Limits to the measurement of habitual physical activity by questionnaires

Abstract

Despite extensive use over 40 years, physical activity questionnaires still show limited reliability and validity. Measurements have value in indicating conditions where an increase in physical activity would be beneficial and in monitoring changes in population activity. However, attempts at detailed interpretation in terms of exercise dosage and the extent of resulting health benefits seem premature. Such usage may become possible through the development of standardised instruments that will record the low intensity activities typical of sedentary societies, and will ascribe consistent biological meaning to terms such as light, moderate, and heavy exercise.

The impact of changes in leisure time physical activity on changes in cardiovascular risk factors: results from The Finnmark 3 Study and SAMINOR 1, 1987–2003

“…Moreover, the use of self-reported physical activity has most likely introduced misclassification errors. Given that people tend to overestimate their activity level [40], misclassification will probably underestimate the real effects of physical activity [41]. The validity of our physical activity questions has been ensured in several studies [40,42], and physical activity according to the questionnaire was found to be positively associated with objectively measured physical activity and physical fitness in a dose–response relationship [40].…”

Validation of the Stanford Leisure‐Time Activity Categorical Item (L‐Cat) using armband activity monitor data

“…Despite the documented tendency for individuals to over‐report PA engagement on self‐report measures 12, 24, the L‐Cat demonstrated good specificity (ability to correctly identify individuals not meeting guidelines) at both baseline and 6 months; thus, the L‐Cat may be particularly useful for identifying individuals at lower activity levels 7. The L‐Cat's sensitivity (ability to correctly identify individuals meeting guidelines) was low at baseline but improved somewhat at 6 months.…”

“…One challenge of promoting PA in healthcare or community settings has been the difficulty of measuring PA in a low‐cost and brief yet accurate manner. Existing brief self‐report PA assessment tools are limited by patient burden (due to questionnaire length), reliance on high levels of patient health literacy, staff training for administration and issues with over‐reporting of PA (which may impact accuracy for identifying individuals not meeting PA guidelines) 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Moreover, few existing assessment tools have demonstrated sensitivity to change over time, which is especially relevant for assessing change due to intervention or health practitioner recommendations 9.…”

Driven to Be Inactive?—The Genetics of Physical Activity

“…Recall surveys of physical activity are well known to grossly overestimate actual physical activity levels, 39 and thus, because the phenotype is inaccurate, it is probable that the heritability estimates may also be inaccurate. Therefore, direct measures of activity are important to integrate in twin studies.…”

“…In rodents, the best analogue for human voluntary activity has been considered to be wheel running. 39 Using a cohort of 310 F 2 mice derived from high active C57L/J and low active C3H/HeJ mice, Lightfoot et al . 46 identified four significant QTL, three of which colocalized on chromosome 13 ( DUR13.1, DIST13.1 , and SPD13.1 ) and one on chromosome 9 ( SPD9.1 ) associated with speed of activity.…”