Dataset Information

Older adults' reporting of specific sedentary behaviors: validity and reliability.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous questionnaires targeting older adults' sedentary time have underestimated total sedentary time, possibly by not including all relevant specific sedentary behaviors. The current study aimed to investigate the criterion validity and test-retest reliability of a new questionnaire assessing a comprehensive set of sedentary behaviors. Additionally, we examined whether the criterion validity of the questionnaire differed according to age, gender and educational level.

Methods

A sample of home-dwelling Belgian older adults (>64 years, n?=?508) completed a newly-developed questionnaire assessing twelve specific sedentary behaviors and wore an accelerometer for seven consecutive days as criterion measure. A subsample (n?=?28) completed the questionnaire a second time to examine test-retest reliability. Data collection occurred between September 2010 and October 2012.

Results

Correlational analyses examining self-reported total sitting time and accelerometer-derived sedentary time yielded a Spearman's ? of 0.30. Using the Bland-Altman regression procedure, self-reported total sitting time underestimated accelerometer-derived sedentary time by -82 minutes/day for a participant with an average level of sedentary time (539 minutes/day). Corresponding 95% limits of agreement were wide (-364, 200 minutes/day). Better, but still not ideal, validity findings were observed in the younger, male and tertiary-educated subgroups. Acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC?>?0.70) was found for total sitting time, TV viewing, computer use, and driving a car.

Conclusion

Validity for older adults' self-reported total sitting time against accelerometer-derived sedentary time was not strong, but comparable to previous studies. However, underestimation of total sedentary time was lower compared to previous studies, possibly explained by the inclusion of additional specific sedentary behaviors. Further research is needed to develop self-report tools and objective criterion measures that accurately measure engagement in (specific) sedentary behavior(s) among different subgroups of the older population.

SUBMITTER: Van Cauwenberg J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4223385 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Older adults' reporting of specific sedentary behaviors: validity and reliability.

Van Cauwenberg Jelle J Van Holle Veerle V De Bourdeaudhuij Ilse I Owen Neville N Deforche Benedicte B

BMC public health 20140721

<h4>Background</h4>Previous questionnaires targeting older adults' sedentary time have underestimated total sedentary time, possibly by not including all relevant specific sedentary behaviors. The current study aimed to investigate the criterion validity and test-retest reliability of a new questionnaire assessing a comprehensive set of sedentary behaviors. Additionally, we examined whether the criterion validity of the questionnaire differed according to age, gender and educational level.<h4>Me ...[more]

PMID: 25042423

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe evidence showing the ill health effects of prolonged sedentary behaviour (SB) is growing. Most studies of SB in older adults have relied on self-report measures of SB. However, SB is difficult for older adults to recall and objective measures that combine accelerometry with inclinometry are now available for more accurately assessing SB. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the validity and reliability of these accelerometers for the assessment of SB in older adults.MethodsEMBASE, PubMed and EBSCOhost databases were searched for articles published up to December 13, 2017. Articles were eligible if they: a) described reliability, calibration or validation studies of SB measurement in healthy, community-dwelling individuals, b) were published in English, Portuguese or Spanish, and c) were published or in press as journal articles in peer-reviewed journals.ResultsThe review identified 15 studies in 17 papers. Of the included studies, 11 assessed the ActiGraph accelerometer. Of these, three examined reliability only, seven (in eight papers) examined validity only and one (in two papers) examined both. The strongest evidence from the studies reviewed is from studies that assessed the validity of the ActiGraph. These studies indicate that analysis of the data using 60-s epochs and a vertical magnitude cut-point <?200 cpm or using 30- or 60-s epochs with a machine learning algorithm provides the most valid estimates of SB. Non-wear algorithms of 90+ consecutive zeros is also suggested for the ActiGraph.ConclusionsFew studies have examined the reliability and validity of accelerometers for measuring SB in older adults. Studies to date suggest that the criteria researchers use for classifying an epoch as sedentary instead of as non-wear time (e.g., the non-wear algorithm used) may need to be different for older adults than for younger adults. The required number of hours and days of wear for valid estimates of SB in older adults was not clear from studies to date. More older-adult-specific validation studies of accelerometers are needed, to inform future guidelines on the appropriate criteria to use for analysis of data from different accelerometer brands.Trial registrationPROSPERO ID# CRD42017080754 registered December 12, 2017.

Project description:BackgroundSubjective measures of sedentary behaviour (SB) (i.e. questionnaires and diaries/logs) are widely implemented, and can be useful for capturing type and context of SBs. However, little is known about comparative validity and reliability. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) identify subjective methods to assess overall, domain- and behaviour-specific SB, and 2) examine the validity and reliability of these methods.MethodsThe databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched up to March 2020. Inclusion criteria were: 1) assessment of SB, 2) evaluation of subjective measurement tools, 3) being performed in healthy adults, 4) manuscript written in English, and 5) paper was peer-reviewed. Data of validity and/or reliability measurements was extracted from included studies and a meta-analysis using random effects was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of the validity.ResultsThe systematic search resulted in 2423?hits. After excluding duplicates and screening on title and abstract, 82 studies were included with 75 self-reported measurement tools. There was wide variability in the measurement properties and quality of the studies. The criterion validity varied between poor-to-excellent (correlation coefficient [R] range?-?0.01- 0.90) with logs/diaries (R?=?0.63 [95%CI 0.48-0.78]) showing higher criterion validity compared to questionnaires (R?=?0.35 [95%CI 0.32-0.39]). Furthermore, correlation coefficients of single- and multiple-item questionnaires were comparable (1-item R?=?0.34; 2-to-9-items R?=?0.35; ?10-items R?=?0.37). The reliability of SB measures was moderate-to-good, with the quality of these studies being mostly fair-to-good.ConclusionLogs and diaries are recommended to validly and reliably assess self-reported SB. However, due to time and resources constraints, 1-item questionnaires may be preferred to subjectively assess SB in large-scale observations when showing similar validity and reliability compared to longer questionnaires.Registration numberCRD42018105994.

Project description:BACKGROUND:With the growing number of young-older adults (baby-boomers), there is an increasing demand for assessment tools specific for this population, which are able to detect subtle balance and mobility deficits. Various balance and mobility tests already exist, but suffer from ceiling effects in higher functioning older adults. A reliable and valid challenging balance and mobility test is critical to determine a young-older adult's balance and mobility performance and to timely initiate preventive interventions. The aim was to evaluate the concurrent validity, inter- and intrarater reliability, internal consistency, and ceiling effects of a challenging balance and mobility scale, the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CBM), in young-older adults aged 60 to 70 years. METHODS:Fifty-one participants aged 66.4?±?2.7 years (range, 60-70 years) were assessed with the CBM. The Fullerton Advanced Balance scale (FAB), 3-Meter Tandem Walk (3MTW), 8-level balance scale, Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG), and 7-m habitual gait speed were used to estimate concurrent validity, examined by Spearman correlation coefficient (?). Inter- and intrarater reliability were calculated as Intra-class-correlations (ICC), and internal consistency by Cronbach alpha and item-total correlations (?). Ceiling effects were determined by obtaining the percentage of participants reaching the highest possible score. RESULTS:The CBM significantly correlated with the FAB (??=?0.75; p?<?.001), 3MTW errors (??=?-?0.61; p?<?.001), 3MTW time (??=?-?0.35; p?=?.05), the 8-level balance scale (??=?0.35; p?<?.05), the TUG (??=?-?0.42; p?<?.01), and 7-m habitual gait speed (??=?0.46, p?<?.001). Inter- (ICC2,k?=?0.97), intrarater reliability (ICC3,k?=?1.00) were excellent, and internal consistency (??=?0.88; ??=?0.28-0.81) was good to satisfactory. The CBM did not show ceiling effects in contrast to other scales. CONCLUSIONS:Concurrent validity of the CBM was good when compared to the FAB and moderate to good when compared to other measures of balance and mobility. Based on this study, the CBM can be recommended to measure balance and mobility performance in the specific population of young-older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Trial number: ISRCTN37750605 . (Registered on 21/04/2016).

Dataset Information

Older adults' reporting of specific sedentary behaviors: validity and reliability.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Older adults' reporting of specific sedentary behaviors: validity and reliability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets