Cargando…

Criterion validity of two physical activity and one sedentary time questionnaire against accelerometry in a large cohort of adults and older adults

OBJECTIVES: We compared the ability of physical activity and sitting time questionnaires (PAQ) for ranking individuals versus continuous volume calculations (physical activity level (PAL), metabolic equivalents of task (MET), sitting hours) against accelerometry measured physical activity as our cri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sagelv, Edvard H, Hopstock, Laila A, Johansson, Jonas, Hansen, Bjørge H, Brage, Soren, Horsch, Alexander, Ekelund, Ulf, Morseth, Bente
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7047487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32153981
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000661
_version_ 1783502151774896128
author Sagelv, Edvard H
Hopstock, Laila A
Johansson, Jonas
Hansen, Bjørge H
Brage, Soren
Horsch, Alexander
Ekelund, Ulf
Morseth, Bente
author_facet Sagelv, Edvard H
Hopstock, Laila A
Johansson, Jonas
Hansen, Bjørge H
Brage, Soren
Horsch, Alexander
Ekelund, Ulf
Morseth, Bente
author_sort Sagelv, Edvard H
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: We compared the ability of physical activity and sitting time questionnaires (PAQ) for ranking individuals versus continuous volume calculations (physical activity level (PAL), metabolic equivalents of task (MET), sitting hours) against accelerometry measured physical activity as our criterion. METHODS: Participants in a cohort from the Tromsø Study completed three questionnaires; (1) The Saltin-Grimby Physical Activity Level Scale (SGPALS) (n=4040); (2) The Physical Activity Frequency, Intensity and Duration (PAFID) questionnaire (n=5902)) calculated as MET-hours·week(-1) and (3) The International Physical Activity questionnaire (IPAQ) short-form sitting question (n=4896). We validated the questionnaires against the following accelerometry (Actigraph wGT3X-BT) estimates: vector magnitude counts per minute, steps∙day(-1), time (minutes·day(-1)) in sedentary behaviour, light physical activity, moderate and vigorous physical activity (MVPA) non-bouted and ≥10 min bouted MVPA. RESULTS: Ranking of physical activity according to the SGPALS and quartiles (Q) of MET-hours∙week(-1) from the PAFID were both positively associated with accelerometry estimates of physical activity (p<0.001) but correlations with accelerometry estimates were weak (SGPALS (PAL): r=0.11 to 0.26, p<0.001) and weak-to-moderate (PAFID: r=0.39 to 0.44, p<0.01). There was 1 hour of accelerometry measured sedentary time from Q1 to Q4 in the IPAQ sitting question (p<0.001) and also weak correlations (r=0.22, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Ranking of physical activity levels measured with PAQs appears to have higher validity than energy expenditure calculations. Self-reported sedentary time poorly reflects accelerometry measured sedentary time. These two PAQs can be used for ranking individuals into different physical activity categories supporting previous studies using these instruments when assessing associations with health outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7047487
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70474872020-03-09 Criterion validity of two physical activity and one sedentary time questionnaire against accelerometry in a large cohort of adults and older adults Sagelv, Edvard H Hopstock, Laila A Johansson, Jonas Hansen, Bjørge H Brage, Soren Horsch, Alexander Ekelund, Ulf Morseth, Bente BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Original Research OBJECTIVES: We compared the ability of physical activity and sitting time questionnaires (PAQ) for ranking individuals versus continuous volume calculations (physical activity level (PAL), metabolic equivalents of task (MET), sitting hours) against accelerometry measured physical activity as our criterion. METHODS: Participants in a cohort from the Tromsø Study completed three questionnaires; (1) The Saltin-Grimby Physical Activity Level Scale (SGPALS) (n=4040); (2) The Physical Activity Frequency, Intensity and Duration (PAFID) questionnaire (n=5902)) calculated as MET-hours·week(-1) and (3) The International Physical Activity questionnaire (IPAQ) short-form sitting question (n=4896). We validated the questionnaires against the following accelerometry (Actigraph wGT3X-BT) estimates: vector magnitude counts per minute, steps∙day(-1), time (minutes·day(-1)) in sedentary behaviour, light physical activity, moderate and vigorous physical activity (MVPA) non-bouted and ≥10 min bouted MVPA. RESULTS: Ranking of physical activity according to the SGPALS and quartiles (Q) of MET-hours∙week(-1) from the PAFID were both positively associated with accelerometry estimates of physical activity (p<0.001) but correlations with accelerometry estimates were weak (SGPALS (PAL): r=0.11 to 0.26, p<0.001) and weak-to-moderate (PAFID: r=0.39 to 0.44, p<0.01). There was 1 hour of accelerometry measured sedentary time from Q1 to Q4 in the IPAQ sitting question (p<0.001) and also weak correlations (r=0.22, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Ranking of physical activity levels measured with PAQs appears to have higher validity than energy expenditure calculations. Self-reported sedentary time poorly reflects accelerometry measured sedentary time. These two PAQs can be used for ranking individuals into different physical activity categories supporting previous studies using these instruments when assessing associations with health outcomes. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-02-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7047487/ /pubmed/32153981 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000661 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Research
Sagelv, Edvard H
Hopstock, Laila A
Johansson, Jonas
Hansen, Bjørge H
Brage, Soren
Horsch, Alexander
Ekelund, Ulf
Morseth, Bente
Criterion validity of two physical activity and one sedentary time questionnaire against accelerometry in a large cohort of adults and older adults
title Criterion validity of two physical activity and one sedentary time questionnaire against accelerometry in a large cohort of adults and older adults
title_full Criterion validity of two physical activity and one sedentary time questionnaire against accelerometry in a large cohort of adults and older adults
title_fullStr Criterion validity of two physical activity and one sedentary time questionnaire against accelerometry in a large cohort of adults and older adults
title_full_unstemmed Criterion validity of two physical activity and one sedentary time questionnaire against accelerometry in a large cohort of adults and older adults
title_short Criterion validity of two physical activity and one sedentary time questionnaire against accelerometry in a large cohort of adults and older adults
title_sort criterion validity of two physical activity and one sedentary time questionnaire against accelerometry in a large cohort of adults and older adults
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7047487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32153981
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000661
work_keys_str_mv AT sagelvedvardh criterionvalidityoftwophysicalactivityandonesedentarytimequestionnaireagainstaccelerometryinalargecohortofadultsandolderadults
AT hopstocklailaa criterionvalidityoftwophysicalactivityandonesedentarytimequestionnaireagainstaccelerometryinalargecohortofadultsandolderadults
AT johanssonjonas criterionvalidityoftwophysicalactivityandonesedentarytimequestionnaireagainstaccelerometryinalargecohortofadultsandolderadults
AT hansenbjørgeh criterionvalidityoftwophysicalactivityandonesedentarytimequestionnaireagainstaccelerometryinalargecohortofadultsandolderadults
AT bragesoren criterionvalidityoftwophysicalactivityandonesedentarytimequestionnaireagainstaccelerometryinalargecohortofadultsandolderadults
AT horschalexander criterionvalidityoftwophysicalactivityandonesedentarytimequestionnaireagainstaccelerometryinalargecohortofadultsandolderadults
AT ekelundulf criterionvalidityoftwophysicalactivityandonesedentarytimequestionnaireagainstaccelerometryinalargecohortofadultsandolderadults
AT morsethbente criterionvalidityoftwophysicalactivityandonesedentarytimequestionnaireagainstaccelerometryinalargecohortofadultsandolderadults