Dataset Information

Reliability and validity of CHAMPS self-reported sedentary-to-vigorous intensity physical activity in older adults.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Recent research highlights the potential value of differentiating between categories of physical activity intensities as predictors of health and well-being. This study sought to assess reliability and concurrent validity of sedentary (ie, 1 METs), low-light (ie, >1 and ?2 METs; eg, playing cards), high-light (ie, >2 and <3 METs; eg, light walking), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA, ?3 METs), and "total activity" (?2 METs) from the CHAMPS survey. Further, this study explored over-reporting and double-reporting. METHODS:CHAMPS data were gathered from the Seniors Neighborhood Quality of Life Study, an observational study of adults aged 65+ years conducted in 2 US regions. RESULTS:Participants (N = 870) were 75.3 ± 6.8 years old, with 56% women and 71% white. The CHAMPS sedentary, low-light, high-light, total activity, and MVPA variables had acceptable test-retest reliability (ICCs 0.56-0.70). The CHAMPS high-light (? = 0.27), total activity (? = 0.34), and MVPA (? = 0.37) duration scales were moderately associated with accelerometry minutes of corresponding intensity, and the sedentary scale (? = 0.12) had a lower, but significant correlation. Results suggested that several CHAMPS items may be susceptible to over-reporting (eg, walking, housework). CONCLUSIONS:CHAMPS items effectively measured high-light, total activity, and MVPA in seniors, but further refinement is needed for sedentary and low-light activity.

SUBMITTER: Hekler EB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4733646 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reliability and validity of CHAMPS self-reported sedentary-to-vigorous intensity physical activity in older adults.

Hekler Eric B EB Buman Matthew P MP Haskell William L WL Conway Terry L TL Cain Kelli L KL Sallis James F JF Saelens Brian E BE Frank Lawrence D LD Kerr Jacqueline J King Abby C AC

Journal of physical activity & health 20120201 2

<h4>Background</h4>Recent research highlights the potential value of differentiating between categories of physical activity intensities as predictors of health and well-being. This study sought to assess reliability and concurrent validity of sedentary (ie, 1 METs), low-light (ie, >1 and ≤2 METs; eg, playing cards), high-light (ie, >2 and <3 METs; eg, light walking), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA, ≥3 METs), and "total activity" (≥2 METs) from the CHAMPS survey. Further, this stud ...[more]

PMID: 22368222

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsCorrelational 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.ConclusionValidity 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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Sedentary behavior (SED) is a potential risk factor for poor pregnancy outcomes. We evaluated the validity of several common and one new method to assess SED across three trimesters of pregnancy. METHODS:This cohort study of pregnant women measured objective and self-reported SED each trimester via thigh-worn activPAL3 micro (criterion), waist-worn Actigraph GT3X, and self-report from the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) and the de novo Sedentary Behavior Two Domain Questionnaire (SB2D). SED (hours per day) and percent time in SED (SED%) from activPAL were compared to GT3X, SB2D, and PPAQ using Pearson's r, ICC, Bland-Altman analysis, and comparison of criterion SED and SED% across tertiles of alternative methods. RESULTS:Fifty-eight women (mean age 31.5 ± 4.8 years; pre-pregnancy BMI 25.1 ± 5.6 kg/m2; 76% white) provided three trimesters of valid activPAL data. Compared to activPAL, GT3X had agreement ranging from r = 0.54-0.66 and ICC = 0.52-0.65. Bland-Altman plots revealed small mean differences and unpatterned errors, but wide limits of agreement (greater than ±2 h and ± 15%). The SB2D and PPAQ had r < 0.5 and ICC < 0.3 vs. activPAL SED, with lower agreement during the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, and performed poorly in Bland-Altman analyses. SED% from the modified SB2D performed best of the self-reported instruments with modest mean differences, r ranging from 0.55 to 0.60, and ICCs from 0.31-0.33; though, limits of agreement were greater than ±35%. Significant trends in activPAL SED were observed across increasing tertiles of SB2D SED in the 1st and 3rd trimesters (both p ≤ 0.001), but not the 2nd trimester (p = 0.425); and for PPAQ SED in the 1st and 2nd trimesters (both p < 0.05), but not the 3rd trimester (p = 0.158). AcitvPAL SED and SED% increased significantly across tertiles of GT3X SED and SED% as well as SB2D SED% (all p-for-trend ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Compared to activPAL, waist-worn GT3X produced moderate agreement, though similar mean estimates of SED across pregnancy. Self-report questionnaires had large absolute error and wide limits of agreement for SED hr./day; SB2D measurement of SED% was the best self-report method. These data suggest activPAL be used to measure SED when possible, followed by GT3X, and - when necessary - SB2D assessing SED% in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT03084302 on 3/20/2017.

Project description:Background and objective: The assessment of physical fitness has become a necessary issue in epidemiological studies, since a reduction in fitness is directly associated with early mortality. Therefore, the development of simple, accurate, and inexpensive methods is necessary to measure physical fitness. This study aimed to determine the reliability and validity of the criteria and constructs of the International Fitness Scale (IFIS), Portuguese version, in Brazilian pediatric populations. Methods: A total of 190 children aged 3-10 years and 110 adolescents aged 11-17 years were enrolled in an observational study of reliability and validity. For reliability, the participants completed a questionnaire twice (with an interval of 15 days). To test the criterion validity, we analyzed the agreement between the questionnaire and physical tests (20-m shuttle run test, handgrip strength, standing long jump tests, 4 × 10-m shuttle run test, and back-saver sit and reach test), and the construct validity was estimated by agreement between the questionnaire and high blood pressure. The reliability was analyzed by kappa coefficients. The agreement between the testing and retesting of the questionnaire was evaluated by kappa coefficients. We applied a 2 × 2 table to estimate the specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy of the questionnaire. Results: The mean age of the children was 6.7 years (n = 190), and for the adolescents it was 14.6 years (n = 110). The questionnaire reliability showed an almost perfect score (? ? 0.93 in children and ? ? 0.88 in adolescents). The questionnaire showed moderate criterion validity (? ? 0.40 in children and adolescents) as well as moderate construct validity (? ? 0.40) in the components of general conditioning, cardiorespiratory capacity, muscular strength, and speed/agility in children and in the components of cardiorespiratory capacity, muscle strength, and speed/agility in adolescents. The questionnaire was a sensitive method for measuring physical fitness. Conclusions: The Portuguese version of the IFIS is a reliable and valid method for measuring physical fitness in pediatric populations.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the validity and reliability of the Fitbit Flex against direct observation for measuring steps in the laboratory and against the Actigraph for step counts in free-living conditions and for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and activity energy expenditure (AEE) overall.MethodsTwenty-five adults (12 females, 13 males) wore a Fitbit Flex and an Actigraph GT3X+ during a laboratory based protocol (including walking, incline walking, running and stepping) and free-living conditions during a single day period to examine measurement of steps, AEE and MVPA. Twenty-four of the participants attended a second session using the same protocol.ResultsIntraclass correlations (ICC) for test-retest reliability of the Fitbit Flex were strong for walking (ICC = 0.57), moderate for stair stepping (ICC = 0.34), and weak for incline walking (ICC = 0.22) and jogging (ICC = 0.26). The Fitbit significantly undercounted walking steps in the laboratory (absolute proportional difference: 21.2%, 95%CI 13.0-29.4%), but it was more accurate, despite slightly over counting, for both jogging (6.4%, 95%CI 3.7-9.0%) and stair stepping (15.5%, 95%CI 10.1-20.9%). The Fitbit had higher coefficients of variation (Cv) for step counts compared to direct observation and the Actigraph. In free-living conditions, the average MVPA minutes were lower in the Fitbit (35.4 minutes) compared to the Actigraph (54.6 minutes), but AEE was greater from the Fitbit (808.1 calories) versus the Actigraph (538.9 calories). The coefficients of variation were similar for AEE for the Actigraph (Cv = 36.0) and Fitbit (Cv = 35.0), but lower in the Actigraph (Cv = 25.5) for MVPA against the Fitbit (Cv = 32.7).ConclusionThe Fitbit Flex has moderate validity for measuring physical activity relative to direct observation and the Actigraph. Test-rest reliability of the Fitbit was dependant on activity type and had greater variation between sessions compared to the Actigraph. Physical activity surveillance studies using the Fitbit Flex should consider the potential effect of measurement reactivity and undercounting of steps.

Dataset Information

Reliability and validity of CHAMPS self-reported sedentary-to-vigorous intensity physical activity in older adults.

Publications

Reliability and validity of CHAMPS self-reported sedentary-to-vigorous intensity physical activity in older adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets