Investigating the relationship between physical activity level and physical literacy of children aged 8 to 12 years according to place of residence

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD student in Motor Development, University of Tehran

2 Associate Professor of Motor Development, University of Tehran

3 Motor behavior department, university of tehran

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Sport Psychology, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

5 Associate Professor of Sports Management, University of Tehran

Abstract
Background and Purpose

Active and regular participation in physical activity and sports during childhood and adolescence is a fundamental determinant of lifelong health and the development of habits that support an active lifestyle into adulthood. Physical literacy has been proposed as one of the leading frameworks for understanding and fostering this trajectory. Defined as the motivation, self-confidence, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding required to maintain physical activity throughout life, physical literacy encompasses much more than physical skills alone—it spans emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and motor domains.

​Despite its adoption in leading physical activity guidelines and school curricula, empirical research examining the full scope of physical literacy remains limited, especially studies investigating the relationships among its domains and their links to real-world physical activity. Few investigations assess these relationships across ecological contexts, such as children’s place of residence, a variable posited by developmental-context theory to powerfully influence physical behavior and literacy outcomes. This theory argues that the dynamic interrelationship between a developing person and the changing environment is foundational for explaining individual patterns of behavior and growth across the lifespan. Place of residence—for example, city, suburb, or village—may create distinct contexts for physical play, social support, and movement opportunities.

Within this framework, the present study aimed to examine the relationship between physical activity level and physical literacy among children ages 8–12 years in Khorramabad, Iran, with a special focus on differences by place of residence. By adopting a multidimensional and ecological approach, this work provides new empirical evidence on how environment and personal competencies interact in shaping the active lives of children.

 

Methods

This was a field-based, descriptive-correlational study. The statistical population comprised all primary school students aged 8–12 in Khorramabad. Given the city’s large and diverse population and the logistical challenges of comprehensive sampling, a cluster sampling method was employed. The sample was stratified into three blocks—city center, suburban, and rural areas—with 30 students randomly selected from each, yielding a total sample of 90 participants.

Data collection proceeded in several phases:



Each participant completed a personal profile questionnaire (demographics including age, weight, and exact place of residence) with written informed parental consent.

Physical literacy was measured using the infrastructures of the Canadian Physical Literacy Model, whose multidimensional scoring system allocates:



Physical competence (30 pts): assessment of fundamental movement skills, balance, and coordination,

Daily activity (30 pts): frequency and intensity of habitual movement,

Motivation and self-confidence (30 pts): attitude, persistence in activity, belief in one’s physical abilities,

Knowledge and understanding (10 pts): awareness of health, rules, safety, and the value of movement.





The maximum composite score is 100, enabling both overall and domain-specific analyses.



Physical activity was assessed with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (IPAQ-C/A), a seven-day recall instrument widely validated for moderate-to-vigorous activity as well as sedentary behavior during the school year.



Data collection was coordinated with local schools and supervised by trained research assistants to ensure standardized administration and full understanding among participants.

Statistical analysis was completed in SPSS v22. Descriptive statistics summarized sample characteristics and mean scores. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the association between total and domain-specific physical literacy scores and overall physical activity. Differences in scores by residence grouping and gender were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and the Bonferroni post hoc test was applied to identify specific group differences. The statistical significance threshold was set at 0.05 for all analyses.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1- Results of Pearson correlation coefficient test to determine the relationship between physical activity and physical literacy components











physical activity





 









significance





r





Variable









0/001





**0/822





Daily behavior









0/001





**0/624





Physical competence









0/001





**0/578





Motivation









0/882





0/019





Knowledge and understanding









0/001





**0/794





Total physical literacy











 

Results
Initial descriptive analyses established balanced demographic characteristics by sampling area. Table 1 provides the full Pearson correlation matrix between physical activity and the components of physical literacy. There was a significant, positive correlation between reported physical activity and daily behavior, physical competence, motivation, and total physical literacy score (all p < 0.05). That is, children with higher levels of recent physical activity also showed higher scores in these domains, supporting both the theoretical and practical link between movement engagement and the multifaceted nature of physical literacy.

