Dataset Information

Criterion validity of the Physical Activity Scale (PAS2) in Danish adults.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The Physical Activity Scale (PAS2) was developed to measure physical activity (PA) during work, transportation and leisure time, in the Danish adult population. The objective of this study was to assess the criterion validity of PAS2 against a combined accelerometer and heart rate monitor in Danish adults and to investigate if the criterion validity differed by socio-demographic factors and body mass index. METHOD:A total of 330 Danish adults (mean age = 46.7 years, 38.5% men) participating in the Health2008 study completed the PAS2 questionnaire and wore a combined accelerometer and heart rate sensor for seven days. Average daily estimates from PAS2 were categorised into time spent in sedentary behaviour, light PA, moderate PA and vigorous PA and were compared to the objective measures. RESULTS:PAS2 accounted for 19.5 hours/day on average. Time spent in sedentary behaviour, light and moderate-intensity PA was weakly correlated with objective data (polychoric correlation coefficients (PCC): 0.18-0.20), whereas vigorous intensity PA was moderately correlated (PCC: 0.54, p = 0.04). Mean bias was -2.3 hours/day (95% limits of agreement (LoA): -9.04 to 4.34) for sedentary behaviour, 1.68 hours/day (LoA: 8.02 to -4.62) for light activity, 0.55 hours/day (LoA: 3.37 to -2.26) for moderate activity and 0.12 hours/day (LoA: 0.57 to 0.33) for vigorous activity. Criterion validity was lower in women, in participants who were above 40 years, overweight, had short education and were unemployed. CONCLUSIONS:PAS2 overestimated time spent on light, moderate and vigorous intensity PA and underestimated time spent on sedentary behaviour. Validity differed by key socio-demographic characteristics.

SUBMITTER: Pedersen ESL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6231546 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Criterion validity of the Physical Activity Scale (PAS2) in Danish adults.

Pedersen E S L ESL Mortensen L H LH Brage S S Bjerregaard A L AL Aadahl M M

Scandinavian journal of public health 20171028 7

<h4>Background</h4>The Physical Activity Scale (PAS2) was developed to measure physical activity (PA) during work, transportation and leisure time, in the Danish adult population. The objective of this study was to assess the criterion validity of PAS2 against a combined accelerometer and heart rate monitor in Danish adults and to investigate if the criterion validity differed by socio-demographic factors and body mass index.<h4>Method</h4>A total of 330 Danish adults (mean age = 46.7 years, 38. ...[more]

PMID: 29081247

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) is an in situ method of gathering self-report on behaviors using mobile devices. In typical phone-based EMAs, participants are prompted repeatedly with multiple-choice questions, often causing participation burden. Alternatively, microinteraction EMA (micro-EMA or μEMA) is a type of EMA where all the self-report prompts are single-question surveys that can be answered using a 1-tap glanceable microinteraction conveniently on a smartwatch. Prior work suggests that μEMA may permit a substantially higher prompting rate than EMA, yielding higher response rates and lower participation burden. This is achieved by ensuring μEMA prompt questions are quick and cognitively simple to answer. However, the validity of participant responses from μEMA self-report has not yet been formally assessed.ObjectiveIn this pilot study, we explored the criterion validity of μEMA self-report on a smartwatch, using physical activity (PA) assessment as an example behavior of interest.MethodsA total of 17 participants answered 72 μEMA prompts each day for 1 week using a custom-built μEMA smartwatch app. At each prompt, they self-reported whether they were doing sedentary, light/standing, moderate/walking, or vigorous activities by tapping on the smartwatch screen. Responses were compared with a research-grade activity monitor worn on the dominant ankle simultaneously (and continuously) measuring PA.ResultsParticipants had an 87.01% (5226/6006) μEMA completion rate and a 74.00% (5226/7062) compliance rate taking an average of only 5.4 (SD 1.5) seconds to answer a prompt. When comparing μEMA responses with the activity monitor, we observed significantly higher (P<.001) momentary PA levels on the activity monitor when participants self-reported engaging in moderate+vigorous activities compared with sedentary or light/standing activities. The same comparison did not yield any significant differences in momentary PA levels as recorded by the activity monitor when the μEMA responses were randomly generated (ie, simulating careless taps on the smartwatch).ConclusionsFor PA measurement, high-frequency μEMA self-report could be used to capture information that appears consistent with that of a research-grade continuous sensor for sedentary, light, and moderate+vigorous activity, suggesting criterion validity. The preliminary results show that participants were not carelessly answering μEMA prompts by randomly tapping on the smartwatch but were reporting their true behavior at that moment. However, more research is needed to examine the criterion validity of μEMA when measuring vigorous activities.

Project description:Background: While the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale Second Edition (Y-BOCS-II) is the gold-standard for measurement of obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptom severity, its factor structure is still a matter of debate and, most importantly, criterion validity for diagnosis of OC disorder (OCD) has not been tested. This study aimed to clarify factor structure and criterion validity of the Y-BOCS-II. Methods: We first validated and quantified the psychometric properties of a culturally adapted Portuguese translation of the Y-BOCS-II (PY-BOCS-II). The PY-BOCS-II and other psychometric instruments, including the OCD subscale of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV, used to define OCD diagnosis, were administered to 187 participants (52 patients with OCD, 18 with other mood and anxiety disorders and 117 healthy subjects). In a subsample of 20 OCD patients and the 18 patients with other diagnoses, PY-BOCS-II was applied by clinicians blinded to diagnosis. Results: PY-BOCS-II had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.96) and very good test-retest reliability (Pearson's r = 0.94). Exploratory factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure with loadings consistent with the Obsessions and Compulsions subscales, and there was good to acceptable convergent and divergent validity. Importantly, the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve suggested elevated accuracy in discriminating between patients with OCD and control subjects (AUC = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-0.99), that was retained in comparisons with age, gender and education matched controls (AUC = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.91-0.99), as well as with patients with other mood and anxiety disorders (AUC = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.84-1). Additionally, a cut-off score of 13 had optimal discriminatory ability for the diagnosis of OCD, with sensitivity ranging between 85 and 90%, and specificity between 94 and 97%, respectively when all samples or only the clinical samples were considered. Conclusion: The PY-BOCS-II has excellent psychometric properties to assess the severity of obsessive-compulsive symptoms, reflecting obsessive, and compulsive dimensions, compatible with currently defined subscales. Furthermore, we found that a cut-off of 13 for the Y-BOCS-II total score has good to excellent sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of OCD.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000. METHODS:For test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests. RESULTS:A total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m2. Considering test-retest reliability, there was an effect of the activity monitor (P<.001). The Fitbit One (1.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.3%), the New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (2.6%, 95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), and the Garmin vívofit 2 (6.0%, 95 CI 3.2% to 8.8%) had the smallest mean absolute differences in step count errors. The SEM values ranged from 1.0% (Fitbit One) to 23.5% (Jawbone UP2). Regarding criterion validity, all monitors undercounted the steps. Step count error was affected by the activity monitor (P<.001) and walk interruptions (P=.02). Three monitors had small mean step count errors: Misfit Shine (-1.3%, 95% CI -19.5% to 16.8%), Fitbit One (-2.1%, 95% CI -6.1% to 2.0%), and New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (-4.3%, 95 CI -18.9% to 10.3%). Mean step count error was larger during interrupted walking than continuous walking (-5.5% vs -3.6%; P=.02). Bland-Altman plots illustrated nonsystematic bias and small limits of agreement for Fitbit One and Jawbone UP2. Mean step count error lay within an equivalence bound of ±5% for Fitbit One (P<.001) and Misfit Shine (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS:Test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity.

Dataset Information

Criterion validity of the Physical Activity Scale (PAS2) in Danish adults.

Publications

Criterion validity of the Physical Activity Scale (PAS2) in Danish adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets