2015
DOI: 10.1590/0102-311x00189713
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validity of the Brazilian version of the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire

Abstract: This study provides evidence of construct validity for the Brazilian version of the

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The CCHSLTPAQ is a very similar scale to the GSLTPAQ, and both were created to assess physical activity during leisure time. Maybe this is why we obtained a higher validity than the previous studies [ 10 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 51%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The CCHSLTPAQ is a very similar scale to the GSLTPAQ, and both were created to assess physical activity during leisure time. Maybe this is why we obtained a higher validity than the previous studies [ 10 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…The GSLTPAQ has been extensively validated using the measure of the maximum amount of oxygen your body can utilize during exercise (VO2 max) for classifying people into 2 categories: insufficiently active and active [ 9 ]. The scale has been translated into Portuguese and validated in Brazil [ 5 , 10 ], and the components of the scale have even been translated into the Kinyarwanda language for use in Rwanda [ 11 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding the level of evidence for the comparator instrument, ten 35,55,28,62,66,71,73,74,78 analyses (23%) used a comparator instrument classified as level 1, eight 46,47,61,62,65---67,81 analyses (18%) as level 2 and twenty-six 32---34,39,41,43,44,48---51,54,57,59,60,63,67---70,72,75---77,79,80 analyses (59%) as level 3. Thirty-five analyses reported the construct validity using objective measures as comparator, such as accelerometer 35,45---47,28,61,65---67,71,73,74,81 (n = 16), pedometer 33,43,44,50,57,69,70,76,79 (n = 9), frequency meter 51,60 (n = 2), doubly labeled water 78 (n = 1) and VO 2 max 41,48,49,51,70,75,80 (n = 7). For the criterion validity, all studies received an indeterminate (?)…”
Section: Construct Validitymentioning
confidence: 99%