Validating two self-report physical activity measures in middle-aged adults completing a group exercise or home-based physical activity program

Freene, Nicole; Waddington, Gordon; Chesworth, Wendy; Davey, Rachel; Cochrane, Tom

doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2013.11.002

Cited by 25 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The HAP showed moderate correlations with accelerometers in a single study . IPAQ showed a low correlation with accelerometers in a single study . The IPAQ‐SF was evaluated for construct validity in 9 studies, and correlations with accelerometers ranged from nonsignificant to moderate .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In both the AAS and IPAQ‐SF, the terminology used in items was confusing or unclear to participants, making recall difficult . Responsiveness was evaluated in the IPEQ and was shown to be less responsive to changes in PA levels compared to accelerometers .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 2 studies that evaluated criterion validity were evaluated as being of poor quality due to their sample size . Of the studies evaluating construct validity, 7 were evaluated as poor quality due to sample size ; 3 were evaluated as fair quality (although the sample size was deemed appropriate, these studies used pedometers or heart monitors rather than accelerometers) ; 12 studies were evaluated as good quality, with sample sizes >50 but <100 ; and 10 studies were evaluated as excellent quality, with sample sizes >100 . Only 1 of the studies in this review used hypothesis testing to evaluate construct validity .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Identification and Evaluation of Self‐Report Physical Activity Instruments in Adults With Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

Smith

Dziedzic

Quicke

et al. 2019

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To identify and evaluate the measurement properties of self-report physical activity instruments suitable for patients with osteoarthritis (OA).Methods. We conducted a comprehensive 2-stage systematic review using multiple electronic databases, from inception until July 2018. In the stage 1 review, we sought to identify all self-report physical activity instruments used in individuals with joint pain attributable to OA in the foot, knee, hip, or hand. In the stage 2 review, we searched for and appraised studies investigating the measurement properties of the instruments identified. In both stages of the review, we screened all articles for study eligibility criteria, completed data extraction using the Qualitative Attributes and Measurement Properties of Physical Activity questionnaire checklist, and conducted methodology quality assessments using a modified COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) checklist. Measurement properties for each physical activity instrument were evaluated and combined, using narrative synthesis.Results. In the stage 1 review, we identified 23 unique self-report physical activity instruments. In the stage 2 review, we identified 54 studies that evaluated the measurement properties of 13 of the 23 instruments identified. Instrument reliability varied from inadequate to adequate (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.7). Instrument construct and criterion validity assessment showed small to moderate correlations with direct measures of physical activity. Instrument responsiveness was assessed in only 1 instrument and was unable to detect changes in comparison to accelerometers.Conclusion. Although many instruments were identified as being potentially suitable for use in patients with OA, none demonstrated adequate measurement properties across all domains of reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Further high-quality assessment of self-report physical activity instruments is required before such measures can be recommended for use in OA research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identification and Evaluation of Self‐Report Physical Activity Instruments in Adults With Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

Smith

Dziedzic

Quicke

et al. 2019

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These decision rules will impact the obtained PA estimates [108]. Several studies (e.g., on the AAS [55], mLTPA-Q and PASB-Q [54]) did not use population-specific intensity cut points which may result in an under-or overestimation of time spent in different intensity levels [109]. Another shortcoming was that not all studies reported all decisions such as sampling frequency, non-wear definition and use of filters [110].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Evidence of Measurement Properties of Physical Activity Questionnaires for Older Adults: An Updated Systematic Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Questionnaires provide valuable information about physical activity (PA) behaviors in older adults. Until now, no firm recommendations for the most qualified questionnaires for older adults have been provided. Objectives This review is an update of a previous systematic review, published in 2010, and aims to summarize, appraise and compare the measurement properties of all available self-administered questionnaires assessing PA in older adults. Methods We included the articles evaluated in the previous review and conducted a new search in PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus from September 2008 to December 2019, using the following inclusion criteria (1) the purpose of the study was to evaluate at least one measurement property (reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing for construct validity, responsiveness) of a self-administered questionnaire; (2) the questionnaire intended to measure PA; (3) the questionnaire covered at least one domain of PA; (4) the study was performed in the general, healthy population of older adults; (5) the mean age of the study population was > 55 years; and (6) the article was published in English. Based on the Quality Assessment of Physical Activity Questionnaires (QAPAQ) checklist, we evaluated the quality and results of the studies. The content validity of all included questionnaires was also evaluated using the reviewers' rating. The quality of the body of evidence was evaluated for the overall construct of each questionnaire (e.g., total PA), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and walking using a modified Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results In total, 56 articles on 40 different questionnaires (14 from the previous review and 26 from the update) were included. Reliability was assessed for 22, measurement error for four and hypotheses testing for construct validity for 38 different questionnaires. Evidence for responsiveness was available for one questionnaire. For many questionnaires, only one measurement property was assessed in only a single study. Sufficient content validity was considered for 22 questionnaires. All questionnaires displayed large measurement errors. Only versions of two questionnaires showed both sufficient reliability and hypotheses testing for construct validity, namely the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE; English version, Turkish version) for the assessment of total PA, and the Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (PASB-Q; English version) for the assessment of MVPA. The quality of evidence for these results ranged from very low to high. Conclusions Until more high-quality evidence is available, we recommend the PASE for measuring total PA and the PASB-Q for measuring MVPA in older adults. However, they are not equally qualified among different languages. Future studies on the most promising questionnaires should cover all relevant measurement properties. We recommend using and improving existing PA questionnaires-instead of developing new ones-...

show abstract

“… Self-report, 8-items, to measure frequency, duration, intensity and information about the type and context of physical activity Test-retest reliability (24 h apart) of 0.52 (95% CI, 0.44–0.60 [ 60 ]. Moderate correlation ( r = 0.49–0.64, p < 0.01) when compared to objective accelerometry data [ 61 ]. Quality of life Short Form 12-Item Health Survey (SF-12) [ 48 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Active Team” a social and gamified app-based physical activity intervention: randomised controlled trial study protocol

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPhysical inactivity is a leading preventable cause of chronic disease and premature death globally, yet over half of the adult Australian population is inactive. To address this, web-based physical activity interventions, which have the potential to reach large numbers of users at low costs, have received considerable attention. To fully realise the potential of such interventions, there is a need to further increase their appeal to boost engagement and retention, and sustain intervention effects over longer periods of time. This randomised controlled trial aims to evaluate the efficacy of a gamified physical activity intervention that connects users to each other via Facebook and is delivered via a mobile app.MethodsThe study is a three-group, cluster-RCT. Four hundred and forty (440) inactive Australian adults who use Facebook at least weekly will be recruited in clusters of three to eight existing Facebook friends. Participant clusters will be randomly allocated to one of three conditions: (1) waitlist control condition, (2) basic experimental condition (pedometer plus basic app with no social and gamification features), or (3) socially-enhanced experimental condition (pedometer plus app with social and gamification features). Participants will undertake assessments at baseline, three and nine months. The primary outcome is change in total daily minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at three months measured objectively using GENEActive accelerometers [Activeinsights Ltd., UK]. Secondary outcomes include self-reported physical activity, depression and anxiety, wellbeing, quality of life, social-cognitive theory constructs and app usage and engagement.DiscussionThe current study will incorporate novel social and gamification elements in order to examine whether the inclusion of these components increases the efficacy of app-based physical activity interventions. The findings will be used to guide the development and increase the effectiveness of future health behaviour interventions.Trial registrationThis trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12617000113358, date of registration 23 January, 2017).

show abstract

Validating two self-report physical activity measures in middle-aged adults completing a group exercise or home-based physical activity program

Cited by 25 publications

References 21 publications

Identification and Evaluation of Self‐Report Physical Activity Instruments in Adults With Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

Identification and Evaluation of Self‐Report Physical Activity Instruments in Adults With Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

Current Evidence of Measurement Properties of Physical Activity Questionnaires for Older Adults: An Updated Systematic Review

“Active Team” a social and gamified app-based physical activity intervention: randomised controlled trial study protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About