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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |