Method: The databases of PubMed and Web of Science were searched for English language studies during1960 to 2014 and search terms included “(physical) fitness index”, “physical activity index”, and “physical education index”, etc.
Analysis/Results: A total of 14,627 and 4,578 articles were found from Web of Science and PubMed, respectively, but only 50 papers qualified for the review. Indices such as “Fitness Report Card” (by America College of Sport Medicine), “Canada Physical Literacy” (Physical and Health Education Canada, 2013), “School Health” (CDC), and “US Physical Activity Report Card ” (National Physical Activity Plan, 2014) were identified and examined. While the indices were developed to measure different traits (e.g., physical fitness or education) and at different levels (e.g., cites or schools), the Social Ecological Model was found best to represent their constructs. Specifically, a four-level structure can be employed to predict physical fitness outcome, including: (a) Level 1 or Individual Level (with measures such as age, gender, race, etc.), (b) Level 2 or School Level (teacher, fitness testing employed, facility, etc.), (c) Level 3 or Community Level (after-school program, green space, walk to school program, etc.) and (d) Level 4 or Society Level (policy, environment, culture, etc.). Little evidence, however, was provided on how much variance can be explained at the different levels. In addition, none of the indices can be used as a tool to design interventions.
Conclusions: A set of physical fitness/activity/education indices has been developed and provides a nice summary of a nation, state, or city’s physical fitness/activity/education status. The Social Ecological Model was found to be the best to summarize the four levels of these indices. Future index research or development should focus on explaining variance and functioning for intervention design.