Comparison of subjective and objective measures of office workers' sedentary time

Abstract

Sedentary behavior is an independent and prominent risk factor for chronic disease. Occupational sitting is likely to be the largest determinant of overall daily sitting time. Gathering accurate data on sedentary behaviors is essential to determine prevalence and effectiveness of interventions to reduce sedentary time. The purpose of this research was to determine whether self-reported sedentary time assessed by the Paffenbarger Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) and the Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ) was related to objectively assessed sedentary time by the activPAL3 activity monitor. In the spring of 2015, 44 women employed full-time at Slippery Rock University participated in this study. Participants were predominantly Caucasian (95%), middle-aged (48 ± 10 years), and had an average BMI of 30.5 ± 8.2. A positive, weak correlation was found in sedentary time between the PPAQ (14.65 ± 2.77 h) and the activPAL3 (17.71 ± 1.46 h) over a 24 hour day (r = 0.253; p = 0.098; n = 44). Thirty-nine of the 44 participants significantly underestimated their sedentary time as compared to the activPAL3 (3.06 ± 2.76 h; p = 0.001). A positive, weak correlation was also found in sedentary time between the OSPAQ (5.96 ± 1.11 h) and the activPAL3 (5.69 ± 1.06 h) during the 8.5 hour work day (r = 0.100; p = 0.518; n = 44). Future studies examining sedentary behaviors should use caution when only considering the use of subjective recall surveys. This is especially true when self-reported behaviors are used to inform health promotion programs and create universal recommendations aimed to reduce sedentary time.

Genome-wide association studies and Mendelian randomization analyses for leisure sedentary behaviours

“…However, MR studies are less likely to be affected by measurement error on the exposures than conventional observational analyses 39 . The data used to obtain information about sedentary behaviours were subjectively measured, which are known to underestimate the actual sedentary time 40 , any possible measurement errors are likely biased towards the null. In addition, since the questionnaire did not include occupational sedentary behaviours, conclusions cannot be generalized to total sedentary behaviour.…”

Indicators of Physical Activity Among Children and Youth in 9 Countries With Low to Medium Human Development Indices: A Global Matrix 3.0 Paper

“…1,27 Except for South Africa and India (2 medium HDI countries with some accelerometer data), the other 7 countries relied on subjective data and/or expert opinions to evaluate overall physical activity. Such reliance on subjective data, which are known to be prone to recall and other biases, 57 may impact the accuracy of the reported results. Furthermore, over one-third of the indicators could not be assigned grades due to the unavailability or insufficiency of relevant data.…”

A comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Additional studies examined and compared the criterion validity of self-report measures under the following conditions: nine studies (19 comparisons) on weekday/ workday (includes time at work and outside of work) vs. weekend/non-workday sedentary time [24,47,51,58,69,70,86,156,198]; 2 studies (5 comparisons) on minutes per day of self-reported television time [141,155]; nine studies (11 comparisons) on minutes per day of occupational sedentary time [61,65,75,99,101,105,122,136,181,188,193]; and, four studies (five comparisons) on the proportion of a workday spent sedentary [91,105,158,205]. In all of these studies a comparable criterion was required (e.g., self-reported occupational sitting was compared to accelerometer sedentary time during work time only).…”