Dataset Information

Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Subjective 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.

Methods

The 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusion

Logs 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 number

CRD42018105994.

SUBMITTER: Bakker EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7294635 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bakker Esmée A EA Hartman Yvonne A W YAW Hopman Maria T E MTE Hopkins Nicola D ND Graves Lee E F LEF Dunstan David W DW Healy Genevieve N GN Eijsvogels Thijs M H TMH Thijssen Dick H J DHJ

The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity 20200615 1

<h4>Background</h4>Subjective 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.<h4>Methods</h4>The databases MEDLINE, ...[more]

PMID: 32539720

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: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:Physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) of pre-school aged children are associated with important health and developmental outcomes. Accurate measurement of these behaviours in young children is critical for research and practice in this area. The aim of this review was to examine the validity, reliability, and feasibility of measurement tools used to assess PA and SB of pre-school aged children. Searches of electronic databases, and manual searching, were conducted to identify articles that examined the measurement properties (validity, reliability or feasibility) of measurement tools used to examine PA and/or SB of pre-school aged children (3–7 years old). Following screening, data were extracted and risk of bias assessment completed on all included articles. A total of 69 articles, describing 75 individual studies were included. Studies assessed measurement tools for PA (n = 27), SB (n = 5), and both PA and SB (n = 43). Outcome measures of PA and SB differed between studies (e.g. moderate to vigorous activity, step count, posture allocation). Most studies examined the measurement properties of one measurement tool only (n = 65). Measurement tools examined included: calorimetry, direct observation, combined heart rate and accelerometry, heart rate monitors, accelerometers, pedometers, and proxy report (parent, carer or teacher reported) measures (questionnaires or diaries). Studies most frequently assessed the validity (criterion and convergent) (n = 65), face and content validity (n = 2), test-retest reliability (n = 10) and intra-instrument reliability (n = 1) of the measurement tools. Feasibility data was abstracted from 41 studies. Multiple measurement tools used to measure PA and SB in pre-school aged children showed some degree of validity, reliability and feasibility, but often for different purposes. Accelerometers, including the Actigraph (in particular GT3X versions), Actical, ActivPAL and Fitbit (Flex and Zip), and proxy reported measurement tools used in combination may be useful for a range of outcome measures, to measure intensity alongside contextual information. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12966-021-01132-9.

Project description:BackgroundSedentary behaviour is considered to contribute to sarcopenia when combined with physical inactivity. Whether sedentary behaviour is independently associated with sarcopenia remains controversial. The aim of this study is to explore the association between sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia in older adults in community and long-term care facility settings.MethodsEight electronic databases including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Wanfang were searched from inception until August 2023. The review included cross-sectional and longitudinal studies concerning the association between sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia among participants over 60 years old. Evidence was pooled by both random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Subgroup analyses explored variation according to adjustment of physical activity, settings, and measurements of sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia. Quality assessment for individual studies was performed with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist.ResultsSeventeen articles (16 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal study) of 25,788 participants from community or long-term care facility settings were included. The overall quality of the included studies was rated high. Meta-analysis of 14 cross-sectional studies showed that sedentary behaviour was independently positively associated with sarcopenia: pooled odd ratio 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.58). The independent positive association remained in subgroup analyses by adjustment of physical activity, settings, and measurements of sedentary behaviour and sarcopenia. The narrative analysis corroborated the findings of the meta-analysis and provided additional evidence suggesting that interruptions in sedentary periods were linked to a decreased likelihood of developing sarcopenia.ConclusionsThe findings support the hypothesis that sedentary behaviour is independently positively associated with sarcopenia in older adults, providing vital indications for the development of strategies to prevent sarcopenia.Systematic review registrationThe systematic review protocol has been registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42022311399).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Sedentary behaviour (SB) is a risk factor for chronic disease and premature mortality. While many individual studies have examined the reliability and validity of various self-report measures for assessing SB, it is not clear, in general, how self-reported SB (e.g., questionnaires, logs, ecological momentary assessments (EMAs)) compares to device measures (e.g., accelerometers, inclinometers). OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare self-report versus device measures of SB in adults. METHODS:Six bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included a comparable self-report and device measure of SB in adults. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses. RESULTS:The review included 185 unique studies. A total of 123 studies comprising 173 comparisons and data from 55,199 participants were used to examine general criterion validity. The average mean difference was -105.19 minutes/day (95% CI: -127.21, -83.17); self-report underestimated sedentary time by ~1.74 hours/day compared to device measures. Self-reported time spent sedentary at work was ~40 minutes higher than when assessed by devices. Single item measures performed more poorly than multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries. On average, when compared to inclinometers, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries were not significantly different, but had substantial amount of variability (up to 6 hours/day within individual studies) with approximately half over-reporting and half under-reporting. A total of 54 studies provided an assessment of reliability of a self-report measure, on average the reliability was good (ICC = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS:Evidence from this review suggests that single-item self-report measures generally underestimate sedentary time when compared to device measures. For accuracy, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries with a shorter recall period should be encouraged above single item questions and longer recall periods if sedentary time is a primary outcome of study. Users should also be aware of the high degree of variability between and within tools. Studies should exert caution when comparing associations between different self-report and device measures with health outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019118755.

Dataset Information

Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Registration number

Publications

Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets