Instrumentos para a avaliação do suporte parental para a prática de atividade física de crianças e adolescentes: uma revisão de escopo

Silva, Naildo Santos; Guerra, Paulo Henrique; Bandeira, Paulo Felipe Ribeiro; Mello, Júlio Brugnara; Gaya, Adroaldo

doi:10.1590/1984-0462/2025/43/2024025

Brasil

home Sumário navigate_before Anterior Atual Seguinte navigate_next

home Sumário

REVIEW ARTICLE • Rev. paul. pediatr. 43 • 2025 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-0462/2025/43/2024025 linkcopiar

Instrumentos para a avaliação do suporte parental para a prática de atividade física de crianças e adolescentes: uma revisão de escopo

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

RESUMO

Objetivo: Mapear os instrumentos utilizados para avaliar o apoio parental à atividade física, seus construtos e suas propriedades psicométricas.

Fontes de dados: Foi conduzida uma revisão de escopo, com buscas em sete bases de dados eletrônicas e em listas de referências, que abrangeu artigos disponíveis até abril de 2022. Foram buscados estudos originais e transversais que utilizaram questionários, inventários ou perguntas para avaliar o apoio dos pais para a prática de atividade física e esportes de crianças e adolescentes de 6 a 17 anos e que tenham avaliado as barreiras relatadas pelos pais ou responsáveis para o não oferecimento do suporte.

Síntese de dados: Dos 1.739 artigos iniciais, 21 compuseram a síntese. Numa perspectiva geral, 11 estudos, de cinco continentes, utilizaram algum questionário ou inventário ou pergunta para avaliar o suporte parental. A maioria das amostras avaliadas era composta de meninas e mães. O coeficiente de correlação intraclasse foi a medida mais utilizada para avaliar a confiabilidade dos instrumentos (10 estudos). As medidas mais utilizadas para avaliar a consistência interna dos instrumentos foi o Alpha de Cronbach (13 estudos).

Conclusões: Apenas um instrumento foi construído respeitando-se as propriedades psicométricas. Recomenda-se que os autores sigam o processo de evidências de validade de instrumento quando do desenvolvimento ou da adaptação de instrumentos.

Palavras-chave: Apoio social; Psicometria; Revisão

References	Country	Sample size (mean or age range)	Instrument name
Samples of children and/or adolescents (15 studies)
Pirasteh et al.³²	Iran	512 (16)^♀ ♀female-based sample;	Nd
Ries et al.³³	Luxembourg and Spain	1365 (14; 15)	Self-perception profile for children
Dishman et al.³⁴	United States	6778 (12; 14)^♀ ♀female-based sample;	Amherst health and activity study scales
Hendrie et al.³⁵	Australia	106 (8)	Nd
Farias Júnior et al.³⁶; Farias Júnior et al.³⁷	Brazil	248 (14–19); 2755 (16)	The social support for physical activity practices among adolescents’ scale (ASAFA)
Reimers et al.³⁸	Germany	196 (12)^† †longitudinal analysis sample;	Motorik-Modul (MOMO)
Dewar et al.³⁹	United States	171 (13)	Nd
Liang et al.⁴⁰	China	273 (10)	Nd
Barbosa Filho et al.⁴¹	Brazil	1178 (14–19)	Nd
Berki and Piko⁴²	Hungary	526 (16)	Source of enjoyment in youth sport questionnaire (SEYSQ)
Loucaides and Tsangaridou⁴³	Cyprus	154 (11)	Nd
Fuentesal-García et al.²⁹	Spain	455 (11)	Physical activity enjoyment scale (PACES)
Biggs et al.⁴⁴	United States	220 (15)	Support for healthy lifestyle (SHEL)
Mendonça et al.⁴⁵	Brazil	1107 (12)	Social support scale (SSS) and Self-efficacy scale (SES)
Silveira et al.²⁸	Brazil	1026 (13)^‡ ‡total sample size. nd: not described.	Kidscreen-27
Samples of adults (three studies)
Dominick et al.⁴⁶	United States	37 (≥20)	Instrumental social support for physical activity (ISS)
Wright et al.⁴⁷	United States	283 (37)	Stage-of-change (SOC)
Lin et al.⁴⁸	Taiwan	615 (20–50)	Taiwanese version of activity support scale (ACTS-TW)
Norman et al.⁴⁹	Sweden	242 (≥20)	Parental self-efficacy (PSE)

References	Results
Samples of children and/or adolescents (nine studies)
Pirasteh et al.³²	Mean inter-item correlation (Factor 1: 0.41; Factor 2: 0.40). Pearson test-retest (Factor 1: 0.56; Factor 2: 0.54)
Ries et al.³³	I think that the more exercise you get, the better (r 0.09); My parents encourage me to play games and sports (r 0.54); My parents give me equipment to play games and sports (r 0.59); My parents really help me to be good at sports (r 0.68); My parents give me financial support for my physical activity participation (r 0.58); My parents take me to the venues of my sporting courses or physical activities (r 0.62)
Farias Júnior et al.³⁶	Attitude: ICC 0.89 (95%CI 0.86–0.92); Social support and reasons for engaging in physical activity: ICC 0.75 (95%CI 0.68–0.81); Resources for engaging in physical activity: ICC 0.67 (95%CI 0.58–0.75); Family support: ICC 0.91 (95%CI 0.88–0.93); Friends support: ICC 0.89 (95%CI 0.87–0.92); Access to and appeal of locations for engaging in physical activity: ICC=0.82 (95%CI 0.78–0.87); Safety when engaging in physical activity: ICC 0.67 (95%CI 0.56–0.73); Overall structure and maintenance of neighborhood: ICC 0.75 (95%CI 0.68–0.81)
Reimers et al.³⁸	Family support: ICC 0.83. Peer support: ICC 0.67
Dewar et al.³⁹	Family support: ICC 0.91 (95%CI 0.88–0.94); Friends support: ICC 0.86 (95%CI 0.81–0.90)
Liang et al.⁴⁰	Family support: ICC 0.86 (95%CI 0.82–0.89); Social support from friends: ICC 0.91 (95%CI 0.88–0.93)
Barbosa Filho et al.⁴¹	Family support: ICC 0.62 (95%CI 0.56–0.65); Friends support: ICC 0.66 (95%CI 0.62–0.69); School’s teachers support: ICC 0.69 (95%CI 0.65–0.73); Perceived neighborhood environment: ICC 0.62 (95%CI 0.58–0.66); Safety and general state of maintenance: ICC 0.58 (95%CI 0.56–0.62); Access to physical activity facilities: ICC 0.67; (95%CI 0.64–0.71); Physical activity facilities: ICC 0.65 (95%CI 0.61–0.70)
Mendonça et al.⁴⁵	Father’s support (Rho 0.80)^* p<0.001. 95%CI: 95% confidence interval; ICC: intraclass correlation; Rho: Spearman’s correlation coefficient. ; Mother’s support (Rho 0.76)^ p<0.001. 95%CI: 95% confidence interval; ICC: intraclass correlation; Rho: Spearman’s correlation coefficient. ; Friends support (Rho 0.75)^ p<0.001. 95%CI: 95% confidence interval; ICC: intraclass correlation; Rho: Spearman’s correlation coefficient. ; Self-efficacy (Rho 0.72)^ *p<0.001. 95%CI: 95% confidence interval; ICC: intraclass correlation; Rho: Spearman’s correlation coefficient.
Silveira et al.²⁸	Autonomy and parent relation: ICC 0.73 (95%CI 0.66–0.79). Social support and peers: ICC 0.73 (95%CI 0.65–0.78). School environment: ICC 0.71 (95%CI 0.64–0.78)
Samples of adults (one study)
Lin et al.⁴⁸	Parental modeling (α 0.85); Logistical support (α 0.85); Parental regulation (α 0.75)

References	Results
Samples of children and/or adolescents (11 studies)
Dishman et al.³⁴	Sixth grade: Family support (α 0.81); Friends support (α 0.75); Eighth grade: Family support (α 0.86); Friends support (α 0.79)
Hendrie et al.³⁵	Family support (α 0.79); Familiar activity involvement (α 0.88); Opportunity for role modeling of physical activities (α 0.79)
Farias Júnior et al.³⁷	Parents support (α 0.79); Friends support (α 0.90)
Dewar et al.³⁹	Friends support (α 0.74); Family support (α 0.78)
Barbosa Filho et al.⁴¹	Family support (α 0.83); Friends support (α 0.90); School’s teachers support (α 0.84); Perceived neighborhood environment (α 0.75); Safety and general state of maintenance (α 0.73); Access to physical activity facilities (α 0.78); physical activity facilities (α 0.61)
Berki and Piko⁴²	Sources of sport enjoyment (α 0.71–0.94)
Loucaides and Tsangaridou⁴³	Intangible familiar support (α 0.63); Active parents (α 0.82); Friends support (α 0.75); Tangible parental support (α 0.70); Friends physical activity norms (α 0.66)
Fuentesal-García et al.²⁹	Positive enjoyment (α 0.79); Negative enjoyment (α 0.70)
Biggs et al.⁴⁴	Family support (α 0.86); Peer support (α 0.89); Professional support (α 0.95)
Mendonça et al.⁴⁵	Father support (CRI 0.79); Mother support (CRI 0.77); Friends support (CRI 0.78)
Silveira et al.²⁸	Social Support and peers (Ω 0.84)
Samples of adults (3 studies)
Dominick et al.⁴⁶	Instrumental social support (α 0.88); Positive beliefs (α 0.73); Negative beliefs (α 0.74); Normative beliefs (α 0.92); Self-efficacy (α 0.82); Perceived behavioral control (α 0.78)
Lin et al.⁴⁸	Parental modeling (α 0.92); Logistical support (α 0.84); Parental regulation (α 0.78); Total measure (α 0.92)
Norman et al.⁴⁹	Physical activity (α 0.92)

Reference	Results
Samples of children and/or adolescents (four studies)
Hendrie et al.³⁵	Family support (r 0.16)
Liang et al.⁴⁰	Family support (r 0.40); Friends support (r 0.35)
Fuentesal-García et al.²⁹	Positive enjoyment (Convergent validity 0.82); Negative enjoyment (Convergent validity 0.75)
Biggs et al.44	Family support (bivariate correlation 0.08); Peer physical activity support (bivariate correlation 0.21)^* p<0.05; ; Professional physical activity support (bivariate correlation 0.23)^ *p<0.05;
Samples of adults (two studies)
Norman et al.⁴⁹	Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity average mins/day weekend (r 0.13); moderate-to-vigorous physical activity average min/day, weekday outside of 8 am to 4 pm (r 0.19)^† †p<0.01. r: Pearson correlation.
Lin et al.⁴⁸	A one-unit increase in parental support increased the odds of sufficient physical activity approximately 2.44 times

vertical_align_top file_download show_chart

more_horizclose
- image
- translate
- link
- article
- vertical_align_top
- file_download
- show_chart
- image
- translate
- link
- article

location_on

Sociedade de Pediatria de São Paulo R. Maria Figueiredo, 595 - 10o andar, 04002-003 São Paulo - SP - Brasil, Tel./Fax: (11 55) 3284-0308; 3289-9809; 3284-0051 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rpp@spsp.org.br

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

[T1FN1] ^♀female-based sample;

[T1FN2] ^†longitudinal analysis sample;

[T1FN3] ^‡total sample size. nd: not described.