conduct quantitative evaluations of all participants (up to 80 newcomer youths) to examine the impact of the IPLAY program on youth participants’ PL, PA, and its influence on participants’ overall mental health and wellbeing. Secondly, following each 8-week program, qualitative interviews will be conducted with approximately 10 participants in the Fall and Winter sessions, respectively. Together, using the triangulation of the quantitative and qualitative data in addition to process metrics such as program attendance and participation, will help to establish the feasibility, acceptability, and overall impact or efficacy of the program. Written consent from legal guardian and youth participants will be obtained, with all research protocols receiving institutional ethics approval from the Brock University Office of Research Ethics (Project ID # 21–295).

Quantitative evaluations of IPLAY

All participants will be assessed quantitatively, pre and post program. Each PL domain will be assessed through a combination of direct observation and questionnaires. Specifically, movement competence will be assessed with the PLAYfun tool [53]. The PLAYself tool [53] will be used to assess confidence, motivation, and knowledge and understanding. PA and screen time [54] behaviours as well as mental health and wellbeing [55, 56] will also be assessed using self-reported questionnaires. Mixed effect models will be used to assess whether children’s PL, PA, mental health and wellbeing improve over time and will also test for potential group and sex effects (time by group/sex interactions).

To reflect Bowen et al (2009)’s 8-domain framework for assessing feasibility studies, we will also include the following domains and questions to the quantitative survey package: 1) Acceptability (addressing program satisfaction, barriers/facilitators to participation, preferences of group classes, program sustainability); 2) Implementation (session quality); and 3) Practicality (appropriate time commitment) [57].

Qualitative evaluations of IPLAY

To gain a much richer and contextually relevant caption of their experiences and potential impact on our outcomes, we will also be conducting a qualitative study of approximately 15–20 participants that enrolled in the IPLAY program. According to information power theory, we expect this sample size to provide the context and data necessary to develop robust themes [58]. Specifically, we will be conducting virtual 1:1 semi-structured interviews with youth participants. Interviews will be conducted in English or in the first language requested by participants. In the case where interpretation is required, translations will be conducted in real-time to ensure data integrity. A grounded theory approach will be employed to collect interview data [59, 60]. Each interview will take place immediately following the Fall or Winter IPLAY sessions, respectively, aim at eliciting self-assessment of how the program may or may not have impacted each domain of PL, how this program impacted their future plans for maintaining regular physical activities, and to also acquire constructive feedback regarding the program itself. The resultant interviews will be immediately transcribed and analyzed using initial coding, focused coding, axial coding, the comparative method, and memo-writing [60, 61]. We will use triangulation, collect rich data, and have thick description and member checks to ensure validation and credibility. We will make a special effort to enroll participants who attended all sessions and those who missed or ceased participation in sessions in order to capture diverse perspectives. Our data management plan includes the export of all audio transcriptions via Zoom, verbatim transcription of de-identified interviews, and the use of NVIVO software and manual coding for data analysis.

Data integration of quantitative and qualitative data

Following both independent quantitative and qualitative data collection and analyses (completed in parallel), we will integrate findings using a joint display technique to determine youths’ acceptability of the IPLAY program and the efficacy of the program as it relates to changes in PL, PA and/or mental health and wellbeing outcomes. Joint displays are visual displays that are used to explicitly integrate qualitative and quantitative data and for this study will be used at the point of data interpretation to report key points of data convergence and divergence [62, 63]. We will first create a table positioning quantitative and qualitative data, discuss where the convergence and divergence lay, and develop a figure to highlight these points (as they relate to program improvement) and suggest opportunities for future directions.

Data management plan

Participant data will be anonymized for the data analyses. All reported study outcomes will be grouped and disseminated without any identifying information included. For instance, participants will be assigned a specific unique code (i.e., participant ID) which will then be used in all data files, and not linked in any way to their personal information, except for in a master file which will be password-protected and stored securely (electronically). The master file with identifiers will be kept in a separate, private electronic folder with limited access to the principal investigator and designated research team members. This data will be kept for a period of 10 years.

Safety considerations

Participants’ safety will be prioritized throughout each IPLAY session throughout the 8 weeks of the program and during the physical pre- and post-assessments. The IPLAY instructors will be trained prior to the beginning of each 8 week session by WinSport staff. This will include familiarization with the facility, proper technique and use of the equipment that will be used during the program, and the safety procedures if an injury should happen which includes ensuring that one of the instructors/staff members remains with the participant while another immediate contacts the onsite WinSport safety patrol and first aid team. Trained research staff will administer the physical pre- and post-assessments. While the tasks included in the assessment are commonly performed by youth in physical education and/or other sport and recreation settings (i.e., running back and forth, throwing, kicking, hopping one leg), some physical risks may be present. For instance, participants may become fatigued when performing the tasks and, as such, rests and water will be provided. Participants will also be reminded that they do not have to perform a task if they do not want to and a demonstration of the task will be performed by the researcher at the participants’ request. Similarly, if an injury should happen during these tasks, the researcher will ensure that one of the instructors or staff members remains with the participant while another immediately contacts the onsite WinSport safety patrol and first aid team. Instructors and research staff will also be certified in emergency first aid and CPR.

Discussion

Overall, the primary purpose of this feasibility study will be to evaluate a co-developed PL-based program targeting new immigrant and refugee youth. Using a multi-staged mixed-methods approach, we aim to assess whether the IPLAY program can be an effective intervention program to reach the newcomer youth population and illicit positive changes in both PL and their overall mental health and wellbeing. The nexus of the quantitative and qualitative approaches proposed will be integrated to provide a rigorous and rich contextualized account of IPLAY, including opportunities for future iterations of such community-based programs. Following these mixed methods analyses, we will have key learnings that can be applied to implement evidence-informed programming targeting newcomer youths.

The proposed activities, including the development of a new academic-community partnership, represents a critical first step towards developing a PL-based intervention targeting newcomer youth to Canada. This group is at a greater risk of inactivity and disease burdens as their time in Canada increases [22, 29–31] and therefore it is important to determine possible risk factor modifications. PL offers a unique and holistic framework upon which we build competencies, confidence, motivation, and knowledge for how to sustain lifelong physically active lifestyles [37]. This proposed work will be a catalyst for the continued development and evaluation of such multidimensional and multicomponent interventions aimed at improving short-term behavioural and health outcomes of newcomer youth to Canada.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank WinSport and Calgary Catholic Immigration Society for all the efforts in the co-development of the program and help in recruitment of the participants for this study.

References

  1. 1. Althoff T, Sosič R, Hicks JL, King AC, Delp SL, Leskovec J. Large-scale physical activity data reveal worldwide activity inequality. Nature 2017;547:336–9. pmid:28693034
  2. 2. Das P, Horton R. Rethinking our approach to physical activity. Lancet 2012;380:189–90. pmid:22818931
  3. 3. Dishman RK, Washburn RA, Heath GW. Adopting and maintaining a physically active lifestyle. USA: Human Kinetics. 2004.
  4. 4. Hallal PC, Bauman AE, Heath GW, Kohl HW 3rd, Lee IM, Pratt M. Physical activity: more of the same is not enough. Lancet 2012;380:190. pmid:22818932
  5. 5. Diamond A. Effects of physical exercise on executive functions: going beyond simply moving to moving with thought. Ann Sports Med Res 2015;2:1011. pmid:26000340
  6. 6. Bustamante EE, Williams CF, Davis CL. Physical activity interventions for neurocognitive and academic performance in overweight and obese youth. Pediatr Clin North Am 2016;63:459–80.
  7. 7. Sibley BA, Etnier JL. The relationship between physical activity and cognition in children: a meta-analysis. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2003;15:243–56.
  8. 8. Best JR. Effects of physical activity on children’s executive function: Contributions of experimental research on aerobic exercise. Dev Rev 2010;30:331–51. pmid:21818169
  9. 9. Holt NL. Positive youth development through sport. New York (NY): Routledge. 2016.
  10. 10. Eime RM, Young JA, Harvey JT, Charity MJ, Payne WR. A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013;10:98. pmid:23945179
  11. 11. Lubans DR, Smith JJ, Morgan PJ, Beauchamp MR, Miller A, Lonsdale C, et al. Mediators of psychological well-being in adolescent boys. J Adolesc Health 2016;58:230–6. pmid:26699231
  12. 12. Lubans DR, Richards J, Hillman C, Faulkner G, Beauchamp M, Nilsson M, et al. Physical activity for cognitive and mental health in youth: A systematic review of mechanisms. Pediatrics 2016;138:e20161642. pmid:27542849
  13. 13. Biddle SJ, Ciaccioni S, Thomas G, Vergeer I. Physical activity and mental health in children and adolescents: An updated review of reviews and an analysis of causality. Psychol Sport Exerc 2019;42:146–55.
  14. 14. Donnelly JE, Lambourne K. Classroom-based physical activity, cognition, and academic achievement. Prev Med 2011;52:S36–42. pmid:21281666
  15. 15. Fedewa AL, Ahn S, Erwin H, Davis MC. A randomized controlled design investigating the effects of classroom-based physical activity on children’s fluid intelligence and achievement. Sch Psychol Int 2015;36:135–53.
  16. 16. Timmons BW, LeBlanc AG, Carson V, Connor Gorber S, Dillman C, Janssen I, et al. Systematic review of physical activity and health in the early years (aged 0–4 years). Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2012;37:773–92. pmid:22765840
  17. 17. Janssen I, LeBlanc AG. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2010;7:40. pmid:20459784
  18. 18. Warburton DE, Katzmarzyk PT, Rhodes RE, Shephard RJ. Evidence-informed physical activity guidelines for Canadian adults. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2007;32(S2E):S16–68. pmid:18213940
  19. 19. Warburton DER. Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. Can Med Assoc J 2006;174:801–9. pmid:16534088
  20. 20. Barnes JD, Cameron C, Carson V, Chaput JP, Colley RC, Faulkner GE, et al. Results from Canada’s 2018 report card on physical activity for children and youth. J Phys Act Health 2018;15(Supplement 2):S328–30.
  21. 21. Colley RC, Carson V, Garriguet D, Janssen I, Roberts KC, Tremblay MS. Physical activity of Canadian children and youth, 2007 to 2015. Statistics Canada, 2017. pmid:29044441
  22. 22. Kukaswadia A, Pickett W, Janssen I. Time since immigration and ethnicity as predictors of physical activity among Canadian youth: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e89509. pmid:24586835
  23. 23. Ministry of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, 2018. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/pdf/pub/annual-report-2018.pdf. Accessed September 23, 2019.
    • 24. Census Program. Statistics Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm?MM=1. Accessed September 23, 2019.
      • 25. Immigration and ethnocultural diversity: Key results from the 2016 Census. Statistics Canada, 2017. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025b-eng.htm?indid=14428-1&indgeo=0. Accessed September 23, 2019.
        • 26. Hyman I. Immigration and health: Reviewing evidence of the healthy immigrant effect in Canada. Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement, 2007.
        • 27. Lu C, Ng E. Healthy immigrant effect by immigrant category in Canada. Health Reports 2019;30;3–11. pmid:30994921
        • 28. Beiser M. The health of immigrants and refugees in Canada. Can J Public Health 2005;96(Suppl 2):S30–44. pmid:16078554
        • 29. De Maio FG. Immigration as pathogenic: a systematic review of the health of immigrants to Canada. Int J Equity Health 2010;9:27. pmid:21106100
        • 30. Newbold KB. Health care use and the Canadian immigrant population. Int J Health Serv 2009;39:545–65. pmid:19771955
        • 31. Cairney J, Østbye T. Time since immigration and excess body weight. Can J Public Health 1999;90:120–4. pmid:10349219
        • 32. Jin K, Gullick J, Neubeck L, Koo F, Ding D. Acculturation is associated with higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease risk-factors among Chinese immigrants in Australia: Evidence from a large population-based cohort. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2017;24:2000–8. pmid:29064273
        • 33. Salas XR, Raine K, Vallianatos H, Spence JC. Socio-cultural determinants of physical activity among Latin American immigrant women in Alberta, Canada. J Int Migr Integr 2016;17:1231–50.
        • 34. De Maio FG, Kemp E. The deterioration of health status among immigrants to Canada. Global Public Health 2010;5:462–78. pmid:19513909
        • 35. Gee EM, Kobayashi KM, Prus SG. Examining the healthy immigrant effect in mid-to later life: findings from the Canadian Community Health Survey. Can J Aging 2004;23:S55–63. pmid:15660311
        • 36. Das P, Horton R. Physical activity-time to take it seriously and regularly. Lancet 2016;388:1254–5 pmid:27475269
        • 37. Whitehead M. Definition of physical literacy and clarification of related issues. ICSSPE Bulletin 2013;65:1.2.
        • 38. Whitehead M. The concept of physical literacy. Eur J Phys Educ 2001;6:127–38.
        • 39. Edwards LC, Bryant AS, Keegan RJ, Morgan K, Cooper S-M, Jones AM. ‘Measuring’ physical literacy and related constructs: A systematic review of empirical findings. Sports Med 2018;48:659–82. pmid:29143266
        • 40. Hastie PA, Wallhead TL. Operationalizing physical literacy through sport education. J Sport Health Sci 2015;4:132–8.
        • 41. Australian Sports Commission. Physical literacy definition. 2017. https://www.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/658079/ASC_34651Physical_Literacy_Consensus_Statement_FA2.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
          • 42. Canada’s Physical Literacy Consensus Statement. 2015. http://physicalliteracy.ca/physical-literacy/consensus-statement/. Accessed September 23, 2019.
            • 43. Dudley DA. A conceptual model of observed physical literacy. Phys Educ 2015;72:236–60.
            • 44. Barnett LM, Van Beurden E, Morgan PJ, Brooks LO, Beard JR. Childhood motor skill proficiency as a predictor of adolescent physical activity. J Adolesc Health 2009;44:252–9. pmid:19237111
            • 45. Stodden DF, Goodway JD, Langendorfer SJ, Roberton MA, Rudisill ME, Garcia C, et al. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest 2008;60:290–306.
            • 46. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Ann Rev Psychol 2001;52:1–26. pmid:11148297
            • 47. Stodden DF, Goodway JD, Langendorfer SJ, Roberton MA, Rudisill ME, Garcia C, et al. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest 2008;60:290–306.
            • 48. Plotnikoff RC, Costigan SA, Karunamuni N, Lubans DR. Social cognitive theories used to explain physical activity behavior in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med 2013;56:245–53. pmid:23370047
            • 49. Tremblay M, Lloyd M. Physical literacy measurement: The missing piece. Phys Health Educ 2010;76:26–30.
            • 50. Padilla AM, Perez W. Acculturation, social identity, and social cognition: A new perspective. Hisp J Behav Sci 2003;25:35–55.
            • 51. Vang Z, Sigouin J, Flenon A, Gagnon A. The healthy immigrant effect in Canada: A systematic review. Population Change and Lifecourse Strategic Knowledge Cluster Discussion Paper Series/Un Réseau stratégique de connaissances Changements de population et parcours de vie Document de travail. 2015;3:4.
            • 52. Varni JW, Limbers CA, Burwinkle TM. How young can children reliably and validly self-report their health-related quality of life? An analysis of 8,591 children across age subgroups with the PedsQL™ 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007;5:1. pmid:17201920
            • 53. Sport for Life Society. Physical literacy assessment for youth (PLAY) tools. http://play.physicalliteracy.ca/ Accessed September 23, 2019.
              • 54. Crocker PRE, Bailey DA, Faulkner RA, Kowalski KC, McGrath R. Measuring general levels of physical activity: preliminary evidence for the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997;29:1344–9. pmid:9346166
              • 55. Liddle I, Carter G. The Stirling Children’s Wellbeing Scale. Stirling Council Educational Psychology Service (UK); 2015.
              • 56. Goodman et al. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ); 1998.
              • 57. Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B, Cofta-Woerpel L, Linnan L, Weiner D, et al. How we design feasibility studies. American journal of preventive medicine. 2009 May 1;36(5):452–7. pmid:19362699
              • 58. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qualitative health research. 2016 Nov;26(13):1753–60. pmid:26613970
              • 59. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage; 2006 Jan 13.
              • 60. Charmaz K. Grounded theory methods in social justice research. Strategies of qualitative inquiry. 2011;4:291–336.
              • 61. Fetters, M. (2020). Performing fundamental steps of mixed methods research data analysis. The mixed methods research workbook. Sage.
                • 62. Guetterman T. C., Fetters M. D., Creswell J. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. The Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554–561. pmid:26553895
                • 63. Johnson R. E., Grove, A. L, Clarke A (2017). Pillar integration process: A joint display technique to integrate data in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 301–320.