What about the teachers? Developing and validating a physical literacy assessment scale for primary and secondary physical educators

Purpose Physical education teachers bear the primary responsibility for fostering students’ physical literacy; however, there is currently a lack of assessment tools specifically designed to measure the physical literacy of primary and secondary physical educators (PET). This study aims to develop and validate a physical literacy assessment scale for primary and secondary physical educators (PLAS-PET). Methods Domains and items were generated from a systematic literature review and a nominal group technique with three experts. A two-round Delphi panel of 14 experts assessed content validity. A total of 832 physical educators completed the survey; 780 valid questionnaires (93.7%) were randomly divided into two subsamples ( n = 390 each). Subsample 1 was used for item analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA); subsample 2 was used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), reliability, and validity testing. Reliability included Cronbach’s α , Spearman–Brown split-half coefficients, and McDonald’s ω . Validity included content validity index (I-CVI, S-CVI), average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR), and the Fornell–Larcker criterion. Results The final PLAS-PET contained 20 items in four domains: physical affectivity, physical skill, physical cognition, and physical conduct. Item analysis showed all 30 items were significant ( p < 0.001; critical ratios = 8.523–29.443). EFA extracted four factors explaining 75.717% of the variance. CFA supported a first-order four-factor model: RMSEA = 0.071, χ 2 /df = 3.116, GFI = 0.874, CFI = 0.935, IFI = 0.935, TLI = 0.925, SRMR = 0.072. Cronbach’s α was 0.958, and split-half reliability was 0.911. Subscale α , split-half, and ω ranged from 0.850–0.940, 0.770–0.921, and 0.753–0.917, respectively. I-CVI ranged from 0.800 to 1.000, S-CVI/UA = 0.800, and S-CVI/Ave = 0.960. AVE (0.651–0.682) and CR (0.859–0.938) supported convergent validity; √AVE (0.807–0.826) exceeded inter-factor correlations. Conclusion The PLAS-PET demonstrates high reliability and validity, making it an effective tool for measuring the physical literacy of PET. Future validation studies in diverse countries and regions are necessary to enhance the applicability of assessment tools.