Cargando…

Workplace Sitting Breaks Questionnaire (SITBRQ): an assessment of concurrent validity and test-retest reliability

BACKGROUND: Breaks in prolonged sitting may have beneficial cardiometabolic and musculoskeletal health outcomes. Desk-based work settings are an important environment to promote and support breaks in sitting time. However, few studies have reported the psychometric properties of self-report measures...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pedisic, Zeljko, Bennie, Jason A, Timperio, Anna F, Crawford, David A, Dunstan, David W, Bauman, Adrian E, Salmon, Jo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289328/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25476788
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1249
_version_ 1782352094482661376
author Pedisic, Zeljko
Bennie, Jason A
Timperio, Anna F
Crawford, David A
Dunstan, David W
Bauman, Adrian E
Salmon, Jo
author_facet Pedisic, Zeljko
Bennie, Jason A
Timperio, Anna F
Crawford, David A
Dunstan, David W
Bauman, Adrian E
Salmon, Jo
author_sort Pedisic, Zeljko
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Breaks in prolonged sitting may have beneficial cardiometabolic and musculoskeletal health outcomes. Desk-based work settings are an important environment to promote and support breaks in sitting time. However, few studies have reported the psychometric properties of self-report measures to assess the frequency and duration of breaks from sitting. This study examined the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of the Workplace Sitting Breaks Questionnaire (SITBRQ) designed to assess frequency and duration of breaks in sitting within desk-based work settings. METHODS: To assess the concurrent validity, a sample of 147 desk-based employees completed the SITBRQ and wore an Actigraph GT1M accelerometer for seven consecutive days. To establish test-retest reliability, SITBRQ was administered on two separate occasions 7–14 days apart to a separate sample of 96 desk-based employees. RESULTS: A low relative agreement with accelerometry (Spearman’s r = 0.24 [95% CI 0.07 - 0.40]) was determined for self-reported frequency, but not for the duration of sitting breaks (Spearman’s r = 0.05 [95% CI −0.12 - 0.22]). Adequate reliability was determined for both self-reported frequency (Spearman’s r = 0.71 [95% CI 0.59 - 0.79], Cohen’s kappa = 0.74 [95% CI 0.64 - 0.84]) and duration of sitting breaks (Spearman’s r = 0.59 [95% CI 0.45 - 0.71], Cohen’s kappa = 0.61 [95% CI 0.38 - 0.85]). CONCLUSION: SITBRQ may be used for assessment of the frequency of sitting breaks within desk-based work settings with validity and reliability similar to other self-reports in the field of sedentary behaviour research. However, until adequately improved and re-evaluated, it should not be used to collect data about the duration of breaks in sitting time. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1249) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4289328
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42893282015-01-11 Workplace Sitting Breaks Questionnaire (SITBRQ): an assessment of concurrent validity and test-retest reliability Pedisic, Zeljko Bennie, Jason A Timperio, Anna F Crawford, David A Dunstan, David W Bauman, Adrian E Salmon, Jo BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Breaks in prolonged sitting may have beneficial cardiometabolic and musculoskeletal health outcomes. Desk-based work settings are an important environment to promote and support breaks in sitting time. However, few studies have reported the psychometric properties of self-report measures to assess the frequency and duration of breaks from sitting. This study examined the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of the Workplace Sitting Breaks Questionnaire (SITBRQ) designed to assess frequency and duration of breaks in sitting within desk-based work settings. METHODS: To assess the concurrent validity, a sample of 147 desk-based employees completed the SITBRQ and wore an Actigraph GT1M accelerometer for seven consecutive days. To establish test-retest reliability, SITBRQ was administered on two separate occasions 7–14 days apart to a separate sample of 96 desk-based employees. RESULTS: A low relative agreement with accelerometry (Spearman’s r = 0.24 [95% CI 0.07 - 0.40]) was determined for self-reported frequency, but not for the duration of sitting breaks (Spearman’s r = 0.05 [95% CI −0.12 - 0.22]). Adequate reliability was determined for both self-reported frequency (Spearman’s r = 0.71 [95% CI 0.59 - 0.79], Cohen’s kappa = 0.74 [95% CI 0.64 - 0.84]) and duration of sitting breaks (Spearman’s r = 0.59 [95% CI 0.45 - 0.71], Cohen’s kappa = 0.61 [95% CI 0.38 - 0.85]). CONCLUSION: SITBRQ may be used for assessment of the frequency of sitting breaks within desk-based work settings with validity and reliability similar to other self-reports in the field of sedentary behaviour research. However, until adequately improved and re-evaluated, it should not be used to collect data about the duration of breaks in sitting time. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1249) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4289328/ /pubmed/25476788 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1249 Text en © Pedisic et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pedisic, Zeljko
Bennie, Jason A
Timperio, Anna F
Crawford, David A
Dunstan, David W
Bauman, Adrian E
Salmon, Jo
Workplace Sitting Breaks Questionnaire (SITBRQ): an assessment of concurrent validity and test-retest reliability
title Workplace Sitting Breaks Questionnaire (SITBRQ): an assessment of concurrent validity and test-retest reliability
title_full Workplace Sitting Breaks Questionnaire (SITBRQ): an assessment of concurrent validity and test-retest reliability
title_fullStr Workplace Sitting Breaks Questionnaire (SITBRQ): an assessment of concurrent validity and test-retest reliability
title_full_unstemmed Workplace Sitting Breaks Questionnaire (SITBRQ): an assessment of concurrent validity and test-retest reliability
title_short Workplace Sitting Breaks Questionnaire (SITBRQ): an assessment of concurrent validity and test-retest reliability
title_sort workplace sitting breaks questionnaire (sitbrq): an assessment of concurrent validity and test-retest reliability
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289328/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25476788
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1249
work_keys_str_mv AT pedisiczeljko workplacesittingbreaksquestionnairesitbrqanassessmentofconcurrentvalidityandtestretestreliability
AT benniejasona workplacesittingbreaksquestionnairesitbrqanassessmentofconcurrentvalidityandtestretestreliability
AT timperioannaf workplacesittingbreaksquestionnairesitbrqanassessmentofconcurrentvalidityandtestretestreliability
AT crawforddavida workplacesittingbreaksquestionnairesitbrqanassessmentofconcurrentvalidityandtestretestreliability
AT dunstandavidw workplacesittingbreaksquestionnairesitbrqanassessmentofconcurrentvalidityandtestretestreliability
AT baumanadriane workplacesittingbreaksquestionnairesitbrqanassessmentofconcurrentvalidityandtestretestreliability
AT salmonjo workplacesittingbreaksquestionnairesitbrqanassessmentofconcurrentvalidityandtestretestreliability