Convergent validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ): meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to use a meta-analytic approach to examine the convergent validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Design: Systematic review by meta-analysis. Setting: The relevant studies were surveyed from five electronic databases. Primary outcomes of interest were the product-moment correlation coefficients between IPAQ and other instruments. Five separate meta-analyses were performed for each physical activity (PA) category of IPAQ: walking, moderate PA (MPA), total moderate PA (TMPA), vigorous PA (VPA) and total PA (TPA). The corrected mean effect size (ESr) unaffected by statistical artefacts (i.e. sampling error and reliability) was calculated for each PA category. Selected moderator variables were length of IPAQ (i.e. short and long form), reference period (i.e. last 7 d and usual week), mode of administration (i.e. interviewer and self-reported), language (i.e. English and translated) and instruments (i.e. accelerometer, pedometer and subjective measure). Subjects: A total of 152 ESr across five PA categories were retrieved from twentyone studies. Results:The results showed small-to medium-sized ESr (0?27-0?49). The highest value was observed in VPA while the lowest value was found in MPA. The ESr were differentiated by some of the moderator variables across PA categories. Conclusions: The study shows the overall convergent validity of IPAQ within each PA category. Some differences in degree of convergent validity across PA categories and moderator variables imply that different research conditions should be taken into account prior to deciding on use of the appropriate type of IPAQ. Keywords IPAQ Convergent validityMeta-analysis Physical activity Physical activity (PA) has been regarded as one of the most important habitual behaviours which leads to a healthy life by preventing diseases and increasing health benefits (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) . As the importance of PA has been emphasized, attempts have been made to develop appropriate measurement tools, including objective and subjective measurement tools, to quantify the amount of PA in daily life. Of these, questionnaires remain the most widely used measurement tool in large-scale studies due to their efficiency of measuring PA levels in large populations (6) .The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) is an instrument which was developed by the International Consensus Group in 1998-1999 to establish a standardized and culturally adaptable measurement tool across various populations in the world (7) . IPAQ is designed to assess the levels of habitual PA for individuals ranging from young to middle-aged adults (i.e. 15-69 years old). In addition, there are different forms of IPAQ depending on several variations which include length of questionnaire (i.e. short or long form), reference period (i.e. last 7 d or usual week) and mode of administration (i.e. self-report or interviewer-based).Soon after IPAQ was developed it was translated into several different languages and numerous...

Correlates of Agreement between Accelerometry and Self-reported Physical Activity

“…Self-reported total sitting, followed by total PA, showed the highest levels of agreement with accelerometry-based variables as in previous studies (9,21). IPAQ-LF tended to show higher estimates of MVPA when compared with accelerometry and less sitting time than accelerometry-based estimates of SB.…”

Mode of administration does matter: comparability study using IPAQ

“…an active person might had been inactive in the past week only due to travelling commitments, for example). However, a meta-analysis suggested that people tend to answer the questions about a typical week, thinking about the last seven days (Kim et al, 2012). In fact, the meta-analysis showed that the reference period was unrelated to the percentage of variance explained, whereas the mode of administration did influence results for total, vigorous-intensity and transport physical activity.…”

“…Previous studies on this topic are available (Farias Jr, Siqueira, Nahas, & Barros, 2011;Kim et al 2012). Kim et al (2012) examining the convergent validity of IPAQ showed no differences in physical activity levels according to the recall period used, but detected differences between self-report and interviewer-administered versions. Farias Jr et al (2011) reported modest differences in the prevalence of inactivity according to the recall period used (54.6% in typical week vs. 60.8% in the last 7 days).…”

“…Farias Jr et al (2011) reported modest differences in the prevalence of inactivity according to the recall period used (54.6% in typical week vs. 60.8% in the last 7 days). We found no studies assessing whether the different methodologies of IPAQ agree among themselves (Cevero et al, 2009;Hallal et al, 2010;Kim et al, 2012).…”

“…Because there are different ways of applying IPAQ (e.g., length of IPAQ -short vs. long; reference period -last 7 days vs typical week; mode of administrationinterviewer vs self-reported) (Kim, Park, & Kang, 2012;Craig et al, 2003) and this questionnaire is used worldwide (Hallal et al, , 2007 it is important to check for agreement among these strategies. Previous studies on this topic are available (Farias Jr, Siqueira, Nahas, & Barros, 2011;Kim et al 2012). Kim et al (2012) examining the convergent validity of IPAQ showed no differences in physical activity levels according to the recall period used, but detected differences between self-report and interviewer-administered versions.…”