Cargando…

Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behaviour measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered

BACKGROUND: The measurement of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) is fundamental to health related research, policy, and practice but there are well known challenges to these measurements. Within the academic literature, the terms “validity” and “reliability” are frequently used whe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kelly, Paul, Fitzsimons, Claire, Baker, Graham
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772314/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26931142
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12966-016-0351-4
_version_ 1782418547579813888
author Kelly, Paul
Fitzsimons, Claire
Baker, Graham
author_facet Kelly, Paul
Fitzsimons, Claire
Baker, Graham
author_sort Kelly, Paul
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The measurement of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) is fundamental to health related research, policy, and practice but there are well known challenges to these measurements. Within the academic literature, the terms “validity” and “reliability” are frequently used when discussing PA and SB measurement to reassure the reader that they can trust the evidence. DISCUSSION: In this paper we argue that a lack of consensus about the best way to define, assess, or utilize the concepts of validity and reliability has led to inconsistencies and confusion within the PA and SB evidence base. Where possible we propose theoretical examples and solutions. Moreover we present an overarching framework (The Edinburgh Framework) which we believe will provide a process or pathway to help researchers and practitioners consider validity and reliability in a standardized way. CONCLUSION: Further work is required to identify all necessary and available solutions and generate consensus in our field to develop the Edinburgh Framework into a useful practical resource. We envisage that ultimately the proposed framework will benefit research, practice, policy, and teaching. We welcome critique, rebuttal, comment, and discussion on all ideas presented.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4772314
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47723142016-03-02 Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behaviour measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered Kelly, Paul Fitzsimons, Claire Baker, Graham Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Debate BACKGROUND: The measurement of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) is fundamental to health related research, policy, and practice but there are well known challenges to these measurements. Within the academic literature, the terms “validity” and “reliability” are frequently used when discussing PA and SB measurement to reassure the reader that they can trust the evidence. DISCUSSION: In this paper we argue that a lack of consensus about the best way to define, assess, or utilize the concepts of validity and reliability has led to inconsistencies and confusion within the PA and SB evidence base. Where possible we propose theoretical examples and solutions. Moreover we present an overarching framework (The Edinburgh Framework) which we believe will provide a process or pathway to help researchers and practitioners consider validity and reliability in a standardized way. CONCLUSION: Further work is required to identify all necessary and available solutions and generate consensus in our field to develop the Edinburgh Framework into a useful practical resource. We envisage that ultimately the proposed framework will benefit research, practice, policy, and teaching. We welcome critique, rebuttal, comment, and discussion on all ideas presented. BioMed Central 2016-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4772314/ /pubmed/26931142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12966-016-0351-4 Text en © Kelly et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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 Debate
Kelly, Paul
Fitzsimons, Claire
Baker, Graham
Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behaviour measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered
title Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behaviour measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered
title_full Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behaviour measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered
title_fullStr Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behaviour measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered
title_full_unstemmed Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behaviour measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered
title_short Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behaviour measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered
title_sort should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behaviour measurement? validity and reliability reconsidered
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772314/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26931142
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12966-016-0351-4
work_keys_str_mv AT kellypaul shouldwereframehowwethinkaboutphysicalactivityandsedentarybehaviourmeasurementvalidityandreliabilityreconsidered
AT fitzsimonsclaire shouldwereframehowwethinkaboutphysicalactivityandsedentarybehaviourmeasurementvalidityandreliabilityreconsidered
AT bakergraham shouldwereframehowwethinkaboutphysicalactivityandsedentarybehaviourmeasurementvalidityandreliabilityreconsidered