Cargando…

A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment is required to assess current and changing physical activity levels, and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase activity levels. This study systematically reviewed the literature to determine the extent of agreement between subjectively (s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Prince, Stéphanie A, Adamo, Kristi B, Hamel, Meghan E, Hardt, Jill, Gorber, Sarah Connor, Tremblay, Mark
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2588639/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18990237
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-5-56
_version_ 1782160970677747712
author Prince, Stéphanie A
Adamo, Kristi B
Hamel, Meghan E
Hardt, Jill
Gorber, Sarah Connor
Tremblay, Mark
author_facet Prince, Stéphanie A
Adamo, Kristi B
Hamel, Meghan E
Hardt, Jill
Gorber, Sarah Connor
Tremblay, Mark
author_sort Prince, Stéphanie A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment is required to assess current and changing physical activity levels, and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase activity levels. This study systematically reviewed the literature to determine the extent of agreement between subjectively (self-report e.g. questionnaire, diary) and objectively (directly measured; e.g. accelerometry, doubly labeled water) assessed physical activity in adults. METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched to identify observational and experimental studies of adult populations. Searching identified 4,463 potential articles. Initial screening found that 293 examined the relationship between self-reported and directly measured physical activity and met the eligibility criteria. Data abstraction was completed for 187 articles, which described comparable data and/or comparisons, while 76 articles lacked comparable data or comparisons, and a further 30 did not meet the review's eligibility requirements. A risk of bias assessment was conducted for all articles from which data was abstracted. RESULTS: Correlations between self-report and direct measures were generally low-to-moderate and ranged from -0.71 to 0.96. No clear pattern emerged for the mean differences between self-report and direct measures of physical activity. Trends differed by measure of physical activity employed, level of physical activity measured, and the gender of participants. Results of the risk of bias assessment indicated that 38% of the studies had lower quality scores. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the measurement method may have a significant impact on the observed levels of physical activity. Self-report measures of physical activity were both higher and lower than directly measured levels of physical activity, which poses a problem for both reliance on self-report measures and for attempts to correct for self-report – direct measure differences. This review reveals the need for valid, accurate and reliable measures of physical activity in evaluating current and changing physical activity levels, physical activity interventions, and the relationships between physical activity and health outcomes.
format Text
id pubmed-2588639
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-25886392008-11-28 A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review Prince, Stéphanie A Adamo, Kristi B Hamel, Meghan E Hardt, Jill Gorber, Sarah Connor Tremblay, Mark Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Review BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment is required to assess current and changing physical activity levels, and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase activity levels. This study systematically reviewed the literature to determine the extent of agreement between subjectively (self-report e.g. questionnaire, diary) and objectively (directly measured; e.g. accelerometry, doubly labeled water) assessed physical activity in adults. METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched to identify observational and experimental studies of adult populations. Searching identified 4,463 potential articles. Initial screening found that 293 examined the relationship between self-reported and directly measured physical activity and met the eligibility criteria. Data abstraction was completed for 187 articles, which described comparable data and/or comparisons, while 76 articles lacked comparable data or comparisons, and a further 30 did not meet the review's eligibility requirements. A risk of bias assessment was conducted for all articles from which data was abstracted. RESULTS: Correlations between self-report and direct measures were generally low-to-moderate and ranged from -0.71 to 0.96. No clear pattern emerged for the mean differences between self-report and direct measures of physical activity. Trends differed by measure of physical activity employed, level of physical activity measured, and the gender of participants. Results of the risk of bias assessment indicated that 38% of the studies had lower quality scores. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the measurement method may have a significant impact on the observed levels of physical activity. Self-report measures of physical activity were both higher and lower than directly measured levels of physical activity, which poses a problem for both reliance on self-report measures and for attempts to correct for self-report – direct measure differences. This review reveals the need for valid, accurate and reliable measures of physical activity in evaluating current and changing physical activity levels, physical activity interventions, and the relationships between physical activity and health outcomes. BioMed Central 2008-11-06 /pmc/articles/PMC2588639/ /pubmed/18990237 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-5-56 Text en Copyright © 2008 Prince et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Prince, Stéphanie A
Adamo, Kristi B
Hamel, Meghan E
Hardt, Jill
Gorber, Sarah Connor
Tremblay, Mark
A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review
title A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review
title_full A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review
title_fullStr A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review
title_short A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review
title_sort comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2588639/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18990237
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-5-56
work_keys_str_mv AT princestephaniea acomparisonofdirectversusselfreportmeasuresforassessingphysicalactivityinadultsasystematicreview
AT adamokristib acomparisonofdirectversusselfreportmeasuresforassessingphysicalactivityinadultsasystematicreview
AT hamelmeghane acomparisonofdirectversusselfreportmeasuresforassessingphysicalactivityinadultsasystematicreview
AT hardtjill acomparisonofdirectversusselfreportmeasuresforassessingphysicalactivityinadultsasystematicreview
AT gorbersarahconnor acomparisonofdirectversusselfreportmeasuresforassessingphysicalactivityinadultsasystematicreview
AT tremblaymark acomparisonofdirectversusselfreportmeasuresforassessingphysicalactivityinadultsasystematicreview
AT princestephaniea comparisonofdirectversusselfreportmeasuresforassessingphysicalactivityinadultsasystematicreview
AT adamokristib comparisonofdirectversusselfreportmeasuresforassessingphysicalactivityinadultsasystematicreview
AT hamelmeghane comparisonofdirectversusselfreportmeasuresforassessingphysicalactivityinadultsasystematicreview
AT hardtjill comparisonofdirectversusselfreportmeasuresforassessingphysicalactivityinadultsasystematicreview
AT gorbersarahconnor comparisonofdirectversusselfreportmeasuresforassessingphysicalactivityinadultsasystematicreview
AT tremblaymark comparisonofdirectversusselfreportmeasuresforassessingphysicalactivityinadultsasystematicreview