Untitled

<p>Self-Reported vs Measured Physical Fitness in Older Women</p>

“…The discrepancy between the aforementioned and our study came from more heterogeneous sample (56-92 years old 20 vs. 60-86 years old) and size (N=72, 20 vs. N=120) and different self-reported questions regarding physical fitness. Of note, studies conducted among youth [7][8][9] and general population [10][11][12][13] showed similar findings to ours, where they reported significant correlations between self-reported and objectively measured physical fitness. However, most of them only used cardiorespiratory fitness as a proxy of overall physical fitness, [10][11][12] and by using other components of physical fitness (ie, body composition, musculoskeletal and motor fitness), the associations might have been different.…”

“…Ranging from 1 (very poor fitness) to 10 (excellent fitness). 9,13 In addition, we explained that their physical fitness included strength, endurance, flexibility and agility abilities. Studies have shown that this measure is significantly correlated with objectively measured physical fitness and perceived well-being.…”

“…Studies have shown that this measure is significantly correlated with objectively measured physical fitness and perceived well-being. 9,13,19 Data Analysis Data are presented as mean (SD) for normally distributed or median (25-75 interquartile range) for not normally distributed variables. We used Spearman's coefficient with 95% confidence interval to calculate the associations between self-reported (independent) and objectively measured (dependent) physical fitness.…”

“…In population-based studies, such measurement can be a cost-andtime effective way to collect the data. Previous studies conducted among youth [7][8][9] and general populations [10][11][12][13] has shown conflicting results, where self-reported physical fitness is negatively 8 and positively [7][8][9]13 associated with objectively measured physical fitness. On the other hand, only a handful of studies have explored the aforementioned associations in adults and older adults.…”

Coaching and Prompting for Remote Physical Activity Promotion: Study Protocol of a Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial (Movingcall)

“…Participants are asked to rate their internal/external motivation on a Likert-scale ranging from one (completely false) to four (completely true). For example, “If I am physically active within the next weeks and months, this is because other people say I should”. Knowledge about health enhancing PA and fitness rating: Participants are asked to rate their fitness level (on a scale from one to ten, one item) [64] and their level of health-enhancing PA (“Do you think you are sufficiently active for your health? Yes/No”, one item) [65].…”