​However, the association between physical activity and the knowledge/understanding component was not statistically significant (p > 0.05), suggesting that cognition and information—though important—may not directly determine recent movement patterns among this age group.

MANOVA results further demonstrated that, in both overall physical activity and total physical literacy, children residing in rural areas scored higher than those in the city center or suburbs. The difference between city center and suburban children was not significant. Parsing by component, children in rural settings outperformed urban and suburban peers in domains related to daily activity and physical competence, while urban and suburban children showed higher scores only in knowledge and understanding. This pattern highlights potential strengths of rural physical environments (natural spaces, spontaneous play) and urban/suburban access to formal instruction and knowledge. Motivation and self-confidence were comparatively even, though also slightly higher in rural samples.
The Bonferroni post hoc test for gender differences revealed that boys outperformed girls in total physical literacy, physical activity, physical competence, and daily behavior (all p < 0.01). No significant gender difference emerged in motivation/self-confidence or knowledge/understanding
(p > 0.05).


 

Conclusion
If physical literacy is raised to a high level, it can serve as a “guarantor” of lifelong participation in sport and active living. This study examined the relationships among physical activity, physical literacy, and residence context in children aged 8–12. It found that, overall, children did not reach desirable activity or literacy levels, falling between beginner and modest proficiency; physical activity was generally moderate to low. These findings underscore a potential public health risk for this segment of society, as insufficient physical literacy and low movement levels are strongly associated with negative outcomes in physical, cognitive, and emotional domains.

Rural children demonstrated relatively higher physical activity and literacy, perhaps due to greater access to open outdoor environments, sociocultural norms favoring active play, or closer community networks. Urban and suburban children, in contrast, may benefit from formal instruction but face barriers to unstructured movement. Boys outperformed girls in several domains, reinforcing concerns about barriers to female participation; however, motivation and knowledge were similar by gender.

Overall, the interplay between personal, environmental, sociocultural, and gender-related factors shapes children’s physical literacy and activity. These results support previous findings and reinforce the need for programs that address environmental, cultural, and motivational obstacles—especially in girls and urban settings. Future studies should expand these findings to other contexts and track changes over time.

 

Article Message

Physical literacy is significantly and positively related to the physical activity of children, with higher values often found among rural children and boys. Effective interventions must take context and gender into account, designing targeted opportunities that especially support the motivation, activity, and competence of girls and urban youth to foster healthy, active generations.

 

Ethical Considerations

All content in this article is original and unpublished elsewhere. Ethical approval was granted by the Committee at Institute for Physical Education and Sport Sciences

(code: IR.SSRI.REC.1400.1227).

Authors’ Contributions



Majid Mohammadi: Data collection, article writing

Mahmoud Sheikh: Research idea, findings analysis

Davoud Houmanian: Review and editing of the article

Hassan Gharayagh Zandi: Data analysis

Mehrzad Hamidi: Approval of the final article file



Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

 

Acknowledgments
Sincere thanks to school staff and students in Khorramabad for their cooperation and support in this research.

riance were used using SPSS software version 22. The results showed a positive and significant relationship between physical activity and physical literacy of the participants (P = 0.001). In terms of physical activity and level of physical literacy, children living in rural areas performed better than children living in the center and suburbs (P = 0.001), Under the knowledge and understanding infrastructure, children living in the center and suburbs scored higher than rural children, but in other components, the performance of rural children was better. In terms of gender, the difference between boys and girls in general physical literacy (P = 0.001), physical activity (P = 0.001), Physical competence (P = 0.004), daily behavior (P = 0.001), significant Boys performed better in these components, but there was no gender difference in motivation (P = 0.481) and knowledge and Understanding (P = 0.548).

Keywords


 
1.     Almond, L. (2013). What is the value of physical literacy and why is physical literacy valuable? Presidents Message, 12.
2.     Bellows, L. L., Johnson, S. L., Davies, P. L., Anderson, J., Gavin, W. J., & Boles, R. E. (2013). The Colorado LEAP study: Rationale and design of a study to assess the short term longitudinal effectiveness of a preschool nutrition and physical activity program. BMC Public Health, 13(11), 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1146
3.     Cerit, M., Gamze, D., & Tugba, Y.(2020). Determination of the basic motor skills and its relationship to bmi and physical activity level in preschooler. African Educational Research Journal, 8(1), 115-123. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.8S1.20.018
4.     Emma, L. J., Eyre, L., & Michael, J. (2018). Duncan fundamental movement skills of children living in England: The Role of ethnicity and native English language. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 125(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512517745437
5.     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
6.     Hands, B., Larkin, D., Parker, H., Straker, L., & Perry, M. (2009). The relationship among physical activity, motor competence and health-related fitness in 14-year-oldadolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 19(12), 655–663. https://doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2008.00847
7.     Holfelder, B., & Schott, N. (2014). Relationship of fundamental movement skills and physical activity in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(4), 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.03.005
8.     Hilary, A.T., Caldwell, N. A., Cristofaro, J., Steven, R., & Maureen, J. (2020). Physical literacy, physical activity, and health indicators in school-age children. 24(11), 321-327. https://doi:10.3390/ijerph17155367
9.     Faghihimani, Z., Nourian, M., Nikkar, A.M., Farajzadegan, Z., Khavariyan, N., Ghatrehsamani, SH., Poursaf, P., & Kelishadi, R. (2010). Validation of the child & adolescent-international physical activity questionnaires in Iranian children and adolescents. ARYA Atherosclerosis, 5(4), 1-4. [In Persian].
10.   Fotrousi, F., & Bagherly, Gh. (2012). The compensatory impact of mini-basketball skills on the progress of fundamental movements in children. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 52(46), 5206-5210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.410
11.   Khodaverdi, Z. (2012). The relationship between physical competence and third grade girls' physical activity: The mediating role of perceived physical competence and health related physical fitness (Unpublished master's thesis). Kharazmi University, Tehran. [In Persian].
12.   Kashef, M., & Nameni, F. (2003). Investigating the standards of Iranian girls and boy's physical capabilities in the past and comparing them with Eyford Norms. Olympic Journal, 24, 17-28. [In Persian].
13.   Koreza, T. (2013). Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Activity level, physical literacy, participation and psychosocial functioning. Available at http://is4ls.org/wpcontent/uploads/201 3/04/Kozera-2.pdf
14.   Kowalski, K. C., Crocker, R. E., & Donen, R. M. (2004). The physical activity questionnaire for older children and adolescents Manual.  College of kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, Campus Drive, Saskatoun, SK, Canada. https://doi.org/10.4236/health.2010.210167
15.   Kezban, T. (2018).  Comparison of gross motor development of 3-7 years old children in different geographical regions: Turkish Journal of Sport and Exercise, 20, 174-183. https://doi.org/10.15314/tsed.490982
16.   Jones, G. R., Stathokostas, L., Young, B. W., Wister, A. V., Chau, S., Clark, P., & Nordland, P. (2018). Development of a physical literacy model for older adults–a consensus process by the collaborative working group on physical literacy for older Canadians. BMC Geriatrics, 18(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0687
17.   Jacqueline, D., Goodway, L. E., & Robinson, H. (2010). Gender differences in fundamental motor skill development in disadvantaged preschoolers from two geographical regions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 81(1), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2010.10599624
18.   Logan, S.W., Scrabis, K.., Modlesky, C., & Getchell, N. (2011). The relationship between motor skill proficiency and body mass index in preschool children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(3), 442–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599776
19.   Longmuir, P. E., Boyer, C., Lloyd, M., Yang, Y., Boiarskaia, E., Zhu, W., & Tremblay, M. S. (2015). The Canadian assessment of physical literacy: Methods for children in grades 4 to 6 (8 to 12 years). BMC Public Health, 15, 767. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2106-6
20.   Longmuir, P. E., & Tremblay, M. S. (2016). Top 10 research questions related to physical literacy. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 87(1), 28-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2016.1124671
21.   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
22.   Newell, K. (1984). Physical constraints to development of motor skills. In J. Thomas (Ed.), motor development during preschool and elementary years (pp. 105-120). Minneapolis, MN: Burgess.
23.   Mirali, M., Bahram, A., & Ghadiri, F. (2019). Modeling the physical literacy theory in ten-year old female students in Ahvaz educational district one. Journal of Sport Psychology Studies, 28, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.22089/spsyj..2516.1268 [In Persian].
24.   Mirab, Z., & Badami, R. (2019). Comparison of basic motor skills of 7-year-old children in Kashan city and village. Journal of Motor Behavior and Sport Management, 34(28), 155-166. https://doi.org/10.22080/JSMB.2018.7986.2091  [In Persian].
25.   Mohammadi, M., Naseri, R., Mohammad, K.h., Nabie, P., & Maaref, P. (2021). Evaluating the governing pattern in physical education in schools from the teacher's viewpoint based on the criteria national association for sport and physical education. Research on Educational Sport, 9(24), 77-106. https://doi.org/10.22089/RES.2020.9253.1932 [In Persian].
26.   Morrison, K.M., Bugge, A., El-Naaman, B., Eisenmann, J.C., Froberg, K., Pfeiffer, K.A., & Andersen, L.B. (2012). Inter-relationships among physical activity, body fat, and motor performance in 6- to 8-year-old Danish children. Pediatric Exercise Science, 24(2), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.24.2.199  
27.   Shearer, C., Goss, H. R., Edwards, L. C., Keegan, R. J., Knowles, Z. R., Boddy, L. M., Durden-Myers, E. J., & Foweather, L. (2018). How is physical literacy defined? A contemporary update. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(3), 237-245. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0136
28.   TAŞ, H. (2019). Evaluation of physical literacy of secondary school children (Doctoral dissertation). Middle east technical university).
29.   Telford, R., Olive, L., Keegan, R., & Barnett, L. (2019). The physical education and physical literacy (pepl) approach: a multicomponent primary school intervention targeting physical literacy. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 22-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2019.08.172
30.   Tsapakidou, A., Anastasiadis, T., Zikopoulou, D., & Tsompanaki, E. (2014). Comparison of locomotor movement skills in 8-9 years old children coming from two areas of Thessaloniki with contrasting socioeconomic status. Asian Jornal of humanities and Studies, 6(12), 2321-2799.
31.   Particsson, G., & Persson, C. (2013). Physical literacy among inactive Swedish young people (Unpublished M.A. thesis).  University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
32.   Valadi, S., & Hamidi, M. (2020). Studying the level of physical literacy of students aged 8 to 12 years. Research on Educational Sport, 8(20), 205-226. https://doi.org/10.22089/res.2018.5090.1388 [In Persian].
33.   VedulKjelsas, V., Stensdotter, A. K., & Sigmundsson, H. (2013). Motor competence in 11-year-old boys and girls. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(26), 561-570. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112470
34.   Valadi, S., & Sheykhi, Y. (2018). Comparison of physical literacy of both male and female elementary students in second to sixth grade. Paper presented at the 11th International Congress on Sports Sciences; Tehran, Iran.
35.   Webster, E., Corby, K., & Amanda, E. (2019). Fundamental motor skills, screen-time, and physical activity in preschoolers. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 16(8), 114-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2018.11.006
36.   Whitehead, M. (Ed.). (2010). Physical literacy: Throughout the life course. London: Routledge.
37.   Whitehead, M. (2007). Physical literacy: Philosophical considerations in relation to developing a sense of self, universality and propositional knowledge. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 1(3), 281-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17511320701676916
38.   Yang, L. (2020). Physical literacy in children and adolescents: Definitions, assessments, and interventions. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X20925502
39.   Yolanda, I.D., Joachim, B., Anne, K., & Wiebke, G. (2018). Effects of a sports-oriented primary school on students’ physical literacy and cognitive performance. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiolog. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk3030037

  • Receive Date 06 December 2021
  • Revise Date 08 February 2022
  • Accept Date 22 February 2022