BackgroundThe measurement of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) is fundamental to health related research, policy, and practice but there are well known challenges to these measurements. Within the academic literature, the terms “validity” and “reliability” are frequently used when discussing PA and SB measurement to reassure the reader that they can trust the evidence.DiscussionIn this paper we argue that a lack of consensus about the best way to define, assess, or utilize the concepts of validity and reliability has led to inconsistencies and confusion within the PA and SB evidence base. Where possible we propose theoretical examples and solutions. Moreover we present an overarching framework (The Edinburgh Framework) which we believe will provide a process or pathway to help researchers and practitioners consider validity and reliability in a standardized way.ConclusionFurther work is required to identify all necessary and available solutions and generate consensus in our field to develop the Edinburgh Framework into a useful practical resource. We envisage that ultimately the proposed framework will benefit research, practice, policy, and teaching. We welcome critique, rebuttal, comment, and discussion on all ideas presented.

Background: Recent systematic reviews have suggested that pedometers may be effective motivational tools to promote walking. However, studies tend to be of a relatively short duration, with small clinical based samples. Further research is required to demonstrate their effectiveness in adequately powered, community based studies.

Objective: Evidence on the effectiveness of walking and cycling interventions is mixed. This may be partly attributable to differences in intervention content, such as the cognitive and behavioral techniques (BCTs) used. Adopting a taxonomy of BCTs, this systematic review addressed two questions: (a) What are the behavior change techniques used in walking and cycling interventions targeted at adults? (b) What characterizes interventions that appear to be associated with changes in walking and cycling in adults? Method: Previous systematic reviews and updated database searches were used to identify controlled studies of individual-level walking and cycling interventions involving adults. Characteristics of intervention design, context, and methods were extracted in addition to outcomes. Intervention content was independently coded according to a 26-item taxonomy of BCTs. Results: Studies of 46 interventions met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one reported a statistically significant effect on walking and cycling outcomes. Analysis revealed substantial heterogeneity in the vocabulary used to describe intervention content and the number of BCTs coded. “Prompt self-monitoring of behavior” and “prompt intention formation” were the most frequently coded BCTs. Conclusion: Future walking and cycling intervention studies should ensure that all aspects of the intervention are reported in detail. The findings lend support to the inclusion of self-monitoring and intention formation techniques in future walking and cycling intervention design, although further exploration of these and other BCTs is required. Further investigation of the interaction between BCTs and study design characteristics would also be desirable.

No abstract

No abstract