Background and Objectives: The main objective of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of a French adaptation of the Physical Literacy in Children Questionnaire (PL-C Quest). Methods: A sample of 196 French-speaking Canadian and French children (aged 5 to 12 years) participated in this study. Results: Matching the results from several previous studies, our results failed to support the adequacy of the a priori four-factor and hierarchical structure of the PL-C Quest. However, results from an exploratory factor analytic solution supported a 3-factor, 13-item solution of the PL-C Quest measuring (a) Physical Competencies; (b) Motivation and Enjoyment to be Physically Active; and (c) Self-Regulation, Risk, and Safety. Subsequent analyses revealed a lack of differential item functioning (DIF) as function of countries and children’s time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activities (MVPA) providing preliminary support for the comparability of scores across these groups. However, some limited evidence of DIF was found as function of children’s age (on one item), body mass-index (on two items) and sex (on one item). Furthermore, latent mean differences (favoring younger children and boys) were identified in (a) Self-Regulation, Risk, and Safety and (b) Physical Competencies as function of children’s age and sex, respectively. These findings should be interpreted cautiously and warrant replication in independent samples. Finally, results provided preliminary evidence for the convergent validity of the 13-item French version of the PL-C Quest in relation to parental ratings of children’s overall, cognitive, and motor physical literacy. Conclusions: Scores on the new 13-item French version of the PL-C Quest present acceptable psychometric properties in terms of composite reliability, factor validity, and minimal DIF, alongside preliminary support for convergent validity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maïano et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: